HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20150928Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS ...................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
AGENDA ADDITION ................................................................................................................................. 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3
NOTICE OF CALL UP – 447 E. Cooper St ................................................................................................. 3
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4
ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2015- Burlingame Seasonal Bonds .......................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2015 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bonds ................................... 5
ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 2015 – Elevator, Trash and Delivery Access Code Amendment ............. 6
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2015 – Water Shortages Code Amendment ............................................. 6
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 – Amending Land Use Code Section 26.470.100A – Calculations;
Employee Housing and Mitigation, to adopt a revised affordable housing mitigation fee-in lieu rate
schedule ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
ORDINANCE #32 & 33, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, & 3- Growth
Management Allotments ............................................................................................................................... 8
ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2015 – Timeshare Code Amendment ....................................................... 9
RESOLUTION #85, Series of 2015 - Determination Concerning Eligibility for Annexation of 705 W
Hopkins Ave. .............................................................................................................................................. 10
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Residential Mitigation Code Amendment .................................. 12
ACTION ITEMS ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Call-Up of P&Z Decision: 308 S. Hunter St .............................................................................................. 13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Myrin,
Frisch and Mullins present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS & PETITIONS
1. LJ Erspamer said he lives on Spruce Street and he has been working hard on preserving parking.
When Fox Crossing was approved, Helen promised parking would not be lost. 7 to 12 spaces
were taken away on a side street. There are two building permits going on at his street to remove
4 out of 7 spaces. There are plans to remove 4 parking spaces. Up to last Friday city staff said
they need to get an amendment to the permit. Jim True said there is nothing they can do since the
permit is in process. They don’t have an alley and they can’t build a garage. He is here to ask for
help. 15 to 17 locals live there. Jim has said there is a process from the engineering report that
says we want to connect the streets. There has to be some exceptions from this report and a way
to help us out.
2. Peter Greeney, 531 E Cooper, spoke about the valet parking agreement. It has been a positive
experience with talking to Mitch in the parking department. He has some questions including are
customers currently satisfied, does it make sense to customers and operators, how does the valet
system fit in with the congestion goals. Reducing valet price would encourage more to valet and
no longer disincentives the operator from parking cars in the garage. Can the operator be open on
a more consistent basis so customers can anticipate when it will be available. Is there a better
location maybe in front of Wheeler. Most people think the current location is for Caribou
members only. Is it possible to operate during the day at peak times near the Gondola. If valet is
something the city views at easing congestion look at ways to improve it. A mediocre valet
doesn’t seem constructive.
3. Mike Maple, 1250 Mountain View, said last winter the city proposed to put an electrical transfer
facility on the corner of Wagner Park (13x50 feet). Council acted quickly to snuff the project.
There is another inappropriate use of open space. The Chatfield trail used to be an awesome trail
but has become a dumping ground for excess dirt. A 70 foot by 13 foot tall retaining wall
structure to house a pressure reducing valve has been proposed. This will further demolish the
eastern views from Chatfield trail and is not appropriate. He would like to ask the city to
reconsider the idea and find another solution that does not impact the views.
Resolution 107, Willoughby Park and Lift 1. He has inquired about the lift many times. In May
the plan was to do something to stabilize the lift. It looks worse than ever and appears nothing
has been done. The city owns it and the stewardship has been horrible. Sara Adams, community
development, stated we have an engineer we are working with. The price came in pretty high but
it is not forgotten.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilwoman Mullins said she is on the committee that reviews the HHS grants and that is why she was
not at the last Council meeting.
Spill the beans was very good. It could turn out to be a great thing for Council and Staff.
We need more bike racks especially at the more popular trails.
The community picnic was great.
Congrats to electric for reaching 100 percent renewable.
Councilman Myrin said he read the minutes from the last meeting and everyone seemed to agree and the
meeting flew by.
Councilman Frisch gave a hats off to Rugger Fest and Aspen Film Festival. There are people in town and
it is not really crazy.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
3
He had discussion with LJ but we can figure out a better way when parking is removed in a residential
neighborhood to communicate better.
Mayor Skadron said the leaves are gorgeous right now. Be careful on the pass right now.
Aspen is being challenged by Park City for the Ski Town Show Down. The Competition starts October
1st and lasts one month to see what city can install the most smart thermometers and LED bulbs
throughout the community. Join the Aspen energy challenge and get a free smart thermometer at
aspenenergychallenge.com.
AGENDA ADDITION
Under Public Hearing – Ordinance #35, Series of 2015 will be opened and continued to October 12, 2015.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilman Frisch said Frontiers is continuing to work on capital reserves.
Councilwoman Mullins said the Red Brick continues to improve and looks great. October is all Aspen
work called sense of place.
Ruedi Water and Power Authority will hold a watershed summit on October 22nd and talk about the best
way to implement some of the recommendations in the reports that will hopefully be approved tonight.
Mayor Skadron attended the CML mayor’s summit in Denver last Thursday. The debate was how to land
a Walmart. He said he was not interested in that conversation. There was also a statewide water
discussion on the statewide water plan and a transportation discussion.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – 447 E. Cooper St
Sara Adams, community development, told the Council HPC considered conceptual commercial design
review, conceptual major development review, demolition review, and view plane review. HPC had a
very thoughtful conversation and applied the review criteria and voted 4 to 0 to approve replacement of
the existing two story building with a new two story commercial building. The property is within two
view planes; Wagner Park and Wheeler. HPC found there was minimal impact with the new building
considering existing developments and granted an exemption. If Council calls the project up there is
space at the end of October for the call up.
Mayor Skadron stated he is desirous of a call up. He stated he takes view plane violations seriously and it
is a discussion we need to have. It is an important community value that we need to uphold.
Councilman Myrin said he supports where the Mayor is going. He would like more information on the
view plane language specifically on a building being in front of versus behind and the likely development
of an adjacent structure. He also suggested it might be helpful to invite HPC to the October meeting and
have a view plane conversation.
Jim True, city attorney, said he would not suggest a discussion at that time over this issue. He would
suggest that at a work session on all view plane issues not this particular one.
Councilman Daily said he is comfortable with the call up. The packet has several different renderings
with one showing the exterior with brick and some showing a white building. Ms. Adams said the white
is a ghost image and does not show the proposed material.
Councilman Frisch said he is fairly comfortable understanding parking, FAR and affordable housing but
view plane is a little trickier. What would be helpful prior to talking about the application would be
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
4
understating what the view planes are and why they are there. He is still missing what the impact is. It
would be good to have a check in with HPC on view planes.
Councilwoman Mullins said there are three areas of concern with the view plane including what other
buildings are encroaching on it and what are historic. She also has concerns about the design and the
design guidelines. She has a concern that it is a significant project in downtown and only four out of nine
HPC members were at the meeting. She would be more comfortable with a majority of the commission
there.
Councilman Frisch moved to call up 447 E Cooper; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor,
motion carried.
Chris Bendon, community development, said this will be noticed for October 26th.
Councilman Myrin stated he would be supportive of hearing from the community at the call up.
Councilman Myrin suggested collecting emails of individuals who would like notice of upcoming
meetings for this project. Mr. Bendon suggested that would not be a good idea since someone might not
be present to be included on the special list or staff may not be able to read someone’s writing. He said
the meeting will be noticed like every other meeting for October 26th.
Councilman Frisch said if someone wanted to comment on this project they could at the next meeting
during the citizens comment portion of the meeting. Mr. True replied correct.
Mayor Skadron said the appropriate thing to do is to follow the established process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council pulled Resolution 100, 105, 81 and 79.
Councilwoman Mullins asked Mark Fuller, director of RUEDI Power Authority, to comment on
Resolutions 81 and 79. Mr. Fuller said the watershed summit is for the express purpose of taking up both
the Roaring Fork and Regional Water Efficiency plans, both of which are complete and adopted by all the
participants. The summit is in late October and will bring together water managers from the valley to
look at the recommendations of the plans and to assign responsibility for implementation of at least some
of the recommendations.
Resolution 100 – Valet parking contract
Councilman Frisch asked what rate the city charges to the valet service. Mitch Osur, parking, said it is
three dollars for every car parked in the garage. Councilman Frisch asked do we need to continue to honor
eight spots and was the location chosen because of restaurant row. Mr. Osur said it was chosen because it
is near restaurant row and a place that was ok for eight spots. Councilman Frisch asked if there has been
discussion as to if there should be more than eight spots. Randy Ready, manager’s office, said the
program started with four or five and there is a condition of no double parking. This is year 14 and it has
expanded to eight spaces. It is an appropriate number for a typical night. Councilman Frisch asked how
many cars are managing during the summer on average. Mr. Osur said December is the busiest month
averaging 40 to 46 cars per night. He said he talked to Peter quite a bit this morning. We have the right
to move the valet or change the number of spaces. The contract is written in our favor
Councilwoman Mullins suggested looking at extending the hours and better signage. There are people
who don’t realize this is something anyone can use. She asked about the charge. Mr. Osur replied
handicap is free everyone else is 25 dollars.
Councilman Frisch said he is fine with it as is.
Resolution 105 ESRI contract
Councilwoman Mullins said she is surprised to see this under the consent. She would like to see this in
action it is a really powerful tool. Bridgette Kelly, GIS department, said it is a renewal of the contract.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
5
Councilwoman Mullins said Council should hear more information. Trish Aragon, engineering, said
they could have a work session. Ms. Kelly said it is for desktop and web software license.
Resolution #106 contract change order for snowmelt
Mayor Skadron asked if this is an insurance policy should snowmelt be installed in the future. Tim
Thomas, asset, said they are adding the infrastructure which gives them the ability to add it later on.
Mayor Skadron asked why we have not committed to it and why are we in the future. Jack Wheeler,
asset, said the area has never been snow melted and if we don’t see an increase in traffic it is probably not
necessary. Parks has been maintaining the area and up till now it has not been worth the investment. We
are prepared to do it at any time if the traffic increases like we think it will. Part will be serviced off the
Pitkin County boilers in the jail building.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2015- Burlingame Seasonal Bonds
Don Taylor, finance director, told the Council, the purpose of the ordinance is to ratify action taking by
the Burlingame Seasonal Housing INC board of directors earlier today authorized a refunding of
outstanding bonds that were used to construct the Burlingame seasonal project. The bond issue has a call
date of November 1, 2015 that allows us to call the outstanding bonds and pay them off. In order to do
that we need to issue new bonds. Under current market conditions, we should save around 571,000
dollars. The average interest rate goes from 4.77 percent to 3.08 percent. This refunding and the next one
were not set up as emergency ordinances. They are regular two reading ordinances.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #39, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 39
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING THE ORGANIZATION OF A NONPROFIT CORPORATION
KNOWN AS BURLINGAME HOUSING, INC.; APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY SUCH
CORPORATION OF ITS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE REVENUE REFUNDING
BONDS, SERIES 2015; RATIFYING THE BURLINGAME HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
AND OPERATING AGREEMENT AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT THERETO, SUBJECT TO
THE FINANCE DIRECTOR’S PRIOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL THEREOF; DELEGATING THE
AUTHORITY TO THE CITY’S FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS;
RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN AND APPERTAINING THERETO.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #39, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 2015 – Parks, Recreation and Open Space Bonds
Ordinance 40 are bonds issued by the City. These relate to revenue bonds issued for parks, recreation and
open space. They were refunded in 2005 and the call date is in November 2015. We are able to call in
and issue new bonds and will save around 270,000 dollars.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #40, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 40
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, OF
ITS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SALES TAX REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2015, FOR
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
6
THE PURPOSE OF CURRENTLY REFUNDING THE CITY’S SALES TAX REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2005; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF THE SERIES 2015 BONDS;
PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SERIES 2015 BONDS FOR THE SAME REVENUES
PLEDGED TO THE PAYMENT OF THE SERIES 2005 BONDS TO BE REFUNDED (CONSISTING
OF THE CITY’S ORIGINAL 1.0% OPEN SPACE SALES TAX AND ITS ADDITIONAL 0.5% OPEN
SPACE SALES TAX); PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS AND APPROVING OTHER DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERIES 2015 BONDS; DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE
A FINAL DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN TERMS OF THE SERIES 2015 BONDS; AND
DIRECTING OFFICERS OF THE CITY TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH SUCH REFUNDING BONDS.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #40, 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 #38, SERIES OF 2015 – Elevator, Trash and Delivery Access Code Amendment
Jessica Garrow, community development, said this code amendment is related to building access. Staff is
proposing new requirements to ensure access to all commercial tenant spaces in all building levels
through an elevator. Other private elevators would continue to be allowed but there would need to be
common elevator access. It would require commercial tenants have access to a delivery and trash area
though an ADA compliant exterior path that is not an alley way. Staff is proposing these requirements
apply to all new construction and remodels to the greatest extent possible. P&Z supported the
amendment. Second reading is scheduled for October 12.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 38
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING LAND USE CODE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO BUILDING ELEVATOR AND TRASH/DELIVERY ACCESS IN
THE CITY OF ASPEN.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch,
yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2015 – Water Shortages Code Amendment
Lee Ledesma, water department, said this will amend the water shortage ordinance which was originally
created in the 80s. The percent reductions have not been changed since 1990. In the last 20 years typical
water use per day per ecu has gone from 330 gallons to 153. By leaving the percent reductions as is it
does not take in to account the 50 percent reduction by water customers. The water shortage ordinance no
longer makes sense with what the average customer uses. We also need to differentiate between water
sources.
Phil Overeynder, water department, said it is a three stage program. 10, 15 and 20 percent reductions for
treated water for stage one are recommended. The new ordinance promotes a hierarchy of uses during a
water shortage.
Councilman Frisch asked if you see something coming you are trying to prepare us for. Mr. Overeynder
said it is geared for a 20 year circumstance and the future water supply. We are not anticipating anything
in the immediate future.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
7
Councilman Myrin said he would like to know more at second reading on reclaimed water.
Ms. Ledesma stated this was one of our first action items from the efficiency plans.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if the landscape plan has a requirement for a rain sensor. Ms. Ledesma
said they added having the City lead the way for rain sensors. They gave free rain sensors to anyone who
signed up for an irrigation audit this past year.
Mayor Skadron said we are recognizing that we use less water today than in the 90s when the ordinance
was written.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #30, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 30
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND
CHAPTERS 25.20.020, WASTING OF WATER, AND 25.28, WATER SHORTAGES, OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Daily. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 2015 – Amending Land Use Code Section 26.470.100A –
Calculations; Employee Housing and Mitigation, to adopt a revised affordable housing mitigation fee-in
lieu rate schedule
Mike Kosdrosky, housing, said this ordinance will adopt new fee in lieu methodology. At the July 21
work session Council accepted the methodology and agreed to a 25 percent density reduction to the fee in
lieu number to establish the category one through four number.
Councilman Frisch would like to explore the density reduction more at second reading. There was
discussion of a fraction that did not have to go to Council. Mr. Bendon said the residential mitigation
changes will also come back for second reading on October 12. Councilman Frisch said the market
affordability gap and his heartburn is not that it produces a high and expensive mitigation number but he
thinks the methodology is unfair. What is proposed now is much more fair and equitable.
Councilwoman Mullins would like more elaboration on how we put together what is being proposed.
What is the 25 percent density reduction.
Councilman Myrin said in terms of being able to build and FTE unit with the new rates, what does it cost
to build an FTE space. He also said to let the housing board know they can come for public comment and
to keep them in the loop.
Councilman Daily asked what is the basic effect I will be facing compared to today’s cost in real world
examples. Mr. Bendon said in total it is down 40 percent with this and the residential mitigation. Mr.
Kosdrosky replied the total average increase across all categories is 7 percent. Mr. Bendon said they will
detail the math for second reading.
Mayor Skadron said a theme they keep hearing is the cash in lieu paid should equate to a unit. Will it?
Mr. Kosdrosky replied it should cover the subsidy.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
8
Councilman Myrin asked if we took what we are considering and applied it just before and after the last
peek would it have been able to have housed an employee. Mr. Kosdrosky replied he can see.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #37, Series of 2015; Seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 37
(SERIES OF 2015)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE
CODE SECTION 26.470.100.A – CALCULATIONS; EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND MITIGATION,
TO ADOPT A REVISED AFFORDAGLE HOUSING MITIGATION FEE -IN-LIEU RATE
SCHEDULE
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 2015 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #32 & 33, SERIES OF 2015 – Ranger Station Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, & 3- Growth
Management Allotments
Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council, this is a five lot subdivision created by a plat
that was recorded by the forest service in 2013. It is part of a larger parcel known as the forest service
property. The City did not object to the subdivision or the creation of the lots but we did put the forest
service on notice that the lots would require a development allotment each to meet city standards. Two
out of the five lots (4 and 5) have already requested and were granted allotments by Council review and
were determined that the slopes were manmade in April of 2015. This application is similar to that one.
This request is for one development allotment per each lot, pay for cash in lieu or affordable housing
credits and lot three is requesting a determination that the slopes are manmade as a result of the SI
Johnson ditch. In regard to Growth management, they are required to build a single family residence and
to permit affordable housing by credits or cash payment in lieu. The lots are just over six thousand square
feet each and only permit a single family home to be developed. The requirement is if each lot is
developed to the maximum, the applicants would look to mitigate to 2.43 FTEs at a category four or pay
cash in lieu of 350,000 dollars. Cash in lieu is permitted by a Council review.
The second request is to determine the steep slopes on lot three is from the SI Johnson ditch. The
historical image shows the area looks relatively flat and Staff feels determining the slopes are manmade is
reasonable.
Curtis Sanders, representing the applicant, said the approval of the development allotment is consistent
with what was done with lots four and five. The request is for Council to approve the mitigation with
cash in lieu or certificates. On site mitigation is not practical. The third request is to determine that the
slopes for lot three are manmade. The approvals would be consistent with what was done on lots four and
five.
Councilman Daily said these requests are entirely consistent with what was granted with lots four and five
and he would have a difficult time distinguishing between the two situations.
Councilman Myrin asked if Exhibit A removes the option of mitigation with offsite units. Are we
removing the offsite opportunity to provide affordable housing down the road. Ms. Phelan replied she
does not think so. Any offsite unit would have to go through a growth management review. It does
permit cash in lieu.
Councilman Frisch said Councilman Daily said it well. We should be consistent.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
9
Mayor Skadron asked why is it necessary these lots need to be consistent with four and five. Mr. Sanders
replied it is a more appropriate question back to Council. Similarly situated properties with the same
constraints ought to be given the same rights by Council. There was some curiosity to see how things
went with four and five. Ms. Phelan said there are a lot of unique approvals within the city and treating a
subdivision similar is helpful. Mr. True said there are unique circumstances within these properties one
being consistence and the inability to find distinctions between the applications.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carries.
ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 2015 – Timeshare Code Amendment
Ms. Garrow told the Council last December Council approved a policy resolution to process amendments
related to lodging. This resolution directed staff to address small lodges then general updates including
timeshares. This amendment does not make timesharing any easier or harder it just clarifies the process.
It focuses on physical and operational characteristics. Timeshare is a form of ownership not a land use.
Timeshare continues to be a viable lodging process in Aspen. An example of a recent project is the Sky
Hotel. 11 of the 104 lodge units are timeshare units. It replaced a free market component that might have
lay dormant for part of year. The six proposed changes are:
1. Updates terminology and adds timeshare lodge development and timeshare residential
development.
2. Updates locations where timeshares can occur including all zones where lodging can occur.
3. Updates estates (number of ownership interests a timeshare can be divided into).
4. Clarifies occupancy limits. Limit to 30 consecutive days and 90 days per calendar year.
5. Updates process so timeshare development is treated the same as any other development.
6. Updates review criteria. Removes portions that conflict with the land use code and state statutes.
Staff has talked to other mountain communities and the trend is to simplify the process. Staff is
recommending we simplify the regulations not eliminate them.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is a good clean up.
Councilman Daily said he agree.
Councilman Myrin asked if the Sky had this in place it would not have had to come through as a PD. Ms.
Garrow said original request had height and floor area variations that would have triggered the planned
development review. They amended the application to remove those variations so at the end of the day it
was just the timeshare ownership that was reviewed for planned development so with this proposed
change it would not have been reviewed. It would still have been subject to commercial design review.
Councilman Myrin asked if this was in place there would be no notice to neighbors. Ms. Garrow said
there would absolutely be notice. The Sky is a complex case. It required conditional use review, growth
management review as well as commercial design review. All of those happen at a public hearing with
the Planning & Zoning Commission. Neighbors would have received notice in the paper, mailing and
posting just like any other public hearing. The difference is there would not have been the planned
development or subdivision reviews. Councilman Myrin asked if the review would have come to
Council. Ms. Garrow said it would have come to Council through the commercial design review call up.
Councilman Myrin asked if this removes the opportunity for the neighbors to do a referendum on the
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
10
process when it comes before Council. Ms. Garrow said it depends on the specific project where it is
located and the approvals as to whether it has to come to Council as a planned development. Councilman
Myrin said his only caution is if it increases development rights. Ms. Garrow said there is absolutely no
impact on development rights. Councilman Myrin asked if there is an advantage for an entire lodge to
come in as a timeshare then running it as a lodge. Ms. Garrow said not necessarily.
Councilman Myrin asked if one person owned a lodge and they owned all the shares it would operate the
same. Ms. Garrow said they would be bound by the occupancy limitations of 30 consecutive days and 90
per calendar year.
Councilman Myrin said his confidence level on enforcing occupancy is low. It is difficult to design a
highway without speedbumps and do enforcement. It seems like we are trying to tighten it.
Councilman Frisch stated the good thing is the occupancy rates are higher than traditional lodging and
condominium ownership. This is a good clean up.
Mayor Skadron said we are simplifying and making the current code consistent with current law.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Mr. True said our efforts in the past have not been discriminatory.
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll
call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes.
Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #85, Series of 2015 - Determination Concerning Eligibility for Annexation of 705 W
Hopkins Ave.
Councilman Daily recused himself.
Mr. True said this is the second step in the annexation process. These steps will ultimately lead Council
to a discretionary decision of whether to annex the proposed property. This step and the previous step are
designed to consider and determine the statutory and Constitutional requirements. The first step
determines the sufficiency of the petition and Council passed a resolution determining that. This step
determines if the property is eligible for annexation. This criteria is pursuant to CRS 31.12.104 and
requires a determination that not less than one sixth of the perimeter of the area to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality and that the community of interest exists between the area
proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality. Establishment of one sixth contiguity itself
establishes that community of interest unless there is a factor that disqualifies the property from
consideration of the community of interest.
Mr. True asked the City Clerk, City Engineer and Community Development Director several questions
relating to one sixth contiguity and community of interest.
Mr. True stated this is a public hearing and the public is invited to address these issues. The issues are
factual in nature. They include if there is one sixth contiguity then there is considered to be established a
community of interest unless one of the issues addressed here disqualifies it. If Council passes Resolution
85 further steps are outlined in the resolution that will continue what will ultimately lead to consideration
of an ordinance that will consider annexation. This is just a preliminary step.
Mayor Skadron said we are asking the question is it adjacent to the city. Is one sixth of the property
boundary next to the city. Because that has been affirmed that suggests it does affect us. It is in our
interest to consider annexation.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
11
Councilwoman Mullins asked if we have to consider this just because we are asked. Mr. True replied
statutorily, at this time you have to consider the facts. The community of interest is having one sixth
contiguity. Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the 2015 annexation plan. Mr. Bendon said the State
defines it each year. We are to map boundaries within a three mile buffer. Councilwoman Mullins asked
if everything we have done so far has been a requirement of the state. Mr. True said the applicant has the
right to ask for annexation. Under no circumstances does it mean the City is annexing the property.
Councilman Myrin asked if the County can subdivide the parcel before it is annexed. Mr. True said he
suppose they could. He does not know if the applicant has considered that possibility. Councilman Myrin
said the applicant has the right to ask for a portion of it. Do we have a right to deny it. Mr. True said at
this step not necessarily. At some point you can make a determination of whether you want to annex.
Councilman Myrin said regarding the question of whether it is urban. Is that discretionary. Mr. True said
it gets back to the one sixth contiguity and community of interest. Since it is one sixth contiguous to a
municipality, urban cannot be used as a disqualifier.
Councilman Myrin said since the City is not legally required to annex the property is it possible to add
criteria that it can’t go back to County once it comes in to City. Mr. True said there are conditions that
can be placed on the annexation and will need to be negotiated at a later time.
Councilman Frisch said the light at the end of the tunnel is there is more flexibility to make a decision and
say no. He is supporting this at this stage. He hopes there is a chance for some public comment outlet.
At what point do we get to the public comment of everything people want to talk about. Mr. True said
there will be ample public comment in the future where this will be approved by ordinance.
Patrick Freeman, president of Cisneros real estate, said they understand there are a number of steps that
have to happen. They want to make sure they qualify for annexation while they are working on the land
use application.
Mr. True said the completion of the land use application is in step with the discussions regarding an
annexation agreement with the City. They are parallel steps that need to go forward. This is still a ways
away.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Ward Hauenstein said he does not want to see higher than a 40 room hotel on that parcel. He
would like to get a commitment from Council that it goes to a public vote to pass for annexation.
He would like Council to find the parcel as nonurban to get out of this.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is an uncomfortable process. By state statue we are pushed to consider
something that she is not sure is a good idea with a conclusion we are not sure about. She feels somewhat
high jacked by this process. We need to make sure it is eligible before we can say we don’t want it. Mr.
True replied the statute is designed to consider the technical aspects then the merits. The technical
aspects have been met then it goes to the next step which is the merits of the plan itself.
Councilman Frisch said he appreciates you feel we are boxed in but I don’t think we are. We are not
limiting ourselves to any choices. Urban is an unfortunate term that is put in to place by the State. He
wants to get over this hurdle. He does not think we are losing anything on the community’s behalf. Then
we have the ability to ask any questions we want.
Councilman Myrin said under section B, area is urban, it is clear to him that it is not. He can’t find that it
is urban.
Councilman Frisch said it meets all the check boxes.
Mark Hamilton, Holland and Hart, said the statute for annexation has been around for a long time. It is
generally looked at in terms of municipal utility. The one sixth contiguity is deemed in itself to meet the
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
12
requirement unless one of the exceptions is met that Mr. True went through based on case law. Mr. True
said it is his understanding meeting the contiguity is enough to meet the community of interest.
Mayor Skadron said he cannot find at this time that the technical aspects are unmet and at this time in the
process he will support this.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #85, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Myrin, no; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Mr. True said the next steps involve discussion with the applicants regarding an annexation agreement
and the applicant needs to submit a land use application.
ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 2015 – Residential Mitigation Code Amendment
Councilman Frisch moved to continue to October 12, 2015; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
ACTION ITEMS
Call-up of HPC Decision: 411 E Hyman Avenue
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council there are three possible actions including
acceptance of the HPC approval, remanding the decision to HPC with direction for rehearing or
continuation for additional information.
The existing property is a 1,400 square foot lot with a two story building. There is commercial on the
first floor and a free market residential unit on the second. It is located in the commercial core historic
district but not a designated building. A fraction of the building is located within the Wheeler Opera
House view plane. HPC approvals include demolition and construction of a new one story commercial
building. Land use reviews include a demolition, conceptual design, view plane and growth management.
HPC accepted the cash in lieu option for the public amenity. For the view plane review, HPC has the
ability to exempt a proposal from the view plane regulation if it is determined existing development is
already blocking the view plane and is not anticipated for future development. Mr. Barker said the new
building will be almost the same height as the existing building which covers the front two thirds of the
property. The new building will cover the entire footprint of the lot. Staff recommended exemption from
the view plane review and HPC agreed and approved the exemption. For growth management review,
HPC determined onsite would not be a viable solution and accepted affordable housing credits as
mitigation. Staff is supportive of their recommendation. HPC approved the project six to zero.
Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, said the view plane is an exercise in old surveying that effects a
small corner in the very back behind the New York Pizza building. We could 100 percent comply with
the view plane at a 28 foot building instead of the 21 foot building we proposed. We proposed something
well below the height limit. The odds of every building between us and the Wheeler going away and
building to eight feet is very slim. HPC was 100 percent correct to grant this view plane exemption.
For multifamily replacement there is one existing unit upstairs with the only way in or out is through the
alley. The HPC decision was placing a deed restriction back on the property was inappropriate. The
property is 14 feet wide. HPC agreed with the housing board to accept housing credits.
Councilman Myrin said 26.435.040.c1 talks about the proposed development is located in front of another
development that block a view plane. Is this building in front of or behind something that blocks a view
plane. Mr. Barker replied both in front and behind. Mr. Haas showed pictures of the adjacent structures
that impact the view plane including the Aspen Sports building and Red Onion. Councilman Myrin
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
13
questioned what adjacent is in terms of the view plane. Mr. Bendon said buildings that block the views
should be taken into consideration.
Councilwoman Mullins said she didn’t agree with the reasoning that the building to the west already
encroached the view plan so this building could also. The building to the west was not historically
designated and could be taken down. She didn’t see any discussion in the minutes about the view plane
encroachment. Now we are seeing the Red Onion which is historically designated, is blocking the view
plane. The practical side is there is no way the view plane is ever going to be open again through that
slice.
Councilman Frisch said let’s say the Red Onion never goes away. When the building to the west is taken
away there is more value in the open space.
Councilman Myrin said the result is you protect the view looking through town. Mr. Bendon said that
might be a little bit of a stretch. The standards ask the commission to apply practical reasons if the view
plane should be opened up. The second thing is if the incursion a big deal or a little deal.
Councilwoman Mullins suggested they send it back to HPC to reevaluate.
Mayor Skadron said it is 21 feet proposed versus 28 feet allowed. Mr. Haas said the height limit is 28
absent the view plane. The building proposed is 21 minus the view plane.
Councilman Myrin said he would support Councilwoman Mullins in sending back to HPC.
Councilman Frisch said he would rather take what is proposed now. He is disappointed to learn view
planes are all or nothing. There is value in the community to protect as much as possible. He would
rather have the building 22 feet than 28.
Mayor Skadron said he is going to side with HPC and uphold the view plane.
Councilwoman Mullins said it is frustrating and nothing should be approved that encroaches on the view
plane. Originally, when she asked for the call up she was not aware that the Red Onion was there and this
would not have been called up. We need an in depth discussion on why we have these view planes.
There are real inconsistencies. She will vote with Councilman Frisch and the Mayor on this but we need
to clean up the ordinance.
Mayor Skadron said this was a healthy debate.
Councilman Frisch moved to uphold the HPC approval; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor except Councilman Myrin.
Call-Up of P&Z Decision: 308 S. Hunter St
Sara Nadolny, community development, stated this is call up for final commercial design review of a split
level building. The applicant has proposed a recladding of the building to replace the wood siding with a
grey ceramic tile with a steel C channel trim. On August 4th P&Z approved with a seven to zero vote.
The property is located in the commercial character area and outside but adjacent to the historic district.
Staff finds it is related to other buildings in the district and compliments the color pallet and materials in
the area. It also promotes creative and contemporary design. The ceramic material closely relates to
traditional masonry. There is also variation in materials including wood, ceramic and masonry. The
materials are high quality and durable. They maintain the human scale. Council can accept P&Z’s
decision, remand back or continue for more information. Staff recommend upholding the resolution.
Kim Raymond, representing the applicant, said the current siding is T1-11 wood siding. This updates it
and is more contemporary.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 28, 2015
14
Councilman Frisch said it is a building that needs love and this is a good step.
Councilman Myrin said the siding isn’t a concern as much as the lighting. He is ok with the siding.
Councilwoman Mullins said the color of the Aspen Core is appropriate but there is no texture. She is not
seeing that here. It is an attractive material but it does not blend well or enhance the materials of the
down town. The steel channel is a cold treatment of the building. She is not convinced on the durability
or weathering. Aspen has a tradition of really exceptional architecture and we should continue that. Ms.
Raymond said the concrete block is staying but will be painted. The tile will be used to frame the glass.
The ramp and walkway is also getting cleaned up.
Councilwoman Mullins said we need to reach a level of architecture in town. It helps to see the materials
and hear you talk through it. She would be ok with it especially when it is the tenant doing it not the
owner.
Mayor Skadron said they will vote to uphold the P&Z decision.
Councilman Frisch moved to uphold the P&Z decision; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk