HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19950710Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers
Marolt, Waggaman, Paulson, and Richards present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Phoebe Ryerson reminded Council parking under Wagner Park has been
discussed for years. With skiing, music and other attractions, driving in Aspen has
become a hassle. Ms. Ryerson suggested a way to get from Monarch to parking
under Wagner park without having to go on Main street.
2. Steve Crockett, Pitkin County emergency response coordinator, told Council
the rivers in Pitkin County are in the middle of the third peak. The 10 year flood is
21 cfs; the Roaring fork is as 2170 cfs east of town. There has been some property
damage and some erosion problems.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Mayor Bennett said t he meeting with CDOT and the Federal Highway
Administration went quite well. CDOT and FHA said they will not make a final
decision on the entrance to Aspen without consulting the city and coming to some
agreement. CDOT also offered to allow the city a staff person to work out of the
CDOT office in Basalt and keep the city and CDOT informed.
2. Councilman Paulson said this is a transportation conscious area. He rode
his bike to the gondola, paraglided off the top of Aspen mountain to Snowmass,
and rode the bus back to Aspen.
3. City Manager Amy Margerum requested Council’s approval for funding to
go forward with a fatal flaw analysis for water and sewer for Cozy Point. There is
a proposal not to exceed $3,000 for this work. Staff also recommends repairing
the bridge, which would cost about $2,000. Staff is not recommending any other
expenditures until Council discusses long range plans for Cozy Point.
Councilwoman Richards said she would like money spent on thistle control from
the parks and open space fund. Councilwoman Richards noted this was bought
with the intention of keeping some of it open space.
Councilwoman Richards moved to spend $3,000 from contingency on the fatal
flaw analysis; $2,000 on the bridge repair from Council contingency and $2700
from the parks budget for thistle control; seconded by Councilman Marolt.
1
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
Councilman Marolt said as long as the city owns this, they should be doing
something to maintain the property. Council agreed.
All in favor, motion carried.
4. City Manager Ma rgerum told Council staff is suggesting hiring an
independent engineer to look at alternative location in the trash dispute at the
Aspen Alps.
Councilwoman Richards moved to allocate not to exceed $600 from Council
contingency for an independent analysis of the trash compactor site regarding the
Aspen Alps; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, with the exception of
Councilwoman Waggaman. Motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman said she
is frustrated by the absurdity to which this has gone.
5. City Manager Margerum reminded Council earlier staff has asked for
$48,000 from the electric fund for a disputed contract. City Attorney John
Worcester took this to arbitration, who voted 100 percent in favor of the City.
This money will go back into the electric fund.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #34, Series of 1995;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #34
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING SECTION 6-206(C) AND CHAPTER 11 OF THE
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE PERMITS FOR THE REMOVAL
AND RELOCATION OF TREES, ESTABLISH A BASIC VALUE FOR TREES,
AND ESTABLISH A PENALTY FOR THE UNLAWFUL REMOVAL,
RELOCATION OR DESTRUCTION OF TREES WITHOUT A PERMIT was
read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman. The consent calendar is:
2
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
·
Minutes - June 12, 1995
·
Ordinance #34, 1995 - Tree Protection
·
Resolution #43, 1995 - Aspen Institute Seminar Building Extension
·
Resolution #44, 1995 - Holy Cross Easement for Burying Electric Cable
·
Resolution #45, 1995 - Holy Cross Easement for Switch Gears
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Marolt, yes; Richards, yes;
Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes.
PRESENTATION OF THE AUDIT
Kim Higgins, Bondi & Company, told Council they have given the city a clean
audit, which is the best opinion one can get. Ms. Higgins said the financial
statements are the responsibility of the management. The auditors went through
and tested the numbers and gave Council an opinion. Ms. Higgins presented the
management letters with recommendations for improvements. Ms. Higgins told
Council the city staff was extremely helpful and knowledgeable. The city is in a
good financial position.
ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1995 - Refunding Parking Garage Bonds
Doug Smith, finance director, reminded Council first reading of the refunding
parking garage bonds was before them in May. Smith said he was uncomfortable
with the market at that time and Council gave staff the authority to determine when
to market the bonds. The bonds were sold June for a total saving of $227,000.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 1995, on
second reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson.
Council asked why these bonds were done by a public facilities authority. Steve
Jeffers said this was a buffer between the city and the parking facility and was a
layer of protection for the city.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes;
Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
3
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
PUBLIC FACILITY AUTHORITY MEETING
John Bennett, president, called the meeting of the public facilities authority to
order with members Rachel Richards, Max Marolt, Georgeann Waggaman, Terry
Paulson, Kathryn Koch, and Doug Smith present.
John Bennett, president, explained with the resignation of Augie Reno, a vice-
president and director need to be elected.
Georgeann Waggaman nominated Rachel Richards as vice-president and Max
Marolt as director; seconded by Terry Paulson. All in favor, motion carried.
Rachel Richards moved to adopt Resolution #1 of the public facility authority,
approving the ground lease agreement, mortgage and indenture of trust, escrow
agreement, certificate purchase agreement, in connection with the issuance of
certificates of participation of $6,470,000; seconded by Terry Paulson. All in
favor, motion carried.
The public facilities authority meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1995 - Mocklin Rezoning and GMQS Exemption
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 1995;
seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #35
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A
SUBDIVISION, MAP AMENDMENT, AND VESTED RIGHTS STATUS FOR
THE CREATION OF SEVEN SUBDIVIDED PARCELS AND THE REZONING
OF THE SEVENTH PARCEL FROM RESIDENTIAL/MULTI-FAMILY (A) TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LOCATED AT 0202 LONE PINE ROAD, ASPEN,
COLORADO was read by the city clerk
Leslie Lamont, community development department, told Council when this parcel
was still in the county, the county certified that there were 8 legal units. The
property was annexed into the city in 1989. The statute requires newly annexed
property to be rezoned within 90 days of annexation., Mocklin requested RMF
4
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
zone because of the 8 unit apartment on the property. P & Z and staff
recommended the property remain R-15A until the city received a development
application, at which time the property could be rezoned. In 1992, the applicant
again requested RMF zoning. P & Z and Council rezoned a portion of the land
RMF/A and the remaining portion is R-15A.
Ms. Lamont showed a current zoning map; the parcel contain 3.5 acres or 153,331
square feet. Currently there is 35,870 zoned RMF/A and 117,461 zoned R-15A.
There are 8 units on the property; 3 one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom and 2 three-
bedroom, total of 15 bedrooms in 12,800 floor area. The applicant requests to
subdivide the land into 7 parcels; 6 free market lots and one AH lot. Mocklin
offered to deed restrict 6 units in the existing 8 unit apartment building. Staff
recommends deed restriction of 7 of these units.
Ms. Lamont told Council the applicant can tear down the building. Under the
current code with a multi-family building, they have the option to tear down and
replace those units on their property exempt from growth management. Ms.
Lamont said Ordinance #1 requires replacement on site as deed restricted housing
50 percent of the number of bedrooms and 50 percent of the square footage. Ms.
Lamont said if the applicant tore down the existing building, he could create 7 free
market parcels on the remaining 117,000 square feet and would have to replace 7
bedrooms and about 6,400 square feet as fully deed restricted employee housing.
Ms. Lamont told Council the applicant is proposing to deed restrict 7 of the units
without having to tear the building down and subdivide the land exchanging the
deed restricted units for free market parcels. The free market parcels range from
15,000 to 24,000 square feet. Parcel #7 would be rezoned to AH with 7 units
containing 12 bedrooms that would be deed restricted for a total of 5,150 square
feet. The units are 370 to 1470 square feet. Ms. Lamont explained the request for
7 units rather than 6 units be deed restricted is that 2 of the units are very small and
do not fall within the guidelines. This would get more bedrooms deed restricted
but less square footage than tear down and replacement. Ms. Lamont said the
replacement units could be contained within each of the free market units. These
replacement units do not have to be in a separate enclave.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council these units are in very good
shape and have been maintained. This parcel has 60 percent open space, more
than adequate parking and great views. Vann said with these positives, the
applicant preferred not to tear down the building. Vann said there is no provision
5
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
for this type of trade in the code. Vann said he requested an interpretation that as
long as this proposal is meeting the requirement of Ordinance 1, replacement
percentages, the applicant would not have to physically tear down the building.
Staff supported this process. Vann reminded Council when the Kandahar building
on Main street was deed restricted to employee housing, some of the units were
small and the mitigation was to deed restrict additional units. The parcel currently
zoned RMF will be zoned affordable housing to reflect what will be there. This
complies with all AH housing requirements.
Vann said the 6 free market parcels are less than would be allowed if the applicant
tore down the existing building because there are 8 units on the parcels. Vann
said the reason for large lots is to reduce their visual impact and to provide a
transition between the multi-family area to the north and Oklahoma Flats. Vann
pointed out if this were to compete under growth management, they exceed the
amount of AH one would have to provide to meet minimum requirements
Councilwoman Richards asked if the driveway is subtracted from the parcel to
figure FAR. Ms. Lamont said the proposed access drive does not come out of the
size of the parcels; however, when each parcel calculates its FAR, the access
comes out the lot area for floor area purposes. In the code, easements do not
come out of the lot for the size of the lot when calculating FAR but when one
calculates the actual size of the house for the parcel, then the easement is
subtracted.
Ms. Lamont pointed out Ordinance #30, 1995, will have an effect on the FAR for
these parcels on the slope reduction and driveway. Public trails do not affect the
FAR. Vann said before Ordinance #30, the largest lot would have accommodated
4700 square feet. Councilwoman Richards asked if there would be a difference in
the park dedication fee if this were a tear down and rebuild. Vann said the park
dedication fee would be the same. Ms. Lamont said if the building were torn
down, staff would figure would the park dedication fee for the entire proposal and
give a credit for what exists. Councilwoman Richards said this seems to allow a
4500 square foot house to replace a 370 square foot apartment. Councilwoman
Richards asked if the growth management exemption were not allowed, what
would the procedure be. Vann said the replacement regulation is currently on the
books. Vann said if an applicant complies with the requirements of Ordinance #1,
they qualify for an exemption from growth management. Councilwoman Richards
said this proposal is going from town house to single family lots. Vann said
Ordinance #1 does not make the distinction how the free market credit is used.
6
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
Vann reiterated the housing office and staff requested 7 units, rather than 6, be
deed restricted because of the size of two of the units. Councilwoman Richards
asked for information on how this project would look if the conversion of existing
units was not allowed; would these be off-site, would the whole parcel be AH.
Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like to know the comparable size of the
free market houses pre and post Ordinance #30, slope reduction, garage
exemptions, etc. This will help get a sense of the visual density for this project as
well as give Council an idea of the impact of Ordinance #30. Ms. Lamont said the
applicant can also show in the tear down scenario 7 single family houses with a
deed restricted AH unit on each lot. These 7 houses would be larger because there
would be more square footage to divide between the 7 lots. Councilwoman
Waggaman asked if the applicant could dedicate real property instead of paying a
park dedication fee and how much property this would be. Councilwoman
Waggaman said she likes keeping the existing apartment building for lack of waste
of resources and traffic construction. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would
like staff investigate buying a portion of the property for open space with park
dedication fees and some open space money. Councilwoman Waggaman
suggested one of the free market lots could become a park.
Vann said Mocklin has always been willing to entertain acquisition of some of his
property for parks and open space. Vann said he will come back with appraised
value for the free market lots.
Councilman Paulson asked how this is proposed to be developed on the rolling
terrain. Vann said the proposal is to minimize site disruption; the only disruption
will occur within the building envelopes. The front of the site is a sagebrush flat,
which will stay. One condition of approval is that this cannot be modified or
removed. Vann said part of the site is in the superfund so they will limit
excavation to the access driveway and the actual building foundations. Vann said
they have designed these to lose no trees over 6 inches other than a few
cottonwoods on lot 7. Vann pointed out the driveways are at the rear of the
property so that each house is accessed from the rear which will allow the building
envelopes to be at the back of the parcel.
Councilwoman Richards said the site design is based on spreading the houses
across the entire parcel. Councilwoman Richards said this site is visible from
many places in town. If this were a tear down and rebuild, the houses could be
clustered and there would be more square footage of affordable housing.
7
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
Councilwoman Richards suggested a site visit. Councilwoman Richards said these
houses along Gibson Avenue will cause a dramatic change to the neighborhood.
Vann said the proposal tries to strike a happy medium staying within the
subdivision regulations, good site planning as well as the development objectives
of the applicant. If the building envelopes are pushed forward, they will be more
visible. Ms. Lamont told Council the building envelopes are staked and agreed a
site visit before second reading would be a good idea. Councilwoman Richards
requested some history on demolition credits, where does it come from, does
Council have latitude to reinterpret it and how does this fit into GMQS.
Ms. Lamont said the demolition and replacement section of the code allows one to
tear down and replace subject to community development director approval and
one does not have to compete in growth management. This has been in the code
for years. When staff revised the growth management for residential and lodge,
this was not revised. Prior to Ordinance #1, tear downs were exempt with no
replacement requirement. Ordinance #1 requires that the units not come out of the
residential quota but that the housing torn down has to be mitigated. There was
only a free market residential quota; there was no allotment pool for affordable
housing. The new revisions provide for an AH quota. The free market
replacement units do not come out of the allotment pool. The code is silent on the
new AH units as part of replacement whether they are counted against the
allotment or not.
Ms. Lamont said there are several alternatives on how to deal with AH units. The
housing office is concerned that if replacement AH units are counted against that
quota, these 43 units per year will be whittled down. Ms. Lamont said one
alternative is to write a text amendment to exempt mitigation requirement by
Ordinance #1. Mayor Bennett said in the spirit of the AACP, growth is growth.
Mayor Bennett agreed with the housing office there should be some sharing of
where the additional units are counted against, some split between the AH and free
market quotas. Councilwoman Richards said another development pool might be
units that are maintaining the existing inventory, 2 separate AH quota pools.
Council scheduled a site visit for July 20 at noon at the Mocklin property.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 1995, on first
reading with the request that staff give Council an accounting of the implications of
the tear down scenario in full related to lay out of the site and subdivision powers;
8
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting July 10, 1995
seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson,
yes; Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion
carried.
REQUEST FOR FUNDS - City Hall
Cris Caruso, city engineer, requested $70,000 for a high efficiency heat and
venting system. This system will have a 6 or 7 year payback. City hall is currently
heated by electricity and this gas system is less expensive. Caruso said staff will
look at expanding this to the rest of city hall. Staff is also requesting $25,000 in
meeting room finishes. Caruso reminded Council when this project came in over
budget, some of the finishing in the Council Chambers and Sister City room in the
basement were deleted. Caruso said the contingency for this project was used up
in the first phase and requested $50,000 contingency be added back for phase 2 of
City hall remodel. Caruso told Council the asset management plan fund balance is
$1,065,000.
Mayor Bennett requested staff track the pay back for the heating and vent system.
Mayor Bennett agreed that the city owes it to citizens and to volunteer board to
have nicely finished meeting rooms. Councilman Marolt asked why such a high
contingency is needed. Caruso said phase 2 is just starting and there are a lot of
unknowns in remodeling an old building.
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve $95,000 added to the project from the
asset management fund balance for high efficiency heating system and meeting
room finishes and $50,000 for contingency added to the total project; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 8 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman
Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
9