Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20190211Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 AGENDA AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #5, Series of 2019 –purchase of two Go-4 Interceptor IV three-wheeled enforcement vehicles ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Resolution #15, 16, 17 and 18, Series of 2019 –City Offices contracts ................................................ 4 Resolution #20 and #21, Series of 2019 –Three-Phase Transformer Procurement and On-Call Services ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Resolution #24, Series of 2019 –Authorizing Pete Strecker, Finance Director, to execute transactions 4 Minutes – January 28 and February 4, 2019 ......................................................................................... 4 NOTICE OF CALL-UP - Notice of APCHA Resolution #5, Series of 2018 - Adopting Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines Creating a Hearing Officer Position and Adopting a Schedule of Fines .......................................................................................................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #1 SERIES OF 2019 – Small Lodge Preservation Program Extension ................................ 4 RESOLUTION #22, SERIES OF 2019 - Appeal of Linear Lighting Interpretation .................................... 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Myrin, Hauenstein, and Frisch present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Peter Greeney spoke about the new city offices. Since last August I’ve been inquiring about the design and when a formal process will take place. Tonight’s agenda items will steam roll the project forward with no design review. Conveniently it is too late for a formal process. I’ve put together a basic design review for what I assume the project will be weighed against, the civic master plan. Implementation of the civic master plan is explicit, that an application must demonstrate consistency with the 8 core principles of the plan. Peter reviewed the principles. Without a formal design review we know the project meets one out of eight of the communities clearly described core principles. The vote in November approved the location for the new city offices. The community expects the project to follow the guidelines of the master plan. How can we proceed with a design that does not meet the core principles. Mayor Skadron stated that is an attack on a five year program and every one of those points can be addressed. Sara Ott, city manager, stated this is the first time I’ve heard Peter’s request and she would be happy to meet with him to address his concerns. We are still working on construction detail drawings. Councilwoman Mullins said Peter and I have discussed this before and would be happy to join the meeting with Sara. Councilman Hauenstein said he likes the design of the office and is much in line with Bauhaus principles. 2. Toni Kronberg asked why are we not putting parking under galena plaza right next to the parking garage. You didn’t add one single affordable housing unit. Are you going to build what the fact sheet told the voters you are going to build. You are being asked to approve tonight 54 million dollars, 5 million dollars more than the fact sheet. When is the public hearing going to be on the financing. I’m still irked about this whole thing. I don’t mind losing but when the proper facts are not put out there I have an issue with it. 3. Bob Morris talked about the employee housing issues. He agrees with Adam’s approach. The whole program needs redone. The entry fee to town is expensive. He wants to change the lottery to include people who just moved to town. He suggested senior housing over the Red Brick. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein talked about the ability of council for call ups and modify approvals for land use specifically where P&Z and HPC makes decisions. He wants to change the code to permit council the ability for call up. Ms. Ott said currently we do not have it on the work plan. Jessica Garrow, community development, said you do have a work session with P&Z on the 26th of this month. You discussed it with HPC. I anticipate a conversation with P&Z as well. Councilman Myrin said thank you Peter for bringing forward the conversation on city hall. I tried during the election process. One thing you raised was the design. I will be curious to see if anything comes out of the conversation with Sara and Ann. Bob’s advice for anyone looking for housing is spot on and people need to step up and intensify their energy. Once these hotels come on I wouldn’t want to be looking for day care, housing or sitting in traffic. Councilman Frisch said on Ward’s comment, Bert and I started talking about this in the HPC realm. At some point a check in would be helpful. We do need to empower these boards. We need to make sure there is enough ability for the board members to weigh in on their decisions or we will not be attracting candidates and make sure the applicants take that step seriously. Balancing that is deli cate. I support your efforts in raising the conversation. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 3 Councilwoman Mullins said most important, vote. Ballots are in the mail. Ward brings up a good point. We are having the conversations with the boards and giving them much clear direction. There is the conversation as to whether council has the final say. We still need a bigger conversation as to how we manage these quasi judicial things. On retirement housing, I think that is the direction we need to go, providing incentives. Lastly, Peter, these projects are still fluid. They are still going through change. I look forward to the discussion with Sara Mayor Skadron said the Aspen laugh festival kicks off. Stop by the Wheeler and gets some tickets. The mountains are fantastic but take extra precaution in the back country. Councilman Hauenstein said those who were not fortunate to see In to the Canyon this weekend. It was a world premier. It will be shown again this Wednesday at the Isis. It is fantastic. AGENDA AMENDMENTS Ms. Ott said staff is no longer requesting executive session tonight. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Ms. Ott said there is an update on the 911 surcharge application as part of the Information Update memo. It has been submitted to the state. Since my roll change, that leave both assistant positions open. I’ve asked two individuals to step up, Scott Miller and Alissa Farrell. She passed out revised organizational chart. The long range work session calendar for February 19th is calculations and measure. That work session will be canceled. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins said HHS had a presentation about vaping. It is shocking about how prevalent it is in this valley. It is something to start thinking about. Councilman Frisch said CORE will be getting together for a retreat to start setting goals for climate change action plans. Councilman Hauenstein said CCLC has been working on finalizing the selection process for next summer Saturday market vendors. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Hauenstein said Reso 19 – owners rep, is a new contract. He would like justifications why it did not go to a competitive bid process like prior precedent. Jeff Pendarvis, asset, said we’ve had an owners rep for larger multi year projects since 2008. It is standard operating procedure for us. During the procurement process in 2014 we hired the firm we utilized for the first four years of the project. He was no longer available. It coincided with the time Jack Wheeler gave his notice with the city. When he expressed interest, we spoke with the attorney and he gave his approval. We felt it best for the project and community that Jack’s knowledge would be best for the project. Councilman Hauenstein said there is a precedent for this. A new firm was chosen as the owner’s rep that basically followed the person that was the point of contact. Mr. Pendarvis replied that is correct. There was a change in employment by one manager. We followed him to his next firm. Councilman Hauenstein asked if we had stayed with NV5 we would have gotten a junior person. Mr. Pendarvis replied we had several conversations with their staffing plan and anyone new would have to be brought up to speed. Councilman Hauenstein welcomed Jack and approves the contract. Mr. True said we did review this with staff and I felt it appropriate under the procurement code it was appropriate and best for the city. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 4 Councilwoman Mullins said Resolution #17 the contract is with concept one but the resolution says connect one. Mr. True said we will need to amend the resolution to concept one. Councilman Hauenstein said the contract is a not to exceed. Mr. Pendarvis replied that is correct. Councilman Myrin asked was there utility work last summer. Mr. Pendarvis replied not as part of our project. Councilman Myrin asked on an ongoing basis is there a way to have something on the website that keeps people in the loop at a higher level as to what we are spending. Ms. Ott replied yes, the draw requests are public documents, we can consolidate them. Councilman Frisch said at a higher level, the project has a website. Ms. Ott said there is a webpage on the city website devoted to the project. Mr. Pendarvis said this is the kick off of the design phase. As that develops and working with our contractors we will certainly be sharing that with the public. Mr. True said I can find no other reference to the incorrect name. It appears to only be on the resolution. • Resolution #5, Series of 2019 –purchase of two Go-4 Interceptor IV three-wheeled enforcement vehicles • Resolution #15, 16, 17 and 18, Series of 2019 –City Offices contracts • Resolution #20 and #21, Series of 2019 –Three-Phase Transformer Procurement and On- Call Services • Resolution #24, Series of 2019 –Authorizing Pete Strecker, Finance Director, to execute transactions • Minutes – January 28 and February 4, 2019 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar with amendment to Resolution #17; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. NOTICE OF CALL-UP - Notice of APCHA Resolution #5, Series of 2018 - Adopting Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines Creating a Hearing Officer Position and Adopting a Schedule of Fines Mayor Skadron said he suggest this gets called up. Cindy Christensen, housing, said it is my understanding you would call this up and move it to another meeting. Councilman Frisch moved to call up APCHA Resolution #5, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #1 SERIES OF 2019 – Small Lodge Preservation Program Extension Phillip Supino, community development, said in October of last year there was a work session about the pending expiration of the program. Council directed staff to extend the program for an additional five years. It was originally adopted in 2015 to support small unique lodges. It is an incentive based program for bed base preservation to ensure diverse lodge offerings. It is a collaboration with comdev and the climate action office. We also have a partnership with CORE. The incentives include planning assistance, express lane for land use reviews, express lane for permit review, building code assessments, energy efficiency program, permit fee discounts and right of way improvements. The most popular element is the energy efficiency element (SLEEP). Up to $100,000 per year is provided. Funds are used for improvements like HVAC, in unit refrigerators, lighting upgrades and boiler replacements. This will extend the program for 5 years past the expiration date. The language will memorializes two lodges that joined after adoption of the original ordinance. This will ensure only small lodges are eligible. It changes the word units to keys. Keys are a smaller configuration than units might be. It will clarify boutique lodge uses are not eligible. The distinction between boutique and lodge use are important to understand. Lodge is 15 or more units. Onsite services and amenities are more robust. Distinction in zone district is Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 5 which lodge is a permitted use and boutique is a conditional use. Boutique lodge is 10 to 14 units with more limited onsite amenities. The lodges love it. Councilman Hauenstein said the ordinance contains Boomerang lodge. I think it should be struck. Ms. Garrow said that is policy decision council can make. P&Z and council felt if Boomerang were going to come back and operate they should receive those benefits. Councilman Hauenstein said he would like to see it deleted. If it is somehow resurrected can it be added. Ms. Garrow said if it were removed it would need to meet the criteria. Councilman Frisch said as slim as it might be I’m not sure the harm in leaving it in there. Mr. True said at this point I would be a little hesitant to remove it without having some communication with the current owners of the property. Leaving it in at this point would have minimal concern to the city. I would be hesitant taking it out here without communication with the owners. Councilwoman Mullins said there is no downside to leaving it in. Councilman Frisch asked are we saying that basically we don’t recognize a 9 room or smaller lodge as a true lodge product. Mr. Supino said if it is not currently an existing lodge then yes. Councilman Frisch said the lodges that were listed, are there any that meet some qualifications but not listed. Ms. Garrow replied potentially, that is what happened with Shadow Mountain and the Prospector. They were not part of the original list and asked to be added. There is a possibility. Mr. Supino said as existing lodges they would not be caught up in the boutique exemption. Ms. Garrow said this is a policy decision if council wanted all lodges, boutique or not. This particular section was trying to make sure how do we get lodges that have clear amenities for their guests. One lodge that was discussed in 2015 was Hotel Lenado. There are not many amenities as part of that approved lodge. It is not about price but amenities and really being a lodge, not pretending to be a lodge. Councilman Frisch said I’m fine with having the discussion as to it acting like a lodge. I’m not sure we can relate it to amenities. Mr. Supino said one of the things we heard from the operators was the level of service provided to the guest. Councilman Frisch said you feel pretty comfortable that if a boutique lodge shows up they should meet the amenities. Councilwoman Mullins said I think the distinction is important. The two comments we might address is one owner wanted more information and wanted to be able to go to a website rather than call city hall. Another operator did not take advantage of it because of the requirement to remain a lodge for a certain number of years because she was uncertain of the future of her lodge. Ms. Garrow said the only one the city requests a guarantee for is the reduction in the permit fees. Councilwoman Mullins said that may not be clear to some lodge owners. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Bob Morris said this is 50 keys or less. Thank you very much for this program. We couldn’t have done the energy upgrades without this program. Along with this the downtowner has been great for small lodges. It has really been helpful. 2. Jeff Bay said we are big fans of the entire program particularly the SLEEP initiative. We’ve done hot water boilers, high efficiency air conditioners and have several other projects lined up. The city has made it simple and easy to manage. We use this to upgrade a lot of behind the scenes infrastructure. Right now electric vehicles are not included. All properties, regardless of size are eligible for the same dollar amount. If the smaller properties are to be included I might look at a sliding scale. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said I think this is a great program and reassuring to see we are supporting the small lodges. This is where I think we should be investing in our community. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 6 RESOLUTION #22, SERIES OF 2019 - Appeal of Linear Lighting Interpretation Jennifer Phelan, community development, said an appeal has been submitted. The applicant is represented by Forum Phi and Ben Genshaft. Comdev issued an interpretation of a formal rendering of the land use code as to what represents linear lighting. The interpretation was appealed. I will provide an overview. An interpretation is a form of determination of the land use code. In this instance the city was requested to interpreted what is linear lighting. From 2013 to 2018, 7 permits were issued for this property. The last change order was submitted in January 2018 and included outdoor lighting. Prior to the issuance of the permit the city received its first complaint about the lighting at the rear of the house. A zoning officer followed up and determined some of the lighting was linear lighting. The site plan struck some of the outdoor lighting by a fire pit and stair. Lighting to the right included two strips of lighting, are what we believe were installed. A permit was issued and struck some of the outdoor lighting but it appears to have been installed. We received a second complaint in September for the opposite side of the house. That also appeared to be linear. The zoning officer at the time focused on the rear of the house and there was an oversight at the auto court. At this point the applicant requested an interpretation of what is linear lighting. What does the code say about linear lighting. It is lighting including but not limited to fluorescent lighting primarily intended as an architectural highlight to attract attention or used as a means of identification or advertisement shall be prohibited. It is a specific section of the code. Staff underlined the primarily intended as an architectural highlighted to attract attention. The specific lighting in question is flexible ribbon lighting and was installed in several places. Staff determined that the intent and purpose statement was adopted to illuminate the escalation of night time light pollution and prevent inappropriate and poorly designed or installed outdoor lighting. There are other purpose statements regarding the maintenance of small town feel and providing adequate lighting for safety. Staff also looked at the subject lighting and electrical codes for building safety and determined it was not necessary. What did the interpretation say. The lighting clearly had a linear aspect to it and not required by code. It was applied to a number of hardscape features. Once the interpretation was issued there was a timeline where the requestor could appeal. That is why we are here tonight. An appeal is a decision which according to code cannot be reversed or modified unless a denial of due process, it is in excess of jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion. In regard to due process, the city received two separate formal complaints. It was determined the lighting was linear and therefor prohibited. The interpretation was requested and issued within the required timeframes. The noticing requirements were met. The second criteria is about jurisdiction. The community development director is charged with rendering an interpretation as required by the code. Staff believes the decision is within her jurisdiction. The third criteria is abuse of discretion. When rendering an interpretation the director does need to use her discretion. The question is whether she abused that. She needs to take a pragmatic approach, reliance on language within the code, common definitions if needed as well and intent and purpose statement. As noted previously, linear lighting is explained as lighting primarily to attract attention and shall be prohibited. Staff reviewed the explanation of linear lighting and reviewed a definition as well as the intent and purpose statement. Some lighting is necessary but needs to preserve small town character and the night sky initiatives. The code emphases point specific fixtures. Staff concern is related to exterior lighting needs for safety. Staff determined that the liner ribbon lighting was primarily intended as an architecture highlight and met the term of linear lighting. Staff feels that staff’s discretion was applied appropriately. Staff recommends that council affirm the interpretation based upon the director acting correctly, that due process was provided and there was no abuse of authority or discretion. Ms. Phelan received a comment from one of the neighbors and handed that out and entered it in to the record. Applicant presentation Steev Wilson, representing the applicant, said there are two issues as we see it. The first pertains to the due process issue as to how the lighting in the auto court came to be. We came in with a building permit showing the LED lighting throughout the auto court. We discussed this with the zoning officer as to how we were to get lighting in the courtyard approved. He showed a photo from the lighting test from across the river. One of the controlling neighbors levied the original complaint. The permit was amended Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 7 showing what was to be removed. Ben Genshaft, attorney, said during the outdoor lighting test the diming software was not working. What has been done since then has been significant. Mr. Wilson said based on the drawing we went through the typical inspections and CO’s. On the interpretation and what it means, linear lighting isn’t just about the light but how it is used. It is prohibited when its primary intent is used to attract attention or for advertisement. They use examples for neon or when the bulb is exposed. There is nothing like that in town. Our primary intent was to illuminate driving and walking areas. We turned the lighting off as part of the complaint. During that time period several cars have actually run in to the wall since it is not illuminated. The code was adopted in 1991. It was progressive at the time. This is not a one off circumstance. This code has been around for a while. It is an antiquated piece of code. If the light meets the code of non linear lighting, shaded and downcast appropriately then the lighting can be approved as not linear lighting. Mr. Genshaft said it is interesting that the code definition refers to neon and fluorescent. The origins of this provision might be clumsy to use it in this provision. Mr. Wilson said in the meantime we have been asked to do a photometric analysis to show we meet the night sky standards. Our project is compliant. It meets all of the current most stringent night sky requirements. Greg Mackell, lighting, said what I did for landscape lighting, was to use less than what is permitted by code. It wasn’t just software. Mr. Wilson said there is a portion of the code that allows for landscape lighting. He showed examples of similar lighting including a residence at Red Butte drive. Limelight hotel has an accent light on the exterior of the building. 721 W North in the west end with bollards and linear light highlighting the caps. He showed examples of several more uses of linear lighting. We believe our house is pretty consistent with how the code is applied since 1991. Mr. Genshaft said my feeling is if this is an issue for council there is a much better way to address it. Using an interpretation, especially on projects that have been approved is not proper. The outdated code section probably needs to be looked at. It is a code amendment process not an interpretation for one project. We feel we can address the complaints of the neighbors if there continue to be them. Rick, owner, said we spent months working with the city on this installation. We thought we were doing the right thing. We got approved and a CO. When we got the complaint we immediately took it off. We love being Aspen residents and want to do the right thing. Mr. Mackell said the first project I worked on in Aspen was the music tent. The one line in the code that refers to linear lighting has been an enigma. When I read that section of the code it says linear lighting, including but not limited to neon and fluorescent lighting. If the original intent was to have no linear lighting outside I would have stopped after linear lighting. It was qualified with architectural highlight. With this project we sat down with Claude. After that meeting we submitted the plans with the detail that Claude sketched. If the interpretation is going to be no linear lighting outside there should be a period after linear lighting. Another part of the interpretation was to prevent poorly installed lighting. This was not poorly installed. It was also to prevent light from impacting the night sky, this doesn’t do that either. Mr. Genshaft said the abuse of discretion is clear. With all these other projects and the facts, it speaks for itself. There is not a lot of guidance in the code regarding due process. Giving the auto court was approved and we were specifically working with the city. I find it hard to put that into an oversight category. If you uphold the interpretation at the least the auto court lighting is in a different category. Mayor Skadron said you are suggesting abuse of discretion because evidentiary support exists. Mr. Genshaft replied absolutely. Councilwoman Mullins asked for a comment on the approvals that were given then reversed or disputed. Also for a comment on how this differs from the examples. Ms. Phelan said in January 2018 the last change order came in. That permit wasn’t issued until June of 2018. The city received a complaint. That is when it was determined that it was linear in nature. We determined the lighting was installed without a permit. The focus was on the rear of the property and the auto court was overlooked. The CO was handled and the lighting in the rear was removed as a condition of the CO. The auto court was overlooked. The CO was issued in June. We received a second complaint in September by a different person. In regard to examples, we do have an old lighting code. Staff tries to apply it to the best of their ability. They really didn’t get it until we started receiving some complaints. The limelight was approved by the former ComDev director. I will assume these were overlooked by staff. Ms. Garrow said one thing that is clear from this conversation and others is that this is an old code section that does need to be Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 8 looked at and address some of the changing technology. We are talking about a specific what we view as linear lighting. It meets those standards in the code. Maybe we need to amend the code. But for right now this specific product meets that definition. If we need to go back through and see if we issued other permits in error, we would do that. For us, we wanted to do this as an interpretation to respond to some of the applications we have seen. Ms. Phelan said I think you will also see this type of ribbon lighting applied. Rick said regarding the timeline, we worked with Claude on the lighting design to create it during January and February during the application. As soon as there was a complaint we took it out. When they did the inspection in order to get the CO all the lighting was inspected. To suggest they overlooked the lighting in the court yard is inaccurate because we walked the property with them and looked at all the lighting. Councilman Hauenstein said the Hotel Jerome lighting was installed without any permits. Ms. Garrow replied correct. Councilman Hauenstein asked are permits required for this type of lighting. Ms. Garrow said yes, we believe a permit would have been denied for this type of lighting. Councilman Hauenstein asked have there been complaints about the Jerome or any of the examples. Ms. Garrow said no formal complaints. Councilman Hauenstein asked is the lighting on the property in question on a dimmer or an on off. Mr. Mackell said it is on a control system with a top end that cannot be exceeded. Councilman Hauenstein said this isn’t something I like to sit here and decide on. It doesn’t seem appropriate for an elected body to arbitrate between neighbors. We are a policy body. It is not a position I like to be put in. I personally don’t like all the lights. I don’t know how you can say you are not allowed when all these others have been allowed. The precedent has been set. Councilman Myrin said thank you for the examples. One missing is the city installed is the rope lighting around the bollard to the theatre in the park. The Dancing Bear also. All that though isn’t what the question is. It is should this be a code amendment. I don’t think staff exceeded their jurisdiction, abused their discretion or a denial of due process. I think the code needs updated. I don’t see a reason to reverse staff decision on this. One thing I would like to do is look at the garage door issue. Councilman Frisch asked how do you see this becoming compliant. What would make staff happy. Ms. Phelan said the intent is to have fixed single point light sources not to have continuous strips of lighting. Councilman Frisch asked is staff only concerned about the auto court. Ms. Phelan said the rear of the house has been removed. Ms. Garrow said in terms of moving forward, there is the option to totally reverse and this type of lighting is ok. You could affirm the interpretation and say staff go back and apply the code evenly and correctly and enforce on all of these. You could say we are not going to go back on any of the permits previously issued but this interpretation will stand. Councilman Frisch said lighting at a base level is used for safety. We have that. Then there is the house would look nice. Then there is attracting attention then advertising. What the applicant is saying is safety we are saying is attracting attention. How are you deciding between that. Ms. Garrow said we don’t use that as a standard, looking nice or attracting attention. We are looking at the technical aspects of the code. Ms. Phelan said linear lighting is linear in nature. Ms. Garrow said there are other types of lighting one could install that would comply. Councilman Frisch said if you were to go back and look at the examples I will offer some pushback that staff was focused on other aspects. I see architectural highlights all over the place. Aren’t we better off allowing any approved plans to go through and if we as a community don’t want that we have that conversation. Ms. Garrow said that is a conversation. If this lighting type is something you are comfortable with you should overturn the interpretation. If it’s not, then you should affirm the interpretation. Councilman Frisch asked how are we going to enforce on approvals that we gave. Ms. Phelan replied we have a section in the code that if you agree this is linear lighting we could say we issued it in error. Ms. Garrow said that is probably the most aggressive option but something we could do. Councilman Frisch said this is a complaint driven conversation. Mr. True said under the code the city has the right to suggest a permit issued in error is void. That would take an enforcement process. What you have to consider now is staff’s interpretation of this particular line of the code. Their interpretation is that lighting is linear lighting and inconsistent with that code. Do you uphold the interpretation. If you do, there may be a lot of other issues you have to address. If you reverse the interpretation it would allow all of this lighting to be considered approved. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 9 Councilman Myrin asked is there a way to affirm this decision to not enforce everything right away and set something for a code amendment. It is a cleaner approach going forward. It keeps us in control of what we want. If we reverse this we’ve lost control. Councilman Frisch said I don’t think it was installed as an architectural highlight. I think it was wayfinding. Mr. True said you could say in this particular instance it is not an architectural highlight. That determination would be limited to this property. Councilman Frisch said if I don’t believe primarily intended as an architectural highlight would that change your opinion. Ms. Garrow said you have two options; one is to reverse this interpretation. Second is to affirm the interpretation and say it applies from this point going forward. Rick said the lighting in the rear is stair lighting to guide people to the hot tub. It is there for safety. Councilwoman Mullins said this code needs to be changed. It doesn’t make sense and is out of date. What is the goal here. Assuming the goal should be safety and dark skys, it doesn’t say much about that. From what I’m seeing I can’t say if it is for safety or to highlight the architecture. Generally, I’m very consistent on following the code. We need to go back and change this. It also appears that people are running away with this. Yes, we can affirm your decision but how do you respond when we haven’t been applying it. Ms. Phelan said you could say yes it is linear lighting and we don’t want to see any more until the code is changed. What is there can stay. Or you can say the lighting is fine and any permit that comes in is approved. Councilwoman Mullins said my position is the city maintains control of the code and affirms what has been done and changes the code as quickly as we can. Councilman Frisch said I have some trouble with the light that is being produced. I think we are here because someone turned them in not because we made a mistake. I don’t think this was a mistake. I think staff has been focusing on other aspects and we are only here because someone turned them in. I don’t want to go back and start chasing other things. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports the option of upholding the interpretation but allowing anything that has been permitted to remain. Councilman Myrin said it might turn out the code change when we work on it may allow what is in the back of the house. Mr. True said it seems like there is consensus to uphold the decision of comdev. It also seems to be consensus to direct staff to work on code amendments to update the code that is quite dated to not pursue enforcement of any property that has a valid permit even if it appears that permit may have been issued in error. That would include the front of this property. I’m not suggesting that council make formal motions on that. I don’t think it is necessary. I think if you uphold this and just direct staff to look at code amendments and to not enforce this code on anybody that has an existing permit I think we can move forward here. Councilman Hauenstein said I see this as linear lighting. If by definition it has to be for architectural highlight I don’t think it is. I think it is to bring highlight to the wall so you don’t hit it with your car. I think it is appropriate in this instance. All these examples show there is a problem that needs to be addressed. The lighting in the courtyard is appropriate for safety. Mr. Genshaft said we would request that be part of the resolution. Ms. Garrow said as the person overseeing the department and managing this process, she would agree with the applicant. Councilman Frisch asked going forward, at what point in the permit process is someone allowed to continue submitting lighting that has been talked about tonight. At what point can they not do it until we have a further discussion. Ms. Garrow said what I am hearing is it is anything that has a valid permit. If something is in permit process, applied for but not issued, it would not apply to that. Councilman Frisch said if someone spent a year and a half doing lighting design and it has been given the formal nod but it hasn’t been approved and staff comes in tomorrow and redlines. Ms. Phelan said there are examples of permits in the queue that have been issued where the lighting was found to be linear and could not be approved and was modified. Staff has been very aware of this issue. I don’t think you will have an example of a permit that has been in review that will be affected by this. Councilman Frisch said the line has to be drawn somewhere. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 11, 2019 10 Councilman Myrin moved to approve Resolution #22, Series of 2019 with modifications directing staff to update the code and not to pursue enforcement for properties with valid permits. Seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk