Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20130923Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................................ 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Marijuana ....................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 5 Licensing Marijuana Establishments .. 4 ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2013 – Aspen Modern Negotiation 624 W. Francis Street ...................... 5 ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 8 ............................................................. 6 ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments – PUD/SPA ................................................... 7 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments – Subdivision ................................................ 7 NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONCEPUTAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 602 E HYMAN AVENUE .................................................................................................................................... 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 2 Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. With Councilmembers Romero, Daily, Mullins and Frisch present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Susan O’Neal told Council community members have asked her to bring up that the roundabout is not attractive. There is a cluster of trees that obstructs the view and the edges just have weeds. Ms. O’Neal presented a petition signed by 160 people who live on Durant requesting speed limit showing 20 mph be posted; there is a speeding problem on Durant and people are not aware of the speed limit. Ms. O’Neal said 18 to 23 buses parked on Durant along Wagner park is not a good idea; there must be other places these buses could be parked. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins said she hiked Sky Mountain park last weekend; it is a great trail with incredible views. This is a good partnership between the city, county and Snowmass Village. 2. Councilwoman Mullins reported she attended green drinks at ACES hosted by the city and ACES and it was a great event. 3. Councilwoman Mullins noted Council got a tour of Rio Grande park and the on-going work, which is creating a park as well as storm water management system. 4. Councilman Frisch noted homecoming at Aspen High School is this weekend. 5. Councilman Daily said the Meatball Shack is having a fund raising event this evening for the flood victims on the front range. 6. Mayor Skadron wished a speedy recovery to the victims of the flooding on the front range. Aspen is participating in the recovering by making available police, police cars and some heavy equipment. 7. Mayor Skadron said he participated in the tour of the Burlingame II project, which is nearing completion, and thanked the staff and contractors who worked on the project. 8. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, told Council there is a homecoming bonfire and pep rally as a community event at the corner of Galena and Cooper this Wednesday. 9. Councilman Daily said he attended the Sister Cities meeting. They are working on a new sister city agreement with Abetone, Italy. 10. Councilwoman Mullins reported the outdoor music celebration of the Red Brick 40th anniversary was successful. The Red Brick received a grant from the state of Colorado. The work on the building continues with some funding from CORE grants. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 3 11. Councilwoman Mullins noted the Health and Human Services POD met with representatives from all the agencies who reported on their activities. 12. Mayor Skadron noted the BRT system is running, fun fast and frequent. RFTA is starting budget; their finances look good. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Mullins asked about the bidding process for the Deer Hill Vault. Mike McDill, utilities department, told Council the city received two bids; this was the lowest bidder. Councilwoman Mullins asked what was done to reduce the impacts of the vault. McDill said it was tucked into the corner and moved off the parking lot and they are building a berm over the vault. Councilman Frisch asked how staff measures the success regarding the recommended end of the stage one water shortage. Lee Ledesma, water department, told Council the city departments are broken into 4 groups of users and since August 2012, which was the first billing cycle under the water shortage rules, and 3 months of above average rainfall has helped. There has been water use reduction from 4% to 11%, average reduction 8% and 9.87% this year. Councilman Frisch said he wants to make sure the water use reduction strategies actually reduced consumption. Councilwoman Mullins asked what work is being done on the Hopkins Pedestrian connectivity project. Tyler Christoff, engineering department, said there are some sidewalk pieces missing, which will be constructed as well as some street lights. Christoff told Council there was only one bid for this project; the prices align with other competitive bids received by the engineering department. Mayor Skadron said he has problems with the street light and would like it deleted to honor the dark skies initiative. Mayor Skadron withdrew Resolution #92, Hopkins Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements, for a separate vote. Councilman Romero moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended: seconded by Councilman Daily. The consent calendar is: Resolution #86, 2013 - Yellow Brick Security Contract Resolution #88, 2013 – End Stage 1 Water Shortage Resolution #87, 2013 – Designating Local Liquor License authority as Marijuana Review Resolution #90, 2013 – Contract Deer Hill Pressure Reducing Vault Resolution #91, 2013 – Burlingame Phase II OZ Architecture Design Fees Minutes - September 9, 2013 All in favor, motion carried. Resolution #92, Series of 2013 – Hopkins Pedestrian Connectivity Improvements Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 4 Mayor Skadron moved that Resolution #92, Series of 2013, the contract for the proposed improvements to the sidewalk proceed but the street light be part of a future discussion; seconded by Councilman Romero. Councilwoman Mullins said she feels the suburbanization is more the addition of sidewalks rather than street lights. Councilwoman Mullins said this part of town is dark and she would prefer a low level downward direction for a street light. Mayor Skadron said he would like a broader discussion about dark skies and lighting in Aspen. The sidewalk is a connection between partially existing sidewalks. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Marijuana Chris Bendon, community development director, told Council this amendment adds definitions and zone districts to allow marijuana as a retail use downtown, similar to retail liquor stores, and describes medical marijuana as a service use similar to regulation of pharmacies. Definition of liquor stores and pharmacies has been added in this code amendment. Bendon said marijuana growing is not an agricultural use. Councilman Frisch asked where staff anticipates use of marijuana. Bendon said state law is vague about public consumption and staff suggests letting this be sorted out by the state; that part of the law will evolve over time. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #39, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #39 Series of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 26, THE LAND USE CODE, REGARDING RECREATIONAL MARIJ UANA Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 5 Licensing Marijuana Establishments Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, told Council some amendments to title 5 regarding the liquor license authority have been made to make it consistent with the City Charter. Ms. Quinn pointed out the ordinance expands the authority of the Liquor Authority and changes the name to Licensing Authority. The Authority may find if there are violations of this code, after a hearing, levy a fine rather than a suspension. The ordinance includes all 7 types of licenses approved by the state, 3 type of medical marijuana and 4 types of retail. Ms. Quinn reminded Council they Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 5 discussed a buffer zone and the ordinance includes a buffer of 500 feet from any school. This ordinance follows the state rules and regulations for licensing marijuana facilities. Ms. Quinn reminded Council at the work session on this topic, they discussed a transition period limiting this to persons holding a medical marijuana license or those with pending state applications as of October 1, 2013. The state has a transition period similar to this lasting until October 1, 2014. Ms. Quinn told Council the city is using state definitions for schools which would include day care centers; Council was mixed on whether a buffer was needed or not. Bendon reminded Council this is new territory for everyone and Council feels dealing with existing businesses with a concern and knowledge of the town is important. Bendon said the market will define the level of business in town. Bendon suggested the Authority could look at merit based criteria in approving licenses and this can be discussed during the 9 months before retail license are reviewed. Councilwoman Mullins asked about fees. Ms. Quinn said the state will be collecting $500 for medical marijuana, half of which will be given to local jurisdictions. Once retail shops are allowed, the license fee will be $5,000, half of which will be returned to local jurisdictions. Ms. Quinn said after January 1, 2014, anyone can file a notice of intent to file for a retail marijuana license. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor motion carried. Ordinance #38 (Series of 2013) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF RETAIL AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND AMENDING OTHER SECTIONS. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2013 – Aspen Modern Negotiation 624 W. Francis Street Amy Guthrie, community development department, said this is one unit of a duplex, constructed in 1964, it is a modern chalet, which represents a style in Aspen from the 1960’s and 70’s. HPC reviewed this and recommended it is a significant building and meets the designation criteria, representing the chalet style and scored 18 out of 20. The owners have requested some incentives in exchange for voluntary designation. Important to the applicant is an expedited review both approval process and building permit review. The proposed expansion is less than 500 square feet. The owners have requested a waiver of permit fees of about $23,000. There are impact fee waivers requested; any landmark receives waiver of parks and TDM fees. There are two trees in front of the house in poor health; the parks department supports these be taken out. The applicant would like the tree removal mitigation fee Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 6 of about $3,620 waived. HPC discussed a floor area bonus. The applicants are proposing a remodel; HPC is concerned that any remodeling not take away square footage for the other side of the duplex. HPC offered a 72 square foot FAR bonus, which is within their purview. There was a proposal to fill in under the cantilever deck, which is a defining feature of this style. HPC asked the applicant not to fill in and offered a 250 square foot floor area bonus if the applicants agreed to that. The applicants propose the 250 square foot bonus be a TDR, which will be added to the ordinance for second reading. Councilman Frisch asked about any negative consequences from historically designating only one side of a duplex. Ms. Guthrie said the two units are free standing and only connected on the back; the other unit could be demolished and rebuilt. Councilman Romero said this negotiation seems a good outcome of the land use code. Mayor Skadron asked what might have happened to this structure without AspenModern. Kim Raymond, representing the applicant, said the additions would have been glass and more modern looking and the space beneath the deck would have been filled in. Councilman Frisch said this seems like a great package of benefits being offered. Councilman Frisch said he supports historic preservation and pointed out negotiations can affect other parts of the community. Ms. Raymond said this designation is voluntary and it was a give and take discussion. HPC noted it was worth offering some incentives to save this property Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #40 Series of 2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPE4N, COLORAD, APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 624 W. FRANCIS STREET, UNIT B, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 2013, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 8 Mike Metheny, community development department, said this proposal changes language in the code from conditional certificate of occupancy to temporary certificate of occupancy. The new language is taken from the 2009 building code series. Metheny said there are many TCOs that have expired and are still unresolved; the first step to solving this is to stop issuing TCOs. This proposal changes the term to conditional and adds to the permit that it will expire on a date agreed to by all the parties. Metheny told Council staff did customer outreach with 4 meetings in city hall attended by about 50 people. Staff has included this information in building permit applications and in their newsletter. Metheny said some concerns were mixed use buildings, Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 7 tenant finishes and how that would be handled, finishing buildings during busy times and timely inspections. Staff is working on addressing these concerns. The building department has hired new staff, using some temporary staff to come up to date. Metheny noted staff realizes there are circumstances beyond anyone’s control; some contractors feel the process will be easier. Chris Bendon, community development department, said the TCO issue is the number one priority of staff to be addressed; next is how to deal with phased projects and phased COs; how to get a CO for a shell, then address tenant finishes. Councilman Romero said he feels this may be overly limiting on the more complex mixed-use projects with various finish dates. Bendon noted the next step is to look at more complicated projects. Bendon said there has not been a written policy on conditional certificates of occupancy. This document can be amended to address Council’s concerns. Councilman Romero stated he supports the overall goal of eliminating TCO’s. Councilman Daily said he, too, supports the objective. Councilman Daily said he feels “the applicant is prohibited from completing the project” may be too broad. Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilman Romero moved to approve Ordinance #35, Series of 2013, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #40, Series of 2013, to October 15; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments – PUD/SPA ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments – Subdivision Jessica Garrow, community development department, noted the adoption of these code amendments is scheduled for October 28th to coincide with a new chapter on development documents. Staff would like to hear Council suggestions, concerns, and questions. Ms. Garrow said one of Council’s and staff’s goals is to simplify the land use process. Ms. Garrow said a top issue is that the land use process is unpredictable; conceptual review in PUD and SPA allows an applicant to apply for final review and does not lock them into anything. Another issue is that review criteria within SPA and PUD are somewhat redundant; this clarifies and streamlines the process by combining SPA and PUD into one section, changes the process to a three step process and makes conceptual review binding. Ms. Garrow noted one question at first reading was how SPA was incorporated into PUD. Staff has added a criterion into PUD that is specific to land uses and requires the proposed uses must be compatible with the uses in the area and in considering that criteria, one looks at the existing use mix and whether the proposed uses would enhance the project or the neighborhood. Ms. Garrow pointed out adding uses to PUD does not change the applicant’s ability to request a use and dimension variance but clarifies and strengthens the process. Council has the same Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 8 discretion as they have today rather than two different land use processes, they are combined into one. Ms. Garrow said other question was what is a combined review and what is a consolidated review. Currently the code allows for concurrent reviews that would eliminate redundancy rather than having to go through two different reviews. The only change relates to historic properties to allow for historic preservation review and PUD review to eliminate bouncing between different boards. Properties in historic districts have 6 reviews at 3 different boards. This would allow a property in the historic district 3 reviews with 2 boards. Ms. Garrow noted there were areas where staff and P&Z differed on SPA and PUD. The first is related to minimum lot size. P&Z felt it was important that the 27,000 square foot minimum lot size be maintained; it helps with predictability for neighborhood. The 27,000 square foot lot size can be waived and it has been waived many times. There is no lot size requirement in SPA. Staff felt 27,000 square feet is an arbitrary number and staff felt Council should have the ability to review all PUDs on their merits, not just a lot size number. The second area was establishing maximum dimensional variations. P&Z felt it was important to state dimensions could only be varied by a certain amount but did not recommend that amount. Ms. Garrow said staff feels PUD should remain flexible and that every site is different and that staff and Council should review something based on its site specific constraints and opportunities rather than an arbitrary number. The concern is that an applicant will always ask for the maximum number rather than what is best for the site. Chris Bendon, community development department, said questions were submitted by a local planner and suggested in the prohibition of development on land unsuitable for development due to flooding, mud flow, etc to provide more definition around those. Bendon said staff agrees and will work on better definitions. Bendon noted one suggestion is that adjoining property owners may swap lands to increase their development rights. Bendon said staff agrees there should be better locations and uses for historic TDRs; the demand side needs places for TDRs to land; however, this ordinance is not the place to accomplish that end. Councilwoman Mullins stated she is supportive of the process changes and to make them consistent between SPA and PUD. Councilwoman Mullins said she does not support deleting the SPA; historically PUD deals with residential development in order to reap more benefit from a site. Councilwoman Mullins said SPA seems unique to Aspen and is used to memorialize non- complaint land use that may be beneficial to the public, like the Aspen Institute or the gondola plaza. The distinction seems that PUD is dimensional changes and SPA is land use changes and it is important to keep those distinct. Councilwoman Mullins said the concern is that the process may get muddled by combining these. Councilwoman Mullins stated she does not support getting rid of the minimum lot size. Bendon pointed out the criteria in PUD is more expansive; the SPA chapter is dated and one can amend both land uses and dimensions under SPA, making it similar to a PUD. Staff is trying to give Council latitude to accept dimensions, aspects of a project, uses, which is what this code amendment attempts to do. Bendon pointed out the minimum lot size can be reduced if an applicant has the potential of achieving a community goal. Bendon said there are some interesting PUDs on small lots where flexibility was needed. Bendon stated the objective is to Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 9 give Council the resources necessary to enable a community wide discussion and make a good land use decision. Councilman Frisch said in general he supports these code amendments; large project are looked at thoroughly no matter what they are called. Councilman Romero asked about the referendum possibility on land use decisions. Ms. Garrow said the ability to petition for a referendum happens after an ordinance, which is proposed to be at conceptual and which will be binding. The reason for the ordinance and binding decision at that step is that the dimensions, uses will be known. Final review is to address things like utility locations, storm water, and engineering concerns. Councilman Romero said this seems inconsistent with practice. Ms. Garrow said staff will have to educate applicants and the community that the process has changed, the same things are being discussed just at different points in the process. Ms. Garrow reminded Council the process was discussed during the policy resolution and the idea was that PUDs tend to be larger and more complex and before an applicant spends a lot of money on design documents, they can get an answer at conceptual. The details will be approved by P&Z. Bendon said concerns heard by staff are how tall are the buildings, what is the setback, the mass and scale issues, the uses, density, parking ratios. The details can be reviewed and handled by P&Z. Ms. Garrow said the project receiving ordinance approval should be fully thought out. Councilman Romero noted a P&Z member feels the community members will not have sufficient information at conceptual stage. Bendon reminded Council past reviews at conceptual have been perfunctory and then final takes many meetings. With this process there will be a greater level of review by Council and by the community at conceptual to enable a conversation about mass and scale, where the buildings are, the major issues which should be brought to the spotlight. Mayor Skadron said his main concern is the degree of scrutiny Council has over an application and this should not be diminished by the SPA being absorbed into PUD. Mayor Skadron said he prefers the process remain as is. Bendon suggested if a PUD wanted to add a use, would there be heightened awareness by additional review and notice. Bendon said if one does a PUD, it is only to vary dimensions; if one wants to vary their uses, they do an SPA and the notice would tell the public what is proposed. Councilwoman Mullins said there should be red flags when the city is discussing a change in land use. Mayor Skadron reiterated he has greater comfort with the current code than with this proposal as the code has been used to the community’s advantage. Mayor Skadron said he agrees with rearranging approval to conceptual; however, referendum should remain with the public on final adoption of a project. Bendon stated this proposal is that conceptual approval be meaningful and binding and enables one to go to final with everyone on the same page. Mayor Skadron concurred conceptual should be binding. Ms. Garrow said staff does not have an opinion on the referendum, only that conceptual be binding. The way the city Charter is written is that the public has referendum authority when an ordinance is adopted. Council asked if this weakens citizens’ ability to challenge an ordinance. City Attorney Jim True said it does not weaken that ability, it does change the timing and the community will need to know that referendums will have to come at conceptual. True noted only ordinances taking legislative action can be referred. Bendon said once a project has been agreed upon by Council, there should be a level of confidence that project has a future. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 10 Ms. Garrow said staff would like to know about combining PUD/SPA, whether there should be an enhanced notice requirement when it is a PUD with land use changes. Ms. Garrow said this could be defined with conceptual dimensions, conceptual uses and keeping the SPA label. Councilman Daily said he likes the single conversation concept. Councilman Daily said the term “conceptual” is misleading and the notice might state what can take place at a conceptual stage, like adoption of an ordinance, which can be subject to referendum. True reiterated referendum is not tied to “binding”, it is tied to adoption of an ordinance. Changing the process does not eliminate the right of referendum and the public needs to be aware of where that occurs. Councilman Frisch said the community rallies when they see a project they do not agree with, whether it is uses, height, scale and mass, and if the public turns out earlier in the process, it does not hurt anyone. Councilman Frisch stated he is comfortable with having the conversation earlier. Councilwoman Mullins said from HPC experience, she agrees conceptual review is a good place to discuss community issues and it would be unfair to an applicant to have the threat of referendum hanging to final approval. Councilwoman Mullins pointed out if there are substantial changes to final, these have to be brought back to Council. Bendon stated the bar for development still remains high; this is an attempt to provide clarity up front where the bar is and to have that conversation earlier in the process. If the developer is unwilling or the community does not accept the project, this should be known earlier. If the developer can propose a project that has certain uses, site plan, appropriate for the neighborhood and what the community is expecting, they should be allowed to go forward and prepare details necessary for the project to continue. Bendon noted this is not lowering any standards or making it easier for a development to get through. Bendon said while the bar is high, it is fuzzy and leads to frustration. There is a difference between being clear and tough rather than vague and tough and staff is suggesting this provides clarity. Councilman Romero said he supports the 3-step process and that conceptual be binding and the suggestions that there be broader community awareness and that any changes after conceptual review be approved by Council. Councilman Frisch said his review is what is in a development for the community, not making it easier for the developer. Mayor Skadron agreed an applicant going through the process should have clarity; however, the concern is that the public has the authority that what is finally delivered is in line with the community’s core values. Mayor Skadron said he does not want that authority overridden which is separate from a clear process for applicants. Bendon said staff may change the term “conceptual” to give the community a sense this is a decision they should pay attention to. Councilman Romero moved to continue Ordinances 36 and 37 to October 28; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONCEPUTAL DEVELOPMENT FOR 602 E HYMAN AVENUE Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 23, 2013 11 Chris Bendon, community development department, noted this is a call up of approval granted earlier; HPC noted they like this amendment better than the earlier approval. Council agreed they are not desirous of a call up. Councilman Daily moved to go into executive session at 7:50 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4)(b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Daily moved to come out of executive session at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Romero moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.