Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19961111Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, Waggaman, Marolt and Richards present. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS Mayor Bennett and Council presented outstanding employee bonus awards to Brian Heeney of the police department, Lee Ledesma and Lyn Woodward of customer service/water department, and Rocky Whitford Willy McFarlin, Dean Railsback and Curtis Gosnell as a team award for building the boxes on Main street to hold the speed indicator machines. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Herb Klein congratulated Council and the town on the passage of ballot question 2A. Klein reminded Council he was involved in drafting the conditions for use of the open space as a transportation corridor. Klein said he would like to know what Council will do to insure these conditions are met. Klein suggested Council send CDOT a letter reminding them of these conditions as soon as possible. Klein said he is not suggesting that the process be slowed down but the conditions should be responded to no later than the final EIS. Amy Margerum, city manager, said staff plans to invite all citizens who served on the task force to continue to work with the city and state as the EIS is finished. The city will be inviting new members to join this committee as well as form a new sub- committee to look at valley wide rail. Mayor Bennett said the conditions, as far as the city is concerned, are law and were voted on by the people. Mayor Bennett said it is a good suggestion to remind CDOT what the conditions were. Klein said CDOT needs to address these in a responsible way. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Waggaman commended the community for putting on the King and I. Councilwoman Waggaman said a lot of people worked very hard, and this was a grand production. 2. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council November 21 and 22 are a Club 20 symposium on transportation in Gunnison. There is an elected official transportation meeting November 19th at 5 p.m. at City Hall. 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 3. Mayor Bennett said he plans on attending a meeting in Denver on the 21st with the transportation commission and Gunnison on the 22nd. Councilmembers Marolt and Waggaman said they plan on attending the meeting in Gunnison also. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to continue to November 25 interpretation of Ordinance #1 and Ordinance #38, 1996, text amendment; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Paulson moved to read Ordinances #41, and 42, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #41 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, TO EXTEND THE HISTORIC LANDMARK LOT SPLIT TO THE R-15A ZONE DISTRICT BY AMENDING SECTION 26.28.060(b), MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15A), PERMITTED USES, SECTION 26.28.080(D), MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15A), DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND SECTION 26.88.030(a) SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION ORDINANCE #42 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE 49, SERIES OF 1993 FOR THE KASTELIC SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO were read by the city clerk Councilman Marolt said he would like Ordinance #42 withdrawn from the consent calendar. Council put this as the second action item. 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Paulson. The consent calendar is: Minutes - October 28, 1996 Ordinance #41, 1996 - Code Amendment - Historic Landmark Lot Split December Council Meetings (the second and third Mondays) All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 1996 - Bell Mountain GMQS Extension Bob Nevins, community development department, told Council this is a request for another 6 month extension of a 1993 GMQS award of 22 lodge units. This will extend the approval to February 22, 1998. Nevins told Council a team has been selected to provide urban design studies for the Independence project in order for it to be ready to go to the voters in May 1997. Nevins noted since being awarded 22 lodge units, the applicant has been granted 3 extensions. The applicant remains interested in participating in Independence Place project. The applicant is interested in a project that can benefit the community and one that is economically viable. The applicant does not want their timetable to interfere with the city’s opportunity to fully explore ways to realize the Independence Place project. Staff recommends approval and waiver of land use application fees for this extension. Alan Richman, representing the applicant, said they have been waiting for the city to get their studies completed. These should be complete in the next 6 months. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman noted Bell Mountain Lodge is also going up for a small lodge lottery. Richman told Council when they submitted to the small lodge lottery in November they thought a large number of people would be competing for units. There were not a large number and Bell Mountain was successful in obtaining an allocation. Richman said there is some time in which to get a change in use application to the city and they intend to do that if this process does not go forward. If the applicant goes with this process, the small lodge lottery will go away so that other lodges may use these units in the next lottery. 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Councilman Paulson stated he is still opposed to this project as he has been for the last 3.5 years. Councilman Paulson said some projects are continually pushed to the future. The idea of vested rights is to have projects completed. Richman said the applicants would not be asking for an extension if it were not to give the city a chance to perform their studies and to make a decision on the Independence Place project. Councilwoman Richards said this project is unique because it was identified in the AACP and transportation implementation plan to look into a downtown parking structure with curbside replacement. It is worth taking this to the public to see if they want to support it. The city has gone toward a public/private partnership with a potential community benefits. Councilwoman Waggaman said this project would have been developed if the city had not asked them to wait. It is fair to grant them an extension. Councilwoman Waggaman said the city needs to re-examine what they plan to put in at Independence Place. The parking need may not be so great since paid parking. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council the transportation implementation committee’s idea was not to add new parking spaces but to get rid of parking in the residential neighborhoods. Mayor Bennett agreed this did come out of the AACP and the city approached the applicant to see if they would be interested in a public/private partnership rather than the other way around. There is a potential community benefit. Councilman Paulson said the community needs to make it harder for cars to drive into Aspen rather than give them parking garages. Mayor Bennett reiterated this is not building new parking but changing the parking from on-street to underground. Councilwoman Waggaman suggested with all the changes that have occurred, the Transportation Implementation Committee should be reinstituted to give this a review. Councilman Paulson agreed. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, no; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #64, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Highlands EIS Comments Stan Clauson, community development director, pointed out comments from environmental health and the water department are attached and incorporated. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Clauson said the draft EIS has been reviewed by staff. Comments are due November 20th. Clauson said this is organized with “no build”, the requested alternative and the preferred alternative. The “no build” includes some development which has already been approved for the Highlands. Requested alternative includes opening up some bowls, replacing some ski lifts, and moving some support facilities. The preferred alternative from the Forest Service allows for the development of some bowls, replacement of certain lifts, relocation and ski patrol facilities, and suggests the incorporation of a restaurant at the top of Loge Peak. Clauson pointed out the draft EIS reviews potential impacts on vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, scenic resources, etc. Clauson said this will also be reviewed by the county. Most of the resource management issues will be handled by that review process. These do not directly impact the city. Clauson said staff has identified areas that do impact the city like water shed resources, aquatic resources, recreation, socio-economics, transportation, air quality and scenic resources. Clauson said water shed and aquatic resources have to do with the amount of water removed for snowmaking. Clauson presented a letter from a hydrology firm quoting, “If Aspen Highlands develops an independent snowmaking water supply, substantial monitoring and reporting should be required to protect in-stream flow conditions and should include continuous real time monitoring of both diversions and stream flow. The program should also be designed so that it is effective during icing conditions. The use of water storage should be encouraged”. Clauson noted he has incorporated this condition into the resolution. Clauson said the recreation upgrade will improve the quality of skiing, which will improve the quality of the resort overall. Socio-economics deals with housing and the ability of the Highlands to house its workers. The conclusions of this section do not seem to go in the right direction. The conclusion was that subsidy should be provided for downvalley residents. The city and AACP believes housing should be provided minimally at 60 percent of the work force in the Aspen area. Clauson said staff does not feel the draft EIS was as thorough as it could be in identifying the transportation issues and that by increasing the skier capacity of the mountain, the number of skiers will increase. The draft EIS takes the position that although the skier terrain is being increased, the initial lift capacity is being only minimally improved and there will not be an increase in the number of skiers traveling to the resort. Clauson pointed out staff’s recommendations are in the 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 direction of identifying the additional skiers who would use the resort because of these improvements and mitigate for them. Clauson said the other interest in the area, Hines, Moore and Highlands/Ski Company, are more aware of the transportation impacts. There was a report by Robert Felsburg that delineates the impacts by the various developments. Clauson said if there is more traffic, there will be impacts to air quality. The environmental health department has looked at whether additional skier trips will be generated. They have recommended there be further analysis of the number of trips generated. Clauson said scenic resources would include visibility from the highway and from other areas in the city. Clauson said staff feels the preferred alternate will not have negative impact on scenic resources. Staff has come up with 10 recommendations and these have been incorporated in Resolution #64. Staff feels in order for the final EIS too be thorough, they need to address these issues. Councilwoman Richards said there were some lift upgrades made before this master plan was completed. Councilwoman Richards asked if these numbers are before or after the lift improvements. Clauson said alternative A includes the lift improvements. Brent Gardner-Smith, Aspen Ski Company, told Council when the lifts were installed, the Ski Company purchased another bus and increased the frequency of the skier shuttle from town. There was no employee housing mitigation because two lifts were taken out. There are other replacement lifts that have been approved. These create the master plan for Highlands. This proposal would allow additional improvements. Councilwoman Richards asked how the forest service calculated the synergy between the base village and the lifts. There may be a lot more day skier visits because of the base village. Clauson said the forest service agreed new skier visits would come as part of the Hines development and little increase because of improved lifts. Councilwoman Richards suggested requesting an audit after all the employee units are built out to look at the actual number of employees generated. Councilman Marolt asked about the location of water diversion for the Hines project. Amy Margerum, city manager, said Hines has agreed to divert the water where the city requires and they are planning to use city water. Councilman Marolt said with traffic management, it appears the city is trying to do congested traffic control. Councilman Marolt said he would like to see separated grade intersections 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 at Maroon Creek rather than congested control. Clauson said this report does not recommend actual traffic measures but asks to determine what the appropriate mitigation is. Clauson said he feels that the impacts regarding traffic and transportation are understated in this document and these should be more carefully analyzed. Council requested the word “transit” be added in number #1 for clarification, “mass transit capacity serving the potential increase in skier capacity”. Councilman Marolt said he does not have problems with #2 as written but does have problems with the comments from staff. Councilwoman Richards said she cannot support moving in an opposite direction of transportation management measures. Councilman Marolt said with alternative transportation, like the train, in place, why does the city want to restrict automobiles anymore. Mayor Bennett pointed out the community has a goal of no more cars in the year 2015 than 1994. To attain that goal, the valley needs transportation demand management. Mayor Bennett said the area is still a PM 10 non-attainment area and air pollution needs to be taken very seriously. Councilwoman Waggaman suggested some wording that the flow of automobiles traffic should not be impeded unnecessarily. Clauson suggested in #2, “an appropriate transportation mitigation should be required based on this analysis including capital and operating subsidies for public transportation, and design changes which may alleviate roadway congestion”. Council agreed with this wording change. Council suggested wording in #3, “incremental transportation measures will be put into place”. In number 5, Council suggested “or towards the periphery of the PM 10 non-attainment area” rather than outside that area which may not be realistic. Councilwoman Waggaman suggested the signs explaining the parking not be placed so that people have to come all the way into town before they discover the parking is full. Number 6 should read “Permanently deed restricted employee housing should be provided”. In #7 ski area capacity was substituted for ski terrain. Mayor Bennett said he is comfortable with acknowledging Highlands has a legal right to another avenue on the outtake for water. Ms. Margerum quoted a letter from the city’s water engineer, “If snowmaking water is delivered through the city’s supply system, the use of storage in Thomas Lake will reduce peak snowmaking requirements and will allow the constant diversion of a lesser amount of water for snowmaking purposes”. Worcester said there probably is not a lot of territory to create another reservoir. Ms. Margerum suggested staff be allowed to review these 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 comments with Overeynder. Staff will put a revised resolution in Council’s box. Mayor Bennett suggested amending the wording to, “the use of water storage shall minimize stream flow fluctuations and associated aquatic impacts”. Council agreed. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed to adopt Resolution #64, Series of 1996, as amended and review by the water department director; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 1996 - Vested Rights Extension Kastelic Property (Win-Win LLC) Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council these applicants are requesting a 6 month extension of vested rights for a two-parcel subdivision approved in 1993. Clauson said this property is located along Roaring Fork river at 570 Riverside drive. Clauson told Council building envelopes were specified on the approved plat. The plat also noted that before development the properties would need to go through stream margin review. Clauson said the applicant seeks to have an extension of vested rights so the land development regulations in place and applicable to the property in 1993 be carried on to avoid penalizing Mrs. Johnson and her family for not being aggressive in developing the property. Clauson told Council since approval of this subdivision, the city has amended the stream margin standard which affects the buildable areas on these two lots. The building envelops on these plats are not current with the required setbacks. Clauson told Council staff does not recommend extension of vested rights. There have been no changes to the property situation which would compel additional vested rights. The current stream margin review standards should be applied to any development on these parcels. Clauson told Council during the review and approval of this subdivision there was a lot of discussion about saving trees and building envelopes. Clauson said the new stream margin standards require mandatory setbacks for structures along the river. These revised standards would require the new houses be built further from the river bank than those building envelopes approved in 1993. Clauson told Council the city attorney’s opinion is that the rights vested in the 1993 subdivision approval are essentially the rights to rely on the stream margin review standards in effect at the time of the vesting action. The city attorney does not 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 believe that the 1993 vesting action approved using those stream margin review standards in perpetuity. If Council were to grant an extension of vested rights, that would grant the applicants the stream margin review under the 1993 standards or as a condition of this extension to have them proceed under the 1996 stream margin review criteria. Paul Taddune, representing Mrs. Johnson, told Council his client has a purchase contract with Win-Win LLC. At the time of approval, there was intention to divide the two properties so that Mrs. Johnson would have a developable lot of a certain value as well the other property to have certain value. The properties were tied up in an estate. There was some confusion in how these properties were to be divided. Taddune told Council this request is to preserve what all parties thought they were getting when they went through the land use process. A number of concessions were made at that time. The building envelope was oriented to preserve trees, consideration was given to the slope. Taddune pointed out there are not health safety issues with stream margin review. Taddune said he is not sure vested rights are necessary because if the city approves a PUD with concessions from the applicant, can the city fiddle with that approval. Mrs. Johnson should not be penalized for not developing the property. Clauson said 26.100.100 provides for extension so long as the applicant can demonstrate that 3 conditions occur; (1) conditions applied to the project at the time of final approval that would have been made have been complied with. These have except for stream margin review and the plat filing; (2) any improvements required to be installed by the applicant prior to construction have been installed and no public improvement were required and (3) the project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable respects and the extension is in the best interests of the community. Clauson said there is no evidence that the owners of the parcels has pursued redevelopment of the lots. There have been no informal discussions or pre- application meetings during the last 3 years. Clauson stated staff finds the community’s interest would be harmed by granting extended vested rights including the use of the 1993 stream margin review standards for this property. The old stream margin review standards were inadequate to protect riparian habitats and the river as greenbelt for a community asset. Construction adjacent to the riverbank causes a change in the visual corridor and physical degradation of the riverbank. Clauson noted the applicant has stated Council has granted several extensions of vested rights, which is true. Approvals 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 have been largely for projects in progress, like the Bell Mountain Lodge and Aspen Institute. Staff does not feel Kastelic is in the same category as these projects. Staff recommends denial of extension of vested rights. Taddune said this PUD under one form of ownership is different from one under 2 owners. Taddune said if there are approved building envelopes, a person should not be required to build. There is no scenic corridor here. There is no public access along the river. Taddune said the city has been interested in acquiring this property. Councilwoman Richards said she would like minutes from the original land use approvals. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see the current stream margin standards, the difference from those in effect in 1993, and what it takes to go through stream margin review. Councilman Paulson said the city has been trying to put a trail through this area. Councilman Paulson said if the applicants have to put the building further away from the river, does it preclude the trail on this property. Larry Winnerman told Council he made a proposal to the city if there is a trail coming to this property, he would work with the city to get a trail through this property. Clauson said community development department noted that stream margin review had not been completed. Staff did analysis on the current top of bank which dictates a setback which would have affected the building envelopes. This was done without reference to trails and specific trail locations. Amy Margerum, city manager, said staff is researching a trail and has met with the Winnermans. That process is completely separate from the extension of vested rights. Herb Klein, representing WinWin LLC, said Council is in a difficult position wanting a trail across the river while depriving a property owner of the ability to put their house in the same area. There may be a conflict of interest in the goals for the community and these property owner’s rights. Klein said he would like to meet with staff and go over some options in adjusting the building envelopes somewhere between the 1993 and 1995 regulations and also accommodate the trail. Councilwoman Waggaman said if the regulations in 1993 were wrong and they were corrected in 1995, she would not extend these vested rights. This is totally separate from the trail issue. Councilwoman Waggaman said there is a limited amount of river in the town. Councilwoman Waggaman said for second hearing she would like a drawing of the property showing the benches, and sketches of some possible 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 building envelopes to see if a fairly comparable housing could be built. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like a reading from the city attorney on the PUD issue. Mayor Bennett said he does not have any hint whether moving this house away from the river makes it easier or more difficult to put in a trail. The city has talked about a trail on both side of the house. The Council is very concerned about riparian effects, which is why they passed the stream margin regulations. Mayor Bennett said in order to pass this on second reading, he will have to be convinced there is a public purpose served, which he has not yet heard. Mayor Bennett said the Council has not granted a vested rights extension request unless there was a compelling public purpose served. Taddune told Council the flood plain ordinance was originally adopted for health safety regulations to preserve property down stream in cases of flood. Taddune said the new regulations are closer to zoning than health safety. This is significant because if the city is dealing with zoning, adjacent property owners would have received notice of any changes. Taddune said “top of slope” is very difficult to define. Councilwoman Waggaman said people seem to be rolling stream margin review and a proposed trail together. Councilwoman Waggaman said they have nothing to do with each other. Stream margin review is to protect riparian rights, the stream flow, the aesthetic river experience. The trail is separate, and it also has to go through stream margin review. Larry Winnerman said the proposal to place the trail along the river violates the city’s stream margin review ordinance. The trail is into the 100 year flood plain. Councilwoman Waggaman said the city has not chosen a place for this trail. Councilwoman Richards said the vested rights is separate. There is a reason why vesting only occurs for 3 years in order to take into account changing circumstances and community standards. Councilwoman Richards asked staff to address by second reading the issues of conflict of interest, whether this is zoning or stream margin. Worcester said he has tried to separate the two issues; it is difficult to talk about one without addressing the other. Worcester said it would be helpful if the applicants would indicate they want to address both without accusing the city of a conflict. Herb Klein said these are inter-related; the applicants are not in a position to waive any assertions. 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Mayor Bennett said he has no idea where a trail would be better and if or how the vested rights affects the trail. Winnerman said after he had the property under contract, he was informed by city staff that the city was planning to put a trail through the property along the river. Worcester said as new purchasers, they were informed that the city has had a long standing interest in a trail in this area. This does not mean Council has approved any particular location. Taddune said it may be in the community’s interest for staff and all parties to meet and to try and work out a solution. Amy Margerum, city manager, said a development application is good for 3 years and after that time an applicant is to take into account any changes or new regulations. Ms. Margerum said Council sets a dangerous precedent extending vested rights for reasons that are not in the community good. The new building envelopes can be approved by P & Z. Everything the applicants have in terms of development approvals stay; they just have to take into account changes in regulations. Ms. Margerum noted that every property that has not developed within the 3 years will want the same extension. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if this new regulation changing stream margin and the building envelope, can an applicant come forward with a hardship request. Worcester said this would be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing applicant to negotiate every time this happens. Clauson said the stream margin review does not preclude any possibility of development; the building envelope is reduced from the older stream margin review. Taddune said he feels it is a terrible precedent to have a project the city has an interest in to get 3 or 4 extensions and then disapprove a small project. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #42, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Paulson moved to go into executive session at 7:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Paulson moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 11, 1996 OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS ................................ ............... 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ....... 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Paulson. The consent calendar is: ................................ 3 Minutes - October 28, 1996 ................................ ................................ ................. 3 Ordinance #41, 1996 - Code Amendment - Historic Landmark Lot Split .............. 3 December Council Meetings (the second and third Mondays) .............................. 3 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 1996 - Bell Mountain GMQS Extension ............... 3 RESOLUTION #64, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Highlands EIS Comments ............. 4 ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 1996 - Vested Rights Extension Kastelic Property (Win-Win LLC) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 8 14