HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20240313.amendedAGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
March 13, 2024
4:30 PM, City Council Chambers -
3rd Floor
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Draft Minutes - 1/24/24
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VI.A Project Monitoring
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.NEW BUSINESS
XI.A Resolution #___, Series of 2024 - 808 Cemetery Lane (Red Butte Cemetery) - Minor
PD Amendment to a Project Review Approval, Use Variation, GMQS Review
*** Amended Agenda as of March 11th, 2024 to include new agenda item XII.A -
Discussion of Letter Regarding the Re-naming of the Benedict Music Tent ***
minutes.hpc.20240124_DRAFT.docx
PROJECT MONITORING.pdf
Project Monitoring And Certificate of No Negative Effect Report.20240313.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Project Review, Use Variation, GMQS_Memo.pdf
1
1
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XII.A Discussion of Letter Regarding the Re-naming of the Benedict Music Tent - NOT A
PUBLIC HEARING
XIII.ADJOURN
XIV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
808 Cemetery Lane_Red Butte Cemetery_Resolution ___,Series of 2024.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit A_Project Review Standards Responses.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit B_Use Variation Standards Responses.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit C_GMQS Standards Responses.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit D_Application.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit E_Referral Comments.pdf
808 Cemetery Lane_Exhibit F_Public Comments through 3-8-2024.pdf
Revised AMFS Draft Letter.docx
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major
development)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development, 10 minutes for major
development)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed .
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed
resolution.
Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite
presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team
will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return.
2
2
Updated: March 7, 2024
3
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 24TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford,
Jeffery Halferty, and Kara Thompson. Absent was Riley Warwick.
Staff present:
Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford motioned to approve the draft minutes from 1/10/24. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Sulfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes;
Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Armstrong noted that no project monitoring had occurred since the last
meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: None
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Armstrong mentioned two certificates that had been issued.
One at 516 East Hyman Ave. and one at 500 West Francis St. She then described the details of each.
CALL UP REPORTS: None.
Mr. Fornell asked if Ms. Mullins had received approval for her requested TDRs. Mr. Hayden said yes. Ms.
Armstrong said the TDR approvals have been fairly streamlined recently and Council has been excited to
award them.
NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of Letter Regarding the Re-Naming of the Benedict Music Tent – NOT A
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Thompson introduced the item and noted that while this is not a public hearing, if the board wanted
to ask questions of Ms. Laura Smith from AMFS, she could come up and answer.
Mr. Moyer noted that he had sent the board members a few items going over some history of the tent
and Mr. Benedict’s involvement in the town. He said that he had spent a lot of time with Fritz and that
Fritz was a marvelous dreamer. He then shared several pictures from a trip he had gone on with Fritz to
the Haute route in the Alps. He described the pictures and shared stories of the different members on
the trip. He noted that he had recently asked about 100 people what they thought about the naming of
the tent. He said all but two people thought it was an absurd thing to do. He said the two not apposed,
were both financial gentlemen from the world from which the donor comes from. He said that Fritz was
a modest, pragmatic, and process-oriented person and that he would have said “take the money”. Mr.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 24TH, 2024
Moyer said that this was not about Fritz. It was about the history of Aspen. He went on to talk about the
“Waterfall House” which was designed by Fritz.
Ms. Raymond said that what struck her from the information shared, was that Fritz was never given a lot
of kudos and that he had no interest in the tent being named after him. It seemed like it was named
after him after he had donated the land for a few huts and reformed the Music School Board. She
thought the fact that he basically saved the Music School was an important part of Aspen’s history that
needed to be saved and taken into consideration. She said she would rather not see the tent be
renamed.
Ms. Thompson reminder the board that they did not have any say in the renaming. They only had the
opportunity to convey their opinions.
Ms. Johnson provided some context of the HPC’s role as a board regarding this topic. She went over the
board’s role as spelled out in the Land Use Code. She felt that this is a site or area that certainly
represents some of Aspen’s cultural, educational, and architectural history. She thought if the board
wanted to express an opinion, it would make sense and work if they tie it to the board’s main roles from
the Land Use Code.
Ms. Thompson said that the draft letter was a good start but would like it to tie back to their purpose as
a board. She would also like to see the language be softened a bit. She would be in support of sending a
letter but would like to make some modifications to Mr. Moyer’s draft.
Ms. Pitchford liked the idea of providing the context in the introduction of the letter. She felt that the
notion of remembering a community’s roots and the people who contributed to it was important and
that the tent was definitely part of the town’s history, and that Fritz contributed a lot to town. She felt it
was incumbent on the board to share their perspective on the importance of recognizing that site as
part of the town’s history.
Mr. Moyer believed that the context that Ms. Johnson had described would be a better introduction to
the letter.
Mr. Fornell wanted to confirm that the music tent was not on the list of designated historic sites. Ms.
Thompson said she believed it was on a list of properties they would like to be designated but was not
currently.
Mr. Fornell then asked Ms. Smith if the Music Festival went out in search of money and offered the
naming rights in exchange for the donation or did the individual only make the donation under the
condition that his name was put on the tent.
Ms. Smith said that the Music Festival has been soliciting a donor with naming rights for the tent since
approximately 1995.
Mr. Fornell wanted to confirm that the notion wasn’t born from the donor but was born from the Music
Festival in their efforts to find a donor. He said that that makes a difference to him.
Mr. Halferty asked if this was from the Music Festival and not the Aspen Institute which Ms. Smith said
yes.
Ms. Smith said that she came to help create some understanding and not to create a battle. She felt that
they all share values and that they may have competing top priorities. She said that no one here doesn’t
love and honor Fritz. She then noted that the current name came onto the tent only 23 years ago, after
Fritz had passed and that it was named because there wasn’t a naming donor at the time. The naming
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 24TH, 2024
option has been open ever since and has been printed in the Festival’s materials and that Mr. Klein was
the first to step up. She acknowledged how this is challenging for this commission and the town but
noted that naming rights are how many non-profits raise money and survive. Every non-profit of a
certain size in the country does it. She also noted that the roof replacement, set for this coming fall
would be $2 million and that amount is hard to raise at $40 ticket prices. She understood how that can
come into conflict with the conversation that the board is having. She stressed that they would continue
to honor the Benedict’s and the many others who have stepped up over the years to help the Festival.
She noted that the name on the tent is a 25-year gift and in 25 years the naming rights will be open
again for another donor.
Ms. Thompson said that the board just wanted to convey their perspective and she thought that at a
certain point in time the tent and property should be memorialized in a more official way, because they
are so important to the history of Aspen.
Ms. Smith mentioned that they are celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Music School and Festival this
coming summer and invited the HPC members to attend the anniversary party on the opening Sunday of
the Festival.
Ms. Raymond thanked Ms. Smith for her perspective and appreciated the idea of trying to figure out a
way to honor all the people who have contributed to the Festival over the years. She wanted to clarify
that the naming of the tent is already a done deal. Ms. Smith confirmed that it is done. With that
answer, Ms. Raymond acknowledged that this potential letter would only present a stance from the HPC
members.
Ms. Pitchford understood non-profits and that naming rights are a source of revenue. She did feel
though, that in this small town with these very important sites with so much history, we need to figure
out a way to memorialize them without putting a name on them. She felt they needed to continue to
raise their voices to not just preserve buildings but also what those buildings represent.
Ms. Surfas said that the gentleman that made the donation seemed to be involved with the Festival. Ms.
Smith said that he has been attending the Festival for 40 years and on the board for 12 years. Ms. Surfas
said she was surprised that with that amount of involvement that he needed the naming rights.
Mr. Fornell and Ms. Thompson noted that it was offered to him.
Mr. Halferty noted that the HPC just approved the Resnick Center for Herbert Bayer Studies. He said he
was just playing devil’s advocate, but while he was still a huge fan of the Benedict family, he asked how
this was different. He mentioned it because he wanted to make sure he was being consistent.
Mr. Fornell said that the difference for him was that the naming rights were offered to donor. He
thought that if the donor had come in with an ego and said he would donate $17 million, but only if they
put his name on it, then Mr. Fornell would be dead set against this. Since the Music School had put this
offer out to the public, and was successful in getting a donor, he felt it was different. He also had taken
into consideration the fact that the Music Festival is still planning on naming one of the entrances after
Fritz. He recognized and appreciated Mr. Moyer’s knowledge and valued his perspective on all of this.
but said he didn’t know if he would be able to add his name to a letter that puts the Music Festival in a
negative light.
Ms. Raymond thought that this conversation should have happened a long time ago, before the naming
rights were offered to the public. She agreed with the consistency idea that Mr. Halferty pointed out.
She acknowledged the fact that many people have contributed to the tent and Music School and that
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JANUARY 24TH, 2024
the naming rights are going to come up again in 20 years or so. She suggested creating a wall of sorts to
be able to include everyone’s name on.
Mr. Moyer said that he had had the same idea of a recognition wall. He said that he had asked one of
the Music Festival board members about the decision and they told him that it was made before
informing the board. He asked if that was true. Ms. Smith said that standard practice is that gifts are
accepted by the executive committee. Mr. Moyer felt that the executive committee should have come
to the community ahead of making the decision. He questioned the make up of the executive
committee and their connection to the history of Aspen.
Ms. Smith said that that seemed like some kind of implication of impropriety that she felt was not fair.
Ms. Thompson said she could support some type of letter that explained the context that Ms. Johnson
outlined and encouraged the Music tent to further represent all the people who have been important to
the Festival and tent.
Mr. Moyer still felt they needed to say that they are disappointed in the decision and that it was
ignoring Fritz’s contribution.
Ms. Thompson asked to be able to take a stab at creating a more encouraging letter, asking the Music
Festival to find some ways to represent their history in a way that the HPC could support.
Mr. Fornell suggested that the letter note that the decision lacked input for the community.
Ms. Pitchford noted that they don’t want to create contentious relationships and hope they could frame
the letter so that in the future a more collaborative approach could be taken that brings the community
in.
Mr. Fornell asked Ms. Smith if the Music Festival was planning any type of announcement to let the
community know that the donation was not made out of personal ego, but rather it was an offer made
by the Music Festival. He asked because he said it changed his whole notion and perspective of the
donor.
Ms. Smith noted that it is damaging for any non-profit to have an entity write a letter to the newspaper
saying a decision of theirs was bad and they should be unpopular in the community. She again noted
that they were just raising money as a lot of non-profits do with an offer that has been out there and
known about for more that 20 years.
Ms. Johnson remined the HPC members that if they had strong thoughts or feelings on this, they could
always write a letter to the papers as individuals, but this discussion was about if the board as a whole
wants to send a letter. She noted that this discussion should also figure out who the letter would go to.
Mr. Moyer said his intention was to send it to the Music Festival, but also put it in the newspaper.
ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
7
HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction
1/4/2024
Kara Thompson 300 E. Hyman
201 E. Main
333 W. Bleeker
234 W. Francis
Skier’s Chalet Steakhouse
101 W. Main (Molly Gibson Lodge)
720 E. Hyman
304 E. Hopkins
312 W. Hyman
520 E. Cooper
931 Gibson
1020 E. Cooper
Jeff Halferty 110 W. Main, Hotel Aspen
134 E. Bleeker
300 E. Hyman
434 E. Cooper, Bidwell
414-420 E. Cooper, Red Onion/JAS
517 E. Hopkins
Lift 1 corridor ski lift support structure
227 E. Bleeker
211/213 W. Hopkins
211 W. Main
215 E. Hallam
500 E. Durant
413 E. Main
Roger Moyer 227 E. Main
135 E. Cooper
110 Neale
517 E. Hopkins
Skier’s Chalet Lodge
202 E. Main
320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels)
611 W. Main
132 W. Hopkins
500 E. Durant
Jodi Surfas 202 E. Main
320 E. Hyman (Wheeler Opera House, solar panels)
611 W. Main
602 E. Hyman
Peter Fornell 304 E. Hopkins
233 W. Bleeker
214 W. Bleeker
Barb Pitchford 121 W. Bleeker
312 W. Hyman
132 W. Hopkins
214 W. Bleeker
630 W. Main
420 W. Francis
135 W. Francis
Kim Raymond 630 W. Main
205 W. Main
216 W. Hyman
8
HPC PROJECT MONITORS - projects in bold are permitted or under construction
1/4/2024
Riley Warwick 420 E. Durant/Rubey Park
420 W. Francis
400 E. Cooper
9
Project Monitoring and Certificate of No Negative Effect Report
Historic Preservation Commission March 13, 2024
10
Project
Monitoring
•227 E. Bleeker St.
•227 E. Main St.
•135 E. Cooper Ave.
•510 E. Durant Ave.
•414/418 E. Cooper Ave.
•201 E. Main St.
Certificate of No
Negative Effect
•None issued since last
HPC meeting.
11
227 E. Bleeker St.
Request: Eco-Star-branded synthetic wood shakes for the
historic resource.
12
227 E. Bleeker St.
Request: Relocate the electric utility
panels from the east to the west
façade of the new addition at 227 E.
Bleeker St.
13
227 E. Main St.
Request: Consolidate historic siding material on elevations visible from the street.
14
135 E. Cooper Ave.
Request: Change window casings material to patinaed bronze on
only the non-historic addition.
15
510 E. Durant Ave.
Request: Addition of mechanical unit on the SE corner, and extension of approved screening.
The gas meter was previously approved to be relocated, but now will remain in place.
16
414/418 E. Cooper Ave.
Request: Ruby Red and Rose Blend Smooth Modular bricks for front and rear façade cladding, respectively.
17
201 E. Main St.
Request: New ventilation well and below grade exhaust termination on east end of the new building.
18
Page 1 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation
FROM: Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner II
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2024
RE: 808 Cemetery Lane – Red Butte Cemetery – Minor Planned Development
(PD) Amendment to Project Review Standards, Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS) review, and a Minor Planned Development Amendment for
Use Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
Red Butte Cemetery Association,
808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO
81611
REPRESENTATIVE:
Alan Richman, Alan Richman
Planning Services, LLC, P.O. Box
3613, Aspen, CO 81612
LOCATION:
Street Address:
808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO
81611
Legal Description:
Red Butte Cemetery, According to
the Final PUD Plat Thereof
Recorded July 11, 2012 in Plat
Book 100 at Page 38
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2735-122-00-851
CURRENT ZONING & USE
Park (P); Planned Development
(PD) Overlay
PROPOSED ZONING & USE:
Proposed change in use to allow
a deed restricted affordable
housing unit.
SUMMARY:
808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery, is an AspenVictorian
designated property containing a cemetery, a Victorian-era cabin
and outhouse, and a non-historic maintenance facility. The
applicant requests approval for a Minor Amendment to Project
Review Standards, a Growth Management Quota System review,
and a Minor Amendment for Use Variations to establish a deed
restricted affordable housing unit on site in the existing
maintenance facility. The applicant requests no exterior changes
to the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports the application and recommends approval with the
conditions outlined in the draft resolution.
Site Locator Map – 808 Cemetery Lane.
19
Page 2 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND:
808 Cemetery Lane is a 16.8 -acre lot in the Park (P) Zone District with a Planned Development
(PD) overlay. The property contains a historic cemetery, Victorian era cabin and outhouse, and a
maintenance facility. Newspaper records dating back to 1901 indicate that, historically, a
caretaker for the cemetery lived on site in the Victorian era cabin. Approximately 15-20 years ago,
the Red Butte Cemetery Association began to deal with some significant maintenance issues.
Specifically, the cemetery is lined with more than 200 narrow-leaf cottonwood trees that are over
100 years old. This task coupled with the increased maintenance of the cemetery plots, snow
removal, and other general maintenance led to the Association to request a permanent on -site
maintenance facility.
In 2009, City Council approved a consolidated PUD review, an amendment to the official zone
district map, and a GMQS review for Essential Public Facility for the construction of the
Maintenance Facility and the restoration of the Victoria-era cabin and outhouse. During the 2009
approval process, the Red Butte Cemetery Association sought to allow an employee housing unit
on site for the long-term employee who lived outside of the Roaring Fork Valley. This proved to
be a contentious issue in 2009. Part of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2009 stipulated that, “the
maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight.”
The Red Butte Cemetery Association approached the subject again in 2014 and requested the
removal of the above stipulation so that the employee could sleep overnight from time -to-time.
This was approved via City Council Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2014 as a conditional, one year
approval of a deed restricted housing unit. The Association did not seek re-approval after the one-
year approval. The applicant now requests permanent approval of the space as an affordable
housing unit for its employee.
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
Figure 1. Red Butte Cemetery (Aspenvictorian.com) Figure 2. Red Butte Cemetery, 2015 (Aspenvictorian.com)
20
Page 3 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The Applicant requests the following recommendations of approval from HPC. Pending a
recommendation, the application will be reviewed for a final decision from City Council:
• Minor Planned Development Amendment to Project Review Standards (Section
26.445.050) for the dimensional request to allow the use of 352 square feet of an existing
building for an affordable housing unit. This triggered review by the HPC as the site is a
designated historic site.
• Use Variation Request (Section 26.445.060) for a use variation allowing Residential as
an approved use on the site.
• Growth Management Quota System Review (Sections 26.470.010, 26.470.080, and
26.470.100) for a GMQS Affordable Housing allotment to allow for a deed restricted
affordable housing unit on site.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant proposes utilizing 352 square feet of the existing 1,280 square feet non-historic
maintenance facility on site for a permanent deed restricted affordable housing unit. The current
maintenance facility includes an office and equipment maintenance area. This request will not
alter the internal configuration of the maintenance facility. There will be no exterior improvements
on site with this approval. This is a voluntary deed restriction and does not include the issuance
of any Affordable Housing Credits.
Figure 3. Existing Unit Configuration Figure 4. Proposed Unit Configuration
21
Page 4 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
STAFF COMMENTS:
Project Review Standards – Section 26.445.050 (Exhibit A)
Staff reviewed the Project Review Standards and found that all standards were either met
or not applicable. The proposed development is consistent with adopted regulatory plans.
The proposal complies with the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan by providing hou sing
for a member of Aspen’s workforce. Specifically, the proposed development complies with
Housing Policies:
I.2. Deed-restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum degree possible.
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity.
IV.2. All affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary.
IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred.
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan also mentions that:
“This plan emphasizes the need to spread accountability and responsibility for
providing affordable housing units beyond the City and County governmental
structures, and continuing to pursue affordable housing projects on available public
land through a transparent and accountable public process.” (Aspen Area
Community Plan, City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 2012, page 38).
This means private parties are integral in creating workforce and affordable housing in lieu
of all affordable housing opportunities being initiated by the City or County.
Ordinance #21, Series of 2009 approved the Red Butte Cemetery PUD, a GMQS review
for an Essential Public Facility, and the creation of the 1,280 sq. ft. maintenance facility on
site. This ordinance also set the dimensional requirements for the site. The ma ximum
external floor area ratio for the maintenance building was 1,300 sq. ft. and 275 sq. ft. of
floor area for the Victorian cabin and outhouse. This ordinance also included a list of
conditions for the property. Specifically, Section 1f prohibited the use of the maintenance
facility from being used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. The applicant
proposes amending the dimensional requirements to set a maximum of 1,300 square feet,
comprising approximately 928 square feet for a maintenanc e area/work room and 352
square feet for an affordable housing unit.
Maximum External Floor
Area
Maintenance building: 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area consisting of 352 sq.
ft. for the affordable housing unit and 928 sq. ft. for the maintenance
work room.
Victorian cabin and outhouse: combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of
floor area
Table 1: Proposed Dimensional Standards
22
Page 5 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Additionally, the proposed development is located on suitable land for development. The
proposed development does not involve any exterior improvements, it simply involves the
interior changes required to turn part of the maintenance facility into a deed r estricted
affordable housing unit. As mentioned previously, staff finds that all criteria are adequately
addressed and met for the Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval.
Use Variation Standards – Section 26.445.060 (Exhibit B)
The applicant proposes to allow a residential use in the Park (P) zone district. This zone
district does not permit or conditionally allow residential uses. Interestingly enough, a
cemetery is not an allowed or conditional use in the Park zone district. The proposed use
variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land uses in the area.
The Cemetery has existed for approximately 125 years and the Cemetery has existed prior
to all residential development in the immediate vicinity. The proposed use variation, to allow
a deed restricted affordable housing unit, is effectively incorporated into the project’s
overall mix of uses as it will directly support the maintenance and upkeep of the Red Butte
Cemetery. As mentioned by the applicant, “this will allow the Association to enhance the
upkeep of this historic property by having an on-site ‘caretaker’ for the property who
provides a regular presence on this site.”
It is important to note that a caretaker has historically lived on this site as far back as 1901.
According to an article from 1901 in The Aspen Democrat, “On Evergreen Avenue and this
ground the house of the sexton stands facing the entrance to the cemetery…The house of
the sexton is located on the grounds as stated and he lives in the house all the year.” 1 This
demonstrates that historically a caretaker has lived, year -round, on this site. Additionally,
George Jenkinson, was listed as a caretaker at the Red Butte Cemetery during the 1920,
1930, and 1940 Censuses. Staff is unsure if he lived on site while he was caretaker.
Maintenance is a significant issue for aging sites and structures. Allowing the maintenance
caretaker to live in the deed restricted affordable housing unit could positively affect the
upkeep of the cemetery as a whole. The trees, and other vegetation, aro und the grounds
contribute significantly to the character of the cemetery landscape. According to the
National Park Service Cemetery Preservation Course,
“Over time, woody plants mature and decline due to age and disease. Dead
branches in specimen trees can pose threats to visitors, monuments, and
structures. Proper maintenance, including pruning, integrated pest
management, and periodic replacement ensures that character-defining
vegetation remains a part of the cemetery.”2
In theory, the more that the maintenance worker can be on site, the more thorough maintenance
strategies that may be achieved. This would also restore a historic use to the site.
1 The Aspen Democrat “Interesting Report of the Red Butte Cemetery Association from April 6, 1899, to April 1, 1901” April
7, 1901
2 https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/cemetery-preservation-course-landscapes-and-vegetation.htm
23
Page 6 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
The location, size, and design of the property are not changing from an exterior
perspective. The Association proposes instructing the employee that they cannot make
any exterior changes as part of the lease. The operating characteristics will remain largely
unchanged. The only change is that the employee will be on site more often than currently.
The employee shall be able to use the Victorian cabin on site for personal storage
purposes. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulator y plans.
A live-in caretaker, a sexton, has been an intentional and integral part of the Red Butte
Cemetery since its inception. As exemplified by Ute and Aspen Grove Cemeteries,
preserving inactive historic cemeteries is cumbersome. Maintaining vegetation, managing
visitors, and mitigating climate caused deterioration in an active historic burial ground
without hastily adding to the damage takes time and dedication. A live-in caretaker on this
site has the possibility of preserving the historic integrity of this p recious cultural landscape
in the City of Aspen.
Growth Management Quota System Sections 26.470.010, 26.470.080, 26.470.100 (Exhibit C)
There are unlimited allotments available for Residential – Affordable Housing units. As
mentioned previously, the development of affordable housing on this site meets several of
the Housing Policies in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed devel opment
does not include any exterior changes or additional floor area. The development does not
require any additional public facilities to accommodate this project. The development does
not overextend the community’s ability to provide support services.
The proposed unit will be owned by the Red Butte Cemetery Association. The unit will be
deed restricted according to applicable APCHA standards. APACHA has listed conditions
for the Ordinance if passed. Lastly, the unit will be offered to the Red Butte Cemetery
employee rent-free and the employee will be paid by the Cemetery Association as occurs
now.
REFERRAL COMMENTS (Exhibit E):
The application was referred out to the Building Department and the Aspen Pitkin County Housing
Authority who have requirements that will affect the Ordinance and permit review. Building had
no initial comments and will re-review at time of building permit. APCHA recommends that:
• The unit be specifically for the employee of the Red Butte Cemetery Association;
• A deed restriction approved by APCHA must be recorded on the unit;
• The employee must still qualify with APCHA prior to occupying said unit as well as requalifying
every two years as required by the Regulations;
• Said employee does not have to meet the minimum number of hours of 1,500 hours; however,
must work the time specified in the application for the Red Butte Cemetery Association (spring,
summer, fall, and snow plowing the roads in winter);
• The employee cannot own any other residential property with the ownership exclusion zone as
specified by the APCHA Regulations;
• The unit shall be classified as a Category RO, but the rental rate will be based on the employee’s
category.
24
Page 7 of 7
427 Rio Grande Pl., Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the HPC adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of the
request to establish a deed restricted affordable housing unit on site. HPC is asked to provide
recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial – based on the review criteria
presented. HPC also has discretion to formally forward any comments, suggestions, or proposed
conditions as part of the recommendation to City Council, if desired. Any additions should be
specified within a motion for approving the Resolution and recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2024
Exhibit A – Staff Response Project Review Standards
Exhibit B – Staff Response Use Variation Standards
Exhibit C – Staff Response GMQS Standards
Exhibit D – Application
Exhibit E – Referral Comments
Exhibit F – Consolidated Public Comments through 3/8/2024
25
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2024
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #___
(SERIES OF 2024)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW AMENDMENT, A USE VARIATION REVIEW, AND A GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT DEED
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
808 CEMETERY LANE; RED BUTTE CEMETERY, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL
PUD PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JULY 11, 2012 IN PLAT BOOK 100 AT PAGE 38;
CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2735-122-00-851
WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, 808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen,
CO 81611, represented by Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, LLC, P.O. Box
3613, Aspen, CO 81612, has requested HPC approval for a Planned Development Project
Review Amendment, a Use Variation review, and a Growth Management Quota System review
for the property located at 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2024, during a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission considered the development proposal under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, reviewed, and considered the
recommendation of the Community Development Director and took and considered public
comment; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the
development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that approval of the request is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approves Resolution #__,
Series of 2024, by a xx to xx (x – x) vote, recommending approval of the request for Planned
Development – Project Review, Use Variation review, and Growth Management Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION HEREBY
RECOMMENDS TO ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROPOSAL AT 808 CEMETERY LANE TO ESTABLISH A DEED
RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT IN THE EXISTING MAINTENANCE
FACILITY SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWS AND CONDITIONS:
26
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2024
Page 2 of 3
Section 1: Planned Development Dimensional Standards
The Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval to develop the affordable housing unit
upon the following dimensional standards:
Maximum External Floor
Area
Maintenance building: 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area consisting of 352 sq.
ft. for the affordable housing unit and 928 sq. ft. for the maintenance
work room.
Victorian cabin and outhouse: combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of
floor area
Section 2: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Conditions of Approval
1. The unit be specifically for the employee of the Red Butte Cemetery Association.
2. A deed restriction approved by APCHA must be recorded on the unit.
3. The employee must still qualify with APCHA prior to occupying said unit as well as
requalifying every two years as required by the Regulations.
4. Said employee does not have to meet the minimum number of hours of 1,500 hours;
however, must work the time specified in the application for the Red Butte Cemetery
Association (spring, summer, fall, and snow plowing the roads in winter).
5. The employee cannot own any other residential property with the ownership exclusion
zone as specified by the APCHA Regulations.
6. The unit shall be classified as a Category RO, but the rental rate will be based on the
employee’s category.
Section 3: Material Representations
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 Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation
Commission, or the Aspen 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
other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 4: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 13th day of March, 2024.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
27
HPC Resolution #___, Series of 2024
Page 3 of 3
________________________________ ________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
28
Exhibit A – Project Review Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 1 of 5
Project Review Standards Section 26.445.050
(a) Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with
applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Response: The proposed development is consistent with adopted regulatory plans. The
proposal complies with the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan by providing housing for a
member of Aspen’s workforce. Specifically, the proposed development complies with Housing
Policies:
I.2. Deed-restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum degree possible.
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity.
IV.2. All affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary.
IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred.
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan also mentions that:
“this plan emphasizes the need to spread accountability and responsibility for providing
affordable housing units beyond the City and County governmental structures, and
continuing to pursue affordable housing projects on available public land through a
transparent and accountable public process.” (Aspen Area Community Plan, City of Aspen
and Pitkin County, 2012, page 38).
This means private parties are integral in creating workforce and affordable housing in lieu of
all affordable housing opportunities being initiated by the City or County.
The property received approval to construct the maintenance facility pursuant to Ordinance
#21, Series of 2009. In 2014, the Red Butte Cemetery Association received approval for internal
floor plan changes to accommodate an employee sleeping on the property from time to time.
Additionally, City Council approved a conditional, one year deed restricted housing unit. The
applicant now seeks permanent approval for an affordable housing unit for its employee. The
Association would pay the employee for their work and would not charge the employee rent.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
(b) Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on
land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the
property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil
creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snow
slide areas, slopes in excess of thirty percent (30%), and any other natural or man-made
hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected
areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques
acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29—Engineering
29
Exhibit A – Project Review Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 2 of 5
Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this
standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and
implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within
a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The proposed development is located on suitable land for development. The
proposed development does not involve any exterior improvements, it simply involves the interior
changes required to turn part of the maintenance facility into a deed restricted affordable
housing unit. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(c) Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the
area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used:
(1) The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such
as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows
development to blend in with or enhance said features.
(2) The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or
features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute
to the identity of the town.
(3) Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context.
Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and
service vehicle access.
Staff Response: No changes are proposed to the site plan. The only changes proposed are
interior changes to accommodate a dwelling unit. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
(d) Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established
during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any
dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given
to the following criteria:
(1) There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations.
(2) The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary
uses of the project.
(3) The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of
the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing
of nearby historical or cultural resources
30
Exhibit A – Project Review Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 3 of 5
(4) The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable
number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of
the proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of
common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement.
(5) The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific
allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes
shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110—Amendments.
Staff Response: Ordinance #21, Series of 2009 approved the Red Butte Cemetery PUD, a GMQS
review for an Essential Public Facility, and the creation of the 1,280 sq. ft. maintenance facility
on site. This ordinance also set the dimensional requirements for the site. The maximum
external floor area ratio for the maintenance building was 1,300 sq. ft. and 275 sq. ft. of floor
area for the Victorian cabin and outhouse. This ordinance also included a list of conditions for
the property. Specifically, Section 1f prohibited the use of the maintenance facility from being
used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. The applicant proposes amending the
dimensional requirements to set a maximum of 1,300 square feet, comprising approximately
928 square feet for a maintenance area/work room and 352 square feet for an affordable
housing unit. The applicant is prepared to reflect these changes in a PD plat; however, staff
does not believe that a PD plat would be the appropriate document for this proposal.
There exists a significant community goal, development of affordable housing, to be achieved
with the variation of the dimensional requirements to allow the deed restricted affordable
housing unit on site. A deed restricted affordable housing unit in an already existing building is
a viable, sustainable outcome. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and
indicative of the primary uses of the project. There is prior precedent on this site of a caretaker
living on the grounds of the cemetery as far back as 1901. There is also prior precedent of City
Council allowing overnight stay by the caretaker. The caretaker supports the management and
maintenance of the many distinct issues that cemeteries face. One need only look at Ute
Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery to see a potential outcome of inadequate maintenance.
Additionally, preservation of our pristine cultural landscapes (Red Butte Cemetery) is vital to
the mission of the Historic Preservation program in the City of Aspen. Allowing a caretaker unit
on site would allow for better management and preservation outcomes for the cemetery itself. If
a unit is established on this site for the caretaker, that would restore the historic use of this
property. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(e) Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the
context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria
shall be used:
31
Exhibit A – Project Review Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 4 of 5
(1) The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in
Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design
Standards, and Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation.
(2) The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design
standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are
finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or
conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review.
Staff Response: No changes are proposed to the design of the development. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
(f) Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular
facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on
existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The city may require specific
designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the
Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: The proposed development does not improve pedestrian, bicycle, or transit
facilities; however, it does not affect the existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The
development simply involves the changes necessary to accommodate a dwelling unit in the
existing building on site. The affordable housing unit is located next to the Cemetery Lane bus
route, WeCycle bicycle station, and the ABC trail. The effects on traffic are negligible. The
worker currently maintaining the cemetery drives to and from Aspen currently. This
development will remove at least one person from the downvalley traffic into and out of Aspen.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
(g) Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering
design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with
the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 Engineering Design Standards and
the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require
specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of
the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement.
Staff Response: This development proposal does not include any changes to the site design. Staff
finds this criterion not applicable.
(h) Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade
public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at
the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation
techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and
documented within a Development Agreement.
32
Exhibit A – Project Review Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 5 of 5
Staff Response: The proposed development does not require additional infrastructure or
facilities to serve it. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
(i) Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed
legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate
or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned
Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure
adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and
driveways are prohibited.
Staff Response: The proposed development does not propose any changes to the current access
and circulation on site. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
33
Exhibit B – Use Variation Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 1 of 2
Sec. 26.445.060. - Use Variation Standards.
A development application may request variations in the allowed uses permitted in the zone
district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the request and its
conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The permitted and
conditional uses allowed on the property according to its zoning shall be used as a guide, but not
an absolute limitation, to the land uses which may be considered during the review. Any use
variation allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Review approval. In the
review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission
or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the
following standards related to Use Variations:
(a) The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned land
uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to
the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the proposed uses may
enhance the project or immediate vicinity.
(b) The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project's overall mix of
uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses within a
project will interact and support one another.
(c) The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use variation
minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties.
(d) The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Staff Response: The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and
planned land uses in the area. The Cemetery has existed for approximately 125 years and the
Cemetery has existed prior to all residential development in the immediate vicinity. The zoning
around the cemetery is almost exclusively residential. The proposed use variation, to allow a
deed restricted affordable housing unit, is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix
of uses as it will directly support the maintenance and upkeep of the Red Butte Cemetery. As
mentioned by the applicant, “this will allow the Association to enhance the upkeep of this
historic property by having an on-site ‘caretaker’ for the property who provides a regular
presence on this site.”
It is important to note that a caretaker has historically lived on this site as far back as 1901.
According to an article from 1901 in The Aspen Democrat, “On Evergreen Avenue and this
ground the house of the sexton stands facing the entrance to the cemetery…The house of the
sexton is located on the grounds as stated and he lives in the house all the year.” This
demonstrates that historically a caretaker has lived, year-round, on this site. Additionally,
George Jenkinson, was listed as a caretaker at the Red Butte Cemetery during the 1920, 1930,
and 1940 Censuses. Staff is unsure if he lived on site while he was caretaker.
The location, size, and design of the property are not changing from an exterior perspective.
The Association proposes instructing the employee that they cannot make any exterior changes
as part of the lease. The operating characteristics will remain largely unchanged. The only
34
Exhibit B – Use Variation Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 2 of 2
change is that the employee will be on site more often than currently. The employee shall be
able to use the Victorian cabin on site for personal storage purposes. The proposed use variation
complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
A live-in caretaker, a sexton, has been an intentional and integral part of the Red Butte Cemetery
since its inception. As exemplified by Ute and Aspen Grove Cemeteries, preserving inactive
historic cemeteries is cumbersome. Maintaining vegetation, managing visitors, and mitigating
climate caused deterioration in an active historic burial ground without hastily adding to the
damage takes time and dedication. A live-in caretaker on this site has the possibility of
preserving the historic integrity of this precious cultural landscape in the City of Aspen.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
35
Exhibit C – GMQS Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 1 of 4
Sec. 26.470.010 Growth Management Quota System - Purpose
The Applicant seeks a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Affordable Housing
allotment to allow for a deed restricted affordable housing unit on site.
(a) Implement the goals and policies for the City and the Aspen Area Community Plan;
Staff Response: The proposal implements the goals and policies for the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan by providing housing for a member of Aspen’s workforce. Specifically, the
proposed development complies with Housing Policies:
I.2. Deed-restricted housing units should be utilized to the maximum degree possible.
II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity.
IV.2. All affordable housing must be located within the Urban Growth Boundary.
IV.3. On-site housing mitigation is preferred.
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan also mentions that:
“this plan emphasizes the need to spread accountability and responsibility for providing
affordable housing units beyond the City and County governmental structures, and
continuing to pursue affordable housing projects on available public land through a
transparent and accountable public process.” (Aspen Area Community Plan, City of
Aspen and Pitkin County, 2012, page 38).
This means private parties are integral in creating workforce and affordable housing in lieu of
all affordable housing opportunities being initiated by the City or County.
The property received approval to construct the maintenance facility pursuant to Ordinance
#21, Series of 2009. In 2014, the Red Butte Cemetery Association received approval for internal
floor plan changes to accommodate an employee sleeping on the property from time to time.
Additionally, City Council approved a conditional, one year deed restricted housing unit. The
applicant now seeks permanent approval for an affordable housing unit for its employee. The
Association would pay the employee for their work and would not charge the employee rent.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
(b) Ensure that growth and development occurs in an orderly and efficient manner in the
City;
Staff Response: The proposed development does not include any exterior changes or additional
floor area. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(c) Ensure sufficient public facilities are present to accommodate growth and development;
36
Exhibit C – GMQS Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 2 of 4
Staff Response: The development does not require any additional public facilities to
accommodate the project. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(d) Ensure that growth and development is designed and constructed to maintain the
character and ambiance of the City;
Staff Response: This development is located outside of the Aspen infill area. The proposal will
help the City reach its goals on affordable housing within the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff
finds this criterion is met.
(e) Ensure the presence of an adequate supply of affordable housing, businesses and events
that serve the local, permanent community and the area’s tourist base;
Staff Response: The proposed development would allow a deed restricted affordable housing
unit on site ensuring the presence of an adequate supply of affordable housing. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
(f) Ensure that growth and development does not overextend the community’s ability to
provide support services, including employee housing, traffic control and parking; and,
Staff Response: The development does not overextend the community’s ability to provide
support services. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(g) Ensure that the resulting employees generated, and impacts created by development
and redevelopment are mitigated by said development and redevelopment.
Staff Response: No employees are generated by this development, rather it serves to house an
existing employee. Staff finds this criterion is met.
Sec. 26.470.080 Growth Management Quota System – General Review
Standards
(a) Sufficient Allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(b). Applications for
multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet
this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested.
37
Exhibit C – GMQS Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 3 of 4
Staff Response: The applicant requests one Residential – Affordable Housing allotment. There
is no annual limit on the amount of Affordable Housing developments. Thus, sufficient
allotments are available for this project to proceed. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(b) Development conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and
limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development plan, any adopted
regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic
Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and
the Planned Development – Project Review approval, as applicable.
Staff Response: The applicant requests a use variation for the project as residential – affordable
housing is not an allowed or conditional use. The applicant requires PD Amendment approval
to support the use of the structure as a full-time deed restricted affordable housing unit. If these
reviews are approved by City Council, the development will conform with all applicable
requirements and limitations. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(c) Public infrastructure and facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole
costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply,
sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police
protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Staff Response: This development requires no upgrades to the public infrastructure or facilities.
The required infrastructure is already in place at the maintenance facility. The proposed
development does not overextend the community’s ability to provide support services. Staff finds
this criterion not applicable.
(d) Affordable housing mitigation.
Staff Response: The proposed development is affordable housing and does not require
affordable housing mitigation. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
Sec. 26.470.100 GMQS Planning and Zoning Commission Applications
(c) Affordable Housing. The development of affordable housing that does not qualify for
administrative review and approval under the criteria established in Section 26.470.090(c),
shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080, and all other
applicable review criteria of this Title. If the affordable housing project is located in a historic
district or on a historically designated property, the Historic Preservation Commission is the
review body for this review. Additionally, the following shall apply to all affordable housing
development:
(1) The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as “for sale” units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
38
Exhibit C – GMQS Standards
Review Criteria Staff Findings
808 Cemetery Lane - Red Butte Cemetery
Historic Preservation Commission
Page 4 of 4
Regulations. The developer of the project may be entitled to select the first
purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, pursuant to the Aspen
Pitkin County Housing Authority Regulations. The deed restriction shall
authorize the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority or the City to own the
unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority Regulations, as amended.
Staff Response: The unit is proposed to be a rental unit and will not be deed-restricted as
“for sale” as allowed for non-profit organizations, employers, or government/quasi-
government institutions. Staff finds this criterion is met.
(2) The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units
owned by an employer, government or quasi-government institution, or non-
profit organization if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages
affordable housing associated for lodge development to be rental units
associated with the lodge operation and contributing to the long-term viability
of the lodge.
Staff Response: The proposed unit will be owned by the Red Butte Cemetery Association. The
unit will be deed restricted according to applicable APCHA standards. APCHA has listed
conditions for the Ordinance if passed. The unit will be offered to the Red Butte Cemetery
employee rent-free and the employee will be paid by the Cemetery Association. Staff finds this
criterion is met.
(3) A combination of “for sale” and rental units is permitted.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes one rental unit. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
39
40
41
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an application requesting that the Aspen City Council approve an amendment to
the adopted PUD plan for the Red Butte Cemetery so that a portion of the maintenance
facility can be used as a deed restricted affordable housing unit. The Cemetery's street
address is 808 Cemetery Lane and its Pitkin County Parcel ID# is 273512200851.
The owner of the property is the Red Butte Cemetery Association, a Corporation
(hereinafter, "the applicant", or “the Association”), 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 prepared by Aspen Title & Escrow, LLC.
A letter from the applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services to submit this
application is provided as Exhibit #2.
Several pre-application discussions were held with representatives of the Community
Development Department prior to the submission of this application. The Pre-Application
Conference Summary (Exhibit #3) directs the applicant to respond to the following Code
sections:
Sec. 26.445.110: Planned Development Amendments (Minor Amendment);
Sec. 26.445.050: Planned Development - Project Review Standards;
Sec. 26.445.060: Planned Development – Use Variation Standards;
Sec. 26.470.100: GMQS P&Z Applications – Affordable Housing; and
Sec. 26.540.070 Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit.
Sections IV, V and VI of this application provide responses to the standards of the Aspen
Land Use Code which apply to the Planned Development and GMQS review procedures.
Please note, however, that a response to the standards of Sec. 26.540.070 has not been
provided because the applicant has decided not to request an affordable housing credit as
part of this project.
First, however, Sections II and III of this application provide some background information
about the property, followed by a brief summary of the proposed housing proposal.
42
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 2
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION/EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY
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 land
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 property on which the Cemetery is located consists of approximately 16.8 acres of
land that is zoned Park/PUD. The property is also designated by the City as an historic
landmark (H). PUD approval for the development of a maintenance facility on the property
was granted by the Aspen City Council pursuant to Ordinance 21, Series of 2009
(attached as Exhibit #4). The PUD Plat for the Red Butte Cemetery is recorded in Plat
Book 100 @ Pages 38-39. A copy of that plat is included in this application booklet.
A vicinity map showing the entire Cemetery property and the surrounding neighborhood
has been provided. The map illustrates the vast area of the Cemetery in relationship to
the neighboring residential lots. These lots surround the Cemetery on three sides (north,
south and west). Surrounding subdivisions include the Castle Creek Subdivision,
Snowbunny Subdivision, West Meadow Subdivision, and Black Birch Estates.
A site survey of the Cemetery, prepared by Aspen Surveys, has also been provided. It
shows that the Cemetery is organized into numerous burial blocks with north/south and
east/west roads to ensure its orderly development.
The plat, vicinity map and site survey illustrate that the Cemetery property generally
consists of three areas, these being:
1. The front (southerly) portion, which is the historic portion of the property, which has
been actively used for cemetery plots for nearly 125 years.
2. The rear (northerly) portion, which has been platted with roads and burial plots for
future development as an extension of the developed southern portion, and which
has recently begun to be used as a burial area. This is the area where the new
maintenance facility was constructed in 2012.
3. 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.
The southern portion of the Cemetery is organized around two primary features: the burial
plots and headstones, which are in ordered rows; and the cottonwood trees, which line the
dirt paths in this part of the Cemetery. There is also a small Victorian-era cabin with an
associated small out-house located in the southeastern corner of the property.
43
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 3
The southern portion of the Cemetery contains approximately 4,200 burial sites. The vast
majority of these sites are either occupied or committed to individuals and groups. In
recent years the Cemetery has experienced in the range of 10 to 15 burials per year, plus
a number of cremations. If this trend continues, or even if it accelerates to some degree,
there is sufficient capacity in the developed portion of the Cemetery to accommodate the
community's needs for several decades.
About 15-20 years ago the Cemetery Board began to deal with some serious issues of
deferred upkeep of the property. The property is graced by more than 200 narrow-leaf
cottonwood trees that are more than 100 years old. These trees are a critical element of
the visual character of the historic Cemetery. Many of these trees were found to be
nearing the end of their normal life span and require regular pruning, removal and
replacement. The Association initiated this replacement process and has worked with the
City Forester to ensure that this important resource remains vibrant for generations to
come. The Association has also worked with the City Forester to phase out some
evergreen trees that were planted in the northerly portion of the developed area but have
proven to be problematic. An update of the Cemetery’s irrigation system was also
completed, including a new head gate at the Holden Ditch and a new underground
sprinkler system.
The Association then began the process of obtaining approval for and constructing a
permanent maintenance facility for the Cemetery. The operation of the Cemetery requires
a number of vehicles and many pieces of equipment to be available, including a pick-up
truck, skid loader, four wheeler and trailer, large riding mower, motorized weed eaters, and
various hand tools, rakes, shovels, hoses, sprinkler heads, and similar materials.
Previously, these vehicles and most of the equipment were stored and repaired in a
temporary, fabric storage enclosure that had been erected in the northeastern portion of
the property. The temporary structure had no heat, electricity, or water service and the
fabric was torn and frayed. The enclosure was surrounded by several spoils piles that had
been built up over time, both as a way of trying to hide the storage enclosure and as a
place for holding the dirt and other materials that are generated from the operation of the
Cemetery.
The Association recognized how unattractive this area had become. The area was not
visually compatible with the Cemetery and was the source of complaints from neighbors
who enjoy the open, historic character of the Cemetery. Therefore, the Association
obtained PUD and HPC approval to develop a small, attractive new maintenance building,
containing approximately 1,280 sq. ft. of floor area, which would allow equipment to be
stored indoors.
The maintenance facility was built in 2012 and is located toward the northeast corner of
the Cemetery (see site survey for the location and configuration of the maintenance
facility). It is set back from the rear property line by approximately 175 feet so it does not
intrude upon the neighboring houses.
44
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 4
There is a concrete apron in front of the maintenance facility on which vehicles and
equipment can be parked and maintained. It also has a gravel work yard to the east and
south of the building, facing away from the neighboring residences. The work yard is
depressed by several feet below grade, to make it less visible. Three buried "cribs" were
installed to contain the spoils piles from burial and other Cemetery operations. As a result,
an area of the Cemetery that was previously an eyesore has been turned into an attractive
asset to the operation and maintenance of the property. A photograph is included with this
application showing the building and work yard to demonstrate its current appearance.
Over the last decade, the Association has begun to expand its burial operations into the
northern portion of the property, in the area surrounding the maintenance facility. Trees
have been planted in this area and the area is being actively irrigated, turning it into an
attractive complement to the historic portion of the property. Several burials have already
taken place in this area.
45
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 5
III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT PROPOSAL
During the original public review process for the maintenance facility, the Association
requested that the City allow a dwelling unit to be attached to the facility to house the one
employee who works at the Cemetery. At the time, the Association sought to improve the
living situation of a long term employee who lived outside the Valley. The Association also
believed that having an employee on-site would result in better maintenance of the
Cemetery and enhanced security for the maintenance facility.
The request for an employee housing unit turned out to be the most controversial element
of the original PUD plan. Neighbors felt that the development of a dwelling unit would
significantly change the historic character of the Cemetery and could create unacceptable
impacts, bringing traffic, noise and lights to the rear portion of this tranquil, historic
property. Members of the HPC felt that these concerns were valid and so the Association
eliminated the dwelling unit from the project.
Then, in 2014, the Association returned to the City with a more limited approach to
providing on-site housing for its employee. Rather than build a separate housing unit on
the property, the Association proposed a minor internal change to the floor plan of the
maintenance facility to allow its employee to sleep there from time to time without
impacting the character of the Cemetery.
The maintenance facility was designed and built with two distinct rooms under one roof.
These rooms are separated by a wall and door that were designed and built to meet fire
and building codes for these two types of occupancy. As the floor plans which are
included in this application show, the east side of the building consists of a work room
measuring 29’ x 32 ‘(928 sq. ft.) in which equipment is stored and maintained. The west
side of the building consists of a relatively small office/meeting space measuring 11’ x 32’
(352 sq. ft.). The total floor area of the building is 1,280 square feet (928 + 352 = 1,280).
The existing floor plan for the office/meeting space illustrates that there are two doors into
the space, one from the apron in front of the building and one from the back portion of the
work room. As one enters from the rear, there is a small food preparation area, including a
sink, refrigerator and cabinets. There is not a stove or cook top in this space, but there is a
small microwave oven. There is also a bathroom in the very back of the office/meeting
space, with a shower and toilet. The mechanical closet for the building is also located in
this area. The front portion of the room is used as the meeting space. It is improved with
a built-in desk/meeting table and some cabinets.
In 2014, the Association asked the City to allow a bed to be installed in the office/meeting
space, so the Association’s employee could sleep there overnight from time-to-time. The
reason that this required City approval was that Ordinance 21, Series of 2009, which
granted the original approval to the maintenance facility (attached as Exhibit #4), includes
Condition 1.f, which reads as follows:
46
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 6
The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight.
In 2014, the applicant proposed to eliminate that condition and replace it with a new set of
restrictions which would permit the facility to be used as a place where the Association’s
employee could sleep overnight from time-to-time. City Council, via Ordinance 30, Series
of 2014 (attached as Exhibit #5), granted the proposed amendment as a conditional, one
year approval of a deed restricted housing unit. The approval terminated one year after
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the living space. To make the unit livable,
the Association moved a bed into the space. The space was used by the employee for
overnight sleeping approximately 30-45 nights during the one year conditional approval
period. At the end of the one year period, the Association decided not to ask to renew or
otherwise re-establish the conditional approval. Since that time this space has reverted to
its prior office/meeting use and has not been used as a dwelling unit.
The applicant now seeks permanent approval to use this space as an affordable housing
unit for its employee. Over the last decade, the affordable housing situation in the Upper
Roaring Fork Valley has become increasingly more problematic. Having a housing unit to
offer to its only employee would help the Association greatly in recruiting and keeping a
stable employee to work on the property throughout the year. It would also enhance the
security of the building and the security of the Cemetery, which have been subjected to
random acts of vandalism from time to time.
Therefore, the purpose of this application is to request that the City Council repeal
Condition 1.f of Ordinance 21, Series of 2009 and replace it with a new set of restrictions
which will allow this space to be occupied as a deed restricted dwelling unit without
limitations on the duration of that use. The Association has held discussions with a
representative of the Housing Authority and is prepared to make certain improvements to
the space, as requested by staff.
The proposed floor plan for the employee unit shows how the space would be converted
into a living unit. First, it shows where a murphy bed would be installed. Second, it shows
that a 4 burner cooktop would be added to the kitchen area, as requested by the staff.
Finally, it shows the addition of a wardrobe closet and several storage cabinets within the
space, also as requested by staff. All of these minor improvements would make this a
more livable space, without requiring any changes be made to the building’s overall floor
plan and without requiring any changes whatsoever to the outside of the building or to the
Cemetery property.
The applicant hereby also agrees to enter into a deed restriction governing the terms by
which the unit can be occupied. The deed restriction will be prepared and recorded in a
form which is acceptable to the Aspen City Council and the City Attorney. The deed
restriction will need to be custom written to address the Cemetery’s unique employment
situation. Following are the terms which the Cemetery Association would suggest be
included in the proposed deed restriction:
47
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 7
• The dwelling unit would only be permitted to be rented to the Association’s
employee. The unit would not be made available to any other employee for rental.
• The Association would lease the unit to the employee for periods of no less than six
(6) months) and would not charge the employee any rent for the space. The
Association would also pay the employee an hourly wage, as it has always done.
• Because this position requires the employee to primarily work in the spring,
summer and fall (plus snow plowing the roads in the winter), it is quite unlikely that
this employee would work 1,500 hours per year in this position. Therefore, to
create some flexibility for the Association in hiring an employee, the Association
would request that the employee not be required to meet the occupancy
qualifications established within the Housing Authority Regulations. In this respect,
the deed restriction could be drafted in a form similar to the City’s carriage
house/ADU regulations, which require the occupant to be a local working resident
(someone who works and lives in Pitkin County full-time), rather than the standard
category-oriented deed restrictions that the City might otherwise require.
The applicant will work with City staff to prepare and record this deed restriction as a
condition of obtaining approval from the City for the dwelling unit.
48
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 8
IV. MINOR PD AMENDMENT (PROJECT REVIEW STANDARDS)
Section 26.445.110 of the Land Use Code establishes the procedures and standards for
PD Amendments. It states that amendments to PD’s approved prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 36, Series of 2013 require the Community Development Director to determine
whether the amendment proposed is insubstantial, minor or major. The Director has
determined that because this proposal requires a change to be made to one of the
project’s conditions of approval, it exceeds the threshold for an Insubstantial Amendment.
The Director has therefore classified the amendment as a Minor PD Amendment.
Section 26.445.110 E. of the Land Use Code, which governs Minor PD Amendments,
does not contain its own standards for review of an amendment. It instead refers the
applicant to the project review standards that apply to all PD’s (Sec. 26.445.050). Most of
these review standards have greater applicability to new development than to a minor
internal change to an existing facility. Therefore, substantive responses are only provided
to those standards which apply to this proposal.
A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans.
Response: This proposal complies with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) by
providing housing for a member of Aspen’s workforce. The AACP sets the goal of making
the provision of community workforce housing the responsibility of the entire community,
not just the responsibility of the government. The AACP also seeks to establish and
maintain a critical mass of working residents.
The Association views the space in the maintenance facility as an opportunity to house its
employee without the need for any monetary subsidy from the community’s affordable
housing funds. With the City’s efforts to develop new housing at places such as the
Lumberyard, it has become common knowledge that it can cost well in excess of $1 million
in public funds to subsidize the cost of a new affordable housing unit in Aspen. This space
is currently underutilized and could become a legal dwelling unit housing an employee with
only minimal upgrades needed. These upgrades will be made by the Association at its
own expense, allowing the Association to house its employee rent free. The employee will
no longer have to commute to his workplace, providing a secondary community benefit.
This is an opportunity that we believe the Aspen community cannot afford to waste.
B. Development Suitability.
Response: No development is proposed on any of the lands which the Code defines as
unsuitable for development.
C. Site Planning.
Response: The only changes planned to the property are the minor internal upgrades to
49
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 9
the existing office/meeting space shown on the proposed floor plan which will make it
habitable by an employee. No changes are proposed to the approved site plan for the
Cemetery, so this standard has no substantive applicability to this amendment.
D. Dimensions.
Response: Ordinance 21, Series of 2009 contains a table which established the
dimensional requirements for the Red Butte Cemetery PUD. The only dimension which
needs to be changed is with respect to the allowed floor area of the maintenance building.
The table lists the maximum allowed floor area as 1,300 square feet. The actual floor area
of the building is just 1,280 square feet. The floor area dimension should be amended to
state that the allowed floor area of the building is a maximum of 1,300 square feet, which
will be comprised of an approximately 928 square foot maintenance area/work room and a
352 square foot affordable housing unit.
The applicant will prepare a PD plat to document this change to the internal floor plan of
the building if the City determines that a revised plat is needed. A copy of the recorded
plat has been provided in this application package. The recorded plat provides a footprint
and elevations of the building, but does not depict the internal configuration of the building.
Therefore, the applicant does not see the purpose in recording an amended plat unless
the City requires the applicant to do so, in which case a plat will be drawn to the City’s
specifications.
E. Design Standards.
Response: No changes are proposed to the exterior appearance of the existing
maintenance facility, and there will be no changes to the visual character of the PD.
F. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Facilities.
Response: The applicant is not aware of any pedestrian, bicycle or transit facilities which
are needed to serve the property. However, by creating an affordable housing unit within
the City limits, there will be an opportunity for the Cemetery’s employee to walk or use his
bicycle for some of daily trips.
G. Engineering Design Standards
Response: Since no site changes are proposed, this standard does not apply to this
proposal.
H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities.
Response: Since the maintenance facility will not be expanded in any manner, there will
be no need for additional infrastructure or facilities to serve this proposal.
50
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 10
I. Access and Circulation.
Response: The applicant does not propose any changes to the access and circulation
currently provided within the Cemetery.
51
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 11
V. MINOR PD AMENDMENT (STANDARDS FOR USE VARIATIONS)
The Park zone district does not list a residential dwelling unit as an allowed or conditional
use. Coincidentally, it does not list a cemetery as an allowed or condition use either
(though it does list a maintenance facility as a conditional use). Therefore, the applicant is
required to request a use variation in order to allow a dwelling unit to be developed in this
location.
Section 26.445.060 of the Code authorizes an applicant for a PD to request variations in
the allowed uses in the zone district. It states that “The permitted and conditional uses
allowed on the property shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the land
uses which may be considered during the review”. This section requires the following
standards to be considered when granting a use variation:
A. The proposed use variation is compatible with the character of existing and planned
land uses in the project and surrounding area. In meeting this standard, consideration
shall be given to the existence of similar uses in the immediate vicinity, as well as how the
proposed uses may enhance the project or immediate vicinity.
Response: The Red Butte Cemetery is situated right in the middle of the Cemetery Lane
residential neighborhood. The Cemetery was carved out of a large ranch property
approximately 125 years ago and its existence pre-dated all of the residences which
surround the property. Those residential subdivisions were also carved out of ranch
property decades ago and have created a residential community which enjoys the
presence of the Cemetery as a tranquil open space within its midst. While some of those
residents see the Cemetery as functioning much like a public park, in reality, it is a private
property which has historically been operated to allow for open enjoyment by the public.
Construction of the maintenance facility on the property a decade ago was an absolute
necessity for the Association to operate the Cemetery and maintain this sprawling, aging
property. The Association is now seeking to convert 320 square feet of space within that
structure into a dwelling unit where its only employee can be housed. This will allow the
Association to enhance the upkeep of this historic property by having an on-site
“caretaker” for the property who provides a regular presence on this site. It will be easier
for the employee to take care of the property and his regular presence will make the
Cemetery a safer, more secure environment.
Having a single small affordable housing unit within the Cemetery would appear to be
entirely compatible with the character of this residential neighborhood. In fact, the
applicant has recently learned that the City of Aspen has for many years had a small
employee housing unit within its Golf/Parks Maintenance Complex just down Cemetery
Lane from the Red Butte Cemetery. So there is ample precedent for creating an
affordable housing unit within a maintenance facility that is located within public open
space in this neighborhood.
52
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 12
This small affordable housing unit will be surrounded by much larger single family
residences on all sides. Its impacts will be essentially negligible compared to those of its
much larger neighbors. Given its small size, the unit will, without any doubt, only be
suitable for a single occupant and will never be occupied by a family. No external changes
are planned to the building and the Association will include provisions in the employee’s
lease stating that the employee shall not make any physical changes to the surrounding
site. Therefore, neighbors will not see anything physically different at the facility and
surrounding lands from what they have experienced for the last decade.
B. The proposed use variation is effectively incorporated into the project’s overall mix
of uses. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to how the proposed uses
within a project will interact and support one another.
Response: The proposed use will be effectively incorporated into the project by being
located within the existing confines of the maintenance facility. There will be no external
changes to the building or to the site as a result of converting a portion of the facility into a
dwelling unit.
Having an employee housing unit on-site will be a valuable addition to the Cemetery.
Housing is an important benefit to offer to an employee, even if it is a limited space such
as is being proposed here. It will help the Association recruit and keep an employee who
will maintain the Cemetery. Having someone staying on-site will also provide improved
security for the property through a more frequent on-site presence.
C. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use
variation minimizes adverse effects on the neighborhood and surrounding properties.
Response: There are several ways in which this proposal has minimized its impacts on
the surrounding area. First, the applicant proposes no changes to the exterior of the
building or to the site, so there will be no visual change to the area caused by this
proposal. As noted above, the Association will instruct its employee to not alter the site
outside of the facility as part of his lease to live there. There is already parking in front of
the building to accommodate the employee’s vehicle. Second, the applicant does not
propose to change the internal configuration of the facility, so that the room which
constitutes the dwelling unit will remain at just 352 sq. ft., while the work room will remain
as 928 square feet. This ensures that the living space will only be suitable for a single
employee and will not become the residence of a family.
D. The proposed use variation complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans.
Response: Please see the response to Project Review Standard A, above.
53
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 13
VI. GMQS REVIEW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Land Use Code requires the development of an affordable housing unit to be
reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning
Commission based on the general requirements listed in Section 26.470.080, and all other
applicable review criteria of this Title. If the affordable housing project is located within a
historic district or, as is the case for this property, within an historically designated
property, the Historic Preservation Commission is the review body for this review.
Following are applicant’s responses to the general requirements outlined in Sec.
26.470.080:
(a) Sufficient allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to
accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(b). Applications
for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(a) shall be required
to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are
requested.
Response: The applicant is only requesting a single residential allotment. Sec.
26.470.040 (b) of the Code makes 13 free market residential allotments available each
year. This section does not place any limit on the number of affordable housing units that
can be created in per year. In either case, sufficient allotments are available to allow this
project to proceed.
(b) Development conformance. The proposed development conforms to the
requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development
plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the
Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial
Design Review approval and the Planned Development - Project Review approval, as
applicable.
Response: In order to conform to the requirements of this title and zone district, the
applicant must obtain a use variation, since the use is not listed as an allowed or
conditional use by the Code. The use variation request is summarized in Sec. V of this
application.
The applicant must also obtain a Minor PD Amendment in order to address the condition
in the prior approval which prohibited the maintenance facility from being used as a living
unit or for sleeping. The PD Amendment request is summarized in Sec. IV of this
application.
If these approvals are granted by the Aspen City Council, the proposed development will
be in conformance with this standard..
54
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 14
(c) Public infrastructure and facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public
infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the
sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water
supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and
police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services.
Response: The infrastructure necessary for this dwelling unit to be occupied is already in
place. The applicant is not aware of any improvements needed to serve this unit, but will
comply with any reasonable requirements which the City may impose on its development.
Additionally, the following shall apply to all affordable housing developments:
(1) The proposed units shall be deed-restricted as "for sale" units and transferred to
qualified purchasers according to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority Regulations.
The developer of the project may be entitled to select the first purchasers, subject to the
aforementioned qualifications, pursuant to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority
Regulations. The deed restriction shall authorize the Aspen Pitkin County Housing
Authority or the City to own the unit and rent it to qualified renters as defined in the Aspen
Pitkin County Housing Authority Regulations, as amended.
Response: The unit is proposed to be a rental unit, not a for-sale unit. This type of
tenancy is allowed for non-profit organizations in sub-section (2), below.
(2) The proposed units may be rental units, including but not limited to rental units
owned by an employer, government or quasi-government institution, or non-profit
organization if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the City Attorney ensures
permanent affordability of the units. The City encourages affordable housing associated
for lodge development to be rental units associated with the lodge operation and
contributing to the long-term viability of the lodge.
Response: The proposed unit will be a rental unit which is owned by the Red Butte
Cemetery Association, which is a non-profit organization. The unit will be deed restricted
via a legal instrument which will be drafted in conjunction with the City Attorney. The
Association will offer the unit to its employee as year-round, rent free employee housing.
(3) A combination of "for sale" and rental units is permitted.
Response: Not applicable since the proposal is for a single rental unit.
55
Red Butte Cemetery Minor PD Amendment for Affordable Housing Unit Page 15
VII. CONCLUSION
The above responses and the attached exhibits provide the materials that are required to
process this application and demonstrate the compliance of the proposed development
with the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. Should any reviewing agency
request additional information, or need for the applicant to clarify any of the statements
made herein, the applicant will respond in a timely manner. Please contact us as
necessary.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
4,514
752.3
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet0752.3376.17
Notes
Red Butte Cemetery Vicinity Map
THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee
concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability
of the content represented.
Map Created on 10:54 AM 10/05/23 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
State Highway
Road Centerline 4K
Primary Road
Secondary Road
Service Road
Rivers and Creeks
Continuous
Intermittent
River, Lake or Pond
Town Boundary
Federal Land Boundary
BLM
State of Colorado
USFS
78
79
80
Existing October 2023
81
82
83
84
85
18 Truscott Pl Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 920-5050 www.apcha.org / apchahometrek.org
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
LAND USE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeffrey Barnhill Community Development Department
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Deputy Director - APCHA
DATE: December 4, 2023
RE: Red Butte Cemetery Planned Development – LPA-23-087
PROJECT
The property is located at 808 Cemetery Lane and is owned by the Red Butte Cemetery
Association, which obtained a deed to the property in 1899. The applicant is requesting that the
existing unit be modified into a residential unit, place a deed restriction on the unit, and allow an
employee to live there full-time.
DISCUSSION
The unit is located with the Red Butte Cemetery, off of Cemetery Lane. The request would only be
permitted to be rented to the Red Butte Cemetery Association’s employee.
The applicant is requesting a modified deed restriction as the position requires the employee to
primarily work in the spring, summer and fall (plus snow plowing the roads in the winter). The
applicant does not believe that the employee would work the required 1500 hours as stipulated by
the APCHA Regulations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the application, APCHA would recommend approval based on the
following:
• The unit will be specifically for the employee of the Red Butte Cemetery Association;
• A deed restriction approved by APCHA must be recorded on the unit;
• The employee must still qualify with APCHA prior to occupying said unit as well as requalifying
every two years as required by the Regulations.
• Said employee does not have to meet the minimum number of hours of 1500 hours, however,
must work the time specified in the application for the Red Butte Cemetery Association (spring,
summer, fall, and snow plowing the roads in the winter).
• The employee cannot own any other residential property within the ownership exclusion zone as
specified by the APCHA Regulations.
• The unit shall be classified as a Category RO, but the rental rate will be based on the employee’s
category.
86
1
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Stuart Hayden
Sent:Monday, March 4, 2024 10:11 AM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Red Butte Cemetery Affordable Housing Application
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Jeff,
Here’s a bit o’ public comment for your packet.
Dutifully,
Stuart
Stuart Hayden (he/him/his)
Planner II, Historic Preservaon | Community Develo pment
(O): 970.975.1640 | (C): 970.975.1640
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical work hours are Monday through Friday 9 - 5.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovaon
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Jack Cohen <jcohen@darkknightventures.net>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:39 AM
To: Stuart Hayden <Stuart.Hayden@aspen.gov>
Subject: Re: Red Butte Cemetery Affordable Housing Application
We understand that the “city facility” on the back side of the cemetery is being considered for an
aordable housing unit.
While I understand the acute work force housing issue that the town faces, I write to ask that this cemetery
unit be denied.*
I don’t think you appreciate the unique nature of having a home that faces a cemetery. When I bought my
home at 1260 Snowbunny Lane I later found out I was the only person to submit a bid. The other lookers
could not get over the view of the cemetery. Being adjacent to a cemetery is not a value enhancer.
87
2
We love our home and I sincerely plan on being buried in that cemetery. The home will be in generational
trusts for our children and theirs. This will become our family compound for our 4 children who live and are
raising families in LA and NYC.
We really do NOT want to watch folks BBQ outside the city facility in the cemetery. We don’t want the
traic. We don’t want the risk of parties. IT is a cemetery for god sake. Please leave it be.
*p.s. as to the workforce housing issue in the town, THAT problem I would be honored to join
your efforts to find a solution for Aspen and down valley. I have been in the commercial real
estate finance business for 42 years. I even financed the Whole Foods transaction in Basalt!
Jack M. Cohen
CEO
Darkknight Ventures, LLC
Cell: 312.543.5872
jcohen@darkknightventures.net
http://darkknightventures.net/
88
3
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Stuart Hayden
Sent:Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:33 PM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Red Butte Cemetery PD Amendment dated October 2023
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Stuart Hayden (he/him/his)
Planner II, Historic Preservaon | Community Develo pment
(O): 970.975.1640 | (C): 970.975.1640
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical work hours are Monday through Friday 9 - 5.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovaon
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Steven Spiritas <ss@spiritasgroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 5:13 PM
To: Stuart Hayden <Stuart.Hayden@aspen.gov>
Subject: FW: Red Butte Cemetery PD Amendment dated October 2023
From: Steven Spiritas
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 6:11 PM
To: 'kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov' <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Cc: 'vakas22@gmail.com' <vakas22@gmail.com>
Subject: Red Butte Cemetery PD Amendment dated October 2023
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission attention : Kara Thompson, Chair
We are writing to urge HPC preserve the sanctity and serenity of the Red Butte Cemetery (RBC) by
recommending that no affordable housing or other type of residential unit be allowed in the existing
maintenance building. In December, 2008, after an extensive review including a site visit and public
comments, HPC recommended construction of that maintenance building because it was an
approved conditional use under the current zoning of the cemetery as "Park." At that time, the RBC
89
4
board was also requesting a variance to permit a residence be granted. HPC at that time voiced their
objection to a residence/dwelling unit and voted against the variance, HPC expressed a lot of concerns
not only because the Park zoning would not allow it, but also because of the inappropriateness of a
dwelling unit in a cemetery. We hope as part of your due diligence in this matter, you will review the
minutes and strong neighbor oppositional comments made during that review.
In 2008, once it became clear that Council would not approve a residence because both HPC and P & Z
recommended against it, and there was overwhelming neighborhood opposition, RBC regrouped and
asked only for a warm room within the maintenance building. Alan Richman and John Thorpe stood
before the HPC and promised assurances that the warm room would never become a residence,
temporary or permanent. No one really objected to the warm room because of those assurances, but the
warm room proved to be a slippery slope that has gotten us to this point today. The promises turned out
to be completely untrue because approximately 2 years after the completion of the maintenance
building, RBC came requesting changes to make the warm room livable. Council, through some odd
reasoning ultimately approved a 1 year trial use of the warm room as a place to sleep overnight
occasionally. Even with the trial the RBC employee overnighted only 45 nights. That trial expired 10
years ago, and the cemetery has continued to function without anyone sleeping there, as it has for the
last 125 years. If this amendment is approved by HPC , the town is sliding farther down the slope with a
precedent that opens the door for other Parks to potentially consider . RBC request, if granted ,
would essentially convert the maintenance building to a detached single family residence with a
large garage. (a dwelling unit)
The original Ordinance approving the maintenance building was passed in 2009, meaning that
amendments to this Ordinance must be governed by the rules outlined in 26.445 of the code.
Thus, this PD overlay done under prior Code prohibits Planned Development from changing underlying
uses:
Sec 26.445.040:
“A. Uses: The land uses permitted in a PUD shall be limited to those allowed in the underlying
zone district in which the property is located.” In this case, "Park."
Since 2008, nothing has changed with regard to zoning of the cemetery nor the inappropriateness
of someone living in the cemetery, which is a place to house the departed. This property was
purposely zoned "Park" after much thoughtful deliberation and discussion with the RBC board at
the time (1977 - 1978). While the cemetery seems to be divided into two portions with the north
part being an active burial area, there are burials moving into the more undeveloped south
areas. That entire portion has been platted with burial plots going all the way up to and around
the maintenance building. Thus, it is clear that zoning should apply to the entire cemetery, not
just the north portion. This makes even more significant the comments regarding the unseemly
prospect of garbage collectors, parcel delivery, friends of the resident coming for social events,
etc. driving through the serene dirt lanes in order to get from Cemetery Lane to a residence. HPC
is charged with preserving the wonderful historic legacy Aspen has been gifted with, and the
current application is an egregious assault on that legacy. Under the code and reasonably based
on the historic and sacred nature of the cemetery itself, there should never be a residence of any
sort allowed in this place. It should be further noted that no reasonable person/entity should be
suggesting that a dwelling unit of any sort be allowed in any other city park, yet approving this
request that one be allowed in the cemetery "park" sets a precedent and opens the door for
other such requests.
90
5
We have owned our home since 1991, and are well acquainted with all issues of the application
pertaining to this amendment request, and are in full disagreement with and in opposition to
permitting an affordable housing unit in the "Park-Cemetery " . Please take all of this
information into consideration, and recommend that no affordable housing unit or any other sort
of dwelling, permanent or temporary, be permitted in the Red Butte Cemetery property.
Unfortunately we are not able to attend the scheduled agenda
Respectfully submitted , Steven & Alexis Spiritas
91
6
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:19 AM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Housing in Red Butte Cemetery
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Going through all of my emails, and am going to forward all of the public comments for this project to you if you could
include in the packet.
Thanks!
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preserva?on | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innova?on
No?ce and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or en?ty to which it is addressed and may contain informa?on that is
confiden?al and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the informa?on or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the
informa?on and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representa?ons that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and informa?on contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Beals <beals3006@icloud.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 7:52 AM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Housing in Red BuHe Cemetery
I am very much against conver?ng the barn in the cemetery to accommodate living quarters.
Dr. Robert Beals
1270A Snowbunny Lane
Sent from my iPhone
92
To: Aspen Historical PreservaƟon Commission
From: Bob Beals, Ryan and Lauren Elston, Jack and Susan Apple, Steven and Alexis Spiritas
RE: Red BuƩe Cemetery Affordable Housing Proposal
Date: March 7th, 2024
The Red BuƩe Cemetery AssociaƟon (RBCA) ongoing volunteer efforts to maintain a valuable and historic
community asset is greatly appreciated by the neighbors and the community. Important progress has
been made on issues presented in the last proposal to the Historic Planning Commission (HPC). However,
in addiƟon to not meeƟng their commitment to not use the maintenance facility as employee housing,
the RBCA has not complied with other material aspects of their commitment, and we suggest that the
HPC disapprove this applicaƟon and require that the RBCA comply with original commitments that were
part of the approval for the original applicaƟon. Specifically, commitments to screen the maintenance
facility and protect the Northern meadow.
In their applicaƟon, RBCA states “this space has reverted to its prior office/meeƟng use and has not been
used as a dwelling unit.” However, according to police records, there have been 6 reports of people
“sleeper” calls for the cemetery since 2019, clearly violaƟng the agreed upon rules that the RBCA has
commiƩed too.
When the original applicaƟon was made, one of the condiƟons for approval by both the HPC and the City
Council was to have a landscape management plan that would be implemented. A cri Ɵcal aspect of this
plan and recommendaƟon from the HPC was to provide some type of screening for the building. In the
minutes from the HPC meeƟng in December of 2008, John Thorpe stated “our idea is to screen it from
the neighbors and cemetery’s benefit, however that is best accomplished.” As we can see from the plans
presented in the various applicaƟon documents (please see exhibits 1, 2 and 3, starƟng on page 3) there
was significant screening that was required. However, looking at the picture in exhibit 4 that is taken
from the RBCA’s own applicaƟon, it can be clearly seen that no screening or improvements have been
done and parts of the area are currently being mowed, and that the RBCA is not in compliance with their
commitments to the community. It is important to note that the cemetery has developed all six of the
North Meadow blocks that were menƟoned in the plan during this Ɵme frame and spent over 130,000
dollars on this project according to their financial records, including almost 90,000 dollars on tree
planƟng, while failing to comply with the landscape plan for screening.
In the RBCA’s response to the HPC’s concerns in November of 2008, the document states that the new
proposal was designed to “preserve as much of the exisƟng sage meadow at the rear of the property as
possible. Sage meadows are a rapidly disappearing type of landscape in the upper Roaring Fork Valley”
and that it was “an important ecological type that should be maintained”. As can be seen from the
dramaƟc changes in the Google Earth pictures in exhibits 5 and 6, the RBCA has not protected the
meadow as promised and as can be seen in exhibits 7 and 8 has done the opposite and intenƟonally
destroyed this criƟcal environment. This also violates the aforemenƟoned landscape management plan.
93
Finally, we have included pictures of fuel tanks in exhibit 9 that were not part of the original applicaƟon
and that are clearly not in compliance with the associated regulaƟons required for this type of
environmentally hazardous material to protect the area from contaminaƟon.
Based on the RBCA’s failure to comply with the requirements of the first applicaƟon and its blatant
violaƟon and disregards for the commitments made, we strongly urge the HPC to reject the applicaƟon
and look for opƟons to enforce the original agreed management plan for the cemetery by requiring
screening and restoraƟon of the porƟons of the meadow that have been intenƟonally destroyed and
mowed under.
Sincerely,
Bob Beals, David Alƞeld, Ryan and Lauren Elston, Jack and Susan Apple, Steven and Alexis Spiritas
We have included a link to the public documents and other materials referenced here for you
convenience that can be accessed by clicking on the following link:
hƩps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/pyxec6x2x67jmbi6z4hji/h?rlkey=4opbw8uebk2jpjp1Ō7ep99wo&dl=0
Please also see the pictures/exhibits on the following pages.
94
Exhibit 1: HPC Agenda Packet Public MeeƟng December 10, 2008:
SubmiƩed plans show screening of new building with trees
Exhibit 2: City Council Agenda Packet Public MeeƟng November 9th, 2009 (Second Reading, starts
page 185):
SubmiƩed plan shows significant screening
95
Exhibit 3: Final landscape plan from Sarah Shaw:
Exhibit 4: RBCA applicaƟon October 2023, page 39 picture:
Shows areas where significant improvements were commiƩed to but not executed and to the
contrary are now being mowed under in a substanƟal porƟon.
96
Exhibit 5: Google Earth picture November 2019
Exhibit 6: Google Earth picture November 2023
Large parts of the north meadow that were marked for restoraƟon have been mowed under.
This can also be seen in exhibit 5. AddiƟonal photos showing mowing violaƟons available.
97
Exhibit 7: Digging up sage brush
Exhibit 8: Vehicle full of destroyed Sage Brush
98
Exhibit 9: PotenƟally non permiƩed fuel tanks not included in original applicaƟons:
99
7
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:20 AM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Red Butte Cemetery
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preserva?on | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innova?on
No?ce and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or en?ty to which it is addressed and may contain informa?on that is
confiden?al and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the informa?on or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the
informa?on and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representa?ons that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and informa?on contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Shaffer <rhshaffer@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <Kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Red BuHe Cemetery
The building located in the cemetery should not be converted into employee housing. It should remain a storage facility.
Rebecca Shaffer
1270 Snowbunny Lane
Sent from my iPad
100
8
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:27 AM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: 808 Cemetery Lane - Formal Obection Letter
Attachments:Saussus - HPC Letter.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preservation | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Patrick Saussus <saussus@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 7:35 AM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: 808 Cemetery Lane - Formal Obection Letter
Ms. Armstrong,
Please see attached letter concerning the upcoming RBCA rezoning application. Regrettably I will be out of town during
the March 13 formal public hearing else I would be present to personally voice my objection to the application. Thank
you for taking the time to read the letter and weigh the consequences of the HPC decision.
Regards,
Patrick Saussus
60 Overlook Dr.
101
Historic Preservation Committee
kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov
March 5, 2024
RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery
Ms. Armstrong,
As the resident of 60 Overlook Dr. adjacent to the Red Butte Cemetery, I am writing to formally object
to the Red Butte Cemetery Association (RBCA) repeated attempts to construct a permanent dwelling
on the property. I strongly urge the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) to force the City Council
to deny the applicant’s request for new zoning as they did when this was first proposed in 2014.
The Cemetery is zoned Park (P), and a residence is not permitted under this zoning. Granting the
RBCA a residence within this zoning not only violates the rules but undermines the entire zoning
system. Furthermore, the RBCA application does not propose any limits on duration of the approval
or allow for any review process. Should the HPC fail its primary duties and allow the City Council to
rezone the Cemetery to residential, more applications will be forced through under the guise of
affordable housing and the entire character of Cemetery will be tarnished. This is a disrespect not
only to the neighbors of the Cemetery but more importantly to those who lie in rest and the friends
and family who visit them.
The HPC has a strong reputation making difficult decisions to maintain the unique character and
history of this wonderful City we call home. Please continue to make the right decision and convey
to City Council that approval of this rezoning application will do irreparable harm to Aspen.
Regards,
Pat rick Saussus
60 Overlook Dr.
303.513.3632
102
9
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Wednesday, March 6, 2024 8:28 AM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Public Hearing regarding 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preserva?on | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innova?on
No?ce and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or en?ty to which it is addressed and may contain informa?on that is
confiden?al and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the informa?on or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the
informa?on and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representa?ons that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and informa?on contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: CAROLINE KAPLAN <carolux@me.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:08 AM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Public Hearing regarding 808 Cemetery Lane, Red BuHe Cemetery
Historic Preserva?on Commission
Aspen City Hall
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
To members of the HPC,
103
10
My husband and I own the house at 1252 Snowbunny Lane. We are opposed to the request by the Red BuHe Cemetery
Associa?on to renovate the exis?ng maintenance shed by turning it into a dwelling.
The current use of the shed as an occasional dwelling is already a viola?on of the land use code. We cannot trust the
RBCA not to pursue the crea?on of addi?onal dwelling units in the cemetery.
Unfortunately we cannot aHend the hearing on 3/13, however we do appreciate you taking the ?me to learn of our
concerns.
Caroline and Hugh Kaplan
1252 Snowbunny Ln.
Aspen, CO 81611
301-704-9186
104
11
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:31 AM
To:lindaukraine@yahoo.com; Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:RE: Red Butte Cemetery
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Good morning Linda,
Thank you for your comment. I'm including my colleague Jeffrey Barnhill who is working on the staff memo. He will make
sure your comment is included in the packet for HPC review.
Thank you,
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preserva?on | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innova?on
No?ce and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or en?ty to which it is addressed and may contain informa?on that is
confiden?al and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the informa?on or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the
informa?on and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representa?ons that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and informa?on contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message-----
From: linda ukraine <lindaukraine@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 8:23 AM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Red BuHe Cemetery
Dear Kirsten - My name is Linda Ukraine and I live on Overlook Dr. I am wri?ng to you to oppose the considera?on of
puNng in a housing unit at the cemetery. And possibly having that area built up. It is a cemetery, not a neighborhood,
and also designated as a park. The egress would be impossible. Thank you. Linda Ukraine
105
12
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:04 PM
To:Ryan J. Elston
Cc:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:RE: Red Butte Cemetery Affordable Housing Application
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hello Ryan,
Thank you for your comment. I'm including my colleague Jeffrey Barnhill who is working on the staff memo. He will make
sure your comment is included in the packet for HPC review.
Thank you,
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preservaon | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovaon
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Ryan J. Elston <ryan@aspenlocal.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:03 PM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Red Butte Cemetery Affordable Housing Application
To: Historic Preserva?on Commission
My name is Ryan Elston and I own a home at 1242 Snowbunny Lane, which directly abuts the Red BuHe Cemetery
(specifically the expansion field within direct sightlines of the “maintenance facility”).
106
13
I am opposed to your approval of the RBCA maintenance facility to be converted to an affordable housing unit/dwelling
unit/residence of any kind temporarily or permanently. This is a direct viola?on of the City of Aspen zoning and land use
restric?ons, which are in place for a reason and should be upheld. Reviewing and approving zoning and land use in our
city on a case-by-case basis sets a dangerous precedent.
Please deny this applica?on.
Thank you,
Ryan Elston
107
14
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Chris Bryan <cbryan@garfieldhecht.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:17 PM
To:Kirsten Armstrong
Cc:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:Opposition to Minor PD Amendment Application of Red Butte Cemetery Association
Attachments:3.7.24.-ltr-Kirsten Armstrong-opposition to RBC Application.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Kirsten,
Please see the aHached leHer from me on behalf of Protect The Cemetery, a Colorado non-profit organiza?on. Please
include this in the HPC packet for the 3/13/24 mee?ng and let me know of any ques?ons. Thank you.
CHRIS
_______________________________
Christopher D. Bryan
Shareholder
Garfield & Hecht, P.C.
Aspen | Avon | Carbondale | Crested BuHe | Denver | Glenwood Springs | Rifle
625 E. Hyman Ave., Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 925-1936 x802
Facsimile: (970) 925-3008
Email: cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Webpage: www.garfieldhecht.com
108
ASPEN OFFICE
625 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 201
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (970) 925-1936
Facsimile (970) 925-3008
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Since 1975
www.garfieldhecht.com
2978597.1
March 7, 2024
CHRISTOPHER D. BRYAN
cbryan@garfieldhecht.com
Via E-Mail
Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner
City of Aspen Historic Preservation
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
E-mail: kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov
RE: Opposition to Minor PD Amendment Application of Red Butte Cemetery Association
Dear Ms. Armstrong:
This law firm represents the Protect The Cemetery, a Colorado nonprofit corporation (“PTC”). We
write with respect to the upcoming Historic Preservation Commission (“HPC”) meeting on March 13,
2024, concerning the pending Minor PD Amendment Application (“Application”) submitted by the Red
Butte Cemetery Association (“Applicant”). Please provide this letter to the HPC members and include it
in the packet ahead of that meeting.
PTC’s singular mission, and sole purpose, is to protect the sanctity and ambience of the Red Butte
Cemetery, which has existed well over a century. The cemetery is not only hallowed ground for the
gravesites of those laid to rest there but also for family members, descendants, and friends who visit their
departed loved ones. The cemetery is one of the last remaining sites of what is warmly referred to as “old
Aspen,” and it provides peace and serenity for all who frequent its grounds. It falls on HPC to resist the
request to shoehorn employee housing where it clearly does not belong. HPC has a duty to protect the
sanctity of the cemetery.
While HPC may be tempted to grant the Application in the name of “employee housing at all
costs,” there are numerous reasons not to do so.
First, it is unnecessary. For decades Applicant has not needed to provide housing to its employees.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant now needs to offer its part-time employee
housing, and certainly nothing to suggest it needs to do so on the cemetery grounds themselves. Indeed,
even Applicant admits in the Application that the housing would only be for certain parts of the calendar
year, not enough to fulfill the 1,500 hours worked in Pitkin County and for nine months to be APCHA-
eligible. There are many other places—by the most current estimate, approximately 3,300 affordable
housing units and 5,600 affordable housing bedrooms—where this part-time employee can reside. The
cemetery is not needed for housing. It was not designed for that and should not be allowed.
109
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Kirsten Armstrong
March 7, 2024
Page 2
2978597.1
Second, housing someone in a location that is clearly not zoned for residential housing is
inappropriate and runs counter to City of Aspen zoning restrictions. As the City of Aspen’s zone district
map shows, the cemetery is zoned P (for Park):
According to the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code (“LUC”), the following uses are permitted as of
right in the Park (P) Zone District: (1) Open-use recreational facility, park, playfield, playground,
swimming pool, golf course, riding stable, nursery, botanical garden; and (2) Accessory buildings and
uses. See LUC Sec. 26.710.240(b). Section 26.710.240(c) of the LUC provides that the following uses are
permitted as conditional uses in the Park (P) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures
established in Chapter 26.425 of the LUC: (1) Recreation building; (2) Sport shop; (3) Restaurant facility;
(4) Park maintenance building; and (5) Farmers' market, as defined in LUC Sec. 26.04.100. Any use that
is not specifically listed in Chapter 26.710 as a permitted or conditional use in a Zone District shall be
considered prohibited, unless otherwise interpreted by the Community Development Director pursuant
to Chapter 26.306. See LUC Sec. 26.710.010.
110
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Kirsten Armstrong
March 7, 2024
Page 3
2978597.1
As is evident from the LUC, residential housing is not allowed in this zone district, either as a
permitted or conditional use. The Park zoning restriction should be complied with. Indeed, it would an
abuse of discretion and a misapplication of the law for HPC to allow housing in P-zoned district.
Moreover, because the cemetery has not been rezoned—and there’s no evidence that a rezoning
application has even been presented to the City of Aspen’s Planning & Zoning Commission—HPC would
be exceeding its jurisdiction were it to approve the Application. That could result in litigation, which no
one wants.
Third, housing someone there disrespects the cemetery and its special purpose. Housing someone
on cemetery grounds could cause disruption to the quiet environs where people go to mourn and reflect on
lost loved ones. The sanctity of the cemetery should be respected. The cemetery is historic. This
commission, as its name implies, is tasked with “historic preservation”—not converting special solemn
places like the cemetery into a housing project.
Fourth, allowing residential housing in the cemetery is decidedly not in the best interests of the
surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. Applicant’s request—to be able to house a part-
time employee for just part of the calendar year—has minimal (if any) community benefit. That has to be
weighed against the disturbance that having residential housing on-site would do for the neighbors, many
of whom are longtime residents and community members that want to honor and protect the cemetery
from the threat of encroaching development. Many of the neighbors have vocalized their opposition to the
Application, and HPC should take seriously those public comments.
Fifth, retrofitting a “maintenance facility” to accommodate residential housing is inappropriate for
a cemetery. Plus, no one will be able to regulate or restrict the part-time employee’s social engagements
on-site. If housing is allowed here, the part-time employee will be able to host dinner parties, birthday
parties, get-togethers, and other social functions, and no one will legally be able to prohibit that.
Sixth, if HPC grants this Application, it will be welcoming in a Trojan horse—and we all know
the dangers of that. HPC would be setting a dangerous precedent whereby developers could seek to build
housing in designated open spaces and other parks throughout Aspen. And if HPC or other City officials
rejected those applications, the developers would point to the Application here and cite it as precedent.
Developers would have strong legal grounds to sue for selective enforcement and disparate treatment
under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The City of Aspen would then face numerous lawsuits. The constitutional
remedy would be to allow such residential housing developments in city parks, which would destroy the
serenity and peacefulness that such parks are created for in the first place. That is a slippery slope that
HPC should avoid.
In sum, it is clear that the Application is a classic example of trying to fit a square peg in a round
hole. In an era of breakneck development, endless in-fill, and increased density throughout town, are there
no places that are left sacred? A cemetery is a place for the dead to rest in peace, not a place for part-time
employees to rest their heads. HPC should hold the line here and deny the Application.
Please contact me with any questions or if you would like to discuss these issues in further detail.
Very truly yours,
111
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Ms. Kirsten Armstrong
March 7, 2024
Page 4
2978597.1
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
Christopher D. Bryan
cc: Jeffrey Barnhill (jeffrey.barnhill@aspen.gov)
112
15
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Kirsten Armstrong
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:52 PM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill
Subject:FW: Letter for Public Comment
Attachments:Letter to HPC regarding RBCA Proposed Housing March 7, 2024.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Jonathan,
Thank you for your leHer. I'm including my colleague Jeffrey Barnhill who is working on the staff memo. He will make
sure your comment is included in the packet for HPC review.
Thank you,
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preservation | Community Development
(O): 970.429.2759 | (C): 970.319.0700
www.cityofaspen.com
My typical in-office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship | Partnership | Service | Innovation
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Jonathan Nickell <jonathan.nickell@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:48 PM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Cc: Public Comment <publiccomment@aspen.gov>
Subject: Letter for Public Comment
Kirsten,
Please see the attached letter from me and some of my neighbors. Please include this in the HPC packet for the March
13th Meeting.
Thanks,
113
16
Jonathan Nickell
114
17
Jeffrey Barnhill
From:Jonathan Nickell <jonathan.nickell@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:56 PM
To:Jeffrey Barnhill; kristen.armstrong@aspen.gov; beals3006@icloud.com
Subject:Fwd: Letter for Public Comment
Attachments:Letter to HPC Red Butte Cemetery 03.07.24.pdf
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Forwarding this one to Jeffery as well, get well soon Kristen.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Nickell <jonathan.nickell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Letter for Public Comment
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Cc: <publiccomment@aspen.gov>, <beals3006@icloud.com>
Kirsten,
My neighbor Bob Beals asked me to forward this to you as he does not do email well. I have copied
him here as well. Please see the attached letter from him and several neighbors. Please include this
in the HPC packet for the March 13th Meeting.
Thanks,
Jonathan Nickell
115
To: Aspen Historical PreservaƟon Commission
From: Jonathan and Paula Nickell, Charles Gubser, Michael and Cathy Tierney, Linda Ukraine
RE: Red BuƩe Cemetery Affordable Housing Proposal
Date: March 7th, 2024
First, we would like to thank the Red BuƩe Cemetery AssociaƟon (RBCA) for their ongoing volunteer
efforts to maintain a valuable and historic community asset. Important progress has been made on many
fronts that were issues at the Ɵme since the issue was last before the Historic Planning Commission
(HPC). It is important to note that this was done without anyone living in the cemetery, even in the one-
year trial period in 2014 the employee only stayed overnight 30-45 Ɵmes according to the applicaƟon.
While recognizing the contribuƟons of the RBCA, we would respecƞully suggest that the HPC disapprove
this applicaƟon for the following reasons.
The Cemetery was intenƟonally zoned “Park” (P), aŌer extensive discussion with and input from the
Cemetery Board when zoning was implemented in the early 1970's. Bill Kane, who was involved in the
original zoning process has previously submiƩed a leƩer to City Council indicaƟng that one of the
reasons for the Park zoning was to prohibit a living unit in the Cemetery. However, the RBCA has insisted
on installing a housing unit and applied for a housing unit and maintenance facility in 2007.
AŌer significant work, lengthy discussions, and site visits by HPC, the community and the RBCA, an
agreement was reached to approve a Major Development project which resulted in a deed restricƟon
staƟng, “The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or a place to sleep overnight”. In Amy
Gutherie’s memo agenda packet to the HPC on December 10, 2008, it asked the HPC to consider the
RBCA proposal and states in bold type “The caretaker unit that was previously proposed in the project
has been eliminated” and in RBCA’s own response to the HPC “the applicant understands the need for
this concession.” It is also relevant that at the Ɵme that HPC suggested turning the exisƟng small
Victorian cabin into a living unit, but the RBCA “is not prepared to develop a small unit in the
southeastern corner of the property” rejecƟng that idea and eliminaƟng the unit altogether.
In the meeƟng minutes from that December meeƟng, HPC Chairperson, Michael Hoffman, expressed the
neighbors’ concern that the warm room porƟon of the unit would be used for some form of housing.
John Thorpe, President of the RBCA answered “that is not our intenƟon. It is not going to be used for
housing”. Current RBCS President Stony Davis was also present at this meeƟng as a member of the board
making this commitment.
In March of 2014, prior to receiving the occupancy permit for the maintenance facility, RBCA submiƩed a
minor amendment to City Council to allow the aforemenƟoned warm room to be used for sleeping
overnight. This minor amendment effecƟvely bypassed the HPC and P&Z and this point was quesƟoned
by several councilmen during the review process. AddiƟonally, one of the councilmen expressed
“concern that it will turn into a permanent residence”. This submission finally resulted in ordinance 30,
by a 3-2 vote, that allowed for a one-year trial period for the unit to be used as dwelling unit for the
RBCA’s employee but that it would not serve as a primary residence. AŌer one year the RBCA chose not
to pursue addiƟonal periods and the neighbors were again in opposiƟon to any extension.
116
Now in March of 2023, RBCA applies to have the same space converted into a deed restricted affordable
housing unit. In their applicaƟon the RBCA states that the maintenance facility was “designed and built
with two disƟnct rooms under one roof. These rooms are separated by a wall and a door that were
designed and built to meet fire codes for these two types of occupancy.” This clearly shows that the
RBCA has intended to use the unit as a housing unit all along, directly in contradicƟon to the condiƟons
for the original permit that were agreed upon and the RBCA’s publicly stated commitments to the
community.
It is also important to note that RBCA has many other opƟons to meet the ongoing needs of the
cemetery stated in the applicaƟon, but insist in installing housing in the cemetery against community
and HPC wishes. First and foremost is that the type of landscaping and property administraƟon services
that they need to have performed are readily available in the valley by many reputable companies and
would not require anyone to live in the cemetery.
AddiƟonally, concerns about security appear to be overstated. According to public records, since 2014,
there have been only two police reports regarding the Red BuƩe Cemetery. The reports state that the
vandalism was likely done by children living on cemetery lane. The total damage was 1,200 dollars,
cameras were installed and there have been no reported incidents since. Vandalism has also happened
on Snowbunny Lane, however it would not be reasonable for local garages to be converted into sleeping
quarters for when residents are out of town to protect their properƟes.
As far as housing is concerned, the RBCA has had viable free market opƟons but has chosen not to
pursue them, claiming insufficient funds on several occasions. According to tax records, the RBCA spent
approximately 400,000 dollars to build the maintenance facility in 2012. At the Ɵme this reduced their
savings and investments from approximately 559,000 to 218,000 dollars. Since that Ɵme the RBCA has
managed to increase their savings and investments to 1,072,000 at the end of 2022 (2023 statements
are not yet available). As early as 2019, they had 720,000 available for use. The RBCA had 854,000
dollars available to use for employee housing at the end of 2022 if they reduced their saving and
investments to previously acceptable levels. A quick search of the available properƟes shows that there
currently are free market opƟons available that would be far superior for truly maintaining a long-term
employee for the RBCA in the range of 700,000-800,000 dollars.
In summary, nothing has changed since the original submission to the HPC, where the RBCA made clear
commitments and representaƟons that they would not use the maintenance facility for employee
housing units. There are mulƟple viable opƟons to meet the stated ongoing needs of the cemetery for
both landscaping and property management as well as housing for their employee, that the RBCA has
chosen not to pursue. In our opinion it would be an error to allow an organizaƟon to make promises to
the community and then allow the “bait and switch” that has been perpetuated on everyone as well as
the incompliance of mulƟple other commitments. We respecƞully ask the HPC to take a firm stance on
the RBCA’s mulƟple commitments to not use the maintenance facility as housing and to comply with
other shortcomings in compliance with the previous approval.
Respecƞully,
Jonathan and Paula Nickell, Charles Gubser, Michael and Cathy Tierney, Linda Ukraine
117
We have included a link to the public documents and other materials referenced here for you
convenience that can be accessed by clicking on the following link:
hƩps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/to3js03r19eemldgkmgsh/h?rlkey=uxl7uhgxm5aaxu94175vge Ņ8&dl=0
118
Aspen Music Festival and School
225 Music School Road
Aspen, CO 81611, USA
March ##, 2024
Dear Aspen Music Festival and School Board,
The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission would like to convey our concern with the removal of Fritz
Benedict’s name from the Music Tent.
The intent of our commission is to “promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection,
enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of
Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history.”1 Included in this intent is a
priority to “promote the awareness and appreciation of Aspen’s unique heritage”2, “ensure the preservation of
Aspen’s character as a historic mining town, early ski resort and cultural center,”3 and to “retain the historic,
architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community.”
4
Our goal is to retain more than just buildings, but ensure the community has an understanding of its history and
development.
We believe that the renaming of the tent is contrary to our commission's goals. It is under the leadership of Fredrick
Allen Benedict that the AMF was able to reorganize and prevent the potential disbanding of the entire organization
that has become so important to the cultural development of Aspen. He also ensured the continuing ability for the
AMF to sustain its programming in an ever-diminishing local housing environment with the land trade and creation
of the Marolt housing.
Our Commission understands that selling the naming rights to buildings and locations for fundraising purposes is
fairly common practice, and in order for the AMF to continue to operate, additional funding is needed. We
appreciate the continued representation of Fritzs’ contributions with the naming of the Benedict entrance “for the
duration of the use of the current structure.”
5 We also do understand that the renaming of the tent is essentially a
“done deal.” However, we encourage the AMF to create a more permanent recognition of the history of the tent, the
important local figures who have enabled it to maintain its existence, and its continued cultural significance to our
community. We would be happy to collaborate with the AMFS on a permanent display of the history and cultural
significance of the AMFS and the figures who have allowed it to become what it is today.
Sincerely,
The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
1 City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010
2 City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010.b
3 City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010.c
4 City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010.d
5 Letter issued to the HPC Named “ASPEN MUSIC FESTIVAL AND SCHOOL ANNOUNCES NAMING GIFT FOR MUSIC TENT”
119
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello HPC,
Jeffrey Barnhill
Monday, March 11, 2024 6:49 PM
Mike Sear; Kate Johnson; Stuart Hayden; Kirsten Armstrong; Kara Thompson;
peterfornell@aspenhpc.com; jodi@surfasconsulting.com;
jeffreyhalfertydesign@gmail.com; roger@aspenpainting.com;
barbpitchford@gmail.com; kim@krai.us; Riley Warwick
FW: Public hearing 808 Cemetery Lane Red Butte Cemetery
Please see below public comment for the upcoming New Business Item 808 Cemetery Lane. I have let them Know that
this project will be tentatively scheduled out for April 24tn
Thank you,
Jeff
14 1 ,�
CITY OF ASPEN
Jeffrey Barnhill
Planner II 1 Community Development
(0): 970.429.2752 1 (C): 970.319.6636
ttps://www.aspen.gov
fZ1
My typical in -office hours are Monday, Tuesday, and Friday, 8:00-6:00.
My typical work from home hours are Wednesday and Thursday 9:00-5:00.
Our Values: Stewardship I Partnership I Service I Innovation
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from
disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and
then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If
applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of
detrimental reliance.
From: Chet Winchester <Chet.Winchester@aspensnowmasssir.com>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Jeffrey Barnhill <jeffrey.barnhill@aspen.gov>
Subject: RE: Public hearing 808 Cemetery Lane Red Butte Cemetery
Jeffery Barnhill
City Aspen Community Development
My name is Robert Winchester, resident of Aspen on Cemetery lane for the last 50 years. I currently own 777
Cemetery and 745 Cemetery. I am writing to object to the changes applicants are requesting At the public
hearing .
i
Sincerely ,
Robert P. Winchester
777Cemetery Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Wire fraud, email hacking and phishing attacks are critical security issues. Email is
neither secure nor confidential. If you receive an email from anyone concerning any transaction involving
Aspen Snowmass Sotheby's International Realty requesting you to wire funds anywhere or asking you to
provide nonpublic personal information (such as credit or debit card numbers, or bank account or bank
routing numbers) by unsecured return email, NEVER respond to the message even if it appears to be sent
by our company. Instead, immediately call your real estate agent and report the suspicious activity by
emailing IT.Support _ aspensnowmasssir.com or calling (970) 273�4032. ALWAYS confirm wire transfer
instructions by phone to a known number before sending any funds.
2
Mike Sear
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello HPC,
Kirsten Armstrong
Monday, March 11, 2024 8:17 AM
Sandra Johnson
Mike Sear; Kate Johnson; Jeffrey Barnhill; Stuart Hayden, Kara Thompson; Peter Fornell;
Jodi@surfasconsulting.com; jeffreyhalfertydesign@gmail.com; roger; Barb Pitchford; Kim
Raymond; riley.warwick@elliman.com
3/13 HPC Additional Public Comment: Red Butte Cemetery application
Please see below public comment for the upcoming New Business Item 808 Cemetery Lane.
Thank you,
Kirsten Armstrong (she/her/hers)
Principal Planner, Historic Preservation
(0):970.429.2759 (C):970031940700
www.cityofaspen.com
� Community Development
My typical in -office hours are Monday through Friday 8 - 4.
Our Values: Stewardship (Partnership � Service � Innovafion
Notice and Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain informafion that is
confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to
the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions
contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the
information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and
upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not
create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance.
-----Original Message -----
From: Sandra Johnson <skjdesign@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 2:41 PM
To: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>
Subject: Red Butte Cemetery application
Dear HPC
I am writing to ask you to deny the RBC application for a housing dwelling in their maintenance building.
We have been through this before 10 years ago, and HPC denied it. There were valid reasons then and they have not
changed. There is even more reason to deny now,
On the surface, I would not be opposed to them housing one person in a studio apartment, as we were shown at their
open house in December. However, because the entire property would need to be re- zoned from park to residential, I
see huge implications in the future for that property. It would not to remain a cemetery with a park -like setting,
historical, with native plants unique to Aspen. It could easily be sold for many other uses. It needs to remain a cemetery
for the future of Aspen.
Thank you,
Sandy &Peter Johnson
970 925 6191
2