HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20131028Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
1
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 2
COUNCIMEMBER COMMENTS ................................................................................................ 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #45, SERIES OF 2013 – Approving Addition of “Retiring in APCHA Rental and
Ownership: section to the Housing Guidelines ............................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 29 Engineering Standards ....... 4
ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments Construction and Excavation
Standards ......................................................................................................................................... 4
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD.................................. 5
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Subdivision ................................... 5
ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Approval Documents .................... 5
ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Planned Development ...................... 7
233 W. HALLAM HPC CONCEPUTAL NOTICE OF CALL UP ............................................... 9
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
2
Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Daily, Mullins,
Frisch, and Romero present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There were none.
COUNCIMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Romero stated he hopes the Hechts win the bulk bid on the state revenue
seized Little Annie’s with the result that would allow reopening of Little Annie’s. Council
agreed.
2. Councilman Frisch noted this week is Halloween, a great event in Aspen, and urged
everyone to be careful driving and walking around town.
3. Councilwoman Mullins reported she attended the Kid’s First lunch, where there were
presentations, one of interest was on outdoor living spaces.
4. Mayor Skadron thanked Mr. White’s fourth grade class where he spoke on government
and he was impressed with the preparation and quality of questions from the fourth graders.
5. Mayor Skadron congratulated Coach Sirko and Derek Johnson and the Aspen High
School Skier’s football team and their victory over Basalt and gaining a spot in the football
playoffs.
6. Councilman Mullins noted she attended a RWAPA retreat this month where the
importance of water shed issues was reaffirmed. RWAPA’s mission is Ruedi-centric rather than
the entire water shed and pushing collaborative efforts with other jurisdictions. RWAPA
discussed beginning work on the conservation plan, which is the implementation of the water
shed plan. Councilwoman Mullins said there will be a new funding request for the invasive
species program.
7. Councilman Frisch reported ACRA is sponsoring an event to engage businesses in the
Aspen core to find out about rebates available for commercial spaces.
8. Mayor Skadron said at the CAST meeting in Basalt, they heard from Mtrip about tourism
market update and winter preview. Mayor Skadron said Jim Burrell, Medalist Sports, came and
talked about the pro cycling challenge and questions and hopes ski town have about the future of
the bike race in the mountains.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Cindy Christensen, housing department, pointed out the two major changes in the IGA regarding
the housing operations are the call up procedures and adding two additional members. Ms.
Christensen told Council there is a request to change the term of each board member from 2
years to 4 years and adding a 3 four-year term limit. Councilman Daily said 3 four-year terms
seems like a long time and asked if it is important to have members serve that long; turn over can
be healthy. Tom McCabe, housing department, agreed turn over can be healthy. Term limits
were discussed and recommended by the board. Councilman Frisch said the two sides to this
are historical knowledge versus fresh perspectives. Councilman Frisch stated all city boards
should have the same policy regarding term limits. Councilman Frisch said he would like the
housing board to comment on number of term limits and length of term. Councilwoman Mullins
said she felt 12 years is too long. Councilman Frisch suggested this be continued until the
housing board discusses this. Mayor Skadron pointed out the changes before Council are the
addition of 2 members and of a call up procedure regarding guideline changes.
Councilman Romero moved to approve the minutes of October 15, 2013; seconded by
Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Skadron moved to continue Resolution #99, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #45, SERIES OF 2013 – Approving Addition of “Retiring in APCHA Rental
and Ownership: section to the Housing Guidelines
Tom McCabe, housing department, reminded Council the guidelines do not have a retirement
section and there are a lot of questions on that issue. The requirements are to live and occupy
the unit 9 months/year; not to own property in the exclusion zone; and the definition of retiree is
included. McCabe noted he included the definition of full retirement age from the social security
department as some of APCHA’s guidelines refer to that definition. The retirement age will
increase to and stay at 67 unless the housing office comes back to the elected officials and
change that. McCabe noted affordable housing is a community asset and the rules should
address all.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #45, Series of 2013; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #45
Series of 2013
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
4
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTRY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #45, Series of 2013, on first reading with
amendments submitted at meeting; seconded by Councilman Mullins. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Title 29 Engineering Standards
ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendments Construction and Excavation
Standards
Trish Aragon, city engineer, said staff is not asking for adoption at this meeting but would like
comments and then have more time for public input and review. This amendment is to clean up
engineering standards spread throughout the municipal code and is a guide for an applicant going
through the engineering requirements. Ms. Aragon pointed out she included maps Council
requested. Title 29 will create a variance process and an appeal process; it creates standard
symbology for engineering drawings for different systems, access drive locations off minor street
on a corner, off street parking allowing for compact cars, curb & gutter capacity 12” from flow
line to protect the building, emergency access design standards which were not in the code
before, grading standards, slope stability review.
Title 21 changes to make it meld with title 29. Council asked for a street component added into
title 21 which puts in a policy to insure transportation improvements are designed, planned and
constructed to encourage alternate modes of transportation and to encourage transit routes and to
promote safe operations for all users. Ms. Aragon said she will revise this before final adoption
to be more forward thinking, and include more master planning. Ms. Aragon reminded Council
they brought up lightening and she would like to address this in a work session; it is a bigger
topic that just adding to a municipal code section. Lighting discussion will require input from
the utilities department and the public and staff will come back in December.
Ms. Aragon told Council staff has been and continues to do public outreach; engineering and
community development have had two open houses. Staff has met with architects and engineers
at their offices; there has been positive reception. Councilman Romero asked who hears the
appeals. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council the city has a hearing
officer to handle appeals of administrative decisions. Ms. Aragon said staff is continuing public
outreach; the engineering firms wanted to look at the standards one more time. Councilwoman
Mullins said she likes the changes made by staff in the introduction and those since first reading.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
5
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #42, Series of 2013, to November 18,
2013; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullin moved to continue Ordinance #43, Series of 2013, to November 18, 2013;
seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 2013 – S. Aspen Street Subdivision/PUD
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #23, Series of 2013, to November 11,
2013; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council the applicant has been
responsive to staff’s comment. The applicant is updating their plans, which staff has sent to
referral agencies. Bendon said staff hopes to have a recommendation of approval for the
November 11th meeting.
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Subdivision
ORDINANCE #41, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment – Approval Documents
Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council staff is recommending
continuing these until November 18th for final review and edits. Bendon noted the submission
requirements for subdivision include a narrative provided by a professional engineer, mapping
and diagram as necessary as required in title 29 and the city’s urban runoff management plan.
The information should be of sufficient detail to understand the locations and extent of
development, necessary upgrades or alignments. Specific engineering solutions do not need to
be provided for the land use review. Bendon said the public has described engineering solutions
as an obstacle to land use review process; that a detailed engineering plan was required just to
find out if the project would go forward. Those types of engineering documents would be
required at final document submittal.
Bendon said the approval document changes were part of the public outreach. Engineering firms
wanted to see within approval documents, when a public infrastructure plan is required, a
lowering in the level of engineering documents. Language was added to require sufficient detail
to include unit totals for cost estimating and surety requirements but construction documents are
not required.
Councilman Romero asked how much time was spent with the public going over public
improvements and financial guarantees. Bendon said one reason he is suggesting this be
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
6
continued is to try and get more comment on this section. Councilman Romero said he does not
recall discussing the requirement that the city obtain 150% of the estimated value of the public
improvement, 150% of affordable housing guarantee of some projects could be millions and
millions of dollars put aside to the life of the delivery and after the delivery is determined
acceptable, 100% is returned and the other 50% is kept for 2 years. Councilman Romero said the
city wants to communicate high standards that protect the community and are easily understood.
Bendon said in many projects, the guarantee is related to sequencing and receiving building
permits when the previous step is completed. Bendon said those are for situations where a
developer could walk from a project; this is to protect the public interest with site protection
requirements. Bendon said Councilman Romero’s comments highlight some tune-ups needed.
Bendon said he will target the land use planners to review this language before final reading.
Councilman Romero said requiring protection and surety and how they are achieved should be
definitive as well as address the timing in which the protections need to be placed. Bendon said
these are all funded at the issuance of building permit. Councilman Romero said for landscaping
protection guarantee, it could be sitting not relevant for several years before the landscaping is
put in place. Councilman Romero said staff should consider the timing to be better equated to
when the risk exposure is relevant. Bendon said he will look at the timing for sureties, which
might be negotiated as part of the development agreement, and perhaps roll from one section of a
project to the next where the surety is needed. This can also be dealt with on a case by case
basis. Councilman Frisch agreed how much should be collected, when it should be collected,
and when it should be returned should be re-examined.
Councilman Daily suggested the language be narrowed to cover what is intended to be
guaranteed. Councilwoman Mullins asked the sequence of submittal documents. Bendon said
the ordinance has a menu of plans that will document the approval as granted with timelines and
how to relate to the approval as granted, with dates and deadlines, in order to understand what
was approved. Not every project will need all the plans listed in the ordinance. Mayor
Skadron stated standards should deliver appropriate development, which is development
concurrent with AACP principles. Mayor Skadron asked if the standards are protecting the city
from development that does not meet the principles or are the standards driving development the
city does not want. Bendon said development document section is making sure everyone is on
the same page about what is expected and to insure to the public that an applicant will deliver on
their promises. If an applicant does not deliver on the promises, especially those in the public
rights-of-way, the city has their escrow money and the city can deliver to promises to protect the
public. To insure there is enough money to complete improvements like this, staff is
recommending 150% escrow. Mayor Skadron said by final adoption he would like assurance
that the revisions have not lessened public protection.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
7
Ziska Childs suggested the escrow money go into an interest bearing account with the interest
going back to the developer. Bendon said this may be a legal or finance question. Jim True,
city attorney, pointed out these escrows are done through title companies and it depends on what
kind of account is set up. The city is not holding the money. True said staff can look at how this
is done and comment at the next hearing.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #37 and Ordinance #41 to November 18, 2013;
seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2013 – Code Amendment Planned Development
Chris Bendon, community development department, pointed out this is now called planned
development rather than planned unit development. The amendment is more specific about the
three-step review and outlines the three steps. Step one is project review with P&Z; it used to be
called conceptual which could be misleading. Step two is project review with Council. This sets
out the parameters of the project; uses, mass and scale, dimensions, heights, floor area. The
final step is detail review with P&Z where the applicant goes over architecture, landscape plan,
and utility layouts. A section for use variation has been included. Bendon pointed out the only
difference between a SPA and a PUD is varying the uses. If one is seeking a use variation, they
are required to do an enhanced neighborhood outreach achieved by physical meetings, go to
meetings, or enhanced mailings. The applicant also needs to be specific about the type of uses
that may be varied, like including a restaurant in a lodge.
Bendon said this draft eliminates the combined review; currently an applicant can go through a
two-step review by providing all the information up front. Bendon said during review, an
applicant may have less resistance to changing plans as they have not spent a lot of money on
detailed architecture or engineering. Combining all review into a two-step would result in high
stakes decisions at the last minute. Bendon suggested hearing from the development community
on this as well as more flexibility in project amendments if the two-step review process is
allowed.
Bendon said all reviews for a project should be combined with planned development project
review so the community can make one decision about a project. Bendon noted language about
the purpose of the project review approval has been enhanced. Once a project review approval
has been granted by Council, it sets for the overall concept and parameters of the project, land
use lays out mass, scale, dimensions and variations from use requirements. This highlights that
project review is Council’s opportunity to set out the parameters of the project; the detail review
is that not just another chance to review the parameters. If an applicant wants to amend the
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
8
parameters, they would have to return to Council for project review. Bendon said project review
approval will be filed.
Bendon pointed out a new section on use variation standards makes it clear there are additional
standards for a use variation. Bendon said for amendments, insubstantial has been limited to
those amendments not requiring variation in the use, not requiring increase in height or in floor
area; these are limited to small changes when the design team is doing final details as realizes
modification are needed. These can happen at administrative level. Bendon told Council there
are properties in Aspen designated PUD overlay with no specific plan review or adopted.
Bendon said some applicants want to document existing conditions as well as modernize
documentation. Bendon said there is an opportunity to combine reviews for properties that are
historically designated or are in a historic district and have that review done by P&Z; any
amendments would go back to HPC.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would like more distinction between PUD and SPA.
Councilwoman Mullins said there should be strong emphasis on use variation; it is important to
make people aware when there is use variation. Bendon noted there are additional review
standards, additional noticing to neighbors, and requiring specificity on what is being varied.
Councilwoman Mullins stated it make sense to combine SPA and PUD and to standardize the
reviews; however, any project that is changing uses should be emphasized or stressed. Bendon
said the section requires an applicant make their case with the neighbors as well as having
additional review standards. Bendon said a planned development application with requests for
use variation would describe those and would be subject to additional review criteria so that a
neighborhood will know what is going on with a project.
Councilman Romero said the public’s interest is best served when there is a project review; the
applicant understands the process and what it takes to get there and the community has a level of
reliance on the reviews. Councilman Romero said these amendments are an improvement.
Councilman Daily said this is an important consolidation and updating of the regulations and the
project review approach will be thoughtful and workable in balancing the interests of the
community and of the developer.
Mayor Skadron said combining SPAs and PUDs brings clarity to those charged with assessing
review. His concern is that the power remain in the community’s hands and appropriate review
authority is not lost in the city’s attempt to provide facility to the development review process.
Mayor Skadron stated when Council sees this again, his concern will be the degree to which
P&Z and Council retain its authority in application review. Bendon stated Council should feel
confident in retaining all their authority, especially in project review which front end loads the
discussion around a project. This project review may lengthen the time it takes to go through the
process.
Mayor Skadron opened the public hearing.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 28, 2013
9
Ziska Child agreed it is easy to change designs when they are only on paper and anything that
can be done to facilitate that flexibility early in the process will be good for everyone. Ms. Child
reminded Council not everyone in front of Council will be large scale developers and keeping
these regulations non-technical will help those applicants.
Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue Ordinance #36, Series of 2013, to November 18;
seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion
233 W. HALLAM HPC CONCEPUTAL NOTICE OF CALL UP
Councilwoman Mullins said this appears to be a big development on a small site and
contributing to that are the 3’ variance on the east side of the property and the 500 square foot
FAR bonus. Staff’s explanation is that the Victorian is being moved back to its original location
so it is hard to argue against a variance if they are doing that. Councilwoman Mullins said staff
feels this is one of the best restorations and the 500 square foot bonus is warranted.
Council agreed HPC review is sufficient and no call up necessary.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 7:05 p.m. seconded by Councilman Romero. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk