Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20191126Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES ...............................................................................................2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................2 BOARD REPORTS ....................................................................................................................................2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................2 Resolution #133, Series of 2019 – Consent for Master License Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ....................................................................................................................3 Resolution #135, Series of 2019 – Distributed Antenna System Facility Lease Agreement ..3 Resolution #134, Series of 2019 – School District Synthetic Turf Replacement......................3 Minutes – November 12, 2019 .........................................................................................................3 NOTICE OF CALL UP – HPC approval for 333 W. Bleeker St – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations .........................................................................................................3 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2019 – Title 25 Amendments ...........................................................4 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental Budget .........................................4 ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2019 -2019 Fall Supplemental for the APCAH Fund....................5 ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund ..........................................................................................................................5 ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Municipal Fees ............................................................5 RESOLUTION #119, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 City of Aspen Budget .............................................9 RESOLUTION #120, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Budget for the Housing Administration Fund, Smuggler Affordable Housing Fund and APCHA Development Fund ...............................................9 RESOLUTION #121, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Budget for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund and Aspen Country Inn Affordable Housing Fund – Component Unit Funds of the City of Aspen.............................................................................................................................................10 ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2019 – Revocation of Ordinance #58, Series of 1985 ...............10 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2019 – 711 Pfister Drive – Minor Planned Development Amendment to a project review approval and residential design standards variation ..................11 EXECUTIVE SESSION ...........................................................................................................................13 226 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Richards, Hauenstein, Mullins and Mesirow present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES Mayor Torre read a proclamation proclaiming December 3rd as John Hailey Day. Mayor Torre and Councilmembers thanked him for his dedication to the community. John Kreuger, transportation, presented Council with the CASTA award for the implementation of the battery electric busses. He said it will be $125,000 in savings on maintenance and $300- 400,000 in fuel savings. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein said it’s skiing really well up there. Be safe. Councilman Mesirow said Thanksgiving is upon us. Most of us have moved here from somewhere else. I’m super grateful for the family that is Aspen. Being here everyday is a blessing. Councilwoman Mullins wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving and safe travels. Councilwoman Richards wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Mayor Torre talked about the warm and fuzzy coat drive. Drop off coats, sleeping bags and boots to health and human services at the Schultz building. Happy Thanksgiving and be safe on the roads. BOARD REPORTS Mayor Torre said several of us attended the ACRA tourism outlook forum last week. At the regular meeting we adopted the budgets. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Mayor Torre asked for an explanation on Resolutions 133 and 135. Trish Aragon, engineering, said there is the master license agreement and neutral host contract. The 3rd component is the design guidelines which we are not talking about tonight. We got direction in August to proceed with the 3 items. This is a response to federal rules regarding small cells. These are the things we can do right now to respond to the rules. That is why we are here tonight. The MLA is not unusual to enter into with work in the right of way. It is the typical path for what you can and can’t do in the right of way. Mayor Torre said it is a 10 year term for the MLA, why. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said the provider requested a longer term. I looked at other municipalities and 10 years was very typical. This agreement is not approving specific sites. If they want a specific site approved they need to apply for that as a supplement to the MLA. Each supplement has a term of 5 years. 227 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 3 Councilwoman Mullins said the fee is $270 for each location. Where did that come from. Ms. Bryan said that is the presumptively reasonably fee we came up with. If the rules change we can change those amounts. Councilwoman Richards said section 7.5 removal and relocation. Are these the only 2 reasons federally we can request removal. Ms. Bryan replied that would be covered in the design guidelines and land use code requirements. We would not approve a specific site if it did not comply with those. Councilman Hauenstein said all providers will have the same terms. Ms. Bryan stated we would expect if another provider came and wanted to proceed we would provide the same terms. Paul Schultz, IT, said the neutral host is an industry term for having a 3rd party build the infrastructure and have multiple carriers host on that infrastructure. We cannot require a carrier to become tenants on neutral host equipment. Councilman Hauenstein said I would like to see incentives for single digs. Ms. Aragon replied this is one way to achieve that. Resolution #133, Series of 2019 – Consent for Master License Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC Resolution #135, Series of 2019 – Distributed Antenna System Facility Lease Agreement Resolution #134, Series of 2019 – School District Synthetic Turf Replacement Minutes – November 12, 2019 All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL UP – HPC approval for 333 W. Bleeker St – Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations Sarah Yoon, community development, stated this is a 2 story historic victorian and relocated historic out building. It is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R6 zone district. On April 24th, HPC granted approval for the proposed design at the 3rd public hearing with a 7 to 0 vote. There is a proposed 8 foot long connecting element. The actual addition is a 1 story above grade addition. The historic outbuilding is proposed to be rotated with the garage door facing the alley. Set back variations were granted in support of the historic pattern in the surrounding area. Council has the ability to call this up. Staff recommends council uphold HPCs decision for approval. Councilwoman Mullins asked what were the conditions of the HPC approval. Ms. Yoon stated most were related to working with other city departments including parks and stormwater. A few were related to the proposed light wells. Some conditions were related to the relocation of the outbuilding. Councilwoman Mullins said the memo to HPC says 2,280 square feet are allotted to lot 1 but 2,435 is built there. She questioned the new addition. Ms. Yoon replied there was an approval related to the lot split that designated certain amounts of floor area to each lot. At the time the floor area was calculated there is a condition related to how the out building was factored in. With the relocation where the garage door is now facing the alley, it’s calculated separately. It will meet the required floor area with the addition. Mayor Torre asked what year was the original house built. Ms. Yoon replied 1880s. Councilman Hauenstein said on the 1893 Sandborn map was the porch and side structure there. There seems to be some conflict. Is the FAR that is freed up from the enclose porch 228 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 4 being applied somewhere else. Amy Simon, community development, said part of the requirement of the garage facing the alley, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t get the usual exemptions. We are going to correct that situation by turning the garage to face the alley. There is an interior remodel that will also free up some square footage. Councilman Hauenstein said it seems like there is some conflicting statements as to if the outbuilding is historic. Ms. Yoon said it is historic but not original to this location. Councilman Hauenstein said the spruce trees being removed were planted by the owner after the 2002 approval. Ms. Simon said a previous owner planted at some point trees in the right of way. They will have an impact on the historic cottonwoods. They will not have to mitigate for the removal of the trees. They are assisting us in getting them out. Councilwoman Richards said she sees no reason to call this up. Councilman Mesirow said he concurs. Councilwoman Mullins said she has no reason to call up. Councilman Hauenstein agreed. ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2019 – Title 25 Amendments Tyler Christoff, utilities, said this is the annual update to utility rates. They were reviewed at the budget worksession and November 12th first reading. After first reading staff retracted proposed language in the affordable housing waiver section. Rates and fees support the utilities daily and on an ongoing basis. There is also deletion of redundant code language regarding storm water. There is a new fee structure to address affordable housing customers and water waste regulations. Councilwoman Mullins said thanks for responding effectively and efficiently to some of the affordable housing owners who experienced high rates. She is interested in the one year pilot program. Councilman Hauenstein said he is curious about the affordable housing waivers. Mr. Christoff said we removed the proposed language that would create a conflict with other sections of the code. Councilman Hauenstein said is that waiver just for new additions and tap fees. There is not a special rate for affordable housing. Mr. Christoff stated there is not. This section covers waivers based on category. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #24, Series of 2019; seconded by councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental Budget Pete Strecker, finance, said we’ve added additional resources since last time. This is a 9.6 million dollar increase due to the possible preservation of deed restrictions at Centennial. There is $7,500 for the chiller repair at the Wheeler as well as an additional request for census help. There is $8,300 for the cost of debt service while the new building is being built. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the 120 fund, is the damage due to a power surge. Mr. Strecker replied he is not sure why the chiller has an issue. Sara Ott, city manager, said I don’t believe it is due to an electrical issue. Councilman Hauenstein said for the LED lighting, what is 229 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 5 the capture time. It is a good project and core is contributing. On the 505 the $89,200 is that for employee housing. Is it owned units. Are there HOA reserves. Jeff Pendarvis, asset, stated we came to you for the 2020 budget to ask for a true up going forward. This extends to projects that are currently underway. This helps gets us to where we need to be. Capital replacement on roofs, mechanical, unit turn over and normal maintenance. There are 58 units with different HOAs that operate in different ways. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Ordinance #29, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2019 -2019 Fall Supplemental for the APCAH Fund Mr. Strecker stated this is a reupping of resources in the 620 fund, which is the main operational fund. The roll forward is related to pc replacement as well as the large software solution. $250,000 is for the purchase and renovation of an Ajax unit. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #30, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund Mr. Strecker stated this is a $55,000 roll forward for the capital needs assessment. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Ordinance #31, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Municipal Fees Mr. Strecker said at first reading there were questions around soccer and why the reduction in rate. It is a shorter season and less participation. The fee ordinance remains as is based on the budget conversations. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. 1. Chris Bryan stated there appears to be a typo on page 222 of the packet, page 10 of 39 of the ordinance. 2.12.052 temporary occupation of the right of way there is a $17 per square foot per month fee where it is currently $6.93. That has a big impact. 230 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 6 Ms. Aragon replied the fee is correct in the ordinance. The fee is at $17 to be consistent with our construction parking rates, which are $100 a space per day. The units are different but when you equivalent them it is the same as what the parking rates are proposed to be. Mr. Bryan said I didn’t see anything in the packet that justifies the increase of 245%. It is hard to justify the increase. Ms. Aragon said the current rate at $6.93 is based on $40 a day for parking. That rate of $6.93 has not been updated since 2016. Currently we are proposing to increase construction parking in the downtown core from $75 to $100 per day. This rate at $17 per square foot per month is equivalent to that. Mr. Bryan responded that there seems to be 2 elements of that analysis. The memo says a study will be conducted in 2020. I don’t understand why the fee will be increased by 240% before the study is done. The ordinance says council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the intended cost of providing programs and services. I think we need to study the issue before you make an increase of 240%. This is a per square foot fee per month. For example the Crystal Palace, just for one encroachment it will be $917,000 a year in addition to a parking fee that we already have to pay. I want to make sure we understand the impact of this fee. Mayor Torre asked about the math. The conversation I’ve been a party to is the $75 to $100 a day. Ms. Aragon said the temporary encroachments are the occupation of the right of way. We separate out parking, sidewalk and different areas. It is up to the site. If the site doesn’t occupy the right of way there is no fee. What we’ve found on encroachments in general, the size is directly related to the cost that we charge. Is a pedestrian area less valuable than a parking space. We thought we should be consistent on the pricing. Mr. Mesirow said the intention of the fee is to deter behavior of taking up public space. Ms. Aragon replied correct. Mr. Mesirow said this would go into effect January 1. To me the public walking space is more valuable than that of a car. Yet I can understand a project that has been planned under one circumstance could be shocked to find a dramatic change in their overall financial picture. Has there been conversation about projects that are already approved. Ms. Aragon replied we charge the current fees. We don’t lock in a rate. Councilman Hauenstein said when a person applies for a building permit the mitigation fees are what are in effect at that time. If there are changes they are only liable for the fees in effect. These are fees for a project that are already in process. Is this by square foot for the sidewalk and the parking spaces are charged separately. They are paying $75 a day for parking spaces and $6.93 for the sidewalk. Ms. Aragon replied correct. We are not overlapping. The adjacent area is the encroachment and then the parking. This increases the sidewalk to $17 and the parking is separate. Ms. Ott said there are a few options. Approve the ordinance as it stands. You could direct different rates. There is the option to strike the fee. The intent and direction we have been given is to aggressively manage the privatization of public spaces to limit the construction impacts to the community. Councilwoman Richards asked is the current rate charged per square foot have a relationship to the $75. Ms. Aragon replied the current rate equivalent is $40. Councilwoman Richards said the public spaces have been underpriced. I think this should be increased. Public spaces are important. I don’t like to see such a large increase in one year. The loss of public space is a lot. I like the incentive of trying to get that space back to the public as soon as possible. I would not leave it the way it is now.231 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 7 Is there a 3rd path to pass the bulk of the ordinance tonight. Jim True, city attorney, said it would not go into effect January 1st. I see no reason to come up with a figure that would be changed later. The rate can be adjusted at any time but won’t go into effect until 30 days. Councilwoman Mullins said you are trying to create parity between street and sidewalk. Ms. Aragon said the $6.93 is the current rate. The equivalent to a parking space is $40. Councilwoman Mullins said the pedestrian space is even more important than vehicular space. I would support going ahead with the fee you suggested. Mr. Bryan said this is a drastic increase. I still don’t understand why this fee is being considered when the staff memo says you need to conduct a study on this in 2020. The table that was circulated to the public had this section omitted. There was a lack of discussion about this. We are asking for more time to discuss the implications of this. It will have a million dollar impact on the crystal palace and 3 million on the city offices. Councilman Mesirow said I don’t have an issue with the increase in the fee if what we are trying to do is deter encroachment into the pedestrian area. What seems unfair is to add yet another layer of uncertainty. It would make sense to have a future where the fees are higher to generate the things we want. When you get your approval or building start maybe be locked into those rates at the time like mitigation rates. Councilwoman Richards said I think it should be increased. Apparently the parity has been left behind a long time ago. The current charge is $40 a day for a parking space. I don’t want to go the full amount. I don’t think mitigation should be locked into the time of approval especially with vesting of 3 years or longer. I don’t think it is valuable to talk about this in terms of individual projects. This is about public right of way across town. 2. Mark Hunt said when you hear these fees, $17, it doesn’t sound like much money. When you do the math, using the right of way is necessary for building the building. When you do the math it is almost $240 a square foot. To say you want to disincentivize in order for development to happen, the permit fees here are 4000% more than most other places. The bigger conversation isn’t the right of way and parking. If you plug the meter for every minute of the day it is $24. It is 400%. There are disincentives already built in. The bigger concern is the fees are not going to deter a building. At the end of the day it will affect what goes in the building. I’ve had buildings where to build was 6 million dollars and the fees were 12 million. It’s crazy. I do believe there should be a study and a lot of conversation as to what are we trying to accomplish. This will all affect what is going into these buildings and what the town will look like. There is only so much you can do. It is more than just looking at 17 dollars a foot. To pay for that dirt, even in the alley and pay more than Gucci is a bit out of control. 3. Bob Morris said I’ve built 5 projects in town. The first time I got a permit it was a big surprise that a building permit isn’t a final permit. Changes are made, mostly by the building department. Maybe this topic does need studied more. When you realize how it works a building permit is not final, things change. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is difficult. To be fair, I think Mark’s comments are interesting and council should take them into account. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Mayor Torre said we have a variety of opinions. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve ordinance 32 with an amendment to the fee charged for use of public right of way to $10 a square foot. Seconded by Mayor Torre. 232 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 8 Councilwoman Richards said it is an increase that begins to seek that parity. It acknowledges there will be other applications and use of right of way in the coming year. It is important to move the fees forward and be reasonable. Councilman Hauenstein asked what other fee increases in the middle of a project have taken effect in the past few years and what is the average percentage raise of these fees. I appreciate the loss of public amenities and right of way but I also am sympathetic of someone in the middle of the project and the rules have changed. It doesn’t seem fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. I’m agreeing more with Skippy. It is important the fees be equitable and I don’t see it when you increase the fees when a project has already begun. Normally development is given 3 years vesting. We’ve extended vesting but made the mitigation what it was when it changed. It doesn’t seem right to change the rules when folks are in the middle of construction. Mr. True said fees are traditionally approved annually. They can change. Unless your approval set those, they would be subject to annual increases. It is fairly common. Mitigation is a little different. Councilman Hauenstein asked when was the last time there was an increase in this fee. Ms. Aragon replied 2016. It went from $6.50 to $6.93. Councilman Hauenstein said it would be equitable that the increase be in line with what other fees were. Councilwoman Mullins said you refer to a 3rd party study. What is the schedule. Mr. Strecker said we will start the RFP shortly and hopefully get through the study before the next fee schedule. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a hardship and unpredictable and fees for public space are not as directly aligned with health and safety when building code changes. My guess is there are several other things in here that aren’t on the surface fair to the developer and the city. My preference would be to pass this as is and get the study going as quickly as possible. If there is discussion at a subsequent meeting we can change it. Mark made a good point related to the economic stability of town. Mayor Torre asked what are the terms of encroachment. What is your ability to limit encroachment. Does an applicant come in and say we want it for 12 months and that’s the end of the discussion. Ms. Aragon replied it depends on the location. We have limitations to the mall and properties adjacent to the mall and how long you can occupy those areas. Mayor Torre said I feel like the increase is a little much of a change for these projects. I’m having trouble comparing a parking space to the right of way. I’m also having a difficult time knowing what level of change would get the impact we are looking for. I can’t support the $17 in the ordinance now. There is a motion and second for us to consider. Councilman Hauenstein said going from 7 to 10 is still a pretty big hit. I think the water and electric fees were over 5 years. Maybe we go from 6.93 to 17 over 5 years. Councilwoman Richards said I appreciate the approach but if it were projected out 5 years it would probably be a fee of $20. I like what you are trying to do though. I’m aware of the inequities but fees change annually. Councilman Mesirow said I don’t have enough information to make a decision on this right now. I don’t feel I have the adequate information to say this fee will elicit a behavior against the square feet. Councilwoman Richards said it feels to me like the issue has been ignored in the past. I do feel we should not make the jump all in one leap but it is important to fill the gap. I understand what Mr. Hunt said about cost and what goes into a building. I’ve seen it is what the market can bear is what will go into a building. I’m looking for some equity. I would consider reducing it to $9 and a 50% increase. We have a lot of projects and a lot of use of our sidewalks. 233 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 9 Councilwoman Richards amended the motion to decrease the fee to $9. Mayor Torre accepts that amendment. Mr. True said I was not aware of the issue that Mr. Bryan brought up about the budget book and strike throughs. It has been properly noticed for 1st and 2nd reading at the 17 dollar figure. Councilman Hauenstein said I would like to support the amendment as amended with the understanding that the study be undertaken as quickly as possible and developers are given notice the rate may be increased in the future. Councilwoman Mullins said public space is more important than the vehicular space. Piecemealing solutions is not the way to go. Councilman Mesirow asked that the study is not just the impact per square foot but broader as to what are the tradeoffs long term. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Mullins, no; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #119, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 City of Aspen Budget Mr. Strecker said the proposed budget is 112 million dollars and change. It is a 6.6% decrease from the 2019 budget. It includes resources for the advancement of affordable housing spaces, childcare support, energy conservation and the recycling center. Councilman Hauenstein said he is appreciative of the whole process and all the work sessions. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve Resolution #119, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #120, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Budget for the Housing Administration Fund, Smuggler Affordable Housing Fund and APCHA Development Fund Mr. Strecker said both the city and county contribute 50 percent. This is $420,000 for the city for 2020. Councilwoman Richards said we will be coming back for a request for outreach on the new guidelines as a supplemental request. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein moved to approve Resolution #120, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. 234 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 10 RESOLUTION #121, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Budget for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund and Aspen Country Inn Affordable Housing Fund – Component Unit Funds of the City of Aspen Mr. Strecker said this is for the affordable housing programs that the city is a partner in. ACI was recently renovated and that space and Truscott II have annual operating needs. This would support annual operations. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #121, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2019 – Revocation of Ordinance #58, Series of 1985 Phillip Supino, community development, said this ordinance is about ordinance 58 of 1985. The intent of that ordinance was to rezone from MU to commercial but maintain the MU dimensional standards. The Moore family was the owner at the time and sought to maintain existing uses at the time. The agreement to use the MU dimensional standards with the commercial use allowances was a concession by the Moore family negotiated by council in order to memorialize and ensure no nonconforming uses on the property by changing to commercial. There were 2 requirements in the ordinance including the filing of a deed restriction. It was intended to state they would have commercial uses and MU dimensional standards. The second condition was the recording of ordinance 58 with the county clerk. Neither of those steps happened. The zoning map was amended in error to show commercial zoning. The property remains MU despite the designation on the zoning map. The property was recently purchased and during staff research these issues were identified. Staff suggested the applicants come forward and ask council to revoke ordinance 58 to clarify the zoning on the property as MU. This ordinance would not change the development rights of either property. Kim Raymond, representing applicant, we agree with staff. This is clean up. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein said somehow this fell through the cracks in 1985. He would like to see some kind of crack filler. He would like to see protocol and follow up for things like this. Councilwoman Mullins said if there is some way to ensure when zoning is changed they get recorded everywhere they should be. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #28, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. 235 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 11 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2019 – 711 Pfister Drive – Minor Planned Development Amendment to a project review approval and residential design standards variation Garrett Larimer, community development, stated this property is located in the Maroon Creek Club subdivision. It is zoned RR with a PD overlay. The lot is located at the end of Pfister Drive on an undeveloped lot. The applicant is requesting a minor PD amendment to amend the building and development envelope and a RDS variation to the garage dimension standard. The applicant has revised the drawings since the November 12 th meeting. There is a reduction in overall size of the building envelope. It is the same extent of the development envelope. There is a reduction in floor area to 8,600 square feet. There is a revised garage door design to 3 garage doors. He showed images of the building and development site plan. Since last hearing, the applicant has further reduced the building envelope. They are converting sections of the building envelope to development envelope. There is additional development envelop proposed in the area of the driveway. The proposal is to reduce the overall building envelope by 3,300 square feet. There is a net increase of total developable area of 600 square feet. In order to meet the criteria there are 3 that need met. Meet the project review standards, be generally consistent with the approval and minor be insubstantial changes. Staff has found the application does not meet 2. It is not consistent with original approval due to the increase of development and it is not considered an insubstantial change. Staff and parks remain concerned with increased impacts to the site and the precedent this will set. For the RDS variation, allowable total garage door width is 24 feet. The revised design is 28 feet wide. To qualify for a variation there 2 standards that must be me, necessary for reasons of fairness due to site specific constraints. This is not a hardship request. It must meet the intent statements of the RDS. He showed images of the amended design. Staff believes the standards are met. The recommendation is council deny the request for a minor PD amendment and approve the RDS changes to the garage design standard. Councilwoman Richards said I thought as we closed the last meeting we got to a point if there was no net increase between the building and development envelope this would be an insubstantial amendment. I that the goal was no net increase. Mr. Larimer replied if they are just moving around the square footage they were approved for it is an administrative amendment. It was my understanding they were going to try to reduce the ask. Kim Raymond, representing the applicant, said the existing building envelop is 14,000 square feet. The original development envelop is 23,000 square ft. Our building fits nicely within the building envelop. The issue came from the access. We are offering to remove 3,300 square feet of building envelop. The development opportunity is being reduced. The net development is being reduced by 2,679 square ft. The reason we are having a hard time with the driveway is that area has a 33 % grade. The steepest driveway you can have is 12%. There is no way to put a driveway in the access we were given. What might have happened is when the cul de sac was built and the area flattened, it made a steeper embankment to get to the building envelop. We looked at driveway alternatives, like a bridge, but then we would not meet a lot of other RDS. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the maximum height allowed. Ms. Raymond said if we tried to build narrower we still would not be able to get the driveway in the access portal. The allowable height is 28 feet. We thought it would be less impactful to the neighbors to keep the height lower. Ms. Raymond said for the RDS, we reduced it to three garage doors. We meet the standard having just the three doors. You will see the angle of the garage door due to the way the site curves. Landscaping will help screen some of the house. We agree with staff that the RDS should be approved. 236 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 12 Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein asked Garret to walk us through the staff recommendation again. Mr. Larimer stated there are 3 review criteria. The first is to meet the project review standards. The application complies with this. Second is to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a project review approval. It does not comply. Third is it generally considered an insubstantial change but does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment. This does not comply. Councilman Hauenstein said I’m conflicted. I value staff and the criteria and am reluctant to do one offs that set a precedent. I look at the site constrains and don’t see another way to have a driveway. Was the cul de sac there when the lot was designed. Mr. Larimer replied I’m not sure about the final grading plan that was contemplated. I don’t know how detailed the plans were for the transition from the right of way. Councilwoman Richards asked do you know when this was originally approved. Mr. Larimer replied 1993. It was annexed in 1996. Councilwoman Richards asked when were the RDS adopted. Jennifer Phelan, community development, said there has been some form since the 1990s. Councilwoman Richards said it’s always been awkward to see the same design standards apply to lots in the rural areas. I’m comfortable with the exchange. There is precedent setting here. If everyone up there agreed to the reduction to 8,800 I might take it. That is important. The garage is not prominent. I’m ok with it. The size reduction is the reason why I am considering this. I would like a comment in the approval about native vegetation. I’m really worried about the night lighting. Councilman Hauenstein said he would like staff to find the unintended consequences of the precedent we set here in future developments. Ms. Phelan stated every review is an individual review. We are looking at the particulars of this site and not creating precedent. Mr. True said I would tend to agree. The negative consequences are limited particularly with the FAR reduction. That is a significant request of the applicant in order to get this building designed. These are looked at as very site specific. To conclude it will have significant impact on other developments is limited. If someone wants their deal, they are talking about square foot reduction. Mayor Torre asked what is located above the driveway. Is there another lot. Ms. Raymond said it abuts to the ski company. Mayor Torre asked about the front of the house. Ms. Raymond replied it will be as natural as it can. Councilman Mesirow said all of these things that are allowed are not guaranteed. I don’t like an applicant choosing their own zoning but moving parts of the lot to end up what they want. I understand the topography is challenging but I think another design could be accommodated. I do not support this. Councilwoman Mullins said she is supportive of the changes to the garage. In terms of the building envelop, the development envelop and FAR, I do think we are talking about precedent, privatization of public space or compromising public space, I don’t see a reduction in the building envelop. The impact on the environment is still increased with the increase in the development envelop. I thought you were coming back with a different shape not the increase. I’m concerned with the precedent even with the decrease in FAR. This is adjacent to public land and open space. We need to be very protective of the public space. It is laudable that he would accept the 8,600 square foot home. The bigger issue is precedent and increasing the impact of the development. 237 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2019 13 Councilman Hauenstein said page 328 of the packet, there are 4 building elements, I appreciate and like the layout of it. If you stacked 2 of them you could gain the decrease in the building envelop and development envelop. I’m trying to find a way to make this work. I’m sympathetic of the driveway and the access. Ms. Raymond said the building fits nicely in the topography. It is the driveway that doesn’t work. There is no physical way to make the driveway work. Even if we make the house smaller we still need to get the driveway around the cul de sac. Mayor Torre said I’m in favor of the changes I’ve seen here. I appreciate the reduction in square footage. To me this is a one off. In this particular case it is a unique situation. I would support this tonight. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #26, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll Call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mesirow, no; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, no; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. True said staff is recommending Council go into executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal or other property interests; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e) determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators. At 8:30 p.m. Councilman Mesirow moved to go into executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 10:00 p.m. Councilman Mesirow moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Mesirow moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 238