Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19930125Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. with Councilmembers Pendleton, Peters, Richards and Reno present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Peters said last week the television cable was out. People called and complained that when they called the cable company for information, the phone was off the hook and there was no informa tion availa ble. Councilman Peters said the cable company is a utility and people who pay for the service should be able to get an answer. Councilman Peters requested staff send a note passing on this comment on to the cable company. 2. Councilwoman Richards moved to add to the agenda a request for an executive session to discuss personnel and pending litigation; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried. 3. Amy Margerum, city manager, requested City Shop Financing and Contract Award for Consulting Work on Super Block both be contin- ued. Councilman Peters moved to continued City Shop Financing to February 22 and Contract Award for Consulting Work on Superblock to February 8; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Councilwoman Richards suggested leaving City Shop Financing on the agenda so Council can give staff direction and comments for the final discussion. Councilman Peters amended his motion to table the Contract Award for Consulting Work on Superblock to February 8; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Amy Margerum, city manager, said the county is interested in having a joint work session on the snow storage site and suggests February 16th at 4 p.m. Councilwoman Richards said she would prefer 5 p.m. 5. Amy Margerum, city manager, noted the joint meeting with the County on the Aspen Area Community Plan is rescheduled for February 2 at 4 p.m. in the Courthouse. 6. Amy Margerum, city manager, requested Council meeting Tuesday, January 26 at 5 p.m. to ratify the water policies and adopt Resolution #5, 1993. Council agreed. 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 7. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council the retreat is Sunday, January 31. The retreat will end at 4 p.m. due to the super bowl. 8. Randy Ready, parking director, told Council sta ff has prepared a grant request for the Federal Highway Administration. This has been submitted and processed through the CDOT. The grant is for $4.8 million, 80 percent of the first year capital and operating costs for the transportation alternatives program. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Peters moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Reno. The consent calendar is A . Resolution #4, 1993 - Public Projects Review Grou p B . Pioneer Park Reaffirmation of $75,000 Donation All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #72, SERIES OF 1992 - Mocklin Rezoning Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council the rezoning proposal has been amended. Ms. Lamont pointed out the original proposal was to rezone the entire parcel south of Gibson Avenue; the current proposal is to rezone only a parcel to RMF and leave the remaining property R-15A. Mocklin is not going through the subdivision process because to do so one must first get development rights. Ms. Lamont said the rezoning proposal is to RMF because the minimum lot area requirement in the RMF/A is 27,001 square feet; however, the floor area associated would require Mocklin to identify a larger piece of property than 27,000 square feet. Ms. Lamont said the parcel which is proposed to be rezoned corresponds with the existing floor area, which is 12,800 square feet. Ms. Lamont told Council Mocklin cannot add any more units to the existing building without a growth management allocation; however, additional square footage can be added to the building. Ms. Lamont recommended approval of the rezoning. The existing structure is a non-conforming use. Ordinance #1 requires in any demolition of a multi-family building, 50 percent of the square footage and 50 percent of the bedrooms must be replaced on-site as affordable housing. The Aspen Area Community Plan recommends purchase of this property for open space. Ms. Lamont said the housing subcommittee of the AACP recommended this as a good piece of property for housing; the open space committee recommended this as a good open space parcel. The two groups got together and reached a consensus that open space is needed on this side of town. Ms. Lamont said the parcel 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 is large enough, with more north of Gibson Avenue, to achieve both. Ms. Lamont told Council the Open Space Board has been discussing purchase of this property but are not interested in the existing housing on-site. The remaining land area is about 2.8 acres. Rezoning of the 27,000 square feet would not affect traffic as additional units cannot be added. One parking space for each new bedroom would be required in any expansion. Ms. Lamont said for any further development on the 2.8 acres there would be a site specific development plan. One criteria for rezoning is whether the request is consistent and compatible with the community charac- ter. The existing building is long-term rental housing. Mocklin is seeking to eliminate the non-conforming status of the building in order to do some square footage expansion and upgrade the existing building. Ms. Lamont pointed out as the area was annexed into the city, all properties except this and one other were rezoned RMF/A. The old Community Center has been rezoning to affordable housing. The county has built Williams Woods and Hunter Longhouse addition. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said the primary purpose of rezoning is to allow the applicant to get out from under the non- conforming status. At the first hearing Council indicated a concern about upzoning the remainder of the property in the absence of a specific plan and also cited conflicts with the AACP. Vann pointed out the application has been revised in order to address the non-conforming status of the existing structure. Vann said this rezoning request meets the minimum size to make this a conforming use without over-sizing the parcel to be rezoned. Vann said the city's code describes both non-conforming use and non-conforming structures. A non-conforming structure is allowed in the zone district but does not meet some of the setback requirements. Non-conforming structures are not prohibited from getting expansions, improvements or repairs. A non-conforming use is not allowed in the underlying zone district. A non-conforming use poses a greater hardship. Non-conforming use limits repairs to non-structural repairs and only a certain percentage per year can be done. Vann said with the amount of land Mocklin has, it is reasonable to allow this structure to become a conforming use. Vann said in order to apply for further development, the applicant would have to go through subdivision and growth management and the city would see a specific plan. Councilwoman Richards asked how much more floor area would be available under this rezoning. Vann said as a practical matter the expansion cannot be done because of open space and parking requirements. Ms. Lamont said the building could not be extended beyond the RMF/A boundary. 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Peters asked how this parcel was viewed by committees of the AACP. Ms. Lamont said the housing committee viewed all vacant parcels as possible sites for affordable housing. The open space committee recommended this for open space as there is a strong need for open space in this area. The two committees reached a consensus and recommended this be open space. There may be ways to accomplish both. Councilman Peters said he cannot support this rezoning. The non-conforming issue has been over-stated; there is an allowance for upkeep of the structure. Councilman Peters said he would look at a PUD for this property to try and cluster the building and get open space. Councilman Peters said this seems like it may be a piecemeal process. Councilman Peters said rezoning this does not seem to be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Vann said Ordinance #1 would require affordable housing replacement if the existing structure were torn down. Vann said the applicant is not proposing further development. Mayor Bennett said he favors the amended request to rezone only the portion of the parcel that contains the existing building. Councilman Peters said two goals of the community plan are creation of housing and creation of open space. The request does nothing to further those goals. Council- man Peters said he would prefer this property be planned comprehen- sively. Mayor Bennett said this rezoning is legitimizing something that already exists. Mayor Bennett asked what development rights would be created on the other parcel that do not already exist. Ms. Lamont said the only development rights are the 8 units already on the property. No new units can be added without a growth management allocation. Amy Margerum, city manager, pointed out Ordinance #1 was meant to preserve quasi-affordable housing. If this structure is torn down, 50 percent of it has to be rebuilt as affordable housing. Ms. Margerum said the other policy issue is the intent of non-conformi- ty, which is have the buildings get to a point where they either get torn down or used for some other purpose. Ms. Margerum noted property values are so high the non-conforming use mechanism does not work very well here. Councilman Peters said this rezoning will allow for more square footage and density in this area and will not serve the purposes of open space identified in the community plan nor the purposes of housing. Councilwoman Richards said she liked the change in this rezoning proposal. Councilwoman Richards said she does not feel that not granting the rezoning request will create a master 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 planning effect on the property. Councilman Peters asked about adding a PUD designation to this site. Ms. Lamont said the PUD is a tool for the applicant to use in development. Staff also uses PUD overlay for sites with unusual characteristics. Ms. Lamont told Council staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and is recommending tabling second reading until the water tap fees can be worked out. Bob Hughes, representing the appli- cant, said they would like the rezoning approved contingent upon payment of the water and sanitation fees. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to understand the merits of the PUD when Council sees the water fees issue. Councilmembers Pendleton, Richards and Mayor Bennett indicated they favor rezoning of the smaller parcel. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to continue Ordinance #72, Series of 1992, to February 8, 1993; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1992 - Historic Designation 311 W. North Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council this request meets 2 of the 6 designation standards. It was designed in 1962 by Herbert Bayer. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #79, Series of 1992, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1993 - Assessment Roll Upper Ute Avenue Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 1993, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1993 - Assessment Roll Lower Ute Avenue Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 Pam Cunningham, Aspen Alps general manager, requested Council give some consideration to the owners of the 400 building who lost their entire building as a result of a fire. They are being valued as vacant land rather than buildings. These will be re-built as soon as possible. Chuck Roth, city engineer, said the assessments for building 4 are between $782 and $1026. Roth said if this building were left out of the assessments and the district were redone, this would have to be re-published and it is costly. Councilman Reno stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1993, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Peters, yes; Pendleton, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 1993 - Bell Mountain GMQS Allotments and Exemption for Affordable Housing Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #3, Series of 1993; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #3 (Series of 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION FOR 22 TOURIST ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE LP (LODGE PRESERVATION ) ZONE DISTRICT, MULTI-YEAR GMP ALLOCATIONS, AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR DEED RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE HOUSING FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE LOCATED AT 720 E. COOPER AVENUE (LOTS K- P, AND PART OF LOT Q, BLOCK 105, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning department, told Council this application has been scored by P & Z in the 1992 competition for tourist accommoda- tions. The size of the project requires a multi-year allocation, which P & Z recommended. In this zone district 10 units are available annually. The request is for 22 units, which would use up 1992, 1993 and two units from 1994 allocation. This application also includes a text amendment for lowering the parking require- ments in the LP zone, which is the next ordinance. Ms. Johnson noted another request is the exemption for the on-site housing being provided. There are 3 units; three-bedroom unit resident occupancy; two-bedroom unit at category 3; and one-bedroom unit category 2. The housing office supports these deed restric- tions. The LP zone does allow affordable housing on-site as long as it is for the employees of the lodge. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 Ms. Johnson told Council the applicant has acknowledged that work on a superblock is being done. Their underground garage could be incorporated in a superblock; however, the details of each proposal have not been worked out. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council there was a request for rezoning this property to office, which was denied. There have been several development proposals for the property. This application is to upgrade and expand the lodge. A multi-year allocation is required because the project cannot be phased. Vann told Council the superblock issue arose after the application was in process. Gary Wright, representing the applicant, pointed out there have not been any other GMP allocations in the lodge zone in several years. Wright said this is an option to preserve a family lodge and is the smallest increase that can make a workable lodge in this location. Councilman Peters said this is consistent with the community plan which attempts to preserves small lodges in Aspen. Councilman Peters questioned the designation of an resident occupied unit as mitigation for employee housing. Ms. Johnson said the lodge accommodation section of the growth management regulations does not specify low, middle or moderate category housing for points. Ms. Johnson noted there was a precedent in approving a r/o for the Crestahaus Lodge. Wright asked if this were not a resident occupied unit, would it prohibit the Kappelis from living in their lodge. Councilman Peters agreed with the principle there should be an ability for the manager to live in the unit; other than that it should be restricted. Councilman Peters suggested an exemption allowing the owner or manager to live in the unit. Vann said the fully deed restricted units in categories 1 through 4 imposes occupancy, asset and income guidelines. Diane Moore, planning director, agreed people who own lodges should be encour- aged to live in them. Ms. Moore said there is a special review to waive the asset limitations for affordable housing. Ms. Johnson said this zone district requires that employees only can occupy affordable units within the lodge. Councilman Peters said he feels allowing resident occupied units as GMQS mitigation is a large precedent. Vann said if they can craft a deed restriction and put a more realistic cap on income, this would serve the purpose. Wright said he would like to create a deed restriction so the applicants do not have to go through a review process with change of residents. Ms. Moore said staff will work on these issues before second reading. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1993, with the understanding staff will be working out language details before second reading and it will be consistent with what the city 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 demands for any other GMQS exemption; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Peters, yes; Reno, yes; Pendleton, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 1993 - Code Amendment for Parking in LP Zone Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 1993; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #4 (Series of 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS BY AMENDING SECTION 24-5-216.E.1 PARKING REGULATIONS FOR THE LP (LODGE PRESERVATION) ZONE DIS- TRICT, AND SECTION 24-7-404.B.1 - SPECIAL REVIEW was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this code amendment is proposed in conjunction with the previous application, the Bell Mountain Lodge rezoning. The proposed amendment is to lower the parking requirement to .7 space per lodge unit. This would be consistent with the current requirement for parking in the LTR and CL zones, which was lowered to .7 in the early 1980's. The intent of the LP zone district to is preserve and enhance small lodges and the requirement for 1 parking space is a disincentive. Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 1993, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Richards, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1993 - 111 W. Hyman Residential GMQS Allocation and Exemption for Affordable Housing Councilman Peters moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 1993; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5 (Series of 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION FOR ONE FREE MARKET UNIT AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ONE DEED RESTRICTED UNIT LOCATED AT 111 W. HYMAN AVENUE (LOT G AND 1/2 OF LOT F, BLOCK 61, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this is a request for one residential unit and was the only submittal in the residential 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 competition for 1992. At a minimum 6 residential units are available annually. The applicant is also proposing a garden level deed restricted one bedroom apartment, category 1. P & Z scored the project and found it met the minimum threshold for alloca tion. There are two conditions; a roof or dormer to shed snow away from the entry way of the affordable unit; and if the unit is ever condominiumized, the unit shall only be obligated for management and maintenance assessments. Councilwoman Pendleton asked why energy comments are asked for when the city does not have anything to back it up. Ms. Johnson said the criteria in the code is very vague. This will be revised with the community plan. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 1993, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Richards, yes; Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. RITZ ICE RINK LANDSCAPING EXTENSION IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY Diane Moore, planning director, reminded Council one of the conditions for the Aspen Winter Garden was to reconsider whether they wanted the applicant to landscape additional right-of-way adjacent to the ice rink. Ms. Moore noted condition #17 stated any costs of relocating utilities shall be borne by the city. The proposed landscaping would extend 8 feet north into Durant avenue and 15 feet into Mill street rights-of-way. Ms. Moore said 8 feet out into Durant there is a 20 inch water main as well as street light feed wires. Ms. Moore recommended asking the applicants to landscape the additional 8 feet adjacent to Durant. This will provide a buffer between traffic and the ice rink. Ms. Moore recommended the landscaping extension on Mill street not be done as a buffer is not needed and to maintain existing parking. Ms. Moore pointed out 11 or 12 parking spaces on Durant would be eliminated by the addition- al landscaping. Councilwoman Richards said she supports the additional landscaping on Durant street. It will make crossing Durant easier, which is currently a very busy and somewhat hazardous area. Councilwoman Richards said feels this proposal will make a better entrance to the ice rink and a good buffer for the skating area. Mayor Bennett said until the city has reduced congestion in the downtown, parking spaces should not be eliminated. Councilmembers Peters and Pendleton agreed. Councilman Reno moved to direct staff to leave the parking the way it is in the plan previously presented; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 Richards. Motion carried. CITY SHOP FINANCING Councilwoman Richards said there are representations this will save the city "X" interest over the life of the bonds; however, there is no comparison of how much interest would have been earned if the money were left sitting in funds. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see background information, the city's adopted fiscal policies, the Blue Ribbon Committee recommendations regarding when to bond and when not to. Councilwoman Richards said she has concerns about what this project will eliminate the ability to do out of other funds, like the water fund; the ability to use parks and open space money to leverage a buy with the county open space board. Councilwoman Richards said she had concerns about the Charter amendment passed by the voters and the restrictions on open space funds, and using those funds by borrowing them for something else. Amy Margerum, city manager, told Council staff has done extensive work on the asset management plan and long range funds trying to anticipate costs. This proposal is over and above allocating money out annually for open space, water plant, capital projects, etc. Councilman Peters said he prefers the pay as you go approach. The city has huge sums of money in the reserves. Staff will bring this issue back to Council in February. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to go into executive session to discuss personnel and a lawsuit; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Council went into executive session at 7:50 p.m. Councilman Peters moved to continue the meeting to Tuesday, January 26; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Council left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 1993 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1 ................................ .......... COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1 ................................ ......... CONSENT CALENDAR 2 ................................ ............... ORDINANCE #72, SERIES OF 1992 - Mocklin Rezoning 2 ............... ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1992 - Historic Designation 311 W. North 5 ................................ ..................... ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1993 - Assessment Roll Upper Ute Avenue 5 ................................ .................... ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1993 - Assessment Roll Lower Ute Avenue 5 ................................ .................... ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 1993 - Bell Mountain GMQS Allotments and Exemption for Affordable Housing 6 ...................... ORDINANCE # 4, SERIES OF 1993 - Code Amendment for Parking in LP Zone 8 ................................ ................... ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1993 - 111 W. Hyman Residential GMQS Allocation and Exemption for Affordable Housing 8 ........... RITZ ICE RINK LANDSCAPING EXTENSION IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY 9 ....... CITY SHOP FINANCING 10 ................................ ............ 12 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council January 26, 1993 Mayor Bennett called the continued meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. with Councilmembers Reno, Pendleton, Richards and Peters present. RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 1993 - Water Policy Cindy Houben, planning department, said this resolution is to ratify the policies Council discussed in Aujgust and tries to incorporate all the comments made by Council. The goals are to serve adequate supply of water within the city limite; to serve within the existing service ares boundaries; to provide extensions were it is feasible and where there is criteria for that; and fourth, to always provide the highest quality of environmental protection. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said notes from the August mneeting indicate Council wanted a statement that they are no longer interested in taking over sub-standard water systems. This has been indicated in a whereas clause. Councilman Peters said he would like to see a policy statement specific enough to get a clear picture of the order of priorities. Ms. Houben said Council has stated their first priority is to take care of the needs of the citizens of Aspen and to the extent possible to continue to supply services in the service ares boundaries, which are not necessarily the city limits. Another priority is if one met specific criteria, Council would consider extension into new areas. Ms. Houben said one of the criteria for the above is "extension will make a financial profit for the city". Ms. Houben said staff has questioned when and how profit is measured. 1