HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20160711Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2
CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS ............................................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #94 & 95, Series of 2016, - Reappoint Municipal Judge, Deputy Judge and
Administrative Hearing Officer .................................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #96, Series of 2016, Colorado Water Conservation Board Grant Acceptance and Contract
Award to Element Water Consulting INC .................................................................................................... 3
Resolution #90, Series of 2016 – Approval of Contract for Construction of Burlingame Park 1 & 2
Masonry Project ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Resolution #98, Series of 2016 – Wildfire Mapping Update ................................................................ 3
Minutes – June 27, 2016 ....................................................................................................................... 3
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC action on Conceptual Major Development for 845 Meadows
Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center, HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2016 ......................................... 3
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center –
Planned Development Project and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review ........................ 4
ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2016 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) – Planned
Development Amendment ............................................................................................................................ 5
ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2016 – Smuggler Park Subdivision – Minor Amendment to Planned
Development Project Review........................................................................................................................ 8
RESOLUTION #91 & 91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance and Land Use Code
Interpretation Appeal .................................................................................................................................. 13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Daily, Myrin,
Mullins and Frisch present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Toni Kronberg compliment the City on the 4th of July celebrations. She thank Mark Bonnell of
CDOT for the tour through Snowmass Canyon. She also thanked Justin Forman with the
engineering department for the barriers on Mill St and Rio Grand. She thanked the library, the
plaza looks great. She asked Council to look at a different plan for the civic building. She passed
out an old option.
2. Tom Marshall said he has an HVAC service and one of the glitches in the parking plan is after
four hours his guy gets a ticket even if he moves to another space down town. The service permit
only allows them to park for four hours.
3. Peter Greeney said there is lots of talk about affordable housing. The program houses 47 percent
of city and county workforce. He is wondering if there is an actual goal for the amount of
workforce we want to house. Barry Crook, manager’s office, said the current goal to maintain the
current commute pattern. Mr. Greeney said he is curious why that has gone away. It is awesome
to hear the drive less initiative is working and the downtowner is a success. Mayor Skadron said
the goal is to reduce traffic by 10 percent and always have one available parking space. Walking
around town you can see spots available. Mr. Greeney said he thinks it is great. He would love
to see opening up the system to have drivers use their electric cars in addition to the downtowner.
On the moratorium, how are we tracking to see if we are going to finish on time. Jessica Garrow,
community development, said there are a number of work sessions scheduled and the finish date
is the beginning of 2017. They anticipate the public hearing process to begin in early October.
There is a July 18th work session at the Limelight followed by a walking tour.
COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS
Councilman Frisch said he was out of town for a few weeks. He was back in town for July 4th. He gave a
hats off to Mark Cole and Charlie.
Councilwoman Mullins said she missed the 4th but heard it was great. She was in another resort town.
For all our angst and contentiousness she is always amazed at how authentic and full of character Aspen
is. She thanked the Aspen Times for the affordable housing article and looks forward to the next two.
Mayor Skadron said it was a great 4th and thanked everyone who worked on it. He gave a nod to the
Veterans, Steve Centofanti, and the naked guys. He wanted to recognize Scott Chism. Scott works in the
parks department. It was Scott’s vision and talent that delivered the architecture around the John Denver
sanctuary, Rio Grand Park and Galena plaza. He thanked Scott and recognized him because he is leaving
after 16 and half years.
CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS
We had scheduled the civic building options for tomorrow. In order to be more prepared it has been
moved to the 19th.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso 96 – water conservation board
Councilman Myrin asked if this is for both residential and commercial.
Lee Ledesma, utilities replied it is for both. Right now it is focusing on new construction rather than
existing. Councilman Myrin asked if there is an opportunity that a city project comes along it might be
worth testing it out on it. Ms. Ledesma said they are partnering with the parks department to test out
residential controllers with a demonstration project for the public at Hilliard Park and the trailhead at
Oklahoma Flats. There are also demonstration projects at Paepcke Park and the water campus.
Councilwoman Mullins said the memo talks about advancing key programs, which are they? Ms.
Ledesma replied most are ongoing or are in the works including Slow the Flow, Garden in a Box, the
demonstration projects, conservation projects and a water conservation project. Councilwoman Mullins
asked for a work session at end of the summer for the results and how the money is spent.
Resolution #90 Burlingame Park masonry
Councilman Myrin said the bid came in double is there something we need to change for a chance at more
low bids. Scott Chism, parks, said it is a very competitive construction market and we are up against
houses on Red Mountain and Buttermilk. We hear a lot that the companies are too busy and have too
much work. Many trade people are in the same position. Councilman Myrin asked if he has any
suggestions. Mr. Chism said it is a tough nut to crack. The trades have ample work in the private sector
and there is no good answer. We only received two bids. Councilman Myrin asked if the HOA is on
board with everything. Mr. Chism said the input from the residents is hurry up and get it done.
Resolution #98 Wildfire Mapping
Councilman Myrin asked if this is limited to undeveloped lots. Denis Murry, building department,
replied no it is everything half a mile from the city boundary. The intent is to know the hazards and to
protect where it is required based on the known hazards. There are lots that are high wildfire and low.
Ms. Garrow said it will enable us to make sure we are not over mitigating some lots and under mitigating
others. Councilman Myrin said it is based on the zone not the building.
Resolution #94 & 95, Series of 2016, - Reappoint Municipal Judge, Deputy Judge and
Administrative Hearing Officer
Resolution #96, Series of 2016, Colorado Water Conservation Board Grant Acceptance and
Contract Award to Element Water Consulting INC
Resolution #90, Series of 2016 – Approval of Contract for Construction of Burlingame Park 1 &
2 Masonry Project
Resolution #98, Series of 2016 – Wildfire Mapping Update
Minutes – June 27, 2016
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor,
motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP – Notice of HPC action on Conceptual Major Development for 845 Meadows
Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center, HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2016
Amy Simon, community development, told the Council HPC reviewed conceptual approval to restaurant
on March 23 and May 11. At the first meeting they continued the meeting and asked for a restudy. The
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
4
building was designed in 1958 by Herbert Buyer and Fritz Benedict. HPC applied some design
guidelines that aren’t part of the Council process. The HPC approval was unanimous. There is one
unresolved issues with a pedestrian bridge. Staff is not recommending call up.
Councilman Myrin asked if there is a down side to call it up. Mayor Skadron was going to suggest
calling it up. Ms. Simon said they can call up any aspect of the review process. Councilman Frisch asked
why staff doesn’t recommend call up. Ms. Simon said it was unanimous and they will be looking at it
anyway. Councilman Myrin said it does not delay the process and lets Council look at the design
guidelines. It will be helpful for us when we look at it. Ms. Garrow said if you do decide to call it up it
will be exactly like the police station. Councilwoman Mullins said she does not see the reason to call it
up. Unless we have some issue with what HPC unanimously approved. She does not want to set a
precedent for calling it up either.
Jim Curtis, representing the applicant, said the institute is fine if you wish to call it up. We think it is a
great project and want you to have all the flexibility to ask all your questions.
Councilman Daily said if there is additional flexibility and opportunity why not.
Councilwoman Mullins said she does not see a real good reason and has not heard any down side and
wants to respects the decision HPC makes.
Councilman Myrin moved to call up HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman
Daily. All in favor except Councilwoman Mullins. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center –
Planned Development Project and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review
Ms. Simon said the proposal is for an expansion to increase the restaurant seating capacity. They would
like to double the seating for the restaurant and some back of house space. HPC granted conceptual and
recommended that Council grant planned development project review and growth management and
essential public facility review. In 1991 there was a master plan approved. There were specific
allocations for future development. The plans changed along the way. This is the last of the 1991
approval. They are 1,780 square feet over that approval. Part of this review is deciding if that is
appropriate or if mitigation is needed. The memo also talks about transportation impacts. They have
been working with engineering department on the picnic point trail, speed humps on Meadows Road and
an overflow parking plans. The project does include a 1,780 square foot expansion and if any affordable
housing needs to be provided with a recommendation for an audit. Staff recommends approval at first
reading with conditions. HPC granted conceptual with a new connection at the pedestrian bridge. HPC
had strong feelings how the bridge should be placed with determination at final review. The applicant
wants Council to make that decision. HPC wants to make that decision at final. Staff wants HPC to
make that decision.
Councilwoman Mullins said for the parking mitigation of .78, are there any alternatives for something
more useful. Ms. Simon said the parking garage that exists was required to have 97 spaces. They are in
complete conformance now. Other ideas are addressed in the TIA. Councilwoman Mullins said she is
looking for something different to reduce traffic. She asked for more elaboration on the bridge for second
reading.
Councilman Myrin asked about the affordable housing and how the audit went when the tent was built.
How have past audits come out?
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
5
Mayor Skadron said he wants to be confident about employee generation. He wants to be confident we
are preserving the authenticity of the Byer design. He also wants to be sure they will agree to the audit
provision.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #17
(SERIES OF 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR
AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 845
MEADOWS ROAD, ASPEN MEADOWS RECEPTION CENTER, LOT 1-A, ASPEN MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Daily, yes; Myrin, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 2016 – 500 W. Hopkins Ave (Boomerang Lodge) – Planned
Development Amendment
Jennifer Phelan, community development, stated this ordinance will grant an amendment to the planned
development. The Boomerang Lodge, was approved in 2006 by Ordinance 26 to redevelop the site which
sits on a 27,000 square foot lot. It was approved for 47 lodge keys, five free market units and two
affordable housing units with an underground parking garage. The ordinance and approval agreement
outline the dimensions and the plat was recorded to show the floor plans and elevations. In 2007 a
demolition permit was applied for and received. All of the existing building was demolished but the
eastern wing. A building permit was submitted for but not issued. In 2009 because of the recession, a
vested rights extension was applied for and granted. In 2011 Ordinance number 9 was granted by Council
approving a modified building that was 100 percent affordable housing. A complaint on the City decision
was filled in district court and was not resolved until 2014. Due to the court decision an extension of the
vesting rights was again extended until 2015. Once the court proceedings were resolved the applicant
decided to go with the original lodge project. In September of 2015 a building permit was submitted and
during the review, Staff determined that the floor area in the plans exceeded what was in the 2006
ordinance. The exemption allowed for exterior decks, balconies and stairways was also exceeded. Staff
has been working with the applicant as to what can be modified to bring the application into conformance.
The 2006 approval granted a certain amount of square footage for lodging, on site free market
development, affordable housing component and non-unit space with a total of 44,915 square feet. The
overage in floor area is just over 1,200 square feet. We allow exterior decks, balconies, stairs and similar
features to be exempt from floor area up to 15 percent up to the maximum allowable floor area for the
building. In this case, the maximum allowable floor area from 2006 is just under 45,000 square feet. A
15 percent exemption allows for just over 6,700 square feet of those types of features. The overage is just
over 4,500 square feet. The question is what happened. The numbers in the ordinance do not match the
drawings that were presented at City Council at the last hearing in 2006.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
6
The August 28, 2006 Council meeting approved the Boomerang. Council asked the applicant to modify
the scale of the building. The plan set included elevations, floor plans, and an FAR table summary. The
applicant based the 15 percent exemption on an allowable floor area of 81,000 square feet rather than the
44,915 that was approved. The architects did not include the basement square feet when calculating the
floor area. The ordinance numbers and the drawings don’t reconcile. This allows an increase in the
building by less than 3 percent and permits a 25 percent exemption. Staff has worked with the applicant
to remove a roof top deck. There is a fair amount of decks, balconies and circulation.
Councilwoman Mullins said there are two sides to this story, the architect’s error in not counting the
basement and the maximum FAR and forgetting that is what they were using. Is there something that
staff did not catch this or some change in the land use code? Ms. Phelan replied that Staff is a lot more
diligent in proofing numbers prior to something getting approved today. At the end of the day we do rely
on the expertise of the architects to help us with the numbers. Councilwoman Mullins said part of Staff’s
role should be to help the architects.
Councilman Frisch said there is a 15 percent difference between 81,000 and 44,915 is that the difference
we are discussing. There is also a 1,200 and a 3 percent difference. Ms. Phelan said there are two
numbers we are talking about. The actual building and interior wall to interior wall. The 15 percent is the
exterior elements. Councilman Frisch asked if this is a scribers errors. Jim True, city attorney, said they
are not arguing that. There is just a discrepancy between the two documents.
Councilman Myrin asked about the decks and the floor area and if they are completely separate issues.
Ms. Phelan said if they say no on the 1,200 square feet it needs to be chopped off somewhere and the
building won’t meet the plans approved by Council. Councilman Myrin said it would be possible
something smaller could be built rather than ask for more. Ms. Phelan replied that is possible.
Councilman Myrin said the Staff position is on the decks and balconies it is a percentage of one of two
different numbers that was approved rather than the 3 to 1. He asked where the 3 to 1 comes from. Ms.
Phelan replied the City adopted an ordinance in 2005 that adopted changes that created additional floor
area allowances if you developed a lodge. When the applicant came in to develop the Boomerang the
application said we are basing the design of the building on the recently passed lodge zone district
standards.
Mike Hoffman Steve Stunda and Ken Robertson are representing the applicant.
Mr. Hoffman said the discrepancy is a result of the 2006 approval process and not a result of an error by
the architect or the applicant. The 2006 lodge incentive ordinance was central to the approval. The City
granted the approval in August 2006 and it remains vested. It was memorialized in several documents.
The discrepancy has basis in the maximum building which can be built on the site pursuant to code. The
landuse regulations provide decks, balconies and similar features are exempt from the calculation of floor
area except to the extent they exceed 15 percent of the maximum allowable floor area of the building.
The maximum floor area is determined by the floor area ratio for the site. It is usually set by the zone
district. In this case the floor area ratio was provided in the lodge incentive ordinance using the 3 to 1
ratio. Because the building on site was 27,000 square feet the maximum building size permitted on site
was 81,000 square feet. To determine the square footage of exempt decks, balconies etc. the 81,000 is
multiplied by 15 to arrive at 12,150 square feet. This is greater than the square footage in the current
plan. We made the representation that the maximum square footage permitted to the building was 81,000
in every step of the way in every document. We ask that you concur and allow us to move forward with
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
7
this plan based on that reasoning. The second part of this request deals with the floor area attributed to
the underground parking garage. We were surprised when Staff brought this to our attention. It was
never identified in any of the previous reviews. We agree with Staff that the 1,225 feet should be
approved now and it has to do with the functioning with the site. The project should move forward. It is
a vested approval and the parking garage is an important element of the approval. It is also non-unit
space.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Toni Kronberg said in 2006/2007 we were looking for hot beds and the lodge incentive ordinance
was passed. There are two documents in conflict. The plans have not changed. The developer
needs to rely on the city approving a document so they can submit it. 1,200 square feet is
miniscule. They should be able to build this and I am asking for them to be able to build the roof
top deck.
2. Michael Brown said to think about the precedent this sets. Any developer and architect is
responsible for their drawings not staff. The onus has and should always be on the applicant. It
is amazing staff caught the error during the process. The ordinance should govern and the
applicant should have to conform in that regard. It is a case of development that today would
never get approved in its current form. It is an example of why council and commission members
should strictly vote on projects not who the applicant is. Under today’s codes this building
would be 50 percent smaller and 50 percent shorter. Let the applicant find the floor area
somewhere else. Let’s not add on to a building that is already way too big for what it already is.
3. Steve Goldenberg said to either treat this as a complicated math problem or two documents that
don’t agree. The applicant is responsible for both documents. People who make public comment
look primarily at the FAR table and that is where the ordinance comes from. Take the lesser of
the two.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Mr. Hoffman said it is important to remember we are not redoing the Boomerang application. The
approval is 10 years old.
Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on the notion or direction about discussing this under today’s land
use code. There are vested rights. Mr. True said Mr. Brown’s comments are interesting and accurate but
we are not considering this project under this code but under 2006. There is a discrepancy. It is simple
and straight forward. You need to look at the drawings and presentation and accept that or take the
ordinance and say that was the intent of the Council. It is discretionary at this point. It is somewhat
misleading to take this at what would be approved today.
Mayor Skadron asked what fundamentally changes in the building if you were to take away the square
feet. Mr. Robertson replied it is 1,000 square feet. It depends on where it has to come out of. Mayor
Skadron said it is not as if an entire floor comes off. Mr. Robertson said it would change how the
building functions a bit and it would more than likely come out of the amenity space. Financially it is a
tight project and would probably come out of non-unit space.
Mayor Skadron said concessions were made to the community in exchange should Council support staffs
recommendation. Ms. Phelan said the recommendation initially was to get in line with the ordinance as
much as possible. The rooftop deck was something that could come off. Mayor Skadron said an effort
was made on the part of the applicant. He asked about the degree to which this establishes a precedent
that future architects would fudge the numbers to come back and ask for the same type of allowances.
Mr. True said that would be analyzed on a case by case basis. The desire or intent to fudge to get larger
puts an onus on the city to be more diligent. This is a discrepancy between two documents and
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
8
discretionary on Councils part to make a decision to go one direction or another. He does not believe this
will set any type of precedent or another.
Councilman Frisch said we are hearing from the applicant that 81,000 has always been the maximum box.
The thing that Michael Brown did bring up that I have thought about for a while is where does the onus
fall. He asked Ms. Phelan if the 81,000 was put on paper. She replied it was represented in the
application. Councilman Myrin said that is what bugs him the most not the 3 to 1 number.
Councilwoman Mullins stated it can be argued both ways. She is not convinced it will set a precedent.
She would support the staff recommendation in honoring the 2006 Council decision. The drawings speak
more. She is guessing that Council based the decision on the drawings. There is some onus on staff. The
land use code is complicated and staff should have caught this in 2006. The fact 1,200 square feet is in
non-unit space. Balcony space is a tough one. A subjective way to look at it is the amount of balcony
and outdoor on the historic space is appropriate for the building. She supports the staff recommendation.
Councilman Myrin said he feels very strongly the calculations be based on the PD than what is in the
code. If the deck space needs changed from 15 we do so for everybody. The ordinance is pretty clear.
He does not see how you can get to the logic that other people think you can.
Councilman Frisch asked is it standard practice to use the 3 to 1 ratio or to use what some percent the
project gets done on. Ms. Phelan said the representation of 3 to 1 is what the applicant made by
proposing the project. This was a site specific approval. The applicant came and said the lodge zone
district standards are appropriate for this site.
Mr. Hoffman said they have the opposite view. Council accepted the maximum floor area for the site
based on the 81,000. It was the model and the plans that were approved.
Councilman Frisch asked if the 81,000 was based on the 3 to 1. Ms. Phelan replied yes.
Ms. Garrow stated the decks were not included in the ordinance or the table. The applicant at the time
represented the proposed floor area and decks off of 81,000 or 3 to 1 floor area. Staff’s recommendation
is to reconcile this.
Mayor Skadron said there have been five iterations of Council since this was approved. Council can
stand by the ordinance or fix the ordinance to match the drawings. He believes like Ann that Councils
intent was based on the drawings. He will support approval of the amendment that reconciles the
discrepancies.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 2016 – Smuggler Park Subdivision – Minor Amendment to Planned
Development Project Review
Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this property was approved as an SPA in 1982
with four parcels. The proposed amendments only apply to Parcel A. Smuggler Park is zoned R3 with 87
deed restricted lots. The request is for a minor amendment to the PD. The requests focus around the
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
9
design elements and dimensional requirements for the neighborhood. There is also a request for an R3
amendment and a fee waivers.
The first request relates to the residential design standard for the front porch requirement. The current
requirement is for a minimum of 50 square feet and the applicant is requesting a minimum of 25 square
feet. Staff is recommends approval. The next request is another residential design standard for the
principal window requirement. The code requires a minimum of four feet by four feet for a window on
the front façade. The applicant is requesting a minimum of two feet by four feet. Staff is recommending
approval. The next request is also a residential design standard request related to the required location for
light wells. Currently the code requires light wells, stair wells and similar features be located behind the
front most wall of the façade. The applicant is requesting an exemption from the standard to be able to
place them on the front façade. Staff is not recommending in favor and believes it encourages more of a
separation of the pedestrian and the front facade of the house creating a physical and a visual barrier.
Staff is recommending denial of this request. The next request is the garage dimension requirement for
the residential design standard. Currently the code requires a garage width to be five feet less than the
width than the living space of the front façade. The applicants request is for an exemption. Staff is
recommending denial as it encourages a heavily garage dominant façade.
The next request is for a parking requirement. Currently the planned development can require up to five
spaces per property based on the unit size. The applicants request is to make it the same as what is under
other code requirement for residential units, one per bedroom or two per unit. Staff recommends
approval.
The next request is for combining setback features. The code requirement is to allow certain features
within the setback. The request is to allow for a combination of landscape areas of 30 inches below grade
with light wells / stairwells. Staff recommendation is for denial. Staff believes it would encourage larger
excavated areas within the setback.
The next request pertains to height measurement procedures and exceptions to height. The requirement
for height is calculated from a specific spot in the property. The request is to keep the same measurement
point for the height but for other code measurements methods to clarify in the approvals what is allowed
by the code today. They would like to additionally allow height exceptions for rooftop access and
amenities. Staff recommendation is to approve continued use of the same measurement method and use
the other code methods for measuring different roof types but to deny the height exceptions.
The next request is for accessory dwelling units. The requirement for the R3 allows them as a permitted
use but the planned development does not specify whether it is a permitted use or not. The applicant is
requesting to clarify that it would be a permitted use under the PD approvals. Staff recommends
approval. It was submitted to APCHA for review and they were supportive.
The next request pertains to floor area. The PD requirement has a maximum of 2,000 square foot and the
applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,500. Staff recommendation is for denial. We believe it is simply
encouraging more mass and development.
Questions from first reading include why a PD not an R3 amendment. Many of the requests address
multiple elements that are not identified within the zone district including the residential design standards
and height measurements. Staff feels they are more appropriately addressed in a site specific approval.
There are two subdivisions that fall within the R3 including Smuggler Run. They are not a part of this.
Staff has been specifically guided to address the moratorium zone district code amendments.
Why is a fee waiver requested? They feel there are many local residents with not as much funding.
How does this fit into the current moratorium. It doesn’t.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
10
Overall the recommendation is to approve the front porch and principal window RDS requests, the
parking requirement to match the current code, to allow the height measurement method to align with the
code and to permit ADUs as allowable uses within the planned development. We recommend Council
deny the light well location and garage dimension RDS request, the combination of features within the set
back, any exceptions to the height limitation and the increase in floor area requests.
Councilwoman Mullins asked for the garage dimension is it possible to fit a garage on the sites with the
current requirements. Mr. Barker said with the current requirements it is possible for a single. A double
garage is quite challenging. Councilwoman Mullins said with the combined setbacks, what are the
landscaped areas. Mr. Barker said the code permits a retaining wall to be up to 30 inches below the
finished grade.
Councilman Frisch said R3 is Smuggler Park, and Smuggler Run. Mr. Barker replied those are the only 2
areas.
Councilman Myrin asked if someone wanted to put mechanical on the roof currently what would happen.
Mr. Barker said it would still comply with the 15 foot height requirement. Councilman Myrin said for the
ADU the APCHA memo asked for strict adherence. Is this something that can actually be done. Mr.
Barker said it would be difficult on some of the lots and may require the special review process.
Councilman Myrin asked do the ADUs then qualify for the buyout program. Ms. Garrow replied these
are deed restricted lots so they would never turn into free market units.
Troy Miller, HOA president, said Smuggler is all working people.
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said the majority are mobile homes, pre fab, and stick built.
The original PUD agreement was in 1990. They want to amend and restate the PD to address a range of
issues. In January the homeowners were encouraged to seek a PD amendment. Because the lots are very
small there is fewer opportunity to locate light wells. The parking requirement will allow parking
between the curb and property line.
Stan Clauson, representing Leslie Curly, said it is a request for approval of collocated reduction in grade
and required light wells. It would reflect existing constraints and improvements and enhance livability.
There is a zero lot line set back on one side and 10 foot on the other side. Only one side has options for
light and egress. Because of the narrow conditions of the lot only portions are subgrade. He believes it
is a simple and appropriate measure that can enhance the livability of the residents. These can be
landscaped and look good.
Mayor Skadron asked why the neighbors support this. They could end up with no open yards and dense
development. The reality may be a disservice. It may seem good on an individual basis but the aggregate
may undermine the livability of the neighborhood.
Mr. Clauson said if you were in the R6 you could have light and width on three sides. In this particular
neighborhood you only get that on one side.
Councilman Myrin asked who you see living below grade. Mr. Clauson replied this is not a question of
ADUs. A good question of the livable space is below grade. Mr. Miller said a lot of these rules will not
affect everyone. I always support my neighbors when they want to improve their lawns.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
11
Councilman Frisch stated he does not want to get in the one off business. If we want to talk about do we
do this for the whole neighborhood I’m happy to have that conversation.
Mr. Bendon said they are seeking clarity on height and are fine with the staff recommendation.
It is difficult to meet all the ADU standards but they want the clarity around it and want to be treated like
anyone else. On the floor area ask and the increase floor area from 2,000 to 2,500. Basements are
counted at 50 percent regardless how much is exposed. Basements are more impactful in Smuggler than
anywhere else in the city.
For the fee waiver it is just a financial burden. The discussion in January was around the residential
design standards. We were told to open up the PD and fix it there. It is a benefit to the HOA and the city.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Patty Clapper said it is a unique neighborhood. It is important for Council to support this request.
The setback request is critical. The ADU request is critical. It is a special neighborhood with
special residents.
2. Michael Christopher said homeowners are coming to the board and having to go through the
process individually with the city. This will change it for everyone. Some of the requirements
are esthetic requirements not structural ones.
3. Brett Anderson said he built 10 years ago and it took a long time. He would like to see the park
grow and evolve. He is afraid future buyers won’t be interested in coming in.
4. Wendy Perkins said there are some fancy houses in smuggler now. Young families are moving
in. She thinks the change is wonderful and there is a place for everyone.
5. Sam Barney said he would like to see the park evolve.
6. Bill Stirling said there are 100 lots between the two R3 zones.
7. Tim Anderson said the neighborhood is unique beyond belief. The fees are ridiculous. A lot of
the things in the building code makes sense for health and safety but a bunch of it is just fees.
This is an attempt to clear up the most basic things.
8. Kevin said density and space aren’t the issues. Everyone is using this as a base it isn’t the space.
9. Brad Elliott said these are quality of life issue for the people who are living there. A 30 inch
restriction is more impactful to the interior than the yards. For garages most of the lots are 25 feet
wide. If you take away the garages they are pushed out to the common elements. The streets are
where people socialize. The existing homes are aging.
10. Leslie Curly said she would like the possibility of the double garage back. For the side yard she
would like the 30 inch drop combined with the light well.
11. Stan Clauson said it has been a struggle to apply the residential design standards outside of the
town.
Mayor Skadron closed the public comment.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is an example of why public comment is so important. Wendy described
slow change and a place for everyone. She supports everything staff is recommending for approval.
Getting into the public realm in terms of light well and garage dimensions, she would support the light
well on the side of house. You don’t need garages facing the street. What the residents want to happen in
the side yard is probably ok. Floor area and height restrictions get into the public realm again and she
would support staffs recommendation. For the light well location, she would support them on the side not
the front.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
12
Councilman Frisch said combined is the ability for two 30 inch to make one 60 inch light well. Adjacent
is two 30 inch side by side. Mr. Barker said you can combine two minimum egress windows if they are
both required by code to be six feet by three feet instead of three by three. What the applicant is
requesting is the ability to combine two different features like landscape walls and light wells.
Councilwoman Mullins said on the fee waiver she has not heard a compelling reason to waive the fees.
Councilman Frisch said he supports everything on the approved list from staff. It is great all the public
came and spoke. He is happy to look at this neighborhood as part of the affordable housing
neighborhood. He has no problem placing some type of fee discount. Everyone wants enhanced
livability. He agrees with staff the light wells don’t need to be in front. They are better off keeping a one
car garage. Leave the height and floor area as is.
Councilman Myrin said he will support most what is in the ordinance plus the fee waiver. He is OK with
the approval list. There are other things more important to address than what is on the deny list.
Mayor Skadron said he is opposed to the fee waiver. He supports staff on the R3 zone district. He
concurs on floor area as well and on height. On light well and side yard set backs, he believes it is a
matter of livability. He believes the livability is impacted by an attempt to apply a global standard. He
does not support staffs recommendation on those two items. He agrees with staff on the garage. He
accepts the approval list.
Ms. Garrow suggested adding a section to Section 2 number 6 certain features may be combined in the
side yard setbacks. This is limited to light wells as required by the building code and landscaped walls,
berms, retaining walls, stairways and similar structures which do not exceed 30 inches above or below
grade pursuant to the allowances to the land use code as may be amended.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #12, Series of 2016.
Mr. Bendon asked for consideration on garage width. They would like to have the garage be no greater
than 50 percent of the front façade. It would still be a single car garage but capture the lots that are sub
35. They also ask for the parking standard be reduced from five to the city code and can count the
parking spaces between the property line and the curb. They want to maintain the ability to count those
spaces towards the city requirement.
Ms. Garrow suggested adding section 2.7 garages may be no more than 50 percent of the width of the
front façade.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2016 with amendments and
renumbering of Section 2s.
Ms. Garrow recommended changing section 2.3 number of required parking spaces shall be provided in
accordance with the land use code as may be amended.
Councilwoman Mullins so moved.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 2016
13
Seconded by Councilman Frisch.
Councilman Myrin said he support the ordinance as written by staff. Combining setbacks in staff’s view
will encourage large excavated spaces in the side yard and rear yard and will have a negative effect on the
usability of the space as well as have the effect on large amounts of development in the only side yard
setbacks. Staff was not supportive of that request and I will support staff and will not support the change.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion
carried.
Mr. Clauson stated on behalf of the applicant we vacate the last issues related to the variance and the
appeal of the land use code interpretation. Ms. Garrow stated that means the City’s interpretation of
combined features stands.
At 10:20 p.m. Councilman Myrin moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
At 11:23 p.m. Councilman Frisch moved to reconvene the meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #91 & 91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance and Land Use Code
Interpretation Appeal
Councilman Frisch moved to continue Resolutions 91 and 92 to July 25, 2016; Seconded by
Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
At 10:26 p.m. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk