Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060109Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETiNG ..'. .................................................................... 2 ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING ...................................................................... 3 BOARD COMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 3 CITIZEN PARTICII~ATION .............................................................................................. 3 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 5 · Resolution #1, 2006 - Posting Notices of Public Meetings ........................................ 5 · Resolution #2, 2006 - Animal Shelter Lease .............................................................. 5 · Minutes-November 22, December 12, 2006 ............................................................ 5 FIRST READING OF ORDiNANCES .............................................................................. 5 · Ordinance #1, 2006 - Limelite Final PUD ................................................................. 5 · Ordinance #2, 2006 - 202 N. Monarch Subdivision .................................................. 5 · Ordinance #3, 2006 - 522 W. Francis De-listing from Historic Inventory ................ 5 RESOLUTION #3, SERIES OF 2006 - Temporary Use Sleigh Rides on Golf Course .... 6 RESOLUTION #4, SERIES OF 2006 - Eligibility of Fire Station for COWOP Process. 7 ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2005 - Fees for 2006 ...................................................... 9 ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 2005 - Miscellaneous Land Use Code Amendments .. 10 ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2005 - Code Amendment Eastwood/McSkimming Setbacks ............................................................................................................................ 15 ORDiNANCE #52, SERIES OF 2005 - 805 South Avenue Subdivision Amendment... 16 ORDiNANCE #53, SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Plat Vacation ..................................... 18 ORDiNANCE #54, SERIES OF 2005 - Brmnder Lot Split ............................................ 18 ORDINANCE #55, SERIES OF 2005 - Burlingame PUD Amendment ......................... 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES MEETING President Helen Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with members Torre, J. E. DeVilbiss, Jack Johnson, Paul Menter and Kathryn Koch present. President Klanderud said this is a non-profit corporation of the city used for limited purposes. Torre approved the minutes of January 10, 2005; seconded by Menter. All in favor, motion carded. President Klanderud noted since City Council has changed members, the Vice President and assistant secretary need to be re-elected. DeVilbiss moved to nominate Torre as vice-president; seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. President Klanderud said the facility was formed to assist in financing construction of the parking facility, leased the ground for the parking facility from the city, owned the facility and leased this back to the city. In 1995 the Authority passed 2 resolutions; one to allow refinancing of the parking garage bonds and one to enter into a lease arrangement for Cozy Point. Menter said Council may decide to build a facility in the future and to finance it with certificates of participation and they would need the public facility. DeVilbiss moved to nominate Jack Johnson as assistant secretary; seconded by Menter. All in favor, motion carded. There being no further business DeVilbiss moved to adjourn the annual meeting of the public facility authority at 5:10 p.m.; seconded by Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 ASPEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:10 with Councilmembers DeVilbiss, Johnson and Torte present. BOARD COMMENDATIONS Mayor Klanderud and Council presented a commendation to Jon Busch for his participation and hard work on the Wheeler Opera House Board from 1993 to 2005. Busch has made a valuable contribution to the Aspen community. Mayor Klanderud and Council presented a commendation to Jean-Phillipe Malaty for his participation and hard work on the Wheeler Opera House Board from 2004 to 2005 and his contribution to the Aspen community. Mayor Klandemd noted there is a commendation for Sy Coleman for his participation on the Wheeler Opera House Board, which will be presented to Coleman when he is in town. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Les Hoist said there is some confusion over the future of the Isis theatre. Hoist requested Council renew their commitment to preserve the Isis in its present use and configuration. Holst said the city should make sure all agreements between the developers and the city have been met. Holst said to preserve the Isis, there needs to be a · plan to transfer ownership to a local non-profit entity. Holst presented Council with a packet of history of the Isis from 1995 to 2005. Hold stated he will be circulating a petition to determine public interest in this subject. Hoist said he believes there can never be a change of use in any part of the Isis. 2. Donna Rowlands told Council her recent trash and recycling bill went up 570%. Ms. Rowlands told Council the trash company said the Council ordinance greatly impacted their costs and they are passing this cost on to the customers. Ms. Rowlands said she takes her own recycling to the recycle center and cancelled her service. Ms. Rowlands said she wants Council to be aware of this. The other issue is leaf recycling; Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs have recycle centers were people can bring their leaves and she would like Aspen to have the same service and she would be willing to do the background research. Lee Cassin, environmental health director, told Council they have had a number of complaints from citizens about their trash bills and have been able to help them with the haulers. Ms. Cassin said she would be glad to work with Ms. Rowlands on both issues; staff is working on grass clipping pick up in the spring and fall. 3. Jon Busch stated he supports Holsts' comments regarding the Isis and encouraged Council to have staff do the research to make sure the city is protected. Busch said the Isis has been marketed that the theatres could be torn out. Busch said the Isis was built Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 with the idea it could be used for conferences and meetings during the day. Busch requested the city look into whether it makes sense to have the Isis theatre part of the city inventory and whether it is protected as a theatre in the future. 4. Toni Kronberg said last month the Ski Company, housing office and others met on the issue of housing seasonal workers. People stepped fop,yard who had rooms for rent and helped solve the housing problem. Ms. Kronberg said people are very concerned about traffic, especially from Buttermilk to Main Street. Ms. Kronberg said the solution has to come from the elected officials and they will have to ask CDOT to re-open the environmental impact statement, which will cost money. Ms. Kronberg said the pool has been swamped with lap swimmers and the diving board has compromised the use of the swimming pool. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Klanderud wished everyone a happy New Year and stated 2006 will be a most challenging year. Mayor Klanderud said Council is up to the task and hopes Council and staff can come up with good solutions for the community. Council needs everyone in the community to help to achieve this goal. 2. Mayor Klanderud expressed sympathy to Katharine Thalberg's family. Mayor Klanderud said Katharine was an idealist who believed strongly and was unmatched in pursuing these beliefs. Mayor Klanderud expressed sympathy to Patsy Forbes' family. The Aspen community has lost two grande dames whose contributions to the community were great and who will not be forgotten. 3. Councilman DeVilbiss wished everyone a happy new year. Councilman DeVilbiss said he loved Explore Books and Katharine's death is a large loss to the community. 4. Councilman Torre said two Aspen icons have left the community. 5. Councilman Torte said the Aspen Youth Council will be hosting a teen evening at the ARC Friday January 13th, for 10 to 15 year olds, entry fee $7. The Aspen Youth center will also be hosting a downtown activity in February. They are looking for an evening entertainment, like a concert. 6. Mayor Klanderud noted it is not easy to develop activities for teenagers who have ideas on what they want to do. Mayor Klanderud said Council and staff should consider what type of activities the city can sponsor for New Year's eve. Mayor Klanderud congratulated the Aspen Youth Council for working on monthly activities. 7. Steve Barwick, city manager, requested an executive session at the end of the meeting. Regular Meetin~ Aspen Citw Council January, 9~ 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Torre moved to approve thc consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Johnson. The consent calendar is: · Resolution #1, 2006 - Posting Notices of Public Meetings · Resolution #2, 2006 - Animal Shelter Lease · Minutes-November 22, December 12, 2006 All in favor, motion carded. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES · Ordinance #1, 2006 - Limelite Final PUD · Ordinance #2, 2006 - 202 N. Monarch Subdivision · Ordinance #3, 2006 - 522 W. Francis De-listing from Historic Inventory Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinances #2 and 3, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carded. ORDINANCE NO. 2 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE 202 N. MONARCH STREET SUBDIVISION, DIVDING THE PROPERTY AT 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET INTO TWO PARCELS OF LAND, CREATING LOTS 1 AND 2, OF THE 202 NORTH MONARCH STREET SUBDWISION CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. ORDINANCE #3 (Series of 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE DE-LISTING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 522 W. FRANCIS STREET, LOTS M AND N, BLOCK 27, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, FROM THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES Councilman Torre said for the de-listing he would like to know the intent and a discussion of what is being preserved and why it is being preserved. Councilman Torre said properties fell into historic preservation and now do not. Regular Meeting Aspen Ci~, Council January 9, 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #2 and 3, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Torte moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE LIMELIGHT LODGE FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REViEWS TO CONSTRUCT 125 LODGE ROOMS AND 17 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE LIMELITE LODGE, DEEP POWDER LODGE, AND SNOWFLAKE iNN PROPERTiES, DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERNMOST 10 FEET OF LOT C, LOTS D-I AND LOTS O-S, BLOCK 76, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AND LOTS A-I, BLOCK 77, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman DeVilbiss noted P&Z requested the applicants further reduce the height of the residential building by 10 to 15% and the recommendation of approval was contingent upon that reduction. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to review P&Z's comments on that. Councilman Torre said for second reading he would like issues on the south building, the height that is being requested and why it is at that height. Councilman Torre said he would like the applicants to discuss why the residential component is not integrated with the lodge parcel. Councilman Torte said when the lodge incentives were adopted, he was envisioning more o f a mixed-use building and project. This is two separate parcels and one component is pure residential in a non- residential area. Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #3~ SERIES OF 2006 - Temporary Use Sleigh Rides on Golf Course Sarah Oates, formerly of the community development department, noted sleigh rides have been approved at the golf course in 2002 and in 2004. This is the same proposal, different operator. The sleigh rides operate along Bernese trail, along the edge of the golf course. Ms. Oates noted there have been no complaints received in the past. Mayor Klanderud asked if there is a fee charged to the applicant for this use. Steve Aitken, golf course, told Council there is no fee charged because the hope is that this drives more business to the golf course. Councilman Johnson asked about the request for a sign. Steve Barwick, city manager, said staff will make sure any sign meets the city's sign code requirements. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would prefer to have the hours of operation specified in the resolution. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Councilman Torte moved to adopt Resolution #3, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Mayor Klandernd opened the public heating. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public heating. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #4~ SERIES OF 2006 - Eligibility of Fire Station for COWOP Process Mayor Klandemd noted COWOP stands for convenience and welfare of the public and is used when city properties are involved in the application. James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a request from the fire station to be eligible for the COWOP process for the redevelopment of a new fire station on the existing fire station parcel at 420 East Hopkins. If Council does not approve ofa COWOP process, the applicants may go through a regular land use process, which may include a PUD process. Lindt noted the fire district has been thought a facilities planning process, which concluded that a new fire station at the Airport Business Center to take care of the western part of the district is the most effective course. The fire district has a land use application into Pitkin County. The fire district feels they need an upgraded headquarters in town and have decided the existing fire station site is the best property. The Civic master plan committee also reviewed several different sites and agreed the existing fire station site is the most appropriate site for a fire station. Lindt noted this is the type of project the COWOP was set up to accommodate. This is a city-owned parcel and is a redevelopment of a public facility needed for public welfare and safety. The city is co-applicant and has provided consent for the first station to apply for COWOP eligibility. Lindt presented a list of potential COWOP task fume members, 2 Council representatives to be determined, if Council determines this project to be eligible for the COWOP. Staff solicited interested citizens and received 6 names. There is a draft timeline of the COWOP. The fire district needs to have a conceptual program by mid-February in order to go to a bond election in May 2006. Staff has come up with a schedule to meet that time line and to continue into the future to complete the plans for the fire station. The Thrift Shop will be a co-applicant as they are located on this site. Lindt said if Council has goals for this site, they should be forwarded to the task force before the process starts. Darryl Grob, fire chief, said the fire district examined many possibilities for the future of the district and of the department. Grob noted in this process, they found property at the Airport Business Center which will meet future needs of the department, will help to cover the western side of the district and be able to service the growth on the west side of Castle Creek bridge. The fire district determined two stations are appropriate; one at the North 40 specific to the needs of this west development, and another in town downsized to meet the specific to the needs of the commercial core and the surrounding city. Grob told Council in the bond issue they will ask for new equipment to address this type of 7 Regular Meeting Aspen Cit~ Council January 9, 2006 commercial development. The option on the North 40 property is contingent upon bond approval in May 2006. Grob said because the fire district needs to move quickly, they hope to do the COWOP process in two phases, to get in front ofa COWOP and the HPC to get consensus on the general concept, the massing and the design parameters, in order to have this information available for the voters in a May election. Grob told Council the Thrift Shop will be part of this process. Alan Richman, representing the fire district, told Council they will come back after the election with a mom formal part of the design process. Nancy Gensch, representing the Thrift Shop, told Council they are happy to be part of this. Ms. Gensch noted they have been involved in the civic master planning process. The Thrift Shop has been saving money in order to fund their space. They have outgrown the existing facility. Councilman Torre asked if this is different from other COWOP processes. Lindt said this is similar to the Visitors Center, which also had a short time line. The Obermeyer process was the same with a longer time line because of the complexity of the project. Lindt said this time line is workable and will get the fire district where they need to be before the May election without going to the expense of completing a design. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman DeVilbiss suggested this be continued until Councilwoman Richards can be present to comment. Mayor Klanderud suggested this could be continued to the Council discussion tomorrow. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted staff scheduled some time at the meeting January l0th to outline their goals and ideals for the fire station COWOP. Mayor Klanderud stated this action is determining the eligibility of the fire station property for a COWOP process. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer Council pass on whether this is eligible or not. Councilman Johnson moved to'approve Resolution//4, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman Torre. Lindt pointed out the resolution should be changed from "all meetings of the COWOP task force team should be public hearings" to "public meetings". Mayor Klandemd said Council could approve this resolution and not approve the COWOP task force members until tomorrow. There were 6 applications for citizens. Mayor Klanderud stated she would be willing to appoint all 6 citizens rather than just 4 as suggested. Councilman DeVilbiss said the resolution should wait action until Councilwoman Richards can be present to hear the amendments and discussion. Councilman Johnson moved to proceed with action on this resolution; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman DeVilbiss. Motion carried. Regular Meetino~ Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 Councilman Johnson moved to approve Resolution #4, Series of 2006, changing public hearings to public meetings and to hold off on appointing the task force to January l0th at a continued meeting; seconded by Councilman Torte. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Council agreed to discuss the goals for this COWOP at the continued meeting January l0th' ORDINANCE #49, SERIES OF 2005 - Fees for 2006 John Worcester, city attorney, pointed out every city department reviews the fees charged for services to make sure that they are covering costs of the programs. Staff tries to increase these fees the cost of inflation and to look at them every year so there is not a huge increase once a decade. Worcester noted the only change from first reading is an increase for construction vehicle parking permits from $14 to $20/day. There is a spreadsheet showing the fees, the proposed increase, the percentage change, and the justification for that change. Councilman Torre asked about the large increase in swimming lessons and in the gymnastics program. John Bock, Aspen gymnastics coach, told Council he looked at other facilities comparable to Aspen, what they offer and what is charged. Bock said they keep the fees as reasonable and still provide a quality program. Councilman Torre asked if there are scholarship programs for gymnastics. Bock said the city has a scholarship program for anyone with financial need. Councilman Torre said he wants to make sure that participation does not drop off because of the fees. Bock said gymnastics classes are still a good deal with the quality of the lessons. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Lisa Bodek, Aspen Skating Club, said she is not arguing the fee increases but the timing of the effect of them, which is right in the middle of skating season. Ms. Bodek said this makes it difficult for the Skating Club to budget. Council agreed to let staff work on when this fee would go into effect for the Skating Club. Toni Kronberg asked the purpose of the recreation fee increases. Mayor Klanderud said for sustainability. Most of the increases are inflationary to cover increased salaries and energy costs. The city needs revenues to offer quality programs. Ms. Kronberg asked if these fees are affordable for the community and are the increased fees going to reduce participation in city program. Ms. Kronberg questioned whether this is a community asset or is the city making money. The increases can affect people's ability to use city facilities. Steve Barwick, city manager, told Council the city has scholarships so that kids are never excluded from recreation programs. George Pucak, ice garden, told Council these increases reflect recommendations both from the business plan and the ARC advisory committee. Ms. Kronberg said the city facilities are twice as expensive as those in Basalt or Carbondale. Ms. Kronberg asked if the fees were decreased, would it increase the volume. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see the false alarm permits and fees increased. Councilman DeVilbiss suggested the permit be increased from $75 to $100; first false alarm $75 to $100; 2nd $115 to $200; 3rd $163 to $300. Loren Ryerson, chief of police, said he tried to increase the fees as recommended by administration. The goal of the police department is to cover administrative costs. Ryerson told Council the number of false alarms has almost doubled in the last 4 years. A higher fee might act as a deterrent to false alarms. Ryerson said he would like to involve the alarm companies in this discussion. Barwick suggested the increase in fees be added to the ordinance and staffwill deal with the timing of the false alarm fees. Council agreed with the increases. Councilman DeVilbiss noted under fun pass there is no senior fun pass. Paul Kulik, recreation department, said a 20-punch pass comes to $7/use and a senior one-day is $7, the same cost. Barwick suggested staff review the senior proposals and report back to Council. Pucak told Council the recreation department will be meeting with the senior group this month on different aspects of the recreation program and staff can bring a proposal back to Council. Barwick said staff will bring back a senior proposal as well as a needs based proposal. Councilman DeVilbiss noted in the zoning fees, it states that fees charged for processing applications which fall into more than one category will be cumulative and fees charged in the same category will not be cumulative and in the event the fees which result from accumulation are excessive, the community development director may waive the accumulation requirement. Councilman DeVilbiss suggested this be changed to state that the community development director may waive the excessive portion. Chris Bendon, community development department, agreed with that change. Councilman DeVilbiss said under zoning enforcement fees, projects constructed without a permit, the fees are doubled as a penalty. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see projects constructed without permits dealt with more punitively. Bendon said being red tagged is more punitive than the fees. People working without permits are usually on an extreme deadline. Bendon said he does not think this needs to be changed. Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the banner installation fee. Barwick said these are the special event banners across Main street and are installed by the electric department. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like the fee to reflect the costs. Mayor Klanderud said almost all users are non-profits and she would not support increasing that fee. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like staff to determine costs for banner installation. Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #49, Series of 2006, as amended; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Conncilmembers Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carded. ORDINANCE #50~ SERIES OF 2005 - Miscellaneous Land Use Code Amendments Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #50, Series of 2006, to January 10, 2006, at 4 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. Councilman Torre and Councilman 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 DeVilbiss in favor; Councilman Johnson and Mayor Klanderud opposed. Motion NOT carried. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council the first section amendment 26.104.030, comprehensive community plan. Ms. Phelan said this is to provide clarity on how plans, guidelines and documents can be used in a guiding or regulatory capacity and how these should be adopted by ordinance as a regulatory document or by resolution as a guiding document. Ms. Phelan said this should address documents like historic preservation guidelines, the comprehensive community plan. Ms. Phelan said every document should contain how the document will be used. Chris Bendon, community development department, said many plans are created through a process and at the end of that process, there should be some clarity to the meaning of the plan. Bendon said he feels it is confusing to the public and to applicants when these documents are attached to nothing. Bendon said if these are statements of policy, there should be a process where Council says that and adopts them by resolution or ordinance. Bendon said each update of the AACP is reviewed and adopted by P&Z and Council. Councilman DeVilbiss argued that ifa document is not adopted by ordinance, it is not a regulatory document. Ms. Phelan noted sections 2, 3 and 4 relate to powers and duties of Council, P&Z and HPC and outline those P&Z and HPC may adopt a document by resolution and if they feel it needs to be a regulatory document, they can include a recommendation that Council adopt it by ordinance. These sections state when a document is a guiding document, it can be adopted by resolution and when it is to be a regulatory document, it shall be adopted by ordinance. Bendon told Council state statute says master plans are adopted by P&Z. Staff wanted it to be clear that there should be an end process to master plans or other documents and that is not in conflict with the state statutes. Ms. Phelan said section 5 deals with GMQS for incentive lodge development and relates to another section in this ordinance on lodge zoning. One change in the growth management system is that free market residential development associated with incentive lodge development shall be allocated on a unit basis attributable to the annual development. Ms. Phelan said this is to clarify language that was deleted in earlier legislation. Another clarification is that paying a cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing is for each residential unit. Ms. Phelan pointed out a note has been added saying all parcels or lots within an incentive lodge development shall be eligible for the growth management incentives in this section. Ms. Phelan said when an assemblage of parcels or lots that are either contiguous or non-contiguous is considered for development, the parcels or lots shall meet the standards of the underlying zone district. Ms. Phelan said all parcels whether contiguous or non-contiguous are available for the growth management incentives in the quota system. Ms. Phelan said it also means they shall meet the underlying standards of the zone district in which they are located. Ms. Phelan said Section 6 changes how required setbacks for yards adjacent to private streets are measured. Ms. Phelan explained the current code assumes when a private right-of-way goes through individual parcels, the expectation is that the property lines 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City, Council January 9~ 2006 come to the centerline of the private road. Ms. Phelan said the current measurement is to take half the distance of the right of way from the centerline and add the minimum front yard setback. This leads to an inconsistent front yard setback along the right-of-way depending on where the right-of-way falls. The code amendment is to measure the setback from the boundary of the right-of-way rather than from the centerline. This would measure the setback from the edge of the right-of-way regardless whether the right-of-way is public or private. Ms. Phelan noted Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 are changes to R-6, R-15, R-15A and RMF zone districts. Ms. Phelan reminded Council there are incentives for historic properties that allow a narrower minimum lot width and a smaller minimum lot size. Ms. Phelan said earlier one could only receive these benefits through a historic landmark lot split. This requirement was deleted by mistake in recent code amendments and staff feels this language should be put back into the code. One may currently apply for a lot split through the subdivision process and the result is larger FAR. Councilman Johnson said adopting this would be creating consistency between the spirit and the law. Bendon told Council there were a lot of code amendments adopted last year and in using the code, staff has discovered inconsistencies and lack of clarity and this addresses those problems. Bendon said this ordinance contains clarification language in the dimension requirements regarding lodge to speak to the intent. Them are incentives in the dimensional requirements, different FARs, different heights and density for incentive lodge project. If a project meets the 500/500, they may avail themselves of the larger height and FAR and growth management incentives. There is clarification language on this issue. Bendon told Council the section about assemblage of parcels states if the assemblage lies in different zone districts, the properties have to comply with the zone district in which they lie. If all the assemblage lies within one zone district, the incentives and dimensional requirement apply to all properties within the assemblage. An assemblage of parcels can be one development application; the confusion has been when the zoning is the same or is different. This is to provide clarity to dimensional standards. Bendon stated this is different from split zone properties. This addresses development application on several properties. This code amendment states if the project is in two different zones, the zoning for those properties guides. This only applies in the lodge zone district where those incentives are allowed. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the section of the code amendment stating if all properties are in the lodge zone district all parcels shall be eligible for the FAR and height dimensional variations specifically addresses the Limelite. Bendon said this issue came up during conceptual review of the Limelite lodge. The question was what is the allowed height of the residential portion of the Limelite application and staff stated it is 42'. They comply with the lodge incentive standards; they met 500/500 so the lodge dimensions apply to the project, which was the intent of the code; however, it is not stated in the code. Councilman DeVilbiss stated he does not agree with this contention. Mayor Klanderud said the heights were set for the lodge zone to accommodate lodges and to discourage single-family structures. Mayor Klanderud stated this code amendment has to be analyzed on its own merits, not tied to any particular applications. 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Bendon said the proposed language is consistent with the intent and purpose of the lodge district amendments to the code. Only through use of the code do unclear areas become apparent. Councilman Torre said it is difficult to discuss a code amendment with a pending application. Councilman Torte said this code amendment should be continued until after the application is reviewed. Councilman Johnson said he would support continuing as this seems more than a clarification. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the effects of "notes" in these code amendments and whether notes are substantive parts of the ordinance. Worcester said these notes can be used to assist the reader. Councilman DeVilbiss asked why these cannot be part of the ordinance rather than a "note". Ms. Phelan said the current code requires multi-family residential have a density of 3,000 square feet per lot area. There is no requirement for lodge or timeshare lodge. Originally in a mixed-use development, there were no density requirements, which would allow smaller, denser units. Staff recommends no minimum density requirement for multi- family in the lodge infill area. If an application is going to do 100% multi-family, they have the ability to do a denser project. The current code encourages lodge development. There are other areas of the code that address height, FAR and growth management mitigation that create disincentives to multi-family residential. If someone proposes a multi-family residential free market project, it makes sense to have more density in the downtown lodge zone. Bendon explained if one is proposing a lodge and it will have some free market penthouses, if one had the FAR, it does not matter whether this is 1, 2 or 10 units so staff recommends deleting the minimum lot size for the mixed use projects. This only applies to residential units in a mixed-use project. Ms. Phelan noted the trash utility service area requirement has been added. It was not included in the lodge zone district and is included in other zone districts. Ms. Phelan said there is a note on non-unit space. Non-unit space for lodge is life safety issues, hallways, closets, and the parts of the buildings not having to do with a lodge. Ms. Phelan said with the changes in the lodge and commercial lodge district there was a new category of non- unit space included and the original ratio given by staff was too low. This was originally in the lodge FAR allowance, not broken out. Ms. Phelan suggested the non-unit space not contribute to the individual FAR for the lodge units but the non-unit space cannot go over the maximum cap for the parcel. Bendon said during the lodge code amendments, lodg6 owners suggested an FAR allotment for "other things" that does not take away from the FAR for lodge units. Staff estimated that space at and FAR of .5:1. It has become very limiting as every space that is not a lodge unit has to fall into that .5:1. Councilman Johnson said he would prefer ifa maximum FAR were allowed and the applicant can figure out how to use the space. Council requested examples when this ordinance is revisited. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would prefer this a section of the ordinance rather than a "note". Bendon said the notes are codified as part of the code. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Dale Paas said he is familiar with a pending project; however, has been working on a workable ordinance for all hotel redevelopment. Paas said when the lodge redevelopment group was looking at how to redevelop, when projects were looked at 13 Regular Meetin~ Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 around the country, mixed projects with hotel and free market in the same building were usual. Paas said projects built that way are to accommodate the convenience of the homeowners and to maximize the FAR. A penthouse in a fancy hotel affords one access to maid service, spa, security and concierge services and nightly rentals are secondary. In Aspen, the main concern should be the tourists and accommodation of guests. Paas supports these code amendments as written. Robin Shiller said this ordinance appears to be a clarification to the code rather than a change. The lodge zone district changes were silent on the issue of contiguity. There are entities in the community that have operations on non-contiguous sites that are tied together operationally. A development on two pieces of property becomes one development by being submitted and considered as one whether contiguous or not. Shiller said the purpose of lodge incentives was to encourage desirable projects and to get them to be viable. If this code amendment limits the number of projects that can use these incentives, few desirable projects will be built. Tom Smith, representing Jim French and Andrea Clark, agreed it is obvious with a pending application, which is subject to proposed changes, the relationship between these amendments and the Limelite application. Smith stated assemblage of parcels is not defined in the code; does assemblage refer to ownership or to operations. Andrea Clark, 210 Cooper, quoted from the AACP under managing growth that "we should endeavor to bring a middle class back into the community". The goal under that is to preserve the quality of life for the residents and enjoyment of visitors. The town is not to only service visitors. Ms. Clark said her comments tie into whether this is an end run around the PUD text definitions and responsibilities and mandatory compliance issues and is this an end run around the AACP, which plays a major part in the applications that come before Council. Ms. Clark said putting the documents side by side, clarification is needed because of the nature of the land use amendments that are assisting a particular project. Toni Kronberg said the public has been confused by what is allowed under the AACP and under zoning. Ms. Kronberg said she has brought up contradictions in the AACP and the zoning code. Ms. Kronberg said the Cormer project was approved despite the fact it is in a protected view plane. Ms. Kronberg said Section 1 stated the Aspen Area Community Plan is a guiding document. Ms. Kronberg said every ordinance ties into the AACP and the plan is a contradiction to itself. Ms. Kronberg said developments are scored against the Aspen Area Community plan and her examples show contradictions to the code. Ms. Kronberg stated the AACP should be regulatory. Mayor Klandernd asked for support or objection to the specific code amendments. Sue Woolery, Limelite Lodge, encouraged Council to adopt these land use code amendments and to keep in mind the reasons for the change in the lodge zone was to get more moderately priced hotel rooms. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9, 2006 Councilman Torre stated this should be continued until after the application is reviewed. Bendon requested Council consider adopting sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 dealing with the historic landmark properties to correct what staff feel is an issue with the lot. This deals with lot splits of historic properties versus subdivision of historic properties and a big FAR difference. Adopting this would give more protection to preservation of historic properties. Bendon explained the code is written that the minimum lot size for a historic landmark property is 3,000 square feet. If one has a historic property that is 6,000 square feet, it can be subdivided into two 3,000 square foot lots. Under the current code with a standard subdivision, there is stand-alone FAR. This proposed language states only lots created by historic landmark lot splits can be 3,000 square feet. It forces one through the lot split procedure'and divides the original FAR into two properties so there is no gain in FAR. Adopting sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 will result in less FAR on the historic lot split properties. Ms. Phelan said this was in the code prior to recent amendments and this is putting it back in the code. Bendon said without this code amendment, any lot can go through a subdivision down to a lot of 3,000 and by not having to go through the historic landmark lot split process, the FAR is significantly more than that achieved through the historic landmark lot split process. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2006, amending it to adopt Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 only; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carded. Councilman Johnson moved to continue the remainder of Ordinance #50, section ! through 6 and 11, to March 13, 2006; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5L SERIES OF 2005 - Code Amendment Eastwood/McSkimming Setbacks Sarah Oates, representing the community development department, told Council this code amendment will allow certain sections of Skimming Lane and Eastwood Road a 10' front yard setback rather than a 30' from yard setback and a 30' rear yard setback rather than a 10' rear yard setback. Ms. Oates illustrated Skimming lane and 4 lots on it; 2 are developed with single-family houses and 2 are vacant. Ms. Oates told Council on both streets there has been a condition, changes in city regulations, which altered the front yard setback without notification to the property owners. When Eastwood was armexed in 1987, there was a private road easement running through the lots. The setback was taken from the property line on the north side of Eastwood road. The city dedicated the right-of-way in 1988 in order to do the maintenance. After the city dedicated the road, the property line shifted 30' south because of the city code measures setbacks from the edge of the right-of-way. There have been cases in front of 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 the Board of Adjustment because of this condition. There are 14 affected properties on Eastwood, only 2 comply with the city's 30' from the edge of the right-of-way. Ms. Oates noted on the south side of the Eastwood lots is a slope towards Highway 82 and it does not make sense to push houses toward the slope or Highway 82. P&Z recommended this setback so that the house envelope does not get larger. Ms. Oates said Skimming Lane is a private road, one side drops into the Aspen Grove/Ardmore subdivision. When this property was in the county, the measurement was from the property line. The city code requires the private road easement be deducted and then measure the setback from the edge of the easement, which shifted the setback 15'. If property owners were to comply with the setbacks, the houses would be pushed down a hill, into a bowl and into the vegetation. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Lisa Bodek said she is opposed to this code amendment. This is a very rural setting and moving houses within 10' of the road would change that. Ms. Bodek said the road is entirely on her property. Ms. Oates showed where the road is located and where it is on Ms. Bodek's property. Ms. Oates said any development would have to be set 10' off the easement. Bill Weiner suggested an amendment to state the front setback plus the rear setback shall be 40' and neither front nor rear setback shall be less than 10'. This would allow flexibility within the topography. Mayor Klandemd closed the public hearing. Councilman Torre said 10' setback is tighter than it should be on a rural road. Councilman Torre said he would prefer a 20'/20' regulation. Bendon said one of the goals is to bring these properties back where their setback were prior to the road being dedicated as a public road. Properties were developed under those regulations and became non-conforming when the road became a public right-of-way. Bendon said because of that change, property owners have been applying for variances. Bendon said these properties should not be forced to develop down into a bowl or down toward Highway 82. Mayor Klanderud said she would be opposed to houses built towards highway 82. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance//51, Series of 2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, no; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #52, SERIES OF 2005 - 805 South Avenue Subdivision Amendment Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this property is zoned R-6 and is adjacent to South and Gibson streets. The request is to reconfigure an approved subdivision. In 2004 this was approved as a two-lot subdivision. Lot 1 would allow a single-family residence on 6,859 square feet. Lot 2 would allow a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units on 15,079 square feet. The request is to relocate the 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 lot line creating a 12,151 square foot lot 1 for a duplex or 2 detached residential dwellings and 9,787 square foot lot 2 containing the single family residence. The conditions of the approval in 2004 would remain, including a single access for both lots. The approving ordinance allowed this access from either Gibson or South. The approval allowed a density of 3 units. Ms. Phelan noted the Cotmcil minutes indicate a single access from South avenue. Ms. Phelan told Council the applicants would prefer access from Gibson. The city engineer prefers access from South Avenue. Ms. Phelan pointed out the bus route is on South Avenue and there is slightly higher traffic count on South. There is on street parking on Gibson, which could result in loss of a parking space as well as decrease in visibility due to parked cars. Ms. Phelan said another request is to remove the requirement for hammerhead turn around and to restate that to require significant space for turn around. Ms. Phelan told Council staff is supporting the removal of hammerhead requirement, which could result in a less pavement on the site. Bill Pollock, Zone 4 Architects, said this request is for a lot line adjustment for an already approved subdivision. The only changes are to access off Gibson rather than South and the change in language regarding the hammerhead requirement. Pollock told Council the approved lot configuration was the previous owner's preference to place the single- family house on the comer of the lot. The current owner wants to move the single-family house towards the rear of the lot, away from the intersection. This would move the mass of the single-family house away from the intersection. The design for the other lot is to have two detached units. This would be 30% less FAR on the comer lot. There will be a net gain of 153 square feet of total FAR if this reconfiguration is approved. Pollock pointed out the Fox Crossing development will be right across South street, which will add traffic to a busy intersection. Ms. Phelan told Council several years ago there was a civil settlement with the city regarding land along South avenue. Some of the land was retained for setback, FAR purposes to the benefit of this property and the city can use it for a sidewalk. Pollock said two detached dwellings will help break up the scale and mass along South avenue. There is no requested change to the density of the subdivision; this will still be one single-family house and two detached residential dwellings. Councilman Torte moved to suspend the roles and extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carded. Mayor Klandemd opened the public hearing. Robert Zupancis, adjacent property owner, said it would be a good idea to keep the property along South avenue as a snow removal area. Zupancis said any extra parking the applicant can squeeze on their parcel would be good because this neighborhood is very congested. Mayor Klandemd closed the public hearing. 17 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Art Daily, representing the applicant, pointed out when this applicant purchased the property, the subdivision agreement, ordinance and plat all stated the owner of the property could select which of the two streets it placed the driveway as along as there was only one driveway. Pollock noted if Gibson is used, there are no neighbors directly across the street and the headlights would not shine into residences. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #52, Series of 2005, with the access on South avenue and taking out hammerhead provided the applicants make sure there is sufficient area to turnaround on site. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the difference in traffic counts is minor; there is parking along Gibson and no parking on South. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance #52, Series of 2005, deleting the requirement for hammerhead but requiring sufficient room for cars to turn around on site and allowing Gibson as the access; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, no; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #53~ SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Plat Vacation ORDINANCE #54~ SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Lot Split Ben Gagnon, community development department, told Council this is located at 214 East Bleeker and in 1998 was subject of a historic lot split. At the time this was approved, the lot was presented at 11,936 square feet. Gagnon said there was a mutual mistake between the applicant and city staff not being aware that the city has a tradition of rounding up to 12,000 square feet city townsite lots. The applicants were entitled to a 12,000 square foot lot but went through the process at 11,963 square feet. John Worcester, city attorney, said staff recognizes there is hardly a lot in town that is exactly 3,000 square feet because of surveying errors and other changes. Staff recognizes original townsite lots at 3,0000 square feet. Gagnon told Council the 1998 approved a historic lot split which allowed FARs of 1913 square feet on one lot and 2344 square feet for the new house on the east lot. If this property went through a regular lot split, which would have been allowed for property of 12,000 square feet, the allowable FAR is 3240 square feet on each parcel. This is a significant difference in FAR. The applicants were entitled to go through a regular lot split. Staff believes they are entitled to a plat vacation and to a re-application. Lennie Oates, representing the applicant, presented the affidavit of posting and mailing. Oates stated there would have been no reason to do a historic lot split is one had the ability to apply for a straight lot split. Oates said this approval would have no effect to the historic designation of the Brnmder house. Gagnon told Council any development on the east lot would have to go through HPC review as well as any redevelopment on the other lot. The 500 square foot bonus for the historic lot split would be cancelled. Mayor 18 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Klanderud noted there would be an affordable unit mitigation required for both lots. Oates said they understand that. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Johnson asked if this tradition of recognizing 3,000 square foot lots is written. Worcester said projects on lots in the west end are assumed to be 3,000 square foot lots; applicants are not required to do a survey. Worcester said this is an aggregation of smaller lots and someone did a survey, which showed the property was less than 12,000 square feet. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council the original townsite lots were intended to be 30 by 100 foot lots and that intention should be reflected in the survey of the lots. Councilman Johnson asked how this mistake was discovered. Oates said he argued with staff whether the underlying zoning established the FAR available and then explored ways to resolve the issue with the city attorney. Oates said based on the imperfection of surveying, there had to be some reconciliation. Oates told Council he learned what the reconciliation is through the city engineer. The applicants at that time did not know to ask about the survey reconciliation. Worcester noted the city's zone districts assume lots are 6,000 square foot. Councilman Johnson questioned why this was not discovered in 1998. Councilman Johnson noted Council, staff, and HPC did not know this. Bend6n said staffmost likely told the applicant that they did not have enough land to apply for a subdivision but could apply for a historic lot split. The application comes in and is reviewed as a historic lot split. The application complied with all the standards so there was nothing to tip off the applicant or staff. There was a historic lot split in 1996; that approval expired and it was reviewed again in 1998. Mayor Klanderud said this may be an issue of 73 square feet but it would allow an increase of over 2,000 square feet in FAR. Councilman Johnson said if it is generally assumed lots are 3,000 square feet, why was a survey done. Oates said a plat was required in order to do a historic lot split and the plat reflected the square footage. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would prefer that the assumption lots are 3,000s square feet should be in writing. Oates said the applicants have no expectation of receiving the 500 square foot bonus. Worcester noted if this were reviewed today, they would be eligible for subdivision. Mayor Klandemd agreed this is a matter of fairness no matter how it occurred. Councilman Johnson said if this were a tradition or assumption, it would have been common knowledge and it would have been dealt with through the 1998 review. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see the 1998 application and any other history surrounding this application before voting on these 2 ordinances. Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #53, Series of 2005, to January 23; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #54, Series of 2005, to January 23; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. 19 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 ORDINANCE #55~ SERIES OF 2005 - Burlingame PUD Amendment Joyce Allgaier, community development department, reviewed the changes in this PUD amendment. One change is the replacement of two multi-family buildings with 2 single- family lots. The two multi-family buildings had 7 units. There will be an addition of a multi-family building on the west side of the project with 5 units so there is no change in the number of units. This requires a re-subdivision because of the addition of the 2 single-family lots. There is an amendment to the design review guidelines to allow for side-loaded garages, which was not needed before these 2 lots were added. Ms. Allgaier reminded Council parking for affordable housing is set by special review. There is on- site parking for the two single-family lots. There is no additional parking for the multi- family lots as that parking is already included in phase I. Ms. Allgaier pointed out this approval includes pedestrian path in the public right-of-way on Harmony road. There is also a request to make the 3 transit stops permanent stops. There was a request to approve a building height of 34' for the single-family lots. There has been a redesign and that request is no longer necessary. The second request deals with the proximity of parking to the new multi-family dwellings. Ms. Allgaier said one of the goals of the Burlingame project was to create auto disincentives on site and not make parking as accessible as in other locations. Ms. Allgaier told Council there is enough parking to meeting the parking ratio; that does not change. Ms. Allgaier went over the parking/pedestrian/traffic plans for Buflingame. Ms. Allgaier showed the parking areas and the transit stops. Laura Kirk, DHM Design, said if phases II and III are built out, there is parking to the west of the new single family building. Ms. Kirk noted the interior units have a variety of options for transit stops. If the project is totally built out, these units will be on a pedestrian way. If phases II and III are not built, phase I has space in which to add a parking area. Mayor Klandemd said the parking can be addressed if Council finds out that more is needed. Leslie Lamont told Council the project is not under parked; it is the issue of proximity of a parking space to one's unit. Steve Barwick, city manager, reminded Council they have reviewed and approved these changes as property owner and this is the land use approval. Councilman Torte said the city should enact an incentive for people living in affordable housing projects to not own automobiles. Councilman Torte said he does not think the two sites at the east of the project are appropriate for single-family development. Councilman Torre said he would prefer to leave that land open and leave the vistas open for the buildings behind them. Councilman Torre stated he questions the third transit station. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 9~ 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #55, Series of 2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, no; Johnson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Torte moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 12 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carded. Cotmcilman Torre moved to go into executive session at 11:40 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) for the purpose of negotiations and advice from counsel; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 12:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to come out of executive session at 12:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carded. Councilman Torte moved to continue the Council meeting to January 10 at 4 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carded. Council left Chambers at 12:10 p.m. ,ff~t t~yn '~ ' S: Koch, City Clerk 21