The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.808 Cemetery Ln.0002.2010.AHPC. 0002.2010 AHPC 808 Cemetary Lane Final Hist. Development 2735 12 2 00 851 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX + i \4-t I LJ c.j g,0 g Â¢L,F_~ t \/p ' f -; ~ ) i) 1 d j X 1 -4 7 1 -1 ?l 1 - 1 - -PEDPegr--r 1-1 Â»le 1 W 1- 1 1 1 -O L 29*EE t 0 \LY- = A -- 1 34 21 9 0 10 0 3 44 -/ --~--CZE ZE_ d Dll ' 1 7 - il 1 22 1 i - 10 -.---- -I-.* --..=- ....==- ---1 - --I ~ *11 191 0 P ju/ 4 -t -v /1---7 3//i --Il.- \ ,//F.-Trjp'FALE) 8 , 1 td / U LJ* ffi J5 / Â£& 1 /.21 0 #v**40 ;///PE 11 - @ /1 .' ili i. 1 1 E / Ch- 1/ 7 1 1 Ill 4 i ../ '. f.,1 i'/ \ L U . /3X ac dea-_~ ~00000:;~_~~~â„¢-+-__*-- -- 1-1 -:2-~-3-$1 -:a /% -3 .... QÂ»1 .4 4 -0./.. 24 1. 1 1. ' 4 Aff# 7-, r H rtil '~ -- ---- J Lu 1 . 1:1 N 1 \\ / 1& 7 / ff X 2 f ST \ (0 %41($;~ ' -0.Â« 2 , %/ f i / / / 6 / 17 1,1 j U V - -hl -7 n d Â©Ci. - I Â· 1 /# 1 .i// / / / 111 \ 3 /. 1 I 6 \/ \/ f 1\ f 3 1 , 5// 1.'.. -, 2/ ~ 7 X / 4 1 47 X a A /, ,, ,/40, / 43 ,,T *,. ,,r 1, ./' ', / '*, ' #, 1 I T) f, _ 1 V 3EEL- F X M 1, f , , ~ 12 - ~ ~ 9 17-6 -4 -1 --4 0 -1-~ 7 \1 -% 1 il'/ \ 1 1 - \ h \ 1 1-1.1 1 i. N jili- f / 1.1/ \ 1'. 7 / 7 t ./ \\ f 13 4/ \1 f 1 j i , 1 , 1 - 1 \ ' ..1 7 ./ 1--1 -1. 1 $- d C i y y Â·X / 3 2 6 '.1 ' d . , I // t\ 1 1 f / \ / 1 / 1 \/\-r ~ 11./-- i -~%. 1 -1% 1 '\1 \ 1 0 N / , , \ / 1 &,0 1 1 1 1 1 1 iQ a 1 -=' Mor / f \ \ / 47 1 ~--- 1/3 a Nj V \ / 2 A \' /, 1 / \ / i./'/ 1 lili ' \ , / /~ 'r------------- -------I... - 4 '. f It\1~ -' f \11 f f \ i 1 - - f 7 j Cn 4 *1 -9 11 /4 -2 6 +4 1-1 -1 va f qi a > LOT 7 407 alf L.el- 9 1-07 ID 20 7 1 I Lel- tX Le-r- 16 I-O 7 in LoT le 3 1 1- 0- 1 12 \U ,- D d ILI 03 5 N O Â»/ a 1-4 ha KL Y 6 1.-le b IV 15 10 1-4 Ul X o 1- 0 10 01 1 4 W 0 06. 0 OC- 02 \ A- 4 Z X 2 0 1 0 + (f) 7 NOR--rI+ILE Cr l-1-#DE-v:E~!~Flk; S 0 14-,1-1-151,1-rr p Ky 15,Lb P.~-P 3827-lou t_ 1 11I11**02) NOILVAHSIS321,1 Lor 9 111111 1-2 01-L-*4 11Â£7 -85=.L fl g 0 - CLS- - -1 - \ 1, 607- 11 4- 1-0-r # 5 CO 4-1 D O +1 1 +4 1 LL M S B LULC. 4- 8 12- c 6+ Ss -r~-r-=s 2, L-Â·ACE- 15 1 20+4 12Â·E.1-A. 1-1:kS WrT A. G.U 15 6 E k ---- - --I--**0*- U+4& ~717' P 1 0 2 1= 2. 1-7 9 \\\% \\\\\ \ 1 -- \ L------.-Â·Â·Â·-Â· i \ \ 3 tim'm..16 t \ L---/ 1--- \ 11 -,------- 7 - - 4/ \ -t M i 4 -*--t=---* .A., -%/' - -1 1 I --- 1 'll-* 1 - / 1-- \ 1 - t - ; i -EW--,~-/# 1 ---\ S 6--* E \ r M ' M 5-,4- D O Â»Â« - -3 - 9 1 - 1 ti \ \ - 333% - \ A. t l , SECr-16/ LIUIE / 1-1 1 Â«-0 \ -- f ~ \ .-/ \ 1 1 ACr IVI i - e, 7Â¥ 14; v 1- ' - -'1' 'Z-Le p k 10 " '36-- ~ t 0(+4/-2 \ %%1 ' 1 -.---a --\ 221-1 / A--, 1 \ '1 :--- & , , 440,44~44,4 4. \ 0 - SLA-6 12=4-1 35--60 0//4 Y ---- ' 1 . 1 11 \ ' 1 N . CO kICE-an , _-1 - .2 1 10. 0 \ A G Lia NC-=2 - I + 1 1 /7/ 9 - 1 -.-p. --/- , U -- 1 - I . , / U 71 . '- - C 1 - \ 1 1 L Pa.0.4 -7) -=.- \ 1-- ,<P--4.--- -\ C -- 0 - 0 1 \ \1 - 0 - . t ,1 r-,2- -' -. .... 04/ . 1 4 \111 //11 / - /// 1 . \ 0 .. 4 ... '' - /\ ----t i ~ --- 1, - \ - 4\ - y ,917 4 0 : .9 #5 +CA- e-D \\ 1 W .-I-Lil -- \ 9 , . 101 3 Ef / ' 7.- 1 trS \ ' , 0 , i 1 \ 1 _.-il/ \ , , 1 , -\ ... .-I \ -\ -.-\ f '.. '9 i ' '' ./ N , I , â€¢ -6 . , \ . I 1 \ 0, 3 I '/ .C i i'. 1 , 4% - AD <D Â· '. 1 -77 1 --Cr /-1.4k \ 04* \ ' I /9 / 1. ' 0,0 0,\ 0 4- UX 00 9 / \ \ ..- c,vfs 0 : 2 4 412 0 , i~ '. 4/44. E- \ 2 1 /\ \\ &. C F_ i b \ \ \ f x \ \ i -A . ill \- / \ . ilf Â· . ft\~ -Â» ili 11 . 0 jil --1 \ i f --./ / \\ 1 lili 1 . i 1 \ t 1 -*t --\ \ 11 t . - \------- -~-- - 1 1 Il' 1 1 -1 1 , l ..../ \ i 1 1. - .\\ 1 1 \ 1 \ 31' t *-M -- 1 1 1 ..-- - - 1 - ---0 - t ~ ~ 1 - dt \ 3-di , 1\ \1 -. L . fÂ» E-- -- \ ill-1 \ \ \ i-0- i --4 , Al 1.---, \ 4 1- /\ --r--1--~ 1 6 \-- \ - ------~ .\ 1 -\ 1 1\ \ - 4---Â· 1 1 \ 18,1-112,/ .6. L- r< 3 1 I -- - 4 1--$1 - D M-< G L.--/ \ \ -----------------,-\-- I \0 1 1 - y \ Â« --7 6-- -*.I- \ 1 \ - 1 8 \D * E 6 -1Â« 1=- 1-D B U -r- -t- E- ca.~1-1 -rm- Ac.pr A C.7- 1 v 1-TY S K I VE-LWP E - P L A . K .1 1 11 544 LE = 1 = 0-0 -0 I . ,â‚¬ -21 402"- fre.:- A > ~ C.:,e, .94 3: . X<:, t-4 =~, 50 Ff ACTIVITY ENVELOPE PLAN 2 RED BUTTE CEMETERY FINAL REVIEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 January, 2010 EXTERIOR MATERIALS SIDING 4' wide x variable length x 7/8" corrugated, rusted steel panels applied vertically ROOFING 4' wide x variable length x 7/8" corrugated, rusted steel panels , applied with roof slope FASCIA Rusted steel sheet metal with rake drip edge- see detail B @ Sheet 5 TR]M Various profiles of rusted steel flashings- see details @ Sheet 5 WINDOWS Marvin wood frame awning windows with metal clad exterior- clad color Medium Bronze PASSAGE DOOR 3'0" x 6'-8" x 1-3/4" metal clad passage door with M glass lite -- ' -0 =0 above-paint Red -1 1 GARAGE DOORS Genie Pro model #970 metal clad door with standard panels f 6 and glass lites- clad color Brown ln LIGHT FIXTURE Gal-Tech Standard Dome fixture with Style A Gooseneck Bracket or approved equivalent- paint Red 1- 01 1 1 1 1.- ------ --1 1 ILI 1 1 1 0 --7- 1 13 Ill 1 1 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 ?rE WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE 1 Marvin CAWN 4824 RO = 4'-1" 11'-11 5/8", header height = 7'-4" Ill 1 1 1 2 EXISTING 4- 1 1 1 1 - 2 Marvin CAWN 4832, RO = 4'-1" x 2'-7 5/8", header height = 8'-6" Il-- ill--I --I-il .--.- --- - - -1--- -4--H- 1 -roe -51.-6Â»15 3 3'-0" x 6'-11" 1 1-3/4" entry door 4-KADE ---- 1 1 1 -- --'.4- \ , I ~ mit= 55- 1-6Â» 4 10'-0" x 10'-0" garage door, Genie Pre #970, Brown 5 9'-0" x 8'-0" garage door, Genie Pro #970, Brown E1 6% EL r_ 7-- 1 0 1-4 Look-14*- Sol+1-4 1 / 4- t 1 L o t t 4-0 Low 00 0@ - 11 1- 1 It 1 ! 1 ~ 3% 6= 1 1 1-112.-14- 1 1 03 10. < sÂ° L./ 1 1 f 186 X b IÂ© 1- 4 j 12- L -re P S ULB = 3 5--6 13 A--M-+ 1 /1 1 dl\. ~11 1 111 4~-- i 01 1 IC:,4-10 f/ \ lili 1 4 - 0- 1 1 1 111 1 ;Ill 1 1 /J=5/ lilli '1 1 1 %-- i ti 'i li ;1 11 jltl~I~I .1 i! i ~1: 1 1 1 - I - O 1 0 ''1 11,111111'JI'wil!.....f~ --00- 3 1 1/lr[r 4 1 - N</Le-M 2-40 M | 1 - 9 ~ 11.11111111 -- ---- | I FRI M [=71 fE=f=T ~' 11 Il -- G - 2=22 - - 1 1.6=4===Al 1 a t i 144, ' d Â© i 21 0 21-23 J U LI U ELI ~44 - ' '111 1 1 I EE ~---1-- -- [2000 -- qi EL[2 -__]1_1 Vt 1 j 1:1 14.:.f~113.:d.:...r: ,Â·,7~~,c.,Â· ~1 21 -imp sLÂ£&5 ar I lil ~~LE]-ELI-' o= L Ili1 ELI F--1-IL ~f jiro I i _ 1 0 es-Lb,Â· ~--~- 1 1 5 0 U T 1-1- 2. LEV Ar-T- ION_ 1 1 rf lit" - i Lo" 1 1 /1 I \ 1 1 0 1 0 0 L_______i 4,0 LO. N 1 1- 0 0 R. P L.A. kl FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATION 3 - - BA~ 1/+11; 1 '-0,1 RED BUTTE CEMETERY W< )E HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FINAL REVIEW GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 January, 2010 Â£5 8 'If 11 11 11 11 It 1'1 11:: 1 :~ 1 Â· .'1 11'll , .... :1111.1 1 -~ 1111 11 1 NAL Ill '1! - 11~1111 ~'illo,-Ak 4 14 1 1 11 -1...00TTA" 11 lilli'il : A np'111 11 1 a gl -1, Â·:Â· il ~Ii ilili lh|INE 0 . .lil- Iii ! ilili ' ...,4 il,Â¥111 11.1 1, .Â¢lili 1 I , ~11 1 : ;!111 I ~= ~3''',~ 1,'~i I~il,~~~~~'!1~~~~:i 3 2 1 1. 11~11-111 11 1 :11 1 - - - #640 6:~Â·1,64'/ Â· Â·iÂ· Â· , t :,f. 3 ..:.1 . N D K 7- 14 a LE VA-r I ON_ -b- AS -1- 2 L VAT I O N 6 Â£-4 r 11 1 1 11 111 1 ~ 11 11 lilli 1 ~. ]] 111+ 1 il 1 1.1. 0 it !Â·: 1,1 H 1 1 1 11 ithill: -Vill:61 livil r.1413//4/.I- 1 1 1 1 {/) 4 1 1 11 11 lilli 1111111,1 pil l[ 11(!Ill|l d CO -~1,141 1| 1 , T 111:Â£1: 1 11111'111:1,11.M'.-- -- --Fi '11 11!1~L ~Â·Â· 1 1 11 11 .= -/$/--- '111111!1 91111/ 1 1 /lili I .1: 11,1/11/11Â£'11 0 ya,er.~ L 4. 1 1 1 1 11111,1 ''' J 11 11-21 --1- 1//-/. . .-I 1 11 1 ---- .... - - 77- 446444, f.-1,' 1- ,-21 +91 ' '.. '" 4 / :ah $7 * 1#4 E- ST- E L E VAT-Ie W S O 1-1 -T 1-1 ze 1-_ ~E- V ~ 1- ID N -- - - 0 12.-[cr IW A-l- Gr-EA-D & 012-Iâ‚¬r-IwiL SCAL-E I/8'L I Lo" I M/4 1.1.M H ID trE.E.7- ELEVATIONS 4 RED BUTrE CEMETERY FINAL REVIEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 January, 2010 . 1/ e- 1 %45- 223Â¥ Et- 91-iC#L ti F[--ral-1-E,Q.-rn-t~' STSâ‚¬,l-- PEOF=:40& - 1>201=-1 64/6 6,-t,KL co W211-44-77Â£> E-E~~~_~~h\\~\\\\\\1 ~ 6-1-15+1- RLÂ© P Pu4 LL- 0 44 OtÂ·-4 pl-T#DeD DiLGIC. ic-1 4 W>iÂ·.r/5 L St*IFELD 064 2,30 F- Dlt,'t 11 Il Ek.-16Â£ ST/14LL 1>El>e,L# 6" V./ S #4WL.~-r- SrE*60 W 1+12. M L 1.-Â£ 12~re e- 1-,- jEC>Gr*Â· 4=ELMIL 12.00Â·F- \J/ 2*85 L 16" D,c, 1-114 4 3*.6 BUL-15- e- 19&. SUDIE. Ded< 12 1 D Â£4-,Â·~_ D e -1-6-1 L F 1 11 1 I /1 > 1 -of 45#-rk-710- 2.00 P D:~7-4-1 1- ., ~ ' FC' - ~ Lo' 2\ ' 4.- co t.kt.Â»b*trD arrIULL ReÂ» Pâ€¢-64 IiÂ·L 6+4 iLE. 4 Â»14=r-11-2 61.-41#ELD OR--1 2-DO p. DIM,Ic 11 " 11 Il 2-4-*:.15- 911â„¢Â·L f>1204==ILE- / / ID '*' 1 De- 5 1+EÂ·er- 3-rEE-L- #4 11 UY-LL- C 66-1> t14-2-vI U / 1-k+Fl E- 4~/ EL *Dc,+ / Â» l kt DoÂ»/ L. 1 \ P 1 L D:-1-115 :b-T-Â¥#L- -rt< 11 - Ple el Le- -C,-I:.3::i:I~:*Y~â‚¬ - //1 - f .r 13 S--1-%50 05 2-12 W<**rn D FA-+-14,L... O,1-1 144>492-*012.A-P C>kl WAILA- ----___ , U f [-$-IlA-ti~- 1 Ner 0-1 &,/A-LL- -I--7, 90 FF IT- OPEÂ®1 70 7,6 I S 1-6 - --3-*1- r- 542 'O 11-r5 i D C- Cut-64# 2-0 61-1106 , 1 5 7-1:Â·45>l-- F'12-OPI 1-=- 1 11 11 d 7~11 5 ST'**l- FikDPILE - {214-Stri-D 51-â€¢Ise L 60 12-2#Gr,_7-15D F*Â·NIZÂ·L- 1401462-Â¥47-A#Ii ON WALL Sit-04.TR IN+. 14&611%5 51--DA- 430 2.12-LL*A.-21% D P&64*1- Â»/ 1 AA D O \,Â« 3-;Ar 1-01 6 /Al l_ L -r 44-1 \4/216-UL 6-1-1-4 es a &4 1400-LEVELP ON WLUL 6 14Â·JFWT-W.1 14*- O KI *LUL ST,4-P 6 i Il i It ~ ' EA V E P g.-1-A-1 L , 0 2-1.-T- 5 [DE- 60 2- id.EL*- 3 , 1 -O -1- YP I CA- L C) 5-17=. 1 L 1 K 1 A 1 4. 1 1 -O U.AÂ·4=6- s 1 1-11LA-*L FINAL REVIEW ~ EXTERIOR DETAILS 5 RED BUTrE CEMETERY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 January, 2010 k' , .tlf , 6 . 1,4 .4 : 51:. t . ~'' â€¢ â€¢ 4 ZA D . ' d , A ,1 111 ~4 1 i,- o . 4.- : 81,3,Â·4 t 8. + Â¢ i t t ' kÂ· 2 f 2 . j r. .16 t.1 40. ~1 11, .. 4 ... 6.1 11'14 1 Â£ 1- 1 6/1~1\ ' :1 , 1% 4 4* r j .- , , 1. f If 1 *, - f 9 11Â·-,- rfr65 Jit It,1,1''ik,k-I~ lijt~-Slw// MA.11- PJ. I [2 e br., )' C .4 ' i''.N i 1 L. I Â· .,i 1.1 : ' 11 1 1 +011 . 4 i. la , \ iii jl/134_1.~ COLORED RENDERING SOUTH ELEVATION ' h' 4,1 r,4 ..'. - 1// 4, . . 1~ 4 ': 11,1-644 ,-T+EF ..m.: ~ --. 4. %13Â·Â·7 99 * ..4. 4 - r ..c h W. I:- -4., It 1,~., 11 " 44'. 74 - . 2 - PL y + ... ... I ' 1- Z. i J. 3.7 4 4 4, S k .-c ./ - . 4 69 ' 41. , 1 7 F . 41 2/ 4 G '71 - f , , ... - I t'p'.,t,1,1.K., b -- Â» :'4-'40 /Â· 2 I ' 47/ 2 4 4 424 - '1 :.c-142.. 1-/4*fi 1,4 - 1 "14 i . '' ' - t~'~~" . Â·Â·71 14*. .. 4 r '0 4.2 t , ..4 ..A -: 7 Â£ I : 'rf.' ' . , 1 â€ž!U L c .%. - F Â· 1 '1:124 :/4.,i,4.f - ,/ .Z,4 ' 1,,Â£ , L , 1 9 . F f . Â·16. 4 4. i. #M< 4 0 118 .w ,Â· 4 - 1/1 , j Â® Ilul'j /r/94!61 ~ 77 7 fle, lia ,~.If '1011 'Al . 14*~ It. t. 71 ...Mm=#Â£69MQU~' 'C'~ ~ 411 'h,;7:,i,7,0~1~* r 99" Aflh'Y i .6.*me * ,â€ž4*%iA* Ld'IMffW'M'Awn,M'i)? 0,6.41 1 #; 01, *14; 1 1 1 1 11=1"11"im. 1? 1,1 J.# 11:VIL,11"t:~ 1 ' 114Â· r 1 1 J y RhU,/41-" Â· 'RN'*P 4 - p 1:0 ' ... &./../.I'./pi/./.P- *nvJ lit .' 1 ' A Â£ 4 '1 ' lit==. b 46.01 'f â€¢41 1 < f A 1 1 + 6 2 4 imip W v ' r 0~ ~ :i' :r ' , :i ~ ~ , 1,1 .lial , 4, 1 P #1Â£ 141 0,V . 1 1 ,,1 8 , 1 - lai 9 ' fi At , , I. 1 .1 i r TE f ~il 0, -Ir j If 4 fa TH 15 1 11 1 / 11' COLORED PERSPECTIVE ' 4 COLOR PERSPECTIVE 6 VIEWED FROM SOUTHWEST RED BUTTE CEMETERY LANDSCAPE VEGETATI ON NOT SHOWN FINAL REVIEW m5rORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 January, 2010 Â£ 4 - 1 1 6 9 1 I & --Â« 09*,1,4 *4*M4 0& 1 f L. ul K \ . & 70 \ 1 \ \ 1 64 & 14\ \ t 4 ,/ 1.0.- Â£ 1 h.. re 1 3 9 32 Serviceberry (5 gal. \0 1/ 4,9 15 Gambel Oak (5 gal, 25 Aspen (114" Cal.) OF I t=)4*,51*8= .4%.... 4 344 Â·04 .S!!/- Planting N, 1. Native 5 will includ, Ind Sic Sal Th nvelope 'St 'G Ar 'A Mc Ru North Pre Fri Ha Sil Blt Ro Arrowleaf Balsam Root Balsamorhiza sagittata 2. All areas within activity envelope will require irrigation. Trees will require temporary Date: January 25, 2010 drip irrigation for first 3 years. All other areas will require spray irrigation. Scale: 11=10'-0" . 0 Â·19Â·. 4 -71----J, .. 11;-I.Ir/5~"IN - + ~~ 4_~ * ...M.i). 1 -/r~} 1 1 - 1 - . 4/ 7 14 r b :1 1 .i 51 : . I Â·4/ ...Â·':Â·. . F. 44, . 14 0 '0 . 11* ZY.4 j n . I ./ j a '4 N 3. I \ #1% I / 0 44 - .t ' ' .1. . 1 . .... . . . .... - -1. 0 . - -0,- -. I .. -0. h . - . . I ... . a . . A .. . 0 -- . 0 . 0 0 1. I . 1 .1. .1 1 . . -0 I. 1.0 . a - 1 i. e r- 1 . 4A I. I 0 0 . 3Cm# 111 11 11 1 11 11 11 4 11 11 11 11 1 111 11 11 11 1111 11 11 11 1 1 U 1741106'tjl L ----------,-------- -----.. .--- ---- ---- 11 --1----- 1 0214-INA-L_ 1~ -- -- - - 14 1 61'b la I c 0201 1-4 Â· 4-4 0.27 1-1- =62=. ~=11=21=L ..2Â£..~..ZEZ_ '-1- LS Te, U-1 C. A. Dp 1 7 - 1 D M r,Jirs/105Â£4111.Ef-L 1/+ -1 -0 :F l u 1564- 1-1631- t 2 - 1 A LS, 1. tÂ·-4012-TI-4.J &Â©uÂ»4, vÂ¥.gT- s\DIA-l* Is "c-6 T5 tv 0-LE,D 6, E-00*:-1 1-1Cr- LS ' i-loDIE,11-4 PU-0 PA-Â·6+U_ -1-Â·Â·11*- 1-APPED *ton b S 1%' K.lÂ« 1-1 1Â£31-Â»-O 12-00Â·F-1 KIÂ·6~ - CR 1-4 E - PA-12-Â·E 4.-"*14 LE!=abL Â¢1 1. ..WABT- Siblkl* l.6 t-Loe-IZ- IMM T+6r */44 ID w// V %tac>/22 3, A-,c :pe&-41 1 511-5 Dle-Â£-Tur 0+4 4-24-Pe- 042, =FEDU-klDL.*104 3, \Am,013-1-ayl IS 1,4 4- 4 14 PA-l Wl-Â¥D wao b 4, 1002- LS al-6"' GLE' + FLUId L.1- 1.,efrolaC_ \Â·665/DD IÂ»O E- 5; Dul-kIED L.th--41Â£- Dâ‚¬UO-rt.5 A-[50 4-11Â£34-116Â© DOOILWAAr . F90'CL+EC:> w/ SIDILÂ·Ur TD Ma.aC!-1- 01/(41-IVA-2- 9 1 b I ill- 1 1 1-1 4 1 11 !1 ~1 ~1 'll 1 j') Il lili 11 4. I i 44%. 2% ..262IL- 440 PJ- +-1 - 7 . 0 --- - -ay--t -DP 044+ EZUE--1- A-pr 12-0 x. 19 -0,1 -7EVICTÂ©LIA-+4Â· 1 LU 032 CA..~> 1 +4 BAg 1 1 t' 1 Â» sALE : 1 t, / z<r-- -0 -16 1% 11 Pl 1 11! 1* 1 1 N 11 11 il it I i ~1 'C 3, amÂ° rr r Ir'M 1 111 i 1 1 1-11 1-lt- it--7 1 1 f i ~ i r--11 -a x I ST_IN-64- 6 1 -1-6 P L A-EL 1 1 lilli 1 11 V I C-rÂ© 12- I A jÂ·-1 rEL-8 1.44 4 01*T-k-1-4 1-1-SE- fl $ .-i.--.---I-*.--.i---. i- --.I--i#-.--Illi-I.1--q- *--1.-*--*I-*.#-**~--.-.I- - S 0.14 -1-- 4-7 h# 1 6 -r ElÂ¥65 u. 4.-1:r, * t>12-.6Â»A-1 157 I +WA*Â»-1 1- VIfÂ»-4.15 2-*:b 13 Wt-r& c#:21-1.er-*11' EFOLLE.22161_ 1 (6> 50 , 9-Uti44 21- 1 1. ASPS-4 / Co, A-%71ZU ; Co l-* 2-*-t>.6 Slia-LE hc' = 1 -6 Adv 0-009 .*19-15-4 11,4.1-12_ 1 4-L .5 It 6. Z.Dc> .14-â€ž14- ts 'll-1 Â£2>1311rz--W 'F>IZ-0 PA-k-,112.-I- rrpe- 1, Siblkt-Gr- IS 1%-6 covtz-D, LA-PP t.t> "R-IOTOR-Ic.2 WOOD SIDF+44,- - 1-Â·4Â¤-6-1- 12-,0/3 F--U--LGr - CO L.O 12.- DAÂ·-eÂ·*=â€¢ Gr-'LE:Â£.U 1 -rtz-It-1 15 1,4-4 *-4-13 1 46 "41670 12.-IC. 446Â©D -1-1211-1 9, 9450 IA. 15 06-te- GrIZ-,C 6-1 MI Â¥ ~rÂ»L to 3, */14{136#4 6 14.161$82 SIT-1 SU-I CT- \6/0 01:> VE-AÂ·VI*- VICTORIAN CABIN EXISTING 8 04.-FOW.L= E.C<>F- 1 L-1 9- + PASS&4-*2- u>Bo 12- IS " AIS -PO ILIC-' A-'-8 " Â»,0 1123E. f~* U-L RED BUTTE CEMETERY 5, 2-6 WOOD:Fluot FIZAA-11 Al'r 5 ITS 01-1 Â·FA-UT-IbL FINAL REVIEW PAÂ»t-1-- L,DOSE- EOCK =FE>U-*4DA.:r-1/04-1 + Dle-YerLY OU *1*-DE- HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE 5 5-70 t26Grâ‚¬- 1Â»OL IS 106 vlitz-r */oo D -FLA-A tic 9. 9151-612-IC. A-DDI-riON S 17-3 LOAH SWA-UL,341/ GRAEME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO LokIDE.Crt- Fibul, 1*=rlot-1 22 January, 2010 0 . THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0002.2010.AHPC PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 2 00 851 PROJECTS ADDRESS 808 Cemetery Lane PLANNER AMY GUTHRIE CASE DESCRIPTION Final Hist. Dev REPRESENTATIVE ALAN RICHMOND DATE OF FINAL ACTION 2.26.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 3/10/10 .. LUm,l 2-735'll,-1, 3 0019\ 060 2.ZDID Â·Aff fc ~*i,01:i .... rÂ¥&1.4 *..161101 Elle Edit Record Navigate Fim Reporis Format Iab Belp : 3 9 * ' '/ 4 4] ti E e LI :~ d.li J4 4 / 4 0 j la l'Jmp Flill'i 016 ~ â‚¬1 @ 2 3 0, .0 mi& .3 @ 9.Ow.'R.fl .[-1 Main Yaluation |Custom FÂ» 18gtions |Fees |Parcels |Fee 5ummarl |Sub termits |Attachments ~Ro#ing Ratus |Routing tistory ~ Permit Type ~ahpc 3Aspen Historic Land Use Permit # ~0002.2010.AlÂ·FC Address |808 CEMETERY LN g| Apt/Suite | City |A5PEN State F-il Zip I81611 ~ Permit Information Master Permit| @1 Routing Queue |aslu07 Applied Â®29/2010 _| , Project | g| Status ~pending Approved | Description ~ FINAL HETORIC DEVELOPMENT- FEE WAIVER approved by Chris Bendon - copy of Issued ~ ~ which is in the planning folder, Final | Submitted |ALAN RICHMOND 920 1125 Clock R- Days |~-i Expires ~01/24/2011 ~1 Owner - Last Name ~RED SUITE CEMETERY A55( ~g~ Fist Name ~ PO BOX 194 ASPEN CO 81611 Phone |(970) 429-0783 P Owner Is Applicant? Applicant - ------ Last Name ~RED BUTTE CEMETERY ASS< g~ First Name ~ A5PEN CO 81611 Phone 070) 429-0783 Cust# ~28574 * ~ PO BOX 194 Lender - Last Name ~ g| First Name | Phone ~ AspenGold[4 - EdR @ Record 1 41 fâ‚¬,â‚¬-5 Vioi VGA 0 94 OffÂ» ?349 4 I~ 1.-9 -11 2 6 I Fee Wai~er R 1Â¥IEVilitiliwili City of Aspen JAN 2 9 2010 THE CITY OF ASPEN Community Development Department This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notÂ·~Â£ UX Akiwisal?sENn made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. hOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT For what fees are you requesting waiver? m BUILDING A PLANNING Applicant Name: 2.,5- tdÂ·it. (-t-*4:1 A'â€¢400.41- Contact Ph.# (1 4.9 - 2-48 1 Mailing address: ~ 21 44*Â· L41 8,57/-& CD Â·ircull- E-mail address: ~0692. je-4 d co-(.451 - vitt Project name & address: 9-841- gulle (-2-Le-7 Q.-AC ve,VAor./14 ?\L 18-09 C e -2,#h LA-we Ue- 00 9'16 8- Fee Breakdown: Original Fee Requested Original Fee Requested Fee Description Fee Description Amount Waiver Amount Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee Permit Fee HPC Application Fee -* 160 A \\ Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ A \\ Reason for Waiver: fer,-Or * 000 2. 20(0 Â· AH-FC- El General Fund Department E Waived or decreased by City Council (specify ordinance or other decision document) E Other-Please explain: LOU.... P%.0<<4Â£1. So\D_I*1 9-oi \Ad O%-c Fee W A~Jt< C ooll /~4 A-<1â‚¬~1 j Applicant Signature Date For office use only: Type of fees waived: (-46~v41 4 preÂ«L; I A aivel- fee h'Â£'P- Total fees waived: $ - f 04 17144â€¢â€¢A ff'APPROVED . Â£ DISAPPROVED A n (. 21.10 Community Development Director Date .. RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2 910 CITY r ,#. ,- : 0 .. Â· . 2.1 Gr =14 COMMONI , i I,2.2,0PMENT January 12, 2009 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Mr. Bendon, The Red Butte Cemetery Association hereby requests a waiver of the land use review fees for the HPC, P&Z and City Council review of its application for a maintenance facility to serve the Cemetery. This request is being submitted pursuant to Section 26.104.070 (c) (7) of the Aspen Land Use Code which authorizes the Community Development Director to waive the fees for projects serving a public purpose or those proposed by a non-profit organization. The Red Butte Cemetery is operated as a non-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Association has limited funds available to it, generated primarily by the sale of plots to members of the community. The Cemetery serves a public purpose by providing a place where members of the community may be buried and it also provides an essential link between Aspen's past and its present. During HPC's conceptual review of this project it has also become apparent that many members of the community view it as a valued open space where they can come for peace and serenity. The Association anticipates that considerable fund raising work will be needed to make this project a reality. Waiverof the land use fees for the review of this project will help to offset one of the many costs of this development project. We thank you for your consideration of this request and are available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Red Butte Cemetery Association John Thorpe, President P.O. Box 194 Aspen, Colorado 81612 .. DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter 'Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010. "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a five-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the fifth anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. rhis Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Red Butte Cemetery Association. 808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen. CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of 6th P.M., City and rownsite of Aspen, 808 Cemetery Lane Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Approval for the construction of a maintenance and storage structure and the renovation of the Victorian-era cabin and outhouse Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan HPC granted Major Development approval (Final) via Resolution #3, Series of 2010. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) March 7,2010 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) March 7,2015 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 ofthe City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 7th day of March, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. This development order replaces the previous order dated January 18, 2009. UG-- '.4 Chris Bendon, Community Development Director .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 14 ~ <\ , Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Pitkin ) I, A-nq da Â£56-0 2-01 (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) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: v Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation iii the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 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 no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 3 Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 7 day of PtWC,Ar- , 20911, by A:-v-K<~A 5-4~-~ PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL 1 Notice is hereby given to the general public of the I approval of a site s,â€¢9cific development plan, and My commission expires: .1/ le] 11 I the creation of a vested property right pursuant to I I the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertain- I ing to the following legally described property: Sec- tion 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West T . \ of 6th P.M., City and Townsile of Aspen, parcel ID 4Â« ~0-1 Â·iktur)71,kn 1 No. 273512200851, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the Notary Puolic I property commonly known as 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery by order of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commissjon on February 24, 2010. The Applicant received final Major Devel- opment approval for a proposed maintenance facil- ity and restoration of Victorian-era cabins. For fur- ther information contact Amy Guthrie, at the City of ' Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Ga- ATTACHMENTS: tena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 429-2758. s/ City of Aspen ' Publish in the Aspen Times Weekly on March 7, COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 2010 [4724328] .. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY, 808 CEMETERY LANE, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6'" P.M., CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN RESOLUTION NO. 3, SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851 WHEREAS, the applicant. Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect. has requested Major Development (Final) for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery c th Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, lownship 10 South, Range 85 West of the o P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen. and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired. relocated or improved involving a designated historic properly or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the 11PC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve. disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny: and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie in her staff report dated February 24.2010. performed an analysis of the application based on the standards. found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 24. 2010. the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and -City of Aspen I listoric Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development (Final) approval for a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12.township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6111 P.M., City and Townsite of' Aspen. with the following conditions: .. 1. Study using wood instead of metal siding on the maintenance building. The final material selection must be approved by staff and monitor, or referred to HPC for final determination if staff and monitor are not in favor o f the proposed siding materials. 2. Some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. 3. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by I IPC staff and monitor. or the full board. 4. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of a development order. I Iowever, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended. failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded. as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval o f all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen. a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right. valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules. regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and .judicial review: the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A)Â· The rights of refurendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. 0 . APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of February, 2010. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk .. RED BUTTE CEMETERY APPROVED LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN FEBRUARY 2010 .. 1. Purpose of This Document The Red Butte Cemetery Association was incorporated in the 1890's for the purpose of establishing one of Aspen's original cemeteries. In 1899, the Association acquired nearly 17 acres from surrounding ranchers and water rights from Castle Creek. It has operated since that time as a non-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Cemetery consists of three principal areas, these being: A. The southerly portion, which has been actively used for cemetery plots; B. The northerly portion, which has been platted with roads and burial plots for future development as an extension of the developed southern portion but is presently undeveloped; and C. The area below the top of the bank, which drops down toward Castle Creek. This area is steep and undeveloped and remains in a relatively natural state. A plat of the Cemetery prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers and a recent aerial photograph of the Cemetery depicting these three areas are included in this document. Over the last decade, the Red Butte Cemetery Association has been actively contemplating the future needs of the Cemetery while simultaneously addressing some serious issues of deferred upkeep of the property. The Association has completed an upgrade of the irrigation system that serves the property. The Association has also initiated the process of replacing some of the original cottonwood trees that were planted in the Cemetery but have reached the end of their life span. The Association has also been seeking approval from the City of Aspen to develop a modest maintenance facility on the property, to support its efforts to maintain the character of the property. In 2009-2010, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council, and Historic Preservation Commission approval to develop this facility have been obtained. A condition of approval imposed on the project by each of these bodies is the formulation of a landscape management plan to guide the future development of the Cemetery. The City wants the Association to have a written plan that describes how the Cemetery landscape will evolve over time, including plans for installation of roads, trees and irrigation systems, which natural areas will be preserved and which will be incorporated into the Cemetery pattern, and how the historic character of the Cemetery can be maintained and enhanced over time. The purpose of this document is to provide the landscape management plan for the Cemetery. First, an overview of existing conditions in the Cemetery is provided. This is followed by the goals and actions planned to manage the Cemetery's landscape features. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 1 .. 11. Overview of Existing Conditions A. Developed Cemetery The developed area of the cemetery comprises approximately the southern half of the property. The most visible organizing feature of this area is the roads, of which five travel north and south (Evergreen, Poplar, Eucalyptus, Acacia and Palm Avenues) and three travel east and west (South, Butte and Central Avenues). The roads have a gravel surface and a grass median. Within this road pattern a series of burial blocks have been laid out, and within each of the burial blocks individual burial plots have been designated. The pattern of roads, blocks and plots is shown on the attached site drawing. Narrowleaf cottonwood trees line the north/south roads in a grid pattern. Historically, trees were planted at the center of each block and along the "alleys" between the blocks. Since each block is 40' long, this meant that the trees were approximately 20' apart. However, some of the original trees have died and have not yet been replaced, so there are some areas where the gap between trees may be 40' or more. The cottonwood trees are the dominant form of vegetation in the Cemetery and establish a visual rhythm and canopy for the property. These trees are considered to be the preferred vegetative form in the Cemetery. Over the years, however, individuals have planted other types of trees in the Cemetery, primarily north of Butte Avenue, or have planted trees that do not align with the defined grid. The Cemetery Association is committed to removing these trees over time and replacing them with narrowleaf cottonwood trees that are aligned with the grid pattern. The burial blocks and plots throughout the southern portion of the Cemetery have been developed. This means that topsoil and grass cover are in place throughout the southern portion, allowing plots to be sold and burials to occur. The irrigation system in this area is also fully operational, with below grade pipes and above grade sprinkler heads having recently been installed at a cost of nearly $50,000. Irrigation water is supplied to the Cemetery from a small pond on the Marolt property that feeds into an irrigation ditch along the western edge of the property that connects to the underground system. The head gate controlling this water was recently replaced at a cost of over $15,000. However the older pipes that feed the system from off-site are likely to need replacement in the coming years. There is a small building (and associated out house) located in the southeastern corner of the Cemetery. The building dates from the Victorian period and has been located on the Cemetery for many years. It has been used for storage and simple office purposes over the years. The Association intends to restore the interior and exterior of this building and will use it as an office and place where the Cemetery's employee can do business with the public. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 2 .. B. North Meadow The north meadow is a predominantly undeveloped area that comprises the northern portion of the Cemetery. There are significant stands of mountain big sagebrush present here, particularly in the northern and northeast portion of the meadow. Other areas of the meadow have become covered with non-native grasses including smooth brome, bluegrass, orchard grass, timothy, fescue, and ryegrass. Several aggressive weed species, including plumeless thistle, Canada thistle, houdstongue, field bindweed, and common burdock exist in areas of the meadow that have been disturbed. Patches of native shrub vegetation have also emerged in the meadow, including not only mountain big sage, but also serviceberry, rabbitbrush and Oregon grape. While the plats for the Cemetery illustrate the intention for the established roads to be extended from the south to the north (along with associated irrigation lines and trees), none of this development has occurred at this time. No development of burial blocks or burial plots has occurred in this area either. The Cemetery Association installed a temporary fabric shed along the eastern edge of the meadow to store some of the equipment needed to maintain the Cemetery. Dirt mounds were placed to the west and south of the shed, both as an attempt at screening the shed from neighbors and as a way of storing spoils and topsoil from cemetery operations. The Cemetery Board views these mounds as an unsuccessful effort and has committed to removing this material and restoring the area with native vegetation when the fabric shed is replaced with a permanent maintenance facility. In the interim, thistles will be removed, the mounds will be raked to remove large rocks and the disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native seed mix, as described in Section 111.C, below. Some disturbance of the meadow has also occurred as a result of utility installations. These installations are likely to continue to occur from time-to-time, as there are recorded easements for a sewer line, water line, gas line and electric line that traverse portions of the north meadow. An important element of this landscape management plan is to establish policies for restoration and re-vegetation of these areas following utility work. C. Undeveloped Area Below the Top of Bank Along the eastern edge of the Cemetery the property drops off steeply toward Castle Creek. This strip of land ranges in width from areas where it exceeds 50' to areas where it is wider than 100', but the Cemetery property ends several hundred feet above the Creek itself. This area is undeveloped and is relatively densely covered oak mountain shrubland, including sage, oak brush, chokecherry and other native species. These characteristics make it an attractive area for birds and a variety of local species of wildlife. The area below the top of the bank has never been part of the Cemetery's operating area, and the Cemetery Association intends that it remain undeveloped in the future. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 3 .. 111. Proposed Landscape Management Plan A. Developed Area The Cemetery Association's goals for the southern portion of the Cemetery are to preserve the historic character of this area and to continue to make necessary capital improvements that will allow the cemetery landscape to be maintained and enhanced. Specific actions in support of these goals are as follows: 1. Monitor the health of the mature cottonwood trees by performing, at a minimum, an annual inspection of these trees in coordination with the City Forester. 2. Trim trees as necessary for health and safety. Annually remove dead or fallen branches and other downed vegetative material. 3. Remove unhealthy trees by obtaining appropriate permits per the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Stump removal should occur to a sufficient depth to allow a replacement tree to be planted in the designated locations along the grid pattern. Efforts should first focus on existing trees located along the west property boundary, adjacent to neighboring homes, though any immediate or threatening condition within the Cemetery should be addressed at the time of discovery. 4. Replace each removed tree with a narrowleaf cottonwood tree that is planted along the historic grid pattern. As funds are available, also replace trees that were previously removed for health or other reasons. Replanting along the west property boundary should consider appropriate spacing and not replicate the overcrowded stand of cottonwoods as exists today. 5. Extend the historic tree pattern in those blocks within the developed area where it does not presently exist (primarily certain blocks in the northern portion of the southern area) by planting narrowleaf cottonwood trees in the center of each block and along the alleys, with the goal of achieving the historic 20' spacing. 6. Remove inappropriate/disruptive/non-native vegetation that was previously planted in this area by obtaining appropriate permits per the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Inappropriate means an existing tree is off the historic grid, while disruptive means the tree interferes with the ability to dig or maintain a designated burial plot. Replace each tree that is removed with a narrowleaf cottonwood tree. If the tree was improperly located, replace the tree in a correct location along the historic grid. 7. Maintain the existing irrigation system. As necessary and as funding permits, replace the older supply pipes that feed the system from off-site. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 4 .. 8. Maintain the existing roads in their current condition (gravel with a natural grass center). Apply crushed gravel on an "as needed" basis to keep the roads from becoming too muddy. Keep the roads at their current width, since the platted layout prevents any road expansion potential 9. Take care in mowing to avoid damage to grave markers and other cemetery features. Use string trimmers and similar types of hand trimmers whenever possible and use relatively smaller mowers that will not damage cemetery features. Avoid using commercial herbicides or fertilizers that may cause damage to stone grave markers. B. Maintenance Facility Development Site The landscape plan for the maintenance facility development site has been submitted to the City as part of the Final Development Plan for the Red Butte Cemetery. The landscape plan illustrates the plans for providing vegetative screening immediately around the planned maintenance facility and for restoring disturbed areas within the activity envelope designated for this development. The primary planting materials shown on the landscape plan are serviceberry and gambel oak, to be installed in clumps along the west and north sides of the building and around the proposed work yard. Native seed mix will provide ground cover between these clumps and in other areas disturbed by development. These materials will receive irrigation for at least the first three years after planting. C. North Meadow The landscape management plan for the northern portion of the cemetery outside of the activity envelope has two parts. First, there are the near term plans for restoring and revegetating the meadow until this area is needed for cemetery development. Second are the long terms plans for how this area will become part of the developed cemetery. 1. Meadow Preservation Plans The goals for restoring and revegetating the north meadow are to eradicate the weeds and to re-establish the native upland pasture/sage meadow vegetation in the area outside of the maintenance facility development site. A consulting ecologist who has studied the meadow believes there are enough remnant seed in the soils that the meadow can naturally restore itself to the upland pasture/sage meadow ecotype. The process of weed eradication requires periodic hand removal and spot spraying of areas infested by weeds. The neighbors have recently provided financial assistance and volunteer time to remove weeds and plant native grasses and forbs and the Cemetery 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 5 .. Association provided support to the volunteer efforts. Several volunteer work days were held in 2009 to cut and bag the most dominant weeds in the meadow. For these efforts to be effective, they must be repeated periodically during the growing season over each of the next several years. The neighbors are being guided in these efforts by landscape architects and other ecological consultants who have provided specific guidelines for proper eradication of each of the weed species. Continued sponsorship of and participation by the Cemetery's neighbors will significantly accelerate the restoration of the meadow landscape beyond what would occur through the natural restoration process. As weeds are being removed, native grasses and forbs will be established in the meadow. This will be accomplished by over-seeding approximately 1-2 acres of the meadow that have been disturbed by various activities over the years. Seeding can be done by drill or by hand methods, but should always use the City's native upland pasture/sage meadow seed mix. Drill seeding would be the more effective method, but it is also more expensive than hand seeding. The City of Aspen has a drill seeder which the Association could seek permission to use to offset some of the costs of the operation. In the alternative, hand seeding should be accomplished by raking and broadcasting the mix in the bare and or weedy areas of the meadow. Seed broadcasting should occur during September and October unless irrigation is present, in which case re-seeding can also occur during the summer months. Certified weed free straw will be used in these restoration efforts to minimize the introduction of noxious vegetation. Monitoring for seed establishment will be accomplished following each installation to determine if adequate germination rates have been achieved. As noted earlier, there are several utility line easements that run through portions of the meadow, and line replacements or upgrades are likely to occur in the coming years. Revegetation of the disturbed areas is a requirement of the terms of these easements, and should utilize the native upland pasture/sage meadow seed mix referenced above. The process for reclaiming these disturbed areas should be as follows: * Remove rocks and rake the disturbed areas; * Seed the disturbed areas, preferably using a drill seeder or, in the alternative by hand raking and broadcasting, following the same practices described above; * Apply certified weed free straw over revegetated areas; and Remove weeds and do spot spraying of weeds and thistles twice a year during the growing season for the two years after disturbed areas have been revegetated. 2. Extension of Cemetery Development The Cemetery Association's goals for how the Cemetery gets extended to the north are still in the process of being formulated. However, following are some policies the Cemetery Association is in agreement upon. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 6 .. 1. The extension to the north is not planned to occur for some time to come, until the demand for new burial plots necessitates developing new blocks. Until this demand is present there will be no further development activities in the meadow, beyond those associated with the approved maintenance facility. This includes not only no road extensions, but also no planting of trees outside of the approved development envelope. 2. When the demand for new burial plots is present, the extension will not occur throughout the north meadow at a single time. Instead, the extension will occur incrementally, which will allow portions of the north meadow to remain in their natural state even as Cemetery development extends into the northern area. 3. The initial extension is expected to proceed a minimum of three blocks or maximum of six blocks to the north (that is, half way or all the way to the next planned easUwest road), stretching across the platted cemetery from east/west. The extension will involve the following actions: a. Extend the existing north/south roads along their current alignment; b. Extend the irrigation ditch along the western edge of the property and extend irrigation laterals from the existing irrigation mains that were previously stubbed in to the north; c. Level out the site, add topsoil, and plant with grass cover; and d. Begin installing narrowleaf cottonwood trees following the historic grid pattern. Trees would be installed at the center of each block, such that trees would be initially be placed approximately 40-45' apart. Subsequent planting would fill in these expanses, to follow the historic 20' spacing pattern. IV. Conclusion This is the initial landscape management plan prepared for the Red Butte Cemetery. It is intended to address practices that will be followed by the Cemetery Association to preserve and enhance the historic portion of the Cemetery, to guide the development of the new maintenance facility, and to restore and revegetate the north meadow area. To be effective, this plan should be reviewed by the Cemetery Association periodically and should be updated at least every five years from this date forward. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 7 .. THE CITY oF ASPEN City Council Call-Up Form The purpose of this form is to memorialize council's official call-up allowance with regard to certain HPC or P&Z decisions within a 30 day time frame of an approval. After 30 days, the decision stands and can no longer be called up. If a call-up is requested, please complete this form and return it to the city Manager, Case Planner or Community Development Director for further action. If you have any questions on the approval, please contact the case planner. Address/Common name: Red Butte Cemetery Case number: 0002.2010.AHPC Case planner: Amy Guthrie Phone /email. 429-2758, amy.guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us Approval Granted: P&Z or HPC Conceptual Commercial Design Review X HPC Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development HPC Demolition approval HPC Relocation approval Summary of approval: HPC granted Final design approval for a maintenance building and adjacent workyard at Red Butte Cemetery. The approval also included a landscape management plan for long-term care of the property, and restoration of two small Victorian era buildings on the site. Approval date: February 24, 2010 Expiration of call-up period: March 26, 2010 (30 days from approval) 1, , request that this case be called-up for council action. Attachments Resolution Plans/Elevations â€¢ LEI- GL. MEMORANDUM TC): Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, 1 listoric Preservation Officer RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Final). Public Hearing DATE: February 24,2010 SUMMARY: Red 13utte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 1 9th century and located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte and Aspen Grove are in active use and privately owned and maintained. Ute Cemetery, Aspen's first. is owned by the City and has not had burials since approximately the 1930's. lIPC is asked to consider the Red Butte Cemetery Association's proposal to construct a new maintenance shop and to rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information. The proposed facilities are needed to manage the 2,800 graves, 17 acres of land, and over two hundred large cottonwoods trees to be cared for on this site. The cemetery serves a critical community need and appears to be large enough to continue to be active long into the future. In December 2008. 1 1PC granted Conceptual approval for the proposed building, with conditions. The applicant proceeded through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council reviews in order to establish their allowable FAR and to receive exemptions from aftordable housing mitigation. Pending I IPC's final design approval, the project will be allowed five years vested rights (per City Council) to provide enough time for the Association to fundraise or otherwise prepare for construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval for the project with the condition that. to better comply with the design guidelines, the siding and roofing material on the maintenance building be wood or asphalt, rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. In addition, some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan. along with a strategy for ditches. Staff recommends that aspen trees not be planted around the maintenance building. APPLICANT: Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means. Architect. PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851. ADDRESS: 808 Cemetery I.anc, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of the 6111 P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: P. Park. 1 .. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with tile design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the IJPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the sta# analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The fIPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the lIPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. A list ofthe relevant design guidelines is attached as 'Exhibit A." Only those guidelines where discussion is needed are included in the memo. rhe proposed project is unique in the sense that the primary significance of the site is as a th historic landscape. Only minor accessory buildings from the 19 century are present. While there are relatively few designed historic landscapes in Aspen. the "City of Aspen I Iistoric Preservation Design Guidelines" establish the policies enforced by IIPC, including the following: I Iistoric landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmark property. I his site was once ranch lands, assembled to form a cemetery at the end of the I 9th century. The property is large (almost 17 acres). Annexed into the City of Aspen in 1968 it is now bordered by the subdivisions of the Cemetery I .ane neighborhood. rhe existing infrastructure for the cemetery is limited to some visitor information available at the southern end of the site. and a temporary structure and maintenance yard towards the north. There are not proper utilities available to support maintenance needs, and neighbors have indicated that the result is unsightly. The Association is attempting to improve this situation. Conceptual review required three meetings, and some new members have subsequently joined the board. Staff has attached the minutes of the previous hearings for everyone's reference. 2 .. Maintenance building Staff finds that the need for a permanent maintenance structure at Red Butte Cemetery is entirely valid. Typical equipment and resources that might be required include mowers, tools. cement, block and tackle or other means of lifting heavy gravestones, tractor/truck, and perhaps excavation equipment that would be permanently kept on site. The new building also includes a warm room and bathroom. HPC accepted the size. form, and location of the maintenance building at conceptual. Approval was granted with the following conditions: 1. The building is to be set at natural grade, or slightly below grade, to avoid any berming or anomalous forms in the landscape. Depressing the workyard slightly below grade is acceptable. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonal to the gridded plots of the cemetery, to be evaluated with I IPC at Final approval. 3. 1)evelop a comprehensive plan for management of the cemetery landscape. including the open meadow. The applicant has provided detailed responses to these conditions in the application. In summary, the building itself is set at grade. however there is some sitework and re-grading proposed in order to shield the work yard from view. The ground will be feathered out around the construction area in order to avoid any obvious alterations. Staff believes this satisfies 1-IPC's concern. The applicant proposes that the orientation of the new building. slightly skewed from the grid created by the streets and plots, is appropriate. consistent with the placement of the Victorian era buildings on the site, and the best solution for limiting the footprint of the work area. Staff accepts their position. 1 he applicant has provided a plan for management of the landscape. This was an important element of the Conceptual review discussion. due to concerns about the long-term strategy for replacement of aging cottonwoods and weed management. The plan has been written in cooperation with some neighbors of the site (and the City Forester) and attempts to address the criticisms and concerns raised during the review process. The application notes that fact that. since the review began. neighbors have volunteered time to help care for the property. The City has offered a number of services in the future as well. It is very important that the Association receive support and assistance like this. The City has recently sponsored the creation of preservation plans for Ute Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery. Both of those documents include suggestions about preferred landscape maintenance practices that will best avoid damage to gravemarkers. For instance. it is important to be sure that irrigation heads are directed away from markers. that mowers, grass trimmers, or other tools don't gouge grave stones. etc. Trees and shrubs within 2 feet of of gravemarkers or fence enclosures should be removed. We recommend that the adopted landscape management plan include some similar guidance. 3 .. One other topic previously brought up is the importance of re-establishing ditches to provide irrigation water and protect historic water rights. Plans for completing. or not completing this work should be discussed. New landscaping is proposed around the maintenance building. The plan calls for serviceberry, gambel oak. and aspen trees. The Cemetery Association does not appear to prefer installing aspen trees, but they are included in the plan as a means to address neighbor concerns with screening. Staff does not support aspen trees. Page 2 of the landscape management plan notes that "cottonwood trees are the dominant form of vegetation in the Cemetery and establish a visual rhythm and canopy f'or the property. These trees are considered to be the pre ferred vegetative form in the Cemetery." Other types of trees which have sprung up or been planted over the years are called out to be removed. Planting 25 aspens around the new maintenance building is contrary to the plan and the following guideline: 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials. To the right is a sketch I ir*H,3-,1 \--6-3--* 1 kr: =-1 9%13 produced by Scott Chism of1 _j F-LÂ»~-0- b.-- -3/.L-Â·Â·Â·-1 0 i. 3 14*0- , .'* 74*-1 X u -Â·nt t')9F the Parks Department, -~--\ C.%459 33-1 L,~25#4-\jiogikÂ·ir- - during Conceptual review. r.--1 91.5*332\ e. 1 _..1-01,1- M_-4 , i' 1,1 I!) 1 1 Although the cottonwood \-Â·4 . 3 .-1 1.PHI trees depicted in this drawing will not be planted JF#1 1Â£,41-.1,_4\~ ;l? 4, 3, ' 37 ."ft' 421 iÂ»1~>fl D.fflt?f: f ff ' . 4~34~4 for some time, the drawing illustrates the strength of the 05'ill F - .\- 1.-Â¥.04---4/f \\- \ tl. *Â·14(73 / 6-~fâ€¢Â·Â·~' *4*j* ' cottonwood rows. and the -1- A r --- 1.-1-- 1 1~61 . - 27 -2..... inconsistency that would be .-r--1 313/-)-2\91.1 'd~~*.~.~AlliP 4- - created by a grove of aspen on the north and west sides El - \---\ r,:.f.~<\ - 43 L -6-4:- 4\ e - -- of the new building. Fl"~flf Ft Afj~i At ffÂ©Mt Cx/ 67.A I-AnÂ«Â·~i i--i~El.- pa---\ 344. - fill .\ \. .1/.Lamn k 4 )frfy.../9,4,93'. ~L\---1. --1-,-.9 ky M - 220-/-3.-~ ..â€ž-tifo -i- -414- 4.-.--A---F \ 4.JP~f~--r-LÂ·~,4 '1 ... y~- f - .L-- \ i LI-3.-_-ti-.â€ž,>T--3 \+1-174~~Â·--4--- i \~'--:-r._1-1 2, With regard to the architectural design of the maintenance building, 1 IPC must make findings on the proposed lighting, fenestration, and materials. Staff recommends that the rusted corrugated 4 00 C .. material be discussed. The small historic buildings on the site are painted clapboard and likely had wood shingle roofs originally. While the new building need not match the Victorian structures, staff finds the rusted metal to be too informal for this cemetery. In addition, we believe that the coloring (possibly more orange than brown) may be a bit too bold and call more attention to the structure than desired. The following guidelines are relevant: 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. o Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. o Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. u Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. We recommend a wood siding, natural or stained, is more appropriate. as would be a neutral color roof, either wood or asphalt shingle. Historic buildings 1 he applicant proposes restoration work on the historic cabin and outhouse, as represented in the attached drawings. Staff supports this aspect of the application. As clarification. any new framing added to the cabin and outhouse should supplement. not replace the existing structure. The HPC may: â€¢ approve the application, â€¢ approve the application with conditions, â€¢ disapprove the application, or â€¢ continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the application be granted Final approval. with the following conditions (along with standard conditions of approval listed in the resolution): 1. The siding and roofing material on the maintenance building are to be wood or asphall rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. 2. Some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. 3. Aspen trees should not be planted around the maintenance building. Exhibits: Resolution #_, Series of 2010 A. Relevant I WC Design Guidelines B. 1-IPC Minutes of January 9,2008. June ll, 2008, and December 10,2008 C. Application 5 .. "Exhibit A: Relevant 1)esign Guidelines for Red Butte Cemetery, Final Review" 1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. u Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of damaged. aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department. u If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project. 1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs. u Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged. 1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context of the site. Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term impact of mature growth. Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent. Do not cover grassy areas with gravel. rock or paving materials. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. u Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glare onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. u Materials that appear similar in scale and finish to those used historically on the site are encouraged. u Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. u Roof materials should have a matte, lion-reflective finish. 11.9 Lise building components that are similar in si,.e and shape to those of the historic property. u These include windows, doors and porches. u Overall. details should be modest in character. 11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. rhis blurs the distinction between old and new buildings. Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history are especially discouraged on historic sites. 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. u The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the I IPC. u All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimin the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. u Unshielded. high intensity light sources and those which direct light upward will not be permitted. u Shield lighting associated with service areas. parking lots and parking structures. u Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources ot light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights are in use late at night. u Do not wash an entire building facade in light. 6 CC CC L .. u Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. u Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. 3 Prevent glare onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sources that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade. or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. u Lighting shall be carefully located so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of-way. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than live cars.) Consider using a fence. hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. 7 CC EC .. A RESOLUTION OF THE. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY, 808 CEMETERY LANE, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 611' P.M., CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN. RESOLUTION NO. , SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, has requested Major Development (Final) for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery th Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12. Township 10 South. Range 85 West ofthe 6 P,M.. City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be crected. constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the LIPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the projects conformance with the City of Aspen 1 listoric Preservation I)esign Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The 1-1PC may approve, disapprove. approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny: and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 24.2010. performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen 1 listoric Preservation Design Guidelines were met and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 24, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and 'City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of to NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1IPC hereby grants Major Development (Final) approval for a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane. a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City and lownsite of Aspen, with the following conditions: 1. The siding and roofing material on the maintenance building are to be wood or asphalt, rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. .. 2. Some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. 3. Aspen trees should not be planted around the maintenance building. 4. 1 here shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by I IPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 5. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of a development order. I lowever. any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested properly rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein. within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested properly rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the .jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation o f a vested properly right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation ofa vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years. pursuant to the I.and lise Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68. Colorado Revised Statutes. pertaining to the following described property: Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen I Iome Rule Charter. .. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24th day of February, 2010. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 4 fÂ£,1 \L A- 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 Affidavit of posting - Exhibit III Alan Richmond stated that the hearing tonight is focused on the compliance of this project with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. We have not submitted an application for rezoning which is handled by Planning & Zoning. John Tharp said the cemetery was incorporated in the late 1 800's and is governed by a volunteer board. The intent is to create and preserve a service in Aspen for a cemetery. We have a need for a maintenance facility. At this point we are operating out of a temporary tent that doesn't have power, light or water or a restroom. It is inadequate to maintain our equipment and to provide a place for the maintenance of the cemetery to take place. The second issue is housing for the cemetery manager. The manager needs to understand the mapping and plotting of the cemetery and manage that in terms of record keeping and deal with the public in terms of plot sales and mortuary services. He also handles the excavation when necessary and the monument companies. The City forester mapped and inventoried and devised a program to monitor the 200 plus mature cotton wood trees with the manager. This has to be done twice a year, The manager has been with us for over 20 years. Even with all there is to do it doesn't comprise a full time job in terms o f income for the manager. He is available at all hours but in the winter he gets a second job. We fell it is instrumental for us to have a housing unit to maintain continuity with our management. Grame Means, architect explained that the site is 17 acres. Most of the cemetery proper is not seen from the road. Most of the site is R-15a or b. There are residential lots on the south, west and north. There is a bank on the east that goes to Castle Creek. The cemetery is somewhat divided into two different parts, the southern part that is developed with burial plots and there are a distinctive row mature cottonwood trees that run along and a system o f ditches. It is the most distinctive aspect of the cemetery. On the northern portion there is a temporary maintenance structure and it is largely not maintained. In the southern portion there is a cabin 12x 17 in good shape. Our intention is to restore that in place. There is also a 5x 10 out house that sits to the north. We also intend to restore the out house and move it ten feet and reorient it away from the burial plots. 5 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 In the northern portion we are proposing to put a maintenance facility/caretaker unit located approximately in the center. The site selected lets the existing historical part of the cemetery to remain relatively un- impacted by the development and it also gives a buffer from the residential lots on the north and west. There is a three car maintenance facility, small office and then a residential unit. All three components comprise less than 3,000 square feet. The access comes along an existing dirt road. There is a sage meadow to the north. There is approximately 200 feet from the property line to the building. The building is as low as possible and broken up into three pieces. Alan Richmond said Aspen is very fortunate to have a cemetery established on a site that is 17 acres within the City limits that has considerable capacity remaining. The upper valley is very unlikely to create a site for a cemetery in the future. Aspen needs to make the best effective use of the cemetery that it has so that we remain a real community, a place where you are born and a place where you can rest at the end of your days. Despite the designation on the city zoning map the cemetery is not a city owned park it is owned by the cemetery association for more than 100 years. The association needs a place for maintenance equipment and for the caretaker who maintains the site. Having a maintenance facility is fundamental to maintaining the historic character of this site that we all treasure. We have contacted the streets and parks department to see if there was any room in those facilities. There is no room for our equipment so we feel it is an absolute necessity for this facility to be placed on the site for the future needs of the cemetery. Having housing for a caretaker is critical to the association to retain a trained employee for the cemetery. It was nice for the neighbors to suggest that the association ought to get the use of one of the city's housing units but we don't have priority in the lottery system and frankly we do not want to compete with any other employees in this community who are in desperate need of housing. We can provide housing for our own employee. The site plan minimizes the impacts of the new building on the historic character of the cemetery. We have had several meetings with the neighbors to come to a meeting of the minds. We will create distance and separation from the neighboring houses to the north and the facility will not be in their back yard. In staff's memo it was suggested that we move the facility up to the northwest corner of the property, We feel that is inappropri ate and in conflict with the conversations that we had with the neighbors and we would like to be consistent with the representations that we made about minimizing our impacts with the neighbors. The 6 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 building is one story with very simple forms. The equipment stored outside is a visual eye sore and the facility will eliminate storing equipment outside. When we reviewed the project in August with the HPC the board was highly supportive of the location and design of the building. Amy stated that there are three cemeteries in town, the Ute Cemetery that is owned by the city and hasn't been active since the 1930's. About three or four years ago the City received grant funds and we.used some of our own funds to do a substantial project and every stone on the site was restored. It costs $100,000 for the 75 stones and they were carefully put back to their original condition. The second cemetery was Aspen Grove and it is similar in size to Red Butte and actively used now. It is managed by a non-profit board and recently the City has done an outreach to that group. They have trees that are falling over that have hit the grave markers. They have an aging group of people sitting on the board and they are trying to do the best they can with the site and the City has gotten involved by sponsoring grant applications. We will do a planning effort for how the site can be managed and restored and the Parks Department will be involved in some level. in terms of the Red Butte the City has not been asked for a significant amount of help but the City Forester has been on the site inventorying the trees. Part of staff's approach to this entire application is that we want to help. There are approximately 2800 grave sites with markers and 200 large trees. This project will serve as an ongoing need for the community for years and years. When I first met with the applicants on this topic the caretaker unit was mentioned and at the staff meeting we talked about transfer development rights. Selling TDR's could build and endowment to deal with the long term costs. This might come up down the road when rezoning is pursued. Getting specifically to the application we are not here to discuss whether there should be a residential use, that is for City Council to determine. I f HPC has ideas how impacts could be mitigated that is specifically HPC'sjob. Staff brought up a few things. Placing the building as they have does put it in a rather exposed location. Staff is not sure if it is appropriate to change the planting pattern. Perhaps as the cemetery grows we should continue to have the rows of cottonwoods. 1 f the building where put in the northwest corner of the site where the backdrop is existing residential development, it would lessen some of the concerns. Access to the building wherever it is is important. There is no intention to pave the gravel roadways which is great because that would be a negative impact on the landscape. One of the other comments at the work session 7 - 0 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 was whether the building could be broken up into pieces instead of being one structure. If it were broken up it would fit into the cemetery context better. To the extent that there are parking areas those would need to be screened and sensitively placed that they weren't any more visible from the users of the cemetery than necessary. Architecture of the new building. Staff made a suggestion that something more of a vemacular form with a gable roof would be more appropriate on the site. The cabin that exists does have a gable form and a shed form. In terms of being in context with the period of significance the 19th century and early 20th century it might be a good idea to reflect back on what forms of the building would be appropriate. Staff certainly supports the restoration work proposed for the cabin and out house. Regarding the relocation of the out house we normaliy do not like to move buildings when there is no pressing reason to but the out house is close to some graves and that should be taken into consideration. Staff still feels that the out house should not be relocated. Someone made the decision earlier on that it would be an inappropriate relationship, but it is part of the history. Staff is recommending continuation. Questions and clarifications: Sarah asked i f the proposed development impact the future plots. Grame said they think the out house was built around 1920. The northern part of the property will have the same pattern as the southern in future years. It is plotted out on paper. There is an existing road and the proposed development will be on one side of the road. We intend to maintain the sage brush and we will get a landscape architect on board. Alan pointed out that a Parks Zone district allows a park maintenance faci}ity. Sarah inquired about the height of the proposed building. Graeme said it is a little less than 17 feet at the peak. Most of it is lower than that. Alison asked where the closest grave site is to the out house. Grame said around 2 1/2 feet away but the sites are not occupied. John Tharp said occupied sites are around 15 feet away. Alison said with the existing zoning only the maintenance facility can be approved. Amy said it is important for the HPC to be evaluating how and where any new structures can be 8 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 accommodated on the site. An office facility could be an accessory use. The only thing not completely locked in is the residential component. Alison asked ifthere was additional room on the south end by the shed and out house for another building. Grame said the shed is within ten feet of the property line. If we added a building we would be impacting the historic structures. Ann asked what kind of approval process occurred with the existing maintenance facility. John Tharp said they had no approval process. A slab was poured and the shed was temporary and the Building Dept. said OK. That is as far as it went and that was about six years ago. The intent was always to put something permanent on the site. Brian asked staff what HPC's role is regarding the site. Amy said HPC needs to confirm that the project is in conformance with the guidelines and if not what can be done to get it in compliance. For example i f a road was to be paved that would impact the site etc. Another example would be the residential component and possibly it would need to be broken down into smaller pieces. Jay asked i f the roads are cleared during the winter. If someone lives there how will that impact the site? John Tharp said the perimeter road is kept open. John said there would not be additional plowing due to the residential unit. Michael asked when the property was landmarked. Amy said around 1995. Michael also asked if there were any documents specific to the designation. Amy said there is an inventory form and ten years ago the city did a study on all three of the cemeteries regarding maintenance issues and identified all the grave stones. Michael asked staff why this property is designated. Amy said it is one of the three cemeteries in town and it has an important native landscape and is much more formal than the other two cemeteries. It is an outdoor museum and there are beautiful sculptures on the site documenting the history of the community. Chairperson, Michael IIoffman opened the public hearing, Letters not in support - Exhibit II Howie Malory, resident on Snowbunny Lane. 9 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 Howie said Red Butte Cemetery was zoned park approximately 30 years ago when the city did a major rezoning. At the same time the City created a conservation zone and specifically excluded the Red Butte Cemetery. The conservation zone was created largely with the intent to allow open spaces that had development potential to still be protected as open space but without creating the issue of takings that certain development potential was allow in the conservation zone properties, namely a single family residence. It is important to remember the history that the cemetery 30 years ago was designated park and not conservation. It was not the intent at that time to create any development activity in the cemetery beyond the maintenance facilities. I IPC has an implicit responsibility over any historically designated property in the city to maintain the historic condition. HPC has to be able to say how this property is going to be maintained and retain the historic values of the property. This application effort has shown that the HPC probably doesn't have a strong set of guidelines as you might need to have to deal with historic grounds cape changes. There are guidelines that nationally exist and have been developed as the result of other communities that had historic cemeteries. The activity level in the cemetery is rather low. There are approximately 12 burials a year. The cemetery has huge operational problems. The request for housing on this property is inappropriate. The housing authority should be approached to establish a priority for housing for an employee who handles the operation o f the cemetery. IIPC could support the housing authority. I IPC needs to establish a series of guidelines that deal with historic landscapes and until HPC is comfortable with the potential zoning change when this property becomes delisted as an historic park that you table this item. Jesse Boyce said he js on both city and county open space boards. Every day we are under pressure of a wonderful idea that would nibble away at our open space and we have to defend ourselves against that. Employee housing should be sought elsewhere for the cemetery. It is crucial that we do not loose sight that the site is a park. What would happen if we put a maintenance shed or housing in Wagner Park? The cemetery has been there for 100 years and we have gotten this far without needing this elaborate structure. I understand the need for a maintenance shed but the residential unit is really pushing the envelope. 10 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 John Callahan, said he lives near the cemetery. Right now there is a Quonset hut with a piece of canvas hanging over it and people have to work there. There is nothing wrong with the building going up and giving the caretaker a better place to live. It is called for and we are helping the people that maintain the cemetery. Carolyn Cerise said she has lived in her house for over 50 years. She is in support of the housing and it is situated in a place that does not impact many people. It is certainly something that is needed and they do a great job taking care of the cemetery. Keith Gardner said he has lived here for 30 years. The whole thing is a cemetery and it is one parcel. The idea ofputting a caretaker unit in is egregious because there is no access to this building. Access would have to be made through the cemetery adjacent to graves. This would occur for all domestic purposes, daily trips to and from the house. There would also be normal social activities and kids playing, Margo Gubser Gardner pointed out one aspect and that is many people come to the cemetery to visit graves and meditate and they appreciate the quiet sanctuary. Jamie Stake said he lives on Cemetery lane and his back parcel comes to within 120 feet of the cemetery. Jamie said he is for the proposal and it is important that they have enough storage to keep the maintenance going on in the cemetery. Stony Davis said he is on the board and this cemetery is operating and functional. Even though it is zoned park it is not a park. If you want the cemetery to remain as is, it needs maintenance and has to have someone to look over it. Shane Evan said the HPC needs to think long and hard about the precedence you are setting by allowing employee housing on the site. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public heanng. Sarah asked where the maintenance vehicles come from. John said some are on the property but when excavation is needed we contract that out and they 11 . 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 store the equipment on the property until after the service is over then come back and fill and take their equipment away. Jay asked how long the caretaker takes care of the property. John said it is mostly seasonal. Spring, summer and fall he is on the property daily. In the winter he answers daily requests on the phone. He identifies the plot and oversees the excavation. He is on-call everyday. Ann commented that I IPC really lacks guidelines for historical and cultural sites. On the list there are only 9 out of 300 on the inventory. In the meantime we need to go with our experience and knowledge on the importance o f a cemetery to a community and apply that to the goal of protecting the historic resource. Michael said the discussion should be "is the proposal consistent with what is historic". Jay said the question to him is the new use of the historic site and if it is appropriate. Is it appropriate to put a dwelling on it for a family to live in? The big concern is the effect of having someone living on that property 24/7 and how that will affect the historical integrity of the cemetery itself The public is also concerned. There is a need for the maintenance facility. Over 100 years the cemetery has been kept up very well and over the next 100 years how much more maintenance is actually going to be necessary to continue to keep it in the state that it is currently. The use of the land and preserving what we have now and how the use will change, and how that will effect preservation should be addressed. Ann pointed out that cemeteries become an important resource for communities. They reflect the cultural value and artistic talents and ethnic groups in the community. Red Butte seems unchanged for the last 100 years. It is important to keep that intact. In the west cemeteries, are disappearing rapidly. This cemetery has a definite pattern of landscape. Widdling away of parks is occurring in this valley and across the US. That is another threat to the historic use. The landscape has the beautiful cotton trees and sage meadows which would be impacted dramatically by building a large structure. We have this treasure in town and why not keep it as is, not modify it with this new development. 12 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 Sarah said this is very difficult. In the pattern of development how is it foreseen to grow and how does the structure affect the historic nature of the property as a cemetery. If it is seen that the structure does not historically affect this as a cemetery then is the proposed structure in the appropriate location. There are two different issues, maintenance and housing and they should be separated. In the work session possibly the zoning wasn't picked up. Typically you have maintenance facilities in cemeteries; it is part of the function of the cemetery. Jay said the current zoning allows for a maintenance facility to be put on the property. Where it goes should be addressed and we also need to consider the residential component. Michael said the first question is whether a maintenance/residential structure appropriate for this particular parcel of land. Jay said they should be separated according to the zoning regulations. Michael asked what was considered when the property was designated and what is in the records. Sarah said we are being asked to accept change and to look into the future and this is a difficult position to be in. Ann said she sees this as the HPC is here to protect the historic resource and this development is inappropriate and detrimental to the cemetery. Michael also said he hears the City telling us that we need to help these people because the cemetery could fall into disrepair and would need further financial assistance. Those are values that should be considered as well. Conclusion: The board felt that the maintenance facility and the residence should be separated out. Alison said we can clearly see the necessity for the maintenance facility. They need the storage to keep the cemetery at the level of maintenance where it is at right now. We need to be imaginative and help find the best location for that portion of the program. It is interesting that the residential component would increase traffic. Brian agreed that the maintenance and housing component should be separated. The board needs more information in order to make a decision. 13 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9,2008 Michae] suggested that staff come back with the materials requested and that the board looks at the National Park Service criteria for historic landscapes and that we get good examples of other municipalities that have adopted guidelines and the board will meld everything together. Amy brought up the idea o f adding onto the cabin to make a studio or one bedroom. Is that a direction that HPC is willing to look at? Alison said if you are going to restore the cabin then it seems that you could do more and add a bathroom and help alleviate having such a large structure on the north end. Jay said they are restoring the structure and it would make sense to give it a use. When you say caretaker unit I think of something very different than a two bedroom home. Graeme said that site is extremely constricted. The cabin is about 12 feet from the properly line. There is a road right there and burial plots and a bank. It is so small that it wouldn't even work for an office. If you added a bathroom and bedroom you would overwhelm the historic cabin. You would also have setback issues. Amy said the inventory form will be brief and it was designated with a lump of other properties and there was no lengthy discussion. Council just accepted staff' s recommendation that there was historic value. We can provide you with the Secretary of Interior's standards. Amy said she can research how other communities have dealt with something like this. Sarah suggested that the applicant show the proposed structure on the overall site plan. Sarah also asked the applicant to look at reducing the size of the residential unit and address the issue of traffic. Possibly look at the residential unit being at the entrance. Sarah also said she feels the proposed site is appropriate. In addition it was recommended that the applicant look at other historic cemeteries and how they deal with these issues. Amy reminded the board that this is the typical chain of events when you have a larger project that is multiple steps. Landmark sites always start at 11PC, It doesn't make sense for the applicant to go to council to see if they can have a residential site when HPC and the guidelines might not tolerate a building of that size. 14 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 1MINUTES OF.JANUARY 9,2008 Alan said the zoning for this property has been in place for 33 years and it was done in 1975. A lot of the zoning that was implemented in 1975 has been found to be faulty and has been changed. All the lodges up and down Main Street were zoned non-conforming and that was a mistake. It was rectified by the City in the 1980's and 90's. The Ute Cemetery is zoned public and Aspen Grove Cemetery is zoned R-15. John Tharp said Aspen is truly unique in our employee base problem. Because of the cost of real estate and housing it is a powerful incentive to keep a long term eniployee. MOTION: Brian moved to continue the public hearing on the Red Butte A Cemetery until February 27 : second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Â£1 01-jc,4.Â£62- Â· 1595141/31f Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 15 0 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin and Nora Berko and Sarah Broughton. Brian McNellis was excused. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of May 14' 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Chairperson Michael Hoffman read a poem in memory of David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney who recently passed away. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on the Red Butte Cemetery Michael will recuse himself on 300 S. Spring and the Red Onion Sarah will recuse hersel f the Red Onion John Worcester asked the board members to state their reasons for recusing themselves. The board has an obligation to vote on every matter that comes before them. Michael said on 300 S. Spring he did work on that particular project with the current owner. The Red Onion is being represented by his Current employer. Nora said she received a public notice on the Red Butte Cemetery case. Red Butte Cemetery - 808 Cemetery Lane Nora recused herself. Exhibit I - letters and e-mails Amy stated that a site visit was conducted at NOON to look at the stakes for the proposed building and look at the historic cottage on the site. The project for review is conceptual review and on-site relocation for a small Victorian outhouse on the site. As background information this property is zoned park which allows for a maintenance accessory building. A residential building is not an allowed use. As the application goes forward 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11,2008 the association could go forward with some kind ofrezoning that encompasses all of their program on the property. Transfer development rights might be something that could happen in the future. There are 2,800 grave markers as opposed to Ute Cemetery which has about 100. The maintenance and caretaking of this property is extensive. HPC's role is to make sure the project complies with the guidelines. At the last meeting HPC recommended that the maintenance facility and caretaker unit be physically separated. A single 3,000 square foot building in the meadow is perhaps too large as there is nothing else in the meadow. From the site visit staff still feels there could be a small unit in the miners cabin with some kind of addition but that is something that the association does not want to entertain. The applicant would like to focus on what is the best site plan and best location for the facility on the property. In the staffmemo we talked about two ways that this could be accommodated; one, build a structure with a vernacular out building barn type style perhaps that feels like a natural fit on the property. Another would be to conceal the new building by lowering it in the grade and use vegetation. Staff feels the building should be built to scale. We are still of the opinion that the building needs to be a smaller size and the architecture needs further refinement to be appropriate under the historic guidelines. Staff recommends continuation of the hearing. Alan Richmond, planner for the project. Alan pointed out that five members of the association are here tonight. Grame Means is the project architect. Alan said once the applicant gets through conceptual development they will prepare a land use application for Planning & Zoning and Council and we will address the zoning issues. The cemetery is designated historic because it is an historic landscape. The question first is should any development be allowed in the cemetery and i f so where on the property should it occur. The cemetery is green and the water is flowing in the ditches and the sites are well manicured. All of that requires on-going maintenance. In the last several years the association has increased its focus on taking care of the cemetery and they have acquired additional equipment. The equipment is stored in the depilated shed which has no heat. The association prepared the application because it needs a modern facility to keep the cemetery maintained in a healthy status and maintain the historic landscape. The association needs housing to maintain an employee long term. The position requires knowledge and experience of where the plots are etc. It was suggested that equipment be stored at the Parks Department and that we 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 go to the housing authority to house the employee. The Parks Department has no space for the equipment and Tom McCabe from the Housing Department said there would be no priority for the association in the housing lottery system. If the HPC agrees with the proposal then we need to decide whether the placement is appropriate on the property. Alan explained that the cemetery is more than 1200 feet in length and it is about 6 or 700 feet in width. The entire site is 17 acres. The building is proposed to be located about 1000 feet from the front entrance. It is rather hard to see the proposed site from the front of the property. There are very few places within the cemetery that you would see the building. We feel the site chosen is the preferred location that respects the historic landscape. The facilities were intended to be temporary and they need to be replaced. The rear portion of the property is about half the property and it is over 8 acres in size which translates to 360 thousand square feet. We are talking about a building that would be less than 3,000 square feet. 3,000 square feet on 360 thousand square feet is a floor area ratio less than 0.01. The last statement that supports this location is that the location is already disturbed. lt is not pristine. Graeme Means, architect pointed out that the property is rectangular and it is approximately 18 acres and the entrance is off Cemetery Lane. The southern portion of the site is occupied by burial sites and the northern portion is undeveloped and does not have significant vegetation on it. On the north is where the temporary piles ofdirt are located. That area has been disturbed. 1n determining the facility we wanted the development in the disturbed part and we desire to keep it as far from the neighbors. The building is over 200 feet from the northern neighbors and over 300 feet from the western neighbors. The same landscape of cottonwoods and grave sites would move north over time. The shop facility is 45 feet wide and 28 feet deep. The caretaker unit has a very small office inside. There are two shed roof shaped structures with a flat roof on the living unit. There is also a spoils pile and we will save the sage meadow as it provides a buffer. When the site issue is figured out we will get a landscape architect. The proposal for screening is to use the native materials that are present; cotton woods, sage and service berry bushes. By using the natural vegetation we can screen parts of the building. We are trying to keep the building as low as possible. On the southeast corner there is an existing cabin. We will restore the cabin and keep it in the same location. There is also an existing out house that sits within six feet ofplotted grave sites that is proposed to be move slightly. 4 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Jay asked i f the people who purchased the plots around the proposed area where notified. John Thorp said the plots are reserved but they are not purchased. They purchase them as they can afford it. Alison asked if the original maps show the continuation of the cemetery. John Thorp said the northern portion does not show the continuation of the plots. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Michael pointed out to the public that the HPC is not involved with the rezoning issues of the property. Joe Porter, 1270 Snowbunny Lane. Joe said he is a landscape architect and owned Design Workshop then sold it. I have worked on these kinds of issues in the community for a long time. We appreciate the stewardship of the cemetery and they have done a wonderful job in maintaining the cemetery. The proposed solution is out of scale with the problem. Having a single family residence in a cemetery is not consistent with the historic character of the cemetery. The next issue is what is historic. The entire cemetery property is designated an historic landmark site. City staff is in the process of writing landscape guidelines. 1n our cultural landscape it is very difficult to identify guidelines that cover a particular area because they are all different areas. In the proposed guidelines they have an area called cultural landscapes. The meadow is very important as it is the connection to the Aspen Meadows and Castle Creek. HPC should take the time and have the area inventoried and develop appropriate standards for the management o f that area. The maintenance facility is a need. The issue is location, size and the design. I would suggest that it not be any larger than it has to be. Putting the facility in the corner would keep it from sprawling. Whatever is here needs to be approved in the overall context of a plan that recognized cultural landscape resources. The package should include a landscape, restoration management plan. This is a community resource and the community should help and participate with the association. Don Erdman, architect said he has two issues. I need to know what the cemetery is going to look like in the future. The vehicular tracks in the Red 5 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Butte Cemetery are basically vegetated and not hard cape. I am worried about any kind of structure involving housing in the interior of the cemetery. Eventually it will require hard cape and that is not appropriate. I think further exploration of the southeast corner should happen. I f it becomes inevitable that a dwelling has to be built this cemetery has a lot of land that is on a slope. Aspen is building structures every day on deep slopes. lf something has to be built in a smaller footprint it should occur at the edge of the bank. If you dropped five feet in an area one would only see a small portion of the roof. Exhibit F Tara's summary was attached to Amy Guthrie's memo. Tara Shaw, architect presented an ecological summary on behalf of the neighbors detailing the cultural ecological characteristics that distinguish the Red Butte Cemetery as an historic landscape. Tara said she is concerned about the lack of care on the north portion, the meadows. The size proposed for the maintenance facility needs to be reduced. It is highly recommended that a land management plan for the north meadow be implemented prior to making any decisions for the location of a maintenance facility. Tony Vagneur, member of the cemetery board. Tony pointed out that four generations are buried at that cemetery. The cemetery is a living breathing place. It provides historical and cultural perspectives and a quiet atmosphere. The main purpose is to house deceased people. Full time care is necessary and proper in order to take care of the cemetery and the 2,800 markers. A maintenance facility and caretaker unit is necessary to continue to take care of this property for the next 100 years. Maryann Altfeld said she lives on the boarder o f the cemetery and has a direct view. The shed has a pickup truck in it, not cemetery equipment and two pieces of equipment parked outside. I have seen no more than two pieces of equipment. I have doubts about the amount of storage that is needed at the cemetery. Jane Harris said she is a native aspenite and went to school with Shay Stutzman who came back to Aspen to help run his father's company. I am curious to see if anyone has asked if they are going to continue servicing the cemetery. Pip Porter who also resides at 1270 Snowbunny Lane said she has two issues; one, the necessity of the impact of the housing and the disconnect 6 - 0 0 - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11,2008 between the north and south portion o f the cemetery. The northern part of the cemetery is a decimation. It was a beautiful meadow with sage and now it is a junk pile. The northern meadow deserves as much recognition as the southern meadow. They are both historic and they are only different in how they have been developed. Pip also pointed out that those who live in the proposed housing will have BBQ's, and children's playground equipment etc. Housing on the site is not appropriate. Leo Baraby, neighbor. Leo pointed out that the association has been great neighbors over the years and we want to stand behind the proposal 100%. I f the employee has a party some time I hope they invite me to it. Stony Davis pointed out that the natives who built near the cemetery tore up the native sage brush which is just as historic as the cemetery grounds. John Thorp explained what entails with regard to the maintenance of the cemetery. He also said their employee is emotionally involved with the cemetery and this application is predicated on the housing component. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Alison said as a suggestion we might want to require a management plan for the cemetery that outlines circulation and future vegetation. Sarah said we need to apply our guidelines as best we can. Michael said the first question is do we want any development on this site. Ann said the property is historic because of the age of the property but it also moves into the cultural aspect. Historically cemeteries have been used or designed as public open spaces. I see Red Butte as a community asset. Building any kind of structure other than a maintenance facility would have enormous impacts such as traffic and the uses associated with a residence. The fact that the location is at the end of the cemetery any deliveries or services would have to drive through the cemetery to get there. The landscape plan around the residence would be an impact. Alison said the community around the cemetery has changed and therefore the issue of maintenance has changed. Alison said she does not support the 3,000 square foot structure as proposed. I f the association board where 7 -- 0 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 willing to look at putting a structure at the south east corner she could support that. A small caretaker unit could be put at that south east corner as there was activity there before. Sarah concurred with Alison' s comments. The issue comes down to the access and how that relates back to our guidelines. As the access is pushed back and there are daily trips to the development it would be hard to tie that into our guidelines. Sarah said she could support development in the south east corner. Historically that is where the activity was. Other cemeteries do not have access to their housing through the main cemetery. If we could come to some sort o f solution in the south east corner and keep the development tied in with the already established neighborhood where historically there has been that type of development it would be more appropriate. Jay pointed out that the residence in that part of the cemetery will deteriorate the cemetery at the proposed location. Michael said he agrees that the applicant doesn't address the basic issues. The HPC might approve development but clearly not in the proposed location. Alan asked for clarification on the maintenance building and residence. Alison said she does not support a 3,000 square foot footprint in that area. She is not certain about the maintenance facility. If it could bea lot let obtrusive in the proposed area she might be in favor but then there are the traffic issues. If the caretaker unit was part of the front that would be where the auto traffic was coming in and out. Alan asked for clarification if all the development should go to the south east corner. Michael said the HPC will address the maintenance facility. Jay said if it was just the maintenance facility the HPC could hash it out but since there is a residential component into this location it has created a lot of issues. 8 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Sarah said in terms of the maintenance facility being located to the north of the site I would be open to a revised application as it pertains to Chapter 11 in terms of the architectural character particularly guideline 11.3 and 11.5. Michael said the access issues are a big concern as it relates to the proposed housing unit and a large number of individuals in the community have the same concerns. The board is prepared to deny the application with the proposed affordable housing unit. Alan said he heard that some of the commissioners are interested in moving the housing unit to the front corner in which we have said we have no interest. We need to talk as a team and determine whether it is appropriate to go forward with the maintenance facility or have the commission deny the application etc. Ann said i f they build a residential unit then the property does need to be rezoned to conservation which will allow more adaptive uses in the zoning. That is another reason why I feel there should be no residential unit because the zoning should not be changed. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on the Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane until August 27th; second by Alison. All in favor, motion carried 5-0. 300 South Spring Street - Minor Development Michael recused himself. Sarah Broughton chaired. Nora was seated. Exhibit 1 - public notice Sara said the request is to rotate the existing stairway 90 degrees and reconstruct the stairway. They want to re-orient the stairs. Staff is opposed to the application because it will compromise a potential landmark. The proposal obscures significant architectural features. This building has a spacial relationship. When you walk into the building right now you are forced to interact with the architecture. You also have repeated architectural elements. They are shifting the stairway to the south and you start to loose a lot o f the original building. The proposal to shorten the walkways obscures the original features. Guideline 10.10 is not met. In the application the 9 0 - 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian MeNellis, Sarah Broughton and Nora Berko, Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk nd MOTION: Annmoved toapprove theminutes of Oct. 22 and Nov. 12, 2008: second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. RED BUTTE CEMETERY - CONCEPTUAL AND ON-SITE RELOCATION - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING Nora recused herself. Letter from Howie Malory - Exhibit I E-mail from Philip Altfeld - Exhibit II 2nd letter from Howie Matory - Exhibit Ill Alan Richmond, planning consultant for the Red Butte Cemetery. Four board members were present and introduced: John Thorn, president Tony Vagneur, Stony Davis, Terry Collins. Alan said the original application was submitted Nov. 2007. Since that time two hearings were held. We also had two neighborhood discussions. As a result ofthe meeting we have made significant progress. The design being presented achieves some ofthe associations basic functional needs in order to operate the cemetery and at the same time we have been respectful of our neighbors and sensitive to the natural man made characteristics of the cemetery. The staff conditions are acceptable. We feel we have made significant concessions to make this a project that works for everyone, The greatest resistance was a dwelling unit within the maintenance facility and the resulting scale that would hold those two uses. 1 herefore we have , deleted the dwelling unit from the submission and have scaled back the size of the building. The building proposed is 1200 square feet compared to our original proposal which was 2800 square feet. It has been reduced by more than half of the original proposal. It does mean that a fundamental part of 1 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 our program needs will not be met onsite, but the applicant understands the need for that concession. The size and location of the spoils yard was another concern. Those comments and concerns were understandable because on the site the spoils yard that exists today is not a very well managed area and we recognize that. It creates a negative impression of what the future spoils yard might look like. We feel the new design will create a less visible spoils area. Originally the spoils yard was back behind the building. The back of the spoils yard would only be 125 feet from the property line and visible to the neighbors. What we have done in the current application is flip the spoils yard to the front of the building. With that change we are internalizing the impacts ofthis facility. It doesn't face the neighbors and essentially it all occurs within our work area in front of the building facing the cemetery. We have the opportunity to sink the spoils yard and keep the building at natural grade. The truck turning would occur within the work area and the back of the building is now 175 feet from the property line and neighbors. We feel conceptual should be granted as staff has recommended. The project maintenance facility is an allowed use in this zone district. It is essential to have the facility in order to maintain the burial markers, keep the irrigation system running and to preserve the trees. We would ask I-IPC and our neighbors to think about how much this applicant has compromised during this process. In the beginning it would have been cheaper to propose the building in the very back corner of the cemetery. That is where the utilities are to serve the building, instead we set it back from the neighbors both on the side and from the back. Now we have eliminated the dwelling unit and cut the size in half and we have moved the spoils yard. Several letters sent indicate that the size should be reduced further. The bathroom and warm room in the maintenance facility is a place for the cemetery employee to get out of the cold and use the bathroom instead of running to the end ofthe property. The two maintenance bays do not have standard heating facilities. We are planning over head space heaters which is less costly. The warm room is an area where liquids will be kept for operations. The landscape plan and management plan can be addressed at final. Graeme Means, architect: Graeme went over the proposal. There are residences along the northern and western boundary. There are platted burial plots. The site is not flat and it slopes from the south to the north. It slopes a little over four feet within 130 2 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 feet. The access is from the southern part ofthe cemetery. The entrance of the building faces south. The building is at existing grade. The land slopes up and we are proposing to lower the southern end o f the work yard so that there is a four foot cut and a level work yard. This would also buffer any noise. The dump truck comes in and backs up and dumps and goes back out. We have combined the spoils yard and parking. There is also washing of equipment, repairs, back hoes etc. that will be in the yard. It is our intent to intemalize all the functions. The Victorian cabin remains the same as a visitor center and used quite infrequently, It will be restored on the exterior and remodeled on the interior. We have decided not to move the outhouse. On the architecture we have made the building more of a vernacular architecture. On the materials we have talked about the wall sheathing and roof in a corrugated rusted panel and doing the trim in a dark green. Some of the material taken out we will use to buffer the area. The circulation works better if the building is not set on the grid but Amy is suggesting aligning the building with the grid. There are two work bays with garage doors. The warm room is 9x 18 feet and there is an ADA compliant bathroom. Sarah asked what the height of the ridge line was. Graeme said he thinks it is 17 to 18 feet. Sarah also asked about the surface of the yard. Graeme said it is probably going to be dirt. When we get into the site engineering that might change. Amy said the applicant has already explained some of the needs ofthe cemetery. The city dealt with the Ute Cemetery and probably 1/3 of the grave stones had to be taken off the site to be repaired. It would be nice if they had a shop area where stones could be repaired onsite. Possibly there could be some cooperation where other cemeteries can use or share their equipment. Amy said there is justification for the kind of facility they are proposing. A family who is grieving might need to use the proposed facility. A site management should be a requirement for final and the Parks Department has o ffered assistant in terms of assessing trees and weed management. There is a cemetery expert who the City worked with on Ute UJ . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 - Cemetery who has visited numerous sites. How do you excavate for a grave that has the least impact and what should you communicate to visitors ofthe site. All these are things that the City can continue to work on with the association. Staff wants to support this project as they are a volunteer association. In terms of the architecture and the placement o f the building staff recommends the building is set on natural grade which is the plan and that fill dirt not be brought around the building. We shou[dn't be trying to hide the building because then it doesn't look in context with the rest of the property. It has been mentioned that this is a cultural landscape and in a sense it is because it reflects the history of Aspen and the families and professions and fraternal orders. It is also a design landscape and someone was very careful in laying out the grid ofthe side and the establishment of the cottonwood rows. The suggestion that the cottonwoods be extended is to provide some of the screening that people are interested in and also to encourage that the planting happen now. In one of the letters Joe Porter suggested that there be one pathway leading toward the maintenance building with trees. Maybe that is not the solution but there might be another solution to bring the extension of three across. The history of the site is very grid like and the cottonwoods are an important part of the character of the property. Amy said she noticed on the site plan that the little Victorian buildings are a little askew at the top of the slope and that was probably because they wanted to leave as much space for the grave sites. It would be more in character if it was a little bit oriented to the grid. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman went over the letters and e-mails. Michael said Howie Malory asked for confirmation about rehabilitation of the north of the parcel. John Thorp said they will remove the berms and are moving the spoils piles and at that time would extend the irrigation and do re-vegetation. Michael said Howie Matory's letter talks about a ten year commitment with the City to help fund the meadow restoration and tree management replacement plan. 4 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 John said we have not explored anything with the city except working with the city forester. Allen Richmond said these are points that could be raised in front of city council and the council would have to weigh in they choose to do so. Michael also said in the letter there is a concern from the neighbors that the warm room could be used for some form of housing. John Thorp said that is not our intention. It is not going to be used for housing. Michael said there is also a letter from Joe Porter. He is concerned about the size of the building and the maintenance yard. Alan Richmond said the purpose of the meeting is to demonstrate the need for the building in the size that has been designed. It is down to 1200 square feet on a 17 acre parcel of land. We have brought the building as far south as we can to not impact the neighbors. It is not in our interest to impact the cemetery. Michael said in an e-mail from Philip Altfeld it suggests that maybe there is a revenue source for the cemetery by leasing the maintenance facility. Is there such a plan. Alan said that is preposterous. You don't build a facility to respond to yesterdays needs. We are not coming back to the City to ask for facility after facility. You build a facility to meet today's needs and the realistic needs that the association will need in the near future. They do not want to go through this process again. It is agonizing and expensive for an association that does not have money to spend. We are looking at the needs of the association for the future. Michael said the Altfeld' s also talked about a broken irrigation ditch. John Thorp said they had a water leak in our line that comes from the Marolt property, through Cemetery lane and goes on Castle Creek drive and we fixed it. If they are referring to the far north end of the property our property originally had drainage at the end and it was an irrigated pasture. We have tried to stop the irrigation because as the construction and development goes on the east portion of the north end it blocks offthe ability of runoff to go out there. We are not intentionally irrigating the north end ofthe cemetery. 5 .. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Jay inquired about the bathroom and if there is a shower in it. John said there are a toilet and a basin. Brian said Amy mentioned a facility for people who are visiting the cemetery. Is it the intent to have the bathroom multi use? John Thorp explained that we have not found a need for a public restroom out there. Brian asked for clarification about the trees and if the proposal is to extend them on the grid up to the maintenance building. Amy said the Parks Department suggested the cotton wood trees. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Howie Malory, 1220 Snowbunny lane: The meadow is in the north part of the parcel which includes the berm and rubble piles. The Ouonset hut is also located there. The neighborhood meetings have been very productive in this application. The City parks and forester have also been involved particularly with the cottonwood trees. The cotton wood trees will come down within the next ten to twenty years. Howie pointed out the issues that need raised and clarified. The restoration o f the meadow and cottonwood tree management plan was an attempt to separate the plan from the building itself. It will be difficult to raise money for the building and we don't know when it will be built. We need to know the restoration plan as it could take ten years until the building is built. Howie said he appreciates the applicant stating the warm room will not be used as a residential unit. The present caretaker lives in the southeastern Victorian bldg. summer and winter. He works for the Ski Co. in the winter. Joe Porter, Snowbuny Lane: Joe asked the applicant to take his comments as constructive criticism. Joe suggested that some o f the human functions be moved to the Victorian building. It is time to move forward and a lot of these issues can be conditions of approval. There are two landscapes, one is the existing. I am unclear about what is planned for the north of the property. The restoration plan should include the north meadow. How the 6 - 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 facility fits the land and how it is landscaped will determine ifthe building is part of the meadow landscape. There is probably 150 years of inventory in the cemetery and having cottonwoods down to the facility in 100 years those will need to be taken down. The north meadow should be acknowledged that it will be a cemetery in the future. It should be re-vegetated and maybe the irrigation system should be restored. I disagree with the cottonwood landscape. There are neighbors that are landscape architects that have offered to help and there are IIPC members who are landscape architects. Everyone should get together and determine the long term solution. The north meadow landscape is a very simple solution. Graeme should be left to handle the grading with a monitor. John Thorp stated that they have always said they are not ready to propose a landscaping plan until we got to final. The cottonwoods got discussed because of the City Forester visiting the site. Michael asked the applicant if they could meet with Sara Shaw on the landscaping before they go to city council. John Thorp said they already had a meeting with Sara and she has offered to do some landscape work with us. We can meet anytime. We were not meeting with a landscape firm until the proposal was approved. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Jay asked if the Quonset hut will go away. John said yes. Commissioner comments: Ann stated that the building is acceptable. Ifthe building was placed on the grid it would work much better. The building should be on the natural grade, no berming on the side and use native landscaping. Aesthetically a gravel surface would be much better than dirt. Sarah said she is torn on the orientation of the building on the grid. There could be a precedence not having it on the grid as the building would separate itself from the plots. On the landscaping it is kind of intriguing having the building nestled in that would visually have the cars less obtrusive. Brian said he is not in favor of any berming. If it needs screened the building could be brought down. 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Jay said he is 100% for the facility and it serves a great purpose. There might be more community benefit ifyou choose to help out the other cemetery facilities in town. If you turn the building onto the grid the footprint of the building might have to be increased for the accessibility of turning trucks around. At an angle it might work better. Graeme said the footprint would have to increase somewhat. Jay pointed out that you wouldn't construct a building like this without a heated room and restroom for the workers. I am in full support of this project with Amy's conditions. Michael went over the conditions in the resolutions. 1. Place the maintenance building and work yard at natural grade of below grade. The grading should not create any anomalies in the landscaping. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonally to the historic grid. Brian said he needs to see more details of the entire building in order to determine how it will mesh with the landscape. #2 condition must be resolved at final. Ann pointed out that the overall landscape conservation plan for the cemetery would involve community input. Michael asked Jim lrue if we had authority to ad community input in the resolution. Jim said HPC does not have the authority to require community input but they could ask for volunteer input, Brian said we as board members can volunteer. Amy said you need to see a plan that meets the guidelines but how that plan is developed isn't normally something that we insist on seeing a format. John Thorn said they have talked to Sara Shaw about doing some work. Our idea about landscaping is to screen it for the neighbors and cemetery's benefit however that is best accomplished. 8 . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Brian said a simple sketch is needed that shows what the orientation would look like from Snow bunny Lane and other visible areas where it can be seen. Graeme said we can do a proposal taking in all the comments. 3. Consider screening the building with cottonwood plantings as recommended by the Parks Department. Brian said he is not in favor of the cottonwoods but could defer his judgment until final. Ann also said she feels the cottonwoods are sort of a band aid solution. Right now all the cottonwoods are the same size, If you have the existing row then plant cottonwoods 15 years later it breaks the design landscape of the southern part o f the property. Amy said instead of having one arm you could bring the grid across. Brian commented that this might not be the appropriate time to do that. Michael said on #3 ad make the development of a long term landscape plan as part of the final decision making of this application. Jay said he doesn't feel conceptual approval should hinge on a landscaping plan at final for the entire parcel. Michael said he doesn't see it that way. In the beginning we discussed how inappropriate any kind of development was within the park zone district. This is an opportunity to integrate the concerns of the community. Ann pointed out that we are talking about a landscape management plan where we look at the entire parcel to make it environmental healthy. 4. Delete this condition. 5. For final application, Staff recommends the applicant meet again with the City and other resource to provide HPC with an update on site management plans as described in this memo. Michael said #5 has been changed to: The applicant shall provide a comprehensive landscape management plan for the entire site as part of its final application. 9 0 - --- 0 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 Sarah said the board is undecided about the cottonwoods so that condition should be deleted. All agreed. Brian amended #5. Explore the orientation and screening possibilities of the maintenance facility. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30 for the Red Butte Cemetery as amended by the board; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 334 W. Hallam - monitoring Amy said part of the approval of the fence was that it be completed by Dec. 1. That has not happened. Mr. Conner has been pursuing this. The primary issue is the grade. The grade on the site has been altered, Fence permits are issued from natural grade and it is difficult to determine that. Several things have been recommended. Monitor: Michael will be the monitor. 601 W. Hallam - work session - no minutes MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second by Brian. All in favor, motion carri.ed. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 7< 2{ ~A f lfÂ« ff~ft L te.-41, FL--1/1.Â·.-'# Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk U...' 10 rj Land Use Application ~ . RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2010 THE Crrf OF ASPEN CITY OF ASPEN PROJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ Name: te,0 84 Â·jkl CQ~--1.4tÂ·--1 F-*v.~A\ Dtvtxo ,_â‚¬1 fL-- Location: 9 09 Le-Â£ 4.1 L,-c Re/7-% 0 9 Up U (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) Dl 16 S \030 0095 , APPLICANT: Name: Q-4,0 4442. Ct.-c.\241 Al;$Â° t"-ke.% Address: Q ' 0 ~ 0 > Â»INA <4 4 A-, r._ C. 9, c & 1 2 Phone # 42 4 - 0~193 Fax#: E-mail: . REPRESENTATIVE: Name: ACA- LAA.- ?L --,7 2*:A,JLU, Address: â‚¬>44 3(0,3 4.,r- Co 9\.6 c. Phone=: 77.0 \VLY Fax#: 1 46-'.- E-man: fUL,.'-~--~- 12_ 4 e ~ A..,. 44.t TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please cheek all that apply): 0 Historic Designation E Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) 2 Certificate of No Negative Effect 2 Demolition (total demolition) Ceitificate of Appropriateness E Historic Landmark Lot Split -Minor Historic Development -Major Historic Development -Conceptual Historic Development -Final Historic Development E -Substantial Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals. etc.) Sct. 4-jl Â».U \/11-- PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications: etc.) ki 4 44& lt\L Un .44,* Eie4.,a* PL# se:<e" .r â‚¬. 86.13 Aa,Â»t. eolawda %1612 Pute/74Â¥ (970)920- 1125 4.24*A,44*%44#Aid.Ket January 28, 2010 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department -Nk>t 130 South Galena Street 6447 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Amy, This letter and the attached exhibits and graphic materials represent the application for final review of the proposed development of a new maintenance facility and the restoration of a historic cabin and out house at the Red Butte Cemetery. The Red Butte Cemetery consists of approximately 16.8 acres of land. The Cemetery is zoned Park (P) and is a designated historic landmark (H). The property's street address is 808 Cemetery Lane. Its Pitkin County Parcel ID# is 273512200851. The owner of the property is the Red Butte Cemetery Association, a Corporation (hereinafter, "the applicant"), which obtained a deed to the property in 1899. Proof of the ownership of the property and a legal description of the property are provided by Exhibit #1, a Certificate of Ownership provided by Pitkin County Title, Inc. A letter from the Association authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, to submit this application is provided as Exhibit #2. The applicant received conceptual approval from the Historic Preservation Commission for the proposed development pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008 on December 10, 2008 (see Exhibit #3). The applicant then submitted a land use application for the project, which received approval from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 21, 2009. City Council granted the project its final land use approvals pursuant to Ordinance 21, Series of 2009 on October 26,2009 (see Exhibit #4). The purpose of this final application to HPC is to provide responses to each of the conditions established by HPC in its conceptual review and to submit the detailed drawings and other information necessary for HPC to complete its final review of the development program. Following is a summary of the drawings and other information being provided as part of this application. .. Ms. Amy Guthrie January 28, 2010 Page Two Summary of Final Submission The final submission consists of an 8 sheet drawing set, along with a set of cut sheets that provide details regarding the proposed materials, as follows: Sheet 1 is the proposed Site Plan. The Site Plan has not changed from that previously approved at the conceptual level. The activity envelope, work yard, spoils cribs and maintenance building footprint and configuration are essentially identical to what was previously approved by the HPC. The activity envelope was approved to be located in the undeveloped northeastern portion of the 17 acre site by the HPC, P&Z and City Council to avoid impacts to the grave sites, landscaping and character of the established portion of the Cemetery while still maintaining an adequate separation from neighboring properties. The envelope contains a short entry drive, spoils cribs, work yard/parking area, underground utilities, vegetative planting, and the building itself. Sheet 2 is the proposed Activity Envelope Plan, which also has not changed from the previous submittal. The topography of the proposed envelope drops approximately four feet in grade from south to north. The building is located at the north end with the slab floor located approximately at existing grade. The spoils cribs are located at approximately the same elevation at the south end of the Envelope. They are thus depressed about 4 feet below existing grade and enclosed in a treated timber retaining system. The work yard lies between the building and the spoils cribs. Sheets 3-6 provide the floor plan, elevations and architectural details for the maintenance facility. The building footprint, size, and massing were approved at the conceptual review and have not changed. The building contains 1,280 square feet and is 19 feet high measured from the floor slab to the peak of the roof, with sloping roofs which relate to the historical context. The roofing, siding and exterior trim are specified as rusted, corrugated metal panels and trim profiles. We believe this to be an appropriate choice for numerous reasons. The rusted finish presents a natural appearance and blends well with the background which reduces the visual impact of the building. The metal panels are an appropriate utilitarian response to the maintenance use of the building. They respond to the applicant's desire for a low cost and low maintenance material. The metal panels span the generations in that they were commonly used in Aspen's past and are also a part of our modern palette of materials. The brown colored metal cladding of the garage doors, man door and windows compliment the metal panels in a way that maintains the unobtrusive nature of the building. The man door and the light fixture will be painted red to add a measure of vitality to the south elevation. .. Ms. Amy Guthrie January 28, 2010 Page Three The windows and garage doors have been designed to be utilitarian in character as befits this type of building. Each unit has been kept small to reduce light spillage at night while supplying the necessary day lighting and ventilation for the interior spaces. The standard dome on gooseneck bracket light fixture above the garage door is contextual with the utilitarian nature of the building, will comply with both the residential and commercial lighting standards, and will be maximum 12 feet above grade. We believe that these finish materials and colors comply with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Chapter 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10 which require building components that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic property. Sheet 7 is the Landscape Plan, which has been developed as a collaboration between the applicant's design team and Sarah Shaw, Landscape Architect, who represents a group of several neighboring homeowners. The grading plan has not changed significantly since conceptual approval and still incorporates the concept of a gradual rise in elevation as one approaches the building from the west. The applicant has been careful to avoid the appearance of an anomaly in the topography as set out in Condition 1 of the HPC conceptual approval. The intention of this grading is to give the impression of rooting the building into the landscape and also partially shielding the building and activities from the perspective of both visitors to the cemetery and surrounding neighbors. The landscape plan depicts the plans for providing vegetative screening immediately around the planned maintenance facility and for restoring disturbed areas within the activity envelope. The primary planting materials shown on the landscape plan are serviceberry, gambel oak, and aspen trees, to be installed in clumps along the west and north sides of the building and around the proposed work yard. Native seed mix will provide ground cover between these clumps and in other areas disturbed by development. Trees will receive drip irrigation for the first three years and other areas will receive spray irrigation. The landscape plan has been formulated as a compromise between the neighbors' desire for screening of the building and the applicant's desire for an unobtrusive, native landscape which will not compete with the formal planting of the established cemetery patterns. The applicant felt it was important to present the plan to HPC in this compromise form. However, the applicant would prefer to amend the plan to eliminate the 25 aspen trees and to replace those trees with a like amount of sage, oak and serviceberry. The applicant will implement the plan in the compromise form presented herein or in the amended form preferred by the applicant, based on whichever alternative HPC decides is more in keeping with the historic character of the Cemetery. .. Ms. Amy Guthrie January 28, 2010 Page Four Sheet 8 addresses the Victorian cabin and out house. These structures are located in the southeast corner of the property and are in generally acceptable structural condition with straight eaves and ridgeline, a watertight metal roof, and mostly functional exterior finishes. The structures will be lightly stabilized and restored for use as a greeting area for cemetery visitors by appointment only. No improvements will be made that change the appearance of either structure. Restoration will be limited to the following: 1. No historic materials associated with the cabin or out house (including siding, roofing, wood trim, windows, doors hardware etc) shall be demolished, damaged, repaired, replaced or otherwise disturbed unless specifically noted in these plans. 2. The modern metal roofing shall remain. 3. The lx6 horizontal wood trim boards at grade on the north elevation of the cabin shall be replaced as necessary due to rotting with lx6B grade redwood and painted to match the existing color. 4. The lack of a foundation at the north end of the cabin shall be investigated and treated timbers shall be placed as necessary to ensure future stability. All work shall be completed without moving or elevating the existing structure. These improvements shall not change the exterior appearance of the structure. 5. New wall studs shall be installed from the interior as necessary to stabilize the roof. Placement of new studs shall not change the exterior of the structure. Responses to Conditions of Conceptual Approval Following are the applicant's responses to the conditions of conceptual approval established by the HPC in Resolution 30, Series of 2008. 1. The building is to be set at natural grade, or slightly below grade, to avoid any berming or anomalous forms in the landscape. Depressing the work yard slightly below grade is acceptable. Response: The floor slab of the building has been set approximately at existing grade and the finish grading tapers gradually out forty feet or so in order to avoid the appearance of an anomaly in the landscape. The work yard has been depressed slightly below grade as allowed by this condition. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonal to the gridded plots of the cemetery, to be evaluated with HPC at Final approval. .. Ms. Amy Guthrie January 28, 2010 Page Five Response: The applicant has considered reorientation of the building so it would align with the gridded plots of the cemetery proper but has decided to keep the original orientation for several reasons. First, the existing Victorian cabin and out house are set askew to the plotted grid and seem more aligned to the top of the bank, so the applicant does not feel that there is a precedent for buildings aligned with the plots. The new building sets more naturally into the existing topography in the proposed orientation. Second, the utilitarian use of the maintenance building sets it apart from the use of the burial plots and the proposed orientation supports this difference. Finally, the reorientation of the building would require that the activity envelope be enlarged slightly to the north and/or west in order to achieve the same turning radius standard for the trucks. The work yard has been carefully laid out to allow the required maneuvering of trucks and other equipment while keeping it minimal in size. Enlargement of the activity envelope is not desirable to the applicant and would likely also be objectionable to the neighbors. 3. Develop a comprehensive plan for management of the cemetery landscape, including the open meadow. Response: The plan for managing the cemetery landscape is attached as Exhibit #5. The plan was formulated by the applicant, with assistance from the City Forester and the Cemetery's neighbors. Conclusion I believe the above responses and the attached exhibits and graphic materials provide the information you require to process this application. If there is anything else you need, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES A- 22-/ Alan Richman, AICP .. EXHIBITS ... EXHIBIT #1 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that THE RED BUTIE CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION is the owner in fee simple of the following described property: A parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., more particularly described as follows: Bounded on the South by Castle Creek Subdivision (Plat Book 2A at Page 241); Bounded on the East by the Aspen Meadows (Plat Book 28 at Page 7); Bounded on the North By Black Birch Estates (Plat Book 3 at Page 244): Latta Gubser Condominium (Plat Book 10 at Page 37): and West Meadow Subdivision (Ditch Book 2A at Page 245); Bounded on the West by Snowbunny Subdivision (Plat Book 2A at Page 229) and Easterly Right of Way of Cemetery Lane. ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 808 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO. 81611 ENCUMBRANCES: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: 'f-- authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: November 3,2007 at 8:00 A.M. ......m.m.. . . 1 EXHIBIT #2 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Ms. Guthrie, We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means to act as our designated representatives with respect to the application being submitted to your office for the Red Butte Cemetery. Alan Richman and Graerne Means are authorized to submit applications for the property that are to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. They are also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff and with these review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richrnan Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. Sincerely, 9aL U+_--- Red Butte Cemetery Association John Thorpe, President P.O. Box 194 Aspen, Colorado 81612 429-0783 .. EXHIBIT #3 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) 4 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY, 808 CEMETERY LANE, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6â„¢ P.M., CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN. RESOLUTION NO. 30, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6'h P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure i shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and a#roved in accordance with the procedures d established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance * with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections, The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 10, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 10, 2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9,2008, February 27*,2008, and June 11,2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City:of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with tonditions by a vote of 5 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development (Conceptual) approval for a new maintenance building at Rdd Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6~h . P.M., City and Townsite ofAspen, with the following conditions: . .. 1. The building is to be set at natural grade, or slightly below grade, to avoid any berming or anomalous forms in the landscape. Depressing the workyard slightly below grade is acceptable. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonal to the gridded plots of the cemetery, to be evaluated with HPC at Final approval. 3. Develop a comprehensive plan for management of the cemetery landscape, including the open meadow. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 10~ day of December, 2008. Approved as to Form: 1_- 9.-1.- Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: m~RIC I,Qsl CI 04 COMMISSION ~ (~ULÂ«_ C- Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: ..1 *019Â»_L~t~ Kathy Stric*and, Chief Deputy Clerk EXHIBIT M f/-7 ~ RECEPTION#: 565072,12/07/2009 at 03:43:34 PM, RECEPTION#: 564852, 12/01/2009 at 1 OF 9, R $46.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE 10:52:28 AM, Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO 1 OF 7, R $36.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE linance No. 21 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO RIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AMMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 808 CEMETERY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-12-2-00-851 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Major Development (Conceptual) application from the Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, jocated at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6'11 P.m., City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 10,2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9,2008, February 27,2008, and June 11, 2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City'of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0 under Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant held a pre-application conference with Community Development staff; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Review, Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held with the Applicant on June, 24th 2009 and comments and recommendations were gathered from the City of Aspen Parks, Engineering, and Building departments, along with comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and, WHEREAS, the approval recommendations from the referral departments have been added to this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, a publicly noticed site visit was held on July 15th, 2009; and, WHEREAS, prior to applying for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval the Applicant received Conditional Use approval and recommendations for Consolidated Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 1 of 7 .. PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for a maintenance facility of 1,280 sq. ft, and restoration of a Victorian-era cabin and outhouse via Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval ofthe City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 26th, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility to City Council, based on the following conditions. a) The Red Butte Cemetery Association shall develop an ongoing management strategy in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department for the vegetation on site, specifically the cottonwoods. This applies both to existing conditions on the southern portion of the property and the planned expansion northward. The expansion should be generally consistent with the existing character and pattern of the vegetation and grid system found in the southern portion of the cemetery. Â· Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 2 of 7 .. b) Storage o f heavy equipment shall be within the activity envelope displayed on the site plan. This shall not apply to any easement agreements on the cemetery that provide for equipment to work on the property. c) Heavy equipment or trucks with diesel engines shall be plugged in for engine heat for at least 12 hours prior to starting during winter months when temperatures are below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. d) A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Survey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that area of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the spoils cribs as ~- indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the area of this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similar to that shown in Exhibit A. e) The number of employees generated is determined to be one (1) for the existing use. An employee audit by the Red Butte Cemetery Association shall occur no later than two (2) years after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. f) The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. g) Operation of the maintenance facility shall coincide with daylight hours, excluding emergencies and work undertaken by beneficiaries of any easements upon the cemetery property. h) The use of the maintenance facility and work yard shall be limited solely for cemetery operations, i) Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, the Applicant shall record the final PUD plan, including a site plan and architectural elevations of the proposed development. The Applicant does not plan to file an agreement with the City of Aspen. Section 2: Building Permit Application The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final recorded Ordinance. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site, Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 3 0 f 7 .. d) As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The requirement for a tree protection plan is intended to solely address any trees and their drip line areas that would be affected by construction activities, including protection (such as designated construction routes and temporary fencing) that will be necessary to minimize.the impacts on existing trees from construction traffic. The tree protection plan is in no way intended to limit regular cemetery oberations, including burial activities and normal traffic associated with the operation of the cemetery. e) As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f) As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g) Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements Any development on the site shall adhere to the dimensional requirements established in the adopted PUD. The Council adopts the following standards TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY PUD* Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size 16.8 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. Minimum Lot Width The cemetery is a minimum of 1,275 feet wide. Minimum Front Yard Maintenance facility: 340 feet The Victorian cabin: 390 feet Minimum Side Yard Maintenance facility: 170 feet Victorian cabin: 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Maintenance facility: 165 feet Victorian cabin: 130 feet Maximum Height Maintenance facility: A maximum of 20 feet to the peak o f the roof. ~ Minimum Distance Between Buildings on Victorian cabin: will have a minimum of 10' from the the Lot outhouse. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 4 of 7 .. (Table 1 Continued) Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of95% ofthe site Maximum External Floor Area Ratio Maintenance building: 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area, Victorian cabin and outhouse: combined maximum of275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See Exhibit 2 which identifies which property boundaries are the front, side and rear yards. Setbacks are measured from building facades, not the envelopes. * Dimensional requirements shall also be memorialized through site plan and elevations and take precedence over TABLE i f there are any differences. Section 4: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 5: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Seetion 903 and 907) Section 6: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards o f Tit]e 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District' s rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. The ACSD also requests that both options for connecting available sewer lines to the maintenance facility be shown on the proposed plans, Section 8: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighling for both Residential and Non-residential lighting standards. If there is a conflict between the two regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 9: Vested Property Rights Extension This approval grants an extended period of vested property rights by two (2) years, thus allotting a total of five (5) years for the site specific development plan. A condition of this extension requires that within one (1) year of the date of issuance of a building permit for construction of the maintenance facility, the applicant shall have substantially completed the construction of the facility and shall have requested the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility from the City. Associated landscaping and site Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 5 of 7 .. work within the designated activity envelope shall be substantially completed no later than the next planting season after completion of construction, Section 10: The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum.and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A) ofthis Chapter, Section 11: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the -general rules,.regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided .that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 12: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properly subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city, Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This ordinance 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. Section 15: 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 2009. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 6 of 7 .. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISIIED as provided by law, by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 2009, Attest: 54&..44*44 Kathryn S. 10 , City Clerk Michael C. nelana, May, U 194 FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this / day of ~bÂ»te~~09. Attest: -44* Kathryn * *ochÂ¢City Clerk MChael~E~~eland, May~ V Approved as to form: Leity-Attorn# List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Diagram of Barrier Wall Exhibit 2: Site plan Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 7 of 7 .. DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date ofthis Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Red Butte Cemetery Association, P.O. Box 194, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Section 1 and 12, Township 10 South. Range 85 West of 6~11 P.M.. City and Townsite of Aspen,808 Cemetery Lane Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Approval of a park maintenance facility of approx. 1,280 sq. ft. with adjacent work yard and restoration of the Victorian-era cabin an outhouse. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approval by the City of Aspen-City douncil for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and-Gowth Management for an Essential Public Facility under Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2009, approved November 9,2009. Approval by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use under Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009, approved July 21,2009 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) November 22,2009 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) November 23.2012 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued thid 17th~h day of November, 2009, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director EXHIBIT #5 ~ RED BUTTE CEMETERY LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES BOX 3613 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 920-1125 JANUARY, 2010 .. 1. Purpose of This Document The Red Butte Cemetery Association was incorporated in the 1890's for the purpose of establishing one of Aspen's original cemeteries. In 1899, the Association acquired nearly 17 acres from surrounding ranchers and water rights from Castle Creek. It has operated since that time as a non-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Cemetery consists of three principal areas, these being: A. The southerly portion, which has been actively used for cemetery plots; B. The northerly portion, which has been platted with roads and burial plots for future development as an extension of the developed southern portion but is presently undeveloped; and C. The area below the top of the bank, which drops down toward Castle Creek. This area is steep and undeveloped and remains in a relatively natural state. A plat of the Cemetery prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers and a recent aerial photograph of the Cemetery depicting these three areas are included in this document. Over the last decade, the Red Butte Cemetery Association has been actively contemplating the future needs of the Cemetery while simultaneously addressing some serious issues of deferred upkeep of the property. The Association has completed an upgrade of the irrigation system that serves the property. The Association has also initiated the process of replacing some of the original cottonwood trees that were planted in the Cemetery but have reached the end of their life span. The Association has also been seeking approval from the City of Aspen to develop a modest maintenance facility on the property, to support its efforts to maintain the character of the property. Recently, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approval to develop this facility has been obtained, and final review by the Historic Preservation Commission is pending. A condition of approval imposed on the project by each of these bodies is the formulation of a landscape management plan to guide the future development of the Cemetery. The City wants the Association to have a written plan that describes how the Cemetery landscape will evolve over time, including plans for installation of roads, trees and irrigation systems, which natural areas will be preserved and which will be incorporated into the Cemetery pattern, and how the historic character of the Cemetery can be maintained and enhanced over time. The purpose of this document is to provide the landscape management plan for the Cemetery. First, an overview of existing conditions in the Cemetery is provided. This is followed by the goals and actions planned to manage the Cemetery's landscape features. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 1 .. 11. Overview of Existing Conditions A. Developed Cemetery The developed area of the cemetery comprises approximately the southern half of the property. The most visible organizing feature of this area is the roads, of which five travel north and south (Evergreen, Poplar, Eucalyptus, Acacia and Palm Avenues) and three travel east and west (South, Butte and Central Avenues). The roads have a gravel surface and a grass median. Within this road pattern a series of burial blocks have been laid out, and within each of the burial blocks individual burial plots have been designated. The pattern of roads, blocks and plots is shown on the attached site drawing. Narrowleaf cottonwood trees line the north/south roads in a grid pattern. Historically, trees were planted at the center of each block and along the "alleys" between the blocks. Since each block is 40' long, this meant that the trees were approximately 20' apart. However, some of the original trees have died and have not yet been replaced, so there are some areas where the gap between trees may be 40' or more. The cottonwood trees are the dominant form of vegetation in the Cemetery and establish a visual rhythm and canopy for the property. These trees are considered to be the preferred vegetative form in the Cemetery. Over the years, however, individuals have planted other types of trees in the Cemetery, primarily north of Butte Avenue, or have planted trees that do not align with the defined grid. It is the intention of the Cemetery Association to remove these trees over time and to replace them with narrowleaf cottonwood trees that are aligned with the grid pattern. The burial blocks and plots throughout the southern portion of the Cemetery have been developed. This means that topsoil and grass cover are in place throughout the southern portion, allowing plots to be sold and burials to occur. The irrigation system in this area is also fully operational, with below grade pipes and above grade sprinkler heads having recently been installed at a cost of nearly $50,000. Irrigation water that serves the Cemetery comes from a small pond on the Marolt property that feeds into underground pipes that connect to the property. The head gate for this water was recently replaced at a cost of over $15,000. However the older pipes that feed the system from off-site are likely to need replacement in the coming years. There is a small building (and associated out house) located in the southeastern corner of the Cemetery. The building dates from the Victorian period and has been located on the Cemetery for many years. It has been used for storage and simple office purposes over the years. The Association intends to restore the interior and exterior of this building and will use it as an office and place where the Cemetery's employee can do business with the public. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 2 0 . B. North Meadow The north meadow is a predominantly undeveloped area that comprises the northern portion of the Cemetery. There are significant stands of mountain big sagebrush present here, particularly in the northern and northeast portion of the meadow. Other areas of the meadow have become covered with non-native grasses including smooth brome, bluegrass, orchard grass, timothy, fescue, and ryegrass. Several aggressive weed species, including plumeless thistle, Canada thistle, houdstongue, field bindweed, and common burdock exist in areas of the meadow that have been disturbed. Patches of native shrub vegetation have also emerged in the meadow, including not only mountain sage, but also serviceberry, rabbitbrush and Oregon grape. While the plats for the Cemetery illustrate the intention for the established roads from the southern portion to be extended to the north (along with associated irrigation lines and trees), none of this development has occurred at this time. No development of burial blocks or burial plots has occurred in this area either. The Cemetery Association installed a temporary fabric shed along the eastern edge of the meadow to store some of the equipment needed to maintain the Cemetery. Dirt mounds were placed to the west and south of the shed, both as an attempt at screening the shed from neighbors and as a way of storing spoils and topsoil from cemetery operations. The Cemetery Board views these mounds as an unsuccessful effort and has committed to removing this material and restoring the area with native vegetation when the fabric shed is replaced with a permanent maintenance facility. In the interim, thistles will be removed, the mounds will be raked to remove large rocks and the disturbed areas will be re-vegetated with native seed mix, as described in Section 111.C, below. Some disturbance of the meadow has also occurred as a result of utility installations. These installations are likely to continue to occur from time-to-time, as there are recorded easements for a sewer line, water line, gas line and electric line that traverse portions of the north meadow. An important element of this landscape management plan is to establish policies for restoration and re-vegetation of these areas following utility work. C. Undeveloped Area Below the Top of Bank Along the eastern edge of the Cemetery the property drops off steeply toward Castle Creek. This strip of land ranges in width from areas where it exceeds 50' to areas where it is wider than 100', but the Cemetery property ends several hundred feet above the Creek itself. This area is undeveloped and is relatively densely covered oak mountain shrubland, including sage, oak brush, chokecherry and other native species, which makes it an attractive area for birds and a variety of local species of wildlife. The area below the top of the bank has never been part of the Cemetery's operating area, and the Cemetery Association intends that it remain undeveloped in the future. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 3 .. 111. Proposed Landscape Management Plan A. Developed Area The Cemetery Association's goals for the southern portion of the Cemetery are to preserve the historic character of this area and to continue to make necessary capital improvements that will allow the cemetery landscape to be maintained and enhanced. Specific actions in support of these goals are as follows: 1. Continue to monitor the health of the mature cottonwood trees by performing, at a minimum, an annual inspection of these trees in coordination with the City Forester. 2. Trim trees as necessary for health and safety. Remove unhealthy trees by obtaining appropriate permits per the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Stump removal should occur to a sufficient depth to allow a replacement tree to be planted in the designated locations along the grid pattern. Efforts should first focus on existing trees located along the west property boundary, adjacent to neighboring homes, though any immediate or threatening condition within the Cemetery should be addressed at the time of discovery. 3. Replace each removed tree with a narrowleaf cottonwood tree that is planted along the historic grid pattern. As funds are available, also replace trees that were previously removed for health or other reasons. Replanting along the west property boundary should consider appropriate spacing and not replicate the overcrowded stand of cottonwoods as exists today. 4. Extend the historic tree pattern in those blocks within the developed area where it does not presently exist (primarily certain blocks in the northern portion of the southern area) by planting narrowleaf cottonwood trees in the center of each block and along the alleys, with the goal of achieving the historic 20' spacing. 5. Remove inappropriate/disruptive vegetation that was previously planted in this area by obtaining appropriate permits per the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Inappropriate means an existing tree is off the historic grid or the tree interferes with the ability to dig or maintain a designated burial plot. Replace each tree that is removed with a narrowleaf cottonwood tree. However, if the tree was improperly located, replace the tree in a correct location along the historic grid. 6. Maintain the existing roads in their current condition (gravel with a natural grass center). Crushed gravel will be applied on an "as needed" basis to keep the roads from becoming too muddy. The roads will remain at their current width, since the platted layout prevents any road expansion potential. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 4 7. Maintain the existing irrigation system. As necessary and as funding permits, replace the older supply pipes that feed the system from off-site. B. Maintenance Facility Development Site The landscape plan for the maintenance facility development site has been submitted to the City as part of the Final Development Plan for the Red Butte Cemetery. The landscape plan illustrates the plans for providing vegetative screening immediately around the planned maintenance facility and for restoring disturbed areas within the activity envelope designated for this development. The primary planting materials shown on the landscape plan are serviceberry, gambel oak, and aspen trees, to be installed in clumps along the west and north sides of the building and around the proposed work yard. Native seed mix will provide ground cover between these clumps and in other areas disturbed by development. Trees will receive drip irrigation for the first three years and other areas will receive spray irrigation. C. North Meadow The landscape management plan for the northern portion of the cemetery outside of the activity envelope has two parts. First, there are the near term plans for restoring and revegetating the meadow until this area is needed for cemetery development. Second are the long terms plans for how this area will become part of the developed cemetery. 1. Meadow Preservation Plans The goals for restoring and revegetating the north meadow are to eradicate the weeds and to re-establish the native upland pasture/sage meadow vegetation in the area outside of the maintenance facility development site. A consulting ecologist who has studied the meadow believes there to be enough remnant seed in the soils that the meadow can naturally restore itself to the upland pasture/sage meadow ecotype. The process of weed eradication requires periodic hand removal and spot spraying of areas infested by weeds. The neighbors have recently provided financial assistance and volunteer time to remove weeds and plant native grasses and forbs and the Cemetery Association provided support to the volunteer efforts. Several volunteer work days were held in 2009 to cut and bag the most dominant weeds in the meadow. For these efforts to be effective, they must be repeated periodically during the growing season over each of the next several years. The neighbors are being guided in these efforts by landscape architects and other ecological consultants who have provided specific guidelines for proper eradication of each of the weed species. Continued sponsorship of and participation by the Cemetery's neighbors will significantly accelerate the restoration of the meadow landscape beyond what would occur through the natural restoration process. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 5 .. As weeds are being removed, native grasses and forbs will be established in the meadow. This will be accomplished by over-seeding approximately 1 -2 acres of the meadow that have been disturbed by various activities over the years-Seeding can be done by drill or by hand methods, but should always use the City's native upland pasture/sage meadow seed mix. Drill seeding would be the more effective method, but it is also more expensive than hand seeding. The City of Aspen has a drill seeder which the Association could seek permission to use to offset some of the costs of the operation. In the alternative, hand seeding should be accomplished by raking and broadcasting the mix in the bare and or weedy areas of the meadow. Seed broadcasting should occur during September and October unless irrigation is present, in which case re-seeding can also occur during the summer months. Certified weed free straw will be used in these restoration efforts to minimize the introduction of noxious vegetation. Monitoring for seed establishment will be accomplished following each installation to determine if adequate germination rates have been achieved. As noted earlier, there are several utility line easements that run through portions of the meadow, and line replacements or upgrades are likely to occur in the coming years. Revegetation of the disturbed areas is a requirement of the terms of these easements, and should utilize the native upland pasture/sage meadow seed mix referenced above. The process for reclaiming these disturbed areas should be as follows: + Remove rocks and rake the disturbed areas; 0 Seed the disturbed areas, preferably using a drill seeder or, in the alternative by hand raking and broadcasting, following the same practices described above; â€¢ Apply certified weed free straw over revegetated areas; and + Remove weeds and do spot spraying of weeds and thistles twice a year during the growing season for the two years after disturbed areas have been revegetated. 2. Extension of Cemetery Development The Cemetery Association's goals for how the Cemetery gets extended to the north are still in the process of being formulated. However, following are some policies the Cemetery Association is in agreement upon. 1. The extension to the north is not planned to occur for some time to come, until the demand for new burial plots necessitates developing new blocks. Until this demand is present there will be no further development activities in the meadow, beyond those associated with the approved maintenance facility. This includes not only no road extensions, but also no planting of trees outside of the approved development envelope. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 6 0 . 2. When the demand for new burial plots is present, the extension will not occur throughout the north meadow at a single time. Instead, the extension will occur incrementally,- which- will allow portions of the north meadow to remain in the natural state even as Cemetery development extends into the northern area. 3. The initial extension is expected to proceed a minimum of three blocks or maximum of six blocks to the north (that is, half way or all the way to the next planned east/west road), stretching across the platted cemetery from easVwest. The extension will involve the following actions: a. Extend the existing north/south roads along their current alignment; b. Extend irrigation laterals from the existing irrigation mains that were previously stubbed in to the north; c. Level out the site, add topsoil, and plant with grass cover; and d. Begin installing narrowleaf cottonwood trees following the historic grid pattern. Trees would be installed at the center of each block, such that trees would be initially be placed approximately 40-45' apart. Subsequent planting would fill in these expanses, to follow the historic 20' spacing pattern. IV. Conclusion This is the initial landscape management plan prepared for the Red Butte Cemetery. It is intended to address practices that will be followed by the Cemetery Association to preserve and enhance the historic portion of the Cemetery, to guide the development of the new maintenance facility, and to restore and revegetate the north meadow area. To be effective, this plan should be reviewed by the Cemetery Association periodically and should be updated at least every five years from this date forward. 2010 Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Management Plan Page 7 .. GRAPHIC MATERIALS APPUA 18 95 13Â»U.L.DEL 25132* 156,6,-13â€¢/Tz- 14-J u 6" 6;Â·thitcl- fOL DOÂ·,-1'4*6,-t-- P #-Th'L- Tb OINFINÂ»-1 Â»/ FI,WAÂ·Â·u XM,-4 #Z-le.to 04-4-NA.4-IC- FLA--44 wjÂ·t-Â»44- 6-*â€¢-DiaÂ· ~ ESâ€¢-)51--1 644 Tb P 6> p {>AÂ«LK- / EL. 4 391-6 .ig! tx:Abi M/# 4-Â·EU.Dâ€¢5- 2- Ut/0.ALÂ¥.-u, Al E.'6/ 40.1-Â·DE-dr 44'OQ-2-f~k-b 4 %-.,48 Â· . 1- I- .. I--,295~<i,v.,c,=w,'2 =f'â‚¬4;,- 131<.tsÂ·nU,r-4-2.Jk,=>Ii- 641-04/ |3~SLU,t,02. . -TO 0-t,1 A-* +4 - 4-9*- P S - 0 1 6 0 -0/LS D E.n-1 4 S E- D (AS- m F= 13 A- &-1 k 5 4% Pe.4 J'45 KD 5 111-EL PUA-*4 -F,52- 1-Cx:=*~n.*4 ntr-D 131-1-TT[C C.*L-r-1 Cl~E--â‚¬_7 /X-Ht S i r- â€¢~ .. F,<11.1 0 rt- 4 l LESk'- 1 -I*-4,49 -VÂ«->411.ZE- I J r/ L ..n- .- 1 * I 'Â» #1 1--I.-. -or- ( 3: 4â‚¬3'l,N,9 U"Â»tAk*w...Ur.UTÂ·d - N-<' =7ie=<94:33- - 7 7 9 1.-11< I . I 2.- .. 0 Z C '1r-Â·...r'~1 . $.*. -5,â€¢W'~GU,P-â€¢D # 2 4 i Se-lurr- .Â¥*506, I a.Â·p 1 5 C V . 7 - / < d F r Â·- .<1 4-ftill -12 El 0 1% I P 7/4 i P D , 1 -.Â· 1 ... . C--1.- 41.1= 1 , I. .4/' t .U-r-r-#. r ' , S ./:, ..4... 1 ./ 1 ~ 1. 4 X f Â»:* 34= 121 /1/0 4,Â» 1- I lili 413*5#04#F lfÂ©:: ---*- -1 -- .0 2- 1-1 Av Z L 61 = -- rJL,-Pur....â€žI =c:=1 L | F14-Â£,-.1.2/ ...V.IC. c....1 ... G..Â£*/ 2.118'I Propic/n Ar,-r. PI.61.1 ho N . /. I Ai, Â·Â·râ€¢r- r / M.-r-Â·,Â· PÂ¥ ~ 7 5.... J.1.-r.'-a. rk,K:. ON S .1-v .21 5, .9.r"-1 S REP 'UrTE CEMErÂ·ENY PUNNED UNiT DEVELOrÂ·MENT RUMATESK* r ASPEN 'LANNRIG I ZONANG COMMISHOM #*W-Â·'â€¢" 511# -i-# - ...Lrl 5 t 016 .... EXTERIOR MATERIALS SIDING 4' wide I varbble te=:* x 7/r eerragated, ruÂ»ted deel panels applied verlicany ROOFING 4' wide x variable k~ga I 7/8Â» corrugated, rasted steel panels applied with roofstope FASCIA Rnated *d sheet met,1 with nke drip edge- see detail B Â® Sheet 5 TRIM Variom pr,mes of r:-1 -el n-hings- see detans @ Sheet 5 WINDOWS r ' - clad color Medium Bree= PASSAGEDOOR 3'0"16'-ril-3/4"melalchdpassagedoorwithaigissslite r aboveÂ» pait Red ? GARAGEDOORS Geniehomodel #970-etal chd door with standard panels taa / andiasslite/cladcalerfre,/ - LIGHF FIXTURE Gal-Tech Staidard Do e Extare with Style A Gooseneck . Bracka -approved egnivale,1- paint Red E---------7 4.- ~ ILL]1 UL] ~ IHILIE- r===[( 1 W r--7 'll : 1 1 1 ?r E WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULE 1 1 MarvinOWN4824,RO=401"11'-115/8Â»,headerheight-7'-4" 1 1 11 1 9 1 -4-1- EXISTING i | 2 ManinCLAWN 4832,10-4'-1-Ir-75/8",headerhaght=8'-9 1 -1-Â©F .St-65 3 3'-r 1 6'.5- 1 1.3/4- -1,7 d oor 4-KADE -4 h - 0 -- .111 - - 11.- T t-L - Ss-Le 4 1/'-0/11(r--praged,er, Genierr,#970,Brown 5 9-rir--pr,ged-,Genierri#970Â»Brown Â«EC. 7 1 ON L<20*<1,44- 50#-r,-+ 1/4-4 1 -0. 40442' 1 00 0 Â® - m TE:re MU-1.+ Cl 1 1 . 1 514,0 P I *.6 -rep s L.â€¢-3 - 3 5.-C m 2-5. A bio I %11 I i 0 (10.10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111:1111 11 4 JUOU I - 4,--2-/ 3 , 5 1 0 1, lili!,111111 r d | 1 i 0 Â»411 R,4011 31 100 - 184 1 ~ 11111111111.Â·liT Ell' m lilli 1 lili 1 1 -1111 I lilli 11 1 1 1 1 1-OP Slia | f 31421_Â·al' lili ' f ~/..m, 1. 111 11 - - 1 1 0 Ol 1'6 ey L&.0 1 1 *749 -Â· 4 . D 1441"'peâ€¢,1Â·- Â·iFâ€¢Â·ma~ = #, 4 .p -:i;..9 9. u.- . mv-. 2 :-pb- .. 4-:54~#4. . 2 *.4I I. ..1 ~Â»ty 43077:34 -941 11 5 OUT .1-1- PE LE. VATIO At_ 5 2 1~â‚¬-11-0'@Â® L_ .__ _ _ U 40 Lo. N l=Looff FLA- kl FLOOR PLAN, ELEVATION BAd 1/4-: 11-0 RID BUTITE CEMETERY W<C 3E FINAL REVIEW HISWRIC PRESERVATION COMMrnIE GRAEME MEANS ARCHITEC~URE 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO 22 Ja-ry, 2010 6,99 .1 .... .l> :F Â· . li,41 ' 1 1,41.1 1 '4 11 i &4 4 .L, 1?, C , li i C j .1 1 bl I .1, 1 .1 . 1 *jith. . 1 1 1 1. L J - Ff 1 + -. ~ ~Â·-* ..42Â·~~ ,"373:.-Â· 'rr. + ' flifil 4 1 T , 1 - I :' i.'1Â·Â·~~ - . 0 .iii ; 42.1 4 - r-- 1 - ./ I 2 -4:Â· . 1 5 + -fi Iti J ff j'.1 5 f ' 9 .- 4, Â·Â·- 1 6111 EL *lka . , ., fu-fi#*14 t i 3.4:} , 11111 > 'tÂ·. . Ii' 1* El r b . 47 :' ti : f - .1 -- 1 3 1 2/Â· '* : r. ' I f~' " Â·Â· Â·Â·Â· - Â·Â· --Â· ... p Z '- 91 -:. * Â· ~~ 4 lit: 4 11.1 4- FXUÂ· ' / * zIT~~.. 5 &'' t .44 ~t * \0 11 '9 Â£: 1 1 . 4 .J k * ' 2@6' lh. . af y %14 9 .,. 11 ..3 Â¥ , 2 bin, 1 L 7..:tit , 4 J. 11, 11:.J 1 . L 1 4 1 e . - 4 : /.1 - .1.4- f 6, 37 ' 1 ' 1 : f; 111, I Y 4 A L i . 1.. t. -, i . ''4 r ky '*Â·. . COLORED RENDERING SOUTH ELEVATION ..~~171 -. 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 1111 111 lilli , lili 11 1 ,Â·m-1,:1'i; 11 -2-11.Ii'r.T~r Il *tÂ·LI T E-7~4--1 1,Ir-!1 IiI-r, 1 9 ~ 8 3 4'I NI Ni ' I~ I 'Il:I 11411 LI'll'IL' Cl 9lm 1, ~ltr-7 r-11 1 4 . lilli'11111111111111111 - . \ 11111~ ~ 111~1~1111'JI'll'~~~~~11111 1111111'll'll'll'111~'Ill 11[ 111~ ..11111111111- -2-27,9Ur*Â¥'r- 8- "-il~.~4A*FA#4.~. 2~1;4Â·59,,2~~- *.F#3*25-1*p**#31%= Â»7-'.2~Â»27 - N 0 17 Ht E L EVA 1- I ON -b- AST le. L VATI O N / 0 1~JII'llilll'~l i 1~ 11~ 1111111111'lli 1 t'll'll~'lijj~~1~~ 0i& 21,1 It 11111111 ....1.1 1 1 vi, -7 ki :-444 1 -- 9 - LTIE;=== lilli'1111- - E. ~ . y*,F#*vi ?*7"VPFUmmag#*llm,MFF#g,/g*pimumk*ir'' 2 5,-1, 7 9. Â«Â¥.47,7- * *Y'-- I ./.4- 9,1,1. f I , - f .4-2 09:.i inft 7 7 . 9 W E s-r k. 1- E V A r 1 0 N S OUT 1-1 PJ F VAT--1 0 N ---- 0 12-Wrl LIA--L Ck--2.A.0 & (2>al*luLL 56*-LE_ 1/8'L / Lo" 10 Ne-E--1- ELEVATIONS 4 BED BIJ'ITE CEME~RY PINAL REVIEW HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITIIE GRAEMEMEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOIJTHGALENA,#21, ASPEN, CO 22 Jam-ry, 2010 71 .... 1 A . . Â£.1 MAE. Cov K-12- ST-~--L Flint-1- fbet** 91â‚¬L- PEâ‚¬el-- TES>F-1 La ST-Â«*L a> 12.1211-4-4-753 *1Â£0Ft 144-- ST.%. R~Â£'OF- P~*''ILL 64-1 ~\ 0,-4 ri->r.,06[) DEL*. - 10-5- 4 #14-'r,u_ 31*1 4,1- D d>61 2,36 F- D,â‚¬,44 'bâ€¢kt ST=UL- hu>ell-0 m. 6" 4 9,Â·-nur- STI*4- 71 -1 - 2- Â¥/ 1411 6 wv IE=_ . ED*-- 1-r<- 1 \ =Peb-%-lL tU>OF Â»1/ 1* 8'5 L / 16' 0,c. MIN ~ ~ 3,6 81.,At- 2- #-Â·602. DIC. 72 1 ID' C;--~ D ~ Th-1 L 14.- 1 Lo. ,#hurler 2001= 50:r-Li L @ t. CO 2.12-)41--1-,ED JT'15Â·EL- 7Â£>'Â» P~-in,L 6+4 ,Â£1-Â£. 4 Â»4=r-n-k. SM-C> 01-1 E-Â£>OF- Drfâ‚¬*C 5 ' . *' " 2-6-k-~1- 8-J-VV.%51- f~O PILE. 'Â© Â»//DIE. SW-ECT- STEâ‚¬A- Â»20' t-1 E- C. L- M> 11~2-Yl W %4-*+1 2, .,4 ILE- *S>Gr-C. v LUD<hâ€¢Â« ////f~ /7Â»_ME' 277p#- -rt' 11 Pet> Fi L.~1- 4/ 1" 1 f 615212* 60 2-24**nl.D &4-UÂ£*- O*-1 1-44>48Dâ€¢WRA-P ON %64-1.-L- - â€ž , Sl-M--rt-1-1-1 04Â¥ 64-1 \./6-UL- S off-rT- <=*SÂ·A -ro .5967 Â»-EC OUTS IDe. CÂ©214#e- ~S.-rtl-1::>S 2>T'11*t- FU.OFIL--2. 1 ~ 11 2-441 3 91-146 -PupiL-E - p&-411â€¢L- 21$691E-D 81Â·Â·1*10'L- crÂ£, ek.;4,7-48 â„¢/8,-r-mi> ST-Â·D~-1- 430 2:2119-47rl, 12> FLk.l*1- ,-/ 14Â© 1Â·15,L,â€¢dE*-17 0.-1 W*-Ll- 51+Wrn 1 644- \,</ IND O \0Â« 3468/911 1 - 4-1 1-U,USE.WELP 04-1 WL.UL 64 ; 141#*- - 0#4 -/LU_ 56114 06 0 +4 /6/4-U.- ST-U-13 6 s "- 1 Lo" -1- Â«Pic,4.-i De-+4-1 L L , 01-k-r-51De- 602.ki.Ek -E- A.V E.- P #-1-A-1L Ch 1 ;32-1-0/ IZAâ€¢*=,eE- St MILA-< 1 1/1.4. Ila" EXTERIOR DETAILS 5 RED BUrrE CEMETERY FINAL REVIEW H]SIOR]C PRESERVATION COMMITTEE GRAEMEMEANSARCRUTECIURE 210 SOU111 GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO . 1-,01- 6 6611-4 Grll /3 5 Â£ K Le7-9 V kir F-115a-,1>6- CONDGM'41:11-1 OLLB'D L.07- 4- ~ l~l-AC~ 81Â£-cbt. fes-r-Â·L~7--*-5 Â®-n~n_ft' PE.2-r-T LIU# Gr-*â€¢-6 A-IHIL 6 aw# 8-~TZ----% 5 -3-Y- 4- -@ 6- 4 i i 1243 [L]Fil[[7] PL , E -7:1 ZE--71- 4.91 1 33Â«4 1 ILA?1Â£2-31255'Ovlfi / 1 - 4- smsÂ·rlowl-1~Â·-1- *-ffit ty --3-1 1-77,Â«\hil / - 11//1 11 \ 1, -t r W - i - 91 < ' ~ 11,Â·-: | ~| rEEJE331 - Â·-1 I Â» Â·Â·Â· , 0 Â·Â·Â· /' .1~* W EN 121 412211] i + ... . 14 /,1/1 0 -4--CT ,. /, " L.<36-41-1 0 + o F W-V- .. ~AORR#~ 14:..4-w â„¢~"~*3 1-1-U D 11-2.6-120 1-4-hl D 1.1-11 L I T'&.S 371~= 1.. ...S'41.. 1 I. \\ =19 Â·Â· N[Â«pul>9- OA z (Jiffirieigir) 331% O F 0 , i 0 Z / ' NOR.*14*tlyr 26+De./5.40*.p I 8 ul-T- 15. AME 5- sc=>1+1-14Â·u.LM- PE>rts,1-0 P*-P 0, 1 . i . F71 Flf-1 X 0 0 / -- Â«-7117--711\Â«Ip h 01 1/ 1 1 < j ll :i \ I I :- MI %'~/ I'/ 4 / .-.40 0 3 .... . -0 al \,/ li ~~~ d I . / 1 1/ - 1 11 w I //24 1.r I 0 2 |*77*I-r-x. -* NT*6.4 4 E 1 LEÂ· i 1 1 101 1 '11 / \Irr,0 p \ E D It -1-- 1 1 4 *..~ 121 Llz=:i \3< . . / O 3<I )2 E -1 -1 / 1 0 5 7/ Sl-OGI=-2*-3 SLL-Q-1 '6-L \\ t \1 ELE 13 \\ & 4 4 - *<h.. 3. 1 4% If 1 A t.; 1 1 1 - E 4>141 11% . - 0 .; ' D WT-1-to 1-kS* A=Â£33 --v-~~ SCU-n-H AvEÂ·Ni-1.EÂ· 00 [3 , - mi,4-'-CA.B 1 Â»Ii er'. 1- i. 49 CAe-T- L GEL c..FLE EL K L.-07- 9 C 461- L. m. C.2#.E,k S U.6'D c-LEEL_]21=0,6-EL ON 5(6* LeL t"-3-oLa' 4 14/2.Ze:<~liE - 15,ae, 4>1-4 SU-LVE>r [3* Adbe#k| S SITE PLAN 1 100 Â·FT- S 42.Â¥ 11>r t#-16rl 4-4 Ke FIS | VO 7 RED BUTrE CEME~UY RNAL REVIEW HISHRIC PRESERVATION COMMnTEE GRAEME MEANS ARCUUECrURE 210 SOUTU GALENA, 023, ASPEN, â‚¬X) 7 1 -Lon i 64-17'6 Gâ€¢61 166*k . 3 LOT * 4- - -.6-OT ' CO U DO t-11 0-11 64 M Â·S 5 l.-AC k. S 1 2- C 64 %5 1-~.7--m,5 B WU=.02- 11 1 KCL,4 --Â·S TA 1-- t:AS --I -- 0- -- p 1 0 p $ 2. r -r L / 4 1 -1 4 11 5+ - 4% MS- ID O Â»/ 1- Al, - SECTIOU L.14-IE . *411 1 e fil / i --le .c.rivirr 1.3-f M.*4v/ke i" ' ~~ ~~~~~ ~ \ \ \ \ N 4. \ 0 - 0 1.. 1 i. 1~ ' \ *#ae-.k * i'' ~Â·. : \ 1 e- - 1 u tu:*P ;, 2 1%%11\ 1\,~ ~ --4.--- 41-ors ; N , Â·--4'' '' .' 0.- k < .1 \ t.- 1 *1& , 474- '*44 O, I 41 4/4. - SPO\ 4~ hS lr-F 1 -0- i 2-2-' ..\ -A 0 \0\\\ / -V :7 \ 1 _LÂ·--7 , 1 11 1 \ 1 -11 D \\\ - -4$--*- 1 ---%+ ---TK ' /al-1 \\\ 0- 9--9-3 L_~-~4-fo-Â·v-93 ~t:,~ AM, 0 _-1 -_-9-94 *~ -~~u_-Â»-----f------1--\ 924zizle ft ' 0- tIEr-~7 1 -1 -J \ \ -- \ ~\ 4 k-Z \ L--4--0~1 0 \\ N \N.*E S Rw n Tall-1--1-E- 04=Ma.~-r-liAL~L Ae-r i v 11- 1- ts# V E.I.Â®-215 PLAN 644â€¢LE = AL 1.0 Le" 4 1 50 F-r ACTIVITY ENVELOPE PLAN 2 REID BUITE CEMETERY FINAL REVIEW mnUlilC PRESERVATION COMMIrrEE GRAKME MEANS ARCHITECTURE 210 SOLmt GALENA. #13, ASPEN. CO 00 - 0- 1 - 1. - 1 <~ 9 ~t \\ . . , *.9 j- 4 7 v,>ff # 4- but ./ \ - . . '94 1 . , 00 ,6 /. - . 3% ' + 4,6V*pR Â· . i .7 .-1 . 1 ---- . 1 --. I . 44 l . \. f5# ) 00 . . . 1. .1 \ /- .1. 1- . . 1 ./ f . , 5 \ " 1 . e N f. 4/ > . , -*, V I - . 1 1 2 1 i . V M . . . 0 - F -~ I -\. i . . 1( A .j , li , - e - 1 - ...1\ - Â· Â· U '1 1\ WA** <COM 1~~C.Â· 'e[IZA - ~~ ~ . . Â«+139- . - h J 40 9 1> i 1 % 81.LF/6-L- 4 1 . 1 MLI %*T-tk*UCEL EL, 1 -' . D I - ' \< 1 V 5643 51 - 351-6~ ' 3 . r _ -- r- 1 1 4 / D 32 Serviceberry (5 gal.) ~~ .h , 1- 4 - 1 - 1 , 1 . \ .Â»03Â»1 &'b 3%51, i ro i '.1, 15&. / i /9 1Â«/- . L . f , 1 'r 15 Gambel Oak (5 gal.) 0 - 1 ' / J / 13><3 / $ 3, r 't~j/ 71 / ./< i / 1 \\ 'V Â· /lÂ« j \ /.1 f 1 9/ f / 1 ---*10.' i *or t \ 1 /.11 4 25 Aspen (11/2" cal.) T â€¢ â‚¬ , . r \1 \ , 1;,b= U. P .- . ~ - Te-Uck , .- , / P /:\ 1 . /\\ 00 *447 .4 12.2 4 / / / 0 NX.4 Â»L ..1 % \ j/,/fyÂ»32 FLIST- i Alf [3*.&14-- -< , \ . i /// 0 Ll-U D qut.Lub t , / tuc- VA-UL,T- t- - NÂ«'7 ~ '.,i //1/IX ' . .. . g EmcITYLÂ£- *:As E t-1 ;Â·,r-Â· Â· MP T = OF 0- --Il- - 1 .- --- '15*riu 4 I3â€¢.4 k & I 1 144-41,1. 0 -1.5, 0 -26:- - --- A Planting Notes: : j =-1 1. Native Seed Mixto be used / all amass around building and in meadow revegetation. The mix will include: Red Butte Cemetery 8 0# Indian Rice Grass 'Nez Par' - Achnathernum hymenoides 'Nez Par' / Sideoats Grama - Bouteloua curlipedula 'Pierre' Sandberg Bluegrass - Pos secunda' Sherman' Maintenance Facility and Activity Envelope ?lt:yCZ~taigurN:2-0* -IA.*. 4: 5 86 iN Garnet'MambeinBiome-Bromusmargina~Gamet' - Landscape P/an Am W Arizona Fescue- Festuca ovina 'Amba' /3 W Â¤ I 'A.iba' Western Wheatgrus - Pascopyrum smithii 'Arriba' /0 Mountain Sage - AM=Mia kidentate vaseyans Prepared by: North , . em. 39= Rubber Rabbit Brush - Chrysothammus nauseosus Prairie Sage - Artemesia ludviciana Fringed Sage - Artemesia frigida Hairy Golden Aster - Chrysopsis villosa Landscape Architect ge:* Emi 4 Silver Lupine - Lupinus argenterm ./ PO,80*912Â·Aspen,C08,612 4@im 188 Blue Flex - Linum lewisii ~ Sarah Chase Shaw Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstemon strictus ahsha#,04.Mt Arrowleaf Balsam Root Balsamorhiza wgittata Date: January 25,2010 2. All areas witbin activity envelope will require irrigation. Trees will require temporary drip irrigation Rr fir~ 3 years. All other areas will require spray irrigation. . .... EL_ _ + _aua________ t 0Â£14-IN'~L ~ . 2. L ..C-grts: 14 IST-be-1 c. 4 ; H (Le 44 W 9 *8 1Â£6.5=IL -Suik:L -16Lm.SZIZL- +4-161--:;Â£4=- A D P 1 -rÂ·Â· 1 D ;-1 -ll-LZELL.lut.LE.IL -Â£1.9.-!2~&Â£_Elkzk.LL&.1.5.- 1. IÂ·-loCT-6.5 6Â©un#, v'%-r- S FD)~46,- IS 14 13>tvt-LED 6. 2Â»DE--lt-L4- S "t-leDâ‚¬Lit' FULOPAAAEL- 1-r;* LAPPID -CAb 5 11:>444/ tÂ·Â·123TA--L-Â· RLOOFÂ»*T-'- Co L./O 2 - 06-U=. 4,Â·U*-44 ZELEN_ 41 Woop -rla-irl is I * 4 4 1/6 'Ph-46Â·41-â€¢b Aq/0 b 1 *AÂ·Br- SM'31 Lur- UE Llâ‚¬>EIZ. 29 Ttf. W'640 \6// v 4-260/*. -I. 1. Ftu-lE- 511-6 t>12-E-ri-Â¥ 4+4 +-Upe- +46 'FÂ©U-UD<-4-To~-1 -0062- ts a'-6 6'-i + F.U.L 1-1Â·\Srbtkn- \â€¢Lootp Ik>OL PLattb L.-1~-41Â£- Dtuo~rt.6 A-J>OL-tt>BUU> Doot2.-/VT FaCTEÂ·Â·L+ED N.Â« SIDILUr -TD MAÂ·gO-+ Kt,6rlkaÂ·-1- I ----2- ~Â·,Â· . _4~Â». 5Â».... v t- -VI.-AY.~... 1*8=2IZ_ 21912212=L r: i.'-aÂ· 1 11Op '15*kit- V. L-=Lierna F /prel 19 -0.1 1 L-ThtlA-4-6- ~ I W ~/ PEr-24!i:.1 I. 94 0 - Z.'i',#JRS,5 Scâ€¢-L-EE-: In- 16 1 3 -- -- ltÂ©%4Â©341 1112[LELG=_-2-LIE-ELEEL -- --~~112.16,1:=1.~6=~.6LL.G~6EEEMLW=%~== _S-9.1.LICkl- -1//Ll.,i-ZIL Me-SU-En, F t>uÂ·~,/N lb-r . 112[2L161==L.....Ca- . GÂ»-â€¢+1â€¢m- Mt.46 tz-*b 13>LA-1-& C,= M.erlztr 1(6 56, 9-Â·lÂ»46-.3-17 SE*Le- )* = 1 -6 ASPUU L OS. As fFÂ¥Â·61, COLe> EA-I>t> Adv O-009 _-3* 14.4154 i*:Y-t,L LA,-La 6. Zoo*-tu,+ 8 *tiablz.ew'~ pe.Â£> PLULL 1--rpe- 1, SlbtfÂ·44- IS 166 CÂ©vt-D, LA-PPE.t> "4-07-012-1,2 WOOD 5151*46,- -mi--Ii--I~l--W------i<-Mg~-u~~W~i---Ill~l--~ H K=r'%-L- 2-6,> PÂ·16Â·Lur- - Ca l.0 2 - DA-ti=. G.Â·12.E:.O-1 1, 1--2-11-1 NE> 1,4-4 1-61) 1â€ž6 "14-161Â·Â©12-k:J WO.OD -1-111-1 9. 94.30 IA- 15 DLE*=- G,-U-Â£ h.1 MliT-- -ro VICTORIAN CABIN EXISTING 8 3. 4016Â·126Â»/ 4245Â»0&-2% SIT-1 'buler wook VE.A.k.- MLT-cw- 11Â©4>P' U.r ' RED Bl.TII CEMETERY 4, F,â€¢55&4*- Ps<DE- IS"kkÂ·12>110(IC.' 1'-8 " -lot- roLL-,2_ FINAL REVIEW a, 0.-*/C,Ot>*1Â»,EL FIZA-Â·Flt kl'r-517-9 <3 kt +Lurlib-L PA-44Â¥U IlISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMTITEE LoossE EKXLk +DU+*D#,-1Â£>44 t bleÂ·12-rl-r Â£Â©U 42*00. GRAEMEMEANS ARCHITECTURE 5.5-TbbirÂ·E- 1Â»OU- 15 Iâ€¢2 vn-ICT- w/Bon:>PLâ€¢-4.-1-k 210 SOUTH GALENA, #23, ASPEN, CO Caktâ‚¬Â£;rt- FbUUM-Â·190*4 22 J,miary, 2010 4 4 M 5'7194â„¢7109. Ual,deti 1,1 < . : 43.'-X=2%.9 =M.*re**74- 0.4- Â· I . I .-- ' . 4$ . V , - . .. 5 0 ttlt-" f - . â€¢r .1 â€¢ . ..11 . Me#/ 4, /244#494683/91 r.*. ./. . ' â€ž., Â«WCA. : Y 9 4327 , '4% lifip -- 4 -'ll, . -g... - ---7 ' Itt, 4 . - -,0 '.... ,- - Â£.lie 9 1 ~. ~ - 7-nÂ·43,kÂ¢k:;e, 4 7. -- .,i>g -b-*-~r=y:*.g:- _ 'ar d. I , . I --- I . ./ - - . ---1- .u .: 11; . ,,t , . e :rrd . 4.4--225.-Â«= - *r .- - -1-- -- , . . fÂ¢k , " ff. 2 ''* 2 '?. , I.- I-.. --. ./.I f- + f-/- eaj -- I . I *,-- - W - ;.4 ..t- ..., 1 1-9*,1 42 9 jr 16 Jimi/9/. e 6 - t..5/,i#*EEi.'Il#..../-44,2.<:/-- 2-5 :,67-19/'e- ----sar-Tf:'-'-12:2~'/12-- . . dSâ€¢ r I . 1 Â· t. t.2 -4- ... NikI 4 ~ . . I. i./S J ---- 214. rt F.4 ... 1 . . -- --Tr-.5.3 + 4- - -'1 'F# c> - -te' -, - 1- r ~ tâ‚¬ Ate Â¥ ..L . 4 77-7- e .1 -: 7-Â·'- 'Â®r--77~- ' ..1 1//r - e -Ut #'.4 J: fi . - - --<-1 - -.4.- Â· u...,m. a. - - ' ' --42-1.- I -.*1.-: 7. Â·Â·-re 7 hym '.,Th .t GAÂ»-*% . - 1- Â£ el.2441 e,Er-2'-4 t. * W Â· J) ,?C -424 ..4 rs r .--Stee 2- Â»/..I-K . - /,. , .,rti ' I . -, C t p ..0- 1-Kill, - - - 1 t"m'*16 A 1. t....... 1 7. - 1%7.3 > t: ' ''2(6141.. RABBRAi~%1T: U. r-c - rill-I-/7Y -- V fr. -- - -- - Â·AÂ· - St'0~â‚¬!81--- ' . V - 4,* r Z --- - .... -4 1,1-34 . S I ~44'~P â‚¬, 1-â€ž19:2 , , terL - .-- '1.... .- _ - I - 3 - M-/Rk> W. .. - *4,/'fliff/Â¥74]t . Â¢. - u - -- I -111.--1. -- - - 6.4<*rz.'13.40 12-I~ 6 -=- --+9.': - . . ..- --=.C\, Â». : u.).-:.,1.-'Zit- --~* -' '1 17~0. - .- . e Â»-1 19" 0,#frl 5/Il/4 .'.. Iâ€¢ 13 - cr- * L 2 ., 22Jgza.-#,4*,4~ ... ece.:7>Jae-' .,12.4 i*~,i u,* ;16. a-11.. i p * -IÂ»e '-lt.LET~/~t-,21. -- *9-2 -7.7<--- 14%_3~212Â»:aMAL -- C, 4-431- 1 1,1~21 - - W... ..Pp .--r qi - f. -OK-46- ' - e. 4* .~4â€¢24- Pily -TE..... RVE-qi_: - *- ' I.* uÂ·- ~ gÂ»~46*'**S~.LV t. . 61':.*2% , 4. i.&. 2 .~. . + 401 :e it* F* ?..,~ ,rert#Re ' -saL23Â»:~ --2,-r - - ... d'VI ' . , . >P/%:'. 1:1Â· Â¥ ,;*e? 4 24~j~ I - * 513**/~., < 4 ~irÂ».'-I'pW ./. - 1 - .--I '.2 - : - - -- --I .4 .2 A L #ak. - 'f j 'f "14, 3~ -nin 1 ...'.:Â» 4/,7 4. .4 2, ' 22' go..1 -=R - , 111,44 ,- 1 ==2:UÂ»=27 fle=L===--- 4 - - ,_.42:3---'~-Fi,4~4~$-AJE~ -2 --z _ *\ TP - - 4 -95 - R Â·./lith/r, f e>4.-egrat?er,-4 - 43-~*=-- 1 -7- - I . ....12.44:-:62.9/1 .1 - - r 29; 1 1 4, ': 12 2- 0. --I - I /4- -2-~-9-121:AL*â‚¬E21rp- . p r - . *116 9 40*4 . 2 '' N-- I . = *LA L-#' -4 4/8//r : 1Â»* - I- ' I. r '41 A; , r. -2 , .@11 2,\ 4 X .C ' I - - 5,/ 4 - 4 Â·22-,29 - - 31 1.- - 4.-4<W=,2.:,1.1 â‚¬t.%22 2494. 7.7 b - rtc_-1- '--22*4 --==rezzy-Â» _ T=E~:3. 0 1 . .- I-- -7- U -- i?559 - 19 - 1 - - 1Â·Â· 1,Â·. '.--F...11 Â·~1%4*24Â· .,4, - 21 .IA 1 ,,2 - * Ar mi, i> - -- 'Â·Â· -*f Bi--- - Â· 0- ,-=ZES=@*~ ~8. p .A, .==95Â£.12. - -6- â‚¬- Â· -Â»UÂ©- -07,9330 Â£ .*&112.1. ..'- 4 I. y,3, i,~ 0~~t~ 1'* 4,.h;35 1.4,~ -<i- 0 .Â· An'*d . g , 0, 0#-9 1 ;,>: 11~.. r 1 -I -- - 121 '117&1-Le<-QV- 1 - â€¢: . â€¢ t.. ... h .f. . F ' - *24,4. . . . 4*4 24.' * Â«,St ., - . - p-2- 7=~ =&4&Â£- J 17'=/ 17Â«A U - V . 4 *J-- : - -J-b~â€¢ 1. :A L f 1 4.2,1, - C*L=Le-dizE5:0:253==*~22:4 I .7-4 Â· ~*'* r.:,1 :ra, 2*91 7, 13. --- - - --62-4 44/--if-* --9 -- :. I__ . _Â£4_ - -- -=2=84,&~ -34*J.$-f E =Li,i-LT~r-<....-< * * I liÂ¥ I -47'*41/1 - 8, I K[.3 4 'relf- --el, -- J.f 0 4 -le .id-- -1 - t.'911. 2 0, 6, . - -, -1.: I , ....'/ Â» 1 - I . .. .. 7**Al_ I .6/ I i . 4-==- - .- / f .. " -I . 1 42./1 ' * 'Â·41 . ?,4 . hil,7 t!~'.~ -" P.Â».~ .,ViL--.,I-44*.,~.,~ .,-7. -,1.1 0 -- I A . .....4 44 1 4 :1 # 4 .â€¢Â»6 2-*.Ii. f .C-/ --7% - -'/9...~iRLI .=L/â‚¬.7 -6Â£-8 * I I , ~ â€¢ ~r *â€¢~0 .. .P. .- 0- '. --1 -U.--1- ---,..2 :32 - â€ž .:.-.,U:.,LA-Lu.-7/kf, 4..di..4~-,2,~dib~1'1--1-.,- -- .... .1~ 1.â€ž ,..2%: h. ...1. I 9.-- i. , 4."95 3 .J.litpl ,1~'.2 -4 j ~,~~t--*. 4-*:)-: % 4 ,*'*44695 1 .2-Vix...17/*08:irrimia ~: /i~ .t=9 2 4 1-' - :. i +4/ .1 Z .4 --- ---12--LIZ~ZLE~210-zi.lET.67'*B 7Â·' .... -I'let Â· ....h.15.Â·Sat 1 -IqÂ· 4 -* '' ~~~'~-i ' ..... . 1 ... Z m & 29 ia 1 â€¢Â· .- 4 00 i - 4, mif=&--- â€¢*r.te-4-1,2-t- ."Â·-Â·TLEE*'FF~i- :Li- 1/0 ..1 -F.. 1512~ 61. .'iâ€¢,t*, ~r)~=Atiti=/*Fil A- lut:tr)*Â·'Â·Â·-â€¢~0~~-'teirriâ€ž w'+2464,4,5,15/L#*AM,&4,4-*iXfrt.**C-#f/#M~Qi "4 .9..,3.9,1,-.I Â».f..1~;7. G.: 4~tr. - 1%~ ---~- ~--~ ~~~~- ~-~~' ~~-' >-~~- '*--~:~'~ r,t)*6@.1/ MO1O2) TE[NVd 71 fIIAI alI, }IMOE) alLSAN * SMOOG (INIV SA<OGNI/* aO *10100 NA<O}IH Matâ€¢4. P.unts IMMI]:lil[Cli~lill~ PANEL~VERVIEW ROOF PANEL PROFILE i 32' Coverage Â· 22/3. rt f---13--2/1-1/1-3-7/1/1/1 WALL PANEL PROFILE 34%- Cove.aye f-c i.rn---,u-~J-,_jÂ»1_j-----Flu/~,_-7~u.~~~1_~-0 - SLOPE The minimum recommended slope for any 7/:" Corrugated panel roofing panel is 1.12 SUBSTRATE 7/g" Corrugated panel is designed to be utilized over open structural framing, but can easily be used wth a solid substrate. For solid substrate applications, the recommended substrate is 5/8â€ž plywood with a 30 pound felt moisture barrier. To avoid panel distortion, use a properly aligned and uniform substructure. COVERAGE 1" Corrugated panel roof coverage is 32", and wall coverage is 342/3,1. LENGTH Lengths under 5'-0" are avaliable with some cutting restrictions. Maximum recommended panel length is 45'-0". Longer panels require additional consideration in packaging, shipping, and erection. Please consult your Metal Sales branch for recommendations (see PGI-2 and 3 for locations). AVAILABILITY Panels are available in 26,24,22 Gauge. 20 Gauge optional. Minimum quantity may apply. APPLICATION Commercial, Industrial panel. FASTENING SYSTEM Direct fastened (exposed). FASTENERS -+ The fastener selection guide should be consulted for choosing proper fasteners for specific applications. Quantity and type of fastener must meet necessary loading and code requirements (see POI-12-14). MATERIALS Steel grade 50 for 26,24, and 22 Gauge. Steel Grade 33 for 20 Gauge, per ASTM A-792. FINISH * =Acrylic Coated GalvalumeÂ® (ACG) / ASTM A-792 - AZ55 I Prepainted Galvalume / ASTM A-792 - AZ50 A -Fluorocarbon (PVDF) * Differential appearance of Acrylic Coated Galvalume roofing materials is not a cause for rejection. " Meets both Kynar 500 and Hylar 5000 specifications. Â© Metal Sales Manufacturing Corporation/ Subject to change without notice Effective Date 4/04 1-1-8 800.406.7387 (Corporate Office) â€¢ www.mtlsales.us.com P7/8-2 PUSHING PROFILES EAVE CLEAT BOX GUTTER /- 47/4 T - Hem ~~~rof- c Â»27 [-1 r -1 x.d77- 1" 3" 5" 4â€¢ al c, L 135Â° ~ -C L- 5.-- 112~ 4/ 1 Hem Length 10'-2" - *Specify Slope Angle Length 10'-2= Length 10'-2*, 20'-3" - *Specify Slope Angle BOX GUTTER END UNIVERSAL GUTTER/ DOWNSPOUT 4" x 31/2" DOWNSPOUT STRAP 1" 5- Hem 4' A- 31/2' 1 -P.-1 43 5' 1' fC 16' \~1; 1 92" Length 10'-2", 20'-3" (Also available 6" x 41 95Â° ELBOW 4" x 31/2" DOWNSPOUT BRACKET VALLEY / r C ) 0133 1 / c 12.\'-----.,10Â· 4 091Â«13 \/ 4. (Also available 6" x 47 (Also available 6") Length 10'-2% 20'-3" - *Specify Slope Angle (Also available in 46' ) RAKE RAKEWALL PITCH BREAK 1-- -c 7 L-' 1/ 31/2" /C .- 4" ~ HEM *7- Al- Hem--22-ks, 5/8. Length 10'-2% 20'-3" LENGTH 10'-2",20'-3- Length 10'-2" - *Specify Slope Angle COUNTER FLASHING REGLET FLASHING PEAK C-7 - 1-6. Ful 1" i C X. 2' t.. )1Hern Length 10'-2= 3/8â€ž Length 10'-2" Length 10'-2",20'-3" - *Specify Slope Angle 173 Â© Metal Sales Manufacturing Corporationl Subject to change witbout notice/ Effective Date 44/04 .mâ€ž. 800.406.7387 (Corporate Office) â€¢ www.mtl%ties.us.com .. z.:--2-2 Â·E-=:-Ai;14 FLASHING PROFILES (CONT.) 11 " RIDGE/HIP COVER GRAVEL STOP OUTSIDE CORNER - 51/2. - 5'lt -112. - 1 42 \ 3-c 51,2.-\ r C r ,\ p - 1 5112' 4Â» Length 10'-2", 20'-3" - *Specify Slope Angle Length 101-2",20'-3" - *Specify Slope Angle Length 10'-2% 20'-3" INSIDE CORNER 1.5" SILUHEAD 1.5" SILLTO SOFFIT 1 -07 l c-1 1 1/2. 1 21/2. 1,/2. 2t /2' 5/2' 1-1 1' /<2/2. 3/8. W 1 - 42 - 43/2 -6/ L Length 10'-2", 2013' Length 10'-2= Length 10'-2" 1.25" BASE JAMB 7 9 -C 25/8' 2' /9 1 C- Indicates color side of flashing. 1 1 10 Ay _L C-~ 1 " 3 Length 10'-2" Length 10'-2- Â© Metal Sales Manufacturing Corporation/ Subject to change without notice/ Effective Date 4/04 800.406.7387 (Corporate Office) â€¢ www.mtlsales.us.corn i-1-3 .43, fa 4 .-- 4 MARVINU **/16100+U#5 0 /2 ./ Draw deep, fresh breaths of air into your home with the Marvin Awning. The perfect U,sdcw: ...1 01 ors AST companion for our Casemaster, this window is designed to circulate air without i exposing your room to light rain. Since Awnings can be proportioned to almost any ~ dimension, you can use them alone, stacked vertically or combined horizontally. All the features that make our Casemaster such a solid performer are also incorporated -4, into our Awning, including our smooth roto gear operator, concealed sash locks and A'Illj. 1 full-perimeter sash and frame weatherstripping. _ r 1 r. ~ /-/K-Â·tz 5~. .7. 1.... !1 Our Awning is designed to ==.=SrE63..9~2/0 5 14.--Ilka* --WL--- -r -L' E 5 accompany Casemasters, picture windows and other - Awnings, adding height, light and ventilation 4 ,- '18 . 3 wherever you need it. - WE..;79% 1 - ight~.-'Â·. - 4-Â· -=/4 . 3 ck el Hardware Selection s ......=- 62...../. i*11*~ ~ Folding Handle* Crank Handle ~ , al (Satin Taupe, Bronze, ak Â·Â·-4 While. and Brass.) vailable .,4 Lock fiese woog Lever rtical any. PowerDrive (Satin lauoe, Bror,ze, and White.) J 1 - ded - rd, t- ...Uh~ 00. 9400. -- White Satin Bronze Satin Satin Brass Antioue Oil 1-: 1 Teupe' Nickel Chrome Brass Rubbed Bronze /4*.70//4/"1"6. Exterior Clad Colors 1/.~. - e- 'Standard Stone Pebble Bahama Bronze Evergreen -iâ€¢l dâ€¢[4*] lit-11[â€¢01Miliâ€¢II White Gray Brown 6uguMÂ¥ peiC) 7 poo 44Â· 7 li, * ' -0 ' . e /1~'-F 41*#&6,0.IfiÂ»:f.JÂ·*.** 4 Â» .Â©4Â· f : ,- A-=gwl =j 1.329Â·- 1 :. â‚¬ - * --3~.:IwMat26-023.amil/4 i . , ~r - .,Â·Â· .- Â·~Â· Â£ I ~_:/f-..-3.:,9., ~~*~~ ~i .;~~~~- i; 9145 ..6.Â·i.1-, c -Â·.~4, 7,< rwhm 42*54/837.Â£ 81 159 & snrkir . 4. .,ir: r....1-1,U.. 1-2 -+.A47 1,Â¥14'f- 1 - 1 437 - -4 &*24 - - . It' ~PBi~--- . /,rk5 4 -1 Â· â€¢ - ' - ' '.ek Y - --*4' cw- -P - 1 1 414 3 3 Ve. ~; Â«43.-7 - ~ , .. Â£>' 1 -9 - - --,2 r --EL -4.1 .1.2 - I. i 1 1/Ely,Ii...14'2& r.- - 9,97/Â· Â£-/ -2441< 43 + -03. - , ~: ~ 1.,ztf~~ V ..9,=~... 6 r :77-" .. 4.55:FLEW,2 t. h 1 ! rr f-/ ,--4 % ReÂ¥-14 b ..:,40*'*Ea3. > - '0 . 7 j Â· 3 ' f 7Â·- Â· ...Â·Â· --.2-431.25- - s- Â· ' ' - Â·*4 IÂ·-43424. I:-4.*24+2â‚¬4.2.t<ly-/ .,.1.-. 4, 4 . 31Â« I J.3. '- ~ ~' ~ ~. ~ ~.I-k'~ciA I.- ' - - 21.'Arri~Â·45*hÂ·t : ::Â· ft.V-Â°~-Â·t:.,- . 7.--1. J -0- .....Ati ..:> 34/4 .... ../ *2~4 -7 . i. 't.1-44=,16,1~3,935=2.-Flt ..Â·Ir~ .:.-1.,-2?4~?3.~T .... G.. - 417-1 UN, - . 71 .. 1, .1*/2-Ntt- : .. ... ..........e -...,-- 3./ J.- e . 11 : r -fult'11=55 ' R' Â£ 2. 2' r.. 2 _Z '.--1&' â€¢-1* Standard Features *1 0 Gear, one-rite insulating glass .WE Satin Tauoe :olding handle e - - . 0 8 ec oncealed sash kk with ~ O All wood Brick Mcuid Casing (-Nood units) .r 047 , ( 116 mm) Â·ambs 1-.31:2=-=252.492912t~'= *i' f 4,9.* .-# - ~*2: -: 4.32- ; .12>c;â‚¬31*Z:;. .CR\,+ - . - I Screen w:th Satin laupe surround -/ .2. ~303*-.i. - - J.M.39â‚¬~'N.V/30.-9- '-#r-Â¥IF, ..4...... ..Z p .M - , - 4Â£Â£214 .- 12*w 4. aâ‚¬441:0.24 N 1 1 I. I- --------1--- #-- - X- - Satin Tauce lock ever . ~ &1 -- ./.U 1.- 14Â©#.=22~...imp.ir *8#1143 -31=567'-e 1 . /inyl drip cap and nailing ho (Clad units) 0 Bare wood,nter,or 38 w. ':. 'POMZ i Â· 1 J 4 :.M hl' 4, i L ~ ,Â·9 '414#AM;,344 i. #1~0~jb*f~6 i'' t. -' f; 9''b Overhead Door - Build-A-Do-â€¢vsrem 4-â€¢q/â€¢Daois Page i of i Professional Access Systems Dccr Series Dcor Construction t net Style | Color Window Design. | Windcw Loc atic: Pa .....1-11Â£26.-;f.C'.(--ID.~t.+23Â»,Â»>:,a...7f-'Â«ii / -7. . -fl. .'.t..~4,%6 '' trill' A==-I- ..........,1.-â€žW $:6Â·.* 1.-1;34&~)"fricifiL. ?2 =4//-4/64/6- -~- 20- ---.-,- -- --- -- -- EffÂ·. -- -== -â€ž: --- ;24Â£<'.*13=>ult.ef. -I't rittr.f-3 ,_in-DiamondS=tÂ»----Â·--Â·--- ICÂ·-,:SCI..2Â·.=;c~al/,6- /4242--Â· *=r=-1,2.:2:/:All:Â¥6 m:n_- 42.2... Â¥4-,Â·e-c-. *6,.924*Egia'-I - 13 FTÂ°*f~hort- 2.-6--1-.- p-: f r.â€ž 2'L :2 ~UnWWILEL-**My#i6~" '73 .340#a-.- . ic, --201=12144>2414.:22:ZILZZUC~42~~144Â·44:"~~ 1 1. ..'0, r'J t.~ ~. 11 L.*,4 111,1 1 11 11 '"'1 Ill 2. Â· 7., . '' /:- ---/.-1~ --- Â£-- ----" Â·Â·Â·--'. ~~ 7-'..7,777.. 7*-. 1-,-*UL-,1=.4@U.4.UW2 - 90,-#-9/-3~1/'/ 1/2 mi/am'/i .. .. . 31.5.---:-221 -*...2,1:,tigilill . EXTERIO R SASH DOORS ' M&* Do. 1 =re - - 4%1* 6.9 .+~ ...110 . :p*Me Â· Â· v 'Â·â‚¬:*Â·.1 - p = u-= Â· itin. - 4.- 1 E - i 1 -- -- - . -- ..Â»T,D...Ci...2-4..26.- , L - ' -628*23*ER - - 3 fria..r,.-81-4-9-=JEEFE 33 : . t- I -7-*71*'&30-*~ L 1-- Â·Â· Â·1 Â·. 5-â€¢---â„¢:00**6~ 41 - - ill %Â·-24,ANL if - .1 6017 (I.G.) 6018 (I.G.) 6071 (I.G.) 6031 (I.G.) 117 (S. G.) 118 (S.G.) 21 . ,fste pp. 4-59;XMNIIF Jor details. Â· f.. r ... â‚¬ C:C, 43 '. - 1, t 4.7*2*Y:4<2.3,49:11.1 338? I 3%-*..&#').W.1: -2*â‚¬37E~-7;Â¥E:9= ..............22. /-7-~-*Y#C~~~ . --1- -- --.........W.P.........9..........6 364 -,22-2 , f L :.4-24 29. '0.*.t# :1.3 ....' bf-- 3 Detail of venetian blind - ----- and operating mechanism. eggÂ»---1. -991.-su-*r:.- J Slats swivel to provide -Â·..r: Â· Â·.. privacy. Blinds do not raise 93 4=:...3-2./.- 9..t..4/. ~ ~ ~;:/: and lower. 0 - -- .........../#.......fi".Ill'.~/I'll' Iik -~- LID- All - --.1 6% v . ... 6044 (I.G.3 7144 (I.G.) 144 (S.G.) with Venerian Blind between Glass NOTE: Clear glaSS piCIUreS taken with white backdrop. Glass shown is transparent cle:r rempered - not frosted. For a full selecrion of obscure glass opTions. please refer to page 89 '.- 5 62 or visit www.simpsondoor.com. 4 ''1 1.......1,0 . PM-#P.~1/ t;~Il t!(f.1, , .-r,..tf! !11 q..49Â· I I A:.-=6... -# 4 1 -:4-14Â·4--'4+1. .f ' 0, ~~ Â· f+11..,â€¢Â·,2.1'V"WiR.~Â·MT . *Â·1*.,4-â€¢AM,â€¢4-â€žTi-TH"*T'. - ;4 INTRODUCING THE DESIGNER GAL-TECH FINISH BY ABOLITE LIGHTING 11*ter ' I 'f .Â· : + *Â·-se. rs, -.. I i. *. -- / :yat~*I..<41. ..a: ~ ./4-r .- A- At- . . . - . 2\-iri... --4E Â· 4 ... P.*kigwa â‚¬*ei**2~3.~~la# . I. ./.21/16:AE ~S * 5 +Nuzzi 5~ mi~*. 217.11>2- 4 1./YEPT/*23 - P).-/4./*#131*.'5273 Â·64. Â· i.. C TA/rilt';%9*i . j. )AW*84rtbt3l !Â·Â·-2~4:QU--MN -k~ +Ampve 3**24 4Â»4 STANDARD DOME ANGLED REFLECTOR ,. Â¥293**CSZi . 4494Â£!. WEL *ELE *.:9>Evi '.::2~ 42471 .... ., - 14:6-1. : 2116'hlicil" a # Â£7/49//&<2/' :-'3-â‚¬348â‚¬E*G %,Â·.'54*.71 2 - Â· *11.-Â·' -- 7 12= trtee:.r,-c:,irl .:Â·--F-- ~ /91 .2:14*Sgu e --1 c L-!%2Â· 0%~ 4>2931Â·kfiW21*iti Â· 93 -~ - â€ž . --Â· :."./.r;/ Wil,-y:%12-~-W. Â¥ 1.-7 62:aiD= *3- 4 - 41Â£.gftiumj 6 .'AfF/41; 4 -9.- .003 4.23 -lr *eaft . 9 2 Refil~ 9 - ZE.204%11 ZAN-,4 ez- ... 7/Ls.,-1~*6~~ 092~~ DEEP BOUL RADIAL WAVE ./. lt'Â·Â·3*9*%2 - 4...Â· ~2#1~4~,j b - 632464- . . a . -:0,.,Â·:6'544.fÂ·Ply) - ~0 -V.... 0 - I. I 0 0 I . 0 I -Â· --6*4=9-4- ilj*/3<1(1Â£19+Fit- . - 2.2 0 --J2.. - ~ d-/ I I . -- I / Cj~ WYf 01~f.Z - FJ,-._.iN,<. ~~:ApÂ·: -:A --~.FJ-~ :-;,-Â· AiA-A-< <9*tre' :-e~i ~-- e::~ 0- e~-~.--i Â·9150 .. -".a.'~h OPTION -~-Â» - .- GOOSENECK BRACKETS To order, specify catalog number indicated. Note: Brackets feature unthreaded 3/4" stems which slip fit into wall plate. Conduit may be cut down (by other) to shorten bracket length. Style A Style B r + ' ~ .u 1,-Â· 3/4" NPT- -60.--t.~.~Â·~. 2.. i -z--- -9469Â¥374~NPT-Wi 22.25" . ..: -4825Â» . GB-A-3-BRZ: 3/4' Single Reflector Gooseneck Wall Bracket. Features rigid conduit GB-B-3-BRZ: 3/4' Single Reflector Gooser,eck Wall Bracket. Features rÂ·igid conduit and cast wall plate which fits 4' octagonal box (by other). The bracket features a and cast wall plate which fits 4" octagonal box (by other). The bracket features a bronze powder finish. bronze powder finish. Style C n, ~ Â°12'. ~1 F.. ...3 2 Style- D fo .... 1/ ...1-fl--4.4.60 ..f ..1 . . .. .....~2..2.{43;tif~:~-Ili....f 1 /* .* P- /- *:.:- C---1 / -./. - 1/ t 11 -1 11.75~ - .. - 1,! T. 34"NPT -j--i~ F- ~ : " --29.75* 24.75' GB-C-3-BRZ: 3/4' Single Reflector GooseneÂ® Wall Bracket. Features rigid conduit GB-D-3-BRZ. 3/4" Single Retlector Gooseneck Wall Bracket. Features rigid conduit and cast wall plate which fits 4- octagonal box (by other). The bracket features a and cast wall plate which fits 411 octagonal box (by other). The bracket features a bronze powder finish. bronze powder finish. Style E Style F. Â· --- 237--"-' -1--~- , *<-7 ... - - I .... + 3/4" NPT . ~32.5- . 04 40.25 1 16.75".~-- ~ 3/4' NPT Â· ---<L_1 , 54.25* 1.-1. z GB-E-3-BRZ: 3/4' Single Reflector Gooseneck Wall Bracket. Features rigid conduit GB-F-3-BRZ: 3/4' Sing]e Reflectoi Gooser.eck Wall Bracket. Features rigid conduit and cast wall plate which fits 4- octagonal box (by other). This bracket js designed and cast wall plate which fits 4" octagonal Cox (by other). The bracket features a to be mounted to a horizontal surface. but could also be mounted to a wall. The bronze powder finish. bracket features a bronze powder finish. ~*,ABOLITE / ~'/.NE U VEW U X . 7.Ak I j)~42 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2 0 9 (Le -1~ LA-t , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 96> 2.-4 , 20.1- STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, *AÂ« M LAÂ» (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: J 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 9 day of GAD.ul , 200 0 , 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. AL CIO Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled~ed before me this /00-'day of Lâ‚¬-473 rot o, A.-1 , 20*G by A (a--,1 k-d--An're 31 4 0 8.4.(c WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL .:% Nk % h-: GÂ· \ o My commission expires: 61 14 / rat-)\/ :1 Of + 64 4. 99 ./4 /.XY ff=.;40,f~~27 y 43%*517 / Notary Public J ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL .. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RED BUTTE CEMETERY- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alan Richman Planning Services, representing the Red Butte Cemetery Association. The Association proposes to construct a new maintenance shop and other improvements for cemetery management purposes, to rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information, and to repair a historic outhouse structure. The cemetery is located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant' s address is Red Butte Cemetery Association, P.O. Box 194, Aspen, CO 81612, (970) 429-0783. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758. amy.guthrie@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael Hoffman Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times on February 7,2010 City of Aspen Account Easy PeelÂ® Labels | A Bend along line to | ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® 1- Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edgeâ„¢ ~ A .. 1245 BUNNY COURT LLC ALTFELD PHILIP Z TRUST 777 CLUB LLC C/O DAVID HYMAN ALTFELD MARIANN S TRUST 777 CEMETERY LN PO BOX 1954 1250 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GOLF PRO SHOP APPLEBY ALANA & BLAKE ASPEN SB PROPERTY LLC C/O SSI VENTURE LLC PO BOX 9382 4101 PERIMETER CENTER DR #350 299 MILWAUKEE ST #502 ASPEN, CO 81612 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112 DENVER, CO 80206-5045 BACHMANN BRAD ASPEN VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION BARABE CAROLYN STERN MICHELLE PO BOX 1639 790 CASTLE CREEK DR 63 S BENTON WOOD CIR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77382 BAXTER DR J STERLING BEALS ROBERT BERKO NORA PO BOX C 606 SPRING ST 1230 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81612 MACON, GA 31201 ASPEN, CO 81611 CALLAHAN CYNTHIA TRUST 74.95% BLACK BETSY P BLACK BIRCH ESTATES LLC C/O CALLAHAN JOHN E 44125 E HWY 82 6925 HILL FOREST DR 750 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARR RICHARD & JENNIFER CASE JULIE KENNER CERISE JAMES M 1285 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 1265 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN CHALOUPKA DONALD & VIRGINIA M CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M & CANDICE L ATTN FINANCE DEPT 561 TRAILWOOD CIR 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 130 S GALENA ST WINDSOR, CO 80550 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN DANKS LAURA DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT 726 W FRANCIS ST 845 CEMETERY LN PO BOX 5141 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DAVIDSON DONALD ENGLANDER ALAN S ENGLANDER ALAN S TRUST 864 CEMETERY LN 805 CEMETERY LN 323 RAILROAD AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06836 ERDMAN CINDA W & DONNELLEY GEORGE DANIEL R DR GIANCARLO FAMILY TRST 1270 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 630 E HYMAN AVE STE 22 36 EUCLID AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ATHERTON, CA 94027 Etiquettes faciles & peler I A Repliez & la hachure afin de 1 www.avery. com Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® chargement ravaler le rebord Pop-U~TI,1 1 1-800-GO-AVERY 1 Easy PeelÂ® Labels ' A I Bend along line to i ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® I Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM ~ ~ 1 GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR REV GOLDEN PHILIP A & ANNABEL H GUBSER MARGARET B TRUST 1235 SNOWBUNNY LN 1227 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR C/O ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 121 INTERPARK BLVD STE 308 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216 HAMILL SHELLY A & ROBERT L HOMEYER EVE HOUTSMA BOBBI ANN PO BOX HS 194 810 CEMETERY LN 1278 SNOWBUNNY LN #2 SMITHS BERMUDA, HSBX ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HYMAN DAVID HUDSON FRASHER ANN JBL KEYSTONE LLC REID BARBARA P 616 TEXAS ST PO BOX 8355 PO BOX 1954 FORT WORTH, TX 76102 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K KENDALL PHILLIP A KIMBROUGH MARY JO 51 OVERLOOK DR 2121 WOOD AVE 830 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 ASPEN, CO 81611 KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD W LA COUTER WILLIAM R LATTA HELEN S CONDUIT TRUST PO BOX 956 1220 SNOWBUNNY LN 28 LA CUMBRE CIR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105-4442 LINDEN LANE LLC LPRP RIVER LLC 50% LOWEY MARILYN C/O PAMELA ROSENAU LPRP MILL LLC 50% 1215A SNOWBUNNY LN 1721 STONE CANYON RD 1100 BLACK BIRCH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCGILVRAY JOYCE & ALEXANDER C LUX ASPEN LLC MAPLE MICHAEL C & JULIE TRSTE 1252 SNOWBUNNY LN 1250 MTN VIEW DR 325 ARLINGTON DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PASADENA, CA 91105 MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN MCPHERSON DOUGLAS J & SUSAN L MELVILLE GRAIG W & TERESA M LEE CHURCH PO BOX 4412 1286 SNOWBUNNY LN 1235 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ORE BUCKET ASSOCIATES NICHOLS GAIL H POGLIANO FELIX JR C S TRUST 38.46% C/O WILLOW CONNERY 1220 SNOWBUNNY LN 525 W HALLAM ST 1944 HUDSON ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 POGLIANO LENORE L 61.54% PORTER JOE ALLEN & MARGARET A RED MTN GRILL 1110 BLACK BIRCH DR 1270 SNOWBUNNY LN 1000 TRUSCOTT PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles & peter 1 A Repliez & la hachure afin de i www.avery.com 1 Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ruvoler le rebord Pop-UPTM I 1-800-GO-AVERY chargement j Easy PeelÂ® Labels i A I Bend along line to 2 ~ AVERYÂ® 5160Â® ~ Use AveryÂ® Template 5160Â® ~ Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edgeâ„¢ * A ROSEN JACQUELINE S ROTH EDWIN MORTON REV TRUST ROWLANDS DONNA K REV TRST 1285 SNOWBUNNY LN 1225 SNOWBUNNY LN PO BOX 8310 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAH TRUST SAUSSUS GUY & MARTINE SCHEFLER ARNO D 450 PLYMOUTH RD #305 3015 BRYAN ST #3A PO BOX 1005 PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462 DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHAW RICHARD W & SARAH C SHLOMOS ON THE GREEN SNOWBUNNY LLC 1220 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 39551 HWY 82 9051 WATSON RD #333 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63126 SNOWBUNNY LP SPIRITAS NK 1991 TRUST STEGE J B 2529 E INDIAN MOUND RD 2900 N FITZHUGH #200 PO BOX 8355 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 DALLAS, TX 75204-3204 ASPEN, CO 81612 STEGE LELIA TAYLOR STRAUS TRACY J STRICKSTEIN FAMILY TRUST 830 CEMETERY LN 112 W 18TH ST #3A 12599 E SILVER SPUR ASPEN, CO 81611 NEW YORK, NY 10011 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259 TAML HOLDINGS LTD THOMPSON DONNA M TRUST TIERNEY MICHAEL P & CATHY C 3120 ROGERDALE #150 1208 SNOWBUNNY LN 1325 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR HOUSTON, TX 77042 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TOWER CHARLES D TREADWELL DONNA UKRAINE LINDA W REV TRUST PO BOX 3014 1200 CALIFORNIA ST #10C PO BOX 10844 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 ASPEN, CO 81612 WALL CHARLES R REV TRUST WEIMANN PROPERTIES LLLP WEISS CLIFFORD & STACEY 777 CASTLE CREEK DR 775 CEMETERY LN 1280 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WILPON JEFFREY & VALERIE WINCHESTER ROBERT P ZANIN FAMILY INVST LLC 14 BROAD RD PO BOX 5000 00308 MC SKIMMING RD GREENWICH, CT 06830 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 ZIMET MILLARD & SUSAN 1315 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles & peler Repliez & la hachure afin de i www.avery.com i Sens de 1-800-GO-AVERY Utilisez le gabarit AVERYÂ® 5160Â® rdv61er le rebord Pop-Upâ„¢ 5 chargement .. ma-- 4- ....-2- 7r"1.: j - - CZ....: 41% , - 1 4. 1 4 4.' I 1-:44 t 4:'-t ?t .4 t. + 4 - Cl . PUBLIC NOTAE : -4+ tr , DATE E i BleAP' 14 3,4,0 - 4.... '. I. t w TIME lull 211-- t. 6, lut..1 :2 Â· PLACE Â£3Qlgaiti'61_ 1, f pURPOSEMPC MU# ' Re P.,9... F. 1 DN,AL_24Â£1Ihi-Qi r V#Te!14â€¢1i .. i I 1ENJUIi-.8/ALM,Lof'~,2.EY=/reti . S 1 Ik~Â£.Ae/111&*S-_liE~&.*AD kip I V 19'L I.- 1 MUL-SUAL _-_ _-__ , * '14 t. . <t . | a.'00'Nwar..Nwmtia.. 19 . I . ./. - F d *f. 1/ 4 I j...1 1 Z 'N .. + t t tf : I r... I . , . : 1 6 :, + *- fe . ..... .. Â·8081 . . S. . ... . '9 + I . ./9 1 .2 b. . -I It . .- -1/1 â‚¬ I. 1@~. 241~ .3 -> L I 4.4 1 I -4 .1 . EXHIBIT Amy Guthrie 11*110 From: Sarah Shaw [sarahshaw@sopris net] fu Sent: Wednesday February 24, 2010 10 17 AM To: Amy Guthrie Subject: HPC Landscape Letter 1 23 10 doc Attachments: DES+4026 pdf Amy - For distribution to HPC members. Thank you February 23, 2010 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Re: Revised Maintenance Facility Landscape Plan The attached Landscape Plan Option 1 is proposed to replace the Maintenance Facility and Activity Envelope Landscape Plan that is included in the Final Development Plan forthe Red Butte Cemetery currently under review by HPC. This latest plan has been prepared in responsetothree considerations. 1. It excludes the aspen trees that the HPC staff and the cemetery representatives consider inappropriate in the surrounding natural landscape. 2. It is more consistent with thecharacterof the landscape planthat was included inthe land use application (PUD) that has been approved bY the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. 3. It responds to a request by the cemetery officials to reduce the number of plants in the PUD landscape plan. We consider all of these reasonable considerations and submitthis alternative withthe hope that it meets everyone's expectations and can be approved at the HPC hearing on February 24. We have worked through a series of landscape plans with the neighbors and cemetery representatives, and the only significant element that this plan does not provide are clusters of trees to break up views of the maintenance building facades from the adjacent neighborhood. Aspen trees have been considered inappropriate. Spruce trees have been rejected by the cemetery association because of maintenance issues, and in fact, they are working to remove existing evergreen trees from the cemetery itself. Cottonwoods aroundthe maintenance buildingare not considered acceptable becausethey will compete visually with mature cottonwoods in the historic southern portion of the cemetery, and are out of scale with the maintenance facility. Ponderosa pine and Douglas fir are the most historically and ecologically appropriate for this area and we suggest that two or three clusters of one or the other of these trees be considered as an option. These are not illustrated on the accompanying plan, but we would like to discussthe concept with the board. 1 .. Thecurrent alternative plan consists of a vegetation palette that is consistent with the existing conditions surroundingthe north meadow of the cemetery, namely oak and serviceberry with sagebrush and rabbit brush that will beestablished withthe native upland pasture/sage meadow seed mix in the plan. We believe that this plan provides an unobtrusive native landscapethat will not compete with the formal patterns of the cemetery and that is appropriate in the context of the native landscape that will exist until the north meadow is developed for grave sites. We request thatthe plantings be spray irrigated until they reach maturity to maximizetheirrate of growth and height. Thank you for your consideration, Sarah Shaw and Joe Porter 2 . 62 //- ; I \\ Â¥ 41 9 V 1 1111 ---0--- **X< \ / \K- Â»r 01/ 19 1. - J. I *AAE1 ~ 46 F-4, I -1, I 4.. pâ€ž.>g - 1 -Â°9469- .1 U'Â» h. , flÂ¢ 4/99_ - Â£ l . .... 4 4 3# ' .1,e 8 I.*N- I I ~ .37*I.1- - .U. I 1 1/1.4 , . ' ' 1.6 ..,e- 424 2 0 Â·lal .5 m 0, 1- a'-4-3% 3. se-:ceber9 F ga' -i \\ . . tx, ~ ' t ....1 Er--4 2448* 1 6. ).,3 -r' y . . LI 13,/-1 I -2. W6. --- 4- k / 12.[/ . G 4 - '14 Â£ . â€ž r-a .......r 40 . Red Butte Cemetery ' Maintenance Facility & Activity Envelope > 1 fi l Landscape Plan - Option 1 qodh r I Prepar,d by: T#".4 Da. February 22, Z010 Scal,Â· 1~ = 10'-0- 4 ~,t,k EXHIBIT -1 Amy Guthrie From: Margo Gubser [margoaspen@gmail.corn] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 10:02 AM To: Amy Guthrie CC: 'JOE PORTER '; 'Howle Mallory'; 'Margo Gubser' Subject: HPC Letter 2.20.101.doc February 20, 2010 Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Re: Comments on the Red Butte Cemetery Final Development Plan The purpose of this letter is to support the Final Development Plan for the Red Butte Cemetery that has been submitted for HPC final review. Significant progress has been made in the design of the landscape plan for the proposed maintenance facility and the preparation of the landscape management plan forthecemeterythat includesthe north meadow. We thank the cemetery trustees for their willingness to consider our suggestions and for allowing us to work with theirplanner, Alan Richman, and architect Graeme Meansonthese items. Since preliminary plans were approved by HPC in December 2008, a group of neighbors have retained landscape architect Sarah Shaw to collaborate with Graeme and Alan to create a grading and landscape plan for the maintenance facility and a landscape management plan to restore and maintain the north meadow as a native landscape until it is required for grave sites in the future. The results of this work are incorporated into the Final Development Plan currently before HPC. The residents also conducted two work sessions with cemetery officials in late fall to begin some of the restoration activities identified in the management plan, before it snowed. Thirty- six large bags of thistles were cut and hauled away, and weeds were cut in areas of the meadow that have been disturbed. Those areas were reseeded with Upland Pasture/Sage Meadow seed mix. As stated in the submission, the applicant has some concerns about the use of aspen trees in the maintenance facility landscape plan. We are working with the Cemetery Association and hope to resolve this issue before the HPC hearing on February 24. We appreciatethe opportunityto participate in the process and the HPC's past consideration of ourconcerns. Thankyou. Joe Porter, Howie Mallory and Margo Gubser 1 .. RECEIVED . . 23 psÂ·Jc (34 R--04 4*uL gre 70 Michael & Susan Davidoff FEB 2 5 2010 6925 Hill Forest Drive Dallas, Texas 75230 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8<75 ) IG 4940 L*Id ~4 , GYÂ« 4+ po 6. Gote*# 90 06Â«0 00 P ~4 0.,QL & 85 04eof Â«f- CAL 9-Up P of- 7kt- ge_ f E o /4- 6-~u.:-,40,a~ 4% Â»4-6,0 /4 0-00Â« ~i) CtÂ». Ate c/ i._ -~AUO Â·~7- 514 7 694-j 64'~Â«h-â€ž~ h,3 4 (1>ketb aa .jj,L 14 AD G 45 4-fL 0,6-6 ,0 01$ 14-5 P Â»/UAl. ./t e Luff 4 6L 19 0-<10 6-i AU. 410(1, PUBLIC NOTICE RE:RED BUTTE CEMETERY- MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 24,2010 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alan Rich- man Planning Services, representing the Red Butte Cemetery Association. The Association proposes to construct a new maintenance shop and other improvements for cemetery management purpos- es, to rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor in- formation, and to repair a historic outhouse struc ture. The cemetery is located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. City and Townsite of Aspen. The applicant's address Is Red Butte Cemetery Association, P.O. Box 194, Aspen, CO 81612, (970) 429-0783. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429-2758, amy.guthrie@ct.aspen.co.us. s/Michael Hoffman Chair, Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on February 7,2010. [4613762] form of a letter which indudesEÂ¥-appiicant's print- r ed name, signature, residence address, mailing C address if the applicant which to recelÂ·,3 the mail- 1 in ballot by mail, and date of birth. k ASPEN VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT By: W Landis S. Greatho'Â·se d Designatod Electi,Â·~Offictal C Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Februar'y 7.2010 [4559957] C PUBLIC NOTICE D COMBINED NOTICE OF SALE, RIGHT TO C. CURE, AND RIGHT TO REDEEM R, PUBLIC TRUSTEE FORECLOSURE NUMBER R, 09-95 0 To Whom It May Concern: This Notice is given with Oi regard to the following described Deed of Trust: On December 1,2009, the undersigned Public Pu mar?d,%Il~ng12 thee~d ~f~'rru~ cdt~os~r~bneddbe- ~ low to be recorded in the Pitkin County records. pa all Original Grantor(sh DANIEL GLICK DE Original Beneficiary.Â· WELLS FARGO HOME tio MORTGAGE, INC. TI Current Holder 01 Evidence of Debt WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Date of Deed of Trust: 2/3/2003 County ot Recording: Pitkin B Recording Date of Deed of Trust: 2/7/2003 D Reception No.: 478414 P Original Pnncipal Balance: $168,400.00 P Outstanding Principal Balance: $133,835.09 Â» Pursuant to C.R.S. Â§38-38-101(4)(ih you are A herebv notified that the covenants of the deed .. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Dc d /4 i i ftc UE -17-1.r-Â·e,}â‚¬IJ , Aspen, CO $CHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~idl Fr.k -2-4- e-\ 5.-. b O 9 01 , 2040 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) I, 747W -â‚¬3~' 6 j 0 c.>-4 2-'u 1 (name, please print) being or repres@nting 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: V 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 4 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 o f the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) .. Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. 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 o f 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 o f 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 o f owners o f real property in the area o f 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. *gnature i The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this 8 day of E-30 , 201Â£1, by :4-Age fr-, 59- ONKk-,1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: CW\,61 21 44 *2. 9*-an Notary Public ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: â€¢ COPY OF THE PUBLICATION â€¢ PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) â€¢ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL â€¢ APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. Â§24-65.5-103.3