Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20160725Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS .......................................................................................................... 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3 Resolution #99, Series of 2016 – Power Plant Bridge Improvement Construction Contract ............... 3 Resolution #100, Series of 2016- Approval of Construction Contract for Burlingame Parks 1 & 2 Concrete ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Minutes – July 11, 2016 ........................................................................................................................ 3 RESOLUTION #97, SERIES OF 2016 – Policy Resolution for Code Amendment to the Land Use Code 3 ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2016 – Code Amendment – Tree Mitigation Valuation ........................... 4 ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2016 – 404 Park Avenue Rescinding a Planned Development Designation ................................................................................................................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2016 – Aspen Alps – Planned Development Amendment ....................... 5 ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2016 – Amending Chapter 26.222 Administrative Hearing Officer Section of the Land Use Code ...................................................................................................................... 6 ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review, and Call Up of HPC Conceptual Design Review .................................................................................................................. 6 RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance .......................................................... 8 RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2016 – 400 E Hopkins Creperie Temporary Use .................................. 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins, Daily and Myrin present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Tom Marshall talked about the trees in Freddie Fisher Park. He said his neighbor planted six, six foot trees. There is a sprinkler system that was taken out and he is asking that it be put back. Nothing has been done and the trees are dying. Tom Rubel, parks, said he thinks they took the water tap out. The trees took up all the space and were established. The water department said you are not using the water so they took out the tap. Parks will look in to this. Mr. Marshall gave a thanks to Council who said no to the city hall Taj Mahal. The $500,000 for light rail, is not flexible. A ton of money has been spent on the bus system and it is flexible. Mayor Skadron said it is not money for light rail but to investigate all the options for the entrance to Aspen. 2. Toni Kronberg thanked ACRA for the Aspen Arts Festival this past weekend. It is something Aspen can be really proud of. Mill Street to Rio Grand is in need of a cross walk. The $500,000 that was approved was to study busses versus light rail. There was no money in there for an aerial. It has to come back to council. Council can add another task order to study the aerial. She is asking council to add $10,000 to study the aerial. She is going to start a fundraising campaign to show to the elected officials there is support for it. She passed out the Supreme Court case for the entrance to Aspen to show what is allowed. Randy Ready, manager’s office, said the EOTC approved research on existing documents including background data, scope and phasing and system types, updating capital costs, busway scope and phasing. It is not a light rail study. 3. Courtney Boyd, HOA president Burlingame phase 1 condos, spoke about the siding issues. She said they settled two law suits. They have been working with engineers for the last six months. The budget will fall short. The board would like to have Council waive the building permit fees. COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS Councilman Myrin talked about the Facebook post about the bollards at the corner of Neal and Gibson. Trish Aragon, city engineer, said they put up temporary bollards at the corner of Neal and Gibson. The neighborhood is concerned with safety and people not stopping at the intersection. We tried the bollards to see how it would affect driver behavior. There was 30 percent compliance prior to the bollards, afterwards it was 70 percent compliance. 50 percent of the people didn’t like it but 50 percent did. We removed the bollards from one of the legs and pulled them back from one of the legs. The compliance rate slid back down. It was a test to see how we can make the intersection safer. Councilman Myrin thank Staff for trying and thanked them for modifying things. He said he hasn’t received any comments on the Mill Street ones. Is there a way to do it that it won’t affect bikes. Ms. Aragon replied yes, we are working on it. Councilman Myrin asked if this is a step towards permanent. Ms. Aragon said it is in the AMP for an out year effort. Councilman Frisch said the neighbors thought it was more dangerous which is the opposite of what we are trying to do. Ms. Aragon said we wanted to make it more of a downtown Aspen intersection. Councilman Frisch said he wanted to make some comments regarding last Tuesdays work session on the discussion on city hall 2.0. First off an apology to the community, staff, Mayor and fellow Council people for not offering clear direction last week. After the meeting he met with Staff to further explore having city hall remain in the armory and at this moment it is his strong belief that it is the communities best long term interest is to have city hall remain in its current building. The Galena option is a rational choice but he is just not convinced it is the best for Aspen in the long term. He would like to have the armory option flushed out more. He is not saying no to the Galena option ever. On cost and construction time he is sensitive to both. This town has never put the least expensive or the easiest short term option as the highest priority. We need to have a deeper dive. The armory option may lead to severe service cutbacks and changes to time or scope of other important capital projects for the community. We need to Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 3 have a discussion on that. The Galena one roof option did win when the scores were added. Different components were never weighed for community importance when the components were added. All the categories had to deal with dollars and efficiencies not sentimental value of keeping city hall where it is. Keeping city hall in its current location is who we are. We had a vote last November on this, it did win by a handful of votes. We all need to be careful of when we ask for stuff and have all the stuff presented. Hats off to Bruce Etkin and his team. Before the Wheeler gets involved in this building we need to have a conversation on the piece of dirt next to them. Better late than never but I think staff has clear direction to proceed on the armory. I heed what Ziska said about not dallying on this. BOARD REPORTS Councilman Frisch said CORE in the process of putting together the grant applications. They will be finalized soon then brought to Council for sign off. Mayor Skadron said RFTAs board retreat was last week and they are in the process of putting together the budget and mission statement. CONSENT CALENDAR Reso 100 – BG Concrete Councilman Myrin said it originally came in with no bids. Is there something we need to change so we get more initial bids. Is there something other communities do. Mayor Skadron said it is the nature of a hot development market. I suppose we could pay more. Councilwoman Mullins said we can keep exploring other options but I think it is just the construction climate. Councilman Frisch said we need to make sure we are not going out to bid when we are at 99 percent shelf life. If we go out to bid and don’t get anything back it does not put us in panic mode. We need the ability to say no.  Resolution #99, Series of 2016 – Power Plant Bridge Improvement Construction Contract  Resolution #100, Series of 2016- Approval of Construction Contract for Burlingame Parks 1 & 2 Concrete  Minutes – July 11, 2016 Councilman Daily moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #97, SERIES OF 2016 – Policy Resolution for Code Amendment to the Land Use Code Jim True, city attorney, told the Council at a recent Administrative Officer Hearing it was noticed that there was a conflict in our appointments in the Administrative Hearing Officer. This proposed change would allow our two municipal judges to serve as Hearing Officers. This clarifies the glitch between the charter and the code. Councilwoman Mullins asked how long has this been on the books. Mr. True replied a little while, about four years. Mr. Peterson noticed this the other day. I took the position Municipal judges could do this under their authority but the specific language appears to be in conflict with this. I think we are ok but we wanted to get rid of the conflict. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin moved to adopt Resolution #97; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, Motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 4 ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2016 – Code Amendment – Tree Mitigation Valuation Mr. True said this is another glitch we noticed. This section of the code has been change many times but the tree valuation is in Section 2 of the Municipal Code. We are proposing a formula and figure so we don’t have to change Title 13 every time Staff wishes to modify the tree valuation figure in Title 13. 13 will refer to it as X and Title 2 will refer to the actual value. This is another glitch we are trying to fix. Councilwoman Mullins asked for clarification of the removal permit and removal permit development for second reading. She would like explanation for where the basic valuation formula comes from as well. Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #16, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 16 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING SECTIONS 13.20.020 REMOVAL OF TREES; PERMIT REQUIRED; VALUATION AND 13.20.030 FEES OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2016 – 404 Park Avenue Rescinding a Planned Development Designation Hillary Seminick, community development, told the Council the applicant is asking to rescind the planned development overlay. The property is developed with four buildings on the north east side of town at the corner of Park Circle and Park Avenue. The underlying zone district is Residential Multifamily. The property received the PD overlay in the 70s. There is no documentation explaining why. Removing the PD would create encroachments into the setbacks in four locations. A variance would be necessary to allow for the encroachments. All other aspects conform with the dimensional requirements of the RMF zone. Sara Adams, representing Peter Fornell, said they are looking forward to perusing a project with no variations in the future. Councilman Myrin said for second reading he would like a timeline of code increases and FAR. Councilman Frisch asked is it rare to have an applicant ask to rescind a PD. Ms. Seminick replied yes. Councilman Frisch said it sounds like there are two paths. He would like the pros and cons of both. Councilman Daily said if we don’t grant the variance what are the consequences. Ms. Seminick replied a non-conformance would be created. Councilwoman Mullins said removing the PD created the non-conformances, if we don’t grant the variance, what happens. What is the timing. Ms. Seminick said it is a combined review. Councilwoman Mullins said she is confused as to why this is being done now opposed to when the property is being developed. What are the three reasons why they would like the PD removed. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #20, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 20 (SERIES OF 2016) Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE APSEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL TO RESCIND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION AND A SETBACK VARIANCE TO THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A TO THIS ORDINANCE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 404 PARK AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #20, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 2016 – Aspen Alps – Planned Development Amendment Ms. Seminick stated this building of the Aspen Alps is located within the western shoulder of Aspen Mountain within the lodge zone district. There is a planned development overlay as well. The Alps were first developed in the 60 and 70s. They are home to the first condo building in the state of Colorado. There are a total of 73 multi-family residential units, three affordable housing units and a parking garage. There are eight different Alps parcels, two are vacant and six include improvements. This application is only for lot 3. This lot has three multi-family buildings that were constructed in the 60s and are of similar mass and scale. The 300 building has structural issues due to lateral loading and is visibly out of alignment. A major amendment to the planned development approval is required to replace the building as proposed. The project is currently in the project review phase. It addresses dimensional requirements like mass, scale, height and floor area. It was reviewed by P&Z and received approval with unanimous support for 80/40 green line, growth management, residential design standard variances and mountain view plane approval. P&Z also recommended approval provided the privatized decks be reduced. The 300 building has seven units and ten are proposed. The increase of floor area in the existing units and the new units as proposed would increase the floor area by 51 percent. The 300 building has four stories and is 35 feet tall. The applicant proposes the same four stories with a maximum height of 40 feet. The lodge zone district permits a maximum height of 28 feet for this use. Set back variations are also requested. Mr. True noted that Art Daily had to recuse himself due to a conflict involving his law firm. Councilwoman Mullins said this is a significant building in terms of the history of the condominiums. It is also designed by Benedict. She would like more on that at second reading. She said it is too big and the architecture doesn’t blend with the existing. She asked for more explanation for what is being proposed and a defense for it. The PD is put on for consistence in form, mass and character. Councilman Myrin said he would like more discussion on the affordable housing. The increase in FAR is significant and he would like to understand that better. Is there technology to reduce the floor to ceiling assembly. Ms. Seminick said she confirmed with the building department that that is the standard for this type of construction. Councilman Frisch said it is one of three buildings on the lot and one of eight on the complex and one of many with different size standardization. It feels like we are getting into some level of precedent setting. The pickle we are in is if you allow everyone to have the same number of units and heights it will be an interesting discussion. Especially if we are getting in to the rental pool. The real question is how do we tackle some of the older buildings. Mayor Skadron asked for some discussion on the two additional free market units as a necessity. He also asked for more on the 273 additional feet given to each unit and on the affordable housing why is none of it on site. Alan Richman, representing the project, said there are unique aspects to the project. The building is pretty secluded and the condition of the building. He would like Council to schedule a site visit. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 6 Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #19, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 19 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW ALLOWING FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE 300 BUILDING OF THE ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A TO THIS ORDINANCE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 700 UTE AVENUE, BUILDING 300 OF THE ASPEN ALPS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #19, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2016 – Amending Chapter 26.222 Administrative Hearing Officer Section of the Land Use Code Councilwoman Mullins moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 18 (SERIES OF 2016) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 26.222 – ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Myrin. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2016 – 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Meadows Reception Center Planned Development Project Review and Growth Management Essential Public Facility Review, and Call Up of HPC Conceptual Design Review Amy Simon, community development, said this is for planned development review and growth management review for an essential public facility. The main goal is to expand the dining and reception areas. Currently there is one seat for each lodge room and they would like to double that. When fully booked they need to use a number of facilities on the campus. The 1991 SPA approval allowed the expansion for the institute and music associates. Since 1991 most of the ideas in the plan have been realized. Looking back on the property records it was determined they were 780 square feet short for this proposal. Is that appropriate and what mitigation is required. The amended ordinance Section 4 – dimensional requirements includes revised language. The architects are worried the basement expansion is too expensive and would reduce it but due to the calculations it would actually increase the floor area. The proposed revision in the ordinance change the approved expansion from 781 to 1,250 square feet. The range is only for the basement. The ordinance also talks about parking. The garage was required for approval and currently there are more spaces than required. Section 5 architectural design. Most of the addition is on top of the existing patio. HPC was in favor of the patio. They had some concerns of how it would be connected and the mechanical but those were worked out. They are concerned with the pedestrian bridge. They want it reviewed at final. The applicant wants Council to make that decision. Staff recommends Council let HPC make that decision. For growth management the entire 83,140 square feet of development rights were approved exempt from growth management mitigation for affordable housing in 1991. This goes a little above those rights. APCHA recommends an audit. They said they have never required mitigation as a result of an audit. Section 7- engineering, needs to be sensitively designed as it encroaches into very steep slopes on the back of the project. The applicant has worked with parks and engineering on traffic calming and trails. They are also looking at the overflow parking for Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 7 Meadows Road. Section 10 – environmental health. The applicant is going to start to voluntarily do compositing. Staff recommendation is that Council approves and lets HPC make the final decision on the pedestrian bridge. Councilwoman Mullins said she is out at the institute every other week giving tours of the grounds but it will not influence her decision. Jim Curtis, representing the institute along with Jeff Berkus, Cindy Buniski, Becky Ward and Judd Hawk. Mr. Curtis said they are fine with the ordinance as written and are not seeking Council to grant an approval on the bridge. They don’t want to create a tug of war with HPC. They are fine with the employee audit and the mitigation language. When the reception center was built in 1958 there were 48 lodging units with a capacity of about 100 people. There was a dining facility that could handle around 100 people. Lodging and dining was in balance. Since then the lodging has increased to 98 units. At two people per room, the need to feed has increased from 100 to 200 people. The need to keep the dining and lodging in balance is still the same. On the pedestrian bridge, at the May 11th HPC meeting I don’t think I did a very good job explaining why it is important to the institute. We do have a modified design we are comfortable with that maintains the integrity of the concrete “Ts”. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the 781 square feet will all be in the basement. Mr. Curtis said no. Including the basement it is what is over the 1991 approvals. They would prefer to do a full basement to maximize the subgrade storage space. It is very expensive space. If they only excavate under the new pavilion and make a connecting tunnel it would change the subgrade FAR. Depending where budget comes we are trying to figure out what we can afford subgrade. Jeff Berkus stated this needs to be a subordinate element to the historic asset. It is light, airy and of concrete construction. He showed illustrations of the proposed addition. The bridge will allow the removal of the stair. He showed images of the original bridge proposed to HPC and the modified design they will propose back to HPC. Councilwoman Mullins asked what are we weighing in on. Ms. Simon replied the planned development, growth management and the call up question. Councilman Daily said he very much likes the design. It makes sense for HPC to make the final call on the bridge. He is supportive of the application. Councilman Frisch said he agrees with Councilman Daily. It is a thoughtful design. He is happy to let the bridge be worked out at HPC. It will be a great addition to the institute and the community. Councilman Myrin thanked them for the model. He asked if there is a math problem on the parking. Ms. Simon said there is one space per 1,000 square feet of new commercial are. They are not generating a round number. They should round up to a whole number. Councilman Myrin asked is there space in the garage for it. Ms. Simon said they have converted some of the spaces to storage over the years but have undone it. Now they have more parking then they need. Councilman Myrin asked if there is a math problem on the housing if they were not a public facility. Ms. Simon said it will be complicated. Normally we will figure out how many employees will be generated for the new square footage and take 60 percent of that. In this case we need to isolate any mitigation that is caused only by the new addition. It is only for food service employment. Councilwoman Mullins said she supports what you are doing on the parking and the design is great. They are setting a precedent with the audit. It is appropriate with this building. She would support the 44 inch wide bridge but would leave that up to HPC to decide. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 8 Mayor Skadron said there is concurrence to let HPC approve the bridge. For essential public facility, the 781 square feet is in excess of the 1991 approvals. Ms. Simon replied yes. Mayor Skadron asked do the 1991 approvals take into account sub grade space. Ms. Simon stated they do not. Mayor Skadron asked when the red line ordinance was worked out. Ms. Simon said mid-week last week. Mayor Skadron asked what is the Staff recommendation. Ms. Simon stated to adopt the ordinance. Councilman Myrin said the red line happened mid-week, why. Ms. Simon said there was concern over the increased construction costs and the audit. Councilman Myrin asked how does this provide less costs. Ms. Simon said in Section 4 the 781 square foot could expand up to 1,250. This allows the basement to be smaller. Mayor Skadron opened public comment. 1. Cindy Buniski said on the lower level storage they would like to proceed if at all possible. The goal is to keep the storage. They appreciate consideration on this. It is an important building that has not had a major revamp. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Myrin said it seems odd we have a code with a math problem for parking. We have a housing system in place that eliminates the need for it. Labeling it an essential public facility or by doing an audit we have multiple mechanisms to do away with it. We treat parking so highly. He said it bothers him and he would like to see for the 781 the typical applied for housing. He is not sure there is anything important enough to not have housing at the 60 percent. Councilwoman Mullins said the housing is targeting the employer and the parking is requiring the user. The number of employees is staying the same. I don’t see there is something actually wrong with the code. Councilman Frisch said the whole reason we have the number is so we don’t get in to the value judgement. Councilman’s Myrin point is we put a hierarchy needs over a category of buildings of essential public facilities of measuring a different way. Those have superseded some community values. What benefit does an essential public facility get. Councilwoman Mullins said she understands the need for affordable housing. She does not think we are way off the track by approving this. Councilman Myrin said we may not be way off the track by approving this but we are by approving one after another after another. All I’m asking is just because it is labeled an essential public facility doesn’t mean the employees go away. Councilman Frisch said he is supportive of the ordinance staying as written. Under the moratorium we are looking at double counting and maybe we can look at this. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the redlined version of Ordinance #17, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. Councilman Myrin said he will vote against this because of his concern of the housing. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #91, SERIES OF 2016 – 108 Maple Lane, Variance Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this is a variance request submitted by Leslie Curly for her property at 108 Maple Lane. It is a 450 square foot lot part of the Smuggler subdivision and zoned R3 with a PD overlay. There is an existing residence on the lot and the proposal is to replace it with a new development. The request is for a set back variance. Light wells are only permitted if two Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 9 conditions are met including being required by building code for egress and they are no more than three feet by three feet in dimension. A variance is required to permit anything larger. There are three criteria to grant a variance and all three must be met. It must generally be consistent with the land use code, be as minimal as possible to allow reasonable use of the property and a literal interpretation of the code would deprive rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same zone district and would cause an unnecessary hardship. Staff’s comments are a denial would not cause an unnecessary hardship but is more of a mere inconvenience. There are no unique constraints. Overall Staff is recommending denial. Leslie Curly passed out a handout to Council. She stated she wants a larger window well in the setback to provide livability for the basement area. She is asking for an adjacent window to accommodate two windows into one. Councilman Myrin asked if what was behind was a second bedroom would it be allowed. Ms. Curly replied yes. I have a bedroom and a bathroom though and it is not permitted. Mr. Barker said the building code requires what egress is determined. In this case it is a bedroom and a bathroom. The bathroom does not require egress. Councilman Myrin said because what is behind the wall this is not permitted. The criteria make it difficult because this is not unique to this parcel. Councilman Daily said he is sympathetic to the applicant’s purpose but he has a tough time with the review standards of the code. There are three and Staff advises that none are met. Councilwoman Mullins asked is egress required just for bedrooms. Stephen Kanipe, chief building official, said there are two conditions in a basement where egress is requires. One is for every bedroom which is also true for above grade. If there was no bedroom, one of these would still need to provide egress. Councilwoman Mullins said that makes sense to provide minimum egress. What is the argument against one continuous window well. Mr. Kanipe said this is a resolution of the land use code requirement and building code requirement. The land use code changed to move to this minimum requirement in the set back. Councilman Frisch said like Councilman Daily I’m sympathetic to the cause but I can’t get over the variances. You had two of the most respected land use representatives in the business at the meeting last time here saying if A was approved B did not need heard. That happened and then we were called back in here. Usually we try to make sure the applicant and their representatives are on the same page and take what they say as being valid. Mayor Skadron said his position is consistent with his fellow Council Members. The review criteria are not being met. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #91, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2016 – 400 E Hopkins Creperie Temporary Use Ms. Garrow stated this is for a temporary use for a metal shade structure for the court yard area. She showed an image of the corrugated metal structure on top of wood with an umbrella on top of the metal pieces. They are also asking for the ability to have canvas and fabric walls. Staff has concerns in terms of its relationship to the historic commercial core. It is inconsistent with the materials you would traditionally see downtown and you can’t see the front door so well from the street level. The resolution is written to approve the temporary use. She recommends two changes to allow the structure to be up to Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 25, 2016 10 October 15th. They did a site visit with Stephen Kanipe and there is wiring that needs to be brought up to code and he wants them to address the wiring issues. Staff does not recommend approval. Mayor Skadron said the approval would allow the structure to stay till October 15. Denial would require removal beginning tomorrow. Raphael and Karin Derly, owners of Le Creperie. Councilwoman Mullins asked how clear is the code in terms of this type of structure or improvement. I think the space is great. This is what we are striving for in the land use code. Things that are unique and a surprise. That is what you have done. It is not to code. Is it clear you needed approvals to do this. I support what you have done, I think you have enhanced the space. I would support the temporary use through the summer and some alternative next summer. I would not support you having to take this down tomorrow. Councilman Frisch said I think the tag line this week is I’m with her. While I’m not a fan of the architecture of the building it is one of my nook and cranny examples of the highest order. They have implemented a nook and cranny business. I’m happy and comfortable and will sleep well by supporting a cleanup of the building code. Hopefully they can come back with a longer term solution next spring. Councilman Myrin said it is an amazing space and it looks great. As Councilman Frisch said it is an amazing space and it looks great. Part of that is if you turn it into a trellis, tented trellis and a building, locally serving to potentially a retail operation. He is concerned with the slope of the constant and there are reasons in the code, employee generation is a big one. He is not comfortable approving this. The long term goal is to keep businesses like yours. Councilman Daily said he agrees with Councilmembers Mullins and Frisch and supports the continuation of the temporary use. He agrees the wiring needs cleaned up. He very much likes what you have done there. It is an imaginative use of space. He hopes they continue to be successful. Mayor Skadron asked why they did it. Mr. Derly said after five years they tried everything and it is a tricky space. They heard many times over the years it was too hot down there. Mayor Skadron said he loves the space and thinks it is fantastic. It is exactly what we strive for in the community. We have to be careful how approvals get made though. There are unique constraints to subgrade space. He will support the temporary use until October 15th. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #101 with amendments; seconded by Councilman Daily. Councilman Myrin said he would support this but is focused on the long term in town and would like to come out of the moratorium with what would enable them to have a long term business. He loves the Creperie and what they have done is great. All in favor, except Councilman Myrin. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 8:12 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk