Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20191112Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS...............................................................................................................................2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................2 AGENDA AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS................................................................................................................3 BOARD REPORTS ....................................................................................................................................3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................3 Resolution #117, Series of 2019 – 2020 EOTC Budget...............................................................5 Resolution #124, Series of 2019 – Motor Grader for Streets Department ................................5 Resolution #125, Series of 2019 – Street sweeper ......................................................................5 Resolution #126, Series of 2019 – Appointment of City of Aspen Representative to MEAN .5 Resolution #127, Series of 2019 – Contract between APCHA and SIPA for one-year purchase of Salesforce Licenses for HomeTrek automation project .................................................5 Resolution #128, Series of 2019 – Extension of Centennial rental deed restrictions ..............5 Minutes – September 23, 2019 ........................................................................................................5 RESOLUTION #130, Series of 2019 – Opposition to Garfield County Mine Expansion ................5 RESOLUTION #116, SERIES OF 2019 – Vacation Rental Land Use Code Amendments ...........5 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2019 – Title 25 Utilities Amendments .............................................8 ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2019 – Vacation Rental Land Use Code Amendment .................9 ORDINANCE #28, SEREIS OF 2019 – Revocation of Ordinance 58, Series of 1985....................9 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental Budget .......................................10 ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Supplemental Budget for APCHA funds ...............10 ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Supplemental Budget for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund ........................................................................................................................11 ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Fees ............................................................................11 ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2019 – 1001 Ute Avenue – Subdivision/PUD – Major Amendment to a PD and Associated Reviews to Memorialize Existing Improvements................12 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2019 – 711 Pfister Dr- Minor Planned Development Amendment to a Project Review Approval and Residential Design Standard Variation .....................................13 85 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Richards, Mesirow, Hauenstein and Mullins present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Lee Mulcahy made a variety of comments regarding APCHA and their attorney. 2. Tom Coggins said in 1987 the housing goal was ensure a supply of desirable housing for citizens is necessary for a balanced community. It is very simple. Back then people came here and knew we had to work had and having an affordable place to live in Aspen was a bonus. How did we get to a point where we have to kick someone out of their house for missing a deadline. 3. Mick Ireland requested that council remove the centennial deed restriction from the consent. A 10 Million dollar expenditure is inappropriate for the consent agenda. No consideration has been given to alternative solutions to this problem. Those include rezoning the property as affordable housing only. You do not have a constitutional right to free market housing on any parcel. You have the power to amend and strengthen your affordable housing replacement ordinance. We have a long time to deal with this problem. There is a significant possibility that an alternative will arrive. There is a way to value the property that is fair and reasonable. There are many tools at your disposal. There is a possibility that what you are facing is a sale to another buyer. You can deal with the next buyer and purchase an extension of the deed restriction from the other buyer. That should be explored. This property was originally developed in the 80s. it was upzoned. He asked council to consider other alternatives. 4. Derra Hoter said she works with centennial. Initially the decision was made that we were going to sell the property. At that time Mr. Brown came to the city asking if they would be interested in purchasing the property. Torre asked her to hold her comments until this item is pulled. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilwoman Mullins went on the visit to CMC Steamboat. It is an impressive campus and inspired all of us to develop a better partnership with them. Almost 85% of their students have jobs in town. Programs are developed to support business. She would love this council to think more about supporting CMC. Thanks to Dick Merrett and Dan Glidden for a meaningful Veteran’s celebration. Pepper Gomez will be missed. This is the time for council to support the homeless coalition. Councilman Hauenstein said the number one priority is to house homeless vets. There are 7 or 8 in the valley. There has been discussions about possible locations. There are a lot of moving parts. I would support a work session on homelessness. There is a tremendous need for case workers. I would like to investigate the tobacco tax fund to fund a caseworker. I had the opportunity to take an hour and visit Basalt Vista workforce housing. It is net zero and something we all should be aiming for. Councilman Mesirow said it is hard to believe that he is 5 months in to sitting up here. I want to express so much gratitude to my fellow council members and the people who come to meetings and provide comments. Councilwoman Richards said thanks to Torre and staff for putting on a great CAST meeting. This is the evening before our country begins to have investigations regarding impeachment. She encouraged everyone to watch the investigation. This is really a constitutional crisis and will define if we have a working democracy. 86 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 3 Mayor Torre said it was a great service for Veteran’s day. Thanks to the Elks for the veterans lunch. Thanks to voters who supported the tobacco tax questions. He went to the recycle center today and recycled some textiles. Clothing, shoes and the like are the number 2 problem at the landfill. The recycling center is working great. The only thing not accepted there is plastics. They can still be recycled curbside. Please use that service. This week’s compost hero is NY Pizza. They are going to start composting. Tomorrow 12-1 at the Red Brick is another small cell meeting for 5G. We are working on design guidelines and taking input. There is a Red Brick gallery opening on Thursday from 5-7. Wednesday 4-7 future of aviation meeting at the Institute. We are in the off season. They can be difficult times for some people. Reaching out to friends and family is important. Take the time to say how are you. AGENDA AMENDMENTS Action item Resolution #130 will be moved up to after the consent calendar. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Sara Ott, city manager, gave a shout out to businesses in the core and staff for the alley clean up. It was an opportunity to reset and articulate what a well positioned alley looks like. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Richards said housing board members will be gathering informally to talk about finishing the guidelines. Councilwoman Mullins brought up discussing board reports in a work session. Ms. Ott replied the first one is scheduled for November 19th. POD met and discussed related industries in the valley. We toured the new offices at the HHS. Rio Grande covenant enforcement met. In 1997 the railroad corridor was purchased by 7 jurisdictions. We meet once a year to review encroachments and infractions. Mayor Torre said we hosted CAST. There was a fiscal update and update from Avon related to polystyrene bans. Ski Co gave a presentation related to their future. There was discussion about where tourism is impacting our natural resources. There was also a discussion about short term rentals. He also attended the ACRA retreat. Happy to see ACRA is taking on stewardship and advocacy of Aspen. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt the consent calendar with all items except Resolution #128 – extension of Centennial deed restriction; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Councilwoman Richards said on the street sweeper, it made me wonder about the sanding that occurs and does it contribute to our PM10 problem. Should we require washed rocks. Ms. Ott said the air quality ordinance is scheduled for review in 2020. We have Aspen specific issues we need to look at. We will add this to the list of things to look at. Councilman Mesirow said on #126, I’m fully supportive of Tyler taking up this role. I had no idea what MEAN was. Tyler Christoff, utilities, replied Mean and NNPP are our power pool in Nebraska and part of our renewable energy portfolio. It behooves the city to participate on a regular basis. 87 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 4 Mayor Torre asked for a vote on all items except the Centennial deed restriction extension. All in favor, motion carried. Resolution #128 – centennial. Jim True, city attorney, said this is a resolution that would approve a purchase agreement between the City of Aspen and Centennial Aspen II partnership. The purchase agreement as written now for the purpose of acquiring for the price of 10 million dollars a deed restriction that extends the deed restriction that would terminate 21 years after the death of the last commissioner who approved this project in 1984. That is Michael Kinsley. The deed restriction would terminate 21 years after his death. This would extend the deed restriction in perpetuity. Staff feels the deed restriction needs worked on a bit further to insure we accomplish what we hope to by extending the deed restriction. As it exists today it is quite complicated. The purchase agreement has a specific condition that allows us 30 days to negotiate with the owner the final terms. Council has complete discretion to terminate the agreement and walk away. The owner has agreed to this. I want to emphasize the purchase agreement is intended to allow us to continue these discussions for 30 days to feel comfortable the deed restriction accomplishes what we want it to. Councilwoman Richards said the contract is written with discretion to walk away with or without cause. Mr. True replied either party may terminate at its sole discretion by providing written notice to the other party. Councilman Hauenstein said we are talking about 148 units that are deed restricted rentals. The 10 Million is to preserve those deed restrictions not to purchase the building. To have an appraisal of a deed restriction is a difficult thing. Our intention is to preserve those 148 units to have deed restrictions on the rentals. As we purchase these, we have a minimum of 148 units. Councilwoman Richards said this does have a 30 day walk away. Moving forward at this time gives us a chance to look into it in greater detail. It is important to be able to do our due diligence. This is a problem that everyone knows has been looming for a long time. We have to acknowledge the first 4 commissioners who signed this are already gone. I am willing to move this forward. Darra Hoter, works with Centennial, said it is an option and the city can have due diligence. Initially it is something the housing department came to centennial with. As far as valuation, we have talked to potential buyers about a price with and without restrictions. We have done homework on our end. It was not a requirement that centennial make this consideration to the city, but it is Mr. Brown’s desire that the units do stay with the city and housing pool in perpetuity. The buyer has a lot of the properties that are deed restricted and they are comfortable with it. Councilwoman Mullins said I support going ahead with this. This is 148 units out of close to 3,000. All with various deed restrictions. We need to make sure we can keep the deed restrictions we already have in place. Mr. True said there are 2 meetings in between now and the end of our 30 days. I was envisioning with the final deed restriction we bring it back for a formal approval by council. Mick Ireland said the 30 days is way, way short of what you should spend in evaluating the alternatives. Apparently there are people who are willing to evaluate the price of the deed restriction. I can’t believe that what we are getting here is a bargain. They are breaking it into parts so the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Councilman Mesirow said we have been considering this for some time. 88 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 5 Councilman Mesirow moved to adopt Resolution #128, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Resolution #117, Series of 2019 – 2020 EOTC Budget Resolution #124, Series of 2019 – Motor Grader for Streets Department Resolution #125, Series of 2019 – Street sweeper Resolution #126, Series of 2019 – Appointment of City of Aspen Representative to MEAN Resolution #127, Series of 2019 – Contract between APCHA and SIPA for one-year purchase of Salesforce Licenses for HomeTrek automation project Resolution #128, Series of 2019 – Extension of Centennial rental deed restrictions Minutes – September 23, 2019 RESOLUTION #130, Series of 2019 – Opposition to Garfield County Mine Expansion Debra Figueroa, Glenwood Springs city manager, introduced Jonathan Godes, Mayor, and councilmember Tony Hershey. Mr. Hershey said Aspen was originally a mining town then it became a premier resort. We understand our residents benefit from the oil and gas industry. We have lived in harmony with the existing mine. The impact to our community of up to 500 trucks per day is hard for any community to absorb. The bureau of land management accepted a plan to expand the existing mine by 5,000 %. It calls for 24 hour a day operation. We would appreciate you support the resolution opposing this. Mayor Godes said we don’t see any economic benefit of this. This is also an environmental catastrophe. We are fighting a BLM that is not friendly and keeps moving the goal posts. We can’t do this alone. We’ve got unanimous support form Rifle, Silt, New Castle, Eagle, Pitkin county, Carbondale, Basalt and Snowmass Village. We would appreciate the support of Aspen. Councilman Hauenstein said the short term profit is more important for our administration than the detriment of the environment. It is important that local municipalities have as much control in their jurisdiction as they can. It is our right to have these resolutions that protect the health and safety of the people in the municipality. I support this resolution. Councilwoman Richards said I want to support this as well. We are all part of the one roaring fork valley. A huge amount of our workforce lives in your town. Mr. True said our resolution does not have a provision regarding the EIS. Ms. Figueroa said it is not included because the BLM has committed to doing it. Councilman Mesirow said I fully support this. Councilwoman Mullins said thank you for coming to us. This cooperation is so important. Mayor Torre said thanks for being here this evening. I support this. Good luck. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Resolution #130, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #116, SERIES OF 2019 – Vacation Rental Land Use Code Amendments Mike Kraemer, community development, said we were approached by the finance department to process the code amendment. The finance department has been engaging in the lodging sector, ACRA and specific members of the community. In 2012, the city adopted regulations pertaining to vacation rentals. Free market residential rented for 30 days or less are considered 89 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 6 short term rental vacation units. Deed restricted units cannot rent. Lodges, timeshare, hotels and B&B are exempt from the requirement to get a vacation rental permit, but they do need a business license. The vacation rental permit is good for 1 year and there is no fee. The business license fee is $150 per year. In 2018, 48 permits were issued. In 2019, as of today, we are up to about 70 issued. Vacation rentals are included in Land Use Code Section 26.575.220. There are 2 problems with the code as it related to how finance administrates business licenses. A business managing 1 or more property is required to obtain only 1 business license. The problem is we see 1 business come in and get 15 vacation rental permits. This is a unique situation. The second issue is mutli family dwelling units can submit a consolidated vacation rental permit. It is not used very often. It doesn’t track well in the business license and finance world. The issue is review of reported tax remittance and auditing is problematic and not getting the full picture of tax reporting. Our objective is to create compliance. Finance is looking at implementing new software. It allows for full online submittal, better tracking capabilities and expiration notifications. The software also has a find function. The internet will be scraped and look for vacation rental marketing and then we can ask the property owner for a permit. We are looking for direction on requirements for each individual addressed property or unit to obtain a vacation rental permit and business license. Also eliminating the exemption for multi family dwellings to receive a consolidated vacation rental permit. Councilwoman Richards said there have been 70 permits issued this year. Do you have any idea how many short term rentals are out there. Mr. Kraemer replied I do not. Pete Strecker, finance, said we’ve tested the software a few times. The count is between 1,000 and 2,000 units that are showing up. We haven’t done a detailed scrub to look at that data. It is certainly more than 70. Councilwoman Mullins said page 98 has a sentence, generally speaking deed restricted affordable housing units are not eligible. Mr. Kraemer said at the time I wrote the memo I was not sure if there were any deed restrictions with a provision permitting short term rental. There are no deed restricted affordable housing in our system permitted to short term rent. Councilwoman Mullins said these rentals are allowed in any zone district. Mr. Kraemer said the AH zone would not allow for this. There are certain uses that are not required to get the permit, lodge and B&B. Jennifer Phelan, community development, said the reason generally speaking was included is there are some pretty old deed restrictions. The mobile home park with RO units are permitted to short term rent for a certain amount of time. Any new deed restrictions would not permit that. Councilman Hauenstein said short term rental came before council maybe a year ago related to an agreement Airbnb had with municipalities in the valley. My intent is we have a policy that applies to all the short term rental providers. One of the objections brought up about Airbnb is they charge sales tax on the net amount of the rental. I think we should be getting the full gross rental tax rental. Short term rentals are seductive to people because they see they can make more money on them than long term rentals. This should be aimed at the short term rentals overall. I want to make sure we are able to track these particularly related to affordable housing. The goal is not to increase the burden on the rentals that comply with the existing regulations but to capture those that don’t. Councilwoman Mullins asked how are we distinguishing between the Gant and the Airbnb down the street from me. Mr. Kraemer said for example the Gant has on site amenities. It looks and feels like a lodge but permits residents to live there full time. It is zoned in the R15 with a L PD overlay. It functions as multi family and a lodge. The other properties are more of a case by case and we need to understand how they function. Aspen Square is zoned commercial lodge. 90 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 7 I’m not sure if residents can live there full time. Councilwoman Mullins asked is the business license and vacation rental permit redundant. Mr. Kraemer said the way the amendment is set up is each individual addressed property or unit would be required to get a vacation rental permit and a business license. A duplex has unit A and B with 2 separate property owners. Should both decide to short term rent they would both need a vacation rental permit and a business license. It gets more complicated when you start talking about a condo lodge or hotel. Mr. Strecker said the amendment is the best model we could come up with for the most compliance. It does add some burden to the lodging community requiring both permits. If council wishes to make an exemption for a condo hotel we will take that feedback. Right now, it is written to treat a lodging business just like any other business within the community. We were trying to keep the structure the same for any business. Councilwoman Richards said I did feel we needed more work on the condo hotel side of this. There is a distinction given the facilities that are on the ground. I think it would need to be defined for being on a single parcel. We should look at the property tax status of is it taxed commercial or residential. We are looking for equity. A residential property being used commercially that is still paying a residential tax rate is not very equitable as the small lodge across the street paying 5 times. It is a matter of equity that we don’t have just some people paying for a business license. What goes along with the permit. Are they inspected. I’m not sure that just issuing a permit is adequate. Councilwoman Mullins said my intent is along safety, consistent and fairness. We need to distinguish between the Gant and the condos down the street from me. We have little control over the condition and safety. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. 1. Wendelin Whitman said I’ve had a real estate leasing company since 1986. What Ward was saying is so accurate. I’m consistently paying between $50,000 and $100,000 a year in sales tax. We are talking big money that me as a small company are paying. When you say I have to pay 70 business licenses. Would I then need to pay each property individually. You are getting into some serious accounting here. How are you going to track what is actually rented. They will get a business license but you won’t know when they are renting. I agree that you should go after the VRBOs. There are so many people renting and not paying the sales tax. You can audit us, those who are paying sales tax. We have a system in place that provides the quality. This is punishing the people who are helping you. I’m on your side but don’t punish me as an individual business owner. Councilwoman Richards asked shouldn’t the property owner be the one who pays the business license. MS. Whitman replied when I get a property they expect me to pay everything. It is a cost of doing business. Individuals should have to pay more than the 150 and prove they have a property manager. 2. John Corcoran, GM Aspen Alps, said the lodging community is in favor of the sales tax equity. What you have done is create a way to burden the people who are already in compliance. Wendy is correct, it is really competitive out there. You can’t punish people that are already abiding by the laws. If there is software to identify who is not complying, then do it. I understand this was tried in Breckenrigde and not successful. 3. Donnie Lee, GM the Gant, said I think the conversation is going in the right direction. We agree with the overall objective of tax equity and safety requirements. I don’t think a one size fits all solution gets us there. The condo hotels are already in compliance. I’m happy to continue to participate. 4. Tricia Mcintyre, Aspen luxury vacation rentals, said one of the differences of us as a small company and bis we pay the sales tax. Those rentals don’t always have compliance with a property manager. Besides having a business license I would recommend all owners have to use a property manager. 91 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 8 5. Kelly Lussan, said she has hesitations about the software doing its job. Mr. Strecker said the software will scrape 30+ data sites. We are looking at the property not the number of listings or different sites. 6. Joe Zuena, chair of lodging association said we are asking for a pause to continue working together. We feel fractional ownership should be included in this process. 7. Toni Gebers, Aspen luxury vacation rentals, said this is the same issue we had in Hawaii 12 years ago. We had people charging for the tax but not remitting it. in Hawaii each individual unit has to have a permit and it needs to show on the Airbnb ad so you know they are compliant. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Richards said I think it is best to continue both items. We’ve given direction of the concerns that we have. I don’t want to rush it prematurely. Councilman Hauenstein said I would like to see us pass the policy resolution to keep it going but continue first reading. Councilwoman Mullins said I agree. I support it as a policy but think it needs more work. Mr. True said I would suggest passing the policy resolution. If you wish to continue the first reading that is up to you. Councilman Mesirow said I concur that there is some more baking to do here. Equity should be the focus. I don’t think it makes sense to levy a fee of $12,000 on one group and not the other. This is our diversity of lodging. The last thing we want to do is target them. I think we need to know what the short term rental displaces. Mr. True said the policy resolution is far more narrow that where your discussion has gone. You probably should continue the policy resolution. Councilwoman Richards moved to table Resolution #116, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2019 – Title 25 Utilities Amendments Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING AND ADDING TO TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN-UTILITIES1,2,3 – SPECIFICALLY CHAPTERS 25.04 ELECTRICITY; 25.08 WATER SERVICES – GENERAL PROVISIONS; 25.12 UTILITY CONNECTIONS; 25.16 WATER RATES AND CHARGES; 25.20 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; 25.28 WATER SHORTAGES; AND 25.30 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS; AND, DELETING CHAPTER 25.18 STORMWATER SYSTEMS. Tyler Christoff, utilities said these are amendments to Title 25 pertaining to utilities as well as annual updates to the rates. This was reviewed during the October 28th work session. The rates support water and electric utility functions. Councilwoman Mullins said thank you for looking into a water rate anomaly with some of the affordable housing and helping to solve the problem some of those residents were faced with.92 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 9 Councilwoman Richards said this is appropriate and tracks with the work session. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion Carried. ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 2019 – Vacation Rental Land Use Code Amendment Mr. True said staff is requesting the ordinance be withdrawn. It will come back in a new form. ORDINANCE #28, SEREIS OF 2019 – Revocation of Ordinance 58, Series of 1985 Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 28 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REVOKING ORDINANCE 58, SERIES OF 1985 AFFECTING THE ZONING OF 227 E. MAIN ST. LOT:F, BLOCK:74. CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COLORADO AND 231 E. MAIN ST., LOTS:G,H,I, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN COLORADO. Philip Supino, community development, said this is a result of what was originally thought to be a rezoning request. The rezoning permitted by the ordinance was never formalized. In 1985 council sought to permit the uses for these properties while allowing the applicant to apply MU dimensional standards. There were some requirements in order to make the rezoning effective. The deed restriction was never filed, and the approved ordinance was never recorded. Staff has arrived at the position that we are not able to finalize the 1985 action or compel the current property owners to file the deed restrictions or take other actions. Our position is to simply revoke ordinance 58 and clear title. Councilwoman Richards said I think I saw this action would not increase the allowed FAR of this property. Mr. Supino replied that is correct. The zoning of those properties is C1. Revoking ordinance 58 would not change the fact it never went into effect. Ms. Phelan said right now the ordinance from 1985 says the zoning is C1 but there were conditions to effectuate that ordinance. What is being proposed is since those actions haven’t taken place it is MU. Councilwoman Richards said it will retain the existing zoning and this will not increase the development potential. Mr. Supino replied correct. Councilman Mesirow said the dimensionality of the structure and use of mixes have been and continue to be allowable. Ms. Phelan replied correct. Councilman Ward said as an MU in 2019 does it have all the rights as any other MU in 2019. Mr. Supino stated there have been a number of amendments since 1985. Any of those amendments would apply to this property like they would to any other property. Councilwoman Richards said I don’t see any harm in doing this. It’s been 33 years and hasn’t been addressed. I think staff has identified the appropriate course here. It concerns me that it went this long without anyone realizing it wasn’t properly recorded in 1985. Later in the packet 93 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 10 we have an issue with a new development that didn’t follow the conditions of its approval. I want to make sure we do a better job in the future of following up in the future. Kym Raymond, representing the applicant, said one other thing that happened was the zoning map was to be changed after it was recorded. The zoning map was changed before it should have been. This is cleaning up the paperwork. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 2019 on first reading with the correction to the title; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Fall Supplemental Budget Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #29, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 29 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $281,510; WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $124,750; HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $875,000; DEBT SERVICE FUND OF $7,000; ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND OF $65,740; TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND OF $157,427; EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND OF $450,000; EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $114,590; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OF $96,000. AN ORDINANCE DECREASING AN APPROPRIATION IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND OF $2,925,400; PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF %551,930; STORMWATER FUND OF $262,034; WATER UTILITY FUND OF $797,712. Mr. Strecker stated the supplemental is the mid year adjustment. Overall the decrease is around $390,000. There is $950,000 in new requests included in the overall reduction. He reviewed the big pieces of the new requests. The large decrease is due to the pedestrian mall and reducing that scope. This is adding back around $859,000 to the bottom line. Councilman Hauenstein said on the 505 EH fund, curious how that compares to APCHAs 12.5% operations. Mr. Strecker replied I don’t know how it relates. The 12.5 is different from the management costs. The maintenance costs are being charged dollar for dollar. Councilman Mesirow moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Supplemental Budget for APCHA funds Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #30, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 30 (SERIES OF 2019) 94 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 11 AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND OF $1,134,981 AND THE APCHA DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $250,000. Mr. Strecker said the increases are both APCHA operated entities. These are not technically city dollars. $250,000 is related to some purchase and renovations to an Ajax unit. The remainder of funds requested are roll forward authority from 2018, largely related to the computer system. Councilman Hauenstein said the $220,000 and $30,000 remodel for the Ajax condo, I want to see the minutes where that was discussed at APCHA. It strikes me a white elephant if it is not structurally sound why $250,000 is being spent on it. Ms. Ott said today is the first time I’ve heard there are issues with the building. The purchase was approved by APCHA using funds in their own control in April. It has been used by the property manager for APCHA. We will follow up on the quality of the unit. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to have some background on how the APCHA development fund has evolved. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 2019 – 2019 Supplemental Budget for the Truscott Phase II Affordable Housing Fund Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #31, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 31 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT PHASE II AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND OF $55,811. Mr. Strecker said this is a carryforward of the original $100,000 appropriated in 2018 to do a needs assessment. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 2019 – 2020 Fees Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #32, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 32 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADJUST CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES INCLUDED UNDER SECTION 2 AND 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. 95 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 12 Mr. Strecker said this is an annual process as part of the budget ask. The majority of changes are small and focused on Wheeler and recreation departments. Environmental Health is the largest change but they are state mandated. Councilwoman Richards said the rate for city day camp is $44 per day. She wants to make sure parents are aware of scholarships and financial aid for those programs. Councilman Hauenstein said it is not just for day camp but for all the youth programs. Councilman Mesirow moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #33, SERIES OF 2019 – 1001 Ute Avenue – Subdivision/PUD – Major Amendment to a PD and Associated Reviews to Memorialize Existing Improvements Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #33, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 33 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT & 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR LOTS 999, 1001, 1011 UTE AVENUE, PLUS COMMON AREA PARCELS A,B & C, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1,2,3,A,B, AND C; 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION/PUD; ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF FILED MAY 9, 2007, IN PLAT BOOK 83 AT PAGE 95 COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Kevin Rayes, community development, said the request is to memorialize existing improvements. It is a request to memorialize a major amendment to a PD and 8040 greenline review. This is a complicated site. Mayor Torre said I just realized that the facilities on this property are some I make use of in my professional life. I think it is best that I recuse for this item. Mr. True said he finds that appropriate. Mr. Rayes said that 1001 Ute is located on the south side of Ute Avenue, adjacent to ajax park. This was approved in 2006. Prior to that it was owned as a mining claim. A portion of the improvement are 3 tennis courts leased to the Gant. In 2006 council approved redevelopment. The property was subdivided into 7 parcels. 1st is common area lot A designated as open space for drainage and mudflow. It was also intended to serve as a location for all the mine tailings required to stay on site. Lot 1 and 2 were approved for free market dwellings. Lot 3 is the location of the affordable housing unit. Common area lot B is the 3 tennis courts. The site is allowed to maintain a lease with the Gant. They were required to provide onsite ADA access for the courts. Common area lot C is a driveway to connect all the parcels. Common area lot D was gifted to the city as a connector trail. The affordable housing and the house on lot 1 have not received a CO. The lot 2 house has. The impetus of this application started with a complaint by the neighbor concerned with the air conditioner units on lot A. Staff researched the approvals against the existing improvements. On lots 1 and 2 the finish grade of the 1st floor was built at an elevation of 8,012 or 5 feet higher than what was approved. Common area lot B tennis courts, ADA accessibility was never constructed. Along the front of lot B towards Ute Avenue there is a retaining wall. The original depictions in 2006 it was represented it would be 3 feet tall and freestanding. It is 6 feet and used to retain dirt behind it. Lot 3 has the same issue with a front wall. A portion of the window well associated with the affordable housing unit encroaches onto lot C. Staff recommends some of the improvements come into compliance 96 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 13 and some are memorialized. Staff recommend approval on first reading and schedule the public hearing for December 10th. Councilwoman Mullins asked how does this happen. There were plans submitted and permits were given out. It is astounding what they got away with. I would also like to know if there is any type of punitive action we can take. I think we need to come down extremely hard on this and be reasonable. There has to be some other recourse for the city so this does not happen. Ms. Phelan said we will give you more history as to what we think happened. Mr. True said the applicant will explain their position. You have to determine what you feel is appropriate to approve or not approve and require they remediate. Councilwoman Richards said I was on the council that approved this. The memo noted council at the time gave them more FAR and it was conditioned on them following the elevation level and other components. I want to make sure we have some sort of concurrence by the complaining neighbors that what we are recommending as remediation is sufficient. I would like to know who is the enforcement officer, how often do they do enforcement and look at sites that are under construction for compliance. I agree with Ann that there needs to be something punitive written into the code. We are looking at a major amendment. The greatest punishment is to hold up the COs on both. Councilman Mesirow asked is the affordable housing unit an ADU. Ms. Phelan replied no. Councilman Mesirow asked is there any distinction between P&Zs recommendation and staff. Mr. Rayes replied yes. P&Z recommended the majority of the improvements be memorialized except the AC units. They recommended relocating them to a site that staff finds reasonable and apply for a permit. The other caveat was regarding the tennis courts. They recommended on site ADA access be provided. If off site is possible it would be permissible as well. The Gant has tennis courts and if they were to provide ADA on those courts that would be fine. Regarding the stairwell for lot 2, P&Z recommended it be memorialized in the existing location where staff recommends it be removed from the common area. For the tennis courts we discussed internally if access is provided on the Gant and the property owner were to go into a lease with a different hotel in town we could not enforce the accessibility. Councilwoman Richards said these courts should be accessible. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2019 – 711 Pfister Dr- Minor Planned Development Amendment to a Project Review Approval and Residential Design Standard Variation Garrett Larimer, community development, stated this property is part of the Maroon Creek Club subdivision. It is zoned RR with a PD overlay. This is the last lot at end of Pfister Drive. It was part of Pitkin county as late at 1996. The BOCC approved the PUD in 1993. As part of that approval were the dimensional limitations for the subdivision. In 1996 it was annexed into the city and the PUD carried over and is what governs today. The applicant has revised the design since first reading. They are requesting 2 reviews. The first is a minor PD amendment to a project review approval. The applicant is requesting to amend the building and development envelope layout. The requests are to accommodate the house, driveway and drainage. The 2nd request is for residential design standard variation for garage dimensions. Council is the final authority on each review. The minor PD amendment to amend the shape of the building and envelope and changes to the sizes of each. He showed images of the existing and proposed. There is 14,700 square feet for the building envelop. The total developable area is just over 21,000 square feet. He showed images of the proposed building and development 97 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 14 envelopes. The proposed building envelope is 13,576 and the development envelope is 10,182. The total developable area is increasing by 600 square feet. In 2012 staff approved an insubstantial PD amendment to clarify types of actives allowed in the building envelope. Types of activities allowed include landscaping, construction activity, patio improvements, driveways and parking areas. All construction activity needs to be contained inside the building envelop. For a minor PD amendment there are 3 criteria. It must comply with the review standards in the code. Staff determined they do comply. 2nd is the application needs to be generally consistent with the original approval. Staff finds they are not consistent. 3rd is the requested changes are generally considered insubstantial. Staff has found they are not insubstantial and not met. Staff has concerns on the increased impacts to the native vegetation. The parks department share these concerns. Staff is concerned with setting a precedent to increase development or building envelop sizes. They are also requesting a residential design standard variation to the garage dimension. It states the total width of the garage doors can’t exceed 20 feet. The proposal is for a 40 foot garage wall. The criteria state there must be a design alternative that meets the overall statement of the design standards. 2nd is the variation is needed for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints. There are no site specific constraints. Staff has found the application does meet the overall statement of the standards as a whole but not the garage dimension standard. There are 2 main aspects staff is concerned with. The design should minimize the presence of wide garages from the street and garage doors should be hidden from public view or minimized. Staff is concerned there is not a design element to obstruct the view or break up the massing. All 4 doors are visible form the street. Staff has found the proposed design does not meet the criteria. We are recommending council deny the requests. Applicant Kym Raymond, representing the applicant, said this is an undeveloped site. It is a very steep lot. We tried to fit the house into the landscape and wrap it around the cul de sac. Our house fits into a reduced building envelope but the access we were given by the BOCC is a 33 degree slope and impossible to put a driveway in. There is no way to meet code to put a driveway there and build the house. We are allowed 10,000 square feet for the house and proposing 8,500. We could take off over 1,200 square feet of the building envelope. Most of what we need in the development envelopment is landscaping and grading. We’ve removed a lot of the steep access. As far as the building envelope adjustment it is 35 square feet for screening for the garage doors. By giving up 1,200 square feet of building envelope we are not building to the maximum size. We need the extra area to create the driveway. Regarding the residential design standard for the garage, because the home is curved around the cul de sac you can see the garage doors. The reason for the 4 garages is the owner is a race car driver and a mechanic. We feel like we meet the standard of visibility. Rick Wark, owner, said I designed the home for the most part. I wanted to have a ranch layout. I wanted to design a home that pushed the limits of modern design. Ms. Raymond said to help with the shielding we are proposing to add an element similar to the entry element. That is why we asked for the building envelop adjustment. On the development envelop the increase will only have the grading and the driveway. As far as the residential design standards we feel we meet those standards with the screening. Councilwoman Richards said thank you for trying to address our questions. It still leaves me with questions. Why can’t you build a garage where you can double stack and only have 2 doors. Could you have two of the four not look like garage doors. She would like to make sure this is not precedent setting. It is important to include conditions that make it clear it is the driveway only in the allowed space. We want to be very detailed about restored vegetation. I think more work could be done to make the garage doors not look like garage doors. I’m not sure how reducing the building envelop relates to the original county approval for 10,000 square feet. 98 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 15 Councilman Hauenstein said I looked at the site. Where you have the driveway is really the only place to put it. I think you could camouflage the garage door. The lot next to it, west, is that a developable lot. Mr. Wark replied no, I am the last lot. Councilman Hauenstein said I want to be careful we are not opening the door to an abuse. Mr. Wark replied I have no problem restricting the FAR. The design does not lend itself from adding on. I like the suggestion of disguising the doors. The glass panels lets so much light in. Councilman Mesirow said I side more with staff on this. Mix and match and create your own zoning does set precedent. Allowing you to pick up and move things is a precedent that doesn’t make a lot of sense. I don’t think it meets the underlying intention of the guideline. Ms. Raymond replied we don’t have the run. Councilman Mesirow said you could design the house differently. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the 14 other lots with adjustments. Mr. Larimer said they were for the amended shape of the envelop without an increase in size. Only 1 was approved for an increase of 18 square feet. Ms. Phelan said these are typically handled administratively. That is if there is no net gain. This is coming before you because they are asking for an increase in size. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a lot of time and thought put in to establishing these envelopes. There is a whole picture being put together to protect the vegetation, minimize topographic changes, create consistency within the neighborhood, taking into accounts which lots are adjacent to open space. I consider those decisions very important. I have a hard time understanding why there needs to be a change. It is a pretty challenging entry into the site. Maybe it should have been part of the due diligence. I don’t see a compelling or convincing reason why there needs to be a 4 car garage. It is not a compelling reason to change a really important design standard. The change in the development envelop changes the setback from 65 to 17 feet. That is not acceptable. It impacts public perception of open space. I can’t support increasing the size. Ms. Raymond asked if she would be amenable to changing the shape if the size remained the same. Councilwoman Mullins replied that is a precedent that has been set. The difference here is that you are asking for an increase. Councilman Mesirow said the applicant has characterized the existing right of way for the driveway as impossible. Would you agree that is accurate with the existing proposed structure. Mr. Larimer said I’ve not contemplated potential designs for the site. There is precedent for amending the shape of the envelop to make accommodations for site constraints like steep slopes. Councilman Mesirow said the standards are clear if there is a hardship based on site then there is a reason for an exemption. If it is impossible to build a driveway then I would say that’s a reasonable hardship. My reading of the site and experience is that with a different envelop placement that would not be the case. I’m looking to staff to tell me if that is accurate. Ms. Phelan replied I think it is how you design the site. Councilman Hauenstein said the building envelope is decreased but the building envelop increased. He asked for a review of that again. He also said one of the objections is that it is a four car garage going four across. Maybe it could be three doors with one double deep. Ms. Raymond said we need the extra development envelop mostly for the grading. We could not put the driveway in the original location because it is a 33% slope. Even taking 1,200 square feet out of our building envelop the house still very easily fits in the building envelop that was given. We just asked for the tiny corner to create the shield for the garage doors. Councilwoman Richards asked if we have any provisions for a temporary development envelop that the extra land above the driveway after its graded could then be taken back out of the development envelop. Ms. Phelan stated they could reduce the building envelop by 600 square 99 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2019 16 feet then it would be no net gain. Councilwoman Richards said it is about the revegetation standards being really great. That also triggers water use. We would like to emphasize using zeroscaping and native vegetation. I’ve seen a lot of bad lots in my day and the easier to develop lots are the ones that get sold more quickly. The more marginal ones are usually not looked at very carefully. This was looked at by the county at the time. I wouldn’t bet against that the full topography was not accounted for when they were looking at things on a map. This is also combining two different codes. At the time there were no residential design standards in the county that were applied to the lot. She said we may want to continue this. Commit to the lower FAR and the revegetation, disguise and shield the doors. I like Ward’s idea of maybe just having three doors. Councilwoman Mullins said I don’t want us to decide in favor of this because we think the people who did the original subdivision didn’t do a good job. I put my faith into what the county has done. I would never approve something on the premise that someone did poor work 20 years ago. If there is a precedent of various envelops shifting on other sites and it was just administrative due to no change in size I would have to support that. Councilwoman Richards said when things were in the county people park all their cars on the street or build a garage right on the street and have something go down to the property. I don’t think that would hit our design standards either. Different practices were acceptable in the county when this was approved. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein asked if it is possible to further decrease the building envelop by 621 feet. You could have the driveway and it would be no change. Councilwoman Mullins said you could reduce either for the no net change. Ms. Raymond replied the development envelop can’t get any smaller. Mayor Torre said it sounds like there is support for making changes and bringing this back to be considered. We’ve heard reduction of square footage, maybe amendments to the garage design. Are they here because this could not be done through administrative review. Ms. Phelan replied correct. We cannot increase the overall size of the development envelop. It has to be approved via a PD amendment. Mayor Torre said it is the applicant’s choice to go through with the design and be here. He said he has not been swayed for a favorable vote on this but is more than willing to have a continuance. Councilman Hauenstein asked about a site visit. Councilwoman Richards said she will look at the site as well. She said for the resolution that comes back for her to vote for it she would want to see the 8,500 square feet in FAR and extinguishing of any remaining FAR. A commitment to use native vegetation and some reference to zero scaping. She also wants to see the potential of how to disguise two of the garage doors. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue until November 26th; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 10:45p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 100