Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20150713Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 NOTICE OF CALL UPS .............................................................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Minutes – May 4, June 8 & 22, 2015 .................................................................................................... 4 Board Appointments ............................................................................................................................. 4 Approved Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines ....................................... 4 ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2015 – Castle Ridge Planned Development Amendment ........................ 4 ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C-1 Zone Districts Code Amendment ............................. 5 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place Rezoning .......................................................... 6 RESOLUTION #72, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Policy Resolution ............................... 8 ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2015 – Hutton Lot Split (725 Cemetery Lane ) ....................................... 9 ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2015 – Gibson Matchless Subdivision ................................................... 11 Call up of HPC approval – 223 E Hallam Street ........................................................................................ 14 RESOLUTION #71, SERIES OF 2015 – Setting Public Hearing for Annexation of 705 West Hopkins .. 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 2 At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Myrin, Frisch and Mullins present. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins thanked the community for their support from the last few weeks. 2. Councilman Frisch said it is good to be back. Africa was wonderful but Aspen is home. 3. Councilman Myrin passed out an email to Council. He received an invite to a tech conference on July 22nd and said it should be noticed. 4. Councilman Myrin thanked the County for the landfill tour. It was very helpful. 5. Mayor Skadron gave a big thank you to the Chamber for a fun 4th of July. He thanked the fire department for the soak. 6. Mayor Skadron also thanked Jack Johnson for the landfill tour. It is great science and perspective on the consumption of our society. 7. Mayor Skadron gave congratulations to former Mayor Mick Ireland who got engaged to be married this week. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Randy Ready introduced Mitch Osur as the parking services director. He is most recently from American Recreational Products In Boulder and Aspen Sports before that. He lives in Carbondale. Mr. Osur said he is excited to be here and has experience with retail and the community. He has hit the ground running. BOARD REPORTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a new show at the red brick with a music theme. The plein air festival coming up as well as the 2nd annual thrift shop art auction. 2. Councilwoman Mullins attended the RFTA retreat and the theme was enhance versus expand. Ridership was 4.9 million in 2014 and anticipated to be 5.4 million by 2024. The focus is on creating a fully integrated system in the next 10 years. More details are online. 3. Councilman Frisch will attend the CORE meeting Thursday and will have more at the next Council meeting. 4. Councilman Frisch said Frontiers has been meeting twice a month and some of their work will be coming to fruition tonight along with APCHA. 5. Mayor Skadron attended the Chamber Board meeting and they reported Food & Wine was a great success. The luncheon had 290 attendees. The Membership arm of the chamber is working with Mike Kosdrosky from APCHA on a survey that will target workers. The visitor centers are busy and the airport guest services is busy. NOTICE OF CALL UPS 100 S Spring Street Justin Barker, community development, said this is a commercial design project that included renovation of the existing space as well as some new exterior materials. There is some minor changes to massing and height of the building. It was a consolidated commercial review approved by the Planning & Zoning commission by a 6 to 0 vote one June 16. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 3 Councilwoman Mullins said it is a great improvement over what is there. Is there an effort to minimize the visual impacts of parking. Mr. Barker said they are require to have two parking spaces and they will be located in the garage. Councilman Myrin said the minutes mention colors and materials. Are colors regulated. Mr. Barker replied colors are not regulated but suggested by staff to make it not look historic. Councilman Myrin said the recycle trash area is smaller than required. Mr. Barker said there was discussion with the environmental health department that would allow special review approval for the space. Councilman Myrin asked if this happen frequently. Mr. Barker replied he is not sure. Sometimes there are dimensional requirements that require it. Councilman Daily said he noticed there was no public comment and it was a 6 to 0 vote. He sees no need to call it up. Mayor Skadron said the results of the application are to reduce net leasable space that will then become residential. Mr. Barker replied it will not become residential and it is required to become commercial space. It is existing as three stores but is being reduced to two stories. Mayor Skadron asked if there is a concern we are losing net leasable. Mr. Barker said it is an improvement of the space. Mayor Skadron said the reality is it will become an art gallery. Mr. Barker replied we can’t regulate what goes in to the commercial space. Mayor Skadron said it is easy to get caught up in the idea of improving the commercial space. Mr. Barker said it may not be a gallery forever. Mayor Skadron said it will not be called up. CONSENT CALENDAR Board appointments Mayor Skadron thanked Councilman Frisch for signing off on the appointment letters. The past several years we have had trouble getting the community to sign up for boards. He thanked everyone for stepping up and the Council for conducting the interviews. Mayor Skadron read the appointments. Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines Mike Kosdrosky, housing, stated they updated the policies in part three table seven to standardize the square footage requirement for bedroom sizes. Page 18 part three section six “developers of new affordable housing projects will be required to provide a capital reserve study”. This goes along with the state legislature common ownership interest act. HOAs going forward will be required to have a capital reserve study and fund so future deed restricted properties will start off on a strong foot. Page 31 section 5 part 2, adds language if potential tenants provides all the documentation they are still not guaranteed a unit. All new applicants are required to pass a short quiz to make sure they are an informed buyer. Page 53 part seven, got the most attention and adds a paragraph for owners with more than one property within the exclusion zone that they only have 180 days to sell one of the units or one of the units must be listed for sale. There is a procedure in place for this. It requires if you can’t sell within 180 days the most they can get is 95 percent of the maximum sales price. This only applies to a handful of cases every year. It is a very necessary regulation to have in place to make sure there are no ownership units to have out there that could be occupied by someone in need of it. Councilman Frisch there has been a lot if hard of work by APCHA and frontiers. Councilman Myrin asked about the five percent and are the lenders ok with this. Mr. Kosdrosky said they did not check with them directly. They felt it was a necessary and valid stick to make sure non-compliant owners don’t sit on their property thinking they could get a price above the affordable housing market price. They are serious about freeing up inventory. Councilman Myrin said he thinks it makes sense. Cindy Christensen, housing, said they could ask for a hearing in front of the board. The point is not to Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 4 make them go bankrupt or not pay their debt off. Councilman Myrin said his concern is about the lenders willing to lend. Mr. Kosdrosky said there is a process in place with the notice of violation. Councilwoman Mullins asked if there is a way to determine what the reserve fund should be. Also, affordable housing units in a free market complex needs looked in to a little more. Ms. Christensen said anything new in a mixed project moving forward will have condo decs where the HOA dues can only be a percentage of the assessed value between the free market and the deed restricted. Councilman Daily said he thinks they are well considered changes. APCHA made the right decision in elimination the priority. Mayor Skadron asked if the map for ownership exclusion zone was not modified. Councilman Frisch replied no and he is not sure when it was last modified. Ms. Christensen said it has been in place for the last few years.  Minutes – May 4, June 8 & 22, 2015  Board Appointments  Approved Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines Councilman Frisch move to adopt the consent calendar; second by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 2015 – Castle Ridge Planned Development Amendment Sara Nadolny, community development, told the Council this is for the Castle Ridge Apartments which are located in the R15 zone district. It is part of the water plant affordable housing and was approved in 1980. There are eight housing building on the site with ten units per building. There are two small sheds with a deck and fencing between buildings F and G. They measure approximately 323 square feet. It is unknown when the sheds were constructed and they were not included in the original plat. There are also no building permits for them. The applicant is proposing to demolish the sheds and would like to replace them with one larger 980 sq ft shed. There is no site specific approval for the Castle Ridge apartments only a final approved plat. The code says in the absence of an approved site specific development plan the existing development that is on the property when it is approved represents the approved dimensions of the planned development. The floor area is roughly around 64,000 sq ft. The applicant is requesting a minor project review to amend the floor area for the planned development by 980 sq ft. The site is located 8,040 feet above the elevation and is subject to the 8040 green line review. The new shed is proposed in the same location but a larger footprint. It is one story but larger in size. Staff has reviewed the criteria and finds it meets the requirements. It is an area suitable for development. Staff worked with engineering and conditioned the approval with a drainage report. Second reading is scheduled for August tenth. Councilman Frisch asked if other options were explored that would not require the public hearing option. Overall he thinks it is warranted. Ms. Nadolny said it is equipment that needs to be kept on site. Councilman Myrin asked if this has this been to P&Z. Ms. Nadolny replied it was at P&Z and there will be minutes for second reading. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 5 Councilwoman Mullins asked if the increase in size requires a variance. Ms. Nadolny replied it does not. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like a summary of 8040 review standards. Mayor Skadron also asked for more information on the 8040 and what is a heightened 8040. Ms. Nadolny stated it is when it gets to the 8040 elevation it becomes a heightened review. Mayor Skadron said on page 67 of memo in staff comments it is unclear what the comment of no evidence means. Ms. Nadolny said they have not found anything this was legally built. They have not found any building permits or PD amendments. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #24, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 24 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A REQUEST FOR 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR 1175 DOOLITTLE CIRCLE, KNOWN AS CASTLE RIDGE APARTMENTS AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 2015 – CC and C-1 Zone Districts Code Amendment Chris Bendon, community development, told the Council this ordinance would restore free market residential as a permitted use in the CC and C1 zone districts. Ordinance 25 of 2012 made it a non- conforming use. It has created obstacles to remodeling and financing. The policy direction was to restore the uses as conforming and allow individual units to combine but not allow for expansion. This ordinance represents that direction. There will be more on deck expansions at second reading. These changes apply zone wide. The options would include allow no deck expansions which would encourage no investment. We could allow for deck expansions or a minor level of expansions. There is a question regarding overhangs and at what point would it trigger FAR. Councilman Daily said he is looking forward to the deck expansion discussion and generally supports them. He thinks they do not represent floor area. Councilman Frisch said non-conforming is at the top of the priority list. He asked if other buildings have reached out to Staff regarding this. Mr. Bendon replied not that he is aware of. Councilman Frisch said he could not figure out if deck expansions encouraging investment is a good or bad thing. Mr. Bendon said increasing decks, particularly rooftop decks could enhance the value of these units and could put internal strain and conflict on the commercial spaces within these mixed use buildings. Councilman Frisch said he thinks we need a discussion on expansion and on improvement. You don’t need to be bigger to be better. Councilman Myrin stated he was supportive of this in C1 at the last meeting and not in CC because it is a smaller space and a transition zone. It is important to have this prior to a certain date regardless of the Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 6 zone. The pathway should be the same. He would like to see expanding addressed throughout town not just C1. If we want to change the path we change it for all zones. For next reading confirm the number of units in C1 and CC. Mayor Skadron asked if he would allow in C1 the privileges prior to ordinance 25 including the rooftop decks. Councilman Myrin replied only those build prior to the ordinance 25 date. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to explore what Councilman Myrin is talking about. He would like to try to get back to what they had before and use that as a basis and figure out if we want to curtail or enhance what they had. I don’t want to curtail their real estate transactions. Rooftop decks require a bigger discussion. I think we have to be careful dealing with 170 other units. Councilman Myrin said expansion is combining two units even if there is no technical expansion. He asked for the last couple of applications that tried to combine units so Council can see how difficult the path is. Mayor Skadron said there would be no physical increase in the footprint. Mr. Bendon replied correct. Mayor Skadron asked how is that monitored. Mr. Bendon said it requires a building permit and a land use approval. Mayor Skadron said the challenge he has with this is he does not want to get in the situation where we are challenging the situation where ordinance 25 needs to be overturned. What would prevent the owners in CC from asking for the same thing. Councilman Frisch said when it was put in to place if we knew then what we know now we might have figured out what to put in place. Just looking at the non-conforming clause I see no reason why we should increase the height or should see free market going into these buildings. Any time we are talking about expansion it should be a bigger conversation. There is a difference between improving wall paper or a new refrigerator and expansion. Councilman Myrin said it is a trust issue with the City. We need to resolve what happened. He is not ready to unwind what happened in the commercial core. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #25, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO 25 (SERIES OF 2015) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.710.140 – COMMERCIAL CORE (CC) ZONE DISTRICT, AND CHAPTER 26.710.150 – COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONE DISTRICT, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2015 – Obermeyer Place Rezoning Sara Nadolny stated Obermeyer Place was approved in 2003 and zoned Service Commercial Industrial with a PD overlay. There is a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses within the five building. There were a number of uses there prior to being developed as Obermeyer Place that were temporarily located off site and allowed to move back and are considered legally established non-conforming uses. The SCI zone is a unique zone district and has very specific uses by district. For the past couple of years Council has had a top ten goals to revitalize the SCI zone. Through outreach it became clear the zoning was favored by businesses in a few areas but not favored at Obermeyer. The applicant is requesting a rezone from SCI to NC. They are also requesting an amendment to the planned development overlay that Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 7 would permit the SCI type uses to continue to be allowed to locate within Obermeyer Place. Since the beginning owners have struggled to find business that fit within the list of allowed uses. Amendments have been made throughout the years. This went to P&Z on May 26 and they issued a recommendation of denial. They asked Council to reexamine the SCI zone district language to make an adjustment that would provide a fix for Obermeyer Places issues. Staff is still supportive of the application. There has been a history of changing the SCI language to fix what needed to be located there. The history of amending the zone works well for a while but not for Obermeyer place and is not sustainable. Staff feels the best way to resolve the problem at Obermeyer place is to rezone it. Second reading is scheduled for August 24. Councilman Myrin said he would like to know where the SCI business would go with the rezone. Ms. Nadolny said that is why Staff is recommending the PD amendment. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the non-conforming uses would still be allowed. Ms. Nadolny replied they are non-conforming to SCI but conforming to NC. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like further discussion on why SCI is not successful and the pros and cons of the NC zoning. Councilman Daily said the exclusionary uses are too narrow and not brought in the businesses we hoped for. There is some validity in that. What consideration has given to if the rezoning is authorized as to what other SCI zones in the City this philosophy would apply to. Ms. Nadolny said when Staff did their outreach there were some zones that were happy and felt it worked for them. Councilman Daily said there is good reason to give consideration to this property but wondered if there was questions or pressures from other areas. Councilman Frisch asked why shouldn’t we be looking at all the other SCI zones. There are some basic needs businesses of the community that we would hate to see go away in a high rent town. If affordable housing has a hard cap this is a soft cap in SCI and NC. If we allow the community to figure out the types of business to go in there Bert is right the rents will go up. We all agree the SCI zone is broken but the goal we are trying to reach we all believe in, how to hang on to the basic serving businesses. You also have empty businesses that the locals can’t go in to. How do we allow the local entrepreneur to flourish without high rent. He is torn about what to do. NC allows more uses but how much different is it than C1 in terms of uses. Ms. Nadolny said there is not a lot of difference in uses between C1 and NC. Councilwoman Mullins said we are lucky we have the SCI zone and should not be too quick to get rid of it. Mayor Skadron said he agrees with Councilman Myrin and has great reservations about up zoning. The original mission of Obermeyer was to keep space affordable for locally serving businesses. He would like the minutes from the 2006 Council discussion on Obermeyer. He believes SCI should continue to permit a narrow set of uses but we may need to change what the uses are. We want to create a place where small business can practice their trade. Jerome Simecek and Jim Corpland are representing Snowmass Hospitality. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #26, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 26 (SERIES OF 2015) Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 8 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A REQUEST FOR REZONING AND MINOR PD AMENDMENT FOR OBERMEYER PLACE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ALL LANDS BETWEEN EAST BLEEKER STREET AND RIO GRANDE PLACE, ALL LANDS BORDERING EAST BLEEKER STREET BETWEEN SPRING STREET AND RIO GRANDE PLACE, AND PORTIONS OF RIO GRANDE PARK, AND MORE PRECISELY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #72, SERIES OF 2015 – Land Use Code Reliance Policy Resolution Chris Bendon told the Council they are proposing to amend the land use code regarding vested rights. It is an administrative policy clarifying what land use code applies to what situation. There are three distinctions. A minor amendment that is inconsequential would stay in the code it applied or was approved under. A major amendment would be approved under a current code. They would like to provide clarity for multi-step process projects like conceptual and final applications. Staff would like these projects to stay within the code they started the project under. Staff reached out to P&Z and they are fully supportive of the change. Councilwoman Mullins asked if Staff is confident the definition of major and minor are clear enough. Mr. Bendon said he would like to say amending the code would clear that up but he does not think it is possible. Staff would have to make that decision. He suggests having language in the code that guides you to that decisions. The preference is to have some guidance in the code. There is an escape route for folks who don’t like the decision. Councilman Myrin said the P&Z minutes are really short. Mr. Bendon said it happened at a work session but Staff can provide some more information. Councilman Myrin said he likes the idea of providing clarity of when rights become vested for an applicant. He would lean to making it as soon as possible rather than favoring earlier vested rights for applicants. The code changes are made for good policy reasons and we want those to take place as soon as possible. He does not want to slide backwards with this code amendment. Mr. Bendon said staffs intent is that codes apply as quickly as they are legally allowed to. Councilman Frisch said he is good with the direction we are going. Councilman Daily agreed. Mayor Skadron asked if this tightens the code. Mr. Bendon replied it does not. It enables staff and the development community to understand the changes they can make without being under a new code. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Mitch Haas said unless you know this policy is written up you don’t know about it. This is a good idea. 2. Herb Klein said if the new code is more liberal could you get the option to elect to use the new code. Building in some flexibility would be helpful. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 9 Mayor Skadron said he wants to be confident should a more liberal code be in place it doesn’t result in more development rights or ensure the applicant is not entitled to something they would not have got. Mr. Bendon said the important thing is understanding what you are bound by. Staff would want to make sure the end result is something that would not have not been allowed by either code. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #72, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 2015 – Hutton Lot Split (725 Cemetery Lane) Councilman Frisch stated he has a past and current relationship with Mr. Hutton and recused himself. Hillary Semnick, community development, told the Council the applicant is seeking lot split approval. The property is located in the R 15 zone district. It is located on Cemetery Lane and is larger than what is typically there. There is a lot bordering the westerly parcel known as the Ironwood Condos. The parcel has not been previously subdivided and is eligible for a lot split. The Ironwood condos does not have frontage on a public right of way and access to the parcel is provided through an access easement. Engineering has requested the existing curb cut for the circular driveway be abandoned and will provide for one new curb cut. The owners of the Ironwood have concern with the shared use of the access easement. The existing single family home spans the lot line and creates a nonconformity. The ordinance contains a provision to allow for the life of the existing structure only. The Holden Marolt ditch runs along the east edge of the property and there is a condition that prior to the recordation of the plat the ditch will be shown on the plat. The impact fees will be assessed when the structure is demolished. Floor area calculations must be provided prior to demolition of the existing structure. These fees are then assessed on the new development and the existing development floor area credit is deducted from that figure and then assessed on the new floor area. The ordinance included a condition that splits these fees between the lots. Staff finds the application meets all the review criteria and recommends approval. Staff received a letter from Pat Mcallister, attorney representing 729 Cemetery Lane, objecting to engineering’s access easement request. Engineering will allow for one curb cut at lot two and asks for lot ones egress to be via the non-exclusive easement agreement. Mayor Skadron asked what is the total number of curb cuts if this would move forward. Ms. Semnick replied currently there is three and engineering wants to reduce it to two. Councilwoman Mullins asked if a single family or duplex could be built on 15,000 sq ft. Ms. Semnick replied correct. Councilman Daily said currently this is a non-exclusive access easement. Mr. True replied correct. Mayor Skadron said outside of the easement Ironwoods interests are not touched. Ms. Seminick replied correct. Councilman Myrin said on page 254 the access easement is deducted from the FAR. Ms. Semnick said it would be applied to lot one. That is why the gross lot area is larger than lot two. Each lot will receive 17,681 sq ft. there is approximately 4,000 sq ft deducted for the non-exclusive access easement from the net lot area from lot one. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 10 Brian McNellis, from BMC said they are in agreement with Staff’s findings. Staff has been great to work with. He reviewed the code criteria including lot split and general subdivision review standards. He said the request complies with the standards including no more than two lots are created by the lot split and guaranteed access to a public way. The proposed lot line will also approximate the plotting of the original Aspen town site. He also reviewed zoning conformance. The resulting lots will exceed the minimal dimensional requirements of the R15 zone district and no non-conformities will be created by the lot split. The dimensional requirements will also be met by creating two smaller parcels that better conform to the intent of the R15 zone district. The application complies with every aspect of the code and the zone. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Patrick Mcallister, representing Andrew and Debora Katz, said they don’t oppose the lot split or the density. Their concern is the impact on the property with the access and parking. It is fenced and vegetated with mature trees and it is unfair to disturb that. It will overburden the easement. He handed out the letter that was submitted to Mr. True and Ms. Seminick earlier. Exhibit 2 is the land use code that was in effect at the time and a duplex was not allowed. There is a question as to the residential design standards requiring the garage to be pushed back off of Cemetery Lane. His clients are concerned about the impacts of that. There is a fairness aspect to this. They would like to see a maximum of 20 feet use of the drive then a left had turn. Mr. McNellis said this is not a design review but an application requesting a lot split. We are complying with engineering’s request to use this easement. We get docked FAR by using this easement. We want to be a good neighbor. We encourage there to be a maintenance agreement with the Ironwood but are a little hesitant to go into what is dictated as to what can happen on this property. Steev Wilson said there is a non-exclusive easement that has been there. We would like to use the easement that already exists. We are not sure what the site development will be. 2. Herb Klein, represents the client that has the other Ironwood unit under contract. He shares Pat’s clients concerns. He would like Council to take up Mr. McNellis’ s offers for a maintenance agreement. Mayor Skadron said the neighbors should work this out without coming to Council. Is this a Council matter. Mr. True said engineering supports the opportunity to eliminate the curb cut. This is a private dispute. The neighbors have issues they could assert that could theoretically prevent the use of that non- exclusive access easement for access to lot one. It has been used in a particular manner for a lot of years and they could sustain that claim. What is important to the City to maintain is there are only two curb cuts to the properties. I have proposed a suggestion that will take the City out of the dispute by adding language to section four where it says engineering if objections by grantees of the easements recorded in book 572 page 384 prevent the use of that easement by lot one, then lots one and two shall enjoy only one additional curb cut serving both lots subject to the approval of the city engineer. It takes the City out of the private dispute and protects us if the private dispute goes too far and turns out lot one cannot enjoy the non-exclusive easement. Mr. McNellis has offered to share the maintenance. Since they have offered that I think it is appropriate to make it a condition. I want to protect the City in the event lot one is not allowed to use it. Councilman Myrin suggested to start where Mr. True is ending with one curb cut mid way between the two lots. Councilwoman Mullins said she is surprised and disappointed we are looking at this. This is not the thing Council should be looking at. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 11 Councilman Daily agrees with Councilwoman Mullins. The language of the easement is crystal clear. It was created for the benefit of both properties. The parties should be able to come to some understanding. One curb cut is a lot of use for four duplexes. He agrees with the current owners to minimize the impacts on Ironwood. They don’t need to use the entire length of the driveway. The shared cost agreement makes a lot of sense. Use by this property was intended by the grantor of this easement. Councilman Myrin said he is more aligned with one curb cut to be shared by both properties. He would not support more than two. Mr. Bendon said Staff’s position is no more than two curb cuts. Our suggestion is the properties work and resolve this and take the City out of it. Mr. True said Councilman Daily’s position is different. He is concerned with the one use by four units. I think you can add two conditions to section four including if lot one is relying on the non-exclusive easement there shall be a maintenance agreement as well as if they are unable to use the non-exclusive easement lots one and two shall have to share a curb cut. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 2015 with amendments; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2015 – Gibson Matchless Subdivision Chris Bendon stated 980 and 990 Gibson Avenue is located in the Smuggler neighborhood. Both have historic landmark status. It is a duplex property on one single parcel connected by a garage. Through quiet title the owners acquired two additional parcels including the northerly parcel of Silver King Drive and the southerly parcel of Silver King Drive. The original proposal would combine the parcels and split to create two parcels with a weird shape to create equal development rights. Staff said it did not meet the subdivision requirements and suggested it be denied. The applicant has revised the application to create a more simple set of lots to create a more straight lot line with the request to more equally allocate the lots. The current lot allows for two units with maximum floor area of 4,470 sq ft or 2,486 sq ft per home. The property is eligible for a 500 sq ft bonus from the HPC. The proposed subdivision is to retain the 2,486 sq ft cap. Each lot would be allowed 3,483 sq ft max with 1,007 sq ft for and ADU or TDRs and each eligible for a 500 sq ft bonus. The lots are large enough to contain a duplex or single family home. Staff is recommending in favor of the lot split application. Both structures are in need of historic preservation attention. There is already a house size cap of 2,486. Typically a bonus is granted with there is an extraordinary historic preservation effort. All told it is a plus 3,000 sq ft of floor area. Mitch Haas stated they are good with the staff recommendation. It cleans up the past issues. There are potential for floor area bonuses in the future. These buildings need some incentive to be able to return to full glory. It would be good to keep that incentive available. Each dwelling unit will be limited to 2,486 sq ft of floor area with 1,007 left for a voluntary ADU. Councilman Myrin said the Staff analysis says it is 2,000 sq ft more than what is allowed today. The 2,000 is by right but is the subdivision approval by right. Mr. Bendon replied if they comply with the criteria for the subdivision. Councilman Myrin said the Council conversation is between the 2,000 sq feet and the 3,000 sq ft that includes the additional bonus. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 12 Councilwoman Mullins asked about the comment the floor area bonus cannot be turned into a TDR. Mr. Haas said it is his understanding when HPC grants the bonus the plans have to use that floor area in those plans and on site. Mr. Bendon said he does not know if it is a codified change or just a practice of Staff and HPC. Councilman Daily said he would like to ask for the same commitment that the 500 sq ft bonus not be turned into a TDR. Councilman Frisch asked if the 2,000 sq ft is by right because the property was not fully maxed out when the structure went up. Mr. Bendon said the parcels acquired by quiet title don’t contribute development rights. The original parcels are already eligible for a lot split and would generate that much development in total. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the client wants to make a 1,007 sq ft ADU but could they make a larger home. Mr. Bendon replied no. Councilman Frisch said he wants to make sure the bonus is for exceptional. When does the bonus decision get made. Mr. Bendon said it is not here. Councilman Frisch said we can take away the bonus opportunity. If we grant it HPC will only grant it if it is exceptional. Councilwoman Mullins said it would be a mistake to take it away here. Mayor Skadron asked if the motion fails what direction do you take. Mr. Haas said they haven’t planned out B or C. He thinks this is reasonable and makes sense. Mayor Skadron asked if the neighbors are aware of this. Mr. Haas said they did the normal public outreach. The density will not change. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Chris Greenwood, racquet club condos, said she is concerned with the density. The separate ADU increases the density. She is concerned with the traffic. Gibson is a dangerous road. Where the driveways are now is better than putting them on Matchless. She is concerned with the potential of the house being put on the northern side of the lot as it will have a greater impact on the views. 2. Alan Becker said this is a more reasonable plan than the previous one and a more favorable way to go. These are quite large lots. To preserve neighborhood character and peace he would prefer access on Gibson than Matchless. The City and HPC needs to look at the bonus. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said he is supportive where Staff started with the application meets the criteria for approval. He opposes the HPC bonus. He is comfortable with the ordinance eliminating the 1,000 sq ft for the bonus. Councilman Frisch responded he is ok with the possibility of the HPC bonus. Councilman Myrin said to eliminate the HPC bonus. Mr. Bendon said the floor area for each lot is 3,493. It leaves with 1,007 to figure out what to do with. It could be an ADU or TDRs. There are also potential HPC bonuses. Councilman Frisch asked if one possibility is to scrape and start from scratch. Mr. Haas replied no, there is a historic building on each site. Mr. Bendon said the advantage of the subdivision is the way the Silver King Drive was vacated through quiet title created two individual lots. Those lots were formerly platted as right of way have their own exclusive lot with zero floor area. There is some advantage in merging all the land to clear up all this nonsense of the right of way. Mr. True said the ordinance contains language for a waiver of possible litigation. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 13 Councilman Daily said this may be as good as a workable solution as we are going to get. He asked if moving the access off of Gibson to matchless makes any sense. Mr. Bendon replied that is counter to engineering’s recommendation. Councilman Daily said he understands Councilman Myrin’s concern over square footage but it is the current zoning and he does not have a strong objection to it and is comfortable with Staff’s recommendation as proposed. Mayor Skadron said the proposal is a home up to 2,486 sq ft plus an ADU or TDR of 1,007 an up to 500 sq ft of HPC bonus per parcel. Councilman Myrin said he would like the HPC bonus removed. It would more than likely end up off site as a TDR. Councilman Frisch said the applicant is willing to put in writing that the HPC bonus would not be used as TDRs. That’s not to say it could be used for the ADU then that square footage would go to the TDR market. Councilwoman Mullins said what Staff has proposed is solving one of the problems we see frequently. FAR is quite a bit less than other lots. Considering the neighborhood it is appropriate. She does not think you should put a condition that you can’t turn something into a TDR or take away the HPC bonus. It is up to HPC if they get the bonus. She would support the proposal as presented. Councilman Frisch said he agrees with Councilwoman Mullins. Mayor Skadron has concerns about the way the ADU component is being used in the equation. Allowing the HPC bonus creates an overly generous equation. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #21, Series of 2015 per Staff recommendation; seconded by Councilman Daily. Amended by Councilman Myrin to Section 1 C to remove HPC bonus adding language “except that neither lot shall be eligible to receive an HPC floor area bonus” Councilman Frisch said he wants to leave the ordinance as written. Councilman Myrin said he is ok with withdrawing the amendment. Mr. Bendon said there was discussion of limiting the floor area bonus from HPC to only for on site development and asked if there is any continued interest in that. Council replied yes. Mr. Bendon suggested adding to Section 1 paragraph C “any grant of an HPC floor area bonus shall only be for on site development not for transfer as a TDR”. Councilman Myrin asked if it is still fungible. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Councilman Myrin said it is meaningless unless it is addressed. Mayor Skadron said he would support the HPC bonus if the ADU was deed restricted into the APCHA program. Mr. Haas said he can’t commit to that. The motion on the table supports the Staff recommendation with the amendment to add the Vanmeter Family Living Trust in the first whereas clause as the applicant. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, no; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion passes 3 to 2. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 14 Call up of HPC approval – 223 E Hallam Street Amy Simon, community development, told the Council in May HPC granted conceptual approval. This is a very typical and very successful project. Council approved the subdivision. The applicant is asking to demolish and put it back to the original structure. In the 40s to 50s there was an addition built on to the front of house. HPC approved removing and restoring the original porch and the original character. The applicant is proposing to lift the house and move it forward on the site. One of their main concerns is they don’t want hand rails. They are undertaking restoration work with windows and paint. They were awarded the 500 sq ft bonus and set back variances. They are not meeting the combined total. HPC gave a five foot rear yard variance. The applicant worked hard with Staff from the original proposal. The historic resource is the highlight of the site. Staff supports the proposal. HPC supported it 4 to 3. Two members thought it should be located more to the east away from the Berko studio. It is not fair to ask the applicant to react to another approval/applicant. Councilwoman Mullins said the house is one of the largest in Aspen and the addition is quite large. It is ten foot instead of 15 for the combined side yard set back. It lost five feet of side yard set back. The current building goes over the set back as well. Ms. Simon said that is measured at the worse part. Councilwoman Mullins said it is five feet instead of 10 feet at the alley. It should be reconsidered. The 500 foot bonus should be reserved for extraordinary efforts. It is being moved horizontally and forward. We don’t know what should be punished because we don’t have a photograph. We have foundations. HPC relies on us being able to get out there and look at the building and do our best. Councilman Frisch asked what the three votes of concern included. Ms. Simon replied not having an exact photo of the front porch and the other two were the relocation away from the Berko studio. Mayor Skadron asked how many square feet is the historic structure. Scott Writer replied 1,850. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a vast improvement over the first iterations. The addition completely overwhelms the Victorian and changes the story. It would be a more successful project if it went back to HPC. She supports it going back to HPC with set back variances, bonus and making the best project possible. Councilman Daily said he is comfortable with the design and we should not be talking about moving it just because Berko moved closer. He does not see anything that suggest he should be substituting his judgement for HPC’s or Staffs. Councilman Frisch appreciates where Councilwoman Mullins is coming from but is not compelled there is enough there to change anyone’s vote. He is leaning with Councilman Daily to accepting the decision. Councilwoman Mullins said there is way to munch square footage in the addition. She would like HPC to review it again. The addition takes away from the importance of the historic resource. Mayor Skadron said there is not consensus to remand it back to HPC. Councilman Frisch moved to accept HPC Resolution #16; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor except Councilwoman Mullins. 3 to 1 vote, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 15 RESOLUTION #71, SERIES OF 2015 – Setting Public Hearing for Annexation of 705 West Hopkins Councilman Daily recused himself. Jim True, city attorney, said there are three property owners; Starford Investments LLC, Shadow Mountain Corporation and Westchester Investments, Inc who own three parcels that will be referred to as 705 West Hopkins Avenue. These parcels contain approximately 6.609 acers. The petition for annexation was properly filled with the Clerk and starts a process for consideration of the possibility of annexation. Resolution #71 sets a hearing for whether the project meets certain criteria. Is there an allegation in the petition if it is desirable and necessary for annexation. The petition also has to have an allegation that the requirements of 31.12.104 and 31.12.105 have been met. Staff has reviewed this and determined that the requirements have been met. Staff is recommending Resolution #71 be adopted. The other part of Resolution #71 is to set a public hearing to determine if 31.12.104 and 31.12.105 have actually been met. That itself does not conclude the annexation. That is done by ordinance. The ordinance requires a first reading and a public hearing for a second reading. He recommends the public hearing be set for August 24. Councilman Myrin asked if this should be continued. Mr. True said this is totally administrative and starts the process. Councilman Frisch said there is the annexation discussion that is being done for a specific reason. How are we supposed to manage that. Mr. Bendon said these first two resolutions are administrative in nature. We can also take in a land use application and go through the full process. The decision to annex and approve the land use can happen simultaneously. They get tied together at the end. There will be a full discussion of the project and that will get flushed out before the decision to annex. Mr. True said this does not commit the Council to an annexation of the property. That must be done by ordinance. Tom Todd, attorney for applicant said he sees this as an opportunity for the city and the land owner. Patrick Freeman said it is our intention through the land use application to provide full disclosure. Mr. True said Bar X, maroon creek club, highlands all went through county approvals through annexation. This is distinct that it will not have county approvals that we are accepting. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the property is in the county. Mr. True replied they would have an opportunity under the county code to seek certain development approvals. They have chosen to ask for annexation and apply under our land use process. Mr. Bendon said it is highly preferable to start the negotiation with the city. Councilman Frisch said he thinks Council and the community are looking forward to hear what the plan is. Councilman Myrin asked if there is an opportunity to meet with the county before we take their land away. Mr. True said the county has had discussions about this. We can be in communication with the County. It does not annex all the property the applicant owns and there may be some issues regarding the subdivision that need to be flushed out. Mr. Bendon replied we can reach out to county com dev and ask them to comment. Councilman Myrin said he would like a heads up to the BOCC as well for the meeting on the 24th. We should be cooperating with the county. When would a referendum be possible. Mr. True said the zoning is clearly subject to referendum but he is not sure about the annexation. Councilman Myrin asked about the approval. Mr. True said it depends on the zoning. Councilman Frisch asked if a vote can happen at an annexation. Mr. True said there can be elections for annexations if they were proposed by the owners or part of the owners of the properties. Councilman Myrin asked if there is an opportunity for Council to refer a decision to a public vote. Mr. True said the Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 2015 16 annexation could be an advisory vote. The zoning could be a final determination. Councilman Myrin passed out the aspen times article. He does not want the community to think we make decisions on reputations of applications but on the criteria of the code. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #71, Series of 2015 setting the public hearing for August 24, 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Freeman wants to be clear they will not be submitting a project review on August 24. Councilwoman Mullins moved to continue the meeting to July 14, 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk