Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20180917Regular 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 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. 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 star t Wednesday. 7th and Main will open by October 8th. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins said RFTA is encouraged by the economic benefits. She went to Carbondale 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. 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, 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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