Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19960812Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Mayor Pro Tem Richards called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Waggaman, Paulson and Marolt present. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS City Manager Amy Margerum presented a team employee bonus award for employees who contributed to the success of the transportation summit. Mayor Pro Tem Richards and Council presented plaques and checks to Alice Hubbard, Randy Ready, Cathy Derby, Barbara Umbreit, Doug Smith, Stan Clauson, Tim Malloy, Bob Nevins, and EJ Christensen. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Denise Volk Reich, 230 N. Spring, Oklahoma Flats, gave Council pictures of parking on North Spring at the end of the right-of-way. Ms. Reich said she has done what the city requested, taken out the landscaping and put another parking space on her property. Ms. Reich pointed out the city put up “no parking” signs last week. Ms. Reich said people still park in this area and are jammed in this area. Ms. Reich said she has no problem with the city’s proposal to put a bench on this right-of-way. Ms. Reich said the problem down there is that the land use has changed; there is a large duplex across the street. Ms. Reich said there are 4 cars associated with the duplex and they do not use the garage but use the spaces at the end of the street. Ms. Reich also gave Council a letter from Remo Lavagnino dated 1983 in which he brings up the problem with snow plowing. Ms. Reich said this is still a problem and the cars keep piling up farther up the street. Ms. Reich told Council last winter her realtor called the police 30 times about the parking. Ms. Reich said this parking also causes problems with access to a fire hydrant. Ms. Reich said there are 300 other places in the city to put a park. Ms. Reich said she is willing to try this; however, she needs access to her property. Ms. Reich said the duplex across the street was allowed to be moved 3 feet forward in order to save cottonwood trees. Ms. Reich said they cut down all these cottonwood trees. Ms. Reich said it is uncomfortable for her to have to complain to the city about all these things. Ms. Reich said because this duplex was moved forward 3 feet, there is no parking for visitors or workmen. Ms. Reich said she has made adjustments to the needs of the city. 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 City Manager Margerum said a lot of these concerns are existing conditions that have nothing to do with putting a bench on the city’s right-of-way. Ms. Margerum told Council several staff members went to the site visit. The streets department put up “no parking” signs across from Ms. Reich’s house in order to be able to enforce the parking situation. Ms. Margerum said staff suggested Ms. Reich make some modifications to her driveway so she can park her cars in her driveway, which she has done. The driveway is 10 feet on her property and does provide access to her home. These are existing conditions. Ms. Margerum said the city is not changing any use in the area and is only putting a bench on the property and dedicating it to Remo Lavagnino. The city is not rezoning this land to park or changing the right-of- way. The city made a concession to push the right-of-way out further so that the snow can go into where the park is now and allow 2 more spaces for Ms. Reich to park cars. This is a public right-of-way, a beautiful spot on the river. Ms. Margerum told Council the follow up on the house across the street is that the owners have agreed, evidently they did open up a wall and they have agreed to put that back. The police department will go and enforce the “no parking” signs. Ms. Margerum said staff has tried to work with Ms. Reich. Staff feels they have this resolved. Ms. Reich asked where the snow will put pushed. Ms. Reich said she would like the city to consider putting the right-of-way back. Ms. Reich said she had to tear a shed down and follow the letter of the law and this seems like selective enforcement. Ms. Margerum said the new house has a 3 car garage and 3 parking spaces on site and the parking in this area should be enforced. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the city needs to follow up on stricter parking enforcement, to track the duplex to make sure it does not reconvert into a use that is inappropriate for the area, to lower the berm, watch how the snow plowing goes this winter. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the bench on this property is not the problem; it is a series of other conditions having built up in this area. The neighborhood is changing with larger homes, homeowners who are not integrated into the neighborhood. Paula Mayer told Council they have owned property in this area since 1954. Due to the larger buildings, this area is experiencing serious drainage problems. Ms. Mayer said her basement is getting flooded. These homes have changed the historic drainage patterns. 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Rebecca Schickling, parks department, told Council the new house owners complied with the tree mitigation. They put in additional trees that were going to be saved but got destroyed during excavation. They were mitigated with comparably valued trees. Ms. Reich said the trees were put in on the north side, not a tree was replaced on the river side. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the city’s tree ordinance only requires replacement; there is no ability to tell people where these trees go. Council reiterated that all these complaints and issues will be followed up on . COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Pro Tem Richards reminded everyone of the primary election tomorrow. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Paulson moved to read Ordinances #31 and 32, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #31 Series of 1996 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, ADOPTING THE UNIFORM ELECTION CODE OF 1992, AS AMENDED, FOR ALL COORDINATED ELECTIONS ORDINANCE #32 Series of 1996 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, VACATING A PORTION OF THE ALLEY LYING NORTH OF LOT R IN BLOCK 26, WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS were read by the city clerk Councilman Paulson moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. The consent calendar is: 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 · Minutes - May 13, July 1, 8, 1996 · Ordinance #31, Series of 1996 - Adopting Uniform Election Code · Ordinance #32, Series of 1996 - Street Vacation Braden · Resolution #44, Series of 1996 - 1/2 Cent Sales Tax · Intergovernmental Agreement - School District · Request for Funds - Ski Company 50th Anniversary Pioneer Ski Week ($12,000 from contingency) · Resolution #45, 1996 - Contract for Shredder/Screener · Resolution #47, 1996 - Street Improvement Contract - Elam · Resolution #46, 1996 - Contract Approval First Phase Water Treatment Plant · Request for Funds - Water Treatment Plant Update Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1996 - Trueman SPA Amendment Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council there has been a lot of staff research into the original approvals, what was intended, and what was in the SPA agreement. The applicant is requesting addition of 17 permitted uses to lot 1 of their subdivision, which is zoned NC (neighborhood/commercial). Staff recommends that second hand store, office supply, children/toy store, bookstore, appliance store and arts & crafts supply store be added to the permitted uses. Staff is no longer requesting deed restrictions on the affordable dwelling units. The original approval requested these be under the auspices of the housing authority. The requirement is only that the housing be long term, which it is. The applicant feels it would be too onerous to have deed restrictions. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Clauson reminded Council another issue was that the subdivision agreement required a sidewalk along Puppy Smith street. Clauson said staff does not recommend a sidewalk along the south side of Puppy Smith street. Staff recommends adoption of this Ordinance on second dreading with the additional uses for the Trueman SPA and to memorialize the 10,000 square feet of SCI uses in the building. The applicant will file a new SPA agreement to include these changes within 180 days of the date of approval. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilman Paulson said this is a very congested and dangerous area and he would like to see the sidewalk on the south side of Puppy Smith street. City Manager Margerum suggested this be referred to the Downtown Pedestrian committee and have them give Council a written recommendation. Councilman Marolt said his concerns since the last discussion have been addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked if there is language requiring the housing units be rented to working residents. Phil Bloesmsa, property manager, told Council he verifies that the residents are employees of Pitkin County and he has to file a report bi-annually with the housing office. Council requested staff check on the post office traffic circulation. Councilman Paulson said his concern is that Clark’s will sell and the space will be replaced with a store like Wal-Mart that will force the other smaller stores out of business and increase the traffic. Clauson said Clark’s is a food store and an approved use. Clauson said there is no protection from another owners taking over the food store. Clauson said typically the small business and larger business co- exist very well. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1996, on second reading as amended; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 1996 - Housing Guidelines Dave Tolen, housing director, reminded Council the housing board recommends changes to the guidelines every year. Some of these changes are income, some are 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 clarifications of existing policy, and some are changes to policy. Tolen told Council the incomes have been increased 2 percent in accordance with the cpi. Tolen told Council there will be another survey done to check these local income figures. Tolen told Council there was a lot of discussion about “local working resident” and who is and is not a Pitkin county employee. The intent of the housing program is to provide housing opportunities for persons who are or who have been actively employed or self-employed in Pitkin county and who provide goods and services to individuals and businesses or institutions. Tolen said the language referring to a wait list for rental units has been deleted. Tolen said there is a recommended increase in payment-in-lieu based on an increase in land prices. Payment-in-lieu is based on subsidy cost to produce a unit for one employee. Tolen told Council the hourly commitment for an employee has been increased to 1500 per year, which is about 35 hours per week 10 months a year. Tolen said the Commissioners asked for specific language on how units that are required in mitigation should be distributed. Tolen said where units are rental units, the developer is required to provide those as mitigation and has the opportunity to give employees of that developer first priority. When units that are required are sale units, these must go through the housing lottery and be available to the general public. Tolen said as part of the Moore application, the housing office is developing a policy that any units over and above those required for mitigation can be targeted by the developer. In the affordable housing zone, the developer may target all the units. Tolen said another issue is that all occupants of deed restricted units be required to be registered voters, be willing to commit to the citizenship of the community. Tolen said staff is researching whether this is legal. Tolen said a major change in the RO guidelines being suggested relates to how these should be priced. The original policy was to say that the developer set the initial price at whatever a qualified buyer was willing to pay. Tolen said the issue of whether the product was vacant lots or houses was not addressed. Tolen said the suggestion for lots is that the developer of lots price them to whatever a qualified buyer was willing to pay. The buyer could resell it for the initial lot price, 4 percent appreciation plus the cost of construction plus appreciation on the house. The resale is capped based on the initial sale of the lot. Tolen told Council developers of the North 40 have suggested the purchase of a lot be treated the same, that the developer who builds a home and get the incentive of setting the market price 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 should not be treated better than an individual who buys a vacant lot and builds a home on it. The developers have suggested that the initial price be set only after construction of the home by whomever builds the home, whether it is a developer or a purchaser. Tolen said one benefit of this is that it makes it simple to set the price for a finished product as it will be set by the market. There were concerns raised by the housing board on this suggestion. Tolen pointed out the purpose of the resident occupied program, the RO units were designated to provide an incentive to developer to provide a certain product, single family homes that were lacking in the inventory. This is to provide incentive to owners of larger parcels of land to get them to subdivide the land and use it for a certain purpose, affordable housing. Tolen said it does not seem the same intent, to provide incentive and go through the risky process of land use approvals and infrastructure improvements, is needed for someone to simply construct a home. Tolen said one downside is the risk of speculation; allowing people without risk to purchase an RO lot, build a house and sell it at market price was of concern to the housing board. Tolen said there is a potential these products will grow in price and not be truly affordable to the community. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. John McBride, North 40 project, said what has been unique about Aspen is that it was built by a lot of individuals rather than being developer built. McBride said that anything that can be done to keep individual investment and creativity in the community is important. McBride said it is not right to treat individual home builders any differently than an outside developer. McBride said any developer can make more money by selling to an outsider who can develop small homes or townhouses and sell them for market price. McBride said an individual should have equal right to an outside developer. If an individual buys a lot and builds a small house putting in their own labor, the first time this house sells they should be able to get whatever the market will bear within the restricted market, permanent full time working residents. McBride said after the first sale, the resale cap should be put on. Jamie Knowlton, North 40 project, said there should be an incentive for locals to build their own homes and equally valid to giving developers incentives for large blocks of land. Knowlton said this should be looked at as investment in the community by locals. Knowlton said part of the Aspen area community plan is to get people to build a house and invest in the community. Knowlton said these 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 guidelines are counter to that idea. Knowlton passed out some proposed language to amend the RO guidelines. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said there is an overwhelming demand for affordable housing in Pitkin county. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the RO portion of the AACP is supposed to fill a niche for less than 10 percent of the households who truly fit into that category. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said once these RO units are built, they need to meet this purpose forever. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said separating the seller of the initial lot from any other purchaser creates a burdensome and complicated system. Mayor Pro Tem Richards noted that another community that tried RO homes with no cap saw appreciation in the first sales of $70,000 to $100,000 per unit. The RO program is for housing opportunities for people, not development opportunities. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the RO category was very carefully structured with a lot of compromises. There are no asset limitations on RO purchasers; there is no income limit; the original developer sets the price of the lot or unit at whatever the market will bear. The only safeguard on RO is the 4 percent appreciation cap. Mayor Pro Tem Richards urged Council to adopt these guidelines and not to change the formula in RO before any results can be seen. Councilman Marolt said there is some validity to the suggestions by McBride. Some local purchasers of these lots may build houses and live in them for years and years. McBride said he feels it is a double standard to allow a developer to resell a house he built with no cap but a purchaser cannot. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said any purchaser will be able to recover 100 percent of the actual costs of building a house. There is also 4 percent appreciation on top of costs of construction. The City is accepting larger growth allotments in order to get RO and housing units. The exceptional project status for the North 40 project is granted on the condition that it abide by the existing RO guidelines. Tolen said the RO concept could cover several local residents getting together, purchasing some land, taking it through the process and selling the lots as RO units. The RO concept is a way to get this land into the housing pool. The incentive is not intended for someone to build a house once the lot has already been approved. City Manager Margerum pointed out a RO cannot be purchased by anyone other than a resident, working person. These lots cannot be purchased by developer from some other communities. No one can buy more than one lot. There are no developers coming in to buy several lots. 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Knowlton said if a developer could, he would be treated differently. Mayor Pro Tem Richards reiterated a developer would not be able to purchase a lot as it is restricted to working residents. Knowlton asked why a local person would be penalized and limited. Knowlton said actual costs of construction do not include sweat equity, which is an asset that locals have. The guidelines said that a local builder cannot recoup their sweat equity costs. Tolen said the housing board feels that what one gets for their sweat equity is the ability to get into a house with less cash. Tolen told Council what the county has done in WJ ranch is to allow people to recover the value of sweat equity based on bona fide estimates of the cost of the work that was done. This has not been the policy in the past. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the community has protected their quality of life through careful growth management policies. One of the circumstances of this is highly inflated real estate prices. This could lead to windfall profits from the sale of RO lots. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said RO lots or units are for residents with incomes above $110,000 who cannot afford free market units. Councilwoman Waggaman said she feels sweat equity needs to be factored into the cost. Councilwoman Waggaman said with no caps, these units will not be affordable to the next generation. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the North 40 project could be developed as AH and have 30 percent of the lots or homes be free market and of the remaining 70 percent, some of these could be RO. The RO units were to help subsidy the lower category units in an AH project. Knowlton said there should be flexibility and mobility in the affordable housing system. There is a lack of RO units for people who can afford that type of units. Knowlton said the city should make rules that allow the majority of people to make an investment in the community. Councilwoman Waggaman said she believes the growth will continue and pressure for units will continue. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she believes in the RO concept and does not believe there will be a shortage of buyers. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said these guidelines are reviewed on an annual basis and they can be changed if it is proved necessary. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she will go with the requirement for registered voters if it is legal. Councilmembers Waggaman, Marolt and Paulson did not favor the registered voters. Tolen said they will ask for proof of registration of cars as one proof of residency. 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Councilwoman Waggaman said she would prefer that the amount of hours worked, the 1500 hours be less in order to accommodate different types of jobs. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the public is subsidizing some employee units and amount of work is a choice of life style. Tolen said this can be reviewed by the special review board and if they find there are a lot of requests, he will bring a revision back next year. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #22, Series of 1996, on second reading with the provisions that employees do not have to be registered voters and that people who work less than 1500 hours annually but more than the current guidelines will be allowed the opportunity to appeal to the special review board; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, abstain; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1996 - Zupancis Subdivision Bob Nevins, community development department, told Council this is a request to subdivide a 16,000 square foot parcel into two lots; one of 7500 square feet for a single family housing and one of 9246 square feet for a duplex. This land is located in Williams addition and is zoned R-6. Nevins told Council there are currently 2 single family homes on this parcel. Upon approval of subdivision, demolition and construction of a new duplex on lot 2 will occur. Nevins told Council P & Z reviewed this and approved it with conditions, which have been incorporated into Council’s ordinance. Nevins pointed out the ordinance recommends approval of removal of 50 percent of the trees along South avenue for snow storage. Rebecca Schickling, parks department, told Council the majority of these trees are under code size to be replaced and are in the city right-of-way. Silvia Davis, applicant, told Council many of these aspen trees are shoots, not actually planted. Council suggested changing the 50% of the trees to be removed to “some”. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #25, Series of 1996, on second reading amending condition 3(k) to “the applicant shall remove some of the existing aspen trees”; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Meadows SPA, GMQS Extension Lot 5 Suzanne Wolff, community development department, reminded Council that lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows were subject to a lawsuit. The lis pendens was removed in November by Hadid, although he filed an appeal on lot 6. Ms. Wolff told Council the improvements associated with the SPA agreement have been met. There were some requirements for the extension; the applicant has removed the non- functioning trail lights along Meadows road. There are some conditions being carried forward; removal of trees planted in the trail easement and planting additional trees along Meadows road. The applicant has requested an extension of the deadline to October 1996 in order to plant the trees this fall. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council they have no problem with the conditions. Kaufman told Council there is no way the applicants will be able to break ground between now and October and they will have to be back for another 6 month extension. Councilwoman Waggaman said her new philosophy is the longer the development can be put off, the better. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilman Paulson moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Meadows SPA GMQS Extension Lot 6 Suzanne Wolff, community development department, told Council this lot is still subject to a lawsuit and under that lawsuit the owners are unable to sell, develop or finance anything on this lot. Ms. Wolff said there are some conditions being carried 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 forward from the previous extension. Ms. Wolff said the applicants have requested the excavation deadline be extended to the same deadline as the vested rights extension. Amy Margerum, city manager, pointed out the city’s parks department plans on building the trail this year. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, said that will not be a problem. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1996 - Adoption of 1995 Model Traffic Code David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, said this ordinance repeals the 1977 Model Traffic Code and reenacts Section 24.04.010 by adopting the 1995 Model Traffic Code. This Code adopts rules for vehicles, rights-of-way, pedestrians, speed, parking and driving regulations. This has been reviewed by the police and parking departments. This includes local amendments like the 25 mph speed limit in town. Councilman Paulson asked if this Code covers registration of vehicles. Hoefer said this is in a different section of the C.R.S. Mayor Pro Tem Richards requested a copy of this statute so Council can discuss how to proceed on local registration of vehicles. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilman Marolt moved to adopt Ordinance #28, Series of 1996, on second reading adopting the 1995 Model Traffic Code by reference; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment - Small Lodges Dave Michaelson, community development department, told Council this ordinance incorporates changes to the LP zone district as well as growth management issues. 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 P & Z unanimously approved these amendments in July. Michaelson told Council one component of this ordinance would change the LP zone to an overlay. The current LP zone only allows two uses; lodge and restaurant. The second component is to drop LP properties into underlying zoning and the overlay would allow for lodges that want to stay as a lodge use as a conforming use and would allow expansion. Michaelson said the proposed text for the overlay zone is identical to the LP zoning with affordable housing as a conditional use, and a change in the purpose section which provides incentive for upgrading lodges on site or onto adjacent properties. Michaelson said these amendment are related to LP properties only. Michaelson told Council the underlying lodge concept is to allow lodges to have uses identical to other properties in similar zone districts. Michaelson said another issue is mitigating conversion and trying to address the concept between growth and change. The conversion of a lodge to residential units may represent a decrease in impacts to the community. Michaelson said staff work on conversion has concluded that 2.5 tourist accommodation units for each 3 bedroom unit is a reasonable conversion factor. Michaelson said a if 20 unit lodge on a 1500 square foot lot zoned RMF wanted to convert to residential uses, the maximum underlying density would be 4 three-bedroom units. Using the above conversion factors, the applicant could develop 8 three-bedroom without increasing the impacts. Michaelson suggested the residual impact not be used to develop additional free market homes but to allow a lodge allocation pool for expansion. Michaelson said there are modifications to the change in use provisions. In the current change in use provisions, if one develops more than one single family dwelling unit, they have to go through the entire growth management process, compete and deal with the mitigation. The P & Z recommends developing a change in use provision to allow lodges that wish to convert as well as lodges that want to expand to go through a process where the impacts would be quantified and the project would be required to deal with each of the criteria listed in the planning office memorandum. Michaelson pointed out existing language requires a “minimal” impact to employee generation, to traffic, on public services. Michaelson said there is no definition for “minimal”. Staff gave language that P & Z would make a determination that employee housing or cash-in-lieu is provided to mitigate those impacts as opposed to using an arbitrary standard of “minimal”. 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Michaelson said there are also amendments to the GMQS pool. Growth management not only controls rate of growth in Aspen but also the build out. Michaelson said, based on the concept of change as opposed to growth, he has included several choices on how to address the number of units. Michaelson said one issue is the total number of units that would be allowed to convert. The formula is complicated but the concept is the number of potential buildout that could occur for each lodge with underlying zoning; how many lodge units were on each of the properties to come up with a conversion factor of 6 lodge units per 1 free market dwelling unit. The small lodge owners felt that was artificially low. P & Z agreed that 14 free markets would be allowed to convert annually. Michaelson said assuming 35 lodge units are converted annually (the proportion of 14 times 2.5), this would represent less than 1 percent annually of total lodge units within the metro area and about 10 percent of the LP bed base. Michaelson said P & Z and staff reviewed a process for allocations and favored a lottery where each lodge that would like to convert to free market homes would be in a lottery drawing. These lodges could then convert depending on meeting the criteria until the maximum of 14 free market units is reached. Michaelson pointed out that the number of free market units awarded determines the number of lodge units that can expand in order to not put growth pressures on the community. There would be a free market pool first, a change in use; if there were only 10 free market units awarded and converted, the lodge pool would change. Michaelson said originally staff recommended a 2 year program to allow lodges to roll over into another use that does not put an impact on the community while still having a mechanism for lodges that do want to expand to be able to do it. P & Z felt this issue can be addressed at anytime rather than have a 2 year deadline. Michaelson said several lodges are zoned office and do have commercial and office expansion opportunities. Michaelson said he could not develop a conversion factor for this type. P & Z has suggested that every commercial/office expansion within the change in use process, the difference in number of employees generated as a lodge versus commercial and office will be calculated. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked if “conversion” means retrofit of an existing structure. Michaelson said it can mean only remodel within the shell or total demolition and new units. Michaelson said that is a reason why one of the criteria in change in use is specific in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood. P & Z 14 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 was concerned about being able to review new structures in terms of architectural consistency. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked if a conversion was a demolition, would the new construction of free market units be required to mitigate the affordable housing. Michaelson said yes. Michaelson said if there are existing units in the lodges, these should be replaced at 50 percent in addition to additional impacts. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if lodges are allowed to condominiumize. Michaelson said yes, that process is a staff level review. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if condominimized, could lodges be lived in permanently. Michaelson said if an existing lodge condominiumized with no intent to short term rentals, that would be change in use and would have to meet those criteria. Michaelson said the type of ownership can change, but when the type of use changes it falls under the change in use. Michaelson said the Colorado common ownership interest act restricts the ability of public agencies to regulate condominiumization; however, the city has change in use provisions. Councilwoman Waggaman said her issue is if a group of senior citizens wanted to purchase a lodge building and live in it, would this be a complicated deal. Michaelson said in the change in use, lodges can short and long term rented. Gideon Kaufman, representing the small lodge owners, told Council they will probably see a mix of what will happen to the existing lodges between conversion and expansion. Kaufman said when mitigation kicks in there is a question of the concept of what a lodge currently has. Michaelson said if 20 percent of these type of units are lost, this is losing an economic segment of tourist accommodations and it should not go beyond this. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if over some amount of time could every one of these lodge units would be converted. Kaufman said it is not set up that way; there is a quota limit. Kaufman said staff recommended 20 percent and the small lodge owners requested 35 percent of the LP bed base, which represents 9 percent of the overall bed base. This is the maximum that could be converted. Councilwoman Waggaman asked how many years it would take to convert that percentage. Michaelson said at 20 percent, 3 years and at 35 percent, 7 years. Si Kelly, Buckhorn Lodge, said his property is zoned lodge/commercial with a small 9 room lodge. Kelly said his property was originally zoned C-1 and then zoned to office. The LP zoning did not fit his situation. Kelly said he is in the same 15 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 predicament as many of the other small lodges but is not zoned LP. Kelly requested when the city uses the definition of small lodges, the Buckhorn is also included. Kelly said he would like to be able to do something other than short term rental with his property. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked staff to give some possible solutions . to this at second reading Councilwoman Waggaman asked also to know if there are any other properties in this type of situation. Les Holst said the lodges need relief and there is a problem. Holst suggested approaching this from the way of what could benefit the community. Holst said the current solution seems to be single family units. Holst presented a rendering of a suggested neighborhood, historical solution with small homes, artists studios. Holst said Aspen’s economic viability comes from being a historic presence. Joe Wells asked for clarification about expansion, will a lodge owner have to wait until another lodge owner converts. Wells said this would mean application is not available until spring 1997. Wells pointed out spring deadlines cause construction problems. Mayor Pro Tem Richards suggested some scenarios of how people would work their way through the ordinance, how expansion works, the specific types of mitigation conversion versus demolition. Mary Ellen Smiddy said conversion gives Council the ability to put some restrictions on these lots, have city-ownership with restricted rent, or affordable spaces for local businesses. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if there is no available pool of lodge units, is it just as easy to go through GMQS. Michaelson said the growth management process is a lot more cumbersome than the change in use provisions in this proposed ordinance. Michaelson reiterated an important concept in this is growth versus change. Growth management has no relationship to conversion of uses. Councilwoman Waggaman said it is to the city’s benefit to have lodges that want to expand to be able to do so. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like staff to look at starting the pot with units available for expansion and to be deducted from . future units put into the pool Kaufman said that is similar to multi-year allocation and the worse that could happen if no one ever converted was that the city would end up with a few more lodge units. Councilwoman Waggaman also asked staff to look at Holst’s concept of “affordable commercial” to see if there is one more opportunity for the lodges to convert. 16 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 Councilman Marolt said he envisioned the conversion to be easier and more profitable for the lodge owners and to provide more incentive. Councilman Marolt said he does not see the incentives in this ordinance. Councilman Paulson asked if this ordinance would create a pool of rooms to be available for someone to build another huge hotel. Kaufman said this is limited to lodges in the LP district and from one LP to another. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said for second reading she would like to know if there are safeguards that no other lodge could get more than X . units or other safety language Michaelson said the Ritz is not zoned LP and they would have to go through the GMQS process where there is only 11 units available annually. The other safeguard is underlying zoning and lodges are held to the dimensional requirements in each zone district. Councilman Paulson asked if lodges could use conversions done in the past as a “takings”. Councilwoman Waggaman said her question is what happens when the 20 or 35 percent cap is reached. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked what if more lodges apply for the conversion than the annual cap allows; what is the process for selection of the best project. Kaufman said the ordinance has a mechanism to preclude speculation. If one gets a quota and does not use it, they are precluded from participating for 5 years. This is a lottery, not a judgment by P & Z. P & Z will look at the change in use provisions and the impact of each one and if they are mitigating for these impacts. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she would have to see a really good project lose a lottery 2 or 3 years in a row because this is not based on objective criteria. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she would like to know at second reading if this project would get priority in the next year. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said during this 18 month process there were a lot of good ideas discussed about how to strengthen the small lodges. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she would like to see these memorialized somewhere, like in the whereas clauses. Councilman Marolt moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 1996, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR FUNDS - Eco-Forum ‘96 Lynne Haynes, Energy 2000, requested $10,000 from Council to help sponsor this event. The event is being co-sponsored by sister cities. Mayor Pro Tem Richards 17 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 said the Energy 2000 should get into the city’s budget cycle for any 1997 funds. Ms. Haynes said the Eco-forum will not be held in Aspen in 1997. Last year the forum was held in Shimukappu. There will be representatives from some, if all not of Aspen’s sister cities. Councilman Paulson moved to approve $10,000 from contingency for the Eco- Forum; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. REFERENDUM PETITION RE; ORDINANCE #18, 1996 - REGULATING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, told Council the city clerk’s office certified the referendum petitions regarding Ordinance #18, 1996. Council may repeal Ordinance #18 or set the matter for special election. Resolution #43A repeals the ordinance and Resolution #43B sets a special election November 5, 1996. This would be a coordinated election with Pitkin county. Hoefer entered City Attorney John Worcester’s brief into the record. Councilman Marolt moved to approve Resolution #43B, Series of 1996, calling for a special election November 5, 1996; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 18 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 12, 1996 OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS ................................ ............... 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ....... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 3 Minutes - May 13, July 1, 8, 1996 ................................ ................................ ....... 4 Ordinance #31, Series of 1996 - Adopting Uniform Election Code ...................... 4 Ordinance #32, Series of 1996 - Street Vacation Braden ................................ ..... 4 Resolution #44, Series of 1996 - 1/2 Cent Sales Tax ................................ ............ 4 Intergovernmental Agreement - School District ................................ ................... 4 Request for Funds - Ski Company 50th Anniversary Pioneer Ski Week ($12,000 from contingency) ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 Resolution #45, 1996 - Contract for Shredder/Screener ................................ ....... 4 Resolution #47, 1996 - Street Improvement Contract - Elam ............................... 4 Resolution #46, 1996 - Contract Approval First Phase Water Treatment Plant ..... 4 Request for Funds - Water Treatment Plant Update ................................ ............. 4 ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1996 - Trueman SPA Amendment .......................... 4 ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 1996 - Housing Guidelines ................................ ... 5 ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1996 - Zupancis Subdivision .............................. 10 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Meadows SPA, GMQS Extension Lot 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 11 ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 1996 - Aspen Meadows SPA GMQS Extension Lot 6 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 11 ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1996 - Adoption of 1995 Model Traffic Code .... 12 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment - Small Lodges ........... 12 REQUEST FOR FUNDS - Eco-Forum ‘96 ................................ ........................... 17 REFERENDUM PETITION RE; ORDINANCE #18, 1996 - REGULATING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES ................................ .............................. 18 19