HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20080227P1
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGUALR MEETING
February 27,2008
5:00 P.M.
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT: NOON -Meet at the Red Butte Cemetery
712 W. Francis
Red Onion
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes - February 13, 2008.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring
A. AJCC -Cabin relocation plan (15 min.)
B. Red Onion -Condition of the front door (10 min.)
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #5)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Red Butte Cemetery -Major Development -Conceptual,
Continued Public Hearing (1 i/2) **please note -site visit**
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
X. WORK SESSIONS
A. 627 W. Main - (30 min.)
IX. ADJOURN 7:30 p.m.
P2
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
P3
PROJECT MONITORING
Jeffrey Halferty 314 E. Hyman, Motherlode
930 Matchless
_ 134 W. Hopkins
920 W. Hallam
114 Neale Ave.
LaCo
Mike Hoffman 308/310 Park
640 N. Third
Jewish Community Center
202 N. Monazch
320 W. Hallam Ave.
426 E. Main (Main and Galena)
507 Gillespie
Sazah Broughton 110 E. Bleeker
530, 532, 534 E. Hopkins (Connor Cabins)
100 East Bleeker
Doerr Hosier Center @ Meadows
406 E. Hopkins (Isis)
304 E. Hopkins (Elevation Restaurant)
Brian McNellis 629 Smuggler
Hotel Jerome
Jewish Community Center
Doerr Hosier Center C~ Meadows
233 W. Main (Innsbruck)
212 W. Hopkins
980 Gibson Avenue
Alison Agley 529 W. Francis
214 East Bleeker Street (historic house)
205 S. Mill Street (Bruno's Deck)
710 N. Third
Boomerang
501 W. Main Street (Christiana)
214 East Bleeker (new house)
520 E. Durant (Ajax Bldg)
Red Onion
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Ann Mullins 135 West Main Street
P4
980 Gibson Avenue
Jay Maytin Red Onion
Firestation
28 Smuggler Grove Road
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS THAT HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL REVIEW:
508 E. Cooper (Cooper St. Pier Redevelopment)- (July 12, 2006) extended 6 months
Lift 1/ Willoughby Park- (August 8, 2006)- 2 years approved before final submittal
604 West Main Street- December 12, 2007
P5
a.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Conceptual) and
On-Site Relocation, Public Hearing
DATE: Februazy 27, 2008
SUMMARY: Red Butte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 19th century and
located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte and Aspen Grove are in active use and
privately owned and maintained. Ute Cemetery, Aspen's first, is owned by the City and has not
had burials since approximately the 1930's.
HPC is asked to consider the Red Butte Cemetery Association's proposal to construct a new
maintenance shop, cazetaker's unit and other improvements for grounds-keeping purposes, to
rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information, and to relocate and repair a historic
outhouse structure.
Two site plan alternatives aze on the table for this meeting. The first is the original concept; the
second indicates that a cazetaker unit could be established neaz the existing Victorian cabins,
rather than attached to the maintenance structure.
PREVIOUS HPC DISCUSSION: HPC reviewed this project on January 9, 2008, as well as
having heazd an introduction to the project last summer. The board will conduct a group site
visit on February 27th.
Lengthy discussion took place on January 9th, ending with the majority of the board concluding
that the proposed maintenance structure and cazetaker unit should be physically sepazated.
(Minutes attached.) Staff was asked to provide additional information about the historic
designation of the property, and outside resources that might be helpful to HPC.
Red Butte Cemetery was first identified as a historic resource during the City of Aspen's 1980
city-wide inventory. Although inclusion on the inventory offered some measure of protection, to
staff's knowledge the site was not formally designated until the adoption of Ordinance # 5, Series
of 1996. Staff reviewed the preceding minutes of both City Council and HPC and there was no
discussion of the specific historic qualities of Red Butte Cemetery. The attached inventory form
must have served as adequate information for the boazds to make their decision.
We have also reseazched other available sources of information on cemetery preservation. We
feel that it is inaccurate to state that HPC has no guidelines in place for this project. Seventeen
relevant guidelines aze cited at the end of this memo. In addition, the "City of Aspen Historic.
1
P6
Preservation Design Guidelines" establish the preservation policies enforced by HPC, including
the following:
Historic landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to
the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmazk property.
Excerpts from the Secretary of the Interior's "Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes" aze attached. While these guidelines have not been specifically adopted by the City,
and therefore cannot be requirements for the Red Butte project, they aze the philosophical basis
for Aspen's regulations and aze consistent with the analysis provided by staff in this memo.
PUBLIC• COMMENT: At the previous meeting, there- was debate about the process for
reviewing this project. To some degree, discussion of an on-site housing unit is a "chicken and
egg" issue. The current zoning; "Park," allows for accessory buildings such as a maintenance
facility. It does not, however allow for residential (and in fact cemetery is not listed as a
pernvtted use either.) The applicant wishes to have a cazetaker living on the property. They may
pursue a code amendment to the "Pazk" zone district, or they may choose to request rezoning to
"Conservation" or some other designation that is considered appropriate. The Association has to
start somewhere in the pursuit of this idea, and, without exception, projects that involve a
landmark property start at HPC. It is not unusual for the boazd to review a concept that needs
significant approvals at another boazd to be feasible. For instance, Aspen Jewish Community
Center was reviewed by HPC at length before moving on to P&Z and Council for determination
as to whether the proposed building height and limited on-site pazking were going to be
acceptable. It makes sense for the applicant to work with HPC to consider if a housing unit can
be accommodated on this site before pursuing additional lengthy and expensive review processes
to change the zoning. HPC has relevant guidelines and can choose to approve or deny the
proposed structures.
Suggestions have been made that the City could accommodate the maintenance equipment at
either the Pazks Department property or the City Shop, both nearby to Red Butte Cemetery.
While the City would like to help, those facilities aze already overburdened. Similazly a request
to the Housing Authority to allocate a unit for the cazetaker of this property has been turned
down.
Finally, testimony has been given about the state of the north meadow, and recent disturbances to
the landscape. Staff has had several conversations with the Pazks, Engineering, and Building
Departments. It does seem advisable that, as part of this project, any past damage to the native
landscape should be restored. The Pazks Department is interested in a management plan for the
historic trees and future plantings, as well as for weeds. Berms, debris, etc. should be removed
and/or controlled, with all necessary permitting in place. As the project moves forwazd, staff
may propose the establishment of an "activity envelope" surrounding the maintenance building.
This could be used to limit an activity in the north meadow to that specifically required for
burials, or re-vegetation with native planting. .
2
P7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is sympathetic to the high level of maintenance
required to caze for the collection of gravemazkers, historic structures and landscape features on
this site. It appeazs that the Association has very inadequate operational facilities at this time.
Aside from the infrastructure needs, the costs to properly preserve this site aze likely very high.
As a comparison, to repair and reset approximately 75 markers at Ute Cemetery in 2005 was
$100,000 and those mazkers aze, for the most part, smaller and less decorative than what exists
at Red Butte. The application submitted for this project indicates that there aze currently 2,800
graves and over two hundred lazge cottonwoods trees to be cared for. The cemetery serves a
critical cormunity need and appeazs to be lazge enough to continue to be active long into the
future thanks to the efforts of the non-profit association and the many volunteers who've served
on it's boazd over the yeazs. They deserve community support for their mission and
stewazdship responsibilities.
Staff finds that the relocation of the cazetaker unit to the southeast comer of the site is in better
compliance with the HPC guidelines than the previous plan. We aze still interested in the
concept of incorporating the unit into the Victorian. If not feasible, however, a detached, small
and simply designed structure as generally indicated on the re-submittal has merit.
We feel that the siting of the maintenance building is reasonable and mitigates impacts on
historic resources. However, the facility could have less prominence if the spoils yazd and
circulation aze kept to the minimum size necessary. The possibility of setting the structure and
yazd somewhat lower into the grade, using a sod roof, and other techniques to blend the
building into the landscape, should be pursued.
Staff recommends HPC discuss the project and continue review with recommendations for
better compliance with the guidelines.
APPLICANT: Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services and Graeme Means, Architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851.
ADDRESS:, 808 Cemetery Lane, a pazcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6`s P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: P, Pazk.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUALI
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance ;
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is °~
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
3
P8
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
The proposed project is unique in the sense that the primary significance of the site is as a
historic landscape. Only minor accessory buildings of the period aze present. The historic
preservation guidelines give somewhat limited direction in terms of how the proposed new
structure should relate to the context.
As described in the application, this site was ranch lands, assembled to form a cemetery at the
end of the 19a' century. The property is lazge (almost 17 acres). Annexed into the City of Aspen
in 1968, it is now bordered by the subdivisions of the Cemetery Lane neighborhood.
The existing infrastructure for the cemetery is limited to some visitor information available at the
southern end of the site, and a temporary structure and maintenance yazd towazds the north.
There aze not proper utilities available to support maintenance needs, and neighbors have
indicated that the result is unsightly. The Association is attempting to improve this situation.
HPC held a worksession with the Cemetery Association some months ago. At the time, the
location of the new structure was discussed. It was acknowledged that the building envelope is
fairly isolated from the historic features of the property, and also from the neighbors. While this
is advantageous in some ways, staff, and HPC based on the comments of Jan. 9`s, believe that
one 3,000 squaze foot building would be prominent on the site and may seem rather out of
context in terms of its size, contemporary design, and exposure (limited surrounding vegetation.)
The applicant was asked to break the program up into more than one structure, which has been
proposed as an alternative, although the Cemetery Association is not particulazly in favor of the
solution.
Relevant guidelines are:
~r
4
P9
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Lazge pazking areas should be screened from view from the street.
^Divide lazge pazking lots with planting areas. (Lazge parking azeas are those with more than
five cazs.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from parking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
In addition, the proposal is expected to be compatible with the historic context of the site, as
expressed in HPC's policies regazding the preservation of landscapes.
We find that the smaller structure in the north meadow is less intrusive, but recommend
continued study to integrate it into the native vegetation of the property to the greatest extent
possible, maybe even by placing the structure partially below grade. The spoils yard and vehicle
circulation azeas should be minimized to the greatest extent possible and be designed to be
consistent with historic roads on the site.
With regazd to the cazetaker unit, the idea of locating it in adjacent to, or within the existing
Victorian structures should be explored further. The unit is half the size of what was originally
envisioned. Basement space could be used to create at least a one bedroom residence. To
comply with the guidelines, it would be important for this structure to relate well to the simple
19`s century buildings on the site. Orientation of the building, and screening of the pazking
space, aze also important considerations. The consequences of trying to accommodate a
cazetaker in the existing cabin could be too detrimental, but the HPC should discuss the issue
further with the azchitect.
Relevant guidelines aze:
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide lazger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the context.
Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street aze
discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
P10
14.23Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Large parking azeas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide lazge parking lots with planting azeas. (Lazge parking azeas aze those with more than five
cars.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from pazking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots
and the street.
The applicant proposes restoration work on the historic cabin and shed. A metal "lean-to,"
which does not appear to be particularly tied into the cabin is to be pulled away to expose the
original south e]evation. Staff supports this aspect of the application.
RELOCATION
The following standazds apply for relocating a historic property as per Section 26.415.090.0 of
the Municipal Code:
C. Standards for the Relocation of Designated Properties
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it
meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered anon-contributing element of a historic district and its relocation will
not affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall chazacter of the historic district or pazcel on which
it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the historic district or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a Certificate of Economic Hazdship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given
the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not
adversely affect the integrity of the historic district in which it was originally located or
diminish the historic, azchitectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated
properties; and
Additionally, for aparoval to relocate all of the followin¢ criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding
the physical impacts of relocation; and
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
.`,
P11
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
Staff Response: The proposal is to move a historic outhouse only about a foot northwazd from
it's current location, and to rotate the building. Staff does support the plan to install a sound
foundation under the building ,and to undertake minor repair. However, moving and rotating the
building aze not cleazly necessary and aze not supported by staff or in compliance with the
following guidelines. We recommend that the historic location be maintained:
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those
in a historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A re]ocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural
details and materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similaz setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the reaz of the pazcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
mav:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,
• disapprove the application, or
• continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the application be continued for restudy of the
siting and design of the proposed new structures.
Exhibits:
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
C. Minutes of January 9a'
D. Historic Inventory form ;7
E. Secretary of the Interior's Standazds for Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
F. Public comment.
7
P12
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Red Butte Cemetery, Conceptual Review"
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Pazks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have avisual-impact in the eazly yeazs of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
o Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small azeas for accent.
o Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
^ In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmazk structures than those in
a historic district.
^ It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
^ Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
^ A relocated building must be cazefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details
and materials.
^ Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and provide a
new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
^ The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines for
new construction.
^ In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the
boundaries of its historic parcel.
^ If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the
lots. Both lots shall remain landmazked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
^ It should face the same direction and have a relatively similaz setback.
^ It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the pazcel to accommodate anew building
in front of it.
9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
^ On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation
on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of chazacter.
^ Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement
should be similaz in the cut of the stone and design of the mortaz joints. .
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic ,_
elevation above grade.
8
P13
^ Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However, lifting it
substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
^ Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be an•anged pazallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building by
using a front porch.
^ The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the entry.
^ A new porch should be similaz in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
^ In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendiculaz to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be cleazly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide ]azger masses into smaller "modules" that aze similaz in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appeaz taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in azeas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the
context.
o Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.lOThe imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
a This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
o Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen s history
aze especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.23Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Lazge pazking azeas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide lazge pazking lots with planting azeas. (Large pazking areas aze those with more than
five cazs.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^Automobile headlight illumination from pazking azeas should be screened from adjacent
lots and the street.
,r
9
P 14_~~ ~GC~
~ ~~~s~
f`~'ax 3613~4a~iuc, eoCeusdo 81612 Pke.cc/'fax (g70)42a1125 ~e~a+C(~ a.Ket
February 13, 2008
Ms. Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY CONCEPTUAL
SUBMISSION
Dear Amy,
During the initial HPC public hearing to consider the Conceptual Submission for the Red
Butte Cemetery held on January 9, 2008, HPC members requested some additional
information from the applicant. We have prepared responses to these requests and are
hereby transmitting the following drawings to you:
Site plan illustrating the applicant's preferred configuration of the proposed
development within the entire property.
2. Site plan illustrating an alternative location for the caretaker's residence adjacent to
the existing historic cabin.
The first site plan of the entire property shows the applicant's original (and still preferred)
development plan for the property. It is being submitted in response to the HPC
comments that members needed to be able to better see the configuration of the
proposed development plan in the context of the entire property. It shows that the
location for the new building is approximately one thousand feet (1,000') back from the
front entrance to the cemetery. This location is also approximately 250' back from where
the developed portion of the cemetery currently ends. Finally, it is approximately 200'
from the rear property line and 300' from the west side property line, providing a
substantial setback from neighboring properties to the north and west.
We believe this drawing confirms the statements we made during the initial hearing,
indicating that this is the appropriate location for the new building, a conclusion we believe
will be validated during the site visit with HPC scheduled for February 27. This location is
quite remote from the main entrance and creates a considerable separation from the
historic portion of the cemetery. It also creates an appropriate buffer from neighbors who
have built houses around the perimeter of the cemetery over the last 30 to 40 years.
P15
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Two
We have not provided a site plan that responds to the comment in the staff report that the
building might be less visually intrusive if placed towards the northwest end of the site.
Doing so would place it closer to the surrounding residences. In the meetings we have
held with neighbors we have represented that we would create more of a buffer between
their homes and the proposed new building. We continue to believe that buffer is
needed, particularly to provide some distance between the homes and the proposed
maintenance functions. We would hope to be able to end consideration of any option
that would move the building closer to these homes.
Instead, we have provided two drawings (an overall drawing of the property and an up
close view) showing an alternative for HPC to consider that would break the proposed
development into two separate buildings. The maintenance building would remain where
it was originally proposed, in the northern portion of the cemetery. However, in this
alternative, the caretaker's residence would be a separate building that would instead be
located in the southeastern corner of the property, near the historic cabin.
The applicant considered converting the cabin into a caretaker's residence by making an
addition to it. However, even the most preliminary analyses by the applicant's architect
have shown us that such an addition would ovenrohelm the historic structure and be
inappropriate. Furthermore, we have concluded that placing the maintenance building in
this area would be even more overwhelming and is simply not feasible at all. Therefore,
this alternative site plan shows the cabin being used for the office. It also shows a small
(600 sq. ft.) detached caretaker's residence that would be located 10' to 15' to the west of
the cabin. One parking space would be located in front of the residence.
The applicant does NOT prefer this alternative for a number of reasons, as follows:
1. To make the caretaker's unit fit in this area, it has been reduced in size from a two
bedroom unit of approximately 1,425 sq. ft. to a studio unit of approximately 600
sq. ft. in size. While such a unit would be able to house a single person, it will not
accommodate anyone with a family, which will sign~cantly limit the ability of the
Cemetery Association to successfully recruit a long term employee.
2. Although the caretaker's unit has been kept relatively small, we feel its size will still
overwhelm the very modest historic cabin and outhouse structures. Moreover,
placing the unit in this location will negatively affect the most historic, serene
portion of the cemetery. It will also be located only 3' from the southern property
line, which could be a significant concern for neighboring property owners.
___ 3. The caretaker's unit would be located approximately 6' from sold burial plots, which
will have a significant negative impact on the serenity of those plots.
P16
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Three
4. Locating the caretaker's unit in this corner of the property will eliminate 28 unsold
burial plots within the highly desirable historic portion of the cemetery
5. Separating the maintenance building from the residential unit and office will require
the caretaker to travel back and forth between these two areas throughout the day,
which is inefficient and will create unnecessary vehicle trips.
6. Having two building sites will double the need for utility extensions, resulting in
greater costs and greater construction impacts on the cemetery.
We would ask the HPC to consider these arguments and to conclude that the original site
plan proposed by the applicant is the preferred solution for the properly.
In closing, we would like to make the following points in response to the comments made
to date at the public hearing:
1. Although this property is zoned "P: Park" on the City's zoning map, it is not a
publicly owned City park. It is a privately owned piece of land that has been used
as a cemetery for over 100 years. The undeveloped portion of the cemetery will,
over time, be developed as cemetery plots and used for cemetery purposes. It will
not remain as undeveloped "open space" under any future scenario.
2. Several members of the public have suggested that the equipment needed to
operate the cemetery should be stored at the nearby City streets or parks
maintenance facilities. City staff has contacted these two departments and we
have been told unequivocally that there is no room for any of the cemetery's
equipment in these buildings. This option is, therefore, totally infeasible.
3. Members of the public have also suggested that the Association obtain a housing
unit for its caretaker through the Housing Authority. The applicant met with Tom
McCabe, the Director of the Housing Authority, and was told that the Association
would not have any priority in the lottery system and would not be successful in
competing for a unit. This option is, therefore, also infeasible.
4. Regardless of whether there is ever another burial plot used within the cemetery,
there will continue to be a significant need for this property to be maintained.
Maintenance will be essential for the urban forest on the property to thrive into the
future, for the irrigation system to function, and for the many existing plots to be
properly cared for. Having a maintenance building is not an option for this
property; it is a necessity. And having an on-site caretaker is the only way that the
Association believes it can maintain a long term employee who will give the
property the quality of service and maintenance it deserves.
P17
Ms. Amy Guthrie
February 13, 2008
Page Four
We look forward to continuing this discussion with you and the HPC on February 27.
Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else you require.
Very truly yours,
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
~~
Alan Richman, AICP
P18
-~,~~ ~ ~ 1-~ ~
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
NIINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008
Balcony and new roof form.
Ann said she came in midstream on this project but the size and mass of the
fenestration negates any kind of historic value that the cabin had because it
over powers it. At this point I realize it will not be changed. In the futwe
HPC should consider looking at a landscape plan at conceptual and identify
the existing plants and track the size and how old they are.
Scott responded and said he would have submitted a landscape plan but that
is not presently a requirement.
Sarah said the porch has gotten simpler and is sympathetic to the decorative
nature of what is going on with the historic resource and it is a better
solution. Brian also said the fenestration is a better solution.
Sarah said the board is in support of the chimney, fenestration and the porch.
Michael pointed out that everything seems to be resolved. With regard to
the tree species he is comfortable with staff and monitor signing off.
Michael said he is a little uncomfortable with the fenestration and the doors
have destroyed any evidence of what the fenestration was in the past in the
historic cabin.
Scott said they will get doors that match the existing front door. The doors
are existing. Sara said staff prefers that the doors be left as existing instead
of guess what was there. The doors do work better for the program. Sara
said there could be a condition that during construction if they discover
anything that might indicate a window existed it should be looked at by staff
and monitor.
MOTION.• Sarah moved to approve Resolution #2 for 980 Gibson with the
amendment to condition #3, adding prior to purchase and installation. A
more thorough landscape plan identifying trees species should be reviewed
with staff and monitor; motion second by Jay. Roll call vote: Nora, yes;
Brian, yes; Sarah, yes; Ann, yes; Michael, yes. Motion carried S-0.
Red Butte Cemetery
Letter in support -Exhibit I
Letters not in support -Exhibit II
P19
Affidavit ofposting -Exhibit III
Alan Richmond stated that the hearing tonight is focused on the compliance
of this project with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. We have not
submitted an application for rezoning which is handled by Planning &
Zoning.
John Tharp said the cemetery was incorporated in the late 1800's and is
governed by a volunteer board. The intent is to create and preserve a service
in Aspen for a cemetery. We have a need for a maintenance facility. At this
point we are operating out of a temporary tent that doesn't have power, light
or water or a restroom. It is inadequate to maintain our equipment and to
provide a place for the maintenance of the cemetery to take place. The
second issue is housing for the cemetery manager. The manager needs to
understand the mapping and plotting of the cemetery and manage that in
terms of record keeping and deal with the public in terms of plot sales and
mortuary services. He also handles the excavation when necessary and the
monument companies. The City forester mapped and inventoried and
devised a program to monitor the 200 plus mature cotton wood trees with the
manager. This has to be done twice a year. The manager has been with us
for over 20 years. Even with all there is to do it doesn't comprise a full time
job in terms of income for the manager. He is available at all hours but in
the winter he gets a second job. We fell it is instrumental for us to have a
housing unit to maintain continuity with our management.
Grame Means, architect explained that the site is 17 acres. Most of the
cemetery proper is not seen from the road. Most of the site is R-15a or b.
There aze residential lots on the south, west and north. There is a bank on
the east that goes to Castle Creek. The cemetery is somewhat divided into
two different parts, the southern part that is deve]oped with burial plots and
there are a distinctive row mature cottonwood trees that run along and a
system of ditches. It is the most distinctive aspect of the cemetery. On the
northern portion there is a temporary maintenance structure and it is largely
not maintained.
In the southern portion there is a cabin 12 x 17 in good shape. Our intention
is to restore that in place. There is also a 5x10 out house that sits to the
north. We also intend to restore the out house and move it ten feet and
reorient it away from the burial plots.
5
P20
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008
In the northern portion we are proposing to put a maintenance
facility/caretaker unit located approximately in the center. The site selected
lets the existing historical part of the cemetery to remain relatively un-
impacted by the development and it also gives a buffer from the residential
lots on the north and west. There is a three car maintenance facility, small
office and then a residential unit. All three components comprise less than
3,000 square feet. The access comes along an existing dirt road. There is a
sage meadow to the north. There is approximately 200 feet from the
property line to the building. The building is as low as possible and broken
up into three pieces.
Alan Richmond said Aspen is very fortunate to have a cemetery established
on a site that is 17 acres within the City limits that has considerable capacity
remaining. The upper valley is very unlikely to create a site for a cemetery
in the future. Aspen needs to make the best effective use of the cemetery
that it has so that we remain a real community, a place where you aze born
and a place where you can rest at the end of your days. Despite the
designation on the city zoning map the cemetery is not a city owned park it
is owned by the cemetery association for more than 100 years. The
association needs a place for maintenance equipment and for the cazetaker
who maintains the site. Having a maintenance facility is fundamental to
maintainigg the historic chazacter of this site that we all treasure. We have
contacted the streets and parks department to see if there was any room in
those facilities. There is no room for our equipment so we feel it is an
absolute necessity for this facility to be placed on the site for the future
needs of the cemetery. Having housing for a caretaker is critical to the
association to retain a trained employee for the cemetery. Tt was nice for the
neighbors to suggest that the association ought to get the use of one of the
city's housing units but we don't have priority in the lottery system and
frankly we do not want to compete with any other employees in this
community who are in desperate need of housing. We can provide housing
for our own employee. The site plan minimizes the impacts of the new
building on the historic character of the cemetery. We have had several
meetings with the neighbors to come to a meeting of the minds. We will
create distance and separation from the neighboring houses to the north and
the facility will not be in their back yazd. In staff's memo it was suggested
that we move the facility up to the northwest comer of the property. We feel
that is inappropriate and in conflict with the conversations that we had with
the neighbors and we would like to be consistent with the representations
that we made about minimizing our impacts with the neighbors. The
6
_ __.__. .. _.. _ P21
building is one story with very simple forms. The equipment stored outside
is a visual eye sore and the facility will eliminate storing equipment outside.
When we reviewed the project in August with the HPC the board was highly
supportive of the location and design of the building.
Amy stated that there are three cemeteries in town, the Ute Cemetery that is
owned by the city and hasn't been active since the 1930's. About three or
four years ago the City received grant funds and we used some of our own
funds to do a substantial project and every stone on the site was restored. It
costs $100,000 for the 75 stones and they were carefully put back to their
original condition. The second cemetery was Aspen Grove and it is similar
in size to Red Butte and actively used now. It is managed by a non-profit
board and recently the City has done an outreach to that group. They have
trees that are falling over that have hit the grave markers. They have an
aging group of people sitting on the board and they are trying to do the best
they can with the site and the City has gotten involved by sponsoring grant
applications. We will do a planning effort for how the site can be managed
and restored and the Parks Department will be involved in some level. In
terms of the Red Butte the City has not been asked for a significant amount
of help but the City Forester has been on the site inventorying the trees.
Part of staff's approach to this entire application is that we want to help.
There are approximately 2800 grave sites with markers and 200 large trees.
This prof ect will serve as an ongoing need for the community for years and
years. When I first met with the applicants on this topic the caretaker unit
was mentioned and at the staff meeting we talked about transfer
development rights. Selling TDR's could build and endowment to deal with
the long term costs. This might come up down the road when rezoning is
pursued. Getting specifically to the application we are not here to discuss
whether there should be a residential use, that is for City Council to
determine. If HPC has ideas how impacts could be mitigated that is
specifically HPC's job. Staffbrought up a few things. Placing the building
as they have does put it in a rather exposed location.
Staff is not sure if it is appropriate to change the planting pattern. Perhaps as
the cemetery grows we should continue to have the rows of cottonwoods. If
the building where put in the northwest corner of the site where the backdrop
is existing residential development, it would lessen some of the concerns.
Access to the building wherever it is is important. There is no intention to
pave the gravel roadways which is great because that would be a negative
impact on the landscape. One of the other comments at the work session
P22
was whether the building could be broken up into pieces instead of being
one structure. If it were broken up it would fit into the cemetery context
better. To the extent that there aze parking azeas those would need to be
screened and sensitively placed that they weren't any more visible from the
users of the cemetery than necessary.
Architecture of the new building.
Staff made a suggestion that something more of a vernacular form with a
gable roof would be more appropriate on the site. The cabin that exists does
have a gable form and a shed form. In terms of being in context with the
period of significance the 19"' century and eazly 20"' century it might be a
good idea to reflect back on what forms of the building would be
appropriate. Staff certainly supports the restoration work proposed for the
cabin and out house. Regarding the relocation of the out house we normally
do not like to move buildings when there is no pressing reason to but the out
house is close to some graves and that should be taken into consideration.
Staff still feels that the out house should not be relocated. Someone made
the decision earlier on that it would be an inappropriate relationship, but it is
part of the history. Staff is recommending continuation.
Questions and clarifications:
Sarah asked if the proposed development impact the future plots. Grame
said they think the out house was built around 1920. The northern part of
the property will have the same pattern as the southern in future years. It is
plotted out on paper. There is an existing road and the proposed
development will be on one side of the road. We intend to maintain the sage
brush and we will get a landscape architect onboard.
Alan pointed out that a Parks Zone district allows a park maintenance
facility.
Sarah inquired about the height of the proposed building. Graeme said it is a
little less than 17 feet at the peak. Most of it is lower than that.
Alison asked where the closest grave site is to the out house. Grame said
around 2 '/: feet away but the sites are not occupied. John Tharp said
occupied sites are around 15 feet away. Alison said with the existing zoning
only the maintenance facility can be approved. Amy said it is important for
the HPC to be evaluating how and where any new structures can be
8
_. ___-._._T-- - - P2
accommodated on the site. An office facility could be an accessory use.
The only thing not completely locked in is the residential component.
Alison asked if there was additional room on the south end by the shed and
out house for another building. Grame said the shed is within ten feet of the
property line. If we added a building we would be impacting the historic
structures.
Ann asked what kind of approval process occurred with the existing
maintenance facility. John Tharp said they had no approval process. A slab
was poured and the shed was temporary and the Building Dept, said OK.
That is as far as it went and that was about six years ago. The intent was
always to put something permanent on the site.
Brian asked staff what HPC's role is regarding the site. Amy said HPC
needs to confirm that the project is in conformance with the guidelines and if
not what can be done to get it in compliance. For example if a road was to
be paved that would impact the site etc. Another example would be the
residential component and possibly it would need to be broken down into
smaller pieces.
Jay asked if the roads are cleared during the winter. If someone lives there
how will that impact the site? John Tharp said the perimeter road is kept
open. John said there would not be additional plowing due to the residential
unit.
Michael asked when the property was landmarked. Amy said around 1995.
Michael also asked if there were any documents specific to the designation.
Amy said there is an inventory form and ten years ago the city did a study on
al] three of the cemeteries regarding maintenance issues and identified all the
grave stones. Michael asked staff why this property is designated. Amy
said it is one of the three cemeteries in town and it has an important native
landscape and is much more formal than the other two cemeteries. It is an
outdoor museum and there are beautiful sculptures on the site documenting
the history of the community.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing.
Letters not in support -Exhibit II
Howie Malory, resident on Snowbunny Lane.
P24
Howie said Red Butte Cemetery was zoned park approximately 30 yeazs ago
when the city did a major rezoning. At the same time the City created a
conservation zone and specifically excluded the Red Butte Cemetery. The
conservation zone was created largely with the intent to allow open spaces
that had development potential to still be protected as open space but
without creating the issue of takings that certain development potential was
allow in the conservation zone properties, namely a single family residence.
It is important to remember the history that the cemetery 30 yeazs ago was
designated park and not conservation. It was not the intent at that time to
create any development activity in the cemetery beyond the maintenance
facilities.
HPC has an implicit responsibility over any historically designated property
in the city to maintain the historic condition. HPC has to be able to say how
this property is going to be maintained and retain the historic values of the
property. This application effort has shown that the HPC probably doesn't
have a strong set of guidelines as you might need to have to deal with
historic grounds cape changes. There are guidelines that nationally exist and
have been developed as the result of other communities that had historic
cemeteries. The activity level in the cemetery is rather low. There are
approximately 12 burials a year. The cemetery has huge operational
problems. The request for housing on this property is inappropriate. The
housing authority should be approached to establish a priority for housing
for an employee who handles the operation of the cemetery. HPC could
support the housing authority. HPC needs to establish a series of guidelines
that deal with historic landscapes and until HPC is comfortable with the
potential zoning change when this property becomes delisted as an historic
park that you table this item.
Jesse Boyce said he is on both city and county open space boards. Every
day we are under pressure of a wonderful idea that would nibble away at our
open space and we have to defend ourselves against that. Employee housing
should be sought elsewhere for the cemetery. It is crucial that we do not
loose sight that the site is a park. What would happen if we put a
maintenance shed or housing in Wagner Park? The cemetery has been there
for 100 years and we have gotten this faz without needing this elaborate
structure. I understand the need for a maintenance shed but the residential
unit is really pushing the envelope.
t0
- _--- -- -
John Callahan, said he lives near the cemetery. Right now there is a
Quonset but with a piece of canvas hanging over it and people have to work
there. There is nothing wrong with the building going up and giving the
caretaker a better place to live. It is called for and we are helping the people
that maintain the cemetery.
Carolyn Cerise said she has lived in her house for over 50 years. She is in
support of the housing and it is situated in a place that does not impact many
people. It is certainly something that is needed and they do a great job
taking care of the cemetery.
Keith Gardner said he has lived here for 30 years. The whole thing is a
cemetery and it is one pazcel. T'he idea of putting a cazetaker unit in is
egregious because there is no access to this building. Access would have to
be made through the cemetery adjacent to graves. This would occur for all
domestic purposes, daily trips to and from the house. There would also be
normal social activities and kids playing.
Margo Gubser Gardner pointed out one aspect and that is many people come
to the cemetery to visit graves and meditate and they appreciate the quiet
sanctuary.
Jamie Stake said he lives on Cemetery lane and his back parcel comes to
within 120 feet of the cemetery. Jamie said he is for the proposal and it is
important that they have enough storage to keep the maintenance going on in
the cemetery.
Stony Davis said he is on the board and this cemetery is operating and
functional. Even though it is zoned pazk it is not a park. If you want the
cemetery to remain as is, it needs maintenance and has to have someone to
look over it.
Shane Evan said the HPC needs to think long and hard about the precedence
you are setting by allowing employee housing on the site.
Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Sarah asked where the maintenance vehicles come from. John said some are
on the property but when excavation is needed we contract that out and they
11
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008
store the equipment on the property until after the service is over then come
back and fill and take their equipment away.
Jay asked how long the caretaker takes Gaze of the property. John said it is
mostly seasonal. Spring, summer and fall he is on the property daily. In the
winter he answers daily requests on the phone. He identifies the plot and
oversees the excavation. He is on-call everyday.
Ann commented that HPC really lacks guidelines for historical and cultural
sites. On the list there are only 9 out of 300 on the inventory. In the
meantime we need to go with our experience and knowledge on the
importance of a cemetery to a community and apply that to the goal of
protecting the historic resource.
Michael said the discussion should be "is the proposal consistent with what
is historic".
Jay said the question to him is the new use of the historic site and if it is
appropriate. Is it appropriate to put a dwelling on it for a family to live in?
The big concern is the effect of having someone living on that property 24/7
and how that will affect the historical integrity of the cemetery itself. The
public is also concerned. There is a need for the maintenance facility. Over
100 years the cemetery has been kept up very well and over the next 100
years how much more maintenance is actually going to be necessary to
continue to keep it in the state that it is currently. The use of the land and
preserving what we have now and how the use will change, and how that
will effect preservation should be addressed.
Ann pointed out that cemeteries become an important resource for
communities. They reflect the cultural value and artistic talents and ethnic
groups in the community. Red Butte seems unchanged for the last 100
years. It is important to keep that intact. In the west cemeteries, are
disappearing rapidly. This cemetery has a definite pattern of landscape.
Widdling away of parks is occurring in this valley and across the US. That
is another threat to the historic use. The landscape has the beautiful cotton
trees and sage meadows which would be impacted dramatically by building
a large structure. We have this treasure in town and why not keep it as is,
not modify it with this new development.
12
P27
Sarah said this is very difficult. In the pattern of development how is it
foreseen to grow and how does the structure affect the historic nature of the
property as a cemetery. If it is seen that the structure does not historically
affect this as a cemetery then is the proposed structure in the appropriate
location. There are two different issues, maintenance and housing and they
should be separated. In the work session possibly the zoning wasn't picked
up. Typically you have maintenance facilities in cemeteries; it is part of the
function of the cemetery.
Jay said the current zoning allows for a maintenance facility to be put on the
property. Where it goes should be addressed and we also need to consider
the residential component.
Michael said the first question is whether a maintenance/residential structure
appropriate for this particular parcel of land. Jay said they should be
separated according to the zoning regulations. Michael asked what was
considered when the property was designated and what is in the records.
Sarah said we are being asked to accept change and to look into the future
and this is a difficult position to be in.
Ann said she sees this as the HPC is here to protect the historic resource and
this development is inappropriate and detrimental to the cemetery.
Michael also said he hears the City telling us that we need to help these
people because the cemetery could fall into disrepair and would need further
financial assistance. Those are values that should be considered as well.
Conclusion: The board felt that the maintenance facility and the residence
should be separated out.
Alison said we can clearly see the necessity for the maintenance facility.
They need the storage to keep the cemetery at the level of maintenance
where it is at right now. We need to be imaginative and help find the best
location for that portion of the program. It is interesting that the residential
component would increase traffic.
Brian agreed that the maintenance and housing component should be
separated. The board needs more information in order to make a decision.
13
P 2 8 _..........._...___ ._
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008
Michael suggested that staff come back with the materials requested and that
the boazd looks at the National Park Service criteria for historic landscapes
and that we get good examples of other municipalities that have adopted
guidelines and the board will meld everything together.
Amy brought up the idea of adding onto the cabin to make a studio or one
bedroom. Is that a direction that HPC is willing to look at? Alison said if
you aze going to restore the cabin then it seems that you could do more and
add a bathroom and help alleviate having such a large structure on the north
end.
Jay said they are restoring the structure and it would make sense to give it a
use. When you say caretaker unit I think of something very different than a
two bedroom home.
Graeme said that site is extremely constricted. The cabin is about 12 feet
from the property line. There is a road right there and burial plots and a
bank. It is so small that it wouldn't even work for an office. If you added a
bathroom and bedroom you would overwhelm the historic cabin. You
would also have setback issues.
Amy said the inventory form will be brief and it was designated with a lump
of other properties and there was no lengthy discussion. Council just
accepted staff's recommendation that there was historic value. We can
provide you with the Secretary of Interior's standards. Amy said she can
research how other communities have dealt with something like this.
Sarah suggested that the applicant show the proposed structure on the overall
site plan. Sazah also asked the applicant to look at reducing the size of the
residential unit and address the issue of traffic. Possibly look at the
residential unit being at the entrance. Sarah also said she feels the proposed
site is appropriate. In addition it was recommended that the applicant look
at other historic cemeteries and how they deal with these issues.
Amy reminded the board that this is the typical chain of events when you
have a larger project that is multiple steps. Landmark sites always start at
HPC. It doesn't make sense for the applicant to go to council to see if they
can have a residential site when HPC and the guidelines might not tolerate a
building of that size.
14
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008
Alan said the zoning for this property has been in place for 33 years and it
was done in 1975. A lot of the zoning that was implemented in 1975 has
been found to be faulty and has been changed. All the lodges up and down
Main Street were zoned non-conforming and that was a mistake. It was
rectified by the City in the 1980's and 90's. The Ute Cemetery is zoned
public and Aspen Grove Cemetery is zoned R-15.
John Tharp said Aspen is truly unique in our employee base problem.
Because of the cost of real estate and housing it is a powerful incentive to
keep a long term employee.
MOTION: Brian moved to continue the public hearing on the Red Butte
Cemetery until February 27`"; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk
]5
P30
OAFIP1403
Rev. 958
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 1 of 4)
~~(~~~
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Irrtfals ~-
Detemtined Eligible- NR
-_ Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Qrg'iWe- SR
- Determined Not Eligible SR
- Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing fo eligible NR District
I. IDENTIFICATION 5P 4
1. Resource number:
2. Temporary resource number:,
3. County:
4. City: '
5. Historic building name: Re utt e t
6. Current building name:
7. Building address: Red Butte Cemete As en Colorado 81611
g. Owner name and address: Red Butte Cemete Association ^^ o^c,G
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6 Township 10 South Range 85 West
1/. of NW 1/. of SE i/i of NW i/a of Section 12
10. UTM reference
Zone 1 3 3 4 7 5 6 0 mE 4 3 4 0 5 5 0 mN
11. USGS quad name: Aspen Quadrangle -
Year: 1960 Photo Rev. 1987 Map scale: 7.5' X 15'_ Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): Block:
Addition: Year of Addition:
13. Boundary Description and Just cation: I o _-ri_-~ of a tract of land in the NW 114 of Section 12.
'" t i nd Townsite of s en.
To nshi 0 South n e 8 s o t
Asses ors o ce ec u er. 3 -
T is de cri lion was h s n a e o c d o st a descri lion of the site.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape):
15. Dimensions in feet: Length x Width
16. Number of stories:
17. Primary external wall material(s) (enter no more than two):
18. Roof configuration: (enter no more than one):
19. Primary external roof material (enter no more than one):
20. Special features (enter all that apply):
P31
Resource Number: 5PT.949
Temporary Resource Number:~-
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 2 of 2)
21. General architectural description:
markers va in size material and com lexi
22. Architectural stylelbuilding type:
23. Landscaping or special setting features: see descri tion above.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: A small roundskee ers shh osrnnta nsea donheand s square
IV. Architectural History Actual
25. Date of Construction: Estimate 1900
Source of information: Based on earliest rave sites re 1900 reves are reburials
26. Architect: """""""'
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor: Un nown
Source of information:
26. Original owner: Ci f s en
Source of information: i
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major addit`on~s'kalte^atioWs, or demolitions): Grave
Moved Date of move(s):
30. Original location X
V. Historical Associations
31. Original use(s): Funera 'Cemete
32. Intermediate use(s):
33. Current use(s): Funera •Cemete
34. Site type(s): Residential Nei hborhood
P32
Resource Number: 5PT.949
Temporary Resource Number: RBC
Architectural Inventory Form
(page 3 of 3)
35. Historical background: The cemetery was established early in 1900 aooarently in reaction to the
Door record keeping of the Aspen Grove Cemetery A number of the lodges spearheaded by the
"" ons purchased the property There is a Catholic section a Pitkin County section for paupers
and areas for the various lodges who established the r•An+P*Prv Governor Davis Waite Colorado's
on(y_pooulist oovernor was buried here at his death in 1901 His monument was paid for by the
Western Federation of Min is 1$1 5001
36. Sources of information: Pitkin Countv Courthouse records• Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maos: 7990
and 1960 C'h~ of Aspen Survey of Historic Sites and Structures
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation:
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our
history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
_ C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: e i ion
40 Period of significance: sate 1 800's Silver Min ing Era to present
.
41. Level of significance: National State Local Z(
42. Statement of significance: This cemetery holds the remains of numerous important families in Aspen's
history as well as the wealth of information avai lable from the head stones and monuments recarding
cific births deaths and mar riages as well a s the broad oattem s of life and death over time.
43 Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Th is area is intact and continues to be
.
an active cemetery The entry piers are modes t but do not convey the quality of the historic arched
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data
P33
Resource Number: 5PT.949
Temporary Resource Number: RBC
Architecturallnventory Form
(page 4 of 4)
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes _ No X
Discuss:
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing _
Noncontributing-
Noncontributing
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: R11• FB. 9. 10 Negatives filed at: Asoen/Pitkin Community Develooment Deot.
48. Report title: Ci of As en U da a of urve o Hist ric Si s n Stru tures 2000
49. Date(s): 6/29/200D 50. Recorder(s): Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield
51. Organization: Rei rchitects
52. Address: 412 North Mill Str et PO Box 1303 As en C 1612
53. Phone number(s): 970 920 9225
NOTE: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
Colorado 1300 Broadway DeOnvee COA80203 10(3°3) 866-3395reservation
Standazds for Rehabilitation /Cultural Landscape Guidelines
P34
INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Cultural Landscapes
Standards for Rehabilitation
Page_1 oft
Circulation
Water Features
Structures. Furnishings, + Objects
Special Considerations
SiA1YDAR45 F4F 0.EN AaliRATlOR' ~
Rehabilitation is defined as the actor process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while
preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or
architectural values.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a properly will 6e retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a properly will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical developman; such as adding conjectural features or
elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
t
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/hli/landscape_guidelines/rehab/index.htm 2/21/2008
The Approach
Spatial Organization + Land Patterns
Topography
Vegetation
Standazds for Rehabilitation /Cultural Landscape Guidelines
Page 2 of 2
P35
4. Changes to a properly that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
suhstantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
....................................................................................................
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the properly and its environment
....................................................................................................
70. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential forth and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be unimpaired.
..... .......... .. ..
HPS I NPS History & Culture ~ National Park Service ~ I i S Deoanment of the Interior ~ A. ov I Privacy 8 Disclaimer ~ FOIA ~ Search
!Y
Defining Landscape Terminology /Cultural Landscape Guidelines Page 1 of 2
P36
INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
Defining Landscape Terminology
Overview
Preservation Planning
Factors to Consider
Special Requirements
Using the Standards + Guidelines
Organization of the Guidelines
Terminology
Character-defining feature - a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic of a cultural
landscape that contributes significantly to its physical character. Land use patterns, vegetation,
furnishings, decorative details and materials may be such features.
Component landscape - A discrete portion of the landscape which can be further subdivided into
individual features. The landscape unit may contribute to the significance of a National Register
property, such as a farmstead in a rural historic district In some cases, the landscape unit may be
individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, such as a rose garden in a large urban
park.
Cultural landscape - a geographic area (including both culturel and natural resources and the wildl'rfe
or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other
cultural or aesthetic values. There are four gene2l types of cultural landscapes, not mutually
exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and
ethnographic landscapes.
"Fairstetl,° in Brookline,
was the home and offic[
Law Olmsted, Sr., his s[
successors from 1883-1
widely recognized as thr
profession of landscape
the United States. Asa'
Olmsted's home and off
associated with the fine'
also significant for Its lar
illustrates Olmsted's sut
principles. The property
a National Historic Land
23, 1963. {NPS
,fir
hftn•//www nns_POV/historv/hDS/hli/landscape Qttidelines/terminology.htln 2/21/2008
Page 2 of 2
Defining Landscape Terminology /Cultural Landscape Guidelines
P37
Ethnographic landscape - a landscape wntaining a variety of natural and cultural resources that
associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, sacred
religious-sites, and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and
ceremonial grounds are often components.
..... ......................................
................. ..........
Feature -The smallest element(s) of a landscape that contributes to the significance and that can be
al eeUhoeuse,fineadow ontopen feld~fenceawale earthwork, pond or pool9bolla d, orchardeorplant,
agricultural terrace.
Historic character -the sum of all visual aspects, features, materials, and spaces associated with a
cultural landscape's history, i. e. the original configuration together with losses and later changes.
These qualities are often referred to as character-defining.
........................
.......................
Historic designed landscape - a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a
landscape architect, master gardener, architect, engineer, or horticulturist according to design
principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be
associated with a signifcant person, trend, or event in landscape architecture; or illustrate an
important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthefic values play a
significant rolein designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates.
Historic vernacular landscape - a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose
activities or occupancy shaped it. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, a family, or a
community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of everyday lives.
Function plays a signifcant role in vernacular landscapes. This ran be a farm complex or a district of
historic farmsteads along a river valley. Examples include rural historic districts and agricultural
landscapes.
....... ............ .
Historic site - a landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity or person.
Examples include battlefields and presidential homes and properties.
....... .... ............
............. . ..
Integrity -the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evinced by the survival of physical
characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period. The seven qualities of
integrity as defined by the National Register Program are location, setting, feeling, association,
design, workmanship, and materials.
Significance -the meaning or value ascribed to a cultural landscape based on the National Register
uiteria for evaluation. It normally stems from a combination of association and integrity.
Treatment-work carried out to achieve a particular historic preservation goal
HPS i NPS. History & Culture I National Park ~rvv~ ~ DeRg[tm~nfQ.th In riorJ ~A.gQy ~ Privagy & Disclaimer f FOI_A I Searfh
~Y
....,n,;~rr,,,,n,r,~/hli/landscape guidelines/terniinology.htm 2/21/2008
Organization of the Guidelines /Cultural Landscape Guidelines
P38
INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING
Overview
Preservation Planning
Factors to Consider
Special Requirements
Using the Standards + Guidelines
Organization of the Guidelines
Terminology
Bibliography
Acknowledgments
Cultural landscapes are composed of a collection of features which are
organized in space.They Include small-scale features such as individual
fountains or statuary, as well as patterns of fields and forest which define the
spatial character of the landscape.
Individual features in the landscape should never be viewed in isolation, but in relationship to the
landscape as a whole. Each situation may vary, and some features may often be more important than
others. For example, circulation may be an important historic element in one landscape, whsle in
another it may have little if any significance.
Overall, it is the arrangement and the interrelationship of these character-defining features as they
existed during the period of significance that is most uiticel to consider prior to treatment. As such,
landscape features should always be assessed as they relate to the property as a whole. Thus,
spatial organization and land pattems are always listed first in each section of the Guidelines.
Organizational Elements of the Landscape
Spatial Organization and Land Pattems refers to the three~imensional organization
and pattems of spaces in a landscape, like the arrangement of rooms in a house. Spatial
organization is created by the landscape's cultural and natural features. Some form
Page 1 of 3
Two aerial photographs
right] of the changing ge
context at Rancho Los F
halt century apart, from
lands to suburban subdi
eminentty clear. This dr
the property's conlextw
on suture planning and h
recommendations. (Ran
Alamttos Foundation)
~x
httn://www.nns.eov/historv/hUS/hli/landscape_ guidelines/organization.htm 2/21/2008
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
Organization of the Guidelines
Organization of the Guidelines /Cultural Landscape Guidelines Page 2 of 3
P39
visual links or barriers (such as fences and hedgerows); others create spaces and visual
connectioris in the landscape (such as topography and open water). The organization of such features
defines and creates spaces in the landscape and often is closely related to land use. Both the
functional and visual relationship between spaces is integral to the historic character of a property. In
addition, it is important to recognize that spatial relationships meant arowth andtsuccessionaandety of
factors, including: environmental impacts (e.g. drought, Flood), p 9
changes in land use or technology.
Character-Defining Features of the Landscape
There are many character•defining features that collectively contribute to the historic
character of a cultural landscape. These are as follows:
Topography, the shape of the ground plane and its height or depth, is a character-
defining feature of the landscape. Topography may occur naturally or as a result of
human manipulation. For example, topographic features may contribute to the creation of
_ outdoor spaces, serve a functional purpose, or provide visual interest.
Vegetation features may be individual plants, as in the ceslantin sbedi oea tnaturaily-
groups of plants such as a hedge, allee, agricultural field, p g
occurring plant community or habitat. Vegetation includes evergreen or deciduous trees,
shrubs, and ground covers, and both woody and herbaceous plants. Vegetation may
derive its significance from historipl associations, horticultural or genetic value, or
aesthetic or functional qualities. It is a primarydynamic component of the landscape's character;
therefore, the treatment of cultural landscapes must recognizethe continual process of germination,
growth, seasonal change, aging, decay, and death of plants. The character of individual plants is
derived from habit, form, color, texture, bloom, fruit, fragrance, scale and context.
Circulation features may include, roads, parkways, drives, Veils, walks, paths, parking
areas, and canals. Such features may occur individually or be linked to form networks or
systems. The character of circulation features is defined by factors such as alignment,
width, surface and edge treatment, grede, materials, and infrastructure.
Water features may be aesthetic as well as functional wmponents of the landscape.
They may be linked to the natural hydrologic system or may be fed artificially; their
associated water supply, drainage, and mechanical systems are important components.
Water features incude fountains, pools, cascades, irrigation systems, ponds, lakes,
streams, and aqueducts. The characteristics of water features and reflective qualities;
and associated plant and animal life, as well as water quality. Special consideration may be required
due to the seasonal changes in water such as variations in water table, precipitation, and freezing.
Structures, site furnishings, and objects may contribute to a landscape's significance
and historic character. SWctures are non-habitable, constructed features, unlike
buildings which have walls and roofs and are generally habitable. Structures may be
significant individually or they may simply contribute to the historic character of the
landscape. They may include walls, terraces, arbors, gazebos, follies, tennis courts,
playground equipment, greenhouses, cold frames, steps, bridges, and dams. The placement and
arrangement of buildings and structures are important to the character of the landscape; these
guidelines emphasize the relationship between buildings, structures, and other features which
comprise the historic landscape. For additional and speck guidance related to the treatment of
historic buildings, please consult the Guidelines for Preserving Rehabilitefina Resforino and
RecronsWcting Hisforic.Buildings.
Site furnishings and objects generaly are small-scale elements in the landscape that maybe
functional, decorative, or both. They can include benches, lights, signs, drinking fountains, trash
receptacles, fences, tree grates, clocks, flagpoles, sculpture, monuments, memorials, planters, and
-: urns. They may be movable, used seasonally, or permanently installed. Site furnishings and objects
occur as singular items, in groups of similar or identical features, or as part of a system (e.g. signage).
_ They may be designed or built for a speck site, available though a catalog, or created as vernacular
pieces associated with a particular region or cultural group. They may be signficant in their own right,
for example, as works of art or as the work of an important designer. ,y
2/21 /2008
P40 ~~l~l~l
Sarah Chase Shaw
February 21, 2008
Landscape Architect
P.O. Box 412 • Aspen, CO 81612
Ph: 970.425.2724 • fax:970.926.2730
sa ra hs hawCa'so pri s. net
Aspen Historical Preservation Commission
Michael Hoffman, Chair
123 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 8 ] 6 ] 1
Re: Response to Request for HPC Approval for Development of the Red Butte Cemetery
I have been asked by the neighbors of the Red Butte Cemetery to comment on the Cemetery
Association's request for approval for development. The following letter is provided to identify
the cultural and ecological landscape characteristics that distinguish the Red Butte Cemetery as
an historic landscape. It is recommended that the points made within this letter should be
considered with any HPC review that includes a potentially historic landscape.
The "Response to Guidelines Applicable to Proposed New Development" contained in the
November, 2007 development application as submitted by the Red Butte Cemetery Association
evaluates the cemetery's historic value utilizing criteria from the Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, April 2000. These guidelines, which are based on the Historic Preservation
Guidelines, adopted by the Secretary of the Interior in 1967, aze architectural in nature and aze
specifically directed at the design of historic structures and urban spaces in Aspen's Main Street
Historic District and the Commercial Core Historic District. They are not appropriate for
evaluating historic properties and cultural landscapes outside of these historic preservation
districts.
The ] 967 Secretary of the Interior Guidelines were updated in the Department of Interior's 1992
"Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties" to provide "Guidelines for the Treatment of
Cultural Landscapes"; this includes standazds for all historic sites and cultural landscapes and
illustrates how to apply these standards to cultural landscapes. The City of Aspen's Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines, however, aze guidelines directed at the design of azchitectural
structures. They reference the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of
Historic Buildings, but do not include historic sites and cultural landscapes. The following points,
excerpted from the Department of Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes, apply to evaluation ofthe Red Butte Cemetery property.
(http !/www nos eov/historv/hos/hli7landscane euidelines/index.html
1. Soatial Oreanization and Land Patterns: This section addresses the identification and
preservation of existing spatial organization and land patterns of the landscape as they have
evolved over time. The guidelines state that, prior to beginning a project, all features that define
those relationships be documented. The elements that specifically apply to the Red Butte
Cemetery include:
• Size, configuration, proportion and relationship of component landscapes (i.e. current
grave site area, north meadow, Castle Creek habitat corridor and Aspen Meadows sage
meadows)
P41
• Relationship of features (grave sites and ecological habitat) to component landscapes
• Description of component landscapes
• Impact of current management practices and proposed action on landscape resources
2. Vegetation: This section is dedicated to the identification, retention, and preservation of
existing vegetation. The guidelines suggest documenting the landscape and establishing a plan to
maintain and facilitate the continued evolution of historic vegetation.
3. Circulation: This section addresses the identification, retention, and preservation of the
existing circulation system. The guidelines suggest documenting existing roads and their history
through photography and measurement, and protecting the relevant conditions.
Cultural Values
The Red Butte Cemetery is a designated Historic Landmark Site whose value is keenly linked to
its status as a cultural landscape. The Cemetery is a deliberately created and highly organized
expression of the traditions and values of the pebple who made the Roazing Fork Valley their
home. It is essentially an outdoor museum where visitors and residents of the community can
experience and explore the cultural markers within a landscape of azchitecture, design, folk art,
and even literary styles of decades past. Red Butte, along with the Aspen Grove and Ute
Cemeteries, are the cultural landscapes of our community. Many of our most celebrated citizens
have been laid to rest here. As cultural geographer Carl Sauer said in 1925, "The cultural
landscape is fashioned from a natural landscape by a culture group. Culture is the agent, the
natural area is the medium and the cultural landscape the result "This distinct landmazk in Aspen
uniquely represents history as written in, and by, the landscape.
It is common for old cemeteries to remain culturally relevant open spaces in urban areas. In fact,
the City of Aspen had that in mind when it zoned the Red Butte Cemetery an Historic Park in
1978. In zoning it Park, the City recognized the cemetery's importance as an irreplaceable
landscape, and a benefit for the greater community in perpetuity. Equally important, the Red
Butte Cemetery is a unique micro-ecosystem within Aspen. As such, it should be viewed as a
good example of predevelopment natural landscape in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Protection
of this ecosystem should be balanced with any management strategies for the area.
According to the Cemetery Lane Neighborhood Plan (2001), "Red Butte and the Red Butte
Cemetery provide both aesthetic and enviromnental functions in the neighborhood" (p.36). The
Neighborhood Plan includes the following Parks, Recreation & Open Space Goals:
• Improve the neighborhood with accessible and functional pazks, open space, recreation
facilities and natural systems that are connected to serve the azea's population and natural
environment.
• Respect the historic, aesthetic and environmental significance of such amenities as views,
open space, the City edge, distinctive topography, and irrigation ditches.
The following photos illustrate how vital the Cemetery was to the establishment of the Aspen
community in 1900. The cottonwood trees that demazcate the Cemetery were established, and as
anyone who has reviewed the grave mazkers can attest, many prominent residents had already
been laid to rest in this tranquil space at that time. As the neighborhood developed from a
ranching operation to a residential environment, the Cemetery's status as significant urban open
space only increased. It represented the edge of development, providing a buffer to the Castle
Creek riparian azea and Roaring Fork river bottom. As referenced in Joe Por[er's letter and
photographs of January 8, 2008 to your committee, the proposed residential development has "the
great potential to permanently destroy the historically significant grass driving lanes and the
peacefulness, sanctity and serenity of this historic landmazk. The distinct grass driving lanes,
2
P42
evolution of native sage into the meadow, the meadow habitat value aze all important to the
intrinsic historic, cultura] and environmental chazacter..." of the Cemetery.
newly planted trees.
Cemetery, circa 1940, Is denoted by the bosque of cottonwood trees in the center of the photo.
P43
*All photos taken from the Cemetery Lane Neighborhood Plan - 2001
- The Cemetery is currently zoned Park, signifying its role as an important public place, and should
be developed so as to serve its intended use, while not exerting a disruptive influence on the
surrounding land uses. Recreation on the property is minima], consisting primarily of visitors to
the cemetery and dog-walkers, bicyclists and runners who use the property as apass-through
point. It is important to note that the entire property, including the north meadow, is historic. All
of the property was designated as a cemetery in 1899; as of 2008, trees and grave sites have yet to
be developed in the northern meadow.
The property to the east of the Cemetery is zoned WP -Wildlife Preservation. According to the
City of Aspen Municipal Code, the purpose of this zone district is "...to secure and protect
undeveloped or less developed azeas within the City from traditional development activities so as
to provide for the nurturing and preservation of naturally occurring vegetation, topography,
wildlife and wildlife habitat while permitting controlled and limited human use and activities."
This property consists of the ripazian zones and the base of the slope on both sides of Castle
Creek, abutting the Meadows Trustee Housing to the east, and including the confluence of Castle
Creek and the Roaring Fork River to the north, all azeas of immense wildlife and vegetative
diversity.
disappearing under the canopy of cottonwood trees. The Cemetery has been a constant in a
changing surrounding landscape for over a hundred years. The cottonwoods are iconic historic
elements that can be seen from many areas in the upper valley. Through all of these changes, the
resurgence of the north meadow landscape represents a landscape that pre- dates the cemetery.
P44
Ecological Values
The northern quarter of the Cemetery property is characterized by mountain big sagebrush
(Artemesia tridentate), known for its unique bird life and the many colorful wildflowers found
there, when not compromised by overgrazing, earthmoving, or fragmentation. Historically, this
community dominated the landscape in the valley bottoms throughout the Roaring Fork Valley,
much of it being uprooted to create pastureland. In fact, the only significant areas of sagebrush
community remaining in the upper Roazing Fork Valley exist within the Red Butte Cemetery
property, Pitkin Green, the Aspen Meadows race track and meadows below the Trustee housing,
the Moore properly, and Northstaz. Everywhere else it has been all but decimated, and along with
it, its intrinsic wildlife values.
Sporadic stands ofoak-mountain shrubland intermixed with cottonwood stands blanket the east-
facing slope that transitions to the river bottom. While it is outside of the Cemetery itself, it is
important because it forms part of the overall wildlife habitat corridor of the area. This area is
considered one of the most valuable for wildlife because of the abundance of food and cover it
provides. Although some encroachment by non-native weed species is occurring, a long list of
native plants can still be found with associated bird breeding species, indicating the ecosystem is
still intact. Of note are significant stands of chokecherry, an important source of food for many
songbirds and bears in the late summer and early fall.
The Castle Creek river bottom area lies within 500' of the Cemetery, to the east. Its confluence
with the Roaring Fork River lies approximately 1500' to the north. This close proximity results
in a tapestry of diverse ecosystems with an abundance of associated wildlife. In fact, wildlife
species are known to thrive where one ecosystem borders another -called the "edge effect".
Because the property borders the river bottom, it can provide partial territory for those animals
which migrate through or have a much larger range than the cemetery property itself can provide.
Please see the accompanying map entitled Red Butte Cemetery: Cultural and Ecological
Landscane Context for further reference.
Wildlife Habitat
Almost 80% of all native wildlife species depend on riparian eco-systems for a portion of their
life cycle. Likewise, 80% of bird species utilize riparian habitat exclusively for nesting.
For a property that is surrounded by urban uses, the Cemetery contains significant wildlife habitat
with a high diversity of native wildlife species. Irrigation ditches run through the Cemetery from
late May until mid-September. One ditch skirts the west side of the Cemetery, passing through
the backyards of the neighboring homeowners, many of whom have created small ponds to
capture this water for aesthetic purposes. Irrigation ditch water, combined with the property's
close proximity to the river bottom and riparian areas of Castle Creek, makes the cemetery
attractive to wildlife and birds, promoting a tremendously diverse wildlife population in the
general vicinity.
Native birds and mammals use the property on a regulaz basis. Small groups of mule deer aze
frequently observed grazing in the sagebrush. Coyotes occasionally hunt for small rodents.
Many smaller predators and birds hunt on the property as well, including raptors, weasels and red
fox.
Birdlife is significant, including species such as the Brewer's sparrow, vesper sparrow, dusky
flycatcher, and green-tailed towhee, all of which are dependent on sagebrush shrublands for
breeding. Many other species have been observed feeding, soazing or swooping over the area
most likely due to the abundance of food sources -grass seeds, insects, and rodents. Mountain
bluebirds, juncos, white-crowned sparrows, yellow-rumped warblers do not nest here but have
been observed feeding on the ground and in the shrubbery. Violet-green and tree swallows were
P45
seen feeding on insects overhead. Redtail hawk and kestrel have also been observed hunting over
the sagebrush and perching on the utility poles.
Non-native wildlife species are prevalent in the cemetery due to its proximity to extensive human
activity. Raccoons and crows are common. Wyoming ground squirrels, often associated with
cattle and grazing or disruption of native plant communities, have been observed in the meadow
as well
The sage shrublands converge with pasture vegetation in the open meadow. There, a wide range
of native plants including pasque flower, paintbrush spp., multi-flowered phlox, lazkspur, lupine,
and many other species which aze disappearing with human impact, being replaced by non-native
weeds. Due to the major earth-moving activities within the cemetery itself, including the
disturbances in the center of the north meadow, and the construction staging for the neighborhood
sewer line repair project, the property is being invaded by non-native weed species -several of
which aze considered noxious by the Colorado Weed Management Association. The most
immediate concern is the colonization of multiple weed species in the area of the bernt. Noxious
weed species found here include plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), cheat grass (Bromus
tectorum), hound's tongue (Cynoglossum officinale), Canada thistle (Breea arvense), field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), wild lettuce (Lactuca scariola), and diffuse knapweed
(Centaurea pratensis).
The residential dwelling and maintenance facility proposed on the meadow portion of the
cemetery. property combined with the generation of additional traffic on the historic inter-
cemetery lanes are inconsistent with the environmental and cultural values of the historic
landscape. As these ecologically rich and historically relevant landscapes disappeaz from the
upper valley, the urgency for protecting open space and maintaining a buffering edge condition
increases. In the absence of cultural landscape-specific design standazds and guidelines, the HPC
should evaluate the development proposal in terms of the obvious cultural and ecological values
that have existed on the Historic Landmazk Site for over a century. It is also suggested that, in the
future, HPC consider preparing and adopting design standazds and guidelines for historic sites
and cultural landscapes that aze equally as consistent and sensitive in evaluation as the current
architectural guidelines are to Aspen's Historic District.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully submitted,
~ c~,~--
P46
0
oY~
O w Q y
C j N ~
U U N N
~ C ~
A O C C
U r R y
~+ a
~ ~•~Q
- m ~
~ ~ ~ y
w ._
o~~~
~'j~Y Y
Q ~ O ~
N ~ .~-~
3 ~ ~
j C U
07 U ~ ~
m'p O U
m N ~ O
U ~ c ~?
mo~0t
r N Y ~
[nt m
'o ~ U ~
~ ~ Y
N
L U N ~
~mUa
o~im~~
~ » o m
d m ~ ~
nn°a
m ~ m
m n- ~ x
~ w ~ m
m n~ n
~ o a 3
_ :°.
m ~ c ~
m '~ c
w'o°~-v
~ ~~`' ~ z
m ~ ~ o
m ~ y m
y~.~ m
v m m a
N
7 N S N
~ ~
~ d fop
a d ~ ~
f N N O.
N j N O
~ ~ O
O
P47
Feb 19, 2008
Michael Hoffman
Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
The HPC is being put into a quandary. It is being asked to render a supportive opinion over a use that is not
now permitted by its existing Park zoning. As the HPC knows from the existing Park zoning, the only
development above grade that is permitted is a maintenance facility to support appropriate cemetery
operational activities. I believe that you should decide on the reasonableness of a properly scaled
maintenance facility because that and only that is in yow purview as overseer of a historical cultwal
landscape..
The request from the applicant really speaks to a critical philosophical issue about zoning. Is historic Pazk
zoning to be considered an interim or holding action until some change in needs occws in a community?
Or is it to be considered a decision by the community to protect forever one of its few historic cultwal
landscapes? Historic preservation commissions were created by city governments just for this purpose .
At the last meeting in Jan 2008, it was acknowledged that the Aspen HPC had inadequate guidelines to
apply and refer to in its role as a regulatory review boazd for historical cultwa] landscapes. All members of
HPC agreed Red Butte Cemetery is such a historical resowce. Even the minutes from the meeting indicate
an inadequacy of operative guidelines for such properties. Since that meeting has the HPC drafted
guidelines for discussion and approval after the appropriate amount of debate and public input?
If not, then the HPC may not be adequately equipped to respond to the impacts of permitted uses in a Park
zone let alone uses that may be permitted under a possible rezoning. Guidelines are critical to assessing
the impacts of changes both positive and negative on historic cultwal landscapes. Until the Board has
agreed upon them, the application should be tabled and resubmitted after the guidelines are in place.
It is thus frankly unfair to ask the HPC to participate in a "what iP' discussion without such guidelines. In
other words "what if the cemetery were zoned something else than its current Park zoning, would the HPC
then be comfortable performing its preservation mission with such additional development and activities
on the historic parcel?"- In summary the applicant has requested that the HPC bless a hypothetical
scenario of unpermitted uses and activities on a historic cultwal resowce for which it has responsibility for
historic preservation. I believe that HPC's role is to preserve and enhance its historic resowces -not to
accommodate a diminution of its historic resowces.
Thank you for serving in yow volunteer capacity to preserve Aspen's irreplaceable historic resowces
Howie Mallory
P48
Feb 20, 2008
Red Butte Cemetery Landscape Observations
The following remarks aze to provide some visual perspective and information about the cemetery
landscape that is now covered with snow. When the snow is gone one will see:
Southern Portion- all grass except for the grave stones and trees and the double track cart path roads
Irrigation system put in 2007
Expansion of grave sites the full length of the eastern boundary area overlooking Castle Creek. There
seems to be a question whether or not an excavation/ dirt moving permit was obtained to do the work.
Northern Portion-:
Stock piling of dirt and rocks in berm like dump sites plus a specific berm erected to conceal a now tattered
fabric Quonset maintenance shed and a few vehicles. None of the berms have had any meaningful
revegetation or seeding efforts applied to them during the past 6 years-just weeds or thistle.
Major water line excavation/ installation by City of Aspen Sanitation Dept on west side with nominal
revegetation effort. Now covered with snow. Some straw spread last fall over the impacted areas from
digging and track traffic. No effort made to loosen compacted surfaces to facilitate vegetation growth.
Will have to wait till summer to see what grows but it will not be the original sage pasture which has been
scraped away.
Changes that have occurred since 2000:
Until recently (last 5 or 6 years) was almost entirely a sage pasture. Only the NE corner still contains sage.
Sense is that parts of the northern portion in and around the berms and but have been considered a staging
area for earthmoving equipment as a favor to Stuzman Gerbaz for free grave digging and snowplowing.
Also as material storage area for cemetery operations with out any consideration for revegetation.
Even though coned a Park since 1975 and historically designated in 1996, apparently no roles or guidelines
have been followed by the cemetery or any enforcement efforts by HPC or the City.
Why- because the cemetery has been `out of sight out of mind". With no historic and cultwal maintenance
and management guidelines, the cemetery's compliance with its Pazk zoning and historic designation has
been ignored.