Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20180827Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #116, Series of 2018 – Electrical Standards Upgrade ........................................................ 5 Resolution #125, Series of 2018 – Contract with HDR Engineering, Inc for SHIFT Data Support and Data Collection ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Resolution #123, Series of 2018 – CORE REMP Request ................................................................... 5 Resolution #124, Series of 2018 – Shift Contract with Miles App ....................................................... 5 Resolution #114, Series of 2018 – Third Party Engineering Development Review Services .............. 5 Resolution #126, Series of 2018 – 7th and Main St Concrete Paving and Waterline Improvements .... 5 Board Appointment ............................................................................................................................... 5 Resolution #103, Series of 2018 – 7th Galena and Main Street Bus Stop and Pedestrian Improvements Project ................................................................................................................................... 5 Minutes – August 13, 2018 ................................................................................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split, TDRs, Special Review and Variations ..................................................................................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation ............................................ 9 RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use ...... 12 EXECUTIVE SESSION ............................................................................................................................. 13 RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena .... 14 ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter regarding enterprise fund bonding .............................................................................................................. 15 ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding franchises. ................................................................................................................................................... 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein, Mullins, Myrin and Frisch present. Mayor Skadron said for everyone here tonight for the action item, conversation around the possible purchase of the Daily News building, we have a lengthy agenda tonight. We are going to move it to tomorrow at 4:00 pm. Jim True, city attorney, said at the end of the executive session, council will continue this meeting to 4pm tomorrow. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Lee Mulcahy said they are looking for a hearing. Over 2000 people signed his petition asking for a public hearing. He said the exact situation happened with Peter Gilman in May 2016 where he missed his notice of violation hearing. He didn’t request a hearing in time but was allowed to anyways. 2. Sandy Mulcahy said council represents the ruling authority in Aspen and is why they have continued to plead to have a hearing to them. She said APCHA did not follow their own rules when it came to deadlines. She said if council does nothing with APCHAs planned course of eviction and something happens to Lee or herself, their blood is on council’s hands. 3. Tom Coggins said his email is tom@hmtaxi.com. He would like council to stop calling the current mobility project a lab or that they are doing experiments. Call it a marketing exercise or a promotion. Mayor Skadron said it won’t happen. There is a whole industry build around mobility labs, we didn’t make it up. Mr. Coggins said he is in support of Lee Mulcahy, what is being done might be legal, but it is not just. 4. Peter Greeney said on the data collecting for the mobility lab it is roughly 65 dollars per citizen, what are we using it for. What is success defined as. How are we going to use the data we get. He struggles with the goal of increasing options and not changing patterns. For in town mobility, if the goal is to increase the number of available parking spaces in town I think there are other ways to do that including with car to go. Why are we not partnering with the county on new airport terminal and using the airport as a hub. 5. Toni Kronberg said she agrees we need to change transportation coming in from the airport. Suggested the aerial connection. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Frisch said he has been championing the APCHA governance look at. This has nothing to do with the people who work at the office or who are on the board. To Peter, I think we do have some goals. We are trying to test with a few things and see what sticks. I do have some concerns, but the goal is to try. I want to apologize to the staff where it came to the ride aspect last Monday. I underappreciated the plan. I look forward to more discussion. Councilman Myrin said he would like to know more on the Peter Gilman example and if it is similar to this case. Mr. True said he doesn’t know the facts and emailed Tom Smith. Councilman Myrin said it would be hard to do a mobility experiment with a gondola from buttermilk. The piece of the lab I am leaning away from is the parking spaces in town. I strongly support anything to reduce the congestion at the entrance. Thanks to Trish and Staff for the rapid flasher at Mill and Bleeker. We all lived through a lab of peak capacity at the 4th of July. We experienced Aspen at when it is full. It is maybe enough. The question is do we keep increasing the peak. I think it is over the top. Councilman Hauenstein spoke of the celebration of the live of John McCain. He was a voice of integrity, honesty and grace that is increasingly lost. He stood on his principles and did not dishonor those who thought differently. I believe the emphasis on the mobility lab project is to find ways to decrease the density of vehicles in town and decrease commute time. Lee always mentions the number of signatures. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 3 The petition I saw was for a peaceful resolution and I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t sign that. I also want a peaceful resolution. Councilwoman Mullins said to Tom, I take issue with all three things you mentioned and maybe we can discuss those sometime. I’ve been gone for a few days and glad to be back in town. Mayor Skadron said tomorrow night there is an open house about the stage 2 water shortage at the old power house from 5 to 6 pm. We also lost Jack Hatfield, former county commissioner. My heart goes out to his friends and family. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Trish Aragon and Hailey Guglielmo, engineering, spoke about the Castle Creek Bridge update. September 4th the detour commences. We got a lot accomplished this spring but there is still a lot to do. The work will begin the 4th and stay in effect until October 31st. We also added the Hickory House corner to the work. It is all weather dependent BOARD REPORTS Councilman Hauenstein said Sister Cities had two resignations, president and secretary. They would appreciate if we could have a way to have the clerk’s office to do minutes for them. CONSENT CALENDAR Reso#123 CORE Councilman Myrin said the ultimate success of core is its demise. There is more money coming in. What can we do to turn this around. Mona Newton, CORE, said I hope never to see the demise even if the REMP is gone. One of the issues is to talk about the amount of money we use annually, 30%. There is always the policy options the city and county can consider including increasing the amount people pay. There are opportunities and challenges. We work on reducing energy every day. Councilman Myrin said it seems like a flaw when there is an increasing amount coming in meaning there is an increasing amount of energy being used. Ms. Newton said there are two options, a policy option to reduce the money being collected by REMP. Marty Treadway, CORE, said REMP is at the mercy of the construction cycles in Aspen. We have pretty robust climate action goals as well. Councilwoman Mullins said you try to give out only 30% in grants per year. Ms. Newton said that has been a goal. Councilwoman Mullins said that might be worth discussing as climate change is becoming more impactful. It would be good to take a look at the history of the fund. It would be good to look at bigger more impactful projects. Councilman Frisch said there will always be a need for CORE. The REMP is a sin tax at the end of the day. We want as little money as possible. We will continue to find money for projects. The challenge is to take that money and use it as wisely as possible. We have talked about looking at really big projects. The 70% we are saving is a lot larger than it was 10 years ago. We will report back after the September board meeting. Reso # 103 Galena and Main bus stop Ms. Aragon said the bus stop is dilapidated, there is not proper drainage and it is treacherous in the winter. Councilman Myrin agreed that it needs improvement. Will there be money going to REMP for the heat. Stephen Kanipe, building department, replied we have essential public facilities that are exempt for the REMP payment. It is a policy decision. There are certain exemptions and this is one of them. Councilman Myrin asked is it city electric. Jordan Grey-Dekraai, engineering, replied yes. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 4 Mayor Skadron said he is glad to see this as it is long overdue. How long will the lane be closed. Ms. Grey-Dekraai replied 5 to 6 weeks. Councilwoman Mullins said she is concerned about the materials and the tree grates. She wants it consistent with other improvements in the city. Councilman Frisch said we had a sticker shock discussion and you confirmed there was nothing special there. We just need to get use to this. Ms. Aragon replied yes, it is the concrete, drainage and heat work. Barry Crook, assistant city manager, said when you approve this resolution you are signaling approving of a supplemental to make up the funding difference. Reso #125 – Shift data Karen Harrington, quality department, said the project has a data team that worked on three different RFPs. This piece is the for the first two. This relates to data support and collection services. It is to help understand if the lab was successful, what was the impact on the community, safety, what was the impact on the economy, data support funds, project management, evaluation plan, how is success defined, data collection plan, analysis and integration and a project report. Councilman Hauenstein said we spent over 2 million dollars on data collection since I’ve been on council. I would like a work session to discuss the possibility of bringing some of these tasks in house. It’s the sticker shock that gets me. From now on till the end of time data will be paramount. Another question and concern I have is we are paying for an app to incentivize people to take transportation alternatives. If we are paying for the app we should get the data without having to pay extra. I ask you to be frugal and to save money where you can. Ms. Harrington said there is certain kind of data where we are better off hiring other people to collect it. One of the things we tried to do with the RFPs is make it clear that we are keeping the data. The way the contract will be structured is in a way that we can modify it if we need to. Councilman Frisch said I want to be careful. Knowing where we are right now with the ride aspect undecided completely. I’m concerned about committing to any package without knowing what data we want completely. Ms. Harrington said if we have one provider drop out it may not impact us. We are not going to go tomorrow and have a data collection plan. If we shift one thing it will not cause us a problem. Councilwoman Mullins asked about the method of collection. Ms. Harrington said they committed to collecting data in nine different locations. They have strong partnerships with a variety of different data collection companies. Nothing will take us over budget, but we might shift how we collect the information. Mayor Skadron said there are two components, data collection and data support. You are confident that sole sourcing the data component will deliver our goals. Ms. Harrington replied for these two pieces we think so. We like the flexibility. Reso #124 – miles app Ashley Perl, environmental health, said this is a contract with the Miles app to put all the incentives in one place. It is a contract to only test the app for the remainder of the year. Councilman Hauenstein asked is this the norm that you never buy an app you just license it. Candice Olson, consultant, replied it would be a huge investment for us to develop something. Apps evolve quickly. Councilman Hauenstein said we are perhaps committing to licensing in perpetuity if we continue in the future. Ms. Olson replied perhaps. Councilwoman Mullins asked will Miles give its data to HDR. Ms. Olson said they do not give individual data but granular. Councilwoman Mullins asked what other cities are participating. Ms. Olson said they are in the process of launching nationally. Councilwoman Mullins asked if we can’t get to the minimum of 750 people to sign up what happens. Ms. Olson said we would want at least a few thousand Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 5 signed up before we start SHIFT. Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the ongoing cost. Ms. Olson replied next year would be $300,000. Councilman Hauenstein said to talk about the idea of Miles from Sacramento being able to be spent here. Ms. Perl said they could accumulate Miles here, but they couldn’t spend Miles here they accumulated there. Councilman Hauenstein said he wants the incentives to always support local businesses over national ones. Councilman Frisch said when we started this discussion a long time ago there was sticks and carrots. We focused on a pure carrot driven lab. How much local business we want to help is driven by us. • Resolution #116, Series of 2018 – Electrical Standards Upgrade • Resolution #125, Series of 2018 – Contract with HDR Engineering, Inc for SHIFT Data Support and Data Collection • Resolution #123, Series of 2018 – CORE REMP Request • Resolution #124, Series of 2018 – Shift Contract with Miles App • Resolution #114, Series of 2018 – Third Party Engineering Development Review Services • Resolution #126, Series of 2018 – 7th and Main St Concrete Paving and Waterline Improvements • Board Appointment • Resolution #103, Series of 2018 – 7th Galena and Main Street Bus Stop and Pedestrian Improvements Project • Minutes – August 13, 2018 Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2018 – 500 W. Main Street – Historic Landmark Lot Split, TDRs, Special Review and Variations Amy Simon, community development, stated the Mesa Store was built in 1890. This is the only two story wooden commercial structure left in Aspen. It is framed in a way where the wall studs are one board. This building style fell out of favor when there was no longer a supply of 30 foot trees to create the studs. This method also created a pocket that allowed fire to travel floor to floor. The Mesa Store was built as a grocery store with two smaller buildings. In 1920 it looks like the two smaller buildings were gone. The approved condition was initially proposed to add on as an office building with an addition on the west side and a residential unit. After they received approval they began to rethink the plan and scale back. Currently it is under remodel of just the interior. As part of scaling back, they identified two preservation benefits, historic lot split and TDRs. HPC first goal would be no addition, followed by a detached addition. What is before you is detached or no addition. The Mesa Store occupies most of a 3,000 square foot corner lot. Beside it is a new lot. It appears this lot has been vacant for 100 years. The plan is to sever the development rights and sell them as TDRs. New residences are discouraged on Main Street. What is allowed is 1,920 square feet. They can sell up to 7 TDRs in increments of 250 square feet. HPCs preference is to remove all development from the lot. Review criteria for a lot split include correct zone district, right size lots and does it follow the townsite lots. These are all true. The applicant is requesting special review. Today allows 1 to 1 floor area. They could have 6,000 square feet today. Staff finds special review criteria are met to sit on a 3,000 square foot lot. Commercial design review pedestrian amenity. Each lot should have 750 square feet of open space on the lot. On the corner lot that is not possible. The new lot will have more than that. The applicant is asking to have it waived for the corner lot. Council can do that if there is an exemplary remodel. They are restoring the original porch, windows and chimneys. All these things HPC discussed with the applicant. They are doing them voluntary. Set backs – the historic building is already at the property line on the south and east. A variance is requested for the south and east event though it exists. A set back on the west is requested to accommodate the exterior stair. Parking – the code allows several different ways to accommodate mobility. 2 spaces will be behind the Mesa Store. 1 can be through an easement and 1 through enhanced mobility on the site. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 6 They are left with a balance of .26 that needs to be provided. Landmarks can request for cash in lieu or a waiver. We discussed at 1st reading that there would be limitations on the building envelope. The building dept feels they can accommodate it with typical setbacks. Councilman Frisch said residential is not allowed on the same lot as commercial. Jessica Garrow, community development replied affordable housing is allowed. John Rowland and Sarah Broughton Sarah Broughton, owner, said they started Rowland and Broughton 15 years ago. We have been passionate about this building since day one. We are enhancing a right of way amenity on a block that is already too dense. The lot split follows the historic pattern of lots that are 3,000 square foot. It has been 100 years since there has been a building on the other property. Housing directly next to Mesa is super dense. We are offsetting a lot of our transportation through bikes, flexible work hours and we cycle. She showed an image of the garden space. There is a pattern of these pocket parks throughout town. We were also allowed to capture parking along the alley with the park. The TDR program was set up to defray the costs of the historic program. Density will be decreased. Councilman Myrin said there is potential for affordable housing on the lot next store. Ms. Simon said if council approves the subdivision and creation of TDRs they do not have to sell them all. It is up to you if they should remove everything. Councilman Myrin asked do we have something called open space. Ms. Simon replied it is not open space or a park. It is a public amenity. They will have at least a 750 square foot public amenity requirement. Councilman Myrin said there was a question about the extra square foot of 450 on one lot. Do we have the option of not issuing TDRs to represent that to address the total. Ms. Simon said Jim can advise on the conditions. They are allowed 6,000. When they split the lot, they lose ground. You are not really giving them a bonus. Councilman Myrin asked is there a way to recognize that. Mr. True said I think you have the discretion to address the TDRs you are creating here as a condition of this approval. Ms. Garrow said I would add to that, that it is council discretion. The max is 7. Ms. Simon said if you don’t allow the full 7 you are not taking it away from them you are leaving it on the site. Councilman Myrin said the concern is if you created 2 less the 450 still sits, it’s just not severed. Ms. Garrow said the other important point is by doing this the TDRs are based off of the single family floor area. Councilman Frisch asked is the 20% deducted if someone shows up with an affordable housing plan. Ms. Simon said if they did the lot split the affordable housing allowance would be 3,000 or 1 to 1. With this proposal they are reducing the potential. Councilman Myrin asked the we cycle on 4th street, will it stay. Ms. Garrow replied I don’t know the long term plan. Councilwoman Mullins asked is it just commercial or affordable housing on the adjacent lot. Ms. Simon replied or free market. It is allowed on Main Street, just not on the same lot. Councilman Hauenstein said the lot split would create a non conforming building. It requires a variance on setbacks. Does it trigger Ref 1. Mr. True replied I do not believe the square foot issue would trigger it because the underlying zone allows the square foot through the special review process. Ref 1 kicks in if there is a variation of the underlying zoning. Setback is not addressed in Ref 1. The parking is addressed and that may be a bit more problematic. At least the request to waive the cash in lieu. Ms. Simon said the applicant is following exactly what is in the code. Mr. True said we have had debates internally if that waiver would trigger Ref 1. Ms. Broughton said we are not asking for that waiver. Mr. True said he would recommend given that statement we would not implicate Ref 1 for that amount of money. Councilman Frisch said we need to be very careful about using open space. It is an undeveloped parcel. I believe they will turn it into a beautiful garden. Councilman Hauenstein said 750 square feet public amenity from the eastern lot is a concern of mine. Ms. Simon said the alternatives are they could provide it off site. They could do right of way improvements or pay cash in lieu. Councilman Hauenstein said it could move on to the western lot. Ms. Simon said you could, but it would take up half of the lot. Councilman Hauenstein asked if it would it effect the TDRs. Ms. Simon replied it would not. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 7 Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Toni Kronberg said she applauds the applicants for not cramming another structure next to this one. The empty lot is not deserving of a little building. She supports the lot split. 2. John Ward said he wrote a letter of support. This is an expensive undertaking. The TDR program was intended to offset some of these costs. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein asked what council thinks about the 750 public amenity. Councilman Myrin said it would be something existing on the western lot. Councilwoman Mullins said I think the public amenity is that they are restoring the building. In terms of the public amenity, just looking at the historic lot it would be a shame to carve out 750 square feet. The lot split is appropriate. Lots fronting Main Street were 3,000 square feet. The special review which covers the additional 451 square feet. The building was built prior to the zoning codes. What I have a harder time approving is all 7 TDRs. Historically the density was on Main Street. The open parks were in the residential neighborhoods and the larger houses. It seems to be inappropriate to have a gap here. I could support some TDRs. It does offset costs for the program, but it also should not be sterilizing lots down Main Street. I would like to see some development in the west lot. It would be a mistake to set up a situation where there will always be a gap down Main Street. Councilman Myrin said there is not a lot of space. The only residences that can be there are affordable. By not splitting it we keep the affordable housing requirement or commercial. Ms. Garrow said all the work during the moratorium council made a conscious decision to allow free market residential along Main Street as long as it is not part of commercial development. Councilwoman Mullins said if you do a lot split you restrict the FAR. Councilman Frisch said the discussion is there is 1,750 square feet at play, 7 TDRs being asked for times 250 and one thought is it should all be kept on Main Street and another thought that it would be a nice garden and should go elsewhere. Ann is talking about balancing it. One concern is how small is allowed to be developed, even if affordable housing, is not worth it to build it there. Ms. Simon said to remember we are talking about floor area. 900 square feet of floor area could be doubled with a basement. Councilman Frisch said if the entire 7 TDRs are removed how much FAR is remaining. Ms. Simon replied 170 square feet. Councilman Frisch said then you are looking at 400 square feet left with a basement. If it stays, there are only 2,000 square feet anyway for a free market, which is what Bert is talking about. Then there is 20% more if it is affordable housing. Ms. Garrow said they could do around 3,000 square feet. If council allows the creation of TDRs as soon as those TDRs are severed that starts to reduce the allowed floor area, regardless of what that future use is. Councilman Frisch said they talked about the flexibility if they are granted 7, and they don’t use any, can they come back and say I want to extinguish these TDRs and I want to put the FAR back on the site we took them from. Ms. Simon said until the day they come in and start asking for TDR certificates they’ve done nothing. Once they sever one, they’ve locked into place. Councilman Frisch said they have the option of up to 7 TDRs, if they don’t go claim them, all the development rights stay on, but as soon as you go in and take one you can’t shop it around for a year and then decide after the fact you would rather go back and extinguish it. Ms. Simon replied right, once you sell one you have made some commitments. Councilman Hauenstein said he is still unclear on the 750 square feet for public amenity, transferring that to the western lot. You say that doesn’t affect the TDRs. Ms. Garrow said it effects how development in the future could be placed on the lot. It doesn’t change the total allowed floor area with or without the TDRs. It is half of the lot, around 1,500 square feet where no development could occur. Or it could go through the review process to allow roof top amenity space. It ultimately impacts what the future Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 8 development that is there from a site planning perspective but not from a size perspective. Councilman Hauenstein said the 750 from the eastern lot is transferred to the western lot, the TDRs can still remain in place, but it limits what future development could be. Ms. Garrow said what is located on the site. Councilman Hauenstein said that takes up half the lot. Mayor Skadron said he is ready to move this forward. Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #18, Series of 2018 with the clarification of the parking mitigation waiver being stricken and clean up of the easement section; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. He stated he would like to move for an amendment for the 750 square foot public amenity from the eastern lot be moved to the western lot. Mayor Skadron asked what is the impact of that. Ms. Simon said it means that 1,500 square feet of that lot needs to be devoted to a qualified public amenity. Just the setback requirements alone are a good bit of that. Councilman Hauenstein said it doesn’t affect the TDRs so it doesn’t affect the ability for you to sell off those TDRs. I’m attempting not to waive the 750 foot amenity from the eastern lot. Ms. Simon said the amenity cannot be provided at all on the east lot. The lot split was not part of the development when HPC reviewed this. They need to address the requirement by putting it on the west lot, cash in lieu or having council acknowledge an exemplary restoration and waive it. Councilwoman Mullins said the amenity ought to be offset by the restoration of the building. I do not want to sterilize the lot next door. I could pass the resolution with creating 4 TDRs but not 7. Councilman Frisch said he could argue there is a financial detriment by moving 700 square feet of public amenity there. You are losing flexibility without a doubt. Councilman Myrin said he would support putting Ward’s amendment in the ordinance. He’s not sure if he will support the ordinance because I support affordable housing over free market on that property. Councilman Frisch said he is very confident they will turn in an exemplary historic remodel. Ms. Simon said HPC did not give them any benefits for the interior remodel. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the breathing room discussion. I am kind of where Ann was at hoping there would be something there at some point. If it is a garden there forever the community will be just fine. I look at the public amenity space more from the citizen walking by then someone holding a land use book. I think when people walk by the west lot they will see breathing room. If the lot split were to happen I don’t think it will ever be they crammed so much on that lot. Councilwoman Mullins said I don’t understand the point though. You still have the set backs. I think putting this public amenity on this site just complicates future development. If we approve a portion of the TDRs you get the finances to continue the project and allow for affordable housing or free market to be built there. Ms. Garrow said if council approves TDRs, it is the applicants option to sever them. They can create 1 and sever it they don’t have to do the rest. Councilman Hauenstein withdrew his amendment pending a discussion on the TDRs. Mayor Skadron said the issue is not about public amenity space. It is something about development. Mayor Skadron asked Councilman Myrin what his goal with the property is. He replied if you want to match what the letters requested, which was that it not be developed, you can do two things. You can remove the TDRs. He said he would like to see a smaller version of the Fornell. Mayor Skadron said Ann’s goal is leaving the possibility of some development on the west side of the property. She replied as well as facilitating the restoration of this building. Mayor Skadron said Ward is suggesting transfer of public amenity space to do exactly the opposite to ensure that no affordable housing gets built, or any kind of development gets built but perhaps the whole space stays empty. Councilman Hauenstein said what I’m exploring is what 26 people wrote letters about is that they don’t want development there. What Ann as I understand it is you want some development on the West side of the building and Bert would support that if it was used for affordable housing. He replied he would but would rather not see four Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 9 TDRs go away. To do any TDRs would require a lot split and that would permit free market and for that reason I won’t support this. Councilwoman Mullins said in response to that we started because it is a restoration of a building. It is sounding like that becomes more and more challenging if there are no TDRs available to sell. We do want to focus on they are restoring the building and doing a beautiful job. We want to make sure that can happen. Councilman Frisch said if a certain amount of TRDs are severed the development will probably be gone. I think you are going to be selling all of them or maybe one or two. My dream would be they get all 7 TDRs and go remodel the building and an affordable housing project pencils out for them. I think the question is if more than a few TDRs leave the space it becomes almost undevelopable. I want to make sure the restoration happens. I think we come down to how many TDRs. Mayor Skadron said we have four different directions. I think this is the perfect example of TDRs as an appropriate preservation tool. I think this project is exemplary. I think that satisfies the requirement of the public amenity space. It would be my preference that the applicant sells all the TDRs at some point and while I can’t use the applicants character or commitment to the character or love of building or love of place as a criteria to satisfy what’s before me, I can find that criteria for historic lot split for the TDRs for special review and commercial design review are satisfied and I’m willing to support this as presented and move forward and that is the appropriate direction to go. Councilman Frisch said I appreciate that. The downside in Ann’s mind and a little of mine is we could see that lot be left with 250 square feet and nothing more. Mayor Skadron replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins said she will support this as I can’t get support for my partial TDR suggestion. I don’t want to risk losing the lot split and probably then losing the restoration of the building. What I’ll do is hope that not all the TDRs get sold and at some point you can develop a small affordable housing structure to fill in the gap on Main Street. The main focus is to get the restoration completed. Mayor Skadron said say not all the TDRs get sold is the transfer of the 750 a protection against unwanted development that the 26 letter writers don’t want. Ms. Simon replied I don’t think so. It may get accommodated in the set backs anyways. It might create a squished building that wouldn’t fit. It is probably best just left alone. The owner will make the best decision for the lot. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2018 - 333 Park / 931 Gibson – Relocation Sarah Yoon, community development, told the council this application is for the relocation of the historic resource, demolition of all non-historic additions, rescinding of designation if relocation to the new sit is approved and designation after receiving of the historic resources to the new site. The historic buildings were originally located on a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. The applicant proposes to focus on restoration of the resource including a full exterior restoration, relocating and restoring the original Sandborn configuration, reorienting the front façade back to street facing and increasing the visibility of the historic residence. They have also been working with parks and engineering on the logistics of the relocation. HPC recommends in favor of relocation. Questions from 1st reading. More information about allowable development on both lots. Lot 333 is currently over allowable and they are not proposing any more development. Allowable is based on new lot areas. 1 TDR will also be allowed to be landed. 931 is 15,000 square feet and in R15A. Allowable for a single family is 4,000 square feet. If the lot is designated it will allow two detached dwelling units but the floor area will remain. If designated, all proposed designs will be subject to the HP design guidelines. Question in regard to relocation examples. Prior to HPC many structures were relocated. 134 ½ Hopkins was relocated from Spring Street but it did not have landmark status. A more recent case is the 2016 relocation of the Zupancis cabins to the Marolt property. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 10 Site context for the receiving site. The Sandborn maps are used for accuracy. Gibson is not noted on these maps, so the Aspen Willits maps were used. HPC and staff recommends approval for the relocation. Sara Adams, representing the application, said the application is for relocation and designation and a one car garage behind the landmark. We wanted to show intent to move the landmark to Gibson but are not prepared to show the new building for Gibson. HPC preferred we come to your first, withdraw the conceptual application then come back with a conceptual application for both homes at Gibson and go through the regular process. HPC voted 7 to 0 in favor of relocation, demolition and designation. We will return to them and be subject to whatever code is in place when we submit our application. She showed a photo of Main Street in the 1890’s. The home was originally constructed in 1889 by the Jacobs family. Mabel and John Beckerman purchased the property in 1892. In 1961 the land was purchased and Mable placed an ad in the paper to sell the building. She showed a photo with the one story home and two story addition. A lot of the historic building is intact. The home is perched above the river. She showed images with non historic additions of what would be removed. She showed an image with the restrictions on 333 Park and how they tried to fit the home on the property. We had to find an acceptable relocation method that would increase the character and integrity of the building. The integrity s core increases by 25 points when the building is moved to Park. Priorities for the project include a fully restored building, original configuration with the secondary historic building attached at the rear, brining street presence and remove the stream margin non conformities at 333 Park. Brian found 931 Gibson. It is a 15,500 square foot relatively flat lot. The relationship to grade would be restored. The entire lot is proposed to be designated. There is no proposal for a historic lot split. There is no change to the allowable floor area. We are proposing two detached single family homes with single family floor area. Councilman Hauenstein asked are all the garages two car garages for 333. Ms. Adams replied yes. The requirement is a two car garage. Councilman Hauenstein asked if a single car garage is used on the 333 parcel is there a scenario where it fits in. Ms. Adams replied no, the service space would still be off the property. Councilwoman Mullins said this lot, you could do a lot split but there is no room for a second building. Ms. Yoon said yes. Councilwoman Mullins said the other lot is 15,000 square foot, receives a designation so you can put the two structures there. How can you get the two structures there if it is not a lot split. Ms. Garrow replied it is allowed by the underlying zoning. Councilman Myrin said page 291 show the property on a 3,000 square foot lot. How many examples from HPC when no variances are granted. Ms. Garrow said each site is different. Typically, something is requested, setback or change in parking, a floor area bonus. Councilman Myrin said so that could happen here going back to HPC. Are there other examples where it wasn’t historic then became historic. Ms. Garrow said those were the two examples we outlined in the memo with relocation. There are a handful of Aspenmodern that we didn’t analyze. It is rare. Councilman Frisch said on one hand we are all concerned about moving not just homes around but if HP was around in the 60’s no one would have allowed the home to be dropped there and faced that way. I’m not sure if this goes through other people won’t be looking for other places to do it. It becomes a density issue. The plan is to move the building to 931 then there is an undesignated undeveloped piece of property. Ms. Yoon replied correct. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Sandy Maple said his parents live next door to the Gibson lot. The lot was designated in 1995 so we should be done. There is no reason to change that except perhaps to remove the non-historic Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 11 parts of it. The 931 Gibson lot is a large lot in a low density area. To allow two buildings there increases the density. It is a rectangular lot that requires no variances. The easiest thing to do would be deny the request. If council allows them to do this at least ensure the lot cannot be split. 2. Daryl Cramer on behalf of Jeffrey and Janet Beck said obvious with only two instances in the last 50 years this is an extraordinary event. One thing that sticks out is the density bonus from this move. We have concerns about massing, ingress/egress and lot splits. 3. Sally Golden said 333 Park is a hidden landmark that faces the wrong direction. She feels that the proposal to move to Gibson is the best preservation approach. 4. Bill Stirling said the HP program needs a lot of tools. Very little was in place in the 80s. This in no way opens Pandora’s box and the few examples given by staff is indicative of that. He strongly feels that council should recommend relocation and designation. 5. Daryl suggest the ordinance be subject to conditions and only one structure not two. If not that then not split. 6. Adam Rothberg, 931 Gibson, what I was going to build was dramatically bigger than what they are proposing. My only issue is that I didn’t think of it. Part of the requirement is a sidewalk. It makes so much sense. It is not without a huge expense to move all that. This is a unique situation and a good idea. 7. Jeffrey Beck, neighbor, when I bought my home I assumed next to me I would have one home. At the very least this lot should be deed restricted. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Ms. Garrow said in terms of floor area and density, if approved, the floor area and density will be the same as allowed today. Without designation it has to be attached in a duplex. The floor area and density remain the same. Ms. Yoon said historic designation adds a layer of design review that is not currently at Gibson. It allows the neighborhood to comment and request feedback and participate in the review. Councilwoman Mullins said it is an interesting idea. One thing I keep going back to is I’m very concerned with the integrity of the HP program. We’ve got a lot of different tools to restore our resources. You don’t want to manipulate those tools that it becomes a detriment to the program. The reason for rescinding a designation is the property no longer meets the criteria. I’m not convinced what you are presenting is strong enough to chip away at our HP program. The idea it is not seen from the road, it is. The idea of putting all sorts of conditions on the development of the lot is what I objected to on the previous application. My biggest concern is this somewhat effects the integrity of the program. Ms. Garrow said only upon the relocation does the designation occur. Councilman Frisch said is the land underneath the sight worth anything to the program. How much value should we put on it. Because this has already been moved once that’s where staff is suggesting there is some flexibility. Councilman Myrin said if it stays where it is it seems in scale with the space. TDRs could go to the Gibson lot and be built without council review. Rather than moving the house I would move development rights. Mr. True said that is not the application that is in front of you here. Councilman Myrin said I’m not supportive of relocating. I don’t think it adds to the historic character of the parcel by relocating. Councilwoman Mullins said this program is under attack because it is viewed as a money making deal. This looks a lot like those other deals. Brian Hendrys, owner, said it is not about making money but Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 12 trying to move my family to this town. What if we remove the driveway and garage from the historic home. Councilman Frisch said he is open to having the historic structure moved. I believe HPC was right in what they were trying to do. I want to see one owner, one house one garage. Councilman Hauenstein said he is open to moving the structure to 931 but I don’t want to do that without more definition about what is going to happen to 931. I want to see a sidewalk and one building structure and assurances to us that it is not just another HPC money making deal. I’m not prepared to make a final decision tonight. I’m open to moving the resource. Councilwoman Mullins said one of the things we need to understand if we approve moving the house with one garage and one driveway is maybe it stays there with you as an owner, but would it stay that way forever. Mayor Skadron said I think relocation is the best preservation opportunity for the resource. The current location isn’t the original location. 931 could be argued to be a better landing site. I appreciate that HPC supported this. I think it is the best solution for the resource. Relocating allows the historic relationship to be more appropriate. I’m persuaded it will not result in more density or impact to the neighbors. Councilman Frisch said what I want to see is a single ownership and one house. Mr. True said it sounds like a continuance is appropriate. We can work to get a process for some of the protections council is looking for. Mayor Skadron said he could move this forward tonight because he finds that the relocation review criteria, the demolition review criteria and the rescinding designation and historic designation criteria are satisfied. What I’m not hearing from my fellow councilmembers are objections to those criteria. Councilman Myrin said against the criteria 26.415.090 page 237 number 2, I don’t think it contributes to the overall character of the historic parcel to move this and I think it will have an adverse impact on the property. Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #22, Series of 2018 to September 17, 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #122, SERIES OF 2018 – 305 S Mill St. – Grey Lady Restaurant – Temporary Use Ben Anderson, community development, stated over the last five years there have been requests for a temporary structure. It is a clear plastic covering and walls made of grey canvas. The request is for 120 days including a request for a Saturday market. To clarify one thing in the memo, there was a requirement from last year where the structure was to come down at end of April. The roof came down and the walls remained. At some point during the summer the roof went back up. For a period of time the conditions were met. Our concern is around the commercial design guidelines. Ryan Chadwick, owner, said I have a clear plastic top and the sides rolled up. If it’s not on there perfect I can’t take it down. With the top on I don’t have to use heat. I applied for a removable permit for the top and it was approved a few years ago. Last year I had sail boat sails on the roof, this year we put the clear top on. He showed a video from the market last year. I’m not supposed to be here now because my lease was to end but the landlord keeps extending it. Siam Castillo, market manager, said we did 25 markets with 25 vendors. The restaurant was there for us whatever we needed. I ‘ve had a bunch of new people ask me about it for this year. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 13 Mayor Skadron asked do the additional seats generate additional business. Mr. Chadwick said it depends, during the busy weeks it does. We would have live music in there. It’s nice to have the lights on in there. Councilwoman Mullins said she did go to the market more than a few times. Some days it was slow some days it was quite good. It was a real benefit to the mall. Ms. Garrow said there may have been some confusion on the resolution. We did a site visit and the roof was gone. If council is inclined to approve this I would suggest language that it is crystal clear that the roof needs to be gone. There is an old approval for a retractable canopy that supersedes this. I would rather have a clear covering. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to have the winter market there again. I don’t like to have this misunderstanding about what is there. I would like to see all the stuff gone until December. Councilman Myrin said the memo mentioned $6,769 in mitigation. Mr. Anderson said that was based on the days we think it has been up. There was growth management paid for. That figure was an estimate on the roof covering. Staff recommendation was not to include it. Councilman Myrin said my feeling is this is what we need. Without restaurants and without housing this town will not work. I support this. Councilman Hauenstein said with the conditions it comes down on the 20th of April. Ms. Garrow said we would ask you set a date that the roof needs to come off now then after the season. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of staff recommendation as well as getting the Saturday market to end up at a different place in town. Mayor Skadron said one of the benefits of this including the market was the improved corner esthetic. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #122, Series of 2018 with amendment to Section 1 that the covering and walls are removed within 7 days and all come down within 7 days of April 20, 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Councilman Frisch. Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session and continue the remainder of the agenda for tomorrow. Staff recommends pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e)Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV and the Contract for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces. At 11:35 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. At 12:30 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue the regular meeting to August 28, 2018 at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. August 28, 2018 At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the continued regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Frisch, Mullins and Hauenstein present. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 14 Mr. True recommend council go in to executive session. Staff recommends council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24.6.402 (4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions; (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators related to Goshorn & Goldenberg v City of Aspen 2017CV12 and 20107CV and the Contract for purchase of E. Hopkins and 204 S Galena spaces and another litigation issue. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. At 4:35 p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #130, SERIES OF 2018 – Amend Extend Contract for 517 E Hopkins 204 S Galena Mayor Skadron said Mark Hunt has agreed to extend his contract until December if the matter goes on the ballot. He can terminate the contract if we don’t put it on the ballot. It would be an either or between his option and Ordinance 4. Putting this on the ballot is conditioned on the litigants, Toni Kronberg, Steve Goldenberg and Marcia Goshorn dropping the lawsuit. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Pam Alexander said it is never too late to make the best decision. She asked if we can have more than two things on the ballot. She said it might be time to re-evaluate. 2. Andrew Sandler said this is an amazing opportunity that the private sector is collaborating with the public sector. The building on the park looks like a wall blocking some of the views and is uncalled for. I understand the desire to remodel and the opportunity to have everyone in the core make sense. 3. Peter Fornell asked what are the political ramifications for the community if the voters don’t want either one. Where do we go if the message is delivered in a negative way twice. 4. Phyllis Bronson said historically most citizens don’t pay attention until things are up against the wall. This has been a long process and the time is now to start making decisions. My perception was obscured by the lawsuits. I support 517 and 204. I want to keep city hall historic. For me the perception was the project at the Daily News building was linked to the lawsuit and it never was. The potential for connectivity of the old railroad bed is extraordinary with the civic master plan. She would also like to see Connor park part of the plan and revitalized. 5. Jim Farey said he does not see a public building being the highest and best use of the Rio Grande property. 6. Andrew Sandler said the private sector is the driving engine behind the economy. A job at the city is not a career opportunity for most people. You shouldn’t look at it as a life time career for them. 7. Toni Kronberg said this is one of the best decisions by council to give the voters a choice. I’m good with the choice. We have to accept whatever the choice is. Mr. True said if council wishes to place two options on the ballot, we need to have that language approved no later than September 7th. The first step is to approve the amended contract with Mr. Hunt. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said to clarify we are talking about a contract tonight, not the ballot issue. Councilman Hauenstein said tonight we have to decide if we are going to extend the contract. We have accepted that we need to have city offices for our staff. Both offices are viable. If we go to a ballot whatever is decided will be much better than what staff has been working with. To me, it centers around the vision of north of Main to the river. What does the community want that space to be. Going forward Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 15 there will be numbers and discussions. I hope we honor the truth and the facts. The city has received an appraisal for the property across the street and we will have discussions about those numbers. The community can decide on how much vitality and where they want it. I support putting this on the ballot with the condition that the lawsuits are dropped regardless of the outcome of the election. Councilman Frisch said while I’m happy to make the decision at the council table I’m happy to go to the voters. Thanks to Scott and Jack for all the work. Councilman Myrin said thank you to all the people who signed the petition even if your name wasn’t acknowledged by the city. Thanks to Marcia and Steve and others who made the right to vote. Without the community we wouldn’t be where we are tonight and the government would be running without the community. Councilwoman Mullins said the decision tonight is to extend the contract with Mark Hunt and perhaps put it on the November ballot. There are a lot of steps before it is on the ballot. There are conditions that are non negotiable before it goes on the ballot. Councilman Myrin said if you have conditions that are non negotiable I think you should share them with the community tonight. Mr. True said the key condition to move forward with the ballot is to come up with the proper language that the city determines and the litigation that resulted from the failure to obtain the proper number of signatures is dismissed. I cannot suggest you go forward with a ballot issue unless no matter what the result was that the litigation is dismissed with prejudice. That is the fundamental condition of placing anything on the ballot. There are terms that would need to be discussed involving the ultimate settlement of that case but that is the fundamental condition. We will work with the litigants and their attorney with resolving this. We have a deadline of September 7. I have a resolution to approve the agreement to approve an amend and extend contract. The resolution just approves the amend extend agreement. It extends the deadline for due diligence until December 3rd. It does take the county a little bit of time to certify the election. It does contain a condition in t he event we do not put the matter on the ballot by September 7 or allows for the approval of the Hunt project that Mr. Hunt can terminate the contract. Following this we will work on the other terms and the ballot language. My goal would be to present that by next Tuesday. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #130, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein; yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #19 & # 20, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 10.5 of the Charter regarding enterprise fund bonding Mr. True said there are two alternate ordinances for charter amendments. They address the issue brought forward in the work session and first reading regarding an inconsistency with the charter and TABOR. TABOR allows enterprises to issue bonds without going to an election. We are stuck because the charter also says enterprise bonds have to go to an election. We are cross ways with TABOR and trying to clean it up. There are alternatives here because at the work session Councilman Myrin suggested we have a limit to it. One has a limit that an enterprise can only issue a bond without an election if it is 10 million dollars or less. We are proposing that it would be good if our charter was consistent with TABOR. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks we should adopt the one without any conditions. Councilman Frisch said some of us might want a limit some of us might not. It should be indexed in some way if we have a limit. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 27, 2018 16 Mayor Skadron open the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. True said theoretically you could put both on the ballot and the one with the most yes votes wins. Councilman Frisch said it’s not worth it to me. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, no; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #20, Series of 2018 not voted on since Ordinance 19 adopted. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2018 – Ballot language to amend Section 11.4 of the Charter regarding franchises. Mr. True said this will remove franchise agreements from being adopted by the electorate. They have always passed. They are very complicated issues with a significant amount of legalese. It’s not that the voters can’t sift through it. There are some franchise agreements if elections are even allowed. Most communities do not place them in front of the electorate. I don’t see it generating a lot of discussion in the election. It is consistent with other communities in the valley. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 5:50 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk