Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20150427Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES .................................................................................................. 2 CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS .................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS ........................................................................... 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution#42, Series of 2015 – Parks Dept. Toyota Prius Purchase ................................................... 3 Resolution #45, Series of 2015 – Contract for Professional Services with Navigate LLC lfor the Affordable Housing Guidelines Policy Study ............................................................................................... 3 Minutes – April 13, 2015 ...................................................................................................................... 3 Resolution #44, Series of 2015 – 211 E. Hallam – extension of AspenModern Negotiation period ... 3 ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 - Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4 & 5, Growth Management Allotments ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2015 – Small Lodge Preservation ............................................................ 4 ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work Sessions Code Amendment ....................................... 4 ORDINANCE 317, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable Development Rights ...................................................................................................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2015 – 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiations for Voluntary Landmark Designation. ................................................................................................................................. 6 ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment................................................ 6 ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2015 – Supplemental Budget Appropriations .......................................... 7 RESOLUTION #43, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Direction – Residential Development Mitigation Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 7 ACTION ITEMS .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 2 Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order at 5:00pm with Councilmembers Daily, Frisch and Mullins present SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES Month of the Young Child Proclamation - Councilwoman Mullins read the month of the young child proclamation. Eva Jankoski and children handed out water bottles to Council members. There are several events in May to celebrate including the May 5th read to me day, ARC family fun fair May 9th and the May 19th children’s parade with over 300 children participants. Mayor Skadron gave appreciation for all those who work so hard to care for children in our community. Arbor Day Proclamation – Councilman Daily read the proclamation. Ben Carlson, City Forster, said May 9th at Paepcke Park from 10 to noon they will celebrate Arbor day. Aspen has been a Tree City USA for 23 years. CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS 1. Emze Veazy III commented on the chamber use of funds from the last meeting. There was no generalization. He was surprised at the decision of the City Attorney. 2. Matt Brown spoke about paragraph 11 fee in lieu as a mitigation option. The residential generation study is revising policy. The fee in lieu number is not updated. As a developer if the fee in lieu number is not adjusted, the viability of the credit program is at stake. He is not sure if he could go forward with his project in the queue if the number is not updated. 3. Tom McCabe passed out a handout. APCHA noticed inconsistencies in documents that created the housing authority. At the time of its formation the relationship between City, County and APCHA fit according to state law. The relationship was modified locally via IGA’s and the relationship intended by the state is no longer in place. A legal analysis was conducted by an outside attorney. The media obtained copy of report and wondered if the arrangement was legal. While the relationship between the entities is not illegal it is an unauthorized agreement and a court could find it an independent corporation not an LLC. Jim True, city attorney, stated he strongly disagree with most of the assertions. The formation of APCHA is perfectly legal. Mr. McCabe is confusing numerous legal issues. 4. Tom –On the policy direction for residential development he disagrees with more taxes. He hates to think with how much the mitigation fee are going to be. Mike Maples numbers scare him. He disagrees totally. 5. Mike Maple said Lift One has been owned by the City of Aspen since 1972. COA has performed virtually no upkeep. In 2007 started AspenModern program and this is undoubtly the most important AspenModern artifact in the city. Last summer the Council provided direction and a report commissioned to provide renovation. Today I learned the plan is to continue to do very little. Is it to hope that someday someone else will pay for it. That someone being lift one lodge. We should not wait. He urged Council to take care of this important asset. COUNCILMEMBERS’ AND MAYOR’S COMMENTS Mayor Skadron said we are in the election period please vote on May 5th. City Hall and the Red Brick will be vote center. There will be Saturday voting from 10 to 2 in the Clerk’s office. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 3 BOARD REPORTS 1. Councilman Frisch attended the CORE meeting strategic review. It was a great gathering and he will have a better report in two weeks. CONSENT CALENDAR Mike Kosdrosky, housing, said this is an APCHA policy study. It is the first guideline update in 10 years. There was an RFP at the beginning of the year. It will be collecting data through surveys and interviews. It will establish goals and objectives for now and long term and make guideline recommendations. It will include income and asset analysis, affordability and best practice analysis. The budget is not to exceed 60,000 dollars. They will be reaching out to the public. Councilman Frisch said they talked about this at Frontiers. It is well past its time. Councilwoman Mullins said the scope changed from extensive data to a more imperial basis. It does not seem to be the right direction. Mr. Kosdrosky said they wanted quantitative but there needs to be some qualitative. Mayor Skadron asked about timeframe. Mr. Kosdrosky said it will be kicking off next week through November.  Resolution#42, Series of 2015 – Parks Dept. Toyota Prius Purchase  Resolution #45, Series of 2015 – Contract for Professional Services with Navigate LLC for the Affordable Housing Guidelines Policy Study  Minutes – April 13, 2015  Resolution #44, Series of 2015 – 211 E. Hallam – extension of AspenModern Negotiation period Councilman Frisch move to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2015 - Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 4 & 5, Growth Management Allotments Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council this is a requests for development allotments for both lots. In 2013 the forest service recorded a plat to create five lots. It did not have any City review or approval. It is the City’s position no growth management allotments were granted. The application has been submitted to receive these allotments. Second reading is scheduled for May 4th. Mike Hoffman, representing the applicant, pointed out the application was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan stated it was on the website. Mr. Hoffman said there is a disagreement between staff and the applicant. He said the allotments depend whether the Aspen town site allotments apply to the lots or if they were extinguished. Their position is they have not been extinguished. Councilman Frisch said five lots were created and this application talks about two. The other three are not in discussion at this time. Ms. Phelan replied that is correct. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like as much information to make the issue more clear about the mitigation and allotments. Mayor Skadron said generally speaking he would not support treating the lots differently and would need a compelling reason to the treatment of this lot. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 4 Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #16, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEWS, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR LOTS 4 AND 5, RANGER STATEION SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Councilman Daily moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2015 – Small Lodge Preservation Jessica Garrow, community development, said this would set up an incentive based program for small lodges. It is intended to provide benefits to better enable small lodges to continue and remain in operation. Support for small lodges was the number one priority from Council during policy resolution back in December. There are no dimensional changes proposed. Second reading is scheduled for May 26th. Councilman Frisch asked which of these lodges could change use now by right from the chart on page two and three. Ms. Garrow said they would get in to more detail at second reading. Councilman Daily said he likes what Staff has created. This is the direction we have been attempting to move the community forward for small lodge support for some time. There are no dimensional changes just encouragements. He is in favor. Councilman Frisch moved to read ordinance #15, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PROGRAM TO ASSIST SMALL LODGES TO CONTINUE OPERATING AS SMALL LODGES. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 2015 – HPC Work Sessions Code Amendment Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this code amendment will make two changes to the historic preservation section of the code. The first will remove the work session from the HPC process. It has been part of the process for around 25 years. Work sessions appear on the agenda but neighbors are not notified and at times not happy about it. For procedural reasons Staff would no longer like to hold work sessions at HPC. The second code amendment refers to specific building codes and staff would like to remove that to make it more generic. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 5 Councilman Frisch asked about the option to notice work sessions. Ms. Simon said she will discuss that at second reading. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to see the option of keeping the work sessions but noticing them. She asked about the guidelines for moving houses off site. Ms. Simon said there are two items that were included in the policy resolution that they are not prepared to move forward with now but will be coming back with including that and the transformer discussion. Mayor Skadron said he wants to understand the implication of this. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #13, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 13 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE REMOVING UN-NOTICED HPC WORK SESSIONS AND OUTDATED BUILDING CODE REFERENCES. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 317, SERIES OF 2015 – 119 Neale Avenue Subdivision Amendment and Transferable Development Rights Ms. Simon said this proposed amendment relates to a lot split that was approved by Council in 2012 where a 12,762 sq ft lot was created and separated away from a smaller 3000 sq ft lot with a historic resource. The applicant would like to amend a condition of approval that was placed on the subdivision. When the project went through the review process there was the option for a single family or a duplex on the lot and a single family home on the historic landmark lot. The Council at the time decided to restrict the larger lot to a single family and not allow the possibility of a duplex. The owner would like to have that amended. This does not affect floor area just density. The other proposal is the property owner does not wish to construct all the allowed floor area and sever three TDRs. Councilman Frisch asked for more information at second reading on the duplex versus single family discussion. Councilman Daily said he would like to hear from the applicant at second reading what happened at the original meetings. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #17, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO 17 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT AND CREATING THREE TRANSERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 119 NEALE AVENUE, LOT 1, BENEDICT CABIN SUBDIVISON, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORDO Councilman Frisch moved to approve Ordinance #17, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 6 Mayor Skadron said he is concerned over the severing of three TDRs as it impacts the entire TDR program. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 2015 – 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiations for Voluntary Landmark Designation. Ms. Simon said this is an AspenModern discussion and protection of the Berko studio. Council did a site visit a week ago. It is a 6000 sq ft lot that was created as a lot split. The proposal is to recognize the studio as an individually historically significant structure. The Berko family would like to identify the structure as important to AspenModern, move the studio to the front of the lot, keep it as a residential structure and add on to it. HPC has done a design review for the proposal. The applicant is asking for dimensional variances, financial benefits in reductions and fee waivers, and appeal of a tree removal permit. HPC finds this is a very valuable example of the AspenModern program. Councilwoman Mullins asked for more history of when and why the trees were planted. She also asked for the reason for the set backs. Councilman Frisch would like to hear more about the need for the one tree. Mayor Skadron said there are some compelling parts to the application and some aggressive parts. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #14, Series of 2015; Seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #14 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211 E HALLAM, LOT 1, 233 E. HALLAM STREET LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #14, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2015 – Public Projects Code Amendment Justin Barker, community development told the Council the State requires decision within 60 days for public projects. This establishes a concrete process to send projects through to comply. Staff recommends approval. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Marcia Goshorn said there is a state statute because other entites do not have to come to the City. The City does not have to come to the City but can fast track themselves through the process. Mr. True said this is designed to address all public projects and provide a clear path. Mr. Bendon said public projects can go through what is now called a co-op process. The City has gone out of its way to go through a public process. Councilman Frisch said currently, if the City was coming through with a project we could skip some steps a private developer couldn’t. 2. Amos Underwood asked why was the advisory group changed from the original one. The applicant gets to decide if they want one. Mr. Barker said that was discussed. It is not feasible in the 60 day timeframe. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 7 Councilman Frisch asked if this needs passed tonight or should we digest it more. Mr. Bendon said it should happen soon. He suggested the City should have this process available to itself. It is useful in creating a good community dialog. Councilman Frisch asked if the option is the regular process or this. I think we are trying to get rid of the 60 day time limit. Mr. Bendon said maybe we should not avail ourselves of the 60 day timeframe. Mr. True suggested amending 26.500.060 timing requirement last sentence to say private development and City projects pursuant to 040 shall not require a decision within 60 days. 3. Peter Fornell asked if this includes the building permitting process. We don’t want to see all of the City projects at the top of the pile. Mr. Bendon replied it is just the land use review. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Mayor Skadron stated he is not a fan of the co-op process and would remove it entirely. Mr. Bendon said this replaces it. There are good examples of the advisory group. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue to May 4, 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2015 – Supplemental Budget Appropriations Pete Strecker, finance, said the total request is 24 million dollars. Roughly half is related to funding capital projects. 5.7 million was previously approved. 1.2 million is for new requests and the remainder is for bringing forward savings. Councilwoman Mullins asked about central savings. Mr. Strecker said at the end of the year a portion of the savings goes back to the fund balance and 10 percent goes to central savings. 40 percent goes to the departments. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Steve Barwick, city manager, said there are some emergency repairs that need to be made at the ARC. A large pool filter around 50,000 dollars and a waste line needs replaced with the cost unknown at this time. These costs will be included in the fall supplemental. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #43, SERIES OF 2015 – Policy Direction – Residential Development Mitigation Requirements Chris Bendon, community development, said the affordable housing program is aimed to sustain a viable community. The growth management program tried to provide for affordable housing. We have been more successful than other resorts but have lost some ground. We have a dedicated real estate transfer tax. This proposal is a type of impact mitigation assessed upon expansion. This requirement goes back to 1990. It is 1 FTE for every 2000 sq ft of residential construction. The standard was lowered to 1 employee for every 3000 sq ft in 1990. Impact studies should be updated every five to ten years. We updated the residential study in March 2015. It suggested a house of 3000 sq ft generates .445 FTE. Less than half of the current requirement. Staff would like Council to adopt the new lower rate. The purpose of policy resolution does not change the land use code but provides clear direction to staff to draft the ordinance There has been some commentary from a few folks now who are in the situation of pay more now or wait for the ordinance and pay less. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 8 Mayor Skadron said they are not changing the land use code. The intent of the resolution is to formalize the direction to enable staff to draft the ordinance. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the report is sufficient. Mr. Bendon said the recommendation is that they did not need to expand the report to cover remodel activity. Staff suggestion is a certain amount of remodel activity is expected similar to lawn care or appliance repair. It should be considered operations or maintenance. Councilwoman Mullins said it seems that a substantial remodel should be included. She does not buy the reason to eliminate it. #9 – ADU continue as a mitigation option. It is hard to enforce but she would like to see it continue as an option. Mr. Bendon said it is a consistent desire. If the ADU option is eliminated for mitigation it would not eliminate the ADU option to build. The suggestion is it would no longer serve as mitigation but continue to be a land use that is available. Councilwoman Mullins said she agrees with other recommendations. Councilman Frisch said he is comfortable with number 1 remaining yes and has no problem with number 2. Councilman Daily said it is right and appropriate that we contribute to this program upon resale and the impact deferred until the sale to a nonworking buyer. He is torn on the remodeling issue. It should be included in the program and the cost could be deferred. Councilman Frisch said to be fair and efficient we would measure everything. Some people remodel all the time and some wait 40 years. Some assumptions would have to be made. He does not think we should do it. Mr. Bendon said that process is true. We have the data though. The point is even if we could, should we. Mayor Skadron said there is no differentiation between remodel and rebuild. Mr. Bendon said it is conscious to focus only on expansion. Net additional impact on the community. Councilman Frisch said he does not support a mandatory ADU program in the City. Councilman Daily agrees. Mayor Skadron said he is not ready to scrub it. Should cash in lieu continue as an option. All of Council agrees with staff. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Elizabeth Milias said how can we know what we need housing wise when we don’t know what we have and who is in it. Until we know that we can’t possible sit here and tell the community. The widespread consensus among the candidates is an APCHA audit to answer that. She spoke with the APCHA director and the board is also interested in that. Housing 60 percent of our workforce here is our goal. For the remodel question. If I payed my RETT and taxes and I want to update my bathroom and I pulled my bathroom permit it is not the government’s role to be inside my house. It is double taxing homeowners who payed RETT. Staff represents if the full impact fees are not assessed the remainder of the burden falls to public but it falls to the RETT. The concept of adding construction workers as addition to operators came out of nowhere. It is another example of a double dip. Why are we segmenting different types of employees. Is there a way to grandfather those folks in at the new levels. Mr. True said there is a way to address the period the change is being done. It is appropriate to put in. 2. Bill Barringer said he support Staff’s recommendation. He is also supportive of Peter Fornells efforts also. The RRC study is helpful. There should be a similar study as to what true Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 9 construction costs are in today’s terms. It is important to not modify the in lieu charge rate until knowing the true fee. 3. Marcia Goshorn asked what is considered a remodel. A minor is considered carpet, paint and light fixture and scared they are something that would be looked at. A remodel without sq ft change should not be something that is triggered. ADU program doesn’t work because it never required anyone to live in it. There is a place for the ADU program. 4. Jodi Edwards suggested a rough proportionality credit for the RETT. 5. Peter Fornell said today to mitigate for 3000 sq ft at category 4 is 300,000 dollars. The net result is a saving to the developer. Both efforts need to occur simultaneously. There are unintended consequence. The community has backed off the 60 percent rule. Backing off to 45 percent would be more equitable. The ADU program was very great. People who want one will still build one. It should be eliminated as mitigation. The cash in lieu number still needs to exists. It is currently being used as selling a certificate from one category to another. Good way to look at if we have enough housing is to look at what happens when we have a lottery. How much does it cost to create an FTE. Some of the estimations are very aggressive. Need to look at it from the standpoint of what would I approve. 6. Sam Barney questioned the RRC survey and said the numbers seemed a little low. He said cash in lieu doesn’t create housing and housing is what is needed. 7. Mike Maple said the goal is to get it right and the study is a step in the right direction. What generates a fair number. Should the City provide a credit for the RETT. He is on board with the property paying their fair share. Should the City assess the full impact fee. What did we do before and should we change. Should the City continue a payment deferral program, absolutely. The problem is you have to look at the terms of the deferral program. Fees make the program worse in some ways. 8. Bill said the deferral program is a great program to continue. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch thanked everyone who spoke. The greater goal is how do we make a livable community. How do we come up with a fair way to recognize people live in free market and figure out how to balance. Does it require grandfathering some applications. In the rare case there might be a decrease. Councilman Daily said he agrees with Mr. Maple’s point about taking into account residence occupancy in payment of deferred payment to a nonresident occupant. Councilwoman Mullins said it is worthwhile to look further into self mitigating. She would not support rebates. She would like to reconsider remodels. She takes back her comments on ADUs. Councilman Daily moved to continue to June 22, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ACTION ITEMS 134 W. Hopkins Ave – Call Up of HPC Conceptual approval, Demolition, Relocation , Variance and FAR Bonus approval Mr. True said Councilwoman Mullins is not here though she did participate in the last discussion. She lives within 300 feet of the project. The applicant waived any issues of the last discussion and have no prejudice in continuing with the call up. She has not recused herself. Councilman Romero is out of town. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 10 Sara Adams, community development, said this is a call up of an HPC approval of conceptual, partial demolition and some variances. The review process is to accept HPC decision or to remand the application back to HPC with clear direction for HPC to make a final decision or to continue the meeting for more information. HPC vote was 4 to 2. They had thoughtful discussion and followed established procedures. Nora voted no. She was not in favor of the deck. Patrick voted no. He was not in favor of the flat roof or the deck on the addition. For the front yard setback ten foot is required. The historic home meets the set back. It needs a variance for ten inches for the bay window. The second and third issues are the deck and the connector and the compatibility with the additions. Staff is supportive of the project. There is simple architecture on the addition. The front porch column mimics the landmark. The gable forms creates a relationship. The connector is asked for in the design guideline and is longer than required. The glass deck on top of the connector was approved with specific conditions. Staff is supportive of the HPC process and their decision. The fourth issue was more information of the FAR bonus of 116.4 sq ft provided by the historic assessment of the house that analyzed materials and the restoration. It meets the guidelines. Staff recommends upholding Resolution 10, Series of 2015. The applicant is in agreement with Staff’s presentation. Councilman Frisch asked if the connector is a transfer from one to the other or an outdoor space. Ms. Adams said it is a ten foot separator. In the past they have allowed decks on top of connectors. It is more visible when supported in the past but has not always been successful. Councilman Daily said he wondered about the compatibility when he first looked at the design. He is reasonably comfortable with what is proposed here. It is a simple design and secondary to the architecture of the Victorian. Councilman Frisch said the setback variance is an issue here. It increases the FAR. That is an issue. The houses on the block have consistent set backs from the curb. Ms. Adams said they are in a range but the requirement is ten feet. Ms. Adams said when Staff looks at relocation of a building we look at a lot of different factors. This site has a lot of funky lines. In this case relocation was the best option. Councilman Frisch asked for a comment on development pressures. Ms. Adams replied it is what is allowed on the property. She can’t imagine it would be approved for demolition by HPC. Moving it forward frees up space for the addition in the rear. He asked about the connector. Ms. Adams said it is a guideline and up to HPC on a case by case basis. Councilman Frisch said he is happy for it to go back to HPC. Not sure what it is supposed to be used for. Councilman Daily said to have HPC take one more look at the connector. Staff was not supportive. Jody Edwards asked for the connector and deck are you asking HPC to hold us to a different standard than others. Mr. True said they are not asking HPC to modify the policy. Mayor Skadron said the FAR bonus because the project is exemplary is questionable. Councilman Frisch said he is solely focused on the connector. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 27, 2015 11 Councilman Frisch moved to remand back to HPC; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to continue to 4-28-2015 at 4:00pm; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk