Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20180924 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 24, 2018 5:00 PM I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Amendments c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Board Appointment b) Minutes - September 17, 2018 VII. Notice of Call-Up VIII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 - 230 Lake Avenue - Minor Subdivision Amendment b) Ordinance #23, Series of 2018 - Changes to Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code IX. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #25, Series of 2018 - Expanding Investment Options to include CHFA Debt b) Ordinance #24, Series of 2018 - Sandwich Board Sign Regulations X. Action Items XI. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting October 08, 2018 COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES · Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision · Tone and Tenor Matter · Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here P1 COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. P2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk DATE OF MEMO: September 20, 2018 MEETING DATE: September 24, 2018 RE: Board Appointment By adopting the Consent Calendar, Council is making the following Board Appointment: Commercial Core and Lodging Commission Jeb Ball P3 VI.a Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4  Resolution #129, Series of 2018 – Contract for loader mount snowblower ......................................... 4  Resolution #133, Series of 2018 – Aspen Housing Partners Construction Loan Term Sheets ............. 4  Minutes – August 27 &28, September 4 &6, 2018 ............................................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2018 – Expanding Investment Options to Include CHFA Debt ............... 4 RESOLUTION #127, SERIES OF 2018 – Sandwich Board Sign Policy Resolution .................................. 4 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2018 – Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment ..................................... 6 RESOLUTION #108, SERIES OF 2018 – Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution ..................... 7 ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 – 333 Park/931 Gibson – Relocation............................................... 9 P4 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Hauenstein, Frisch and Myrin present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Ruth Harrison said city hall has too much money. She gave examples of the logo, uphill economy and the wayfinding project. She said the fire restrictions should be reinstated and the water restriction need to be clearer. The bike lanes on restaurant row are hilarious. 2. Marilyn Carrol spoke about traffic and said bikes don’t stop even when there is traffic coming. She said she is all for bikes and pedestrians but they are not using the stoplights or stop signs. We need to educate the public and visitors to understand what is legal. Councilman Hauenstein said it is a madhouse when it comes to bikes downtown. We need to give direction to the police. Mayor Skadron agree 100 percent. Councilman Hauenstein said he talked to Richard a year ago and they are directed by what Council says. It would be prudent for us to direct the police to start enforcing bicycle traffic. 3. Lee Mulcahy said Jim True received an email from Tom Smith. He spoke about Peter Gilman again and his notice of violation. Jim True, city attorney, stated Mr. Gilman did ask for a hearing on December 22, APCHA asked that he put it in writing. He put it in writing, they received the writing through the mail on December 28th. His request was timely, unlike Mr. Mulcahy who has actually never did his request timely. Mr. Mulcahy said according to APCHAs rule the notice of violation was sent prematurely. Councilwoman Mullins said you were not in compliance. There is not a lot that council can do, it is APCHA. You are speaking to the wrong crowd. The other part of that is I’m not convinced you are in the right. I continue to ask for information from Jim and APCHA and I’m not convinced you have a solid argument here. I wish you would stop coming to council and repeating the same thing until you have something new to tell us. Mayor Skadron said this isn’t the place to litigate this. APCHAs determination on non compliance was upheld in all the Colorado courts. You are trying to politicize this every time you come here. The council has listened to and the majority of council has believed you have been provided due process. Councilman Hauenstein stated he agrees. I have sympathy for you. The process applies to all people in the 2800 units APCHA controls. Our function is not judicial. The courts have ruled and the appeals have been heard. It is not up to us to overturn appellate courts. 4. Sandy Mulcahy said a settlement conference was never attempted. 5. Susan Harvey, own’s Susie’s Consignment, said she is all for sandwich boards. She depends on hers for her business. It is located 50 feet from the sidewalk and under an overhang. Her sandwich board is the only thing that lets people know she is there. 6. Bob Morris spoke about retirement and the needs of retired people and gave an article to council. He also handed out an article about Europe turning tourists away. He spoke about small lodging and marketing and what Skico is doing. He suggested the downtowner be expanded throughout town to the airport. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Frisch said he thinks the article about Europe being overwhelmed has been sent to council by multiple people in this community. It has been a thought for a long time about how to manage the whole growth conversation, capacity and the build out. There is a reason why we don’t get in to subsidizing food trucks and hotels. While I love the idea of having a holistic transportation model once you get off an airplane, I would suggest or hope that you reach out to the existing transportation companies and figure out a way between the lodging, restaurant and retail community to get the customers showing up at the door on the backs of the transportation industry before you come to us and ask us to just write the blank check. Happy fall to everyone. Councilman Hauenstein said the colors are beautiful. The Bells are insane. P5 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 3 Councilwoman Mullins said she spent the weekend in Fort Collins. We are not the only people that are dry. The water restrictions are still in place. Councilman Myrin said whether it is enforcing parking by complaint only or squeezing more people into a smaller space with bikes, it all speaks to what I have been talking about for a while. When is enough enough. One of the things I would like to see that has been bothering me since the Mesa Store approval is a code amendment to allow affordable housing before the TDRs were severed. In all the pro and con statements about city hall there were none about losing 17 parking spaces in the garage. It seems like tying the fire and water restrictions together and what we are doing does not make a lot of sense. Is there a calculation of the water we have saved and are we going to use it for something. Are we going to restrict water for Skico this winter. Councilwoman Mullins said we did reduce our usage 12 percent in June or July. I did ask Austin about watering Cozy Point in the middle of the day. They do start in the middle of the night to hit all the zones. There probably is a better solution there. Councilman Hauenstein said we are in a unique situation that we have no water storage. We can’t save it to make snow in the winter. Vail and Steamboat both have storage, we don’t. It is our duty at council to continue with the efforts to develop storage. All the restrictions are smoke and mirrors because we are not saving water to be used in the future. Councilman Myrin said we need to get back to the water discussion as some point. Councilman Frisch asked if we could we get some clarity on the appraisal, when are the deadlines for pro, con and who can chime in. Steve Barwick, city manager, said we should be able to release the appraisal numbers tomorrow. That is for 517. 204 was never appraised. If you want one for that piece we would need to order that separately. Mr. True said we are formulating a factual sheet for any issues that would be on the ballot. Toni Kronberg said a lot of voters are confused about what the appraisal will cover. There has been no appraisal done on Option B. She asked for an appraisal for the Rio Grande property. She said both options will include the armory. She said she will be bringing the total value to the voters. Mayor Skadron congratulated the Gentlemen of Aspen rugby football club by holding off the Dark and Stormy Misfits to win the 51st Ruggerfest. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Liz Chapman, environmental health, said tomorrow at the BOCC work session, county staff is recommending defunding the recycle center beginning in February 2019. Mr. Barwick said the county has discussed making curbside recycling mandatory throughout the county. It is a complex issue. We will get involved in detailed discussions with the council. There has been a lot of discussion at the staff level but none at the board level. Trish Aragon and Pete Rice, engineering, gave an update on the Castle Creek Bridge project. Ms. Aragon said we are close to the finish line and having a smooth roadway. This will provide a safe corridor for pedestrians and bikes. Mr. Rice said the trail will be poured by Friday. The shelter structures will start Wednesday. 7th and Main will open by October 8th. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins said RFTA is encouraged by the economic benefits. She went to Denver for the Rio Grande covenant enforcement meeting. They meet once a year to maintain the integrity of the rail banking. The Board of Health met and they have finally finished with the bylaws and are setting up the structure. They are addressing the 5 year committee plan. P6 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 4 Councilman Myrin said Next Gen changed the monthly meeting to Wednesday. They talked about the ability of affordable housing to rent bedrooms to seasonal workers. They are working on getting movement in the affordable housing system. Mayor Skadron asked if there is council direction for an appraisal at 204 Galena. City council gave the go ahead for the appraisal of the 204 Galena space. CONSENT CALENDAR · Resolution #129, Series of 2018 – Contract for loader mount snow blower · Resolution #133, Series of 2018 – Aspen Housing Partners Construction Loan Term Sheets · Minutes – August 27 &28, September 4 &6, 2018 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2018 – Expanding Investment Options to Include CHFA Debt Pete Strecker, finance, said this is tied to AHP construction project. To be able to utilize CHFA we need to expand investment policies to buy CHFA bonds. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #25, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 25 (SERIES OF 2018) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE BY THE CITY OF REVENUE BONDS ISSUED BY THE COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2018 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #127, SERIES OF 2018 – Sandwich Board Sign Policy Resolution Mr. True said we are not trying to get around Reed, we want to comply. It is Reed vs Town of Gilbert. In that decision, Justice Alito recognized it would be difficult for governments to address this. Almost every community is struggling with this and to comply with the decision of the court. We are trying to make certain we comply with it not get around it. Jessica Garrow, community development, said the sign code goes into effect on the 28th. Tonight, is the policy resolution. We are looking for direction. If the policy resolution is adopted, we will immediately go into first reading. The public hearing will be at the next meeting next week. Phillip Supino, community development, stated in 2017 we updated the sign code to comply with the supreme court mandate to make sure they are content neutral. The primary goal was to maintain the status quo while complying with Reed. Other considerations were control proliferation, ensure the signs were not rented as billboards, ensure equity between business and provide adequate signage for businesses. Council adopted ordinance 22 last year that would go in to effect September 28th this year. Staff conducted a four month outreach process as well as 7 public meetings. This year we did direct outreach to over 200 businesses, an Aspen Community Voice survey with 65 responses, coverage in local media, three public meeting including two with council and one with CCLC. The 2018 survey respondents included 42 percent feeling there should be one sandwich board for every business in town, P7 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 5 25 percent felt there should be one per every second tier space, and 20 percent felt we should not allow sandwich boards. Option 1 – Would allow one sandwich board per second tier unit. There is no accurate count for the number of these spaces so we can’t provide an accurate estimate for the number of signs that could be displayed. Due to the structure of Reed, we can’t limit signs by business type so we may end up with signs for real estate and office uses. Option 2 – One sandwich board per building. This option allows one signs to be shared among tenants. There are 241 commercial buildings in the core in zone districts in which sandwich boards are allowed. There is still the possibility of using signs for a billboard or offsite sign. Signs may not be accessible to all tenants as the building would decide who has access to the sign. This does remove the city from mediating who gets to use the sign. Option 3 –Extend the sunset period for an additional year. This ensures Reed compliance. However, it doesn’t provide businesses with the benefit of the sandwich board after September 28, 2019. It does provide time and support from staff and property owners to discover alternatives that may be appropriate. This could lead to the same discussion next year. Option 4 – Maintain the status quo. This would maintain the regulations adopted last August and allow the current permits to expire on September 28th. This would ensure the sign regulations are Reed compliant and equitable. Business would lose the sandwich board option and the community loses some of the directional information included in the signs. Councilman Hauenstein asked if we can have a hybrid of 1 and 2. Mr. Supino replied yes. Ms. Garrow said option 2 is if the building has a restaurant or retail space. Councilman Hauenstein said option 1 has a lot of potential of signs. A second tier space would limit the number. Not every second tier space would get their own. The building would have to decide how to divvy up the sign. Councilwoman Mullins said she had requested staff look at other mountain towns that don’t have sandwich boards and see how they accommodate businesses. I would still like that information. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Susan Harvey said she would like it extended for a year. She thinks there are more situations in town to address. It depends on the sandwich board. It is hard to see the sign on the building. Give it a year and explore what other towns are doing. I would pay more for my sign. 2. Amanda Tanaka, Roe and Fern, agreed with Susie on more time for alternate solutions. I’m open for the offseason. Getting new signs quickly could be an issue. 3. Joann Smidt said she has seen the amount of sandwich board signs increase throughout town. Mill Street is a unique situation because of the corner. She is not a fan of having all the businesses in a building on one sign. These signs are important to show people who we are and what we do. There has to be a way to make it work. 4. Archi Eli, Aspen Psychic, originally had a small sign with an arrow because people were going into the wrong business. I found the large sign unnecessary. My suggestion is that it should be only for second tier to accommodate traffic going into the wrong business. They should also be near the entrance. 5. Toni Kronberg said she thinks option 4 is in violation of the supreme court ruling. It didn’t say to get rid of the signs, but they need to be content neutral. She believes the signs are an important part of this town and the character. Council should focus on the location of the signs. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. P8 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 6 Councilwoman Mullins said she does not think we’ve come up with an equitable solution yet. Susie’s is a really challenging space. You do need some type of signage. In the one sign per building it is not equitable either. There may be some debate about second tier space. The outcome of this ruling is we have no control over the content or the number of signs. We are trying to accomplish the goal of having the business recognized. Options 1 and 2 will have a proliferation of signs and in a way could hurt the program. She would support option 3 to give us more time to look at what other communities are doing. We need to study this a bit more. Councilman Myrin said he would support 3 or 4 depending on where the rest of council is. Councilman Frisch said the only thing that is new is there is a concern over content. We still have the ability to control the number, material shape, color. The only thing that is new is the content neutral part. Mr. Supino said you are correct. The supreme court decision revolved around the content neutral aspect. If as a community, we can’t access if an applicant can or can’t have a sign based on the type of business we can’t determine if they get a sign and that may affect the number of signs. Councilman Frisch said while I don’t support option 4, if we were to ban them we would not be in violation of the supreme court. That was not what their intent was. It is a completely different thing than saying if you ban them we are going to sue you. I’m an option 3A extend to 2019 and beyond and focus on other things. A lot of well intentioned work went into this. I think we are trying to solve something that is not a problem. I think we have a lot of other really important goals we should be working on. Mayor Skadron said I have general support for option 3. I would put a deadline of a year. Ms. Garrow said that is the proposal. If you are extending this to 2019 how would you like us to handle enforcement. There are likely a number of these that did not get a permit. We can continue the hands off approach. Mr. Supino said there is also the question of additional businesses applying for new signs. Councilman Frisch asked what percentage is up there now that shouldn’t be. Jim Pomeroy, community development, said currently a quarter of the signs are not permitted and probably 2 to 3 additional signs per week. Councilman Hauenstein said I think they are an important part of second tier spaces. I don’t want to kick this down the road another year or two. My option puts a limit on the number of signs. It is certainly in our rights to ban them entirely. I don’t support that. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks we should extend it. I also think you should be enforcing what is currently in place. Councilman Frisch said the bigger discussion is the whole global enforcement issue. Unfortunately, I think we need to spend more time being in the enforcement game. Everything except for option 4 is going to cause people to start doing things. Ms. Garrow encouraged council to have us do more active enforcement on this. It sounds like there is support for option 3 to extend to 2019 as well as support to more actively enforce. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #127, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor except Councilman Hauenstein, motion carried. ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2018 – Sandwich Board Sign Code Amendment Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2018) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS. P9 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 7 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2018 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, no; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #108, SERIES OF 2018 – Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution Amy Simon, community development, said Aspen has one of the oldest historic preservation programs in the state with 300 designated landmarks in 2 historic districts. There is room for improvement in the program. For public outreach, we had three policy discussions with the HPC, a Council work session, a survey on Aspen Community Voice, Council tour of properties, Comdev newsletter, press release for public survey with 123 responses and a steak holder meeting. At least 70 percent of the respondents felt the benefits are appropriate. 58 percent felt the program is successful. The first area for change is for increased density. The property owner has the option to decide either two detached houses or a duplex. The proposed amendment is with either option the floor area would be the same. Floor area bonus. Currently, the bonus is up to 500 square feet for an exemplary project. The proposed amendment would adjust the bonus to relate to the size of the lot. A smaller lot should be eligible for less. We would update the criteria for work above and beyond the minimum expectation and amend the bonus for excellence in other criteria. Tax credit applications. The state offers a 20 percent income tax credit for qualified historic preservation work up to a maximum of $50,000 per project to encourage renovation and reuse. Beginning in 2020, an additional 10 percent will be available. The city has the option to review these applications or to forward them to the State. This is not a heavily utilized program in Aspen. Staff is recommending we begin forwarding these applications to the State for review. GMQS. Most benefits are aimed towards residential sites. No changes are recommended for commercial sites. The proposed amendment is only for the historic resource not for new structures. TDRs. The proposal is to only allow TDRs to come off a lot with a historic resource. Currently TDRs are based off the size of home that could be built on the site. That made need some thought. Possible new benefits include expedite HP permit reviews and City fee waivers. Councilman Hauenstein said he would rather have a holistic analysis to look at all aspects of this. It has been tremendously successful. He questions if some of the benefits are still needed. He would like to find out what happens to the properties, how many are flipped versus lived in. He thinks October is too fast. Councilman Frisch said historic preservation, progressive environmental policies, affordable housing, small town character through land use code and our ski environment are our five foundations I keep talking about. He is glad we are having this discussion. Government gets involved in the private sector if it is not serving community values. The question is have we been over paying through waiver of fees and additional square feet. I think we have been overpaying and I’m trying to figure out how much of that is from a strong real estate market. Up here I try to be really stingy. If we want to wait a bit to get in the macro level. One is the square foot bonus. The expense reduction is the fee waivers. The development community doesn’t care where the reduction comes from. The second one is the expedited permit process. This could become the most crowded lane. I do support if we want some tradeoffs I would rather see it from that standpoint. The duplex thing has been raised a few times. What is the chance of an attached duplex remaining a duplex forever. I love the program and want the integrity of it to continue. I’m looking at the right level of bonus. On a per square foot basis it is a lot more complicated to turn it P10 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 8 into a true gem. It doesn’t mean the margin isn’t there to turn it in to what we want. I want to give away as little of community assets as possible. Councilman Myrin agreed we should meet with HPC. He talked about the recent approval of 500 W Main. 26 employees with no affordable housing. It would be helpful if both buyers and sellers know what the cost of affordable housing is. Why is it the city’s responsibility. He would like to see if there is council support in the MU zone for affordable housing even when TDRs have been stripped off so affordable housing could be built on that property. It would essentially be double dipping. He supports the recommendation to stop the State tax application review. If we have to phase some of this in rather than doing it all at once so it doesn’t shock the system. Councilman Frisch said on the floor area bonus, he is having a hard time matching up exemplary when you only match one of the eight criteria. The bar needs to be much higher. Councilwoman Mullins said she strongly supports this program. She wants it to be successful. It has done an enormous amount for the city. For density, it is great. She also supports Bert’s idea. In terms of split lots, she would support the TDRs being taken off the second lot. Would it decrease the split lot benefit. Ms. Simon said it would have to be thought through. Councilwoman Mullins said she wants to be careful. The criteria on the bonus needs to be much tighter and set a higher bar. She would support giving up the tax. Mayor Skadron said we are looking at amending 5 of the 20 benefits. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Mike Maple said he is super excited this is being looked at. From a real estate standpoint, the most valuable benefit is a lot split. The 500 square foot benefit is automatic. The criteria needs to be higher. Scaling it to the site is brilliant and simple. The city should account for fee waivers and make it a budget line item each year. He said staff should look at the recommendations from the taskforce. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Ms. Simon said she has the taskforce report and we continue to look at it. We did reach out to the task force members and invited them to participate in the survey. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports prorating the floor area bonus to lot size. Ms. Garrow asked would you like to move forward with the resolution as presented or table it to we have the meeting with HPC. It will be December or January until we are back. Councilman Frisch said the reason I suggested we get HPC involved is to get more technical pushback on ideas for why they will not harm the program. That is why I’m willing to wait on some of the discussion. Ms. Simon said she does not think they have other areas where they propose amendments. They want to see actual language. Maybe it would be good for you to meet when we have taken a stab at that. Councilman Myrin said he would suggest passing it as the way it is and working on language. Councilwoman Mullins agreed. They have had input. Mayor Skadron said I’m not opposed to that. We will pass the policy resolution. Ms. Simon said we would prepare a draft of code amendments and let you and HPC talk about it. Councilman Hauenstein said he is more in favor of tabling and meet with HPC and thoroughly analyze what the citizen taskforce did. P11 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 9 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #108, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 – 333 Park/931 Gibson – Relocation Sarah Yoon, community development, told the council this application is for relocation of the historic building, demolition of the non historic additions, rescind the designation and re-designation after relocation. It is a full exterior restoration and relocation to restore to the Sandborn and street facing orientations. HPC recommended in favor of the relocation. During second reading, council asked for clarification. If relocation is approved the designation will be rescinded and once relocated to Gibson it will be designated. The allowed density for floor area and the number of units does not increase. The property allows two units in the form of a duplex. One must be deed restricted and must be limited to the floor area of a single family dwelling. The applicant has committed to limiting the property to a single driveway and curb cut unless approved by council. Staff believes the commitment to a single curb cut helps address the concerns related to the usage of the street impacts. There are a number of design guidelines that direct an applicant to detach new construction from historic. Staff believes it is important that a new design complies with the HPC design guidelines and the end result is the best preservation outcome for the historic resource. Therefore, staff does not recommend a condition that would require a single massing above grade for this site on 931 Gibson. HPC and Staff both recommend relocation be approved by council. Sara Adams, representing the applicant, said they want to relocate and restore the home. Designation travels with the landmark. The home was originally moved in 1962. The current location is not considered historic. There isn’t a good scenario that meets the design guidelines or the HP program or stream margin review. She showed images of all the scenarios to restore the addition. We received unanimous support from HPC to relocate the buildings to Gibson. We tried to reach a resolution with the neighbor but couldn’t get there. We want to be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Councilman Myrin said the ordinance has Section 1 with the lot split prohibited and single curb cut. Were there other things that were intended to be in there. Ms. Garrow said those are things council can discuss with the applicant. At the last meeting our finding was to limit the property as a single family use. There are no real ways to do that in an ordinance. Councilman Myrin said FAR would address that. Ms. Garrow replied just size not density. Councilman Myrin said I guess that would be the same for the garage. The sidewalk request, I think the applicant was on board with. Ms. Garrow said it is not in the ordinance because the engineering department requires it and will be part of the building permit review. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Daryl Cramer on behalf of Jeffrey and Janet Beck said two dwellings is double the density and potentially allows two garages and everything that goes along with two dwelling structures. From a practice perspective, no lot split without council approval means that can change later and we all know how that goes. For those reasons the Becks oppose the ordinance as it exists. One of the things we were looking for is something that it could only be owned by one owner. We were hopeful there could be some private agreement worked out but we ran out of time. 2. Mike Maple said a private agreement between two neighbors is fine but it is not satisfactory for the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. True said the applicant can create a deed restriction with whomever it wishes. You do have the ability to weigh whether this move is appropriate. Councilman Frisch said the private negotiation was two people were going to work together on something that could be documented. My take away is the Hendries were going to make a commitment that it was them living on there and there was no plan to do a lot split. Mr. True said directing ownership in this situation is not appropriate. You can do as the ordinance proposes and say a lot split can only be approved by council but the code says that anyways. Councilman Frisch asked do we need to say that. I don’t like how the onus is set up. Councilwoman Mullins said it’s not that no lot split is never allowed they just need to come back to council. I don’t think P12 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 10 we can go in and tell owners that forever you can be the only owners of these two lots. Councilman Frisch said the reason I’m looking at it from a different filter is it is not lot splitable. We are being asked to waive a magic wand. Mr. True said the difficulty is you can’t enforce the inability to condominiumized and sell. Mr. Maple said so let’s make the second unit be deed restricted and continue to be affordable housing. Councilman Hauenstein said I understand what Mike is saying. Bringing the historic assets to 931 is a good idea and will showcase them. As soon as you designate 931 then it goes back to HPC for approvals and we just discussed the 500 feet will almost be a given. We had the discussion if we want that to continue to be an incentive or bonus. It is kind of ironic that these two items are back to back and we are asking if we want to continue giving a 500 square foot bonus. We are painting ourselves into a corner where we have to give the bonus because the 333 structure is moved to 931 to prevent them from being torn down. The ordinance says a future lot split is prohibited unless approved by council. That’s what it is already. I question if we can end that sentence early at prohibited and have it as a condition of approval. Mr. True said you can say that. Unfortunately, a subsequent council can amend that anyway. What Mike was pointing out was is the deed restriction issue, without the applicant actually granting that kind of restriction, your action here could be amended by a subsequent council. Councilman Hauenstein asked if the applicant were to agree to prohibit a lot split that would prevent a future council from granting a lot split. Councilman Myrin said if it ran with the neighbors land on both side. Which is the private agreement they were attempting to address. Mr. True said all of those parties have to agree to that. At this point, Mike raises an interesting point about the affordable housing. Ms. Garrow said if the historic building is not relocated here what is allowed is a duplex where one unit is deed restricted and the other is not or a single family home. With the historic resource the second unit does not have to be deed restricted under the regular zoning. Mr. True said under the code they are applying under that provision is not available. I’m back to my prior statement, without the applicant agreeing to some kind of deed restriction, you guys have to weigh whether you feel in total, this project is appropriate under our historic preservation program. Councilman Frisch said he keeps on going back to sincerity as my driving force for being up here. You said your sincere plans are not to split the lot and the plan was to create some structure to do that. We kind of ran out of time. If you are still there, these things are coming out to still do that. I think you were sincere about trying to honor the neighbors. Ms. Adams said we are agreeing on a prohibition on the lot split. The way council works you can’t bind a future council. We’ve put that in the ordinance so it is a red flag to anyone looking at this property that a future lot split is prohibited. That is the best that we can do in a city ordinance. We wanted to throw out a physical restriction which is the one driveway and one curb cut since that also lends itself towards a single family home and single ownership. Those were the two big things we thought the city could enforce. We don’t feel like we are starting at square one. It is our understanding and hope that council will make this decision on the preservation project and the merits of the restoration. The neighborhood supported this project at the last meeting. 3. Sandy Maple said this whole problem arose when the smaller secondary structure was found. This could all be resolved if they moved it somewhere more appropriate or HPC permitted them from excluding it. He also suggested moving the building back to its original Main Street lot. Mayor Skadron asked the applicant what they meant by they should not be penalized for being a historic property. Ms. Adams said the bonus and the lot split. We are playing by the rules and trying to do a good preservation project the community benefits from. To start taking things away just doesn’t seem like a fair shake. We are open to discussing the bonus. But the bonus plus the garage exemption to restrict the number of parking and to take away exemptions everyone is allowed to use within the city feels like a penalty. P13 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 11 Mayor Skadron asked what is the impact on neighborhood character between the request versus one structure being moved not two. Ms. Adams said there are a lot of 19th century properties in the neighborhood. We think this is an appropriate place for the landmark. There is a whole process the neighbors get to go through. It enhances the character and the process for the neighbors. Councilwoman Mullins said if it stays where it is it is demo by neglect. It will never be restored. This is a good option for restoration for the resource if you are interested in the resource. I think that is the decision we have to make. They said it will be single ownership for as long as they own it. The one driveway and committing not to split the lot. To me it is satisfactory if you want to see it restored. The density and 500 square feet has been a discussion item and as I understand by HPC they are backing off of it. Councilman Frisch said they are caught in two things. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein said the historic asset is worthy of preservation. 931 is the best location. I would like to see a guarantee of the sidewalk and 10 foot setback. I would like some discussion on the bonus and how much square footage you are willing to live with. I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood, community and town to preserve the property. Councilman Myrin said the incentive is the approval of the resource. That is the only incentive I can support. The rest should not approve to the new property, lot split, bonus, FAR, garage. I was hoping to have all that as a deed restriction between the two neighbors. The alternative is leaving the historic property where it is and granting an FAR bonus to that and transferring that as a TDR to the Gibson parcel. Ms. Adams replied that is not good historic preservation. You are just transferring development to Gibson, what is what the neighbors are concerned about. The biggest thing for us is it is not good historic preservation or good for the stream margin. We don’t have options on this lot. Councilman Myrin said on Park, the request for variances for stream margin and height can be asked for. The Lundy house had tremendous impacts to the neighbors. Ms. Adams said we are trying to meet the codes and have a good preservation project. Councilman Myrin said if we don’t have the incentives for the historic parcel where it is why would it be demolished by neglect. Ms. Garrow said we have seen the existing conditions and the lot. Councilman Myrin said at some point the city will step in. Councilman Frisch said he would love to see the structured moved there. I guess I’m going to push back to Jessica and Jim to make it really clear in the language that the intent was it was never meant to be split. Ms. Garrow said the best we can do is say any future subdivision or lot split is required to have approval from city council. We can’t require that a lot split, the two lots get sold together. We’ve had versions of that in the past and it was kind of a nightmare. Unfortunately, the best we can do is the language that is in the ordinance. Ms. Adams said you just have to rely on your future city council. We don’t see a rational basis to restrict ownership as part of relocation and historic designation. Mayor Skadron said Bert said the benefit is in moving the resource itself. Are you suggesting the same thing. Councilman Frisch said from a pure mathematical equation I’m putting a substantial value that the Hendries actually want to live in the historic property on a more appropriate site and they want to own the whole thing and live in it for the foreseeable future. I’m trying to figure out how to get that up there and provide some amount of historic benefit payout to see them go through that kind of trouble. It is not just about maximizing dollars. I’m seeing someone here who wants to refurbish it. The lot is a lot more valuable without that structure than with it. Where I have the problem is, to us, I don’t care who makes the money but I want to honor their intent and rein in some of the other things. P14 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 12 Councilman Hauenstein said I think the Maples and the Becks are in a position if they want to control what goes in next to your property you have to buy that property. That has always been the case. Councilman Frisch said while we are not legally changing the zoning, we are changing the zoning and we have to live up to that. Councilman Hauenstein said the applicant has already made some concessions stating they will not lot split unless a future council wants it. What will really upset us all is if you get your approvals and flip it. Councilman Frisch asked if you are saying that we should focus on the traditional historic benefits. Ms. Garrow replied you need to focus on the physical aspects on things. There is some discretion in your review criteria related to what types of conditions should be placed on the relocation. The future lot split is prohibited unless approved by future council and the property can only contain a single driveway and curb cut. You could speak to the applicant about the floor area bonus, the single garage versus two garages and parking reductions. Councilwoman Mullins said she would hesitate to address those things. They are in HPCs purview. We can’t turn around and start telling HPC what they can or can’t do. We still get to approve the conceptual review. If we don’t like what they have done we can send it back. Ms. Garrow said they will be subject to whatever code is in place at the time of their submission for conceptual. Mr. Hendries said three weeks ago he was asked to make compromises and he made those compromises. I don’t feel like I’ve got any further forward. I feel like I’ve been asked to make more compromises. I’m wondering where that will lead to. I sat here and said I’m not going to lot split. I told everyone it will be my families home. I’ve put one driveway in. I’ve made those requirements but it seems like you want more and I don’t know why. I’m moving a house that has been in distress for 30 years and about to do something with it that will make it look like it was when it was originally built. I’m freeing up a lot on the river that someone will probably buy. I’m not sure what I’m doing wrong here. I’ve not asked for a bonus. If you want to take that away, take it. Where does it stop. Councilman Myrin said it stops with the benefits that HPC magically grants to a property aren’t what the neighbors expected when they bought their properties on either side. I’m not so concerned about the ownership I am concerned about the size. The bonus square feet and the bonus for the garage. Mayor Skadron said I think we have consensus forming. Ann has expressed support and Ward has expressed support if you would consider forgoing the 500 foot bonus. Councilwoman Mullins said she would not support that. Councilman Hauenstein said if the applicant forgoes the 500 foot bonus as a concession to the neighbors I would accept it. You have made the compromises. Mr. Hendries said I think the property is best suited for having two buildings on it. Councilman Myrin said I’m not concerned with the ownership. I could get on board if we agree to the 500 and the sidewalk. Ms. Adams asked what if we commit to two TDR instead of the 500. Councilman Myrin said I’m not ok with that. Ms. Garrow replied we will add Section 3 stating the property is not eligible for the 500 square foot bonus and add a Section 4 saying sidewalk per the engineering department code. Ms. Adams asked if there is support for 1 TDR for getting rid of the bonus. Councilwoman Mullins said she does not thing council should get involved and leave it up to HPC. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of 1 TDR but does not think there is support from others. Force feeding growth, whether historic or non, I’m not sure is the way we really want to go. I don’t support the 500 square feet on the site. Councilman Myrin moved to approve Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 with modifications to Section 1 adding number 3 stating the property is not eligible for the 500 square foot bonus and number 4 stating sidewalk per the engineering department code; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Mayor Skadron said generally I felt the project is appropriate under our historic preservation code. Regarding the relocation I would support it because it meets all the criteria. I find myself with Ann on this. I can P15 VI.b Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 17, 2018 13 support the TDR with no 500 or the 500 with no TDR. Ms. Adams said the Hendries would prefer the square footage on the site. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, no; Frisch, no; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion fails. Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 with modifications to Section 1 adding number 3 stating the property is not eligible for the 500 square foot bonus and number 4 stating sidewalk per the engineering department code and 1 TDR; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Councilwoman Mullins asked if there is support for the 500 square feet instead. Mayor Skadron said he would support that. Councilman Hauenstein said he likes not having the additional square feet and granting a TDR. Councilman Myrin said he would support the motion as it is. Councilman Frisch said at some point we need to rail in the over benefits of the program. Ms. Adams asked if council would support 250 square feet of the bonus. Councilman Frisch said he would rather stick to his original motion. Councilwoman Mullins said she would propose an amendment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to amend the motion with 250 square foot bonus and no TDRs. Mayor Skadron seconded the motion. He said the project is about families and generations. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, no; Frisch, no; Myrin, no; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion failed. Mr. True said there is an original motion on the table which has the no 500 square foot bonus but 1 TDR. Roll call vote. Councilwoman Mullins said she will vote against this as she would rather see the square footage put in to the resource than added to oversize new developments in town. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, no; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 10:50 p.m.; seconded by Mayor Skadron. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P16 VI.b Page 1 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: First Reading, September 24, 2018 (Public Hearing 10/22/2018) RE: Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 - 230 Lake Avenue – Minor Subdivision Amendment APPLICANT /OWNER: T.L.J. Cotsen Living Trust c/o Jannol Law Group REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams, LLC LOCATION: Street Address: 230 Lake Avenue Legal Description: Lot 16, HARMON GROUP – TOMLINSON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, as shown on the Plat recorded January 17, 1990 in Plat Book 23 at page 77 as Reception No. 319178 Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-124-88-001 CURRENT ZONING & USE R-6 - Medium-density Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: No change SUMMARY: The applicant has requested to amend the Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemption approval from 1977 pertaining to Lot 16 by removing the requirement for HPC review of any proposed dwelling on the lot. This lot is not historically designated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Subdivision Exemption as outlined in the resolution. Site Locator Map – 230 Lake Avenue P17 VIII.a Page 2 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: 230 Lake Avenue, Lot 16, Hallam’s Addition, is in the R-6 zone district and backs up against the Hallam Bluff ESA area. The lot is across from Triangle Park and surrounded by historically designated properties. The Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemptions approval covers Lots 16-20 in Hallam’s Addition which was approved and signed by the City in 1977. The attached plat records three historic Victorian structures on Lots 17-19, an old frame dwelling straddling Lots 18 and 19, and the Shaw family dwelling on Lot 20. Lot 16 was an empty lot at the time of the approval. As a condition of approval, the Shaw residence and the three Victorian structure were to seek historic designation, and the old frame dwelling was to be removed. A specific condition was included in the approval stating any proposed dwelling on Lot 16 would need to be reviewed by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (Exhibit B). At the time of this request for subdivision exemption, there were discussions about historic overlays/districts in the West End to help maintain the historic character of the neighborhood. Since 1977, the three Victorians and the Shaw family dwelling received historic designation, and are listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. A Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1980 (building permit no. 143-79) to Wogan Jr. for 230 Lake Avenue. The building permit indicates a new residential duplex was built on this Lot, and according to the HPC 1978-1979 Index, the “Wogan house” was discussed on September 11, 1979. LAND USE REQUEST FROM ASPEN CITY COUNCIL: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Subdivision Amendments – Minor Amendment (Section 26.480.090.C) to amend the language of the original approval requiring Lot 16 to have review by HPC, despite not being a historic landmark. Aspen City Council is the final review authority. PROJECT SUMMARY: 230 Lake Avenue, Lot 16, Block 103 of Hallam’s Addition, is not a designated historic landmarked property. The structure on the lot currently is a building completed in the 1980’s with a series of renovations that occurred over time. The applicant wishes to remove the required HPC review of any proposed dwelling on Lot 16 because there is no historic merit for review. Figure 1 – 230 Lake Avenue, 2012 P18 VIII.a Page 3 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com The proposed amendment will remove language related to HPC review of Lot 16 in condition no. 2. No other changes to the 1977 Subdivision Exemption Approval is requested. Condition no. 2 of the approval, as amended, would read as follows: 2. The owner of Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, The WPW Joint Venture, its individual ventures, their successors and assigns, shall seek historic designation for the existing structures on Lot 17, 18, and 19, from the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. and, any proposed dwelling on Lot 16 shall be submitted to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for its review. STAFF COMMENTS: The intent for including HPC review of Lot 16 was an attempt to help preserve the historic character and context of the West End during a time when the Historic Preservation program was newly established and lacked the tools to promote and incentivize preservation work. The Historic Preservation program now has a sophisticated design guideline, preservation incentives/benefits, and set perimeters for what is considered HPC purview. The applicability section of the Land Use code for Historic Preservation states the following: Section 26.415.015: This Chapter applies to all properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures and to all properties located within the boundaries of a Historic District, including rights-of-way within Historic Districts as specified in Section 26.415.060. 230 Lake Avenue is not on the Inventory, nor in a Historic District that would justify HPC review. The only time when new construction is reviewed by HPC on a lot that does not contain a historic resource is if the lot was created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split (Section 26.415.110.A). The criteria for Minor amendment to a subdivision is that the change needs to respond to the original issue or address an issue that was not anticipated during the original review. The underlying conversation about a possible historic district overlay of the West End is no longer likely, and the code specifies that HPC review is applicable to properties with historic designation listed on the Inventory. Staff finds that the request meets the criteria for Minor amendment, and complies with the Historic Preservation code section for applicability. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Aspen City Council grant Minor Subdivision Amendments finding that the applicable review criteria for minor subdivision have been met, and the property does not qualify for HPC review. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Ordinance #29, Series of 2018, on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 P19 VIII.a Page 4 of 4 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com Exhibit A – Minor Subdivision Amendment Criteria /Staff Findings Exhibit B – Subdivision Exemptions Approval & Plat Exhibit C – Land Use Application P20 VIII.a Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 230 Lake Avenue Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE #29 (SERIES OF 2018) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING MINOR AMENDMENT TO A SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 230 LAKE AVENUE, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 16, HARMON GROUP TOMLINSON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT RECORDED JANUARY 17, 1990 IN PLAT BOOK 23 A T PAGE 77 AS RECEPTION NO. 319178. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-88-001 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from T.L.J. Cotsen Living Trust c/o Jannol Law Group, 230 Lake Avenue, Aspen CO 81611, represented by BendonAdams, requesting approval for the following land use review approval: • Minor Subdivision Amendment- (Section 26.480.090.C) WHEREAS, the Community Development Department reviewed the proposed application, and recommended approval; and WHEREAS, all required public noticing was provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public noticing submitted to the record, a summary of public outreach was provided by the applicant to meet the requirements of Land Use Code Section 26.304, and the public was provided full access to review the Application; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on September 24, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2018 with conditions, on First Reading by a _____ to _____ (_ – _) vote; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 22, 2018, the Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2018, by a _____ to _____ (_ – _) vote, approving Minor Subdivision Amendment for 230 Lake Avenue; and, WHEREAS, City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all the applicable development standards; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. P21 VIII.a Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 230 Lake Avenue Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Minor Amendment to a Subdivision The Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemptions Approval, paragraph 2 of the conditions, approved June 3, 1977 (Reception #194835); is hereby amended as follows: 2. The owner of Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, The WPW Joint Venture, its individual ventures, their successors and assigns, shall seek historic designation for the existing structures on Lot 17, 18, and 19, from the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee. Section 2: Subdivision Amendment An amended plat shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review within one hundred eighty (180) days following issuance of a Development Order. Failure on the part of the applicant to submit required approval documents within this timeframe shall render the land use approval invalid. The Community Development Director may extend the submission deadline if the request is made within the statutory vesting period, the applicant demonstrates evidence of preparing the needed documents, and the applicant shows reasonable cause for the delay. The Community Development Director may forward the extension request to the City Council. Unless an alternate timeframe is specified by the Community Development Director, corrected approval documents shall be resubmitted to the Community Development Department within ninety (90) days following the City’s issuance of requested corrections to the documents. Failure on the part of the applicant to resubmit corrected documents within this timeframe shall render the land use approval invalid. The Community Development Director may extend the resubmission deadline if the applicant demonstrates good cause. The Community Development Director may forward the request to the City Council. Section 3: Existing Litigation 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 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: Vested Rights P22 VIII.a Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 230 Lake Avenue Page 3 of 4 The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties: 230 Lake Avenue. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. Section 6: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 22th day of October, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of September, 2018. P23 VIII.a Ordinance #29, Series of 2018 230 Lake Avenue Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _____ day of __________, 2018. ATTEST: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P24 VIII.a Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A Minor Amendment Criteria Staff Findings 26.480.090.C: Subdivision Amendments – Minor Amendment C. An amendment to an approved subdivision found to be generally consistent with the original approval but which does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council. The amendment must either respond to issues raised during the original review or must address an issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the review. The City Council must find that the change is minor and that it is consistent with or an improvement to the approved subdivision. Notwithstanding the above, the City Council may find that an amendment request is substantial and should require review as a Major Amendment. Staff Finding: This condition of approval related to Lot 16 requiring HPC review of any dwelling development was in response to the possibility of a historic overlay in the West End and an attempt to promote historic preservation goals in 1977. The possibility of a historic district in the area is no longer likely and Lot 16 does not meet the established criteria for HPC review because it is not a designated property. Staff finds the application meets the criteria for Minor Amendment for a Subdivision. An amendment to an approved subdivision found to be generally consistent with the original approval but which does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council. The amendment must either respond to issues raised during the original review or must address an issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the review. The City Council must find that the change is minor and that it is consistent with or an improvement to the approved subdivision. Notwithstanding the above, the City Council may find that an amendment request is substantial and should require review as a Major Amendment. MET NOT MET DOES NOT APPLY The amendment responds to the issue raised during the original review or The amendment addresses an issue that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the review.N/A Review Criteria for 230 Lake Avenue The applicant is requesting a Minor Amendement to the Subdivision Exemptions Approval from 1977, specifically dealing with Lot 16. Section 26.480.090.C: Review Criteria for Subdivision Amendment - Minor YES P25 VIII.a EXHIBIT B - Shaw & WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemptions Plan P26 VIII.a P27 VIII.a P28 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM July 20, 2018 Ms. Sarah Yoon Historic Preservation Planner City of Aspen 130 So. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 230 Lake Avenue Minor Subdivision Amendment Ms. Yoon: Please accept this application for a Minor Subdivision Amendment to the Shaw and WPW Subdivision Exemption. The 5-lot subdivision was approved in 1977 from 9 lots of the Hallam Addition. Several of the properties in this subdivision contained historic resources at the time and became official historic landmark properties. This lot, Lot 16, was vacant at the time. The subdivision plat included a note requiring HPC review of any new home on the parcel. This application seeks removal of the HPC review condition for Lot 16. The property was not required to seek historic designation and the property has never surfaced on any assessment of historic properties. The property is not a listed historic landmark and is not included on any mapping of the inventory. The 1980 home does not appear to have any historic merit. The HPC review condition appears to have been an outgrowth of community discussion of broader planning issues. The City Council even discussed creating a historic district covering the West End neighborhood just two weeks prior to this subdivision being reviewed. P29 VIII.a 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM We have provided minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and the City Council meeting regarding this case. The record reflects discussion of the existing buildings (existing in 1977) with particular focus on the Shaw house, which became a historic landmark. The property appears to not be part of Aspen’s historic preservation program in all respects except for this plat note. The attachments should provide everything outlined in the pre-application summary. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind Regards, Chris Bendon, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Attachments: 1. Review Standards 2. Pre-Application Summary 3. Application form 4. Agreement to Pay form 5. HOA form 6. Authorization to represent 7. Proof of ownership 8. Vicinity Map 9. March 1, 1977, P&Z Minutes 10. March 8, 1977, P&Z Minutes 11. February 28, 1977, City Council Minutes 12. March 14, 1977, City Council Minutes 13. Photo context of neighborhood 14. 1977 Subdivision Plat P30 VIII.a Exhibit 1 Review Criteria 26.480.090.B. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved subdivision or between adjacent subdivisions may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations which could not reasonably have been anticipated during the approval process or any other minor change to a subdivision which the Community Development Director finds has no substantial effect upon the subdivision or to the allowances and limitations of the subdivision. Response – At the time of the 1977 Subdivision Exemption approval, the City’s historic preservation program was in its infancy. Concern about the changing character of town included discussion of designating the entire Original Townsite as an historic district. The idea was floated concurrent with this application review, including by a council member just one meeting prior to Shaw application being presented to the City Council. Notes from the Planning and Zoning Commission review included discussion of floor area, whether the parcels should allow for single family or duplex use, and discussion of historic preservation. The record shows the opinions of the various P&Z members regarding a conditioned approval and a request from the applicant for an approval without conditions. The P&Z record shows a motion to recommend subdivision exemption (to City Council) but does not show a final vote or whether any conditions were attached to the recommendation. The City Council minutes also show discussion of floor area, single-family verses duplex use, and historic designation. The historic designation discussion appears to have been focused on the Shaw house. The applicant’s attorney was asked about restricting the floor area of the Shaw house and about historic designation. His response and follow-up discussion of City Council resulted in historic designation of the Shaw house being accepted by the applicant, with floor area restrictions being those of the neighborhood. The City Council motion adopted by City Council conditioned approval of the subdivision exemption upon historic designation of the Shaw house. This record shows a continued discussion after the motion carried regarding the same issues, but with the contract purchaser WPW. The contract purchaser appears to accept a floor area cap and historic designation in advance (of the restoration). There are no follow-up motions or approvals granted. The result appears to have been historic designation of Lot 20 (Shaw house); a requirement for WJW to seek historic designation for the existing structures on Lots 17, 18 and 19. Lot 16 (230 Lake) was vacant at the time and the requirement for it was for any proposed dwelling to be submitted to the HPC for review. Condition No. 2 on plat reads as follows: P31 VIII.a Exhibit 1 Review Criteria While subject to HPC review for a new dwelling, the record reflects Lot 16 being treated differently than the other lots in that it was not required to seek historic designation. Lot 16 is not listed as a historic landmark. The historic preservation program in Aspen has been refined multiple times over the past 40 years, including several assessments of the inventory. 230 Lake, with its home built in 1980, has never surfaced as a potential historic landmark. This application requests striking the language requiring HPC review for a new home on Lot 16. The property is clearly not historic and the discussion of a historic district covering the West End never gained support. Subsequent assessments of the historic preservation program and re-reviews of properties have never identified 230 Lake as a potential resource. The HPC review of the new home occurred prior to the 1980 home being built. There is no evidence in the building permit file of subsequent development activity requiring HPC review, suggesting the one-time review requirement was met or that the City does not consider the property to be subject to HPC review. To the extent that an HPC review is required, it is not clear what jurisdiction the HPC would have as the limitation does not appear to have been adopted by City Council Ordinance. Removal of this language would be consistent with the evolution of the historic preservation program. The 1970s involved case-by-case discussion of preservation, floor area, and allowed uses. This history of this case demonstrates this. The program has matured into a program were properties are assessed by a preservation expert and proposed for the inventory through adoption of an ordinance. Removal of this plat note affecting Lot 16 will not represent impact on other lots within the subdivision and is consistent with today’s historic preservation program. P32 VIII.a ASLU 230 Lake Avenue Minor Subdivision Amendment 2735-124-88-001 1 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sarah Yoon, 970.920.5144 DATE: June 15, 2018 PROJECT: 230 Lake Avenue REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Bendon, BendonAdams REQUEST: Subdivision Amendment – Minor DESCRIPTION: The property at 230 Lake Avenue is located in the R-6 zone, Hallam’s Addition, Block 103, Lot 16. The lot was included in the Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemption approval granted by City Council in 1977 with a condition that “any proposed dwelling on Lot 16 shall be submitted to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Committee for its review.” Since this approval, the reviewing body for historic preservation projects has been renamed from the Historic Preservation Committee to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Ordinance NO. 60, Series 1989. The applicant would like to pursue amending the condition pertaining to Lot 16 in the subdivision exemption approval by dropping the requirement for HPC approval. The lot is not designated historic, and HPC approval is not needed if not for this condition. This amendment does not qualify as an Insubstantial Amendment, therefore, will be conducted as a Minor Amendment that will be taken to City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny (Section 26.480.090.C). Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.480.090.C Subdivision Amendments – Minor Amendment Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience: Land Use Code: http://cityofaspen.com/276/Title-26-Land-Use-Code Land Use Application: http://cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/305 Review by: Planning Staff for completeness and recommendation City Council for decision. Public Hearing: Yes, at City Council. Neighborhood Outreach: No. Referral Agencies: No. Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. Total Deposit: $1,950. Exhibit 2 P33 VIII.a 2 Please submit one copy of the completed application to the Community Development Office on the Third Floor of City Hall before each review step:  Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form (Attached).  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation of how the amendment is consistent with or an improvement to the approved subdivision.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the property including at least one (1) of the following: diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet  Total deposit for review of the application. 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. P34 VIII.a 230 Lake Avenue 2735-124-88-001 T.L.J. Cotsen Living Trust c/o Jannol Law Group 1801 Century Park East, Ste 2150; Los Angeles, CA 90067 310.788.3990 mj@jannollawgroup.com BendonAdams 970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com 300 So Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611 Removal of a HPC review condition of the 1977 subdivision approval Minor Subdivision Amendment na na na na na 1,950 Exhibit 3 P35 VIII.a Exhibit 4 P36 VIII.a Exhibit 5P37 VIII.a Exhibit 6 P38 VIII.a P39 VIII.a P40 VIII.a P41VIII.a P42VIII.a P43VIII.a P44VIII.a P45VIII.a P46VIII.a P47VIII.a P48VIII.a P49VIII.a P50VIII.a P51VIII.a P52VIII.a P53VIII.a P54VIII.a Exhibit 8 230 Lake Avenue – Vicinity Map P55 VIII.a Exhibit 9 P56 VIII.a P57 VIII.a P58 VIII.a P59 VIII.a Exhibit 10 P60 VIII.a P61 VIII.a P62 VIII.a Exhibit 11 P63 VIII.a Exhibit 12 P64 VIII.a P65 VIII.a P66 VIII.a P67 VIII.a P68 VIII.a P69 VIII.a P70 VIII.a 230 lake ave context map and images aspen | colorado N 1STSTW SMUGG L ER ST LA K E AVE W NORTH ST N 2NDST230 lake ave AB 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 A1 5 2 6 3 7 4 8 key views of front of house views of adjacent neighborhood B Exhibit 13 P71VIII.a Exhibit 14P72VIII.a P73VIII.a P74VIII.a 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services THRU: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: September 17, 2018 MEETING DATE: September 24, 2018 RE: First Reading of Ordinance #23 of 2018 to Implement Changes To Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen Parking Services Department requests Aspen City Council to approve changes to Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff has reviewed ideas with Aspen City Council on changes to the Municipal Code for the Residential Zones at Council Work Sessions April 2, 2108 and June 26, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen Parking Services Department continues to look at opportunities to fine tune the parking and congestion issues in the City. Staff is also concerned about the quality of life, aesthetics and safety on the streets in the City of Aspen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City of Aspen Parking Services Department requests that Aspen City Council approve the following changes to Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code. Code Changes to Title 24 of the Municipal Code: Section 1: Chapter 24.04 is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof: Sec. 24.04.170. Unattached Vehicles No unattached non-motorized vehicle may be parked on any city street or ally without a valid permit. Any resident qualified to obtain a resident permit pursuant to Sec. 24.16.050 may purchase, upon payment of the prescribed fee, up to three (3) permits per year, with each permit limited to three (3) consecutive days, to park an unattached non-motorized vehicle within the City. P75 VIII.b 2 Section 2: Chapter 24.16, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 24.16.050. Resident permit., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the following: Sec. 24.16.050. Resident permit. (a) Commencing on November 15, 2018, upon payment of the prescribed fee, a maxim of four (4) resident permits and one (1) guest permit shall be issued for each residence within a residential permit- parking zone (RPZ). Commencing on November 15, 2019, and each year thereafter, upon payment of the prescribed fee, a maxim of four (3) resident permits and one (1) guest permit shall be issued for each residence within a residential permit-parking zone (RPZ). Permits shall be valid for one year. (b) One (1) resident permit shall be issued, upon payment of the prescribed fee, for any one (1) vehicle either owned by a business located within a residential-permit parking zone and holding a currently valid City business license or owned by a qualified nonprofit institution located within a residential-permit parking zone. (c) An applicant for a permit shall present: (a) evidence that the motor vehicle is in compliance with the county clean air program, (b) his/her current motor vehicle registration, and (c) a current operator's license with the application. No permit shall be issued in the event that either the registration or license shows an address not within the RPZ unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Manager that the applicant is, in fact, a resident of the RPZ and that the vehicle is used primarily by him/her. (d) An oversized vehicle shall not be eligible for a residential parking pass or guess permit. Oversized vehicle means any motorized vehicle that exceeds any of the following: 24 feet in length; 8 feet in width; 8 feet on height; or a manufacturer’s gross weigh rating of 10,000 pounds or more. Oversized vehicles may still purchase a day pass at the current daily rate to park in the residential zone. Sec 24.16.180. Time restricted parking areas in the Residential Permit Zones., shall be amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof: In any “Time Restricted Zone” a vehicle is only allowed one visit per day during enforcement hours. Section 3: Chapter 24.24, Hybrid Vehicle Registration Fee Rebate and Parking Relief Program is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: P76 VIII.b 3 Chapter 24.24 ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM Sec 24.24.010. Electric Vehicle Parking Program. There is hereby created an Electric Vehicle Parking Program within the City to encourage the ownership and use of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions in the City. Sec 24.24.020. Qualifications, administration and parking privileges. (a) For purposes of this Chapter, the following term shall have the following meaning: Electric vehicles, also known as all-electric vehicles or EVs, shall mean a vehicle that is powered by electricity only and is propelled by an electric motor that uses a rechargeable battery. These vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. This definition is in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy’s classification (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml). Neighborhood electric vehicles, also known as NEVs, shall mean a vehicle that is powered by electricity only and is propelled by an electric motor that uses a rechargeable battery. Like an EV, these vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. However, unlike an EV, NEVs are meant for short range driving and are not for use on roads or highways with speed limits over 35 mph. NEVs should comply with U.S. Department of Energy’s classifications (https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f21/nev_tech_spec.pdf). NEVs will be treated equally and consistently with EVs in the City of Aspen EV Parking Incentive Program. (b) Any person who is the owner of an EV or NEV may apply for an Aspen Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit on such forms as provided by the Director of Parking. The Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall allow all-electric vehicles (EVs and NEVs) to park in any Residential Permit Zone. Vehicles that display a valid Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit will be exempt from the two-hour parking restriction in Residential Permit Zones. (c) The application for an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall be reviewed by the City's Parking Department to determine whether the type of vehicle for which an application is made is all-electric. All-electric vehicles (EVs and NEVs) will be issued an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit. Such permits are not transferable. (d) NEVs will allowed to park for no charge in the Downtown Core. NEV’s are not exempt from the four (4) hour limit of parking in the Downtown Core or any other parking limitation or prohibition posted on an official sign. (e) If not otherwise renewed by City Council, this program shall be terminated as of December 31, 2019. P77 VIII.b 4 Sec 24.24.030. No exemption created. Display of an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall not exempt a vehicle from the provisions of Title 24 of this Code. Display of a permit on a qualifying vehicle does not convey any privileges other than that of exceeding the posted time limit in Residential Permit Zones. It does not authorize parking in any other restricted or prohibited zone or parking space. It does not authorize exemption from the seventy-two-hour parking limitation, nor any other parking limitation or prohibition posted on an official sign. Section 4: The effective date of Sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall be November 15, 2018. The effective date of Section 3, shall be January 1, 2019. Section 5: This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be constructed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: 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 effective validity of the remaining portions hereof. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: None at this time ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Parking management and pricing are integral elements of the City’s overall Transportation Implementation plan, designed as a system of incentives and disincentives to encourage the use of alternatives forms of transportation, thereby reducing congestion, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Aspen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Aspen City Council approve the changes to Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle code for the Residential Zones effective November 15,2018 This includes: · No unattached non-motorized vehicles P78 VIII.b 5 · Limit on number of Residential Passes a resident can get · Oversize vehicles cannot get a Residential Pass or Guest Permit · In any “Time Restricted Zone” a vehicle is only allowed one free visit a day · Electric vehicles can park in the Residential Zones with no payment needed ALTERNATIVES: Aspen City Council could agree to accept parts of the proposed plan or ask staff to analyze different options. PROPOSED MOTION: Aspen City Council approves Ordinance #23 of 2018 to Implement Changes to Title 24 of the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Code CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P79 VIII.b ORDINANCE NO. 23 Series of 2018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AMENDING TITLE 24 TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLES. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to reduce traffic coming into town, cut down on congestion in town, have no more than 90% parking occupancy on the streets in the core and to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to implement a seasonal parking pricing policy that results in higher commercial core parking fees during peak seasons to be determined by parking occupancy rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLRADO: Section 1: Chapter 24.04 is hereby amended by adding the following at the end thereof: Sec. 24.04.170. Unattached Vehicles No unattached non-motorized vehicle may be parked on any city street or ally without a valid permit. Any resident qualified to obtain a resident permit pursuant to Sec. 24.16.050 may purchase, upon payment of the prescribed fee, up to three (3) permits per year, with each permit limited to three (3) consecutive days, to park an unattached non-motorized vehicle within the City. Section 2: Chapter 24.16, shall be amended as follows: Sec. 24.16.050. Resident permit., shall be repealed and replaced in its entirety with the following: Sec. 24.16.050. Resident permit. (a) Commencing on November 15, 2018, upon payment of the prescribed fee, a maxim of four (4) resident permits and one (1) guest permit shall be issued for each residence within a residential permit- parking zone (RPZ). Commencing on November 15, 2019, and each year thereafter, upon payment of the P80 VIII.b prescribed fee, a maxim of four (3) resident permits and one (1) guest permit shall be issued for each residence within a residential permit-parking zone (RPZ). Permits shall be valid for one year. (b) One (1) resident permit shall be issued, upon payment of the prescribed fee, for any one (1) vehicle either owned by a business located within a residential-permit parking zone and holding a currently valid City business license or owned by a qualified nonprofit institution located within a residential-permit parking zone. (c) An applicant for a permit shall present: (a) evidence that the motor vehicle is in compliance with the county clean air program, (b) his/her current motor vehicle registration, and (c) a current operator's license with the application. No permit shall be issued in the event that either the registration or license shows an address not within the RPZ unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Manager that the applicant is, in fact, a resident of the RPZ and that the vehicle is used primarily by him/her. (d) An oversized vehicle shall not be eligible for a residential parking pass or guess permit. Oversized vehicle means any motorized vehicle that exceeds any of the following: 24 feet in length; 8 feet in width; 8 feet on height; or a manufacturer’s gross weigh rating of 10,000 pounds or more. Oversized vehicles may still purchase a day pass at the current daily rate to park in the residential zone. Sec 24.16.180. Time restricted parking areas in the Residential Permit Zones., shall be amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof: In any “Time Restricted Zone” a vehicle is only allowed one visit per day during enforcement hours. Section 3: Chapter 24.24, Hybrid Vehicle Registration Fee Rebate and Parking Relief Program is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Chapter 24.24 ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING INCENTIVE PROGRAM Sec 24.24.010. Electric Vehicle Parking Program. There is hereby created an Electric Vehicle Parking Program within the City to encourage the ownership and use of vehicles with no tailpipe emissions in the City. Sec 24.24.020. Qualifications, administration and parking privileges. (a) For purposes of this Chapter, the following term shall have the following meaning: Electric vehicles, also known as all-electric vehicles or EVs, shall mean a vehicle that is powered by electricity only and is propelled by an electric motor that uses a rechargeable battery. These vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. This definition is in accordance with P81 VIII.b the U.S. Department of Energy’s classification (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml). Neighborhood electric vehicles, also known as NEVs, shall mean a vehicle that is powered by electricity only and is propelled by an electric motor that uses a rechargeable battery. Like an EV, these vehicles have zero tailpipe emissions. However, unlike an EV, NEVs are meant for short range driving and are not for use on roads or highways with speed limits over 35 mph. NEVs should comply with U.S. Department of Energy’s classifications (https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f21/nev_tech_spec.pdf). NEVs will be treated equally and consistently with EVs in the City of Aspen EV Parking Incentive Program. (b) Any person who is the owner of an EV or NEV may apply for an Aspen Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit on such forms as provided by the Director of Parking. The Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall allow all-electric vehicles (EVs and NEVs) to park in any Residential Permit Zone. Vehicles that display a valid Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit will be exempt from the two-hour parking restriction in Residential Permit Zones. (c) The application for an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall be reviewed by the City's Parking Department to determine whether the type of vehicle for which an application is made is all-electric. All-electric vehicles (EVs and NEVs) will be issued an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit. Such permits are not transferable. (d) NEVs will allowed to park for no charge in the Downtown Core. NEV’s are not exempt from the four (4) hour limit of parking in the Downtown Core or any other parking limitation or prohibition posted on an official sign. (e) If not otherwise renewed by City Council, this program shall be terminated as of December 31, 2019. Sec 24.24.030. No exemption created. Display of an Electric Vehicle Parking Program Permit shall not exempt a vehicle from the provisions of Title 24 of this Code. Display of a permit on a qualifying vehicle does not convey any privileges other than that of exceeding the posted time limit in Residential Permit Zones. It does not authorize parking in any other restricted or prohibited zone or parking space. It does not authorize exemption from the seventy-two-hour parking limitation, nor any other parking limitation or prohibition posted on an official sign. Section 4: The effective date of Sections 1 and 2 of this ordinance shall be November 15, 2018. The effective date of Section 3, shall be January 1, 2019. P82 VIII.b Section 5: This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be constructed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 6: 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 effective validity of the remaining portions hereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of October, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by City Council of the City of Aspen on the _____day of _____________, 2018. __________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this______ day of ____________, 2018 __________________________ Steven Skadron, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Approved as to form: P83 VIII.b _____________________ James R True, City Attorney P84 VIII.b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director THRU: Sara Ott, Asst. City Manager MEETING DATE: September 17, 2018 RE: Ordinance #25, Series of 2018 - Expanding Investment Options to Include CHFA Debt REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting Council approve revisions to the City’s financial policies to allow investment in Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) bonds. CHFA is a recognized political subdivision of the State of Colorado and approval of this investment option would align with existing allowances to purchase revenue bonds of a similar type. BACKGROUND: Current City policies (Resolution 31, Series 2004) references State Statute 24-75-601.1, for allowable investment options. Included in that list of options are revenue bonds issued by any state, District of Columbia, U.S. Territory, or any of their subdivisions. The caveat, however, is that these securities also are required to have a qualifying rating (at or above “A” or its equivalent) from at least two national rating agencies and must be for durations not to exceed 5 years. While CHFA is a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, it does not receive ratings on its bond offerings. However, under this same section of the Colorado statute, subsection (3) states that nothing in this section is intended to limit the power of any home rule city to invest public funds in any security or other investment permitted under the charter or ordinance of such home rule city. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Because the City has control of the risk in these investments and because it is advantageous for the City to retain these interest earnings rather than pay an outside lender for such services, staff recommends the Council amend its financial policies to include CHFA debt as an allowable investment vehicle. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2018, to allow CHFA issued debt as an investment option for the City of Aspen.” CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P85 IX.a ORDINANCE NO. 25 Series of 2018 A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE BY THE CITY OF REVENUE BONDS ISSUED BY THE COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY. WHEREAS the provision of affordable housing is important to allow people who work in the City of Aspen (the “City”) and Pitkin County to live near where they work and to be part of the community; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. §29-4-723 provides that public entities like the City may invest in bonds issued by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (“CHAFA”) if such bonds satisfy the investment requirements of part 6 of article 75 of Title 24, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. §24-75-601.1(3) provides that a home rule city may invest any public funds in any security or investment permitted under ordinance of the city; and WHEREAS, in order to obtain financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation and equipping of affordable housing projects benefitting people who live and work in the City and Pitkin County, the Council wishes to authorize the investment of City funds in bonds issued by CHAFA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN: Section 1: The Council hereby authorizes investment of City funds in bonds issued by CHAFA if the Council adopts a resolution approving such investment. Section 2: All ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of the inconsistency. Section 3. 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. P86 IX.a 2 INTRODUCED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 17th day of September 2018. Steven Skadron, Mayor Attest: _____________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk ADOPTED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of September 2018. Steven Skadron, Mayor Attest: _____________________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk P87 IX.a TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phillip Supino, Principal Long THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director RE: Ordinance 24, 2018: MEETING DATE: September 24 _________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: Ordinance 24, Series 2018 provides amended permit to be displayed for an additional year. comply with the requirements of the United States Supreme Ariz. (2015), while permitting existing, permitted sandwich board signs to remain is in response to Resolution 127, 2018 and Council direction from the September 17, 2018 Council hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018. BACKGOUND: Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017 were in response to the June 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling municipal sign code regulations must be “content neutral”. focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the signage. Simply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the s complies, then the regulation is not content neutral. At the time of adoption of Ordinance 22, 2018, the status quo” to the extent possible. addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’s policy directive to “maintain the status quo” relative to the old sign regulations. staff to eliminate sandwich board signs as a permitted sign type and directed staff to delay enforcement of the new regulations until one year from the ordinance effective date, September 28, 2018. Memorandum Mayor and City Council Phillip Supino, Principal Long-Range Planner Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director , 2018: Reed-Compliant Sandwich Board Sign Regulations 24, 2018 _________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ amended code language to allow sandwich board signs for an additional year. The objective of the proposed code amendments is to comply with the requirements of the United States Supreme Court decision in Reed v. existing, permitted sandwich board signs to remain. is in response to Resolution 127, 2018 and Council direction from the September 17, 2018 Council approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018. Council adopted Ordinance 22, 2017 on August 28th by a vote of four to one. The code amendments 2015, U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (Reed) ations must be “content neutral”. This means sign focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the mply stated, the Supreme Court ruled that if one must read the sign to determine if it is not content neutral. At the time of adoption of Ordinance 22, 2018, Council’s over-arching policy objective was to “maintain us quo” to the extent possible. Ultimately, staff provided Council with four options for addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’s policy directive to e to the old sign regulations. In Ordinance 22, 2017, signs as a permitted sign type. Council approved that ordinance directed staff to delay enforcement of the new regulations until one year from the ordinance September 28, 2018. Sandwich Board Sign Regulations _______________________________________________________________________________________ code language to allow sandwich board signs with a 2017 The objective of the proposed code amendments is to Reed v. Town of Gilbert, . The draft ordinance is in response to Resolution 127, 2018 and Council direction from the September 17, 2018 Council The code amendments Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (Reed) that sign regulations must be focused on the size, type, location and appearance of signs, not the content of or entity displaying the ign to determine if it arching policy objective was to “maintain Ultimately, staff provided Council with four options for addressing sandwich boards. Each option created challenges for meeting Council’s policy directive to In Ordinance 22, 2017, Council directed . Council approved that ordinance 4-1 directed staff to delay enforcement of the new regulations until one year from the ordinance P88 IX.b Ordinance 24, 2018 - Sign Code Amendment, Second Reading 2 Beginning in June 2018, staff began reaching out to the business community to remind them of the pending change in sign regulation enforcement. Those efforts were successful at informing the business community. The proposed code amendment in Ordinance 24, 2018 is in response to public comment and Council discussion at the August 21st Council work session and September 17th Council meeting. DISCUSSION: At the September 17th Council meeting, Council adopted Resolution 127, Series 2018, directing staff to extend the expiration of sandwich board sign permits to September 28, 2019. To enable the code amendment, Council also opened the public hearing for Ordinance 24, Series 2018. Per Council direction, the draft ordinance includes language extending the expiration of existing sandwich board sign permits to 2019. RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): “I move to approve Ordinance 24, Series 2018.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings P89 IX.b 9/24/18 Second Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018 Sandwich Board Sign Code Update Page 1 of 3 ORDINANCE No. 24 Series of 2018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING CODE AMENDMENTS TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.510 – SIGNS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to craft code amendments to amend the City’s sign regulations; and, WHEREAS, signs are a form of speech protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and a 2015 United States Supreme Court decision (Reed v. Town of Gilbert) requires local governments to review and revise their sign regulations to ensure that those regulations emphasize the dimensional, design and location of signs rather than their content; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on August 28, 2017, the City Council approved Ordinance 22, Series 2017, by a four to one (4-1) vote amending the land use code; and, WHEREAS, the City regulates signs to: · Protect the rights of all persons to freedom of expression; and, · Protect the unique aesthetics and visual heritage of the City; and, · Maintain public health, safety, and welfare by preventing sign clutter, distractions from roadways and obstructions from signage; and, · Provide opportunities for commercial and non-commercial signs in commercial and residential zone districts; and, · Limit the proliferation of excessive signs in commercial and residential zone districts; and, · Ensure that sign regulations are adequate to accommodate the informational, advertising, wayfinding and speech needs of residents, businesses and visitors. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and consultants White & Smith, LLC conducted research into national best practices regarding sign code compliance with First Amendment principles to aid in the drafting of Ordinance 22, Series 2018; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development Department conducted Public Outreach with community members and stakeholders, the Planning & Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding the amendments to the sign code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council met in work sessions on August 21, 2018 and provided direction on potential amendments to the City’s sign regulations related to sandwich board signs; and P90 IX.b 9/24/18 Second Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018 Sandwich Board Sign Code Update Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code to comply with First Amendment principles and allow for the limited use of sandwich board signs will ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the sign regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public hearing on September 17, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution 127, Series 2018, by a four to one (4 – 1) vote to direct staff to amend the land use code; and, WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy direction, and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health safety and welfare; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Chapter 26.510.110 shall be amended as follows: 26.510.110 Sandwich board signs The display of sandwich board and similar free-standing, two sided signs on public or private property is not permitted. Sandwich board signs with a valid City of Aspen permit may be displayed until September 28, 2019. Expired sandwich board permits will not be renewed and sandwich board signs displayed without a permit must be removed in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Section 3: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the Ordinance. Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation. 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 5: Severability. 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. Section 6: Effective Date. In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final passage. Section 7: P91 IX.b 9/24/18 Second Reading, Ordinance 24, Series 2018 Sandwich Board Sign Code Update Page 3 of 3 A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of September, 2018, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 17th day of September, 2018. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of September, 2018. Attest: _____________________________ ____________________________ Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor Approved as to form: _____________________________ James R. True, City Attorney P92 IX.b Sandwich Board Sign Code Staff Findings– September 17, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit A: Staff Findings 26.310.040. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Initiation In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(2), Step Two – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider: A. Whether there exists a community interest to pursue the amendment. Staff Findings: Staff believes there is a community interest in amending the Land Use Code (LUC) to permit certain sign types in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court Case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. The proposed amendments ensure that the sign code balances community aesthetics with the commercial, directional, and informational benefits of signage. The proposed amendments also ensure that the City’s sign regulations remain in compliance with federal legal requirements. B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment furthers an adopted policy, community goal, or objective of the City including, but not limited to, those stated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Findings: It is the objective of Council and City staff to ensure that the legality of the sign regulations in the Land Use Code is maintained. Furthermore, it is the goal of Council to ensure that the public is provided with access to commercial, civic, and wayfinding information in a manner that enhances public health, safety and welfare while preserving community aesthetics. These goals are supported by the following Aspen Area Community Plan Policies: · V.2 Facilitate the sustainability of essential businesses that provide basic community needs. · V.3 Ensure that the City Land Use Code results in development that reflects our architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, density and a diversity of heights, in order to: o Create certainty in land development. o Prioritize maintaining our mountain views. o Protect our small town community character and historical heritage. o Limit consumption of energy and building materials. o Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs. o Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic congestion, and demand for affordable housing. C. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment are compatible with the community character of the City and in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Findings: The proposed code amendments support and enhance community character by balancing community aesthetics with the value of commercial, civic, safety, and wayfinding signage in appropriate quantities and locations. Further, the proposed code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the City’s sign regulations by ensuring their compliance with the requirements of the Reed decision. P93 IX.b