Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.808 Cemetery Ln.0030.2009.ASLU~'4 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0030.2009.ASLU 273512200851 808CEMETERTYLANE DREW ALEXANDER GMOS EXEMPT/FINAL PUD ALAN RICHMOND 11 /17/2009 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey on 12/10/2009 „~.. ~3331zz04ss I File\Ed¢ ~ecard 0!a"gate Fgm Reports PorrQat lab Help ~J ..: ~x k II ~~ ~ fir. i J ~ -~ ~' ~ ~ lp lump 1 t:": ill . 0 '. ~4j ~>~ ~ J a.~_.]® Jam.', f!. ~ rM~Custom Fblds~ Feet' Fee Summary l Yaluatian 4cnons ~;i Routvp Hrslory~ ons y_ __ ~ ~ I Parcels Sub Pmm4s I ~ I Pmmit Type Pmmi It 0030.2009.ASLU _ti_. Address 608 CEMETERY LN ~ Apt/Suie Pr ~ C4y ASPEN State CO - Zp 81611 J $ Pam~t lnlamelion- - -- D F z a Mash Pmrnit ~-J PrajeG CEMETERY Submitted ALAN RICHMAN 9201125 _.__ Ownm _.. _. __. last Name RED BUTTE CEMETERY A95(J Fusl Name r Phorw (9701429-0783 r Owner is Applicant? Routing queue a:luo7 AppGad os(zz(zoo9 J Stetw pending Apgoved ~ J 1L PUD FOR RED BUTTE Issued I J~~~~~I Fnd ~J Clack Running Days ~ Expires 05(17(2010 J PO BOX 194 ASPEN CD 61611 Last Name RED BUTTE CEMETERY AS9(J Fast Name- PD BOX 194 phone f97o) 429-0783 Cusl0 2857q i' ASPEN CO 61611 Lender Last Name ~-J First Name ~- Phorn ~- - ~J ~~~ ~~ I'~'~ ~-~ \~o~ ~`~ ~~~~ ~~~ tih ~.. RECEPTION#: 565072, 12/07!2009 at 03:43:34 PM, 1 OF 9, R $46.00 Doc Code ORDINANCE Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO finance No. 21 RIES OF 2009) .~ RECEPTION#: b&4862, 12!01/2009 at 1~~ Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin Count AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNC[L APPROVING CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AMMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 808 CEMETERY LANE, CI'T'Y OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-12-2-00-851 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservatilon Commission reviewed a Major Development (Conceptual) application from the Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, for the construction of a new maintenance building at Ked Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6~" P.m., City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 10, 2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9, 2008, February 27, 2008, and June 11, 2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City'of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0 under Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant held apre-application conference with Community Development staff; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Review, Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held with the Applicant on June, 24~h 2009 and comments and recommendations were gathered from the City of Aspen Parks, Engineering, and Building departments, along with comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and, WHEREAS, the approval recommendations from the referral departments have been added to this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, a publicly noticed site visit was held on July 15'h, 2009; and, WHEREAS, prior to applying for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval the Applicant received Conditional tJse approval and recommendations for Consolidated Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 1 of 7 r PUD, Amendment to the Official "Lone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval from the Planning and 'Coning Commission for a maintenance facility of 1,280 sq. ft, and restoration of a Victorian-era cabin and outhouse via Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval of the City Council; and, WHF;REAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 26`h, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Keview for an Essential Public Facility to City Council, based on the following conditions. a) The Red Butte Cemetery Association shall develop an ongoing management strategy in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department for the vegetation on site, specifically the cottonwoods. This applies both to existing conditions on the southern portion of the property and the planned expansion northward. The expansion should be generally consistent with the existing character and pattern of the vegetation and grid system found in the southern portion of the cemetery. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page Z of 7 r^ ~. b) Storage of heavy equipment shall be within the activity envelope displayed on the site plan. This shall not apply to any easement agreements on the cemetery that provide for equipment to work on the property. c) FIeavy equipment or trucks with diesel engines shall be plugged in for engine heat for at least 12 hours prior to starting during winter months when temperatures are below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. d) A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Survey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that area of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the spoils cribs as indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the area of this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similar to that shown in Exhibit A. e) The number of employees generated is determined to be one (1) for the existing use. An employee audit by the Red Butte Cemetery Association shall occur no later than two (2) years after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. f) The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. g) Operation of the maintenance facility shall coincide with daylight hours, excluding emergencies and work undertaken by beneficiaries of any easements upon the cemetery property. h) The use of the maintenance facility and work yard shall be limited solely for cemetery operations. i) Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, the Applicant shall record the final PUD plan, including a site plan and architectural elevations of the proposed development. The Applicant does not plan to file an agreement with the City of Aspen. Section 2• Buildin¢ Permit Apalication The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final recorded Ordinance. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) if required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Stormwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 3 of 7 .-. ,..~ ~. d) As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The requirement for a tree protection plan is intended to solely address any trees and their drip line areas that would be affected by construction activities, including protection (such as designated construction routes and temporazy fencing) that will be necessary to minimize the impacts on existing trees from construction traffic. The tree protection plan is in no way intended to limit regular cemetery operations, including burial activities and normal traffic associated with the operation of the cemetery. e) As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f) As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g) Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements Any development on the site shall adhere to the dimensional requirements established in the adopted PIJD. 7'he Council adopts the following standards TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUHZEMENTS FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY PUD* Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size 16.8 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. Minimum Lot Width The cemetery is a minimum of 1,275 feet wide. Minimum Front Yard Maintenance facility: 340 feet The Victorian cabin: 390 feet Minimum Side Yard Maintenance facility: 170 feet Victorian cabin: 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Maintenance facility: IGS feet Victorian cabin: 130 feet Maximum Heigh[ Maintenance facility: A maximum of 20 feet to the peak of [he roof. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on [he Lot Victorian cabin: will have a minimum of 10' from the outhouse. Uramance ivo ~i, genes zvv7 Page 4 of 7 (Table 1 Continued) Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of 95% of the site Maximum External Floor Area Ratio Maintenance building: 1;300 sq. ft. of floor area. Victorian cabin and outhouse: combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See Exhibit 2 which identifies which property boundaries are the front, side and rear yards. Setbacks are measured from building facades, not the envelopes. * Dimensional requirements shall also be memorialized through site plan and elevations and take precedence over TABLE if there are any differences. Section 4: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 5: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. 't'his includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarni systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6• Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title Z5, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 7' Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on fi]e at the District office. The ACSD also requests that both options for connecting available sewer lines to the maintenance facility be shown on the proposed plans. Section 8: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lrghtrng for both Residential and Non-residential lighting standards. If there is a conflict between the two regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 9• Vested Property Rights Extension This approval grants an extended period of vested property rights by two (Z) years, thus allotting a total of five (5) years for the site specific development plan. A condition of this extension requires that within one (1) year of the date of issuance of a building permit for construction of the maintenance facility, the applicant shall have substantially completed the construction of the facility and shall have requested the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the facility from the City. Associated landscaping and site Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 5 of 7 ~.. ,~, ~.. . , work within the designated activity envelope shall be substantially completed no later than the next planting season after completion of construction. Section 10: The approva] granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for [he exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of final development approval as required under Section 26,304.070(A) of this Chapter. Section 11: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 12: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulatian by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fre, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 2009. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page6of7 ~~.., . J INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of November, 2009. Attest: Kathryn S. ,City Clerk Q ~ , I ,, - " ~ ~ ~"" FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ` day of / ~'~`~l"~^'~-Czuo9. Attest: Kathryn och ity Clerk Approved as to form: ~~~.. -City Attorney List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Diagram of Barrier Wall Exhibit 2: Site plan Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 7 of 7 4 ~w/ EX N~~3 if .¢. tl .',.-~ ~~ U _.. ~ ~ ~ ,~ I 1 n ;~ r I~ Q ~ ~ I ~ o I ' ~ ~! U O i { ~ li ~_. ~ ~ ti%' i .~: . , P 0 1- I S ~~~ r gF~ ~ tf ~Z ~'~° y t cr P V ~ h_ , r g ~•\" R b p eb Y F ~ f ~ os~n ~a ~LPd S 8g188$ Sri PI F ,~~ a a {n~c g i Ev.~ FP;~~,_~mm T `~ e z~. 8 ~ ~ ~rCNi BtT ~~ N O >c~~.4 i n x 1 A n....-.. ....~...rs ~v~ N Z E 1 o > r a r 6 { 6 ~ [ i 0 c L ~ .r... u.rk e s e !" ~a I' I~fO ~N'IL CBNCf 6P BM6i1 VH rum+w wm oevae.nroNNimon ~NVMO LiOMf~G .... ~.. ~...dww. m..°~.p°"'~~w~ ,._. ., AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I _~~.elc~ ~GO r-e-`-( (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.30/6.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: / Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By [he publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signature The foregoinP "A-ffidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this? G-day of t~°Jew~~, 200° , by ~ty~Gre~a, `~ csJ' ~.-~ WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Nov lember 22n2009. 1052481 mes Weekly On My commission ire : - 0~0 Notary Public ,~PjtY PUB 20 .,. ATTACHMENTS: CORY J. COPY OF THE P UBLICATION ~. GARSKE ~pAMIY1S51'JP, ~x{ryte5 ()~1ZQtZ -~.. ~,. .. DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Red Butte Cemetery Association P O Box 194 Aspen, CO 8161 I Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Section 1 and 12 Township 10 South Rantre 85 West of 6~' P M City and Townsite of Aspen, 808 Cemetery Lane and Street Address of Subject Property Approval of a park maintenance facility of approx. 1 280 sq. ft. with adjacent work yard and restoration of the Victorian-era cabin an outhouse. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approval by the Citv of Aspen City Council for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility under Ordinance No 21 Series of 2009 approved November 9 2009 Approval by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use under Resolution No. 11 Series of 2009, approved July 21, 2009 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or November 22 2009 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) November 23. 2012 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 17tlyfh day of November, 2009, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Chris Bendon, Community Development Director P195 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director / /-A/nn FROM: Drew Alexander, Plaimer Teclmician RE: Red Butte Cemetery (808 Cemetery Lane) -Consolidated PUD Review, Map Amendment and Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facilities - Ordinance No. 21, Series 2009 -Second Readin¢ MEETING DATE: November 9, 2009 LICANT /OWNER: Butte Cemetery Association :ESENTATIVE: Richman Planning Services is 1 and 12, Township 10 South, 85 West of 6~' P.M., City and ite of Aspen, 808 Cemetery Lane IT ZONING & USE in the Park (P) zone district with a overlay. POSED LAND USE: creation of a PUD overlay that would n the original land use and underlying district of Pazk (P). Applicant requests of the City Council oval of Consolidated PUD Review, ;ndment to the Official Zone District ~, and Growth Management Review est: Essential Public Facilities STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the site specific development plan with conditions. Photo of the subject location P196 C' .-, .~ BACKGROUND' /~,, The Red Butte Cemetery was founded at the loco of the century, primarily under the guidance of several lodges in Aspen, including the Masons, Woodmen of the World, Elks, Swedish Lodge, and the Columbine Circle. These groups joined to purchase 17 acres of land from a Mr. Henry Wurtz to create the cemetery. The Eagles, another lodge, also joined the group at a later date. The layout of the Red Butte Cemetery is considerably different from other cemeteries in town, such as the Aspen Grove and Ute cemeteries. The arched iron entryway leads to a series of broad walks and gravel drives (conning east/west and north south) that create a well organized grid of burial plots. Many of the founding lodges have sections of the cemetery dedicated to their members and many prominent citizens of Aspen's past have been placed in the cemetery. One of the prominent features of the cemetery is the cottonwood trees that line the broad walks and drives on the southern portion of the cemetery ground. To the north, beyond the existing plots, the cemetery turns into sage meadow. The cemetery is bound on the east by a slope that leads to Castle Creek. As it exists today, the Red Butte Cemetery Association is still anon-profit volunteer organization and is no longer associated with any of the founding lodges. However, the Elks and Eagles lodges sfill hold plots in the cemetery for their members and recently the Jewish community has been working with the association for dedicated plots. Currently, there is only one employee for the cemetery that works on a part-time basis and many of the Red Butte Cemetery associates and volunteers have family members in the cemetery. t It has been the long-time goal of the Red Butte Cemetery Association to stay dedicated to the upkeep of the property and to avoid the need for government funding. The association feels the proposed project, described below, will provide the appropriate facilities to achieve these goals. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting following land use requests will be reviewed and acted upon by City Council: ~ Sidhu, Vinita. Report on the Conditions of the Cemeteries of the City of Aspen with Recommendations for ~.,, Improvements. City of Aspen, Community Development Department. 1996 ~ -Z- Figure I: Cottonwoods lining the cemetery walks .J P197 • Consolidated PUD Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030.B.2. This is a two-step process (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering all recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Amendment to the Official Zone District Man for the purpose of establishing a PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310 This is a two-step process (Gifu Council is the final review authority after considering all recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.4 (City Council is the final review authority after considering all recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission). PROJECT SUMMARY: The Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, has requested approval to construct a permanent 1,280 sq. ft. (40' x 32') maintenance facility. The maintenance facility would act as a work yard and storage structure for the vehicles and equipment the cemetery requires for regulaz maintenance, including apick-up truck, skid loader, four-wheeler and trailer, large riding mower, motorized weed eaters, and various other hand tools. This new maintenance facility would consolidate the cemetery maintenance functions to one location in the azea of the current temporary fabric storage shed. This maintenance area would also include cribs that would store the spoils piles from the excavation of burial plots at the cemetery. These cribs will be excavated below grade and shielded to limit visibility of the spoils piles which are curently visible from the surrounding neighborhoods. This application was submitted on May 22"d, of 2009. The application was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission in July of the same year. As a result of the heazing conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution No. 11 (Series of 2009) was passed by a six to zero (6-0) vote (Exhibit B). The Planning and Zoning Commission's resolution approved Consolidated Use review and made recommendations for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility approval. The recommendations provided during the hearing on July 21, 2009, have been included in the attached ordinance. Prior to submitting this application, the proposal received conceptual HPC approval on December 10th, 2008 under Resolution No. 20, Series of 2008 by a vote of 5 - 0. -3- ~ ~-+ P198 ~~ Table 1: Dimensional Requirements for PUD: TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUII2EMENTS FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY PUD* Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size The cemetery is 16.8 acres in size. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. Minimum Lot Width The cemetery is a minimum of 1,275 feet wide. Minimum Front Yazd The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 340 feet from the front property line. The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of 390 feet from the front property line. Minimum Side Yazd The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 170 feet from the side property line. The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of 15' from the side property line. Minimum Rear Yard The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 165 feet from the reaz property line. The Victorian cabin and the outhouse will be a minimum of 130 feet from the reaz property line. Maximum Height The maintenance facility will have a height that is a maximum of 20 feet to the peak of the roof. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of 10' from the the Lot outhouse. Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of 95% of the site will be open space. Maximum External Floor Area Ratio The maintenance building will contain a maximum of 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area. The Victorian cabin and outhouse will contain a combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See F_xhibit D which identifies which property boundaries are the front, side and rear yazds. Setbacks aze measured from building facades, not the envelopes. * Dimensional requirements shall also be memorialized through site plan and elevations and take precedence over TABLE if there are any differences. -4- ~~ ~ P199 c~ ~~ - ~ / ~ ~, y ~ / >a i rf / ~ . , sa• ,, • ~: L.L" `~~ z ' i'~. ~ ~~ _ , ~. i /// ~ YFi as i 1 1 ~ ` z..¢ cu s.=. 1 i I r y" ~,i ~~~s ;. ~ ~ .. 1 ._I7 ~~' .;•~ .. . r , ` / '-=r- . i i.~ ~> ~ 1 ~ y, 1 1 ~ x~ ~~~ ~ mamas?•w >~e1~ / "°„r ` . ,... - Figure 2: Proposed layout of development (spoils cribs are highlighted yellow) The Applicant is also proposing to restore the Victorian-era cabin (approximately 216 sq. fr.) and outhouse (approximately 50 sq. ft.) that exist on the southeast comer of the site. The Applicant wishes to gently restore the exterior of these structures and do a complete renovation of the interior of the cabin. Electrical service, insulation, and drywall will all be added to the cabin. This renovation is intended to improve the functionality of the cabin operating as a meeting place between Figure 3 Victorian-era cabin users of the cemetery and the property manager. This renovation has been approved by HPC under Major Development Review (Conceptual). During the initial HPC review for Major Development (conceptual) the Applicant proposed a significantly different program. The applicant originally proposed constructing a 3,000 square foot facility that also included a two bedroom employee housing unit. The employee housing unit would have been located directly adjacent to where the maintenance facility is located in the current proposal. Throughout the public hearing process, the employee housing element was -5- P200 `"" ~, subject to considerable debate from the surrounding neighbors. It was believed that. having residents in the cemetery would considerably change the character of the property. In response to this issue, the Applicant withdrew the employee housing element from the application and amended the proposed development to a maintenance-only facility. This application requires several different approvals from City Council: 1. The requirement for the PUD establishment follows those regulations found within Land Use Code Section 26.710.240.D, Park (P) Zone District Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Park (P) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. Essentially, any development in the Park (P) zone district, in this case the addition of a permanent maintenance building, is required to be memorialized through the PUD process. 2. An Amendment to the Official Zone District map is required based upon the establishment of the PUD overlay. In order to memorialize the site specific development being considered through the PUD review, the property will be designated with a PUD overlay, necessitating the amendment to the Official Zone District Map. 3. Finally, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Faeility is being pursued based upon the provision in the Growth Management Quota System and Definition sections of the Land Use Code. Definition: Essential Public Facility: A facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. All development is reviewed through the growth management process, and City Council provides final review for an Essential Public Facility and has the ability, based upon the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, to require or waive affordable housing. STAFF COMMENTS' CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW: The Applicant is requesting approval for Consolidated PUD Review pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)(2). This allows the Applicant to receive Conceptual and Final approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in a two-step review procedure. The Review Standazds pursuant to Section 26.445.050 include, but aze not limited to, the establishment of dimensional requirements, site design, landscape plan, azchitectural chazacter and lighting have all been provided by the Applicant. Staff finds that the Application meets the 6- _ - - ----. __ _ . _ ~-, .: ....~ P 2 01 standads of PUD review. It should also be noted that under General Requirements it is stated the proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. In reviewing the Consolidated PUD Review portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal does meet the applicable standards established in Land Use Code Section 26.445.OSO.witlz certain conditions. The Applicant has clarified how the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan goals to: (1) PRESERVE AND ENHANCE O UR HISTORIC RESOURCES; and (2) PROVIDE MAINTENANCE TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF OUR PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP: The Applicant is requesting approval for an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310. This is a requirement due to the creation of the proposed PUD overlay. This review also requires the proposal to be consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. In reviewing the Amendment to the Official Zoning Map portion of the application, Staff believes that the proposal does meet the applicable standards established in the Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, Standards of Review. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the goals established in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES: The Applicant is requesting approval for Growth Management Review of an Essential Public Facility pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090(4). The procedure for Essential Public Facility review involves the Planning and Zoning Commission determining the employee generation number associated with the proposed development and then City Council can assess, waive, or partially waive affordable housing mitigation. In reviewing the Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Staff believes that the proposal does meet the applicable standards established in the Land Use Code Section 26.470.090(4). Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission believes that no new employees shall be generated from this site specif c development plan and that mitigation is not required. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS: (Full comments can be found in Exhibit C) Engineering - . The Engineering department, recommended that the application, at the time of building permit plan submittal, to have a slope management plan for the construction process. Parks - Parks department recommended that the Applicant submit a construction staging plan and tree protection plan with the building permit application. Also, it was recommended that the Applicant have in place a management and care program for the existing cottonwoods. -7- __ _ _. .~ P202 , ^e ACSD - • Aside from the standazd recommendations from ACSD, it was recommended that the Applicant show both available options for n,nning their sewer lines from the maintenance facility. RECOMMENDATION: A goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the preservation of historic resources, pazks and open space. In order to protect these important resources, maintenance facilities help to assure proper upkeep and long-term viability. The Red Butte Cemetery has been an asset to the Aspen azea for over 100 yeazs and provides an essential service for the community. The 17 acre site, run by a non-profit volunteer group, requires a significant amount of maintenance and caze to prevent disrepair. Staff fords that the proposed site specific development plan meets these goals and will create a valuable asset both to City interests and to those maintaining the cemetery grounds. Staff fords that the proposed dimensional requirements and renovations are appropriate for the site and surrounding context. The Applicant has been active in involving the surrounding neighbors throughout the process and has made significant revisions to the original proposal based on this feedback. The maintenance facility, now 1,280 sq. ft. was originally planned to be over 3,000 sq. ft. in order to incorporate an employee housing unit. This housing unit was ,~,~, dropped from the application in direct response to the community feedback. Staff believes this ,M ,,, new facility is appropriate in size, and scale for such a lazge site where the primary goal is to preserve openness. The Applicant has recognized the significance of the existing landscape and has acknowledged that the cottonwood trees aze a critical element of the visual chazacter of the historic cemetery. Staff does believe that strong coordination between the Red Butte Cemetery and the City of Aspen should exist to preserve the landscape. The cottonwood trees that line the walks and drives on the cemetery are aging, or at the end of their life cycle, and maintaining them is a large endeavor. Staff suggests that the Red Butte Association work with forestry and landscaping professionals to create a preservation plan for these important elements. Also, at some point in the future, the cemetery will be incrementally expanding to the north end of the property and plans to match the plantings and grid system of burial plots that exists on the southern portion. Staff recommends that the Red Butte Cemetery have along-term planting plan in coordination with approval from the City Forester and City of Aspen Pazks Department to assure that this expansion matches the existing visual quality. Therefore, Staff recommends approval for the site specific development under the following conditions: • Develop an ongoing management strategy for the vegetation, specifically the cottonwoods, and expansion northward on the property. _g_ __-- -- _ _ __ _ __ ~.... 4 . P203 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2009:' CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Ext-IIBIT A -Review Criteria and Staff Findings EXHIBIT B - Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009 EXHIBIT C (1-3) -Referral Agency Comments EXHIBIT D -Site Plan EXHIBIT E -Letter from Philip and Mariann Altfeld EXHIBIT F -Letter from Joe Porter, Howie Mallory, and Margo Gubser Gardner (and photos) EXHIBIT G-Letter from Steve and Alexis Spiritas, RoorrErsE.a 'ro P ~ 2 EXHIBIT H- July 215`, Planning and Zoning Public Heazing Minutes EXHIBIT I - Letter from Mike Maple EXHIBIT J -Application i ETf~.R ~1tO"~ ~Ev~ ~ Aa2X~5 $l'IR~t+45~ J{DRZFSSED '~ ~xftls r K - L C17Y Covuc7L -9- .~ P204 ~- Ordinance No. 21 (SERIES OF 2009) ,~. AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AMMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 808 CEMETERY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-12-2-00-$51 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Major Development (Conceptual) application from the Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel 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; and, WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on December 10, 2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9, 2008, February 27, 2008, and June 11, 2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic n~- Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote V of 5 to 0 under Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant held apre-application conference with Community Development staff; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Review, Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held with the Applicant on June, 24ei 2009 and comments and recommendations were gathered from the City of Aspen Parks, Engineering, and Building departments, along with comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and, WHEREAS, the approval recommendations from the referral departments have been added to this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, a publicly noticed site visit was held on July 15a', 2009; and, WHEREAS, prior to applying for Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval the ~'""• Applicant received Conditional Use approval and recommendations for Consolidated ~.~s Ordinance No 2l, Series 2009 Page 1 of 7 `' `' P205 PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for a maintenance facility of 1,280 sq. ft. and restoration of a Victorian-era cabin and outhouse via Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009; and, WHEREAS, once the land use approvals and recommendation of approval were granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant requested Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District map, and Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility approval of the City Council; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval, with conditions, of the proposed requests; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 26's, the City Council took public testimony, considered pertinent recommendations from the Community Development Director, referral agencies, Planning and Zoning Commission, and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council hereby approves Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility to City Council, based on the following conditions. a) The Red Butte Cemetery Association shall develop an ongoing management strategy in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department for the vegetation on site, specifically the cottonwoods. This applies both to existing conditions on the southern portion of the property and the planned expansion northwazd. The expansion should be generally consistent with the existing character and pattern of the vegetation and grid system found in the southern portion of the cemetery. Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 2 of 7 P206 .~, '~•. b) Storage of heavy equipment shall be within the activity envelope displayed on the site plan. This shall not apply to any easement agreements on the cemetery that provide for equipment to work on the property. c) Heavy equipment or trucks with diesel engines shall be plugged in for engine heat for at least 12 hours prior to starting during winter months when temperatures aze below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. d) A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Survey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that azea of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the spoils cribs as indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the area of this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similar to that shown in Exhibit A. e) The number of employees generated is determined to be one (1) for the existing use. An employee audit by the Red Butte Cemetery Association shall occur no later than two (2) yeazs after a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. f) The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. g) Operation of the maintenance facility shall coincide with daylight hours, excluding emergencies and work undertaken by beneficiaries of any easements upon the cemetery property. h) Prior to submitting an application for a building permit, the Applicant shall record the final PUD plan, including a site plan and azchitectura] elevations of the proposed development. The Applicant does not plan to file an agreement with the City of Aspen. Section 2: Building Permit Aaalication The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final recorded Ordinance. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepazed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Stortnwater from impervious surfaces shall be detained on site. d) As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 3 of 7 '~ ~ P207 requirement for a tree protection plan is intended to solely address any trees and their drip line azeas that would be affected by construction activities, including protection (such as designated construction routes and temporary fencing) that will be necessary to minimize the impacts on existing trees from construction traffic. The tree protection plan is in no way intended to limit regular cemetery operations, including burial activities and normal traffic associated with the operation of the cemetery. e) As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f) As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g) Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3• Dimensional Requirements Any development on the site shall adhere to the dimensional requirements established in the adopted PUD. The Council adopts the following standards TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIItEMENTS FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY PUD* Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size 16.8 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. The cemetery is a minimum of ],275 feet wide. Minimum Lot Width Minimum Front Yard Maintenance facility: 340 feet The Victorian cabin: 390 feet Minimum Side Yard Maintenance facility: ] 70 feet Victorian cabin: 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Maintenance facility: 165 feet Victorian cabin: 130 feet Maintenance facility: A maximum of 20 feet to the peak Maximum Height of the roof. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on Victorian cabin: will have a minimum of 10' from the the Lot outhouse. Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of 95% of the site Ordinance No 21, Senes w~7 Page 4 of 7 P208 .-. (Table 1 Continued) .e. Maximum External Floor Area Ratio Maintenance building: 1,300 sq. ft. of floor azea. Victorian cabin and outhouse: combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See Exhibit 2 which identifies which property boundazies are the front, side and rear yards. Setbacks aze measured from building facades, not the envelopes. * Dimensional requirements shall also be memorialized through site plan and elevations and take precedence over TABLE if there are any differences. Section 4: Engineering Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 5: Fire Mitigation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6• Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Department. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. The ACSD also requests that both options for connecting available sewer lines to the maintenance facility be shown on the proposed plans. Section 8: Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting for both Residential and Non-residential lighting standards. If there is a conflict between the two regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 9: The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time pemutted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A) of this Chapter. ~,~ Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 5 of 7 ___ .. __ ,-.. . ,r Section 10: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. Section 11: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regu]ation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regazd, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 12: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 13: This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Secfion 14: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the Ciry of Aspen on the _ day of , 2009. Attest: ~. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2009. P209 Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Pagebof7 P210 ~. .~•. .,~ Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Diagram of Barrier Wall Exhibit 2: Site plan Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No 21, Series 2009 Page 7 of 7 . ___ _. _ ._ f ~1 ~~ tl ~ ~ ~ p ~ A r ' ~ .: P P ~+ ~ L ~ f U (' O i v I P Z ' .> I , P211 Exw~~~r •~!~ I I I I I Iz ~~ IW i'-¢i- I N P O1] I` 3 i `7 ptlF O~~ PYL ~pc L=~ r ~ P ~ a ~ o P f R ~ OBOP T ~ ~FP Rd ~ Y[pz~ r ]; i 1' z °- p F\R"p & L V t p '2 Ci yP+; m ~ 4 C A P z~F r~ 1 zi wr va _? P pv F NT ~P wg Ln o ]yb; N_~ ~•~ 0 _-- __ - - - -- . P212 ~R11'16 [T C~ U Z ~ 0 L a z 6 i S Z, 4 y v u ~ I Y i~ ~- ~iu O T..... ~ ~.~.. .r ~r<. T er c~a~-~ cca.K ou6'e w~t+v-~+ uusvrur~n sue,........ 9a....~ { /" ~ 7 Ii nwro+®um d~wneM~suv~fmn I~vex rua+nc ~ wnwc conwuwo ., ^ .....~ ~ "'~ m °•v 1 'qul~x~ , ~,.. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 26.445.050, Planned Unit Development -~,. `°-'~ P 213 EXHIBIT A GENERAL REQUIREMENTS a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Provide support and education for the preservation of historic resources Preserve and enhance our historic resources; and Provide maintenance to protect and enhance the quality of our parks and open spaces. Staff finds this criterion met. 6) Tlie proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development is consistent with and serves as an accessory use to the cemetery land use. Staff finds this criterion met. c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect t11e future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development is minimal in nature and has remained sensitive to the surrounding area, including the neighborhoods that border the Red Butte Cemetery. The maintenance building will not .adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion met. d) The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. The proposed development is considered an Essential Public Facility, with no annual limit on square footage allotments. Staff finds this criterion met. ESTABLISHMENT OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1) The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. 10- ,.~. P214 .-.. The minimal nature of the proposed development and the extent of the setbacks from the property lines create appropriateness and compatibility with the existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. Staff fmds this criterion met. 6) Natural or man-made hazards Not applicable. No natural or man-made hazards exist on site. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and ,significant vegetation and landforms. Many of the natural characteristics of the Red Butte Cemetery are being retained by the proposed dimensional requirements. These include, but are not limited to, the cottonwood trees that line the drives and the large sage meadow on the north end of the subject property. The steep slope on the eastern portion of the property has been addressed by Parks and Engineering and erosion control will be included in the building permit. Staff finds this criterion met. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Much of the Red Butte Cemetery is open space and shall be maintained under the proposed dimensional requirements. The Victorian-era cabin, an existing man-made and historic structure is being improved through an interior and exterior remodel, but no dimensions shall change. The proposed maintenance facility is being located at the site of the current temporary maintenance shed. This location has no impact on existing or proposed man-made characteristics' of the property. The scale of this project is compatible with existing traffic and pedestrian circulation. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. The proposed dimensional requirements are solely for the creation of the maintenance facility, particularly when considering the acreage of the site. This structure itself is minimal in size, 1,280 sq. ft. with a peak height of 18 feet. Also, the setbacks for the structure place it at the back (east) of the property far from the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff finds this criterion met. 3) The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including airy non-residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. ~. -11- ____ ~~ ' ~ P215 c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. The proposed development has adequate parking, both interior (two bays) and exterior in the work yard, for vehicles and equipment. This is appropriate for the desired use of the facility and public transit facilities shall not be needed. Staff finds this criterion met. 4) The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insuffcieni infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the nzaximurn density of a PUD maybe reduced if.• a) There is not cuff dent water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development Not applicable. No residential dwelling units are being proposed. S) The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud jlow, rockfalls or avalanche dangers. b) The ejj-ects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect orz air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed developnzenf is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Not applicable. No residential dwelling units are being proposed. 6) The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Spec~cally, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas carz be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. -12- ,.~. P216 ~-~ ,~, c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimeruary to, the surrounding and expected development pattern, land uses, and ''~' characteristics. °""` 1Vot applicable. No residential dwelling units are being proposed. STI'E DESIGN 1) Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a speck reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. The existing natural and man-made features of the Red Butte Cemetery would be preserved by the proposed location of this site specific development plan. This location does not intrude on any of the cottonwoods or other important vegetation. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Only one new structure is being proposed and it is intended to be constructed at the site of the existing temporary maintenance shed. This location preserves a significant amount of the open space and vistas created by the sage meadow on the north end of the property. Staff finds this criterion met. 3) Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Not applicable. 4) Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Access for service and emergency vehicles exists for the Victorian-era cabin and the proposed maintenance facility through the existing gravel roads. Staff finds this criterion met. 5) Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. The Building Department has recommended that'the maintenance facility be handicap accessible and is conditioned in the resolution. Staff finds this criterion met. 6) Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. There is appropriate existing public infrastructure for the additional drainage created by the maintenance facility and its work yard. The run-off from the roof is planned to -13- ___ --- -_ ~-, ' '' P217 be captured in a drywell and most of the natural soils around the site are absorbent. A site drainage plan shall be included in the building permit. Staff fmds this criterion to be met. 7) For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions with the use. Not applicable. LANDSCAPE PLAN 1) The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing sign f cant vegetation, and provides and ample quantify and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. A landscape plan bas been created that brings a variety of plant species to the site as well as buffering the development on the north, south and west from the surrounding neighborhoods. The variety of plant species includes Aspen trees, Gambel Oak and Serviceberry bushes. Also, the topography will be slightly graded upward around the work yard to further limit the visibility of the facility. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in arz appropriate manner. (See Staff response for Standard Three.) 3) The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. The City of Aspen Parks Department has recommended the placement of temporary fences along the cemetery drives during construction to protect the roots of the Cottonwood trees. This method is appropriate to protect these important landscape assets. Staff finds this criterion met. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER 1) Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of tlxe property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. The proposed dimensional requirements for the PUD promote the simple and minimal scale of the maintenance facility. With a peak height of 18' and 8' on the east and west sides, the 1,280 sq ft. structure would have little impact on the 17 acre site and visual quality of the cemetery. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating arzd cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. 14- .~ ,~. P218 The proposed maintenance facility does not propose any solar access, but has significantly limited the amount of the structure that will use a mechanical system for heating and cooling. Only a warm room (approximately 25% of the maintenance facility) will require beating and cooling. Staff finds this criterion met. 3) Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Snow shedding has been designed to direct snow to south side of the maintenance facility, away from the maintenance yard. The large amounts of open space surrounding the facility provide ample space for storing excess snow, and the grading at the site slopes away from the structure providing adequate water drainage. Staff finds this criterion met. LIGH'T'ING 1) All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glaze or hazadous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. The lighting for the proposed development is appropriate and minimal in nature. No direct glare or hazardous interference to adjoining streets or lands shall be created. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless '~"'° otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, `^~" buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. All lighting for the proposed development is in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards. No up-lighting is being proposed. Staff finds this criterion met. COMMON PARK, OPEN SPACE, OR RECREATION AREA I) The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2) A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 15- __ ___ __ _- - -~--- 1,,' •r' P 219 3) There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instruments for the permanent care .,. and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, con:nzercial, or industrial development. The Red Butte Cemetery has operated as an important asset to the surrounding neighbors and the City of Aspen for many years. The proposed maintenance facility shall aid in the effort to keep the property visibly attractive and assure the Cemetery will receive proper upkeep in the future. Staff finds this criterion met. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES 1) Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2) Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3) Ch~ersized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the increased need on the subject site. These needs are moderate in nature, and the Applicant has agreed to pay for extensions and improvements to utilities at their own expense. Staff finds this criterion met. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION I) Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. The site has adequate access through Cemetery Lane, a public road. Staff finds this criterion met. 2) The proposed development, vehicular access points, mzd parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. The maintenance facility shall not generate any new traffic in the area. Most of the vehicular activity will occur onsite during maintenance work. Staff finds this criterion met. 3) Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. -Not applicable. No new trail dedications are proposed as a part of this project. 16- .-, P220 4' -~. 4) The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding ^' recreation trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Not applicable. No AACP or adopted plans relate to this site specific development plan. 5) Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Not applicable. No streets proposed within plan. 6) Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. The historic iron entry gate is the only type of entryway expression on the site and no other similar features are proposed within the PUD. Staff finds this criterion met. PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1) All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2) The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial "'""" phases from the construction of later phases. `-°" 3) The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Not applicable. A phasing plan is not proposed for this project. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 26.310.040, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district map, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: a)~ Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. ~~* -17- P221 The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff fmds this criterion met. 6) Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan The proposed amendment is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff finds this criterion met. c) Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. The proposed PUD overlay will not change the characteristics or use of the subject property. The PUD only establishes the dimensional requirement for the maintenance facility. The proposed site specific development plan is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and land uses. Staff finds this criterion met. d) The effect of the proposed arnendnsent on tr•a~c generation and road safety. The proposed amendment for the PUD overlay will not affect traffic generation at the Red Butte Cemetery or in the surrounding neighborhoods. Road safety will not be impacted. Staff finds this criterion met. e) Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. The proposed amendment will have a minimal impact on public facilities. There will be no impact on schools, traffic, and emergency services. Sewage and water supply lines have been identified and the connection of these services will place a small increase on total City demand. Staff finds this criterion met. n Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed amendment shall not change the existing preservation of the natural environment at the Red Butte Cemetery. Parks has recommended protecting the existing Cottonwoods on site and creating a plan to control erosion on the top of bank Staff finds this criterion met. ~ Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the Ciry ofAspen. -18- .-. .~., P222 The proposed amendment retains the underlying Park (P) Zone District and the PUD dimensional requirements do not allow for any type of development on the site that would degrade the community character in the City of Aspen. The proposed maintenance building is a normal accessory structure for a cemetery. Staff fmds this criterion met. h) Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Development in the Park (P) Zone District requires the development of a site specific development plan through the PUD process, resulting in a required map amendment. Changed conditions are not applicable.. i) Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff finds this criterion met. REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS Pursuant to Section 26.470.090, Growth Management Review for Essential Public Facilities a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. The proposed project involves two accessory structures to the primary cemetery use. The Victorian-era cabin serves as a meeting location and the new maintenance facility serves to house the necessary equipment and machinery to maintain the cemetery grounds, both essential to the Red Butte Cemetery operating as a facility which servers an essential public purpose that is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. The Community Development Director has determined that the prbnary use is an essential public facility based on the defmition found in Land Use Code Section 26.104.100, Definitions; Essential Public Facility: a facility which serves an essential public purpose is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. Staff finds this criterion met. ^A b) Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but .... -19- ---- _ _ __ _:._ _ _ _. __ `J P223 each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section .. 26.470.IOQ Calculations. The proposed project does not create any additional employees; therefore it is appropriate that no affordable housing mitigation be required. Staff finds this criterion met. -20- '"~' `-'` ~~[H 1131 ~ 8 P224 ___ ~.,~ ....... ___ _.. _._ ~_.._ _._ ~, ~~- Resolution No. 11 (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDCTIONAL USE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AMMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 808 CEMETERY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No.2735-12-2-00-851 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Major Development (Conceptual) application from the Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and l2, Township 10 South, Range 85 Wesl of the 6'" P.m., City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December l0, 2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9, 2008, February 27, 2008, and ' June I1, 2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0 under Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant held apre-application conference with Community Development staff; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Review, Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held with the Applicant on June, 24`s 2009 and comments and recommendations were gathered from the City of Aspen Parks, Engineering, and Building departments, along with comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and, WHEREAS, the approval recommendations from [he referral departments have been added to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, a publicly noticed site visit was held on July 15"', 2009; and, RECEPTION#: 562525, 09!04/2009 at ~,~ 09:17:25 AM, Resolution No l 1, Series 2009 ~ of 9. R 546.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page ] of 7 Janice K. Vos Cautlill, Pitkin County, CO __ _.-_..____.. ,r^~. ~„/ WI{EREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department on July 21~`, 2009 during a noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval and recommendation of approval of the land use requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the application by a unanimous vote of 6 - 0 by those present. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant [o the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Review and recommends approval of: Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility to City Council, based on the following conditions. a) The Red Butte Cemetery Association shall develop an ongoing management strategy in coordination with the City of Aspen Parks Department for the vegetation on site, specifically the cottonwoods. This applies both to existing conditions on the southern portion of the property and the planned expansion northwazd. The expansion. should be generally consistent with the existing character and pattern of the vegetation and grid system found in the southern portion of the cemetery. b) Storage of heavy equipment shall be within the activity envelope displayed on the site plan. Tlvs sha]l,not apply to any easement agreements on the cemetery that provide for equipment to work on the property. c) Heavy equipment or trucks with diesel engines shall be plugged in for engine heat for at least 12 hours prior to starting during winter months when temperatures are below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. d) A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Survey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that area of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the spoils cribs as Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 2 of 7 -P%*2 5 ,-, --.. P226 °''" ~~ indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the azea of this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similaz to that shown in Exhibit A. e) The number of employees generated is determined to be one (1) for the existing use. An employee audit by the Red Butte Cemetery Association shall occur no later than two (2) years after a C/O has been issued. f) The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. g) Operation of the maintenance facility shall coincide with daylight hours, excluding emergencies and work undertaken by beneficiaries of any easements upon the cemetery property. Section 2• Bnildine Permit Apalication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded Ordinance. ..~~. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils (as mentioned in DRC comments, Exhibits B and C) reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3• Dimensional TieQUirements Any development on the site shall adhere to the dimensional requirements established in the adopted PUD. The Commission recommends the following standards: ,..~, ~ ,~.„~~ Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 3 of 7 -- -- --- __ ~ _. ... .._ ~7 TABLEI DDVIENSIONAL REQUIItEMENTS FOR THE RED BI)TTE CEMETERY PITD Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size The cemetery is 16.8 acres in size. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. The cemetery is a minimum of 1,275 feet wide. Minimum Lot Width The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 340 feet Minimum Front Yard from the front property line. The V ictorian cabin will be a minimum of 390 feet from the front property line. The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 170 feet Minimum Side Yazd from the side properly fine. The V ictorian cabin will be a minimum of 15' from the side property line. The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 165 feet i Minimum Rear Yard from the rear property line. The Victorian cabin and the outhouse will be a minimum of 130 feet from the rear property line. The maintenance facility will have a height that is a Maximum Height maximum of 20 feet to the peak of the roof. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on outhouse. nan cabin will be a minimum of 10' from the the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of 95% of the site will be open space. Maximum External Floor Area Ratio The maintenance building will contain a maximum of 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area. The Victorian cabin and outhouse will contain a combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See Exhibit B which identifies which property boundaries are the front, side and rear yards. Setbacks are measured from building facades, not the envelopes. Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 4 of 7 .~, _- - P228 ~. Section 4: Eneineerinr_ Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 5: Fire Mitieatioa All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). ry Department. Section 6• Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and with the applicable standards of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Adviso Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Water Section 7• Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. The ACSD also requests that both options for connecting available sewer lines to the maintenance facility be shown on the proposed plans. Section 8: Exterior LiehtinE All exterior -ighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Lend Use Code Section 26.575.]50, Outdoor lighting for both Residential and Non-residential lighting standards. If there is a conflict between the two regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 9: The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review, the period of time permitted bylaw for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A) of this Chapter. Section 10: Zoning that is not part of the approved site specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section l l: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this ,,.+,, approval. !`_" Resolution No l ],Series 2009 Page 5 of 7 _____- - ~: Section 12: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which aze general in nature and aze applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but riot limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. Tn this regazd, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to .the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14: This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement amededtas herePnoprovdednand tha same shall be conducted andoconcluded undereu h prior otdinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court shall be deemed a separate, distinct and indepen validity of the remaining portions thereof. or portion of this resolution is for any of competent jurisdiction, such portion dent provision and shall not affect the Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 6 of 7 P230 ,- ~, APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21rt day of July, 2009. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: o~°~.,~ ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk PLANNiNG~ND ZONING List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Barrier wall details. Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Pazks DRC comments Exhibit D: Engineering DRC comments Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 7 of 7 __-- --- ------ - -__ ~ , . ,_ '° l~XHIBIT C.1 DRC Comments Red Butte Cemetery PUD 6-24-09 ACSD Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Driveway and shop bay external entrance drains must drain to drywells. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will allow a tap to either the west or north of the proposed building location. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of ademolition/access-infrastructurelexcavation foundation permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. P231 -21- __ _ ~-~. --~. P232 ExxIBIT C.2 ~R~~ RE Memorandum Date: June 16, 2009 To: Drew Alexander, Planner From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: Red Butte Cemetery, DRC review Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for top of bank and stability of the hillside above the trail. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt fence and straw bales placed in a manner preventing erosion and protect the river from residual run-off. 2. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and that the top of slope is protected. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection: • Tree protection fences roust be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. • No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. • There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current locations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. 4. The cemetery should have in place a management and care program for the existing cottonwood trees. Recent damage to the trees and pending impacts should be addressed through a specific management plan designed by a professional tree care professional. 22- ---,~ _- EXHIBIT C.3 City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments Date: June 2009 Project: Red Butte Cemetery Top of Bank Construction Management and Building permit plans shall include details for top of bank and stability of the hillside during construction. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt fence and erosion control measures placed in a manner preventing erosion and protect the river from residual run-off. Stormwater System Development Fee Due to increase of impervious azea on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that create or disturb more than 500 squaze feet of impervious area. The fee is $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review. Construction Management Plan A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: pazking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. are required prior to council - see eng -23- for P233 ,.,,, P234 ""°"' © ~ m~.,.o...,......e ..._. NOICflWWOJ pNINOI •'JMNNY'N NidSY Np16SlppllL lNlWip'pNO LNIl Y9NNY'N 5 X Atl9i3im L.N19 Y9M I ' 3 ~ M N P9TC ~a27 i' X7.7 b i ~ .. ~o/i~ '~T ~ r Un ws n l9F~ m e e z.a -. me l»1c`-J f +F Sfi Tab6 1Taw~lep a-aoriwaann 1 afruvaN ~~ ~ Sri J' r0/ ~~ _ .+..n~ ExtilslT E Mr. Drew Alexander Community Development Department drew alexanderCa)ct.asoen co.us Dear Mr. Alexander: We reside at 1250 Snowbunny Lane. Our house is situated almost directly across from the current dirt, debris and rock pile in the North parcel of the Red Butte Cemetery. We believe you should be aware of the petitioner's past custodial actions. A number of years ago the petitioners were granted permission to construct aQuonset-type but in the North meadow of the cemetery. We were told by city authorities that this but is strictly temporary and would be removed in one year. Approximately seven years have passed and this eyesore still exists. ARer the but was erected, dump trucks were allowed to deliver truck loads and truck loads of dirt, rock, stones, and debris to this site. The broken down hut, the piles of rock and stone and poor quality dirt has created an incredible eyesore that the neighbors have had to endureThekldisrallard forlmoaintain ng ae-to- time storage of trucks, hoes and front loaders, etc. on the property. e9 clean and tidy well organized operation has been absolutely dreadful. The cemetery custodians have been unconcerned about the neighbors, guests and families of the existing graves and the place of final rest for future residents of Aspen who might wish one day, in the far understand thatthe neighbors sumo ndi g thelReduButte Cemeteryhdornot havenmuch t ust mothe n veracity, actions and intentions of the cemetery trustees. Therefore, it is extremely important to us to formalize the restrictions of the trustees as to what may be permitted in this cemetery. We suggest the following: 1. No future development is to be permitted at any time other than gravesites and the footprint of the projected facility. In other words, no enlargement of the facility would-be allowed. 2. The entire cemetery (north and south parcels) shall be maintained as a whole so that the North parcel cannot be used as a dumping ground. 3. Landscaping must be substantial so the community will not have an overview into the work area and the vehicular [ruck and traffic entrance adjacent to the proposed building. 4. Furthermore, we support the suggestions in the memorandum to L.J.Espamer, Chair-from Joe Porter, Howie Mallory and Margo Gubser Gardner dated Juty 13, 2009: Philip and Mariann Allfeld P236 To: Memorandum f^ _ L.J. Erspamer, Chair Planning Commission Members ~x 1->• 1 {3 ~ T F From: Joe Porter, Howie Mallory, Margo Gubser Gazdner Date: July 13; 2009 Re: Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD and Conditional Use Review During the past yeaz, we have been talking with the Red Butte Cemetery Trustees, their planner Alan Richman, and azchitect Graeme Means, about their plans for the Red Butte Cemetery and providing public comment throughout the HPC process. We appreciate being able to participate in the process and feel that progress has been made. The request for asingle-family residence has been dropped; the existing Victorian building will be restored to provide a visitor's facility in a location that will minimize vehicle trips on the historic grass lanes in the cemetery; and the maintenance facility and landscape plan have been designed with our input. This letter is to address some unresolved issues that we believe should be considered in your review of the current PUD submission. They include: looking beyond the maintenance facility to define the future use and treatment of all azeas of the cemetery property; documenting decisions and representations made during the HPC process; and consideration by the Planning Commission regazding the appropriateness of the proposed on-site facility. North Meadow and Castle Creek Corridor A short-coming of the PUD submission is that it only addresses the proposed maintenance facility and the existing Victorian building, ignoring the balance of the property, particulazly the undeveloped North meadow. In recent years, the North meadow has been used as a waste dump for cemetery operations. It has been a storage site for heavy construction equipment working in the azea and has been graded, mounded, and scattered with piles of dirt, equipment and debris from cemetery operations. A strip has been graded and top soil spread through the center of the meadow with no provision for re-vegetation or weed control. Cemetery managers have also graded a section of the eastern edge of the developed cemetery along the edge of the slope that extends down into the Castle Creek bottom lands. All of this has been completed without grading permits and regazd for erosion control. Photographs of these conditions and the qualities of the North meadow landscape are attached. There is no disagreement that the North meadow should be utilized for the incremental expansion of future grave sites as described in the application. At.ten to fifteen graves a year, it will be a long evolution. The native sagebrush plant community in the meadow has been re-emerging since grazing ceased in the meadow. Nurturing and maintaining the important, historic native vegetation is the least expensive method of managing the North meadow as the cemetery is slowly expanded there over the next hundred yeazs. This approach also provides environmental and landscape value to the greater Aspen ...., tea. __ ___ .-, °4.d °f community. Restoring and managing native vegetation in the North meadow and in the Castle Creek corridor will work towazd a goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan not mentioned in the PUD application, which is to "Protect and enhance the natural environment". The cemetery trustees have agreed to maintain the native landscape in the North meadow during the gradual transition to grave sites, and HPC has required that the cemetery "Develop a comprehensive plan for management of the cemetery landscape, including the open meadow" as a condition for HPC's conceptual approval of the maintenance facility. This comprehensive landscape management plan should be documented in the PUD and include the following:. l . The Cemetery Association shall collaborate with the City Forester to establish a landscape plan and a landscape maintenance plan for the entire Cemetery Property, including the North meadow and the Castle Creek corridor, that is acceptable to the City. 2. The habitat-rich Castle Creek Corridor portion of the Cemetery Property is not developable and shall remain free of any disturbance or development as a result of the Cemetery's operations. 3. The North meadow portion of the Cemetery Property shall be maintained in native vegetation with minima] disturbance until it is incrementally developed for grave sites in the future. 4. Previously disturbed areas in the North meadow shall be restored to the native vegetation condition as soon as possible. 5. All materials storage and construction staging for Red Butte Cemetery or any other utility improvements in the Cemetery shall occur in the maintenance facility work yard or off-site; no materials storage or construction staging will occur on the north meadow. Additional Conditions ~~ The following is a summazy of issues raised in meetings and HPC hearings that should be included as conditions to the PUD approval. 1. The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. This condition has been included because the cemetery maintenance superintendent has been sleeping in the small Victorian building for several years. The question about someone living or sleeping in the new facility was raised during the HPC hearings. Cemetery representatives stated that this would not happen and we think this commitment should be documented in the PUD conditions. 2. Use of the maintenance facility to be constructed on the Cemetery Property shall be solely for activities directly associated with the maintenance of the Cemetery Property and not for or by any other entities or properties. Further, storage of materials and equipment in the maintenance facility shall be solely for those owned by the Cemetery and used for the purpose of maintaining the Cemetery. P237 P238 ~.. ~. 3. Except for minimal, necessary security lighting, which complies with the City's exterior lighting code, all exterior lighting shall be equipped with motion detectors and shall be fumed off except when the maintenance facility or maintenance yard is being used for its intended purposes. There is no doubt that the Red Butte Cemetery property is a raze community resource. We acknowledge that considerable work needs to be done to repair and maintain the entire property, and that proper maintenance facilities aze required to accomplish this. In our conversations with cemetery representatives, we have offered suggestions about how to meet their maintenance needs in ways that minimize negative impacts on the cemetery property. In an attempt to assist the cemetery, residents from the surrounding neighborhood have funded landscape azchitect Sarah Shaw to work with Graeme Means to prepaze the grading and landscape plans for the maintenance facility that aze included in the PUD application. The new maintenance facility represents a significant capitol cost and increase in annual operating costs for the cemetery. The PUD application refers to contacts with the City Pazks and Streets departments to explore alternatives to constructing a new facility. We ask that everyone continue to consider if there are ways fo for the city to assist with facilities and work required to meet the cemetery restoration and maintenance challenges. We believe it is important that the cemetery association have the funding necessary to complete the project before it commences construction of the maintenance in order to avoid a situation whereby a partially completed facility is abandoned due to lack of funds. o Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to answering any questions raised by this letter at your July 21 st meeting. Respectfully submitted, Joe Porter, Howie Mallory and Mazgo Gubser. ._ _ ~ ~ 4 :~.- O C x 1 ry~M +~ ~ ~ p i ~"~ ~:. }.` Phata 1: Yew of the Red Eiutte CcmMcry Mcadow rrom iowcr rccv mvvrua~~~- Photo 2: Native Sage Meadow Photo 3: Continuing Sage Meadow Erolution 0 ._r~~ ~.-D ~ A n . ,.~-.....~..-:..w,~.-.wraa. wdw.~sr.'rcxica••+:s~wx~.ru:w.w.:...,.~..ra,,:-~.~~r4~-3:FrdL~:r`~=~~isuMt~w~~ysmu7;,q.xi: ~titac.~ - - ..~.eca+.,~.=+,a.w~ I, ... _. __, .._ , ,r _ _. -~ - - ... ,_y C w ~ ~ ~ . ~. Photo il: AM1eadow Sage Destruction - - ~- - - - - _ _ _ .,~.-..r,,~ -~~ ~-.W--.- ~R - ells . :..a,~..:,.e...,~i;.~,.i.l~.Ir~WYr~.'~safu~a~a...;;vi+tirmnww~alo.s,.awHSd+;~dxer..r«'a:+~ei+ar~~:.;ek .ti~,+::aNOd.:-~v:~*rt.=~w O 0 - - -- _ _ .. Grculation Route) ~i Principle Circulation Route) 0 C P250 ~X-1~'~'~ ~ 7~ To: From: Date: Re: ~~Q L.J. Erspamer, Chair Planning Commission Members ~~L 2 ~ ~~~~ Steven & Alexis Spiritas ~~~ ~~~S~~tE~ 80 Overlook Drive 'f;l~~~~~~~~~r~ Aspen, CO 81611 July 17, 2009 Red Butte Cemetery Board Consolidated PUD and Conditional Use Review We appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns regarding the Red Butte Cemetery Board's (RBCB) proposal for construction in the north portion of the cemetery as part of your review of their PUD submission. We have communicated and met with both the RBCB and the Historic Planning Commission several times over the last couple of years as this process has evolved. We would support a plan to sustain the integrity and long term preservation of the historic cemetery, but the plan being proposed by the RBCB does anything but that. All the RBCB seems to. be concerned with is the creation of an outsized maintenance building, spoils area that seems unnecessarily large, and parking/turn around space for vehicles that can only access the facility via the active portion of the cemetery. It is unseemly to think of dump trucks, Waste Management.vehicles, and other traffic and service vehicles rolling down the lovely lanes of the historic part of the cemetery to access this maintenance facility. Future burial sites also will be affected on the west, north, and south, adjoining the proposed building, since those plots will adjoin and be adversely impacted by the structures. Currently the cemetery has one employee who does not work full time. It is puzzling that today the RBCB feels the need to construct this facility in a time when burials in the cemetery are declining year over year. The cemetery has existed for over 100 years, and has seen periods when burials per year greatly exceed the handful that presently occur. Thus, the justification for this project defies logic. . We are also concerned that no attention has been paid to the impact the proposed project will have on the wildlife that currently utilize that meadow either as their home, or a comfortable and safe passage to and from the riparian area. Certainly before this location is approved for any sort of development, a wildlife impact study should be conducted and taken into consideration. In previous meetings, concern has been expressed by us, by other neighbors, and by cemetery architects regazding the destruction of the native sage growing in the meadow. As the RBCB proposal currently exists, most of that native sage will be destroyed when the maintenance building is constructed. The RBCB has not indicated any willingness to take into consideration this issue and try to re -locate the building to preserve the native sage. P251 During the course of the submission process, the RBCB has asserted that the proposed facility cannot be re -located due to the fact that plots are promised to others. There should be concrete evidence presented by the RBCB to show the number of lots that have been purchased anal paid to support this assertion. They have further asserted that the maintenance facility cannot be located next to the historic cabin in the active portion of the cemetery without providing any evidence to support the assertion. In fact, we observed the recent a ading and sodding of a large space to the immediate north of the existing structures to indicate that the space is being used for burial plots. This issue needs to be examined because it appears that the grading/sodding was done to support their claim that the maintenance facility could not be located in that area. Being active in genealogical research, we have had reason to contact and to visit historic cemeteries. From this experience, we have yet to encounter an historic cemetery where the maintenance facility is in the middle of the burial area and where the facility is so visible from the grave sites. Thus, we encourage the P & Z Committee to take a survey of the historic cemeteries in the valley, in the surrounding counties, and in the state to find out the size and location of their maintenance buildings, if any. Lastly, any approval for any future construction should be dependant upon the presentation of an unconditional and irrevocable performance bond from a reputable bonding company to insure that any construction will be completed in a timely manner. Please review our comments carefully, and we would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have about those comments. We thank you for taking our comments into consideration when you make your decision on the PUD requested by the RBCB. Yours truly, Steven & Alexis Spiritas ~I _, ~~, ~ - i ~. ti - ~ t P~~~-searing on Red Butte Ceme~..~ PUD -'AT&T Yahoo! Mail' Ir"1~IL Classic P ~ Z Hearing on Red Butte Cemetery PUD Frarr~: "Steven Spiritas" <spiritas@sbcglobal.net> To: drew.alexander@ci.aspen.co.us Bcc: "Sarah Shaw" <sarahshaw@sopris.net> Letter to Planning & Zoning 07-20-09].doc (33KB) Page 1 of 1 Monday, July 20, 20D9 12:53 AM Drew, Due to computer problems, we could not transmit this information earlier. Please provide our comments to the appropriate members of the Planning & Zoning Committee. I will drop off some photos tomorrow of the wildlife activity in the meadow north of the historic section of the Red Butte Cemetery. It will be labeled "Exhibit 1." Thank you. Steven F. Spiritas 80 Overlook Drive Aspen, CO 81611 ~J 0 __ 0 53 ~ ~ ~C ~~ ~-~-- I~ I ~~ t ~ E ~ - , - -- ~ _ --- _ gx ~ µ"`t-- ~- v -~- . Y ~ M~< . ti ~~ ~ _ ~ -~. ^ s .~ i ~ , r.. f ~~ ~- f i ~ y ~~~. Y„+' '~. p y [ , t' r _ i fZ .n..+f ~~IIK~~~/ ~ I Z`y t ('SC' ~ t ~ ~ i ~ -. 'F' }LTS ~ ~.. .~y'~:.1~ a ~ t~ ~ oG ~ f q -,.,1 4 ' ~ ..R.~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~n J l +'..' s ~1 7ij ~~ ~, ~Y. ~aw~ ~ iG _ V .'t•t ryas Y 2~ ~ r/, 3 A/ ~ ~p J y Y ~ y ~{ _ 'R"~ . 'y" ~ ~rx,. ~~ ~k~~~ - ..k $ __` ~~ ~ti p ,3cr,q~..y,. - ~ w .~ r. ~'~~,. .; _,r...~.. _ 5 ~- F ~~+~ J , ~ +„ . ~" t i .l ~I F 1 ~ ~: .. - ~ 4 T ... r ~ .. .. ~.. .~ ~i 55 O ~~~ . C 1A~ ~~~ ~df orwk. I r ~~~ ~~ ~ - - ~y{~ `~ G4 j'.' 4, Goa -t y _~ f~ ~ G ~rk ~ 3 ~`~ ~ d. lt: L: 1~~3a -. „ _- t -. ~ _ Id." r - ..~-- fI 1 _ _ ~ .. r I) ; ~- ' 1 _ ~ _, y ¢,~~. .. ~..w .. '~ '~1 , 3 ~ r -~ II i• °°~ ~ ti S~ ... r. ~W: r~ -~. d ~,~-` .~ ~„ ~~~, , ~~~, ~, ~-„ ~ ... ,y, r ~~ ~ =: ~ `t [: i"s ~ _ -- _ _ _,_ .... P258 '~ Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning July 21, 2009 Comments ~ 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Red Butte Cemetery PUD 2 434 ECooper -Bidwell -referral 9 0 1 ... ~~ .~.. `-°` P259 Reeular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zonin¢ July 21, 2009 LJ Erspamer opened the regular P&Z Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at S:OOpm. Commissioners-Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Mike Wampler, Bert Myrin, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer were present. Excused were Dina Bloom and Cliff Weiss. Cliff Weiss was present for the Bidwell referral. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Drew Alexander, Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan noted that there were questions about the height of the Stage III. Phelan said for the record there were action items at the last meeting the Moore Family PUD Amendment and there was language wordsmithing on the Resolution at the meeting to add more clarity for the Resolution. Stan Gibbs signed the Resolution. Toni Kronberg, public, asked Planning & Zoning to address traffic and pedestrian safety in town and the traffic on Main. Kronberg spoke of the recycle center and the new council members. LJ Erspamer said the commission sent a letter to the City Council. Jim DeFrancia said that the traffic increases are not solely created by development but the vehicle population has increased greater than the people population and also changes in lifestyle. DeFrancia noted that the opposition to the recycle center was lead by Toni Kronberg on the last vote on it. MINUTES MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve the minutes from 06/16/09. Seconded by Jim DeFrancia; all in favor, Approved. CONFLICT OF WTEREST Cliff Weiss was conflicted on Red Butte Cemetery. PUBLIC HEARING: RED BUTTE CEMETERY, PUD LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Red Butte Cemetery PUD. Proof of notice was provided. Drew Alexander stated this applicant had several reviews and Conditional Use Review was the final authority with Planning & Zoning Commission. Alexander said the other 3reviews were recommendation by Planning & Zoning to Council with Council as the final authority for the consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the official zone district map and '"°""' Growth Management review for Essential Public Facility. ~... 2 Pzso ~ Reffular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zonin¢ July 21, 2009 Alexander said the cemetery was established as anon-profit at the turn of the century by organizations involved in the process including the Masons, Woodmen of the World, Elks, Swedish Lodge and Columbine Circle. These groups joined to purchase the 17 acre property where the cemetery exists today. The design of the cemetery has a very grid like organization to it with walks and drives lined with very old cottonwood trees. Alexander said there were various applications over the years and based upon the public comment received the housing unit was deleted and now there was 1,280 square feet maintenance facility that would act as a permanent work yard and storage structure for vehicles and equipment (pick-up truck, skid loader, four wheeler and trailer, large riding mower, motorized weed eater and various hand tools). Page 29, exhibit C, was a site plan that showed the work yard arid maintenance facility as the bulk of this bulk of this proposal. HPC approved the interior renovation and to gently restore the Victorian 216 square foot cabin and 50 foot outhouse to turn this into something that will work better with the property manager and users of the cemetery. Alexander said that the proposed dimensional requirements were located on page 4 of the memo and the maintenance facility had an 18 foot height to the peak of the roof and the maximum allowable in that zone district was 25 feet. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Alexander said on page 8 of the memo there was a condition to develop an ongoing management strategy for vegetation, specifically the cottonwoods and expansion northward on the property. Jennifer Phelan said the maintenance building was for the cemetery use and appropriate to be approved as a Conditional Use; the size of the maintenance ' building will assist the board in the operations of the day to day functions and service to the community. Phelan said that HPC spent a lot of time for the size and location of the building and recommend the Conditional Use and recommendation of approval to City Council for the Growth Management Review as an Essential Public Facility, the PUD dimensional standards and the site specific development plan on the official zoning map. Phelan said that as a PUD it does lock in this design so if there are any future changes being proposed it would come back to amend the PUD to necessitate a public notice. Bert Myrin said that on page 7 was the affordable housing mitigation. Phelan replied that it was a decision by Council to waive the employee mitigation. Myrin asked about the Dimensional Requirements on page 11 for the PUD and asked if these requirements were changed would they have to come back through the PUD ,,,~ process. Phelan said there were 2 ways to amend a PUD; one was an insubstantial ! ,4j ,;; which has very strict criteria that can be handled administratively and if you don't 3 __. - ~~ ' P261 Re¢ular Meetin¢ Asaen Plannin¢ and Zonine July 21, 2009 meet those thresholds it is a public hearing process going to the Planning & Zoning or City Council. Myrin asked about the lighting code in Section 8. Phelan said that residential lighting code was more lax than commercial. Stan Gibbs asked the height requirement for a PUD. Phelan replied there was none but it was established through the PUD process. LJ Erspamer said that the maintenance facility would act as a work yard and storage for trucks for the vehicles and equipment; he asked if there was any restriction there on the size and number of vehicles or is it whatever they need to do the job. Phelan said that Conditional Use allows some conditions but the applicant will specify what their needs are. Alan Richman introduced himself as representing the Red Butte Cemetery Association; John Thorpe, president of the Cemetery Board and Gram Means, Architect. Richman stated the Red Butte Cemetery was a private parcel of land about 17 acres in size and owned by the Cemetery Association for more than 100 years. The Cemetery Association is a group of volunteers who have taken the responsibility of maintaining the cemetery and its improvements. Richman said that the vehicles used on the property include apick-up truck, a skid loader, 4 wheeler and trailer, a riding mower, hoses and hand tools and all is listed in the text of the application. Richman said today the vehicles are stored in the temporary fabric shed with no heat, no electricity, no water service, no bathroom; the facility was inadequate to operate the cemetery on a daily basis. This existing cemetery needs to be maintained; the association is proposing a modest building. John Thorpe, president of the board, introduced Stone Davis a very active member of the board. Thorpe said that nothing had been done to the cemetery in a long time and now the City Forester has helped identify trees that were in trouble and they have begun to replace the trees on the same historic planting grid. Thorpe said the water delivery system was completely inadequate and that had to be replaced with an underground irrigation system. They also had surveys done and the plots are now on line and this proposed project is to preserve and maintain the cemetery. Thorpe said this was completely anon-profit association. Gram Means utilized an aerial photograph (Exhibit 1) of the cemetery property which is approximately 17 acres about 600 feet wide over 1200 feet long with the public view through the cemetery's iron gate on Cemetery Lane. Means said there were 3 by use portions of the cemetery, the southern portion established historic plots, the northerly portion that is open meadow and there is the strip off the edge 4 b P262 ` Reeular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zoning Julv 21, 2009 of the banks with native vegetation and steep slopes. Means used a site plan (Exhibit 2) showing the established southern part and the part that goes over the bank and the maintenance building would not impact the historic part of the cemetery. (Exhibit 3) showed the existing sage area in the northern part with 175 feet to the closest neighbor on the north. Means said they were proposing to depress the whole work yard so that it was cutting into the ground 2 '/z feet at the southern end; there were power poles and electric easements at the bank. (Exhibit 4) was the conceptual landscape plan and HPC had some ideas about how this should work with the cottonwood trees. Means said the southern elevation (Exhibit 5) and the maintenance building was 18 feet in height from the lowest grade to the peak with 10 foot door openings for equipment. Rusted metal panel construction for the roof and sidewalk; there were 2 garage bays, a small 9 '/z by 18 foot warm room, a required bathroom and small mechanical room. Richman said that it was 18 feet from the lowest grade to the top of the roof. Richman said the he was comfortable with the resolution and this structure was needed for this cemetery to be cared for. The soils piles do get removed and the area will be re-vegetated pursuant to city standards and agree to keep disturbance within the work yard and the activity envelope is where the building will occur. Thorpe said the number of grave sites in the southern portion was about 6,000. Commissioner Questions: Bert Myrin said there were several suggestions in the letters from the public and asked how they might apply. John Thorpe said they have a landscape plan and have no plan to develop anything down the Castle Creek area. Gram Means replied that this was a specific plan for a maintenance building and work yard area and was not sure that these were specific areas but this was for the entire area. Jennifer Phelan replied that the proposed development was for the exiting cabin, the proposed maintenance building and work yard and the spoils area. Alan Richman stated this was a group of volunteers as the Cemetery Board and that if they want to do something that is not proposed in this application then they would have to come back and ask for it. Jim DeFrancia asked that the PUD only asks for what is included in the application. LJ Erspamer asked if there would be over night storage of vehicles. John Thorpe replied that they rely on an outside contractor to do excavation in opening of graves and sometimes a piece of equipment is not taken out that night so there „~ would be from time to time. Erspamer asked the hours of operation. Thorpe said they generally operate during the daylight hours unless there was an emergency 5 ,_. 4 .~ P263 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning July 21.2009 break down of equipment. Erspamer asked how soon the metal would rust. Means replied that it would be pretreated to rust. Erspamer asked if the Marolt Ditch ran underground. Thorpe replied that there was an underground pipeline that comes from the Marolt property to their cemetery. Stan Gibbs asked if this improvement increased the scope and scale of the operation. Thorpe said it is just and improvement and won't change the scale. Public Comments: 1. Arno Schetler, public, said that he lived on the north end of the cemetery property and thought that they were all looking for the same thing that the cemetery be able to be maintained but the impacts on the neighborhood be minimized. Schetler said that there were things for example the maximum height was 18 feet and that was 3 feet taller than his building which was set down. 2. Joe Porter, public, said that he lived at 1270 Snow Bunny Lane and said that he was a founder of the Design Workshop. Porter said that he and some neighbors have been working with the Cemetery Board. Porter said this entire site was a park and landmark designated site. 3. Mariann Altfeld, 1250 Snow Bunny Lane, the back of her property boarders the cemetery and she said that she knows what it means work hard as a volunteer. Altfeld said that the cemetery has become a disgraceful eye soar as a dumping ground for exposed piles of dirt, rock and unkempt piles of rubble in the north meadow. Altfeld said that there were large trucks stored there (meadow area) while a sewer line was placed elsewhere in the neighborhood. Altfe]d said that these deeds were a lack of respect for the. surrounding neighborhood therefore she wanted the footprint of the new maintenance facility never be enlarged, for the height of the building never be expanded and future housing, dumping on the property should not be allowed. Altfeld said that she and her husband and daughter own 3 cemetery plots. 4. Steve Spiritas, 80 Overlook Drive, voiced concern for the impact on the wildlife. Spiritas said the proposed building is almost 3 times larger than a 2 car garage and 4 times larger than their current storage facility. Spiritas said the interior lighting should only be allowed during daylight hours. 5. ;Fred Peirce stated that he represents some neighbors and the concerns were "'"" landscaping and operations. 6 P2s4 Reeular Meeting Aspen Plannin¢ and Zoning July 21, 2009 6. Mike Maple, 1250 Mountain View Drive, stated that he house was about 150 feet from this property. Maple thanked the Cemetery Association for all of their work and asked how much time was spent on this process and the costs of the process. Stone Davis replied they had about $38,000.00 in the process. Maple said it was time to allow the Cemetery to do this process. 7. Margot Gubser Gardner, public, spoke about the 4,200 gravesites in the old section and 6,000 in the new section. John Thorpe replied that 4200 were sold but they were not all used to date. Commissioner Comments: LJ Erspamer said that P&Z would vote on 4 issues and I stops at P&Z. Jim DeFrancia asked when the north portion of the cemetery plots are created is that a separate process. John Thorpe replied that normal cemetery operations have a plan for the operations. DeFrancia said there has been an expression of this northern portion as a park or meadow or open space but we need to keep in mind that it is a cemetery; a cemetery not having plots on it right now but it will have plots in due course but it is not a park and it is not a meadow and it's not wildlife habitat but it is a cemetery. DeFrancia said that an interim use as a meadow is de- facto but that does not make it a meadow in perpetuity. DeFrancia said he appreciated concerns for the piles and the illegal dumping and his understanding was that this improved maintenance facility would improve the rubble piles and the disturbances. DeFrancia said the size of the maintenance building was reasonable; he would go with the existing governance on lights. DeFrancia said there were other cemeteries with the maintenance facilities in the middle. DeFrancia stated this was a PUD and they can't do anything that is not granted without coming back and he fundamentally supports the application and with some refinements. Bert Myrin said the hours of operation for lighting were a big concern and supports conditions that include more restrictive residential or non-residential lighting code, whichever is more restrictive for this space. Alan Richman said that was accepted. Myrin said the dumping ground was raised several times and he would like to see something referring to that. Erspamer asked who enforces the conditions of the resolution. Phelan answered the lighting codes will be harder because two different standards will apply to figure out which is more restrictive of each standard. 1.,.N~ ,~, ;` ' '~ P265 Reeular Meetins Aspen Plannin¢ and Zonin¢ July 21, 2009 Brian Speck commended the cemetery board for taking such good care of the cemetery and he was in support of the proposal with the stipulation of no one living in the building and supported Jim DeFrancia's comments. LJ Erspamer voiced concern for the trucks starting up in the morning on a cold day and asked if the applicant would plug the trucks in when the temperatures were below 40 degrees. John Thorpe replied that he would but the contractors may or may not have that ability to plug into an outlet. Stone Davis said that an outlet would be furnished. Erspamer asked about an employee review. Alan Richman said that was an acceptable condition. Erspamer asked if the operations were in daylight hours. John Thorpe replied that was typical but in the event of emergencies that might change. Erspamer said only items necessary for the cemetery operation and there would be no storage of other items on the property. John Thorpe responded that other than their contractors and agents; there were numerous easements on this property and last summer had very little control over the work that went on in the sanitation department easement; the cemetery allowed that work in the cemetery rather than on the street for the upgrade of that sewer. Thorpe said there was a gas line on the north boarder. Erspamer did not like the approximate but minimum lot size but no more than 16.8 acres; minimum lot width no more than 545 feet; minimum front yard no more than 15 feet; minimum rear yard no less than 175 from the neighbor per site plan. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to extend the meeting to 7.•30 pm seconded by Brain Speck. Approved S-1. Erspamer asked if the conditions from page 32 of the packet Condition 1. The Cemetery Association shall collaborate with the City Forester to establish a landscape plan and a landscape maintenance plan for the entire cemetery property including the north meadow and the Castle Creek corridor that is acceptable to the City. Condition 2. Heavy equipment shall be plugged in the night before when it is below 40 degrees. Condition 3. Operations shall be during the daylight hours except for recoded easement agreements. Condition 4. After 2 years the City Housing shall review employees. Alan Richman agreed to the conditions. MOTION: Tim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolutionll, series of 2009 with the amendments regarding equipment, daylight operations, the 2 year review on employees and the prohibition of a living unit, addition of truck plug ins, no vehicle storage from outside the cemetery use and the lighting standards that are more restrictive and approving the Conditional Use Review and recommending approval of Consolidated PUD, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map and 8 P 2 6 6 ~~ ~-'~ Regular Meetine Aspen Plannine and Zonine July 21, 2009 Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property 808 Cemetery Lane; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Gibbs, yes; Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; APPROVED 6-0. Discussion: Stan Gibbs asked about the top of bank, which was an official line on the drawing. Gram Means said the activity envelope was to the top of bank and what was included in that activity envelope was the turning space for trucks. Means said the spoils cribs were approximately 10 feet and the building itself was 58 feet from the bank. John Thorpe said they have that because along the exposed edge of that irregular top of bank and there is the place where trucks turn there are boulders. Stan Gibbs said there were 2 telephone poles there. Gram Means said they have worked hard to minimize the truck turning and how a dump truck enters the site and dump into the spoils crib and things like that. Gibbs asked what would prevent a truck from going over the bank. Means replied there was a detail showing boulders that would be place on the bank. Gibbs said that he would accept a boulder as a sufficient barrier at the top of bank. Means said the electric easement area has boulders. 434 EAST COOPER - BIDWELL LJ Erspamer opened the referral for the 434 E Cooper, Bidwell Project. Sara Adams said that staff was asking P&Z for refen•al comments regarding Commercial Design Review to HPC. HPC will be hearing this case tomorrow night during a public hearing; this wasn't noticed it was just a courtesy referral. Adams said it was a 9,000 square foot lot with a demo and replace with a mixed use building to the commercial core historic district is why HPC has purview. Previously HPC granted conceptual commercial design and view plane exemption. P&Z recommended Subdivision approval to City Council, granted growth management for new commercial and affordable housing;. all of those approvals that were granted during those reviews are still valid and P&Z will be seeing this again because there was more commercial proposed so there will be another growth management review. Adams said that the lack of public amenity space was of concern so the applicant was proposing 12% pedestrian amenity space with an 18 foot setback from the 'property line at 60 feet wide. The height on the original building was 41 feet to the highest point and now the height was dropped to 36 feet 7 inches. ,,,,~ 9 64 „l Reeular Meeting Aspen PlanninH and Zonine July 21, 2009 Adams said that staff was recommending approval to HPC tomorrow night for commercial design review but there were two issues one was having a one story mass at the comer and the second conflict with historic design guidelines was the glazing at grade level. Stan Gibbs said that he was in favor of HPC looking at the massing at the corner. LJ Erspamer commended the match of the comers to Paradise. Bert Myrin agreed with the lower massing. Jim DeFrancia agreed. Adams said that the guidelines call for two stories and this was a concern of the public and Council to bring the massing and height down during subdivision review. Jim True asked why it was on the agenda as a public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated that was a mistake. Public Comments: Junee Kirk, public, said this was an improvement but this was one of the most important corners in Aspen. Kirk asked the applicant to provide elevations along Cooper Street and Galena as well to compare the heights to the average heights. Kirk asked P&Z to recommend the fu1125% pedestrian amenity just like Paradise Bakery. Kirk also asked the building be limited to two stories as are all of the other buildings on that block. John Rowland said for the record Paradise Bakery was 6% pedestrian amenity. Toni Kronberg, public, said there was zoning in the city of Aspen with 2 historic districts, Main Street and the Commercial Core Historic. Kronberg said that she asked to refer staff to the Wienerstube lawsuit that was successful on the court level. LJ Erspamer closed the public comments. Cliff Weiss asked about the number of trees being displaced. Mitch Haas replied none; they were beyond the property line. Weiss asked if the tenants were locked in. Haas replied that none of the tenants were locked in. Adams said this was a referral for mass, scale, pedestrian amenity and height. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to extend the meeting for 10 to 1 S minutes; seconded by Brain Speck. Approved 5-2. "' Weiss said that he liked the project and did not think that it was too high. "" DeFrancia said the P&Z was split on the height. Gibbs favored the two story. The P267 10 ,.~ ,~. P268 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Julv 21, 2009 commissioners agreed on the public amenity space as proposed. LJ Erspamer asked to see an elevation from the alley. Adams stated that she would relay the P&Z comments to HPC. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to adjourn the meeting seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, approved. Adjourned at 7:50 pm. Jackie Lothian, lleputy laity c:lerx ... 11 Q k~.Ktc3tT = P269 Drew Alexander ,m; Mike Maple [mmaple@dunrene.com] dent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1 D:32 AM To: Drew Alexander Subject: Red Butte Cemetery facilities I received a notice regarding Growth Management revievd for the Red Butte Cemetery facilities. v~/hy are these facilities being required to have a Growth Management Review? I reviewed materials and attended the P & Z hearings for this project when approval was granted. I do not recall any discussion of growth management @ P & Z. I cannot claim to be well versed on Growth Management requirements, but my understanding is Growth Management is only required for new or increased uses, change of zoning, subdivision, etc- it seems to me the proposed maintenance facility is and always has been a permitted use under the existing zoning. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Park (P) Zone District, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Recreation building. Sport shop. Restaurant facility. 4. Park maintenance building. J the City subject itself to Growth Management when it built and expanded maintenance facilities on similarly zoned land @ the golf course? In all events, it seems to me that the proposed facilities in no way represent "growth" or increased utilization of facilities or increased employment. This should be a simple administrative decision and not require the City Council's time. I support and encourage a waiver of growth management review and/or any growth management requirements for the Red Butte Cemetery Maintenance facilities as proposed. Please forward my comments to City Council for their consideration on this matter. Thank you. Mike Maple 1250 Mountain View Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Phone : 970.925.9046 Fax: 970.925-1162 P270 (~ ~ttlal"t' To: The Aspen City Council Attention: Mayor Mick Ireland From: Steven & Alexis Spiritas 80 Overlook Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Date: November 2, 2009 Re: Red Butte Cemetery Boazd (RBCB) Consolidated PUD and Conditional Use Review We have lived next to the Red Butte Cemetery for 19 years, and have come to appreciate the beauty and serenity of both the active southern part and the north sage meadow. The cemetery has existed for over 100 years, and has seen periods when burials per yeaz greatly exceed the handful that presently occur Thus, it is puzzling to us why suddenly the RBCB feels the need to construct this facility at a time when burials in the cemetery are declining yeaz over yeaz.. The RBCB has one part -time employee, and has always outsourced much of the maintenance of the cemetery. Given that this system has worked for over a hundred years, the justification for this project defies logic. While we support a plan to sustain the integrity and long term preservation of the historic cemetery, we do not feel that the size and scope of the building being proposed is well suited to the serenity and historic nature of the cemetery itself. We would like to seethe RBCB do something that has a much lower impact on the site. The RBCB could repair and make the current storage facility more attractive at far less cost and much less impact than what they aze proposing. Although the proposed building is "one story", the high point of the roof is 18 feet - nearly the equivalent of a two story building. None of the equipment currently owned by the RBCB requires this height. If it is necessary in the future to purchase more equipment, there is a wide range of equipment available that would also not require such height. The size of the proposed building is about the size of a three caz garage, and about 4 times the cuseent storage space. This seems to be overkill based the equipment actually owned by the association. The turn -around area is also quite lazge compared to the equipment being used. All in all, the entire concept of this building and parking area seems completely out of context and scale for the park-like setting of the Red Butte Cemetery. In the currently proposed location, the only access to the maintenance building is via the soil and glass lanes going through the active portion of the cemetery. It is unseemly to think of dump trucks, Waste Managemem vehicles, and other traffic and service vehicles rolling down the lovely lanes of the historic part of the cemetery to access this maintenance building. Future burial sites also will be affected on the west, north, and south, adjoining the proposed building, since those plots will adjoin and be adversely impacted by the structure. Another serious concern to us is the seasonal dryness and lack of irrigation in the north meadow. With increased activity in this area, the possibility of fire increases. Since the •*~• meadow abuts both the riparian and homes, fire could easily get out of control, roaz ,~, ~~ P271 through neighborhoods, and even cross over to adjacent areas including the Aspen Institute. In previous meetings, concern has been expressed by us, by other neighbors, and by cemetery architects regazding the destruction of the native sage growing in the meadow. As the RBCB proposal currently exists, most of that native sage will be destroyed when the maintenance building is constructed. The RBCB has not indicated any willingness to take into consideration this issue and try to re -locate the building to preserve the native sage. We are concerned that no attention has been paid to the impact the proposed project will have on the wildlife that currently utilize that meadow either as their home, or a comfortable and safe passage to and from the riparian area. Certainly before the approval for any sort of building or expansion, a wildlife impact study should be conducted and taken into consideration. Please see the photos being sent by sepazate copy which will give you a sense of the daily wildlife activity in the meadow. During the course of the submission process, the 1tBCB has asserted that the proposed facility cannot be re -located anywhere else in the north meadow due to the fact that plots aze promised to others. They have further asserted that the maintenance facility cannot be located next to the historic cabin in the active portion of the cemetery for the same reason. We question these azguments based on the fact that we observed recent grading and sodding of a large area just north of the historic cabin to suggest that the space is being used for burial plots. This space has been bare for years, and was only sodded after we raised the issue of locating the maintenance building there. This issue needs to be examined because it appears that the grading/sodding was done to support their claim that the maintenance facility could not be located in that area. Certainly locating the maintenance facility adjacent to the historic cabin would solve many of the issues raised above, such as increased fire protection, less disruption of wildlife, preservation of the sage meadow, less construction damage, not having maintenance and trash vehicles driving through the cemetery, and so on. Although we hope that the City Council will not approve this project as it is currently proposed, if the approval is granted, it should only be with certain binding conditions, namely: Pemiittiag should be dependant upon the presentation of an unconditional and irrevocable performance bond from a reputable bonding company to insure that any construction will be completed in a timely manner. A landscape plan that will make the building look like a more natural part of the setting must be required and followed. Such landscaping should also shield the building and cribs from view of the surrounding houses, as well as grave sites. Height issues should be addressed either by changing the profile of the building itself, or by excavating so that the building is partially below grade. For example, P272 `b.° ,~-, our own home was lowered 5 feet below grade on the south, and 16 feet on the east so that it would have faz less impact on neighboring homes. No storage of outside or third party equipment should be allowed unless it is there or short term cemetery use. The applicant must provide sufficient irrigation to the entire north.meadow to minimize the extreme fire potential. Require a wildlife impact study to insure that the development will not adversely affect wildlife. Please review our comments carefully, and we would be pleased to answer any questions the committee might have about those comments. We thank you for taking our comments into consideration when you make your decision on the PUD requested by the RBCB. Yours truly, Steven & Alexis Spiritas~ // 1~~ ~~ --Rn io i~ io ' .. . eR ~ ~_ ~ ~r~ -~k G W"~~ e~ '~ R . ~ . . ~_ A ~ " ~ rY ~__ ~. r ` ~, ' "' P273 F ~ ~,~;. _ ~. y ~ ~~ J ~ ~ d __'. ,~ . ti _ ~ ~.'-t 3 .Js r~ z,_ ~ v__ - ax~.~... .-~,. frr ~~1~fr fT+1 ~,t ti ,. ~~ F ~- t r s ~t r ~ t ~ _ _, 33,, ~ _ ~ ~+~, F'~ L ! _i y 3 .~k~I, F' ~ ~ .+~Pt _ ~ ~^ F .. ~.. ~ y .,# E9' ~ $1 ~~ 44 _ e ~• ~ ~ f 1 i' ' y' '.. ~ ~ ~ a .+ t~ tc ~ ~+~~5 ^ ? :~ jiL .~r-.. ~ }D ` 't f~ y ~15 7 -~~~ _ 1 ~.~~~~ ~- t. ~ - ~ ~ , .mac . ~ 1'' jtl r . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ '-y_ ~'~.a~.~ _ -- -- --~~ t. y -- -rr~~- _~ ~ ~ - 3 ~.~.. A~,,, ~ ~,> -~~ ~ ~_ ~.T P t tc ~ , ~%';~' ' _ ~-i' ~ > - - r ~ a ,~ ~„ ~~ ~. „ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tx _k 'r, ~a l ~..,,... ~ , _ r f }~ ; ~..-t'~S'j$~-~ a rJ -. '•((rN~.. . •"-, 1 2. a i '' - '.5 :. .{ Y y __ ~; .may, ~X ~i~~~ ~ -.-.s~ -' ~" ,~ ~ r ~~•~~~ln ~ ~#:~4 .ti. ~ ~ ~,ug. =3a~u~~"_~ `mod ~~ _ . ~ i ti ~, ;:~. .-,,"4 _ ~Y'~ .~~ i ~.. ~~'' :~'. r~'; ~~ ~, { ; ~3'. ~~~ r ~', .N' "r. ~ f t ~_.n.; ;~ ' -. i , 1 ;,. ±r~ ~~ C._. ; ..r:_F4 ^i~_ ~~ •.~~`y'~ } ,., `a ~ -~ ~'. ~: ,:. W'F ~,~ . '~,. ~. ~: ~. ~- ~_ '.. MI ~:.:. R~ ~ J ~~~ E C RED BUTTE CEMETERY CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM REVIEW MAY, 2009 O ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ..............................................1 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................. 2 III. SUMMARYOF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................... 4 IV. CONSOLIDATEDPUD REVIEW ................................... 6 V. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ................................... 18 VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY.... 21 VII. VESTED RIGHTS ............................................ 24 VIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................24 EXHIBITS #1. HPC Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008 #2. Certificate of Ownership #3. Letter Authorizing Submission of Application #4. Pre-Application Conference Summary #5. List of Owners Within 300' of Subject Property (this will be submitted separately, no more than 60 days prior to the P&Z public hearing, to comply with the Code) GRAPHIC MATERIALS Aerial Vicinity Photograph Existing Conditions Plat Pictures Illustrating the Existing Cemetery Proposed Site Plan Activity Envelope Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan Exterior Elevations and Floor Plan Proposed Exterior Materials Illustration ~,.J C ^• INTRODUCTION This is an application requesting that the Aspen City Council approve the development of a small maintenance facility at the Red Butte Cemetery. The Cemetery's street address is 808 Cemetery Lane and its Pitkin County Parcel ID# is 273512200851. The Cemetery consists of approximately 16.8 acres of land that is zoned Park (P). The property is also designated as a historic landmark (H). HPC conceptual approval for the construction of the proposed maintenance facility was granted on December 10, 2008 (see HPC Resolution 30, Series of 2008, attached as Exhibit #1). The owner of the property is the Red Butte Cemetery Association, a Corporation (hereinafter, "the applicant"), which obtained a deed to the property in 1899. 'Proof of the ownership of the property and a legal description of the property are provided by Exhibit #2, a Certificate of Ownership provided by Pitkin County Title, Inc. A letter from the applicant authorizing Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, to submit this application is provided as Exhibit #3. A pre-application meeting was held with representatives of the Community Development Department prior to the submission of this application (see Exhibit #4, Pre-Application Conference Summary). Based on this meeting, the applicant is hereby submitting the following requests: Sec. 26.445: Planned Unit Development (Consolidated Review); Sec. 26.425: Conditional Use Review; and Sec. 26.470: Growth Management Quota System Review for Essential Public Facilities. The following sections of this application are organized to respond to the standards of the Aspen Land Use Regulations for these review procedures. First, however, the next sections of this application provide some additional background information about this project and a brief summary of the proposed development. ,'. ~. ., "° Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 7 ..., ,~ II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Red Butte Cemetery Association was incorporated in the 1890's for the purpose of establishing one of Aspen's original cemeteries. In 1899, the Association acquired Heady 17 acres from surrounding ranchers and water rights from Castle Creek. It has operated since that time as anon-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. An aerial vicinity photograph showing the entire Cemetery property and the surrounding neighborhood has been provided. The photograph illustrates the vast area of the Cemetery in relationship to the neighboring residential lots. These lots surround the Cemetery on three sides (north, south and west) and create an abrupt change from the open character of the Cemetery itself. Surrounding subdivisions include the Castle Creek Subdivision, Snowbunny Subdivision, West Meadow Subdivision, and Black Birch Estates. A plat of the Cemetery prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers has also been provided. It shows that the property has been platted with streets and burial blocks to ensure its orderly development. The aerial photograph and the plat illustrate that the Cemetery property generally consists of three areas, these being: 1. The front (southerly) portion, which has been actively used for cemetery plots; 2. The rear (northerly) portion, which is presently undeveloped, but has been platted with roads and burial plots for future development as an extension of the developed southern portion; and 3. The area below the top of the bank, which drops down toward Castle Creek. This area is steep and undeveloped and remains in a relatively natural state. The front portion of the Cemetery is organized around two primary features: the burial plots and headstones, which are in ordered rows; and the cottonwood trees, which line the dirt paths in this part of the Cemetery. There is also a small Victorian-era cabin with an associated small out house located in the southeastern corner of the property. Pictures of these features have been provided at the back of this application booklet. The cabin currently serves multiple functions, including an office for cemetery record keeping with associated storage area, and an informal meeting place for people who need assistance or want to consult with the property manager on cemetery business. However, the cabin is not served by utilfties nor is it properly insulated or finished on the interior for it to adequately meet the needs for conducting the Cemetery's business. .. ~. ,.. ~., w Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 2 w/ ..+ +., n The developed portion of the Cemetery contains approximately 4,200 burial sites. The Association has recently studied its records and found that only approximately 600 of the. 4,200 plots are still unused. However, approximately half of the unused plots are already committed to organizations such as the Jewish congregation and the Elks. The remaining plots are scattered throughout the developed Cemetery. Some of these are available in larger assemblies while other plots are fragmented due to prior sales. In recent years, the Cemetery has experienced in the range of 10 to 15 burials per year, plus a number of cremations. If this trend continues, or even if it accelerates to some I degree, there is sufficient capacity in the developed portion of the Cemetery to ~ accommodate the community's needs for the next 10 to 20 years. However, the availability of attractive plots for sale to the public is the primary source of the t: Association's income. As a result, the Association has decided that it is timely to start the process of identifying new areas of the Cemetery that will be developed in the future. The f ' expansion of the Cemetery to the north would likely occur in small increments of several ~ c burial blocks at a time, beginning with the installation of irrigation pipes and other basic ~;r facilities to serve future burial plots. About 10 years ago the Cemetery Board began to deal with some serious issues of deferred upkeep of the property. The property is graced by more than 200 narrow-leaf cottonwood trees that are more than 100 years old. These trees are a critical element of the visual character of the historic Cemetery. Many of these trees are nearing the end of their normal life span and require regular pruning, removal and replacement. The Association has begun this replacement process and is working with the City Forester to ensure that this important resource remains vibrant for generations to come. The Association is also working with the City Forester to phase out some evergreen trees that were planted in the northerly portion of the developed area but have proven to be problematic. Work has also been completed to update the irrigation system, including a new head gate at the Holden Ditch and a new underground sprinkler system. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 3 ne `. w, ~.: r 4-- .,,r III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The next project that the Cemetery Association needs to accomplish is the construction of a permanent maintenance facility for the Cemetery. The operation of the Cemetery requires a number of vehicles and many pieces of equipment to be available, including a pick-up truck, skid loader, four wheeler and trailer, large riding mower, motorized weed eaters, and various hand tools, rakes, shovels, hoses, sprinkler heads, and similar materials. Today, all of these vehicles and most of the equipment are stored and repaired in a temporary, fabric storage shed that was erected several years ago in the northeastern portion of the property. This temporary structure has no heat, electricity, or water service. There is also limited storage and repair that occurs in the cabin in the southeastern comer of the property. That structure has electricity and temporary heat, but does not have water service or a rest room. The applicant believes that the equipment storage and associated activity that is occurring in the southeastern corner of the property is inappropriate, as this area is the most serene, historic portion of the Cemetery. Moreover, the temporary structure in the northeastem corner of the property, which is the primary storage and repair facility, is inadequate, as it has no electric or water service. The fabric on the shed is torn and in need of replacement. The spoils. piles that have been built up around the shed are unattractive, and the shed and spoils piles have received negative comments from several of the surrounding neighbors (see attached photos of the shed and spoils piles). During the HPC review process, contact was made with the City Parks Department and = the City's Streets Department, each of which has its own maintenance facility in relative close proximity to the Cemetery. The purpose of those contacts was to determine whether either of these facilities had excess space that would permit the Cemetery's equipment to be stored and maintained there. The applicant was informed that neither of - these facilities had. sufficient space to accommodate the Cemetery's equipment, making ;'; the construction of a new facility a critical need. Therefore, the applicant concluded that a new maintenance facility should be built on-site. As the attached site plan illustrates, the applicant proposes to consolidate all Cemetery maintenance functions in a single location, generally where the temporary shed is now located. This is the best location for this activity to occur, since it respects the historic significance of the developed Cemetery, while at the same time placing the replacement building at a distance of approximately 175' from the northern property line and the closest neighboring residence and nearly twice that distance from any residence located along the west side of the Cemetery. All development would occur above the top of the creek bank, ensuring that the sensitive natural environment along the bank would not be impacted. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 4 r* The site plan is depicted in greater detail on the proposed activity envelope plan. It shows that the maintenance facility would be a rectangular 40' x 32' building that would ~ be located towards the rear of the proposed activity envelope. There would be a modest- ~ sized concrete apron in front of the building for working on vehicles and equipment and a larger gravel work yard to the east and south of the building. r The work areas have purposely been located on the east and south sides of the building to consolidate and internalize the activity, ensuring that the work areas do not face the neighboring residences. The work yard will also be depressed by several feet below ~ grade, to make it less visible. Finally, the site plan shows three "cribs" that would be built f to contain the spoils piles from burial and other Cemetery operations. The cribs will be ~ buried several feet below grade and will be landscaped to minimize their visibility from f surrounding areas. t The floor plan for the new building shows that the maintenance facility would be a very f simple building. It will have two garage bays within a shop, a small warm room for an ~, employee's comfort, and a mechanical area. The total floor area of the building would be approximately 1,280 sq. ft. r Elevations of the proposed building have also been provided. The elevations show that fy~„ this would be a relatively low, one story building that uses traditional building forms and a sloped roof. The elevations also show that the land around the structure will be gently t'1~l graded up towards the building along its northerly and westerly sides to help to screen it. ~t The grading has been designed to follow the direction provided by the HPC in their conceptual approval that there should be no grading anomalies created around the building, maintaining the relatively flat site as it is today. Therefore, the applicant does not propose a berm around the building. ff (# The height of the structure would range from a low point of approximately 8' on its east rF and west ends to a high point of only approximately 18' to its center peak. The overall ~~ architecture of the building will be simple and utilitarian, which is in keeping with the statement in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that "Simplicity and modesty in f"E design are encouraged" for new buildings on a historic parcel. C Finally, the applicant proposes to restore the Victorian-era cabin and the out house in their present location. The exterior of the cabin will be gently restored. The interior of the cabin would be gutted -and fitted with electrical service, insulation, and drywall. This will allow the cabin to function as a simple visitor's center, for the occasional meetings between users of the Cemetery and the property manager. A self guided directory would be placed outside of the cabin. This would help to limit visitor traffic to the front part of the property, and will reduce the need for vehicles to use the dirt roads within the Cemetery. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 5 '~ IV. CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW Section 26.445.010 of the Land Use Code identifies the purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zone district in the City of Aspen. This designation is intended to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land so as to: (a) promote the goals, and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; (b) achieve a better quality of design and a greater compatibility with surrounding land uses; (c) preserve valuable site features; (d) promote the efficient use of land; and (e) incorporate public input into the planning process and ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals. The Community Development Department determined during the pre-application review that the project could proceed as a consolidated review of conceptual and final PUD, as authorized by Section 26.445.030 of the Land Use Code. This approach recognizes that the applicant spent considerable time during and since the HPC review process working with surrounding residents to design the site in response to neighborhood concerns. Nevertheless, the consolidated process will still allow public input and will provide the City with a means of reviewing site specific architectural and landscaping plans that commit the applicant to a detailed plan for the property. The standards for PUD review are found in Section 26.445.040 of the Code. The applicant's response to each of these standards follows below. A. General Requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. ;' Response: The proposed development will be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Two key recommendations of the 2000 Community Plan which this project will promote are as follows: • Preserve and enhance our historic resources; and • Provide maintenance to protect and enhance the quality of our parks and open spaces. The applicant has agreed to preserve the existing Victorian-era cabin on the site. It will remain in its existing location. Its exterior will be gently restored and its interior will be remodeled so it can be used as a place where visitors to the Cemetery can meet with the property manager. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to locate the new maintenance building in the northeastern portion of the Cemetery, which will ensure that the character of the historic portion of the Cemetery will remain undisturbed. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 6 The proposed maintenance facility will provide a building where the equipment needed for the operation of the Cemetery can be stored and maintained. These operations include not only burials, but also caring for the many trees on the site, keeping up the appearance of the Cemetery grounds, irrigating the landscaping, and similar tasks. These activities all help to preserve and enhance the historic character of the property and its highly valued open space. While this open space is privately owned and maintained, it is nonetheless of considerable importance to the neighborhood and the City as a whole. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The applicant has taken great care to design this project such that it is C consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not have an C adverse affect on the future development of the surrounding area. Right from the outset, the applicant chose to place the facility at a distance from the neighbors to the north and C west of the Cemetery, to minimize the impacts from the proposed use. The applicant also f chose to keep the size of the facility small and to limit the building to just one story, so that the building will be much smaller in scale than the surrounding residences. Finally, the ~ applicant has designed the site such that the work yard faces toward the cemetery, and away from the residences, to further limit its impacts on the neighbors. It is also worth noting that when this project was first submitted to the HPC it included not just the maintenance facility but also a small affordable housing unit for the Cemetery's employee. This unit was a source of great concern to neighbors, who felt that having an individual or a family living within the Cemetery would negatively alter the character of this quiet, undeveloped area. Based on these comments, the applicant reluctantly agreed to remove the unit from the project. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final development plan review. Response: The proposed use is eligible for a growth management exemption as an essential community facility. Section VI of this application addresses the standards for obtaining this exemption. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plan shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD, as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 7 ~' ,~ requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During the review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed development requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a. The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b. Natural or man-made hazards. c. Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area, such as steep slopes, waterways,' shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d. Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the properly and the surrounding area, such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The project's proposed dimensional requirements are shown in Table 1. The Park (P) zone district does not have any underlying dimensional requirements, instead -- stating that its requirements shall be established via a PUD plan. Given the unusually large acreage of this property and the very modest size of the proposed development, the dimensional requirements for this project are not an especially meaningful set of measures. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding areas. Response: The proposed maintenance facility will be set back towards the rear of the property, at a significant distance from Cemetery Lane and from surrounding residences to the north and west. The footprint, mass, and floor area of the proposed structure are minute in comparison to the size of the property, leaving the vast majority of the site as open space. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land uses. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 8 TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUD Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size Approximately 16.8 acres Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable Minimum Lot Width Approximately 545 feet Minimum Front Yard Approximately 15' (Victorian cabin) Minimum Side Yard As shown on the site plan Minimum Rear Yard Approximately 175 feet Maximum Height Approximately 18' to peak of the roof Minimum Distance Between Buildings on the Lot Not applicable Minimum Percent of Open Space In excess of 95% of the site Maximum External Floor Area Ratio Proposed building is 1,280 sq. ft. b. The varying time periods of use, when joint use of common parking is proposed. c. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Response: The maintenance facility will have two bays within which vehicles and other equipment can be stored and repaired. Additional vehicles and equipment can be parked within the work yard, as necessary. 4. The maximum density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if.• a. There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities,. or other utilities to service the proposed development. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 9 b. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The applicant is not proposing any residential development, so this standard does not apply to this project. In any case, there is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development. Water and sewer service can be extended from the nearby mains located to the west of the Cemetery. A conceptual layout for these extensions is shown on the proposed site plan. An initial evaluation of drainage needs has also been performed which found that stormwater can be managed on-site. Finally, Cemetery Lane provides a more than adequate level of access to the site for routine and emergency vehicle trips. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density maybe reduced if.• a. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, and avalanche. dangers. b. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution. c. The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes disturbance to critical natural features of the site. ~~ r ,o . :, "~ ~',, 3'~D d~ "~ ,~ .~ ~~ Z~ ~~ ~, a a~ .' A, w Response: The applicant is not proposing any residential development, so this standard does not apply to this project. In any case, none of the listed hazards apply to the area proposed for development of the maintenance facility. 6. The maximum density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if.• a. The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community, as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 70 ~,. b. The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5 above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c. The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicant does not propose to increase the project's density through the PUD. C. Site Design. The purpose. of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Response: The applicant has taken great care to preserve the key natural and man- made features of the site. The maintenance facility has been sited to respect the character of the historic portion of the Cemetery. It has also been sited to avoid the sensitive natural features below the top of the bank, and to avoid disturbing (and instead, to restore) the vast majority of the existing sage meadow at the rear of the property. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas Response: Clustering is not applicable since only a single structure is proposed. Nevertheless, significant open spaces and vistas will be preserved by locating the structure far to the rear of the property and keeping it quite modest in scale. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Response: This standard does not apply to this property or this proposal for development. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 71 `~ 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Response: Emergency and service vehicles will be able to access the maintenance facility using the existing gravel roads within the Cemetery. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Response: An initial evaluation of site drainage needs for the building and the work yard has been performed by a civil engineer. It is the engineer's opinion that storm drainage will not be a significant problem for this project because the soils are absorbent and will drain naturally. Roof drainage can be managed on-site and will most likely be routed to a drywell, which has been shown on the activity envelope plan, or to a natural swale. A more detailed drainage study will be submitted at the time of building permit review. 7. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: This standard does not apply to this proposed development. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The development plan shall comply with the following: The landscape plan exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. ,.. ~r .. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3 .The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: A proposed landscape plan, prepared by Sarah Chase Shaw, Landscape Architect, in collaboration with a group of Cemetery Lane neighbors, is included with this application. The landscape plan has been designed to buffer the maintenance facility and work yard from surrounding residences and from the rest of the Cemetery. This will be accomplished by clustered planting on the north, south and west sides of the building. The plantings will use native trees and shrubs found in the area, including Aspen trees, Gambel Oak and Senviceberry bushes. In addition, the applicant intends to re-vegetate Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 12 disturbed areas around the maintenance facility, including areas previously disturbed by ~ the temporary shed and surrounding spoils piles. These areas will be re-vegetated using the City of Aspen's pasture mix, including sagebrush and other native shrubs and grasses. ~ All other existing vegetation throughout the Cemetery and below the top of the bank will ~ not be disturbed by the project. The applicant has designated a proposed activity ~ envelope around the maintenance facility and will install a construction fence along that envelope, to ensure that disturbance is limited solely to that area. I E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage ~ architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting eiticient use of resources. Arohitectural character is ( based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the Q building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other ( buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the ~ character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan which adequately depicts the character a of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: P 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the-city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resouroes. Response: Proposed elevations have been submitted with this application, depicting the proposed facility. The building has been designed as a simple, low structure with a L" minimal visual impact. The building will be just one story in height, ranging from ~~ approximately 8' on its east and west sides to 18' to its center peaked form and will ,~. contain only 1,280 sq. ft. of floor area, which will make it a minimal scale facility on a ~,; property that is almost 17 acres in size. n~~ The building will have traditional forms and a sloped roof, to be compatible with the scale ~~ and massing of the Victorian-era cabin that is located towards the front of the Cemetery. `" It will use materials that are appropriate to both the historical context and to the- utilitarian `~~ nature of its use, including corrugated rusted steel panels and rough sawn wood (see C attached illustration of proposed exterior materials). These principles were presented to ~+ and approved by HPC during its conceptual review of the project. ~' 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of ~^ non-or--less intensive mechanical systems. ~ ~• .. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 13 ~" Response: Although the design does not incorporate solar access due to the lack of glazing on the south facade, the applicant proposes to limit the heating system to the warm room, leaving approximately 75% of the structure (the bays and the mechanical room) without an active mechanical system for heating or cooling. 3 .Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: Snow shedding is not expected to be a significant problem for this structure. The roof has been designed to direct snow to shed away from the south side of the building, so it does not impact the work yard. There are also substantial open areas beyond the work yard that can function as snow storage areas, as necessary. The site will be graded so that it slopes away from the building, providing positive drainage. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner, considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct.glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with fhe Outdoor Lighting Standards, unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Response: All proposed lighting will comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. The applicant plans to use a standard dome fixture above the garage door (see building elevations) with a gooseneck bracket. The fixture will be down-lit, shielded and less than 12' above grade to prevent direct glare from spilling onto nearby residences. A small light fixture will also be tucked under the shed roof over the exterior main door to the building, as required by the Building Code. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 74 c o 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Response: The Cemetery functions as a privately owned open space area that has been enjoyed for many years by neighbors and residents of the entire community. The maintenance facility will help to ensure that the Cemetery can be operated as a beautiful. open space for many years to come. H. Utilities and Public Facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on fhe City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Response: As noted above, adequate facilities are present in the neighborhood to accommodate the proposed development. The facility extensions that are needed to serve the project will be provided at the applicant's expense, so there will be no net cost to the public for providing these facilities. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and trail facilities, and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Response: Access to the property is provided from Cemetery Lane, a public road. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 75 ,, d 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Response: The maintenance facility will not generate any new traffic in the area. As a result, no road improvements are proposed as part of this development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Response: No new trail dedications are proposed as part of this project. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. ' Response: The applicant is not aware of any trail recommendations from the AACP that affect this property. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Response: There are no streets planned within the project. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Response: The historic entry gate is a visible symbol of the Cemetery that will remain. No other gates or entryway expressions are planned as part of this project. J. Phasing of Development Plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 16 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to .the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of laterphases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable. housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Response: A phased development is not proposed for this project. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Condkional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 17 a o V. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW A maintenance facility is listed as a conditional use in the Park (P) zone district. Section 26.425.040 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations establishes the standards for review of a conditional use. Those standards, and the applicant's responses, are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located, and complies with all other applicable requirements of this Title. Response: The proposed conditional use will be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). Two key recommendations of the 2000 Community Plan which this project will promote are as follows: • Preserve and enhance our historic resources; and • Provide maintenance to protect and enhance the quality of our parks and open spaces. The applicant has agreed to preserve the existing Victorian-era cabin on the site. It will remain in its existing location. Its exterior will be gently restored and its interior will be remodeled so it can be used as a place where visitors to the Cemetery can meet with the property manager. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to locate the new maintenance building in the northeastern portion of the Cemetery, which will ensure that the character of the historic portion of the Cemetery will remain undisturbed. The proposed maintenance facility will provide a building where the equipment needed for the operation of the Cemetery can be stored and maintained. These operations include not only burials, but also caring for the many trees on the site, keeping up the appearance of the Cemetery grounds, irrigating the landscaping, and similar tasks. These activities all help to preserve and enhance the historic character of the property and its highly valued open space. While this open space is privately owned and maintained, it is nonetheless of considerable importance to the neighborhood and the City as a whole. The purpose of the Park (P) zone district is "to ensure that land intended for recreation use is developed so as to serve its intended use, while not exerting a disruptive influence on surrounding land uses". Clearly this purpose statement, with its focus on recreation, does not fit well with the use of this land as a Cemetery. It is our understanding that this property was zoned Park in the 1970's, following the adoption of the Aspen Land Use Plan. Cemetery is not listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Park zone (although maintenance facility is listed as a conditional use), making this zoning somewhat of a clumsy fit for this property, which has been used Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 78 as a Cemetery for more than a century. In fact, R appears that the only zone district that ~ lists cemetery as a permitted or conditional use is the Conservation (C) zone district. ~ Nevertheless, the applicant does not propose any change to the underlying zoning. ~ 8. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the ~ immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land f uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the ~ immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. t C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional G use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and C' vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on f surrounding properties. f Response: The Cemetery is surrounded on three sides by residential subdivisions. The residents of those subdivisions benefit from the presence of the Cemetery. It provides a significant area of private open space in the Cemetery Lane neighborhood and an important historic resource for residents to appreciate. The applicant has designed the proposed maintenance facility to ensure it will be compatible with and minimize its adverse effects on the surrounding residences. The elements of the site plan and building design that ensure this compatibility are as follows: • The applicant could have chosen to locate this facility in the northwestern corner of the property, to further isolate it from the ongoing Cemetery operation and from the future cemetery plots. This location would have also minimized the length of the necessary utility extensions to the building, thereby reducing the Association's costs. However, placing the maintenance facility in this location would have caused a significant impact on surrounding residences. Therefore, the building has instead been placed toward the eastern side of the property, approximately 175' from the northern property line. This location ensures that vast majority of the existing sage meadow in the northem portion of the property will remain intact and provides a significant buffer area between the facility and its nearest neighbor. • The maintenance yard and materials storage areas have been arranged so they will be internalized within the work yard in front of the building. These uses will face the Cemetery and be less visible from surrounding residences. The spoils piles will be consolidated within defined "cribs" that are buried several feet below grade. This will be a significant improvement over the current situation, where the spoils piles sit out in the meadow in an unsightly manner. • The building has been designed as a simple, low structure with a minimal visual impact. The building will be just one story in height, ranging from approximately 8' Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 19 on its east and west sides to 18' to its center peaked form. The building has been designed using traditional forms and a sloped roof. It is proposed to be just 1,280 sq. ft. in size, which is a truly insignificant amount of floor area on a property that is almost 17 acres in size. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools. Response: The proposed maintenance facility will place very limited demands on public facilities. Water supply and sewage disposal facilities can be extended to the proposed building site. There will be no increase in impacts on City streets or any of the listed public services as a result of the proposed development. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Response: There will not be any new employees generated by the construction of this facility. The Cemetery is largely served by its volunteers and has just one employee at the present time. If the City so requires, the applicant would agree to submit documentation to the Housing Authority at an appropriate time following completion of the facility, demonstrating that the Cemetery is in compliance with this representation. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Condkional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 20 .. w. .r ,.. y w (~\j V VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY Section 26.470.090.4 of the Land Use Code provides the Growth Management Quota System review standards for essential public facilities. It states that the City Council may approve such a facility if the following standards are met: (a) The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be ah Essential Public Facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an Essential Public Facility. Response: The definition of an essential public facility requires the facility to serve an essential public purpose, be available for use by the general public, and serve the needs of the community. The applicant requests that the Community Development Director determine that the proposed maintenance facility is an essential public facility for the following reasons: 1. The Cemetery serves the essential public purpose of public burial: The maintenance facility itself is essential because it allows the applicant to store and maintain equipment needed for daily Cemetery operations. 2. The plots at the Cemetery are available for purchase by the general public. 3. There is a considerable inventory of unused plots at the Cemetery which will serve the needs of the community for many years into the future. (2) Upon a recommendation from the Community Development director, the City Council may assess, waive, or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements, as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The Employee Generation Rates maybe used as a guideline but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Response: The Cemetery Association has had one part time employee for many years. The Association does not have any intention of adding any new employees as a result of developing the maintenance facility, so no mitigation should be required forthis project. It should be pointed out the Cemetery Association originally planned to develop a two bedroom affordable housing unit that would have been attached to the maintenance facility and would have provided housing for the Association's employee. The proposed dwelling unit turned out to be a controversial element of the development program for neighbors and for members of the HPC, leading the applicant to eliminate the unit from the application in order to obtain HPC conceptual approval. Acquisition of an affordable Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 21 r housing unit remains an important goal of the Association so it can attract and retain an employee over the long term. This is critical to the future of the Cemetery, because the position requires the employee to have thorough knowledge of the Cemetery's operation ~ and equipment, which calls for training and experience. P The applicant looks forward to working closely with the_ City to find an appropriate way to f provide an affordable housing unit for the Association's part time employee. The ~ Association would like to be able to step forward and address this need because doing so ~ will be of great benefit to the long term ability of the Cemetery to serve the community. (; General Requirements for Growth Management Review f An applicant requesting growth management review is also required to comply with the ' ' General Requirements for all Growth Management applications, as stated in Section f i 26.470.050 of the Code. Following are the applicant's responses to these standards. f't 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate fire uses, pursuant to Section 26.470.030 D. Response: There is no annual limit on essential community facilities. 2. The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: The proposed maintenance facility is consistent with several fundamental elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Some recommendations of the 2000 Community Plan which this project will promote include the following: • Preserve and enhance our historic resources; and • Provide maintenance to protect and enhance the quality of our parks and open spaces. Please see the responses in Section IV and V with regard to PUD and conditional use review for a complete response to this standard. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Response: The Cemetery is zoned Park (P). A maintenance facility is listed as a conditional use in the Park zone district. A request for conditional use approval is included in Section V of this application. The dimensional requirements of the Park zone district are established by PUD review. A consolidated application for conceptual and final PUD review is included in Section IV of this application. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use 8 GMQS Review Application Page 22 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval, and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. ~, Response: The proposal is consistent with that presented to HPC on December 10, 2008, the date on which HPC granted Conceptual approval in HPC Resolution 30, Series of 2008 (see Exhibit #1). 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty (60) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Section 26.470.100.A, Employee Generation Rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. Response: As described above, the Cemetery is currently served by one part time employee. There will be no change to this level of employment as a result of the proposed development. If the City so requires, the applicant would agree to submit documentation to the Housing Authority at an appropriate time following completion of the facility, demonstrating that the Cemetery is in compliance with this representation. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher,-shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty (30) percent of the additional free market net livable area for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Response: No free market residential area is proposed, so this standard does not apply to this project. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure or such demand is mitigated through improvements proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking, and road and transit services. services listed above as a result of the proposed development. Response: The proposed maintenance facility will place very limited demands on public facilities. Water supply and sewage disposal facilities can be extended to the proposed building site. There will be no increase in impacts on City streets or any of the public Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 23 v~ VII. VESTED RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 26.308 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests that this development be granted vested rights status. VIII. CONCLUSION The above responses and the attached exhibits provide the materials that were requested for this application and demonstrate the compliance of the proposed development with the applicable standards of the Aspen Land Use Code. The applicant has been working toward this stage of the review process for approximately the last 18 months, cooperating with the Historic Preservation Commission and Cemetery Lane neighbors to arrive at a proposal that we believe is consistent with the Code and appropriate and necessary for the future of the Cemetery. Should any reviewing agency request additional information, or need for the applicant to clarify any of the statements made herein, the applicant will respond in a timely manner. Please contact us as necessary. Red Butte Cemetery Consolidated PUD, Conditional Use & GMQS Review Application Page 24 ~' o 0 ~; ,; ~) EXHIBITS i) ~. _.. ___ __, __. © 0 EXHIBIT #1 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY, 808 CEMETERY LANE, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M., CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN. RESOLUTION N0.30, SERIES OF 2008 PARCEL ID: 2735-] 22-00-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, has requested Major Development • (Conceptual) for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6a' P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and apTp'ioved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to detemune the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 ,,; and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information ~,; necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and ,., ,'„ WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 10, 2008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standazds, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen "~ Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and ~. WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December ]0, 2008 (after opening and continuing the ""' public hearing on this matter on January 9, 2008, Febnuuy 27`x, 2008, and June 11, 2008) the "" 3 '++~ Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the app icahon was consistent with the review standazds and "Citf+-of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the applicatiomwith eondft'ions by a vote of 5 to 0. ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development (Conceptual) approval for a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery ~ Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6'" P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen, with the following conditions: a. ~r .r ~/ - © EXHIBIT #2 a CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado hereby certifies that THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION is the owner in fee simple of the ~ following described property: A parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M., more ~ particularly described as follows: ' Bounded on the South by Castle Creek Subdivision (Plat Book 2A at Page 241); ~ Bounded on the East by the Aspen. Meadows (Plat Book 28 at Page 7); . " Bounded on the North By Black Birch Estates (Plat Book 3 at Page 244): Latta Gubser Condominium (Plat Book 10 at Page 37): and West Meadow Subdivision (Ditch Book 2A at Page 245); Bounded on the West by Snowbunny Subdivision (Plat Book 2A at Page 229) and Easterly Right of Way of Cemetery Lane. t. I, r~ ADDRESS ACCORDING TO THE PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE: 808 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO. 81611 ENCUMBRANCES: NONE This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and is furnished for informational purposes only. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: authorized signature CERTIFIED TO: November 3, 2007 at 8:00 A.M. .EXHIBIT #3" Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Ms. Phelan, We hereby authorize Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, to act as our designated representatives with respect to the application being submitted to your office for the Red Butte Cemetery. Alan Richman and Graeme Means are authorized to submit the land use applications necessary for the review of this essential public facility. They are also authorized to represent us in meetings with City staff and the City's review bodies. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Alan Richman Planning Services, whose address and telephone number are included in the application. Sincerely, ~~ Red Butte Cemetery Association. John Thorpe, President P.O. Box 194 Aspen, Colorado 81612 EXHIBIT #4 ^~ CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Amy Guthrie, 429-2758 DATE: 01/20/09 PROJECT: Red Butte Cemetery REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman OWNER: Red Butte Cemetery Association (represented by Stony Davis and John Thorpe) TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use, GMQS (Essential Public Facility), PUD DESCRIPTION: The Association needs to develop a small storage building for the equipment they use on site. This new structure is planned to be built in the undeveloped north meadow of Red Butte Cemetery. HPC has granted Conceptual Major Development and the applicant will return for Final review when all other land use approval requirements aze met. Red Butte Cemetery is currently zoned Pazk (P), but cemetery is not listed as an allowed use in the district. A pazk maintenance building is a Conditional Use. The applicant must receive Conditional Use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and GMQS exemption for the building as an "essential public facility." The Pazk zone district states that all dimensional requirements aze established through a PUD process. Staff recommends that a consolidated PUD is appropriate for this relatively small project. - Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.425 Conditional Use °' 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD)- Consolidated application if approved by CDD ,y 26.470.090.4 GMQS, Essential Public Facilities 26.710.240 Park Zone District ;; Review by: Staff for complete application; the Community Development Director for Consolidated PUD approval; P&Z for Conditional Use approval and recommendations on PUD and ESA; City Council decision on PUD, and ESA. ~. Public Hearing: Yes at all hearings before P&Z and City Council (except First Reading of Ordinance.) '~ Planning Fees: $2,940.00 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per ~' hour). Non-profit can request fee waiver from CDD. Referrals: Parks- $212 Engineering- $212 ~ Total Deposit: $3,364.00 ~i To apply, submit the following information: q 1. Total Deposit for review of application. ~ 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the ~ applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Completed Land Use Application. ~ 5. Completed dimensional requirements form. 6. Pre-application Conference Summary. ~ 7. An 8 1/2" x 11"vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. Site Improvement Survey. wr nr ~, yr o ~ 10. Proposed site plan. 11. Proposed floor plan. 12. Proposed elevation plan. 13. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standazds relevant to the development application. 14. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public heazing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 15 Copies of prior approvals. 16. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD}preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. 20 Copies of the complete application packet for P&Z and Council. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application is then referred to applicable referral agencies. The Applicant is then assigned a public hearing date by Staff and Staff writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews application and makes a recommendation to City Council on requests. City Council makes fmal determination in the form of an ordinance. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. Q ~) i u~ ~. ~~, ,~ Yi / p \ lid rw~ A ~p~] MII • 4 • • • • GRAPHIC MATERIALS ~~o. W d~;~3N.3:,`.3"~ II , [1.[11 ...,Y f ~ .,;fig a.~',~^."°~;,~;~`.; `" I N1f NN3,NX N , tl~E I _-- 1 .-,N: ~saaarvioeaj1•a..aos rv~e>v _ ~- ~®rsrnr crens x aarr; a :: r,xsY~ opY~ N,a 3»1 . NxY YX d '~iYaw: o- i~ Y. ; . _. "~~ 6 i07 3 niopn~ nn tl, \ nem « Y s......: ~x3nNO., [,N N,aN Ntl tl :N :x nvnal3 ~ ~ y :~ ~ [ ` 6t a [en 03tl xl N [tlYX3tl Y 'd 3YY SYAYp, 136 '^ "' ...... 3Ywa aY lYO[ f Y3 L YYItl[ /itl~i\ / I ~ T / WIiOa N331Y 36 i~X3Y3YxSY3N Olll 3Y 1sL O MI[ NI IIYJ "_ \ _ / / nYUI[ .. iaV la Xa.S i,.~0Y05 A[ nOYf OtlOl3Y iYV I I XI [lIP] u ~ ::u3iXO vals°:0 aisle nn 3YY sYw eve - s N3N[ NYNa m w.uxtl0axi ...~ n. u u N0Y u~N Y3n0a xvaa bl>3l3 /~ 3X131 ]tl Y r aMtlO.N itl J [~ 3M3f OIOY { NoJ .3NtlN[ l ", Y0 031w1 [. eo x1~Y YYY3Y 1x3Yx1xN uaN[ 30ww, S71UN V aN3931 f~ ~ !,~'~I V Q ~ ~~ ' ~ 9 ~, n. tis rn ` x ~ t?; +9 , ~ P r ~a~ ~ Q ~ 8 z / Q +"p~~ ~ ~ 31iS ~ z ~ ~`e G'y'P c3 v y ~j.'°~~`"~ 06 ~ ~ ` x ia~ Z l Clica o ~, ,~ 1 mo _~ "-r~.N N1- '3a.~nn0'1"n na ~Y~~~fO [i7d'a131a au 5 3lN3xl "}11~tl313ND a0 •VY ao IIYiiY I.lY31CV3 3x1[~B 153. 311 MO O .1u11.3 ix. N0 ..~i 3[131 x elNirii roliai nia°ns`YU0r3i iiii ,e a w11 3u ro iYp x 3.`x3W 'iZC 33VU~'o lv ie~ NnrMiwOiloi Y3imvwv aivl I.9 311 1n 03ovwe os nNe c Yooe 1Nlai s31Y1s3 Xiv a YiOUVIpC we eai ~i0Mio3"o ~s31v:s3 roY~a [~00 w 1YVavu 3xlnas 3x1 0 1331 zY x3asN w u~i 3X1 I.e 1zn iu iu o~i an'v ixi~ X vN3.1 133a [[ OC pON x 3M3N1 "1331 iC3.9 Y[ 3E M!K i]Kxl 31333iXOa 3f fi33 p0[N C.IO N 33a 9 O .o i[Ji 3SNM1 3,3 0049 1 3]X14 1H3N14Y2 3~pil. ltlW3NAX1 331 a s Y 3]11311 10 1 e y X3eSV )11 Yp 15 v13 l1! M 03WgB ",33o[YpK 3 w~Y~.p 3.1 ~ ~ [Y ,lpn p3111N Q 3W,XOM 3M11Y pi1M1D3: ~ i:~3W. : YW91VV1 W 1 pllt Y3,YJ 311CN .p XW[ 111 03tlYN9 sw3lq sY u:.a ., vile, x3.[v 100 ."NV eliiu°~031i3. se vni luxo[ 0. 1N[ . Y . [ ~u3sNNi a31.x1 axvl x lvYNe N uol lai a~s3° ~v~3~ Aa313u3~ 3ilne o3a 31015 3x1 f0 1001 31U YW3Y . I ~Y K1 1Y.02. W.10 MI ~ • p3Y Y ~\ W,4i U3)bl,f [. Yi, CYO 311, ~o g p • 1 t lOl m `„ tl a z z k CA k 01 107 I x.Y3Y s - $ 8 6 109 a M f00tl 1331[ 1 ~ e s 109 +1 W pii]3C o rliYeuise°1 d; 0»07 s 311, pw 'Qq ' NadSY ^O A11D - / { IR Yoi XS.vlfw3ln 1 Y L A07 / ~ 6 Pl O ~ ., ~# S _ L pJi Y1]3l3 i[O~i4,p • 3 II C OC [.I EZ[ Yp. X3~3ip3 j Z3 I ~ ~~ Y 39 ¢[00 AYM 0 tm n.iY"c ~ \ si ." ] .rte , r.an 10.i. xl ar _~_~~ _ ~ / aol os~ / \ Y lOl ~WtlN 1J313 ["wl3 OZMy : Y. / ne 31Ye op1'e u0~i zYlwo T s I to, a0 zi ~wsz mY a-. ~ S 3,[ y,~ S [ Nsw 1Y1. tz lora of 3ooe tv,e~~" ~ ~ 1. 3 fl~Yre ~ I rrn lNlpOON00 1 I..sl.ax3z mi3is A~Y7H aasann vi1v9 • t°, to, j zz ~e vz~ w, x,110 NOI SIAI OanS dWpYaK iSBr .arse 3.os. soa.[ el dO K ..CI.IZAO M [ 1 411. pZ.ZI M vnKlo 031 n3. 3X11 R \' nY3tl . w I1 ° I io9 ~ ~ z, ~ P __._. _ xaauu.~ aitsr~ ewsx a3a ~6 h YI 109 f~v ~m /.. /.. N'. L' /. / .~A'~ Y ',, I' LI 109 •' 6Ci03tl35 v 31 l CPJ ~ ` - b[N tli3 aCVCY0MC03i~3VMT •...• .x31313 ~..~..... - !.~V S Y 91 lOl •I: " .m I 3Y.1[ NYO, ,~ i I 101 '~ 'I` g ~ V.. fem. \\~~~ vy ° % zaz ixisoo Yw1° `.os31i°~ ~ ~.~ r sQOOnc~uoi.~o~ Hiin~ c~~uTZ ~~~ ~au~iu~r ~~~~~yv~~ ,~. ~: ;~+~~ ~~ I ~ ~ Y ` ~ 1. 1 ~~ 1~ ~CF ~ ~ ~~~ `" 1 ~ ~` ~.gy~yylyiii}771 ~, # 1. ~~~ 1~ { 1 I~IIS~a 21~'Illa~I~RI~A S~SIIOH H:a2IIS X~~7S AAOQ~~L1I ~ OAS i ~~,*: C , ~~~~ s~ laas aulssrx~ Q~HS ~au~u~i~~ aulssTx~ ~~ LJ ~'•~ ~~' ~~, .. . r .- r ~~',~ -' r •• ~,'yla : , _',~ 'L2!•,.~ - ~ ^~ ~ a~ Syr .. n. ~sL+ vusu Wel IIBIB YIUWO'If01llJSY [SYIJBYIJ YN31Y9 LL111050I2 3NIIJJ1LIpJMY SNY3W :UBBYtl'J UW['AY1V Ui NOISSI W WOJ JNINOZ''8 JNINNY'Id N3dSY Notsstwens yNawamanaa tlNn flaNNrta A2131fl<1I8J 31Lnfl U8M C s 3 ®+,;;® M LO/II Su ]9n1-9ry11,9 AaTIS 13 00l tl P N a.9TC 7{7iY~0 ~119Y7 b low 1'JIJJO /Frl a?--} 9SY10?11T0~ I l :I of r ' x i ' I '' ~~....... d z 7 ~I ~g'7 31.i4b7 ~ ~1 0 l~ `^~.-. ~1-IN3nY H1t105 m~nv _,...~. 1{ y P P 5 P M z J~~ n .r m 9 r 0 J ~_ b P o f 3 P p ~ ~ 9 _~ h4doY7ti(7O. LYa9tLL+1oS a~ CBffo-Yf itaof-In 1.~aa+Liva1.1 ...,.p-- \~ e1 f o \ Y 1 S1MI+'awq i.ni~n Clle6 nmvf o ~ - ~( tlOM ~ /i ~ / , ~ ~ ~ ~ M S ~ ~ ~ ~ ___ __ i ~ i ~~ , t i i inoC2Al.! 9iYS * ~ 6 -LS3 ii ~~ i 7~lQ 10 ~ 7Y,a ~~, ~ C lob I~ 1 i I~ -rYlanfl I ~ ~\~~~~ / av VA ~~~ /\~ Q(~ -~.-n ~~ - ~ -'` 0 0 r n Z 0 a a } Z 1 7 Q 3 Z 5411't µrr aMT1~2531 a rcfl d o Houvx~-I d 4 r -- y ~ ~ dCyy Llr lh'Hca lvo' v8nc b Js Oll'kj b-uYl NU~,1 1S1 h. B yp1 ~~b ~~ Q ~~ ~3 J OGI[Hf IOl91 II91Y'OOVtlOlU9 YI~SY SiM 199tl1S YNlIY~J 9W109OIi HNf11~9JJBJtlV SNY:UY LHVM'J 6WS~AYW 02 ~'~ NOISSIWWOJ JNINOZ'8 JNINNY'Id N3dSY ''. NOISSIWBfIS .LN'~1Id073AdU J.INfl OBNNV"Id AN8.L3W~7.W.I1803N y~ aS ~~~ O- o-i I = '~1'C:IS ~ ~ ~ ~?~\ ~n,~ ay S~ ~i N~'Ici ~ C o \ I 1~ __ _ _~~~ S ® ® M 3 N ,__1-~ ~T P ' A R ~d tt -. ' -- \ \ _ _ _-o ~--- 'f M 1 -c_d of . ~~~ ~j N'1"IIM IN 06 X07 S9ye1 SL H7aId "'~'y*~Q -a 74O*I~J ~v1Y1'I ar91l1~"'t 1-YJb~d 'Z'14~4 £ R 10'I'. ~ ~ 10-I C ~~ C ~. V q u~ 9i c a ~e ~yyi~ <7 ~~~ r a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~ .3$~'a 8~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~g ~~ i ~` , _ / Q J \\ _ _. _- ~.. -._2 .. - _.. - .,. nay ^i d~~~ A -~ ~__` .{ dpp _-_-_. _~> j_~. _._- __. . + ~ „ ~ L$ in `~ ' d ' i s ~,'~ n ~ o,~£ d ~o 8da J~ Y i I e I o d 0 ~~ L-~y 8 ~~~e as~ s~€~~~i~$i~ gry~e~ ~~®~ci ~s, a33 i E8 ~ ~~z~s~ ~~_~ ~~~~~g~~~~4 z oZ I ~° ~: I gN rp7~ ~~0 9i ~~ ~y~8~ i ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~6 <~ a Q _+ -m W J N J d `~ 1 a d a a I I G ~'l5 TtoO"13 qh I ~~ ,.. "C3 .-.. N CC3 ~ •'~' CCR .,~ .~ •~ ~~ o W a~~ ~V N U ~ q~ - .-5 t - - ~ - ., arra,+.s.~:t~,~~e+araa - -- - .i:.....Li=.:,-.,:._.~. -~rr~a:c~.e,.~.. ... ,~.-~.~. - _.__ -- ~R ~'/~..~ N a~ U 0 ~~ ~ O ~ N ai N ~w C7 ~ 0 .. cad cC 0 .~ h 0 .~ rC a 0 a 0 O H ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, U ~ ~ ~ ~ '3 Q .~ ~, o ~ v ~ ~ ~,~~~ °~' ~ o bn,~ ~ ~ ~ cd '~ b ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~.O ~^O ,~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ C ~ ~ O 5 .~ ~~ ~.~; ~ ~~~~~~ o ~~ ~~~`~~~ po ~ oo ~ ~ ° po U O C~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~'~ ti a~ ~~ E~ ~~~ ~~~ 3~~ c~ oc~ 'S~~ --+ hl c~ ,~ ~ i 0 ~ o ~ o i a~ ~ ~ ~ 4) ~ ~ ~ O `n ~ p O o ~ o ~'~ o ~ ~ ~ o a ..c~~ ~~~~ 3 cd ~ 'C ~ .b ~ O ~ v~ .~ G) bA ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ J-, ~ °~ ~, ~~~~~oo N ~ 0~~C.. '~ ~ ~ a ~ v~ c3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~~ 5 ~ ~~~ ~ ono w ~a~~~3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ "~~ y, ~, w ~ ~~,~ •-~ fV M ... ~~~ cd~c~'L' 0. ~ .'9 G C ~ 'C 'i~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~ H 3~~~33'd~ a~ Q~ C7 ~ ~ U Ow UG ~S ~~ A~ ~x ~~ U ~~ U O N ~^-, m ~~ a a 0 .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ H AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~~?.~ ~x q-)t 'e/'~~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of~the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by ~firsy~lass postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the currerit tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: t'~oy~-mil f~G~ 26 ra J`-~~> 200 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this ,~ day of t~C~ ~ 200, by ,~"Yw,-_~ Hof a N n RE: REDS TTE CEMETERY; GROWTH MANAGEME REVIEW FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FAC ITY, CONSOLIDATED PUO REVIEW, A AN AM EN OM ENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZO GMAP WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: (~~ ~10 ~o^lol b (`°f Notazy Public LAURA ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: "+~ ~o ~EYER Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on October 4.2009. [4092208) IF THE PUBLICATION ~CRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ~v '~ ~' THE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL ACENCIES`~~~s 0811012010 L ANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE ,•,~ n~~UIRED BYC.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 eMl M1 I C Irol O M Aspen Ciry Connell A`~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~D~ -""-"~ 1 ~'~`Q ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: B ~-'~ a-6 , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitl:in ) I, ~ ~ ~ Y'~ u c~~"'R`^ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (I S) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, ~~~aterprooFinaterials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and t~wntc-six (261 inches high, and which was composed of letters nut less than one inch in hci~_ht. Said notice was posted in a conspicuous place on the subject property at Icast lil~teen (I j) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible li'om the At day of 0 t~°~ . ?OOa , to and including the date and time of the public hearing..-1 phulq~ruph ofrhe pa.c/eel rn~lire (.ri~,n) i.r uuuched hereto. ~6/ui/ing oj~nutice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Comtuwiity Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govemm~ent, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmentnl agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on nest page) 2esoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall he waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ,1 V """_ Signahtre "fhe foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this( day of (QY~~-f~-~.L , X00 Q, by l~ ~C~^ ~u`C(h (YIQ~'1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My mission expires: ~ ~~~ ~ Notarv Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RED BUTTE CEMETERY; GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, October 26~', 2009, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Alan Richman Planning Services on behalf of the Red Butte Cemetery Association for Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, Consolidated PUD Review, and an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map to allow for the construction of a maintenance facility and for restoration of the Victorian-era cabin and outhouse at the Red Butte Cemetery. The property owner, Red Butte Cemetery Association, PO Box 194, Aspen, CO 81611 will be represented by Alan Richman Planning Services. The Red Butte Cemetery is located at 808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611, and is legally described as Section 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of 6`~ P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen, pazcel ID No. 273512200851, Aspen, Colorado 81611. For further information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611, (970) 429-2739, drew.alexander@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on October 4, 2009 City of Aspen Account Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® 1245 BUNNY COURT LLC C/O DAVID HYMAN PO BOX 1954 ASPEN, CO 81612 APPLEBY ALANA ~ BLAKE PO BOX 9382 ASPEN, CO 81612 j ~-...Feed Paper ASPEN VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION PO BOX 1639 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAXTER DR J STERLING PO BOX C ASPEN, CO 81612 BLACK BETSY P 44125 E HWY 82 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARR RICHARD 8 JENNIFER 1285 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHALOUPKA DONALD & VIRGINIA M 561 TRAILW OOD CIR WINDSOR, CO 80550 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN 726 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIDSON DONALD 864 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ERDMAN CINDA W & DONNELLEY 1270 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 Bend along line to expose Pop-Up Edger"' j 777 CLUB LLC 777 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GOLF PRO SHOP C/O SSI VENTURE LLC 299 MILWAUKEE ST k502 DENVER, CO 80206-5045 BACHMANN BRAD STERN MICHELLE 63 S BENTON WOOD CIR THE WOODLANDS, TX 77382 BEALS ROBERT 606 SPRING ST MACON, GA 31201 BLACK BIRCH ESTATES LLC 6925 HILL FOREST DR DALLAS, TX 75230 CASE JULIE KENNER 1265 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M 8 CANDICE L 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 DAN KS LAURA 845 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLANDER ALAN S 805 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 GEORGE DANIEL R DR 630 E HYMAN AVE STE 22 ASPEN, CO 61611 a AVERY 5160® 1 ALTFELD PHILIP Z TRUST ALTFELD MARIANN S TRUST 1250 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN SB PROPERTY LLC 4101 PERIMETER CENTER DR #350 OKLAHOMA CITY. OK 73112 BARABE CAROLYN 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 BERKO NORA 1230 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CALLAHAN CYNTHIA TRUST 74.95% C/O CALLAHAN JOHN E 750 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CERISE JAMES M 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN ATTN FINANCE DEPT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN. CO 81611 DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT PO BOX 5141 ASPEN, CO 81612 ENGLANDER ALAN S TRUST 323 RAILROAD AVE GREENWICH, CT 06836 GIANCARLO FAMILY TRST 36 EUCLID AVE ATHERTON. CA 94027 ~tiquettes faciles ~ peter ; ~ Repliez ! la hachure afro de , vvww.avery.com Sens de Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160® ! _~_______. r~v~ler le rebord Poo-Uo*M ! 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels i • ~ Bend along tine to i ' a /~~R\/® 5160® Use Avery® Template 5160® `feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeT"' ~ j /"'~ 1 r `„J GOLDEN PHILIP A & ANNABEL H GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR REV GRUMBACHER M THOMAS 1235 SNOWBUNNY LN TRUST BON-TON STORES INC ASPEN CO 81611 C/O ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD PO BOX 2821 , 121 INTERPARK BLVD STE 308 YORK, PA 17405 SAN ANTONIO, TX 7816 GUBSER MARGARET B HAMILL SHELLY A & ROBERT L HOMEYER EVE 1227 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR PO BOX HS 194 810 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 SMITHS BERMUDA, HSBX ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUTSMA BOB81 ANN HUDSON FRASHER ANN HYMAN DAVID 1278 SNOWBUNNY LN #2 616 TEXAS ST REID BARBARA P ASPEN CO 81611 FORT WORTH TX 76102 PO BOX 1954 , , ASPEN, CO 81612 JBL KEYSTONE LLC JOHNSON PETER C 8 SANDRA K KENDALL PHILLIP A PO BOX 8355 51 OVERLOOK DR 2121 WOOD AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 KIMBROUGH MARY JO KOPF CAROL ANN R DONALD W LA COUTER WILLIAM R 830 CEMETERY LN PO BOX 956 1220 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LATTA HELEN S CONDUIT TRUST LINDEN LANE LLC LOWEY MARILYN 28 LA CUMBRE CIR C/O PAMELA ROSENAU 1215A SNOWBUNNY LN SANTA BARBARA CA 93105-4442 1721 STONE CANYON RD ASPEN, CO 81611 , LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 LPRP RIVER LLC 50% LUX ASPEN LLC MAPLE MICHAEL C & JULIE LPRP MILL LLC 50% 1252 SNOW BUNNY LN 1250 MTN VIEW DR 1100 BLACK BIRCH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MCGILVRAY JOYCE 8 ALEXANDER C MCPHERSON DOUGLAS J 8 SUSAN L MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN TRSTE PO BOX 4412 CHURCH 325 ARLINGTON DR ASPEN CO 81612 1235 MTN VIEW DR PASADENA, CA 91105 , ASPEN, CO 81611 NICHOLS GAIL H ORE BUCKET ASSOCIATES POGLIANO FELIX JR C S TRUST 38.46% 1220 SNOWBUNNY LN C/O WILLOW CONNERY 525 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 1944 HUDSON ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80220 POGLIANO LENORE L 61.54% PORTER JOE ALLEN & MARGARET A ROSEN JACQUELINE S 1110 BLACK BIRCH DR 1270 SNOWBUNNY LN 1285 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~tiquettes faciles ~ peter ~ ~ Repliez ! la hachure afin de ; Sens de vvww.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® ~ reveler le rebord Pop-UpT"' ' } chargement l 1.800-GO-AVERY ' i Easy Peep Labels i • ~ Bend along Ifne to i Use Avery®Template 5160® 1 "' ° Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeT~ ~ i^~, ~ AVERY 5160 1 J ROTH EDWIN MORTON REV TRUST ROW LANDS DONNA K REV TRST SAH TRUST SCHNEIDER SARAH A FBO 1225 SNOW BUNNY LN PO BOX 8310 450 PLYMOUTH RD #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 PLYMOUTH MEETING, PA 19462 SAUSSUS GUY & MARTINE SCHEFLER ARNO 0 SHAW RICHARD W & SARAH C 3015 BRYAN ST #3A PO BOX 1005 1220 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHLOMOS ON THE GREEN SNOWBUNNY LLC SNOWBUNNY LP 39551 HWY 82 9051 WATSON RD #333 2529 E INDIAN MOUND RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63126 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 SPIRITAS A/K 1991 TRUST STEGE J B STEGE LELIA TAYLOR 2900 N FITZHUGH #200 PO BOX 6355 830 CEMETERY LN DALLAS, TX 75204-3204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 STRAUS TRACY J STRICKSTEIN FAMILY TRUST TAML HOLDINGS LTD 112 W 18TH ST #3A 12599 E SILVER SPUR 3120 ROGERDALE #150 NEW YORK, NY 10011 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259 HOUSTON, TX 77042 THOMPSON DONNA M TRUST TOWER CHARLES D TREADWELL DONNA 1208 SNOWBUNNY LN PO BOX 3014 1200 CALIFORNIA ST #10C ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 UKRAINE LINDA W REV TRUST WALL CHARLES R REV TRUST WEIMANN PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 10844 777 CASTLE CREEK DR 775 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEISS CLIFFORD & STACEY WILPON JEFFREY & VALERIE WINCHESTER ROBERT P 1280 SNOWBUNNY LN 14 BROAD RD PO BOX 5000 ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06830 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ZANIN FAMILY INVST LLC ZIMET MILLARD & SUSAN 00308 MC SKIMMING RD 1315 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles i; peter ; ~ Repliez ~ Ia hachure aftn de ; www.averycom Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160® .Sens de rg~gler le rebord Poo-UOT" ! 1-800-GO-AVERY ~, MEMORANDUM ~VI Ic TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~~~ FROM: Drew Alexander, Community Development, Planner Technician RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery -Public Hearing MEETING DATE: October 26, 2009 (continue to 11/09/09) GENERAL BACKGROUND: On May 22nd of 2009, Alan Richman Planning Services, on behalf of the Red Butte Cemetery Association, submitted a Land Use Application for a site specific development plan at the Red Butte Cemetery. The scope of work includes constructing a maintenance facility and a restoration of the Victorian-era cabin and outhouse. The project has received Conceptual Approval from HPC and approval for Conditional Use by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission has also provided recommendations for the remaining reviews (Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility, Consolidated PUD, and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map). The Applicant has agreed to continue the Appeal to November 9`h in light of October 26`h'S large agenda. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuing the hearing to November 9`" CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to continue the public hearing for the Red Butte Cemetery Association to November 9`h, 2009" Attachments: Exhibit A: Letter from Alan Richman Planning Services ,~ ~xfFir3 i? >~ ~~ l~cc~utcaat ~ ~Qa~urus y Se~zuice~ iyex 3673 ~4aJrea, eolaaada 81612 PkaKe/'~ax (470)920-7725 October 16, 2009 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Jennifer, aniekura+c(a~aafvua.Ket The second reading of Ordinance 21, Series of 2009, the proposed PUD for the Red Butte Cemetery, is scheduled to occur on October 26. Earlier this week you called to inform me that the City Council agenda for that evening is quite full, due to several other major items being continued to that date. You asked if the Cemetery Association would consider continuing the public hearing until the next Council meeting, scheduled for November 9. , The Cemetery Association agrees to continue the scheduled public hearing until November 9, to allow City Council to complete its other scheduled business on October 26. We would ask, however, that this item be placed on the agenda for that date in a slot that will ensure that the hearing takes place that night. The President of the Cemetery Association, Mr. John Thorpe, will be in Aspen that night but will not be available for subsequent City Council meetings. We think it is very important that he be present to answer any questions that City Council or the public may have regarding our plans, and so we want to make sure that this project gets heard on November 9. I would like to reiterate my offer to take any City Council member for a tour of the site if they so desire. Please have them contact me individually if they wish to take the tour. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES ~..- ~ Alan Richman, AICP s~~ ~cc(uiut~~ n ~ s S'ez 3613 ~4c~ier, eolasada 51612 PlwKe/~ax (970)42o- 1125 October 16, 2009 Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Jennifer, nrie(uca+c a(1ae~ucia.Ket The second reading of Ordinance 21, Series of 2009, the proposed PUD for the Red Butte Cemetery, is scheduled to occur on October 26. Earlier this week you called to inform me that the City Council agenda for that evening is quite full, due to several other major items being continued to that date. You asked if the Cemetery Association would consider continuing the public hearing until the next Council meeting, scheduled for November 9. The Cemetery Association agrees to continue the scheduled public hearing until November 9, to allow City Council to complete its other scheduled business on October 26. We would ask, however, that this item be placed on the agenda for that date in a slot that will ensure that the hearing takes place that night. The President of the Cemetery Association, Mr. John Thorpe, will be in Aspen that night but will not be available for subsequent City Council meetings. We think it is very important that he be present to answer any questions that City Council or the public may have regarding our plans, and so we want to make sure that this project gets heard on November 9. I would like to reiterate my offer to take any City Council member for a tour of the site if they so desire. Please have them contact me individually if they wish to take the tour. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES ~..- 2_0 Alan Richman, AICP AGENDA ..-.. ~~ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, July 21, 2008 5:00 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Red Butte Cemetery, PUD B. 434 E. Cooper (Bidwell Building) Commercial Design Referral VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 11 .-. ~ ., ~, ./ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE RIJQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (1;;), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~~~5 ~-¢~`~' ~ t~ ~^e ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: . C d ~~~ L~ , X00 q STATE OF COLORADO ~ ss. County of Pitl:in ) l• ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~-o- (name, plesse print) being or representing an t\pplicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that [halve complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: J Pufilication of notice: By the publication in die legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (] ~) days prior to d1e public hearing. A copy of the publication is attachec(hereto. J Pusrin,~' of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from dte Community Development Department, which was made of suitable. ~c,ucrpruohnuucrials. ~chich ~cas not less than uventy-two (~~) inches wide anal t~cenn-,ix (?6J inches hi_~h.:and ~chich ~c.u composed of I~ttcrs nut c.;, than Mme inch in hci~~ht. tiaid notice ~c:u pn,tcd in a cunspicu~nu place un ~h~ ,object property ut ~CUSI lilteen (I ~) day, prior to the public hearin~~ and ~~u; cuntinuuuslc visible from the ~_ dac ul~ J~~_.'_UO ~. lu amt includin~_ the data and time of the public hearing. .J phwn;ruph a/Ihr p~,~ird I1nllCP (RlgRl i,c uNUCIICd hrl'Plu. Ilui/in~~ oJnoiice. By the mailing oCu notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofdie Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (l5) days prim to Che public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class, postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application, and, at least fifteen (li) days prior to Che public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-govermnental agency drat owns property within duce hundred (300) feet of the property subject ro the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shalt be those on [he eun'ent tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of dle public hearing. A copy o/the ntinners crud govern~nentcrl agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (roniinucd on nest page) ~, Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Tide and enactment of a new land use regulation, or od~erwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of; and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (li) days prior t~o d1e public hearing on such amendments. Signahi e I~he foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a nowledvq~d ~be~fore me this e2( dtry ofc~ , X00 ~, by ~t~ l~-(:VLVYICLo'1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL pRY PUg~i ' ~`y' My cu unission expires: ~ ~ ~~~-- ~ENEY ; o ~ ~ ' ~ t~ .o . -- w %P ~'utan_ Public lF n r0~~ ATTACHM)/NTS: COPY OF THE PURLlCATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOT/CE (S/GN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MA/L .., ~' PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RED BUTTE CEMETERY; GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 21~`, 2009, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application to construct a maintenance facility with a work yard and to renovate the historic Victorian-era cabin on the cemetery property. The application requires the following review: approval for Growth Management Review of an Essential Public Facility, Consolidated PUD Review, Conditional Use Review, and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map. The application was submitted by Alan Richman, on behalf of the Red Butte Cemetery Association, 808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611. The subject property under review is legally described as Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of 6`h P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen, also known as 808 Cemetery Lane (commonly referred to as the Red Butte Cemetery). The parcel number for the subject property is 2735- 12-2-00-851. For fwther information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611, (970) 429-2739, Drew.Alexander@ci.aspen.co.us s/LJ Ersaamer Planning and Zoning Chair Published in the Aspen Times on June 28`h, 2009 City of Aspen Account .-, ,... Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery®Template 5160® 1245 BUNNY COURT LLC C/0 DAVID HYMAN PO BOX 1954 ASPEN, CO 81612 APPLEBY ALANA 8 BLAKE PO BOX 9382 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~ ~ Bend almng line to Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge*"' i ASPEN VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION PO BOX 1639 ASPEN, CO 81612 BAXTER DR J STERLING PO BOX C ASPEN, CO 81612 BLACK BETSY P 44125 E HWY 82 ASPEN, CO 81611 CARR RICHARD & JENNIFER 1285 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHALOUPKA DONALD & VIRGINIA M 561 TRAILWOOD CIR WINDSOR, CO 80550 CROSSROADS CHURCH OF ASPEN 726 W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIDSON DONALD 864 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 FEER ALYSSA E 8 M PETER 2501 BRIARWOOD DR BOULDER, CO 80305-6803 777 CLUB LLC 777 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN GOLF PRO SHOP C/O SSI VENTURE LLC 299 MILWAUKEE ST #502 DENVER, CO 80206-5045 BACHMANN BRAD STERN MICHELLE 63 S BENTON WOOD CIR THE WOODLANDS, TX 77382 BEALS ROBERT 606 SPRING ST MACON, GA 31201 BLACK BIRCH ESTATES LLC 6925 HILL FOREST DR DALLAS, TX 75230 CASE JULIE KENNER 1265 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CHRISTENSEN ROBERT M 8 CANDICE L 1240 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN. CO 81611 DANKSLAURA 845 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ENGLANDER ALAN S TRUST 323 RAILROAD AVE GREENWICH, CT 06836 GEORGE DANIEL R DR 630 E HYMAN AVE STE 22 ASPEN, CO 81611 ~. ~ AVERY® s16o® 1 `../ ALTFELD PHILIP Z TRUST ALTFELD MARIANN S TRUST 1250 SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN SB PROPERTY LLC 4101 PERIMETER CENTER DR #350 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73112 BARABE CAROLYN 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN. CO 81611 BERKO NORA 1230 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CALLAHAN CYNTHIA TRUST 74.95% C/O CALLAHAN JOHN E 750 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 CERISE JAMES M 790 CASTLE CREEK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN ATTN FINANCE DEPT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIDSON ARIAIL SCOTT PO BOX 5141 ASPEN, CO 81612 ERDMAN CINDA W 8 DONNELLEY 2155 BIRNAM WOOD DR SANTA BARBARA, CA 93108-2299 GIANCARLO FAMILY TRST 36 EUCLID AVE ATHERTON.CA 94027 f=tiquette5 faciles a peter ~ Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de^` reveler le rebord Pee-Uo*" 1-B00-GO-AVFRV Easy Peel® Labels • ~ Bend alon line to Use Avery® Template 5160® ~; Feed Paper expose Pop Up Edger" ~ AVERY 5160® ~~ 1 GOLDEN PHILIP A & ANNABEL H GOLDSBURY CHRISTOPHER JR REV GRUMBACHER M THOMAS 1235 SNOW BUNNY LN TRUST BON-TON STORES INC ASPEN, CO 81611 C/0 ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES LTD PO BOX 2821 121 INTERPARK BLVD STE 308 YORK, PA 17405 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78216 GUBSER MARGARET B 1227 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 HAMILL SHELLY A & ROBERT L PO BOX HS 194 SMITHS BERMUDA. HSBX HOMEYER EVE 810 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 HOUTSMABOBBIANN 1278 SNOW BUNNY LN #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 JBL KEYSTONE LLC PO BOX 8355 ASPEN, CO 81612 KIMBROUGH MARY JO 830 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 LATTA HELEN S CONDUIT TRUST 28 LA CUMBRE CIR SANTA BARBARA, CA 93105-4442 LPRP RIVER LLC 50% LPRP MILL LLC 50% 1100 BLACK BIRCH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MCGILVRAY JOYCE & ALEXANDER C TRUTE 325 ARLINGTON DR PASADENA, CA 91105 MESSIAH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH 1235 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 POGLIANO FELIX JR C S TRUST 38.46% 525 W HALLAM ST ASPEN, CO 81611 HUDSON FRASHER ANN 616 TEXAS ST FORT WORTH, TX 7610 JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K 51 OVERLOOK DR ASPEN, CO 81611-1008 KOPF CAROL ANN & DONALD W PO BOX 956 ASPEN, CO 81612 LINDEN LANE LLC C/0 PAMELA ROSENAU 1721 STONE CANYON RD LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 LUX ASPEN LLC 1252 SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 MCPHERSON DOUGLAS J & SUSAN L PO BOX 4412 ASPEN, CO 81612 NICHOLS GAIL H 1220 SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 POGLIANO LENORE L 61.54% 1110 BLACK BIRCH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 HYMAN DAVID REID BARBARA P PO BOX 1954 ASPEN. CO 81612 KENDALL PHILLIP A 2121 WOOD AVE COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80907 LA COUTER WILLIAM R 1220 SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 LOWEY MARILYN 1215A SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 MAPLE MICHAEL C & JULIE 1250 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MELVILLE RALPH P & MARIAN H MELVILLE GRAIG W & TERESA M LEE- 1286 SNOW BUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 ORE BUCKET ASSOCIATES C/0 WILLOW CONNERY 1944 HUDSON ST DENVER, CO 80220 PORTER JOE ALLEN & MARGARET A 1270 SNOWBUNNY LN ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes facites a peter ~ Repliez a la hachure afin de www.aver .com Utilisez le aaharit 4VPRV® 5160® ,Sens de a aie ie _`_,~ °__ ~ ~ .~ e Y _`. i Easy Peel® Labels ,,,,~ ~ ~ Bend along line to ~ gVERY® stw® ® ® Feed Paper expose Pap-Up EdgeT"' "^~. 1 Use Avery Template 5160 ~ ~ ~ , ` ~ ROSEN JACQUELINE S ROTH EDWIN MORTON REV TRUST ROWLANDS DONNA K REV TRST 1285 SNOW BUNNY LN 1225 SNOW BUNNY LN PO BOX 8310 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAUSSUS GUY & MARTINE SCHEFLER ARNO D SHAW RICHARD W 8 SARAH C 3015 BRYAN ST #3A PO BOX 1005 1220 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR DALLAS, TX 75204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHLOMOS ON THE GREEN SNOW BUNNY LLC SNOW BUNNY LP 39551 HWY 82 9051 WATSON RD #333 2529 E INDIAN MOUND RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ST LOUIS, MO 63126 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 SPIRITAS A/K 1991 TRUST STEGE J 8 STEGE LELIA TAYLOR 2900 N FITZHUGH #200 PO BOX 8355 830 CEMETERY LN DALLAS. TX 75204-3204 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 STRAUS TRACY J STRICKSTEIN FAMILY TRUST TAML HOLDINGS LTD 112 W 18TH ST #3A 12599 E SILVER SPUR 3120 ROGERDALE #150 NEW YORK, NY 10011 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259 HOUSTON, TX 77042 THOMPSON DONNA M TRUST TOWER CHARLES D TREADWELL DONNA 1208 SNOW BUNNY LN PO BOX 3014 1200 CALIFORNIA ST #10C ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 UKRAINE LINDA W REV TRUST WALL CHARLES R REV TRUST WEIMANN PROPERTIES LLLP PO BOX 10844 777 CASTLE CREEK DR 775 CEMETERY LN ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WEISS CLIFFORD & STACEY WILPON JEFFREY & VALERIE WINCHESTER ROBERT P 1280 SNOW BUNNY LN 14 BROAD RD PO BOX 5000 ASPEN, CO 81611 GREENWICH, CT 06830 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ZANIN FAMILY INVST LLC ZIMET MILLARD & SUSAN 00308 MC SKIMMING RD 1315 MTN VIEW DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Etiquettes faciles a peter ~ Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com i ~rlflcoo Ic en ha rir CVFRY® 5160® `Sens de^ reveler le rebord Pop-Up*" 1-800-GO-AVERY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF Aspen, CO SCHED~J~ED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: yJ1~ ,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~ ~~ /~ `~~"r~~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~_ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public heazing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public he~ring and was continuously visible from the day of , 200~~to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posed notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community j Development Department, which contains the information described in Section T(f 26.394,060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by fits6class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the prop~tty spbject to the development application. The names and addresses of properfx°owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appetited no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public heazing. A cpg~u,-~,rt~owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) ~ ~, Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifreen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~- Signature The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thisli~ day of -~~,h ~ , 200, by ~cb1 ~ ~~~n, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL P RLIC E RE: REO BUTTE C ETERY; GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVI FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, NSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, CONDITION USE REVIEW. AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE FFICIAL ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be heltl on Tuestlay, July 21st, 2009, at a My commission expires: ~GtnG~(, . ~~~ Notary ub~lic Vest of 6th P '.o known as ea to as the number for For tunher information, tooted Drew Alexantler a1 the Gfy of Aspen Community Development De- partment, 130 5 Galena SL, Aspen, CO 91611, (9]0) 429-2]39, D AI tl r®c' o us IsAJ Erspamer Planning antl Zoninq Chair Publishetl in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 28th, 2009. I3630934~ TTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: ~°,~ ~BLICATION ~F THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ' 7VERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE O WiVp'y1C6Ie1E~ites Os25 ":.,.'~ YC.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Page 1 of 1 X-Eon-Dm: dm0207 X-Eon-Sig: AQL9tRdKbhCOgLg88wIAAAAD,dbdaf3a79ac30aba431e9ceca52a05dc From: "graeme means" <graeme@sopris.neV To: "Alan Richman" <arichman@sopris.net> Cc: "John Thorpe" <thorpejet@msn.com>, "Stoney Davis" <dstoned@comcast.neV Subject: Response to P&Z conditions Date: Mon, 27 Ju12009 14:40:23 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mai18.5.392 [270.13.32/2266] a) Who comes up with the "ongoing management strategy for vegetation...", what does it consist of, and when is it due? b) I have forgotten the exact conversation and decision in the meeting. Is this condition OK with Stoney and John? d) This condition needs commas after "building" and "maintained" to read well. Also, the 5 foot setback seems to apply to the whole property. I believe our intention is to limit the setback to the Activity Envelope only as we are trying to avoid a masterplan of the whole property. I suggest the following: " A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Survey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that area of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the Spoils Cribs as indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the f this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similar to that shown i etail S, dge of Bank contained in the Planning and Zoning Commission Submission Packet." Graeme No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 /Virus Database: 270.13.32/2266 -Release Date: 07/27/09 05:58:00 file://C:\DOCUME~I\ALANRhI\LOCALS~I\Temp\eudlBD.htm1 07/27/09 Resolution No. 11 (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, AMMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 808 CEMETERY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITHIN COUNTY,COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-12-2-00-851 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Major Development (Conceptual) application from the Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6a' P.m., City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, at their regulaz meeting on December 10, 2008 (after opening and continuing the public hearing on this matter on January 9, 2008, February 27, 2008, and June 11, 2008) the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of 5 to 0 under Resolution No. 30, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant held apre-application conference with Community Development staff; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an application for Conditional Use Review, Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management for Essential Public Facilities; and, WHEREAS, a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held with the Applicant on June, 24`" 2009 and comments and recommendations were gathered from the City of Aspen Parks, Engineering, and Building departments, along with comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; and, WHEREAS, the approval recommendations from the referral departments have been added to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, a publicly noticed site visit was held on July 15a', 2009; and, RECEPTION#: 562525, 09/04!2009 at 09:17:25 AM, Resolution No ] 1, Series 2009 1 of 9, R $46.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 7 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO A, w. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the application upon recommendation from the Community Development Department on July 2151, 2009 during a noticed public heazing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standazds and that the approval and recommendation of approval of the land use requests is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfaze; and, WHEREAS, The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the application by a unanimous vote of 6 - 0 by those present. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Review and recommends approval of: Consolidated PUD Review, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map, and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility to City Council, based on the following conditions. a) The Red Butte Cemetery Association shall develop an ongoing management strategy in coordination with the City of Aspen Pazks Department for the vegetation on site, specifically the cottonwoods. This applies both to existing conditions on the southern portion of the property and the planned expansion northward. The expansion should be generally consistent with the existing chazacter and pattern of the vegetation and grid system found in the southern portion of the cemetery. b) Storage of heavy equipment shall be within the activity envelope displayed on the site plan. This shall not apply to any easement agreements on the cemetery that provide for equipment to work on the property. c) Heavy equipment or trucks with diesel engines shall be plugged in for engine heat for at least 12 hows prior to starting during winter months when temperatwes are below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. d) A five foot setback from the top of bank (as marked on survey by Aspen Swvey Engineers) shall be provided for all development within the Activity Envelope except for that area of approximately 35 feet adjacent to the spoils cribs as Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 2 of 7 f .~ indicated on the Activity Envelope Plan. In the area of this exclusion, there shall be a boulder retaining wall to protect the edge of bank similaz to that shown in Exhibit A. e) The number of employees generated is determined to be one (1) for the existing use. An employee audit by the Red Butte Cemetery Association shall occur no later than two (2) years after a C/O has been issued. f) The maintenance facility shall not be used as a living unit or as a place to sleep overnight. g) Operation of the maintenance facility shall coincide with daylight hours, excluding emergencies and work undertaken by beneficiaries of any easements upon the cemetery property. Section 2: BuildinH Permit AaPlication The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final recorded Ordinance. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c. If required, a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. d. As applicable, an excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan (CMP), top of bank and stability of hillside plan, tree protection plan and drainage and soils (as mentioned in DRC comments, Exhibits B and C) reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. e. As applicable, a fugitive dust control plan to be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department. f. As applicable, a detailed excavation plan that utilizes vertical soil stabilization techniques, or other techniques, if appropriate and acceptable, for review and approval by the City Engineer. g. Accessibility and ADA requirements shall be addressed to satisfactorily meet adopted building codes. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements Any development on the site shall adhere to the dimensional requirements established in the adopted PUD. The Commission recommends the Following standazds: Resolution No ] 1, Series 2009 Page 3 of 7 ~.~. T_.~_ ,. n___,....,,, n:...e....:,...vi o.....:.e...o..,~ c.. vnn TABLEI DIMENSIONAL REQUIItEMENTS FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY PUD Requirement Proposed Conditions Minimum Lot Size The cemetery is 16.8 acres in size. Minimum Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit Not applicable. Minimum Lot Width The cemetery is a minimum of 1,275 feet wide. Minimum Front Yard The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 340 feet from the front property line. The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of 390 feet from the front properly line. Minimum Side Yazd The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 170 feet from the side property line. The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of 15' from the side property line. Minimum Rear Yard The maintenance facility will be a minimum of 165 feet from the reaz property line. The Victorian cabin and the outhouse will be a minimum of 130 feet from the reaz property line. Maximum Height The maintenance facility will have a height that is a maximum of 20 feet to the peak of the roof. Minimum Distance Between Buildings on The Victorian cabin will be a minimum of ]0' from the the Lot outhouse. Minimum Percent of Open Space A minimum of 95% of the site will be open space. Maximum External Floor Area Ratio The maintenance building will contain a maximum of 1,300 sq. ft. of floor area. The Victorian cabin and outhouse will contain a combined maximum of 275 sq. ft. of floor area. Notes: See Exhibit B which identifies which property boundaries are the front, side and rear yards. Setbacks are measured from building facades, not the envelopes. Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 4 of 7 ,~» ~ ~., Section 4: Eneineerin¢ Building permit submission shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation published by the engineering department. Section 5: Fire Mitieation All codes adopted by the Aspen Fire Protection District shall be met. This includes but is not limited to access (International Fire Code (IFC), 2003 Edition, Section 503), approved fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems (IFC, as amended, Section 903 and 907). Section 6: Water Department Requirements The Applicant shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standazds, with Title 25, and with the applicable standazds of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code, as required by the City of Aspen Watet Department. Section 7: Sanitation District Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which aze on file at the District office. The ACSD also requests that both options for connecting available sewer lines to the maintenance facility be shown on the proposed plans. Section 8: Exterior Lie6tinL All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting for both Residential and Non-residential lighting standards. If there is a conflict between the two regulations, the more restrictive shall apply. Section 9: The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time pemutted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A) of this Chapter. Section 10: Zoning that is not part of the approved site specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 11: Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 5 of 7 ,, r Section 12: The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which aze general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regazd, as a condition of this development approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing by the city. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awazded, whether in public heazing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, aze hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 14• This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 6 of 7 APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 215 day of July, 2009. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING~,ND ZONING `"""" ~~----~~ Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: ._.~ ~°, ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Barrier wall details. Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Pazks DRC comments Exhibit D: Engineering DRC comments Resolution No 11, Series 2009 Page 7 of 7 \ ~xH~rs~r A 1A P 0 N t b -~ry d P T r ;1 ~ ;: ~ r,;p ~~ O K `fC% @y-°p ~`e~a.i f p.F ~ ~-~Q~" I I i i I ~~ I~ ~~ I~ I ~,~~ U p~' W~7 ~~F ~~~ p~ ZIP ~~~ ~ 1 ~ Z Z ~ ~~ ,$ d ~ ~`~ P b _~ _ ~ O LJao ~ v ~zPtt Toy ~~~~ ~~ ~p\~ r 'R Z~~t +~ `~ t Y ~~ m z ~ ~~ ~' z b u>r e W RSI' ~ I ~~~' G~Lg ttq ~~u e'u °'" Ceuocry~uiur-~ J 6 ~ a D v ~ ~ '.._ ` ~. ~~c~~+~rT ~ bi-y H ~hck plCC 4 _ Lai- , ~" °r'-rts 9 y~rL nL.aeW ~I 6l ;';i ey ~ -------; I' '-- ------- il ~~ ~ ~ r/ LLM 6¢f'P~uHC LLTILITL4 ~ K"~ ~wo t u ro~u Ys f ~ ~ . urb` nc~iu~a "yl ~ k,,,, _ / ~` \ \1\ I Z~ OtvcF~ \~ ~. o ~ o i ~ ~ '.\ ~IY~ tl o I~ z ~0~~1 { z ~~® U 1 C o ~x; d ~ ~. d ] 1 u 6 f F d. I Y ~ J J ~ ~. i g ~.. i ! J ,, 0. ~ r u ~ r ~ i 0. ~ °urra r C ~1~~ a:;~ t+R 6 , a a ,: ~; ."" So LLTH 0.vEH4L 4 y GhOr L= f~ cIC6G K P Y K n f411-rvrF !' c YFS~z C Y 3C4 LL` I~~~SO ~-ram $~fc40H SYWCY IX( /t19M io=rr si+gvLY LLLY~IULCILS ~~/n~ Lor 9 uarLe °¢s L-IG OLLg'p tl N F wE r `~1` 5 Vq' V HeEtut¢ 7 uuowucrra 5e4+4LLLrr DcyLleP;y Or~IfJ4 RED BU'i'1'6 CEMETERY PLANNED UNR DEVELOPMENT SUBMISSION ASPBN PLANNING 6 ZONBSC COMMISSION nwr, i eovm~wiinngcnrrmnu na~P. LO1.aMMR~l~ll Ingmsw A (` 4.~ \i \.! DRC Comments Red Butte Cemetery PUD 6-24-09 ACSD Requirements Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. Oil and Sand separators are required for parking garages and vehicle maintenance establishments. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation, perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. Driveway and shop bay external entrance drains must drain to drywells. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. ACSD will allow a tap to either the west or north of the proposed building location. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of ademolition/access-infrastructure/excavation foundation permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. The glycol heating and snow melt system must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. ,-. ,.~. Date: June 2009 City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments Project: Red Butte Cemetery Top of Bank Construction Management and Building permit plans shall include details for top of bank and stability of the hillside during construction. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt fence and erosion control measures placed in a manner preventing erosion and protect the river from residual run-off. Stormwater System Development Fee Due to increase of impervious area on site the Stormwater System Development fee will be triggered during plan review. The Stormwater system development fee is applied to projects that create or disturb more than 500 square feet of impervious azea. The fee is $2.88 per squaze foot of total impervious azea on the site and is calculated and applied during building permit review. Construction Management Plan A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Detailed plans are required prior to council -please see engineering department for specific details. Memorandum Date: June 16, 2009 To: Drew Alexander, Planner From: Brian Flynn, Parks Department Re: Red Butte Cemetery, DRC review -°, ..r P1RRE ~ RE Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for top of bank and stability of the hillside above the trail. The detailed plan shall identify; Location of silt fencing and erosion control along the hillside. The City can provide specifications if needed: minimum requirements include a silt fence and straw bales placed in a manner preventing erosion and protect the river from residual run-off. 2. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Construction staging. This plan shall detail how the construction will take place with staging, storage of materials and locations of vehicles so that trees remaining on site will not be impacted and that the top of slope is protected. 3. Building permit plans shall include a detailed plan submitted for Tree Protection: • Tree protection fences must be in place and inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, and storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree on site. There should be a location and standard for this fencing denoted on the plan. Current -ocations are identified above the 15' set back and along the side yard setbacks. 4. The cemetery should have in place a management and care program for the existing cottonwood trees. Recent damage to the trees and pending impacts /^ q '~ should be addressed through a specific management plan designed by a professional tree care professional. ~. ~.. MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below, if you were not routed and feel that you would like to review the project in detail please contact me: / ........... City Engineer ........... Zoning Officer ........... Housing Department / ,,,,,,,,,,, Parks Department / ........... Aspen Fire Marshal / ..........City Water / ,,,,,,,,,,, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District / ,,,,,,,,... Building Department ........... Environmental Health / ,,,,,,,,,,,Electric Department ........... Holy Cross Electric ........... City Attorney ........... Streets Department ........... Historic Preservation Officer ........... Pitkin County Planning ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator ........... Police ...........Transportation ........... Parking FROM: Drew Alexander; Community Development Department 429.2739 or drew.alexander@ci.aspen.co.us DRC MEETING DATE: Wednesday, June 17th @ 1:30 Council Chambers PACKETS SENT: Friday, June 5th COMMENTS DUE: Friday, June 26th RE: DRC Review -Red Butte Cemetery PUD SUMMARY: The Applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, has requested approval construct a permanent maintenance facility on the eastern portion of the property. The maintenance facility would act as a work yard and storage structure for the vehicles and equipment the cemetery demands for maintenance, including spick-up truck, skid loader, four wheeler and trailer, large riding mower, motorized weed eaters, and various other hand tools. This new maintenance facility would consolidate the cemetery maintenance functions to one location that being the current site of the temporary fabric storage shed. Water and electric are included in the proposal for this facility. This maintenance area would also include cribs that would store the spoils piles from the excavation of burial plots at the cemetery. These cribs would shield the spoils which are currently visible from the surrounding neighborhoods. The Applicant also is proposing to restore the Victorian-era cabin and outhouse that exist on the southeast corner of the site. The Applicant wishes to gently restore the exterior of these structures and do a complete renovation of the interior of the cabin. Electrical service, insulation, Page 1 of 2 ~ --•~ ~.., ..~ and drywall would all be added to the cabin. This renovation is intended to improve the functionality of the cabin operating as a meeting place between users of cemetery and the property manager. This application requires several different approvals from P&Z and City Council. The requirement for the PUD establishment follows those regulations pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.710.240.D, Park (P) Zone District Dimensional Requirements: Page 2 of 2 ~`^, ,,.y PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RED BUTTE CEMETERY; GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, CONSOLIDATED PUD REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 21s', 2009, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application to construct a maintenance facility with a work yard and to renovate the historic Victorian-era cabin on the cemetery property. The application requires the following review: approval for Growth Management Review of an Essential Public Facility, Consolidated PUD Review, Conditional Use Review, and an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map. The application was submitted by Alan Richman, on behalf of the Red Butte Cemetery Association, 808 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611. The subject psroperty under review is legally described as Sections I and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of 6' P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen, also known as 808 Cemetery Lane (commonly referred to as the Red Butte Cemetery). The parcel number for the subject property is 2735- 12-2-00-851. For further information, contact Drew Alexander at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611, (970) 429-2739, Drew.Alexander@ci.aspen.co.us s/I,J Erspamer Planning and Zoning Chair Published in the Aspen Times on June 28`s, 2009 City of Aspen Account THE CITY OF ASPEN `'' Fee Wai~r Request Form City of Aspen Community Development Department This form should be completed and submitted to the Community Development Director for review. You will be notified when a decision has been made to waive or not to waive the fees regarded in this request form. Forwhat fees are you requesting waiver? ~ BUILDING ~ PLANNING Applicant Name: ~ ~~k< <r-~^~ yssoc, Mailing address: ~ -G ax i0.y as E-mail address-. oa-~~nne.k ~ cov~c.~rs-1. Project name & address: `~-0 g-'~¢ ~-e-w.~ Fee Breakdown: tz u~lo tz a `,..alA-Yto Q v P Fee Description Original Fee Amount Requested Waiver Fee Description Original Fee Amount Requested Waiver Energy Code Fee REMP Fee Excavation Foundation Fee Zoning Review Fee Inspection Fee Planning Application Fee ~3 ?i y 3 3 b Permit Fee HPC Application Fee Plan Check Other: TOTAL OF FEE WAIVER REQUEST $ 33~ `' Reason for Waiver: ^ General Fund Department ^ Waived or decreased by City Council (speci ordinance or other decision document) ~ Other-Please xplain: See -QrF}A-t ~e-~C~ f~o~C-_ .F ~ Act ~e_e.S S•k.1\ ~o Ba Aa..n Fro..... COL CD.ti.t1n->r.,ai ,v.„f 1Y.a Acco~. 6`3~0~ Applicant Signature Date For office use only: I ..~-'~,- ~ Type of fees waived: ~'~1`~ f~t~ 1 '~ "LU K- ~'a~~r `~PPROVED G DISAPPROVED Community Development Director Total fees waived: $ 33 r~ Date ~ ooaD .air . as~0 r"`~ January 12, 2009 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Mr. Bendon, The Red Butte Cemetery Association hereby requests a waiver of the land use review fees for the HPC, P&Z and City Council review of its application for a maintenance facility to serve the Cemetery. This request is being submitted pursuant to Section 26.104.070 (c) (7) of the Aspen Land Use Code which authorizes the Community Development Director to waive the fees for projects serving a public purpose or those proposed by a non-profit organization. The Red Butte Cemetery is operated as anon-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Association has limited funds availableto it, generated primarily by the sale of plots to members of the community. The Cemetery serves a public purpose by providing a place where members of the community may be buried and it also provides an essential link between Aspen's past and its present. During HPC's conceptual review of this project it has also become apparent that many members of the community view it as a valued open space where they can come for peace and serenity. The Association anticipates that considerable fund raising work will be needed to make this project a reality. Waiver of the land use fees for the review of this project will help to offset one of the many costs of this development project. We thank you for your consideration of this request and are availableto answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, cam- z~X~.o.//j-~. Red Butte Cemetery Association John Thorpe, President P.O. Box 194 Aspen, Colorado 81612 ~. w .,./ ~! THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: June 1.2009 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0030 2009.ASLU Red Butte Cemetery. The planner assigned to this case is Drew Alexander. ^ Your Land Use Application is incomplete: We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and aze to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. Your Land Use Application is complete: If there aze not missing items listed above, to begin the land use review process. then your application has been deemed complete Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Thank You, ~~/~lr Jennifer P ,Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\My Documents\planning\Templates\Templates\Land Use Cases\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc ,-.. it ; ,e.., ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION (~03o z4o9. R~~SLU. ~~~~:IY W p.{c~{ ~ I zUU9 rxo~EC r: Name.' - ®~rtC2 c-Q~e.-k~- ~o~-Sa~.~A ~`~R7^"' I~~.~Nr Location: ~~ ~ ~-~'-'^~~~~ Indicate street address, lot & block number, le a] descri lion where a ro riate Parcel ID # RE UIRED ~A'~~~ Name: ~ PS'`^ Q `~~'^"a Address: Q p ~°~( -~' (~ ~ 3 ~ Ss b(O tL Phone #: ~,'2-0 - I l2 S t ~dnnrccw~ne~~~• " ~ L~t" 1i~1 Name: r-~ ' ~-~-1) ~,.'~2 ~ 2 •.-e~ ~-t C o c t.L~-- Address: - `9 • o X ~Q `( it-- GO ~ I ~ f ~ Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATTON: (please check all that apply): [~, GMQS Exemption ^ GMQS Allotment ^ Special Review ^ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ^ Commercial Design Review ^ Residential Design Variance Conditional Use ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Temporary Use Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ TexUMap Amendment ^ Subdivision ^ Conceptual SPA ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes ^ Final SPA (& SPA condominiumization) Amendment) ^ Lot Split ^ Lot Line Adjustment ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion ^ Other: EXISTING CONDITIONS: (descri" lion of existin buildin sI, use-s, revious a royals, etc.) S{+_o ~It {~ l_~ ~ ~ ~ Q Ik-~4~ PROPOSAL: ~a ~ 1~W1 Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ Wh ""-~~ ~. w~J Pre-Application Conference Summary Attachment #], Signed Fee Agreement Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards ^ 3-D Model for lazge project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 0 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A regiment for Pa ment of Cit of As en Develo ment A lication FeesA CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~v~t.~^^q ~s S o c , a ~- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted 1RO CITY an a plication fRr (hereinafter, TI-IE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condiflon precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascerain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that i[ is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may aceme following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are intoned. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff [o complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of [he CITY'S waiver of its right to collect full fees pno a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in [he amount of $ 336`' which is for ~ hours of Community Development staff See, time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional montlily `' f . ~ billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including 4~~ V~'^x post approval review at a rate of $220.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments `1(- shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such ~-r`' accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director APPLICANT By Date: t ~ ('~ ~ n ~ Billing Address and Telephone Number: Required g:\suppo rt\fo rms\agrp ayas. dot 11/30/04 January 12, 2009 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE RED BUTTE CEMETERY Dear Mr. Bendon, The Red Butte Cemetery Association hereby requests a waiver of the land use review fees for the HPC, P&Z and City Council review of its application for a maintenance facility to serve the Cemetery. This request is being submitted pursuant to Section 26.104.070 (c) (7) of the Aspen Land Use Code which authorizes the Community Development Director to waive the fees for projects serving a public purpose or those proposed by a non-profit organization. The Red Butte Cemetery is operated as anon-profit corporation governed by a volunteer board of directors. The Association has limited funds available to it, generated primarily by the sale of plots to members of the community. The Cemetery serves a public purpose by providing a place where members of the community may be buried and it also provides an essential link between Aspen's past and its present. During HPC's conceptual review of this project it has also become apparent that many members of the community view it as a valued open space where they can come for peace and serenity. The Association anticipates that considerable fund raising work will be needed to make this project a reality. Waiverof the land use fees for the review of this project will help to offset one of the many costs of this development project. We thank you for your consideration of this request and are available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Red Butte Cemetery Association John Thorpe, President P.O. Box 194 Aspen, Colorado 81612