Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19881219Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 1 PROCLAMATION - Red Ribbon Day • 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 1988 - Affordable Housing/Displace- . 3 ment ORDINANCE #52, SERIES OF 1988 - Planning Office Fees 10 ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1988 - Block 19 Annexation 10 ORDINANCE #55, SERIES OF 1988 - Lone Pine Annexation 10 10 GORDON/CALLAHAN CONCEPTUAL PUD 15 REPORT ON 1010 UTE AVENUE 17 PRO CHARTER AMENDMENT 18 201 WEST COOPER REFERRAL RESOLUTION #49, SERIES OF 1988 - Sheehan Condemnation 20 USE OF WAGNER PARK FOR WINTERSKOL 22 23 R_egular Meeting Aspen City Council _ December 19, 1988 Stirlin called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m• with Mayo r g Councilmembers Tuite, Gassman and Isaac present. PROCLAMATION - Red Ribbon Day Mayor Stirling and the Council proclaimed December 23 through December 30, 1988, as Aspen's Red Ribbon week and Fridaysaid eASAP 23, 1988, as Aspen's Red Ribbo ns aon car sorin tAspeng to remind volunteers will tie red ribbo Larry Dragon, citizens that drinking and drivi oc am tionm and for all their ASAP, thanked Council for their p support during the year. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Hans Gramiger said it has come to attention ociation nand through the guidance of the Pitkin County Parks Ass the Nordic Council have put pressure to condemn a piece of land through his property for a trail easement. Mayor Stirling said this could be discussed in context with Resolution #49 later on the agenda. Gramiger said he feels Council has been mislead in a course of deception to the public. Gramiger said the city is diminimizing the cost of a trail to the public. m reel saidsthe the cost of this trail would be astronomical. Gra q city has an opportunity on Hopkins street to g°co demnation sidewalk and have a trail. Gramiger said the only the city has ever done was because the city and landowner were locked on values. Gramiger said he is beingoss ble dto uuse oa condemnation for an elitist trail when it is p sidewalk trail. Gramiger said he may be agreeable to give or sell some land on Hopkins street to make the trail wider. Gramiger said the appraisals that were taken were lost leader. Gramiger said he will continue the pressure tod it pis onece sary line. Gramiger said once the city has declare to go through his property, the city has fulfilled the legal requirement to start condemnation. Gramiger said the question is why the city has locked themselves in this situation. Gramiger said this trail is a transportation link and does not have to go up and down through the woods. Gramiger said the city can use the sidewalk. Mayor Stirling said he would be interested in discussing the trail issue during the Sheehan condemnation. 2. Richard Roth told Council after the October 11th election, he came to Council concerning the conduct of that election. At that time, Councilwoman Fallin recommended the complaint be taken to the election commission. Roth told Councilsa.id to date complaint with the election commission. Roth nothing has been done because there is not a full election commission. City Clerk Kathryn Koch told Council she advertised six weeks and received no applications. Ms. Koch said the 1 Reaular_Meetin Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 election commission is Leonard Oates, herself and a vacancy. Fred Gannett, city attorney' s office, told .C nu commission to nothing in the Charter that enables the electio hear complaints about the misconduct of an election. Gannett told Council the Colorado Municipal Code identifies the mechanism by which a person can get relief from therelisrwithinuthe Gannett said a review of policy f o r the f utu purview of the election commission. Roth said he wants a review of how the October 11th election was conducted and how these issues can be avoided in the future and that Roth bsaidsthisl~s is secret as guaranteed by the constitution. an important issue and should be dealt with. Roth said he was referred by Council to the election commission. Roth said he is not looking f or criminal penalties but just a review of proce- dures. Mayor Stirling suggested Council make recommendations for the election commission and give them to Kathryn Koch. 3. Phoebe Ryerson reminded Council January 3, 1989, between 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. at the Community Center there will be an organizational meeting for University Without Walls. 4. Phoebe Ryerson told Council there is a man who said he can build employee housing at cost. Ms. Ryerson said she hopes Council will follow this up. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Isaac said Council allocated $1500 out of the contingency fund for him to update the handicap access guide. Councilman Isaac said he would like the ability to spend the money in January. The study is 95 percent done but needs to be typeset and printed. Mayor Stirling moved to allow the $1500 allocated June 18, 1988, to be used in 1989 and the proper allocations to be done by the manager; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Councilman Gassman said the city is being asked to spend $1500 to join a resort community consortium. Councilman Gassman said he cannot figure out what this group is going to do, and it seems premature to be spending the money. Councilman Gassman proposed the city wait a few years to see what will happen. City Manager Bob Anderson told Council he is not sure what will happen with the group. Anderson pointed out the challenge to starting any group with common interests is to get sufficient people to join. Councilman Gassman said he does not feel Aspen has had a problem by themselves. Councilman Isaac said Aspen having a relationship with the sister cities in Europe has been beneficial as these cities are facing the same challenges. Mayor Stirling 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council __ _ December 19. 1988 said he shares Gassman's concerns. Aspen is already a member of CAST and sister cities. Mayor Stirling said he would support not joining this organization. Mayor Stirling moved not to participate in this initial $1500 annual fee with ICMA; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Councilman Tuite said there are a lot of groups one could belong to. Adding more groups is adding that much more time f or staff to be away. All in favor, motion carried. 3. Mayor Stirling said the unused contingency fund is $15,935. This will get carried over to 1989 unless Council acts on this. Mayor Stirling said he would like this clarified with the budget director. 4. Mayor Stirling said at the end of the last Council meeting, Tom Dunlop, environmental health department director, was trying to make a report to Council. Council requested a written report on this item. City Clerk Kathryn Koch requested Council add to the consent calendar a special event permit for Aspen Filmfest, January 8, 1989, at the Isis Theater. Councilman Tuite moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Isaac. The consent calendar is (a) Liquor License Renewal - Toro's; Special Event Permit - Filmfest. All in favor, motion carried. City Manager Bob Anderson reminded Council in January, he will not longer be the city/county manager. Council has not settled on what his salary will revert to. Anderson said in August he did not get a salary increase. Council suggested this be on the January 9, 1989 agenda. ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 1988 - Affordable Housing/Displacement Mayor Stirling said there will be a continued public hearing on this ordinance on January 4 at 5 p.m. Councilman Gassman said he is designing a house in the city, which involves the demolition of an existing unit. Councilman Gassman said as this ordinance is currently written, it will not affect the project. Councilman Gassman said there is a possibility the ordinance may be revised. Councilman Gassman said although technically he does not have a conflict, he does not feel right about discussing something that has the appearance of a conflict. Councilman Gassman left the room due to conflict of interest. 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 Alan Richman, planning director, told Council the P & Z has requested to speak to Council about this ordinance. Richman suggested giving some time at the January 4th public hearing. Richman told Council P & Z held 5 public hearings on these regulations and would like an opportunity to tell Council why they feel strongly and why they came up with this recommendation. Richman said there was an ad in the newspapers by the Board of Realtors which stated creative minds should come up with good solutions to the problem. Richman told Council he has suggested the Board of Realtors meet with staff and try and come up with some positive solutions. Richman will meet with the realtors later this week. Richman prepared charts showing the current FAR and proposed FAR. Last December, Council adopted an R-6 sliding scale. The chart shows the old sliding scale adopted in 1982. The ordinance proposes the sliding scale be the same for the R-6, RMF, Office, LTR and C-l. There is no chan e commercial or lod e g Proposed for multi-family, g just detached residential and duplex. Richman said there were a lot of concerns raised at first readin of this ordinance on the effects of density. Richman said it does not seem likely to staff that all units in town will be demolished in the near future. A doubling of density seems extreme. There will be an increase in density if this ordinance is approved but only when demolition occurs or when someone chooses to use double density in a multi-family development. Richman said if it is true there is a high vacancy rate in the neighborhoods during the year, the increased density would make up for the fact that people are not in town a lot. Richman said a question was raised about the appropriateness of the housing authority having final approval on the accessory dwelling units and that neighbors would not have a chance to comment. Richman suggested after the approval is given by the housing authority, this would be published and mailed to people within 300 feet of the property. If there is any objection, a hearing before P & Z will be scheduled. Richman said another option is more strict criteria for the review of accessory dwelling units. Richman reminded Council this ordinance does not have economic incentives in it. Council will need to direct staff to prepare a separate ordinance if they want water tap and building permit fees waived. Richman presented table 2, a summary of the ke issues broken into basic elements. Richman said this table can be used to get a consensus on sections of the ordinance, or to determine which elements should not be implemented. Mayor Stirling said for remodels with no increased FAR, the would not be required to add an accessory unit. Richman said 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 correct except when there is a demolition of a unit. Mayor Stirling said one could still accomplish the maximum FAR and have an accessory unit if it were below grade or in some other section of the existing structure. Richman said one could ut an accessory dwelling unit sub-grade with light wells and get 100 percent free market FAR. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, representing some homeowners in Aspen Grove, said one must look at all impacts of an ordinance before it is adopted. Kaufman said the amount of employee housin by employee housing in Aspen Grove is minimal, but the gnegative impacts on the neighborhood are great. Kaufman said As en Grove has been annexed to the city for less than one year. This ordinance disregards the two commitments they received from the city as a condition of annexation. Kaufman said the residents voluntarily took a lower FAR wanting to keep the neighborhood in scale and context. This ordinance intends to reduce FAR by 25 percent, even though the FAR in Aspen Grove is 1,000 square feet less than comparable neighborhoods. Kaufman said the residents in Aspen Grove wanted to make certain their neighborhood did not become a duplex neighborhood because of the windy roads and difficulty with existing density. Kaufman said these were commitments given to Aspen Grove by the city. Kaufman said both of these are being taken away by this proposed ordinance. Kaufman said an increase in density and reduction of FAR in the neighborhood is a breach of faith with the residents. Kaufman said employee housing i s a problem f or the community and the solution must be broad based. Everyone needs to participate in the solution. Buzz Dopkin said the city is making this a builders' problem when it is a problem f or the entire community. Dopkin said inte rat- ing high cost housing with employee housing will not work. Dopkin said it would entail much greater expense to do em plo e housing right next to high cost housing because it would have to go along with the architecture. Dopkin said the city should strive to create some land on which to put employee housin . Sally Roach said for years people in residential areas wanted to build small units for caretakers, employees. There was an attitude that this was not desirable because of the densit problems. Ms. Roach said the city should make up their mind on which way they want to go. Ms. Roach favors dispersing em to ees throughout the community; however, the city should anal ze ythe solutions carefully before they adopt regulations. Ms Y Roach said she is appalled at the idea of the government lacin someone as a homeowner on her property. p g 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 Hans Gramiger said the solution should be in balance of commer- cial development with worker house. Gramiger said the Council has reacted with an attitude of being compelled to do something. Gramiger said the city should search what went wrong. Gramiger said one cause is not abiding by established national standards of employee requirements for new construction and applying the requirements of commercial square footage instead of what it actually creates. Gramiger said under the GMP competition many commercial projects have been approved with a low number of employee housing units. Gramiger said the cash-in-lieu program has not worked. Gramiger said the city should have put the moratorium on any development that creates jobs. Gramiger said the residential neighborhoods should not be penalized for a mistake that was made by government. Gramiger said the city needs to re-evaluate the housing requirement that is generated through employees in the commercial and lodges zones. Gramiger pointed out the City Plaza building was approved at an FAR of 2:1 and had to provide 4 studios employee housing units. The building has a total of 70 employees, which leaves a shortage of 62 employee housing units. Gramiger suggested there are many downtown buildings which could add a third floor and create employee housing. Richard Roth said the intent of the ordinance is to prohibit affordable housing from being demolished and replaced by million dollar homes and to keep the community from being a second home community. Roth said no one should be exempt from providing for their employees. This is a community problem and everyone should carry their weight. Don Erdman told Council last weekend ballots were mailed out to the property owners in the west end about this ordinance. Erdman said the results will be in by the continued public hearing. Erdman said there should be a means of encouraging development of employee units on site other than restriction of sale to Pitkin County residents. Erdman said the problem seems to be the preponderance of non-resident owners in Aspen. Erdman said there is an incentive to provide some form of housing for a caretaker, who are usually employed elsewhere in the city. Don Rogers reminded Council he was granted an exemption in the moratorium and requested an exemption from Ordinance #47. Rogers told Council they have stream margin review approval and have a demolition permit. Rogers said they do not have a building permit because they have not had time to complete the process. Rogers said the effect of this exemption would be positive. There are people living in the unit now. If this were not exempt, they would have to demolish the unit and displace these people. Richman told Council the P & Z resolution is the way that building permit applications must be reviewed. Richman said the P & Z resolution contains a section that exempts any develop- 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 ment that Council exempts. Richman said Rogers is presently exempt. Richman told Council if a building permit is not obtained prior to Council enacting Ordinance #47, then the ordinance would apply. John Kelly, representing Rogers, told Council there is a buyer for the property, but he cannot process his building permit because he does not know what will happen. Kelly said this is a difficult situation of having to protect oneself and demolish, and then rebuild under a new ordinance. Kelly said Council chose to exempt people, and there are not that many of them. Council should continue to exempt them. Richman said in the R-6 morator- ium, Council granted a number of exemptions without limits on them. Richman said some people assumed the exemption ran with the land rather than with a building permit. Kelly said they are not asking for the exemption to run with the land but for a reasonable period of time to get plans. Kelly suggested a year exemption. Mayor Stirling suggested staff presenting a recommen- dation on this at the January 4th meeting. Richman said the moratorium ends February 8th. Council has 6 months from the date of P & Z's adoption of the resolution to either accept or reject it. If Council formally rejects the resolution, the city will be back to the rules that were in place. Jack Press told Council his project faces the same problem. Press said he is also trying to get a permit, but needs to know what rules will apply. Marty Schlumberger said he is in the same situation of having to displace people and not having a direction to design in. Mayor Stirling said the city can give that direction at the January 4th meeting. Frank Peters said a positive factor of this ordinance is to allow accessory dwelling units in all zone districts as an option. Peters said there are parts of the ordinance that do not go far enough, like increasing allowable density for 100 percent employee housing developments in downtown zone districts. Peters said density requirements for developments that are 50 percent employee housing are half of what they are for free market units. Peters said this goes back to the RBO. Peters said this should be taken a step further. Peters said another positive aspect of the ordinance is extending dormitory use to other zone districts. Richard Compton congratulated Council for facing the loss of housing problem head on. Compton said the problem has been caused by developers looking for loopholes in the code and exploiting them. Compton asked if this ordinance will allow the increase of free market units that generate employees without providing housing. Dick Butera questioned why the city is asking single family homeowners to bear the burden of employee housing when they had nothing to do with the cause of the problem. 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 Butera said the people who resisted development are people wh o live in these single family homes and have not contributed to the problem. Butera said the moratoriums should be put on the business owner s who cause the problems. Butera said the city should be focusing on the gain of new employee housing, rather than the loss of employee housing. Butera asked how this may slow down annexation with people questioning this ordinance. Butera said the ordinance may discourage upgrading of sub- standard housing. Butera said the city should focus on the cause of employee housing problems and the solutions. The cause of employee housing problems is growth in business. Butera said the solution of the employee housing problem is in the hands of the employers, who need the city's cooperation in zoning lands for employee housing. John Kelly said the focus of Council ought to creation of housing. Kelly said this ordinance is a shotgun effect on residential owners. Jon Busch thanked Council for tackling a problem. Busch said the residential people did not create the problem of employee shortages. Everyone has to take part in this solution. Richard Neiley, representing the Mountain Valley homeowners, told Council they are discussing annexation with the city. Neiley said there is a tremendous disaffection with what is proposed in this ordinance, which has cooled interest in being annexed. Neiley said the ordinance creates a disproportionate burden in the RMF district and is not necessarily related to this neighborhoods. Neiley said there is no direct relationship in any zone district between what i s being lost and what may be created. Neiley said he feels this ordinance is not economic. Neiley said the requirement to replace 50 percent of the units on site is impossible to accommodate given the reality of construc- tion in Aspen. Neiley said the proportion of employee units which is required has to be a proportion that makes sense economically. Neiley questioned whether this ordinance achieves the preservation purpose. Neiley urged Council to consider the economics of the proposal so there is a scheme for people that works who want to develop employee housing. Gene Hyder said he feels this ordinance takes away his rights as a duplex owner. Hyder said if he chooses not to be a landlord, this ordinance suggests he has to stay in that business. Marty Schlumberger said he does not feel a 300 square foot subterranean unit is not the answer for quality housing. Schlumberger said any developer will put the employee unit in the least desirable location. Dale Potvin said he does not see this ordinance as being part of a comprehensive plan. Potvin said this seems to be a reaction to things that have happened in the east end of town. Potvin said this ordinance will be an enforcement nightmare, will lower the value of people' s property, and puts the burden of supplying employee housing on people who have held out and not 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 played the development game. Potvin said the city needs to come up with more incentives. Potvin said the burden needs to be borne by the whole community and not just a few. Potvin sug- gested a tax to raise revenues to pay for employee housing throughout the whole community. Gramiger suggested Council delete the cash-in-lieu program before there are any more commercial projects. Richman pointed out this ordinance provides the city to review a proposal for cash-in-lieu and say the time is wrong for cash-in-lieu. Councilman Isaac said he would prefer taking single family and possibly duplex out of this ordinance. Councilman Isaac said the city needs to address employee housing more with incentives. Councilman Isaac said forcing this in single family development will result in large townhouse style development. Councilman Isaac said he would like to eliminate the 75 percent FAR and have a bonus overlay to encourage people to put in employee housing. Richman told Council the reason P & Z did not go f or the bonus FAR is they felt that doomed the RBO. Councilman Tuite said he does not feel the city is dealing head on with the housing problem. Councilman Tuite said he feels this ordinance may cause everyone to loose. Councilman Tuite said he does not feel 300 square foot accessory dwelling units are the answer. Councilman Tuite said if demolition is a problem and the neighborhoods are changing, the city should limit the number of demolition permits per year. Councilman Tuite said he likes bandit units becoming legal. Councilman Tuite said he would like to have neighborhood hearings. Councilman Tuite said the city has to rezone some properties for employee housing. Councilman Tuite said he would like to see a 1 percent transfer tax for 3 to 5 years for the building or generation of employee housing. Councilman Tuite said the more expensive commercial space is, the more local businesses are lost. Councilman Tuite said he does not support this ordinance. Mayor Stirling said he supports the thrust of this ordinance. Mayor Stirling said the city needs to look at the issue of newly annexed areas and commitments made to them. Mayor Stirling said he sees a reaction from the community of not wanting to have residential worker housing in anyone's backyard. Mayor Stirling said diversity is fundamental to Aspen. Mayor Stirling said the issue of who stays in these accessory units has to be worked through. Mayor Stirling moved to continue the public hearing of Ordinance #47, Series of 1988, to January 4, 1989; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988. Mayor Stirling said he does not feel developers have paid their way on housing. There has to be a mechanism to provide housing. ORDINANCE #52, SERIES OF 1988 - Planning Office Fees Mayor Stirling o pened the public hearing. There were no com- ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #52, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1988 - Block 19 Annexation Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no com- ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #54, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Roll call v ote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #55, SERIES OF 1988 - Lone Pine Annexation Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, requested this be tabled to allow staff to prepare an ordinance zoning the property at the request of the landowners. Gannett told Council the zoning ordinance will be before Council January 1989. Councilman Gassman asked if there is any undeveloped land in this annexa- tion. Gannett said there is. Councilman Isaac moved to continue the public hearing of Or- dinance #55, Series of 1988, to January 23 , 1989; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. GORDON/CALLAHAN CONCEPTUAL PUD Mayor Stirling said he has a conflict of interest and lef t the room. Cindy Houben, planning office, told Council this is a request for conceptual PUD review of the Gordon parcel. The Callahan parcel will be seen as an amendment to the Callahan PUD and a lot line adjustment. Ms. Houben presented an outline of the Gordon parcel, along the river, 1010 Ute sits across the river. Ms. Houben pointed out the Callahan lots run along Crystal Lake road. The proposal is to reconfigure lot 9 of Callahan to allow another river front parcel on the Gordon 10 Reaular Meetina____ -Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 parcel. The net increase of lots in the Gordon parcel is 1 lot. There are development rights associated with the Smuggler Mountain Mobile home park, which is why this is not going through GMP . Ms. Houben told Council the end result is 3 lots along the river. P & Z has recommended approval. Ms. Houben told Council the applicants have said they may return in the future to look at 2 more additional homesites on lot 2B. Ms. Houben said staff has concerns with siting future homesites and has worked closely with the applicant on this. Ms. Houben supported the alignment of the lots as they are presented. Ms. Houben said staff did not want to see homesites backed up against the river but away from the river to leave the integrity of the river front. Ms. Houben said the main concern with the siting is the potential for anothe r lot on the r fiver f ront . Thi s may generate too much massing along the river. Ms. Houben said this is a sensitive part of the entire parcel. Because this is a PUD process, it is the time to look at restriction of further development of areas that are sensitive. Ms. Houben said this area is sensitive because it is low lying; there is some discussion about a high water table in that area or leakage from the ditch above. Ms. Houben said the planning office would like to see no further development on the lower portion along the river. Ms. Houben told Council staff and the applicant are working on access issues. There have been concerns from neighbors about the 30 foot easement running along the river. Ms. Houben recommended dealing with the trail alignment at final PUD. Ms. Houben told Council there is an access easement between lots 8 and 7 of the Callahan subdivision. The applicant has requested to move the easement to between lots 8 and 9. Ms. Houben said the applicants have moved the building envelopes back on the property. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said the staff's condi- tions are acceptable except the request to sterilize the remain- der of the site against further development. Vann said the reason for this request is that the land is adjacent to the river and that this area should be preserved as open space for the enjoyment of adjacent property owners. Vann told Council any development of that area is subject to the receipt of a growt h management allocation and the city's review. Vann told Council P & Z did not concur with the recommendation to sterilize the land and voted 6 to 1 in favor of this application with no restriction against further development. Vann told Council the applicant agreed to limit this portion of the property to no more than 2 future lots and no more than 1 being adjacent to the river. Vann said the applicant agreed to adhere to the same design constraints as the current subdivision, to be held back 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council - December 19, 1988. from the bank of the river, not to regrade and to preserve the natural vegetation. Vann told Council P & Z felt the proposed site plan the condi- tions addressed their concerns and staff's concerns. The major concern was not to duplicate the 1010 Ute experience on this side of the river. Vann pointed out there would be a maximum of 4 lots as opposed to 7 lots on the other side. Vann said another concern was to not regrade the river bank, to preserve the natural appearance of the river, to hold the building back beyond the 100 year flood plain and beyond the mature vegetation. Vann said the concerns have been addressed in the applicant's site plan. The site plan shows the applicants have preserved the finger of land on the southern part of the site, created an open space corridor along the river, and that the existing vegetation will be retained. There are building envelopes determined with P & Z's input. Vann told Council P & Z felt it was unreasonable that the developer commit to no further development on the property. There would be a maximum of 5 lots on over 114,000 square feet, and the average lot size would be 23,000 square feet, which is more than 50 percent greater than the underlying zone require- ment. P & Z recognized that any further development approvals are discretionary and that no rights were granted as part of this application. P & Z felt it would be unfair to preclude an opportunity to attempt to obtain the underlying density. Vann told Council this area is lower than the area to the south but it is well above the 100 year flood plain. Vann said the reason this is wet is that the irrigation ditch that traverses the property is leaking. Vann said any subsequent application wold have to confirm thi s i s not a wetland area or does not have ground water problems. Vann said the applicants have been sensitive to concerns of P & Z and the adjacent neighborhood. They are proposing to relocate the entrance. The applicants will participate, to the extent they are able, in the restriction of the use of the easement which currently encumbers the property. This easement belongs to the owner of lot 1 , not to the ap- plicant. The plan preserves the primary features of the site and creates substantial open space around the buildings, creates an open space corridor along the river, and is less dense than any development in the neighborhood. Vann requested approval of the application without further restriction. Councilman Isaac opened the public hearing. Lennie Oates, representing Ted Enlow the owner of lot 1, told Council they are not opposing the application but regarding the 30 foot easement would be willing to discuss with the applicant 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 giving up their rights in that easement based upon reaching an understanding of minimizing the impacts on lot 1 related to the further subdivision of lot 2. Oates said they will keep the easement until the agreement is worked out. Vann told Council they have been discussing this with Oates and will try and cooperate in terms of trail locations to help remove the easement. Vann told Council the applicants do not want a road back there either, and it is in their best interests to cooperate. Andy Hecht, representing the applicant, said Enlow has an easement, which he has a right to pass through. Hecht said the applicants will agree to abandon it so that if Enlow is not allowed to use it, they will not create an obstacle. Councilman Isaac said this should be resolved before it comes back to Council. Councilman Isaac closed the public hearing. Councilman Gassman said Council should make a condition of approval that the easement be abandoned. Vann said the city attorney was concerned about placing a condition that the applicants might not be able to live up to because of their limited interest in the easement. Fred Gannett said any exaction has to have a close relationship to the overall development scheme. Gannett said the easement is being characterized as a driveway to one house. Gannett said the question is if Council can impose an impossibility as a condition of approval. Council- man Gassman said he would like to hear from the applicants that it is an impossibility and suggested strongly the easement be abandoned. Hecht pointed out the city required the easement between lots 7 and 8 in connection with the Gordon lot split. Hecht said they will try to abandon the easement. Oates said if the applicants cannot do this, they ought to explain to Council why. Councilman Gassman moved to simply condition 5 to say the applicants shall abandon the 30 foot wide easement along the eastern edge of the parcel. Councilman Gassman said this would put the burden on the ap- plicants to make the best effort they can. Gannett suggested the condition should be the applicants use their best efforts to seek abandonment of the easement or to explain the reasons for the failure to Council. Council can re-evaluate this at final stage. Councilman Tuite said the message is the city does not want a road in there. If the road does get in, Council will have a problem with final approval. Councilman Gassman moved that the applicant shall abandon the 13 Regular Meeting__ Aspen Citv Council December 19, 1988 easement unless he can't and if he can't, he will tell Council why; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Gassman asked why the lot would be subject to growth management if the applicant decides to resubdivide and not at this time. Vann said the original lot split gave lot 2 one right. There was an exemption from growth management. Council- man Gassman said he does not feel it is entirely fair to steril- ize the lot. Ms. Houben said the PUD provisions give the city the ability to look at a site and the values of a site. There are many code provisions that allow the city to say there is a valuable section of the site with regard to public perspective and the type of development the city wants to see along the river front. Ms. Houben said it makes sense not to maximize building along a river front. There are other alternatives in this proposal of making further setback restrictions. Vann said the applicants do not disagree the PUD regulations give the ability to say the city wants this areas f or a park. Vann said the concerns are not evidenced by the development of one more lot along the river. Vann said the applicant has pulled the houses back from the river, has maintained the vegetation, agreed not to regrade the property, created an open space corridor, and agreed to put a trail in. Vann said the applicant needs the ability to develop the property commensurate with what is allowed under zoning to make all the conditions work. Vann said the applicant cannot give up two building sites because it would be nice f or the adjacent property owners to look at. Councilman Tuite said staff is not asking for the abandonment of the two building lots, just to move the development away from the stream. Vann said this will adversely effect the Riverside subdivision. Vann said the applicant is trying to come up with the allowable density which has the least impact on people and has the most open space. Councilman Gassman said this is a PUD and in exchange for a plan for the entire piece of property and the lots along the river, the applicant is giving something up. Councilman Gassman moved to accept Ms. Houben's recommendation to revise condition #7 to read that no further development shall be allowed along the river front; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Hecht said the planning office feels the river front is very important and the development should be pulled back. Hecht said this may not be the priority when Council sees the siting. Councilman Gassman said the Council is not seeing the whole development. Councilman Isaac said he is concerned that the development of this PUD has been split into 2 projects. Council- man Isaa c said normally applicants have to go through GMP for some of the houses and would have to make some compensation f or employee housing. Councilman Isaac said by splitting up the 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988, project, the applicant is avoiding addressing the impacts. Vann said this was done for timing. There is a moratorium in place, and the applicant wants to develop the rights they already have. Vann said there is a development right associated with the 3 lots. Vann pointed out the lot is not wide enough to cluster lots like a big PUD. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Houben said her concern is to have not continuous massing along the riverfront. Stan Mathis, architect, showed Council the site drops off to the Riverside ditch and then drops again. Councilman Isaac said this is conceptual review. Vann said when they come back, the plan will have to be consistent with what Council recommended. Vann told Council the applicant acquired the property, there are development rights that have been there for some time. In order to build the rights, the property has to be subdivided. The applicant wanted to create lots to sell the rights he already had. Vann said the applicant wanted it designed so that he would have the right to come back under growth management. The planning office says the 3 lots are fine. The remaining development potential is subject to growth manage- ment, which ought to stand on its own merit. Vann said the planning office is putting conditions on that development now. Councilman Isaac submitted to the record a letter from Bob Murray, 1275 Riverside, sharing concerns about the access road and the fact the PUD is being split up into more than one application. Councilman Gassman moved to approve the conceptual PUD f or Gordon Subdivision with conditions 5 and 7 as amended; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Tuite left the Council meeting REPORT ON 1010 UTE AVENUE Georgeanne Hayes told Council the adjacent property owners have appeared before Council because they are concerned about this development. Ms. Hayes said the fence was finished on both sides in the Gant area, because they are managed by the same company. ris. Hayes said the fence was presented to P & Z as an attractive- ly jogged fence, planted on both sides. Ms. Hayes said the fence is not jogged and is finished only on the 1010 Ute side. Ms. Hayes said the grass that was dug up at construction has never been replaced. Ms. Hayes said there have been no mitigating efforts made to relieve the impact on their homes. Ms. Hayes said the neighbors are not satisfied that the issue of misrepresentation has been resolved. M.s. Hayes said the entry 15 ReQUlar Meetinct _Aspen Citv Council December 19, 1988 sketch did show buildings and should have represented the height and mass expected on the project. Ms. Hayes said the buildings were drawn at 1-1/2 stories rather than 2 stories. Ms. Hayes said these type of drawings lull people into getting a concept of a project, which is not the project that is ultimately developed. Ms. Hayes said developers should be responsible for what they present. Ms. Hayes said an important asset to future develo p- ments is to put height poles up for new buildings before ap- provals are given. Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council at the conclusion of the special meeting last week, he was asked to look at the approval process, representations made by the applicant, and to verify whether or not the applicant was or was not in compliance. Horn told Council he checked on lot 9 to see if it was developed within the established footprint, whether it complied with the height limit and the maximum floor area. Horn said the building department double checked the residence on lot 9 and f ound it does comply with the approval granted. Horn told Council there were previously problems with this residence and the applicant was asked to make some amendments to bring it into compliance before a building permit was issued. Horn said another issue was whether the development on the ridge was consistent with the representations made during the prelimi- nary review process. Horn told Council the renderings are consistent with the development that is occurring on the ridge. Horn reminded Council this was a land subdivision and the developer was not responsible for the construction of the buildings. Horn said it was clear during the review process that the developer was presenting concepts of what the building may look like and was not bound by these concepts. Horn told Council he looked at the trail adjacent to lot 9 between 1010 Ute and Calderwood. Horn said the rendering of the trail was done to illustrate the alignment of the trail and not to demonstrate the size of the building. Horn said the drawing to the entrance of the subdivision was included in the conceptual review. Buildings were placed in the drawing and do not look like the buildings that are being built. Horn said he feels this was an illustrative drawing at the time. Horn concluded that the application is substantially in compliance with the general representations made in the application and the specific repre- sentations made in the PUD agreement and plat. Horn said there is a lot that staff, P & Z and Council can learn from what happened at this subdivision. Horn said it would be worthwhile for staff to look at what went wrong in the review and approval process. Horn said it would be worthwhile f or staff and Council to make a site visit to 1010 Ute to compare the application on paper and what actually comes out on the site. 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December_19, 1988 Tom Larkin told Council the developer is not showing good judgement. Councilman Isaac said he would like to see the fence cleaned up. Mayor Stirling said he previously raised the issue of why so many lots were allowed along the river. Mayor Stirling said there were no complaints from neighbors during the process; however, th e developer might have neutralized the neighbors by the representations. Mayor Stirling said if the city ever allows another land subdivision, Council should require actual house designs. Mary Martin suggested Council look again at reducing the FAR. Mayor Stirling pointed out the developer could have developed more units under the PUD. The city also received the contribution of a park on the north side of Ute avenue. PRO CHARTER AMENDMENT Mary Martin, representing People's Rights Organization, requested Council place two Charter amendments on a special election or on the May ballot. Ms. Martin told Council PRO is an alliance of Pitkin county residents working to create a positive system f or political action in the community. Ms. Martin said it is clear to PRO that they must continue to consolidate further and to reduce and streamline not only the functions of government but the cost. Ms. Martin said the first amendment is to limit Council members to 2 four-year terms. The second amendment is for 5 Council members who elect a chairman f or one year on a rotating basis, to function the same as the county commissioners, eliminating the position of Niayor. Ms. Martin told Council PRO gathered over 260 signatures to request a special election of these amendments; however, due to the Ritz Carlton special election, they dropped their request. Ms. Martin told Council the Commissioners put a question concern- ing the two term limit on the November ballot. It passed by an overwhelming majority. Ms. Martin said she would like Council to do the same. Ms. Martin said regarding the question of the Council chairman- ship rather than a Mayor, PRO would like the city attorney to review if this wins at a special election or the May election, the individual running for Mayor would automatically become a Council member and the first chairman of the newly elected Council. Ms. Martin said they would like these amendments effective May 1989. Ms. Martin said they would like a decision by the next Council meeting, which would give them time to do Charter amendment petitions for an election. Mayor Stirling said he does not support either of these amend- ments and would not vote to put them on the ballot. Mayor Stirling said he does not feel the voters should be limited by 17 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council December 19, 1988 not having the ability to elect someone for more than two terms. Mayor Stirling said the power resides in the electorate. Mayor Stirling said the Mayor is a community leader and is someone who is focused on by the people to be the person in charge. Mayor Stirling said an elected rlayor gives the community a focal point. Mayor Stirling said the Mayor is only elected for a two-year term. Mayor Stirling said the system has a built-in protection with a weak Mayor, strong city manager form of government. Wayne Ethridge told Council he supported the two year term limit in the county. Ethridge say he feels there is a different role for Council members and Mayors than for the Commissioners. Ethridge agreed with the Mayor's position and encouraged Council not to support these amendments. Ms. Martin said PRO feels 2 terms is ample and they would like to see fresh people and new ideas come forward. Ms. Martin said she feels the city govern- ment should be more like the county government. Ms. Martin said she would like to have all 5 Council members vote on this. Mayor Stirling said the Mayor is only one vote. Councilman Gassman said he does not favor putting these amend- ments on the ballot without a petition. These are proposals to amend the Charter. Councilman Gassman said he does not see a problem. Councilman Gassman said he had not heard any discus- sions about Council members being around too long. Richard Roth said he feels a two-year term for the Mayor makes the position more democratic and the Mayor has to stand f or election every two years. Councilman Isaac moved to have the city attorney report back at the January 9 meeting to let Council know if it would be possible to have this amendment on the May election and to take effect; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said if this were on the May ballot, people would be running for the office of Mayor. If this were on the May ballot, the amendment should take effect at the next regular election in 1991. All in favor, motion carried. 201 WEST COOPER REFERRAL Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council this is located ,behind the Ice Garden at the toe of Shadow Mountain. Horn said the applicants are proposing a road take of f the intersection of First and Cooper and go up the hillside leading toward the rock point where two houses would be proposed. Horn said the trees will screen these houses. Horn told Council the intersection will not be a classicly engineering intersection; however, the 18 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 engineering department commented the design will offer adequate views for site distancing. Horn said of most concern to the city are the visual impacts of the development. Horn said this parcel of land includes 4 separately developable mine claims. Horn said he has been working with the owner of the property trying to figure out the best way to proceed with development. Horn said he encouraged the owner to file a PUD rather than develop each lot separately. Horn said a PUD allows one to place the houses in the most logical places and the ones with the least impact without consideration for old property lines that were not designed f or development purposes. Horn told Council he is concerned about the road and the visual impacts of that road. Horn said the developer has decided to go with a retaining wall type road, which will result in less visual impacts. Wayne Ethridge, representing the applicant, showed some concep- tual of the proposed house. Ethridge said the proposed houses are in the 4 to 6,000 square foot range, which is about a 50 percent reduction from the allowable density in the R-15 zone. Ethridge said there will be visual impacts with the development. With the landscape plan and type of planned construction, the impact will be minimized. Ethridge said using the PUD approach gives benefits to the city. The applicant has agreed to provide employee housing. There will be no woodburning devices in any of the houses. Horn said the issue of trails has been addressed in an earlier work session. Horn said staff will pursue the possibility of a trail being developed. Horn said Council should forward comments to the Commissioners about what should happen at detailed submission review. Horn suggested the criteria of the city's 8040 greenline review should be applied to the detailed submis- sion, and that Council look at this development again at the detailed submission stage. Horn said Council may want to have the buildings staked. Mayor Stirling said he feels this is an absolute recommendation. Ethridge said there is no way to roll the 8040 criteria into the county's review. Horn said he would like these criteria specifically addressed. Horn told Council the applicant has taken a voluntary option of supplying employee units within each house. Councilman Isaac moved to direct the planning office to forward the 3 recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners f or the review of 201 West Cooper; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Mayor Stirling clarified adding to these recommendations are height poles and perimeter markings. Council concurred. 19 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #49, SERIES OF 1988 - Sheehan Condemnation Tom Baker, planning office, showed Council the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan - Parks/Recreation/Open Space and Trails Element, which was adopted by the city and county in 1985. In the plan, one of the critical trail elements is the Shadow Mountain trail at the base of the mountain. The purpose of the trail is for pedestrian, bicycle and Nordic cross country trail, park, parkway, pleasure way and recreational purposes, to preserve open space for aesthetic and other public interest purposes and for non-motorized vehicles as a thoroughfare. Baker said the section in question is the most direct practical route between Aspen mountain and the Marolt pedestrian bridge. Mayor Stirling said the fundamental issue is in the last para- graph of Gary Esary's memorandum addressing the issue of neces- sary. Mayor Stirling said the memorandum said Council should hear testimony and asked if this meeting is the proper forum or it should be scheduled at a public hearing. Gary Esary, special counsel, told Council it is not necessary to have a public hearing. Esary advised Council "necessary" means necessary to accomplish a public purpose and not in a life or death context. Esary said this discussion is about the portion of the easement identified as number 1 and 2 on the first page of exhibit A. Esary reminded Council they previously approved the trail location and condemnation through Resolution #13, 1988. Esary told Council the litigation was begun but some issues have come up. Esary said it makes more sense to redo the condemnation than to litigate it. Mayor Stirling said coming from the east where the trail is indicated on exhibit A, the alternative would be to turn at a right angle at the Sheehan property, go along the property line to Hopkins, turn left going westerly and continue along the front of the Sheehan and Gramiger properties, if the city could negotiate an easement across the front. Baker said that would be the alternative to avoid condemnation. Councilman Isaac asked if there is a time constraint on this issue. Esary t old Council the city filed a response brief last Friday. Esary said the city could ask the court f or additional time to consider the issue. Esary said the city prefers to keep up with the court deadlines, if possible. Esary said he is not aware of construction dead- lines on this project. Mayor Stirling said this relates to a larger issue of continuing on the trail as in the master plan. Mayor Stirling said he is concerned about the cost of improving this trail to a satisf ac- tory level so it can be used by citizens. Mayor Stirling said it 20 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 would be a compromise to go below but is something Council should think about. Mayor Stirling moved to table this to January 9, 1989, when there is a full complement of Council; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Mayor Stirling said if the city had a lot of money, the original trail would be the way to go. It is aesthetically gorgeous. Mayor Stirling said it is a major challenge in that kind of terrain to make the kind of trail that would really be utilized. Mayor Stirling said with the work the county has done to the west, this would almost make the full connection to the Marolt bridge. Mayor Stirling said the city could pursue another trail in this location in the future. Councilman Isaac said he would like to discuss an easement across the front of the property with the landowners. Esary told Council an order has been entered by the court which deals with the Sheehan/Kaplan interest. All that is before the court now is the Gramiger interest. Esary recommended Council not engage in dialogue with Gramiger until this is settled. Esary said because this is in litigation, the contacts with Gramiger should be kept on the record. Mayor Stirling said he would like to have a ball park figure of the costs necessary to complete the upper trail. Niayor Stirling said in the meantime, it is an important goal to get a usable trail. Al Blomquist said Council should ask the city attorney to determine some legal questions about the series of precedents that have been going on, like the acquisition of the Koch parcel, the headlands, the county getting the Mary B easements, obtaining the Marolt property and the Marolt bridge construction. Blomquist said the question is what precedent this change might make in terms of the city's or county's rights in the ultimate subdivision of any properties in this area. Blomquist told Council subdivision requires donation of trails and streets rights-of-way. If Council indicates these things are not necessary, does the city weaken their position in the subdivision processes in the future. Mayor Stirling asked the city attorneys office to take this into consideration. Mayor Stirling moved to suspend the rules and meet for 8 more minutes; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in f avor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman. Motion carried. Hans Gramiger told Council slope, this costs more and the appraisers cost of a 15 he has been named in the c legal fees are piling up. chance on this case. when there is takes more lan f oot easement. ondemnation of Gramiger said a 15 foot trail on a d. Gramiger questioned Gramiger told Council the Sheehan parcel and the city has a second 21 Regular Meeting .Aspen City Council December 19, 1988 All in favor, motion carried. USE OF WAGNER PARK FOR WINTERSKOL Michael Forbes, ARA, told Council Audi has become the major sponsor for Winterskol. They would like to be a sponsor for the next couple of years. Forbes said they are not asking to put anything on the mall. The request is to put an Audi simulator in Wagner Park. This is 8 feet by 30 feet. It is an actual stage with a car that simulates a drive through West Germany. Forbes told Council this request is all right with the parks department. Forbes told Council Audi has donated a lot of money for Winter- skol and is donating $2500 to the Aspen Ski Club. Forbes said there will be an Audi displayed on private property. Mayor Stirling asked if there is an alternative site available, and what would be the effect on not having this simulator. Forbes said the effect would be substantial. Forbes told Council they have lost a lot of support from the Ski Company and have tried to find other sources of funds. Forbes said the simulator has been very popular and is not an eyesore. George, ARA, told Council they have tried to be sensitive not to commercialize Winterskol any more than necessary. They have lost support they have had f or almost 30 years. George said the ARA f eels Audi will be a good long term partnership with Aspen. Mayor Stirling moved to allow the simulator in the park in a site to be selected by the director of parks. Motion DIES for lack of a second . Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 22