HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20150504Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
1
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2
CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS .................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS ........................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 2
HPC CALL UPS ........................................................................................................................................... 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2
Resolution #46, Series of 2015 – Street Department Dump Truck Replacement ................................. 3
Resolution #48, Series of 2015 – Proposed Use of Reudi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the First
Draft of the Colorado Water Plan ................................................................................................................. 3
Solid Waste Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #50, Series of 2015 – Library Lease of Old Power House ................................................. 3
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2015 – 300 AND 312 E Hyman Ave – Subdivision ................................ 3
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment................................................ 4
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work session Code Amendment ......................................... 5
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4&5, Growth Management
Allotments ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable
Development Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
2
Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order at 5:00pm with Councilmembers Mullins, Romero and
Frisch present.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Richard Pryor and Linda Consuegra, police, introduced the four new police officers Seth Delgrasso,
Andriano Minniti, Duxton Milam, and Josh Uhernik.
Mayor Skadron swore in the new police officers.
Aspen Police Appreciation Week is May 10-16. Mayor Skadron read the proclamation.
CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. Marcia Goshorn commented on the proposed maintenance building for Wagner Park. She said it
will be 40 feet long an 11 feet tall. She suggested the public notice sign be moved to somewhere
the public can see it.
COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS
1. Mayor Skadron said it is election eve, please vote if you haven’t already.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS
1. Steve Barwick thanked the public for their patience on some of the City projects that have been
going on. We will be asking for that patience again with the Rubey Park project. Durant Street is
closed now through the end of May.
HPC CALL UPS
609 W. Smuggler
Chris Bendon introduced Sarah Rosenberg. Council elected not to call up the application.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #48 – Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the First Draft of the Colorado
Water Plan
Councilwoman Mullins asked about the first paragraph of the letter where it says undefined amount of
water and undefined number of years. She asked for a time limit and a number of years. Debbie Quinn,
assistant city attorney, said the proposal is not fully defined and the lease is being negotiated. One of the
issues the City and County has is it is undefined. Dave Hornbacher, utilities, said they are working
towards a one year pilot program. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the IPPS in the second letter. Mr.
Hornbacher said it is a general term for identified projects and processes.
Resolution #50 – Library Lease of Old Power House
Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said they were approached by Jody and Cathy about using the Old Power House for
the library during the construction project.
Jody Smith, county facility superintendent, said the request is to start the lease on June 1st for six months.
Councilman Frisch said we are trying to turn over the building as soon as possible will one month make a
difference. Jack Wheeler, asset, said there are two projects happening this summer. They would have to
come back and ask for any extension. The summer improvements are arranged for in the lease.
Councilman Frisch said we need to honor a hard date and would prefer not to see rolling 30 day
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
3
extensions. Jim True, city attorney, said the lease is a hard date of seven months. The original five
months plus two.
Councilman Romero said it is perfectly reasonable to have an extension.
Councilwoman Mullins said she would support the June 1 move in date with the six month lease and a
one month extension.
Councilman Frisch said we have one year to get the building ready for the new tenant. Mr. Wheeler said
the remodel project is going to happen while the library will be occupying the building. Councilman
Frisch said his preference is to remove the 30 day notice and any options.
Mayor Skadron said we should stick to the original nine month agreement plus two month option.
Councilwoman Mullins said we should partner and let them go in June first. Ms. Smith said they were
looking for some flexibility and the 30 day notice was to give notice to the moving company and the
public. She said it is unlikely they will be done in six months.
Councilwoman Mullins proposed June 1 for six months with a one month extension and a 30 day
termination. Councilman Frisch went back to no option. Mr. Pendarvis said the library is busy in
December and nobody wants to move in January. He suggested a seven month lease through January 31.
Mr. Wheeler said he and Ms. Smith would prefer the 30 days stays in the lease. Mayor Skadron said the
proposal is an eight month lease beginning June 1 running through January 31 with the 30 day
termination remaining. Mayor Skadron said he is opposed to this and he believes it should be five months
with two additional months if necessary. We are filing to recognize the possible points of contention in
the future and the promises we have made to the applicant who is getting the space.
Resolution #46, Series of 2015 – Street Department Dump Truck Replacement
Resolution #48, Series of 2015 – Proposed Use of Ruedi Water for the 15 Mile Reach and the
First Draft of the Colorado Water Plan
Solid Waste Assessment
Resolution #50, Series of 2015 – Library Lease of Old Power House
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #46, 48 and the Solid Waste Assessment; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Resolution #50, Series of 2015 amended to begin June 1 through
January 31 with a 30 day mutual termination agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor except Mayor Skadron. Motion passes 3 to 1.
ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2015 – 300 and 312 E Hyman Ave – Subdivision
Becky Levy, community development, told the Council the proposal is to merge two lots into one 9,000
sq ft parcel at the corner of Monarch and Hopkins. P&Z passed Resolution 7, 2015 recommending
approval and the public hearing is scheduled for June 8.
Mayor Skadron asked if the proposed charter amendment has any effect on this application. Mitch Haas
replied none.
Councilman Romero asked if it is customary to consider the merger prior to a development application.
Mr. Bendon said most communities do the merger first then the development. Councilman Romero said
what is the downside to the public, if any. Mr. Bendon replied he does not see one. The property line
down the center of a project can open up all kinds of technical glitches that are unnecessary and there is a
benefit to cleaning up the property this way. Councilman Romero asked if there in any enrichment to the
parcel by having this occur and is there any expanded development opportunity. Mr. Bendon said the
properties can be built out to the lot line today.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
4
Councilwoman Mullins asked if this can be reversed in the future. Mr. Bendon replied yes.
Councilwoman Mullins said her biggest concern is it relaxes some of the building code rules. She would
rather see the building proposal at the same time.
Mayor Skadron said there is no enhancement of development rights and it makes the review easier. He
said he is not interested in that but what is delivered to the community. He wants to know how much
build out is allowed there including mass and scale and character. He said he wants to have a clear
picture of what might or might not end up here.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO.19
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CRYSTAL
PALACE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 AND 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K AND L, AND LOT M OF BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment
Justin Barker, community development, stated this is a continued public hearing from April 27 for a Staff
initiated code amendment to comply with State statutes. At the last public hearing there was concern that
the City would be able to take advantage of the automatic approval provision within 60 days. There was
an option suggested to mitigate the concern and the language was amended in the ordinance prohibiting
the City from using the 60 day provision.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said section 26.5.030 still puts the City within the same 60 days. She said the
City should be going through he full process. Mr. True said 26.500.060 said City projects shall
not require the decision in the 60 days and it takes it out of the deemed approved State statute for
our own projects. Ms. Goshorn said she is also concerned with taking a private project and
putting it within the 60 days if the Staff decided it is a public benefit. You need to have public
buy in before you take that step. Mr. True said a private project with an essential public benefit
can go pursuant to this statue. They cannot take advantage of the deemed approved after 60 days
if the City does not take any action.
2. Amos Underwood said he is concerned with the removal from the purpose statement the
allowance of the greater public participation in the review process. It is important when it comes
to City development to have public participation.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
5
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 2015; second by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work session Code Amendment
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this ordinance is for two amendments. The first
is to remove the work sessions from the process and the second is to remove a reference to a specific
building code. Work sessions have been part of the process for around three decades for informal input.
They are required for floor area bonus asks. Staff would like to remove work sessions partly because they
have changed over the years. There is no staff memo at the work session. Staff is not sure there is a way
to provide an informal review without a proper public hearing.
Councilman Frisch asked how P&Z operated compared to HPC. Mr. Bendon replied P&Z does not have
work sessions. He said the work sessions do not include everyone and do not provide the same level of
information.
Councilman Romero said it is appropriate and broadens public participation and awareness. We are not
getting rid of work sessions but improving the technique of how HPC conducts its meetings. He fully
supports it.
Councilwoman Mullins said she supports the building code change but can’t support getting rid of the
work sessions. Because it is not binding has its own downside but the applicant is aware of that and it is
an opportunity for the applicant, HPC and staff to have a much more free flowing discussion. It can result
in a better project. If the work sessions are public noticed it gives the public one more opportunity to see
what is going on. The public can come to the work session or send a letter or email. It should be treated
differently than P&Z.
Mr. Bendon said now we have a system where the neighbors are not notified and it might work 99 times
out of 100. The only difference now is the first meeting called a work session or meeting number one.
We have an obligation to make sure everyone is fully informed.
Mayor Skadron asked Councilwoman Mullins if see foresees a problem calling the work session meeting
one. She replied there is a real distinction between the first public meeting and a work session. The work
session is non-binding and the public meeting is. At the public meeting HPC is obligated to comment on
the project through the guidelines.
Mr. True said a lot of this discussion came from the City attorney’s office. They were concerned with
some of the informal aspects associated with work sessions, particularly the public notice aspects. He
said the notice requirements need to be formalized. He suggested a motion to continue.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Marcia Goshorn said what she found good about the work session in the past is when HPC reads
something they have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify it before they get in to the
official meeting.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
6
Councilman Romero moved to continue Ordinance #13, Series of 2015 to June 22, 2015; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor
Skadron yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4&5, Growth Management
Allotments
Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the application is for lots 4 and 5 of the Ranger Station
Subdivision. It was submitted by Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 & 4 LLC and is represented by Mike
Hoffman. The request is to receive development allotments, one for each lot so each can be developed
residentially. The property is zoned R6 with a PD overlay. The applicant is requesting to pay cash in lieu
for affordable housing mitigation for receiving the allotments. They are also asking to memorialize to
calculate floor area for each lot and five years vested rights.
The history of the property starts with the forest service property and takes up most of blocks 9 and 10
excluding poppies. It includes a couple alleys that have been vacated and a portion of W Francis Street
that was also vacated. The property as a whole was platted as the original town site lot. In 1940 the
forest service gained ownership. The property is bounded by Smuggler, Hallam, Seventh and Eighth
Street. It has operated as the forest service headquarters with housing on site. In 2011 the forest service
began work on the redevelopment plan including new office facilities and salable lots to fund the project.
As a federal agency they represented to the City they would not participate with a city review. In May
2013 a plat was recorded to create five lots. The City did not consent or sign the plat. The City began
receiving inquires on the lots after the plat was recorded and created a written summary in July 2013. The
key issues recognize in the summary included the City would recognize the lots but they must meet city
regulations. They have to take into consideration how to calculate and measure floor area. There might
be issues with the SI Johnson ditch and none of the lots have development allotments. The properties
went to auction in 2013 and all sold. With the five lots there are three owners. The applicant is
requesting a development allotment for each lot. Lot 4 is a larger lot of 11,614 sq ft containing a former
alley. There is also a utility easement. The property is large enough for a duplex. Lot 5 is smaller at
7,490 sq ft. It includes part of the vacated W Francis Street and the SI Johnson ditch. It is large enough
to accommodate a single family home. The requests being asked for include floor area. The request is to
include the portions of lot 4 and 5 that were formerly the alley on lot 4 and formerly Francis Street on lot
5 to count towards the floor area. Under today’s code there is a section called calculation and
measurements and it requires deductions for steep slopes and water and site constraints. In regards to
vacated right of ways it is a measure to reflect that there may be a portion of the right of way but there
were never development rights associated with it. If you happen to gain additional square footage you can
use it but you don’t get additional development rights from something that was vacated by the City. On
lot 4 the alley is just over 1,600 sq ft and what that means in a deduction is it is 96 sq ft in floor area. For
lot 5, a larger portion of Francis St., 2,500 sq ft represents 489 sq ft of floor area that would not be able to
be developed. The applicant is requesting both the alley and Francis Street be counted towards floor
area.
There are yearly maximums for development allotments whether it is residential, lodging or commercial.
There is cap per calendar year. Staff’s position is the newly created lots do not have any development
rights as they did not go through a City review process. The growth management for a project like this is
60 percent of the units should be affordable housing and 30 percent of the floor area at a category four
income level. To meet the requirement when it can’t be met on site include cash in lieu, affordable
housing credit, physical units or combination.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
7
For vesting the minimum requirement is three years and the applicant is asking for a five year vesting
period.
Mike Hoffman told the Council he is representing the applicant, Aspen Dragonfly Partners 3 LLC and
Aspen Dragonfly Partners 4 LLC. The lots were owned by the US government and certain aspects did
not apply and continue to do not apply.
It is their believe these lots are entitled to development rights and should only have to go through an
administrative review for growth management. The maximum affordable housing mitigation cost is
$573,283.
He showed lots 4 and 5 with the town site overlay of lots K, L, M, N, and O. He showed variances that
were granted for non-conforming town site lots.
He requested an immediate decision that this is handled administratively and not through City Council.
Mr. True stated staff does not agree with Mr. Hofmann’s assessment that these lots do not have any
development rights. When these two lots were sold to these two LLC’s it has been our position they had
no development rights. There can be no question that the meets and bounds description of the parcels that
they own was simply a creation of the forest service at the time. We agreed with the for est service we
would not challenge this as an illegal subdivision.
Ms. Phelan said if we are taking the position that the lots were never merged you have 34 lots. What the
forest service conveyed was a meets and bounds description creating 5 lots that do not follow the
individual town site lots.
Councilman Frisch said there were the historical 34 lots and the forest service carved out 5 lots. Mr. True
said we were careful with providing the forest service with information to pass onto buyers. There would
be rules the buyers would have to go through to get development rights. Councilman Frisch said
regardless of any map, the forest service started from scratch in 2013. Mr. True replied that has been our
position. The property was sold with the description of lots 4 and 5 and the meets and bounds
description. We were not asked to approve the survey and the sale was done.
Councilman Romero asked if the attorney’s office meet with Dragonfly prior to the purchase. Mr. True
replied not prior to the auction. Representatives came to the City and asked for information. Councilman
Romero asked if there is any case law to provide additional guidance. Mr. True said he is not familiar
with any specific cases that would align with these circumstances.
Mr. Hoffman said they are asking to complete all land use reviews and achieve a compromise on the cost
of the affordable housing mitigation and to establish a binding consensus on the new lot area of each of
the lots and to receive five year vesting. The maximum house size is dependent on the floor area ratio
and the net lot area which equals the gross lot area less certain deductions required by code. There are
two types of deductions; steep slopes and vacated streets and alleys. They believe there are steep slopes
on the site that are man-made as a function of the SI Johnson ditch. They went to the historical society
for photos and showed photos of 8th, Smuggler and Francis indicating the flatness of the site prior to the
ditch. They acknowledge there was a newly created access easement on the north side of lot four and
there should be a deduction.
Mayor Skadron stated he can agree to cash in lieu but he can’t agree to memorializing what the number
should be. It could be completely different in five years. Mr. Hoffman said he is willing to remove that.
Mr. Hoffman said this is a unique situation and urged Council to accept the inclusion of vacated Francis
Street into the area that can be used to create floor area. He asked them to approve the development
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
8
allotments and the affordable housing mitigation using the cash in lieu at the regulations current at the
time of application. Mayor Skadron said he can agree with some of it but not all. The allowable FAR is
based on the lot as platted. Councilman Frisch said it is important to not treat these lots any different than
if a private seller did the transaction. He said he is having a hard time supporting this because it seems
like the government pulled out an eraser and redrew and lots. Councilwoman Mullins said maybe the
road was there first. It is in the code currently and we should not go against it. Ms. Phelan said the right
of way was never intended to have development rights associated with it.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Peter Fornell said the applicant is not asking to pay money but to mitigate for a quantity of
employees. If he buys certificates from me, he satisfy that, if he builds on site he satisfy it, if he
builds off site he satisfy it, if he purchases a buy down he satisfy it, if he pays cash in lieu he will
not satisfy that concern.
2. Marcia Goshorn said she is glad they did not suggest an ADU. She is not a big fan of cash in lieu
she would rather see a unit built. One issue is treating projects fairly. Sky was given credit for a
vacated right of way.
3. Tracey said she has been working closely with the lots since they were purchased. This is the west
end. Every lot around it is being treated as a west end lot except these. Every part of the code
refers to the 1800’s map and shows these lots as originally there. She does not understand why
we are here. It is a frustrating process. It should go back to the original town site.
4. Curt Sanders said he represents the other two lot owners. On behalf of the other owners it would
go a long way if Council accepted the cash in lieu.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Romero said he is ok with the cash in lieu.
Mr. Hoffman said they are proposing the cash in lieu to be determined at the rate described in the code at
the time they submit a building permit application.
Ms. Phelan reviewed the ordinance changes to include the slopes are man-made at the site and not to be
deducted, the alley and West Francis Street shall be deducted from lot 4 and 5, the vesting period is three
years, credits or cash in lieu at time of building permit issuance.
Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2015 with amendments; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable
Development Rights
Amy Simon, community development, stated this is a proposed subdivision amendment and creation of
TDRs. Around three years ago, Council approved the subdivision on Neale Avenue which took a 16,000
sq ft lot and landmarked it and allowed for a historic lot split. There is an 1800s log cabin on the
fathering parcel that was moved here from outside of town that was rescued and restored. That was the
reason for placing the landmark designation on the property. It allows the separation of property rights.
It created a 3,000 sq ft lot with the cabin and a 12,000 sq ft lot with an existing home. The lot with the
existing home was allowed 4,200 sq ft of floor area. When Council approved the subdivision the larger
house could have had a duplex but Council elected to restrict it to a single family home. The applicant,
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
9
Geoff Shoaf, would like Council to change that restriction and allow the duplex. This is not a discussion
about increasing floor area just relief of that restriction. He would also like to create three TDRs. Staff is
supportive of the application.
Geoff Shoaf, applicant, said the floor area stays the same if it is a duplex or a single family home. In 2012
he screwed up. He thought he had options and did not have to make the call right then. That is how it
became a single family home. He said the duplex allows for the possibility of him to continue to live
here when he retires. Any redevelopment would be moved farther away from the historic cabin.
Councilman Frisch said he would like to have the duplex issue cleared up before he tackles the TDR
issue.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. George Benninghoff said he is a neighbor. He said there is property in dispute and if FAR as it is
calculated may not be correct. He is not in favor of a duplex and Council should not allow this to
happen.
2. David Harris asked Council to reject the proposal. Doubling the number of units on one parcel is
not minor and not consistent with the original approval. We are in a war with this guy who has
been illegally using this place since 1986 and I am being asked to accept double the density next
door to me. I just don’t know how you can allow it.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilman Frisch suggested Mr. Shoaf pull his application, pause and reflect. Council is better to post
pone until they have more clarity.
Councilwoman Mullins said the underlying zoning allows a duplex or a single family home. From the
minutes the decision of a single family was somewhat arbitrary and was decided too quickly without
enough research. By turning it into a duplex Council would be correcting some mistakes that should not
have been made and she is not sure that is the right move. She is reluctant to turn it back to a duplex just
to correct some illegal activity that is going on.
Councilman Romero said it may be time to pull it back. There was gain in 2012. He said he is with
Councilman Frisch to recommend a continuance. He said he would support the TDR application.
Councilman Frisch moved to table Ordinance #17, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 9:52pm; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 4, 2015
10