HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20170911Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #121, Series of 2017 – Water Campus Backwash Pond Sediment Removal Contract ....... 3
Minutes – August 28 and September 5, 2017 ....................................................................................... 3
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 .......................................................................................................... 3
SPECIAL MEETING – September 19, 2017 ............................................................................................... 8
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein,
Myrin, Frisch and Mullins present.
Mayor Skadron said today is September 11th and he would like everyone to take a moment of silence in
remembrance. He attended the memorial at the fire station today and they handed out red rose for the
fireman we lost and white rose for the police officers we lost. He also said we are thinking about those
who have suffered during the hurricanes.
We started tonight with a site visit at the Boomerang.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Emzy Veazy III said the high holy days are coming up. The golf course is a profit center and we
should be making money from it. We should cater to high school and college students.
2. Jordan Gray-Dekraai, engineering department, said they recently purchase two E bikes instead of
buying a new car in part to reduce greenhouse gases. They will help to get staff to where they
need to go. They want to encourage anyone to test drive them to stop by the department. The
base model was 900 dollars.
3. Bob Morris did a show and tell of doggie bags. The old bags were much better. The new ones
are smaller and cheaper made. You have to lick your fingers to get them open and can’t tell what
end is the one to open. They will be difficult to use when the weather gets colder.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Myrin thanked Jordan for the e bike presentation. I think the police have one as well. He
completely agrees on the dog bags. The change will be a problem as soon as winter comes.
Councilwoman Mullins said a little over a year ago Liz Chapman gave a presentation on the landfill. I
would like staff to revisit that presentation. Construction trash is a problem as well as composting. The
window on the landfill is closing quickly. Boulder has a really good ordinance.
Councilman Frisch said he attended the ACRA/Ski Co presentation last week. He thanked both
organizations for the great gathering. AT the last Council meeting we discussed getting the sign code
more in line with the supreme court ruling. Bert and myself had a discussion if there was a way to
automatically extend the signs being used without getting into a fee issue. After 2018 the sandwich
boards will not be allowed on city property. I was wondering if there was a way to automatically extend
them to that date. Jim True, city attorney, said the ordinance did allow the extension of any permit
applied for before the September 28th 2017 deadline to be extended to September of 2018. If you have a
valid permit that expires this month it will continue to 2018. The question is if you do not have a valid
permit for a sandwich board or it expires then you need to come in and seek a permit for it then it will be
good until Sept of 2018. Councilman Frisch said he is not sure how many people are aware they will be
gone in 2018. I believe staff is trying to contact all sandwich board owners. Jessica Garrow, community
development, said she would suggest all the business owners who have one or want one come in and
speak to us. Anything that is valid after the effective date of the ordinance is automatically renewed.
Councilman Hauenstein said at noon there were about 400 roses stuffed in boots and each rose had a
name and picture of someone killed on 9-11. I ask you to remember John Giradono.
Mayor Skadron thanked Rick Balentine from the fire department for the memorial. He also thanked
Keith from parks for the Mack And Cheese fest. The winner was Cache Cache. Ironically a vegetarian
dish. He also thanked the team from parks for putting on the community picnic at the golf course
yesterday. Lots came out and it was a fun day.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
3
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso 121 – backwash sediment removal
Councilwoman Mullins said sometimes the dregged up stuff is quite rich in nutrients. Can it be put to
use. Tyler Christoff, utilities, said he does not believe it is rich in nutrients. It is coming from Castle and
Maroon creeks. The testing have not found it to be the case.
Councilman Hauenstein said it looks as though every two to three years this has to be done. He suggested
this put it in the budget. Mr. Christoff stated it will be.
• Resolution #121, Series of 2017 – Water Campus Backwash Pond Sediment Removal Contract
• Minutes – August 28 and September 5, 2017
Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 2017 – 500 W Hopkins Avenue ( Boomerang Lodge) PD
Amendment
Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Council this property is located at 500 West Hopkins
between 4th and 5. Staff is recommending to continue the public hearing to October 9th. The property
was approved in 2006. Tonight’s application is to make some changes to the original approvals. There
was a site visit at 4pm to look at the original wing that is still standing. There were some late letters that
were forwarded to Council that have been entered as exhibit I.
The history goes back to the 2006 redevelopment that was approved by Council. It approved the middle
and west wing. It was for 47 keys, 29 units, 5 free market units and 2 affordable housing units. It is a
mix of 2.5 stories to 36 feet and 26.6 feet on the west wing. There is a lodge overlay on the property.
The site specific development locked in the heights and programming. A development order was issued
with three years of vested rights. In 2007 a demolition permit was issued and most of the building was
demolished. A permit for redevelopment was submitted but never issued. In 2009 an extension of vested
rights was granted until 2012. In 2011 a planned development amendment to modify the affordable
housing was granted. Later in 2011 a complaint was filed in district court and upheld in 2013. The
decision was later appealed. In 2012 a second extension of vested rights was granted until October 2015.
Prior to 2015 a building permit application was submitted and deemed complete. Today, the project is in
the building permit review. What can be built today is the 2006 approval. The maximum floor area is
46,140 square feet. what is proposed is to change some of the programming, materials and architecture.
They are not proposing any changes to height, setbacks, floor area or parking requirements. Since the
vested rights have expired these changes need to be reviewed under the current code. They do need to
make the trash enclosure larger and the parking needs to be moved and turned into parallel parking.
The 2017 amendments propose changes in programming and circulation and architectural changes. There
are still 47 keys but a drop in the number of units to 23. There are also circulation changes. They are
proposing changes from exterior circulation to interior and sheltered. There are also slight changes in
glazing and a roof plane change. The lodge units become more suite like. What this does is the keys
remain the same but the units drop. The average unit goes from 800 square feet to just over 1,000. On
the second story, exterior circulation has been replaced with balconies and the circulation has been moved
to the interior. The applicant is asking for a discount in the permit fees and an expedited review process
as part of the small lodge package. In exchange, they will run it as a lodge for 20 years. Affordable
housing does not change on the project. Since first reading we would like to see smaller lodge unit sizes,
more amenity apace and updates to the trash. The basement stays the same. We are recommending a
continuation to October 9th.
Councilwoman Mullins asked if there are still five free market units and what the average size is. Ms.
Phelan replied the 3rd story average size is about 1,700 square feet. The fourth story average size is
between 2,500 and 2,650. Councilwoman Mullins asked if there are still two affordable housing units.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
4
Ms. Phelan replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins said the interior corridor is it taking away from the
communal space. Ms. Phelan said initially when we looked at the floor area numbers it looked like there
were changes to meet the floor area numbers. It looks like it is what people expect today in a lodge.
Councilman Myrin said he saw this in 2001 for P&Z and in 2010. He said he commented in 2014 on the
lodge incentive program. On page 58 this is not met. Ms. Phelan said the dimensional requirements are
met because they are locked in with the PD. We are concerned about the larger lodge units because we
have a cap.
Councilman Frisch asked about the fee reduction and what happens if they don’t honor it and after 20
years if it were not to be a lodge at all. What happens on 20 years and a day. Ms. Garrow said the
program was approved and specifically lists the Boomerang can take advantage of the benefits. There are
three tiers of guarantees. If a lodge signs that it will be a lodge for 5, 15 and 20 years. Because it is a
significant redevelopment it requires the longest time and smallest amount of fee waiver. Boomerang
lodge, because of what they are proposing, they need to enter into an agreement that says 20 years. If 20
years and a day they want to do something different they need to come to City Council and amend their
approval to change the use. If during the 20 years they change the use, we are owed the fee reduction.
Councilman Frisch said the loss of the 25 percent is not the only thing stopping them. They would have
to come back to change the use. Ms. Garrow said an example would be the little red ski house. They
would have to tear off much of the non historic part of the building.
Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the criteria for the small lodge program. Ms. Garrow said because
they are listed in the ordinance they are able to opt in. we have had two lodges enter into agreements in
the 5 year program.
Applicant
Chris Bendon, Eric Witmondt, ME Aspen One Ventures LLC, Rob Sinclair, Sinclair architects. and Ben
Genshaft.
Mr. Bendon stated the project is shovel ready. They are simple modest improvements to the approval to
improve the amenity space. All else is the same. The changes are to the program, interior layouts and
amenity space. He showed the floorplan of the first floor existing approval. The existing approval
consists of 39 units with 47 keys. The proposal is 23 units with 47 keys. It will relocate a stair in the
existing as well as the end of a hallway in the proposal. We did do outreach to the neighbors. What we
heard is parking, trash and recycle. We have a beer and wine license in the proposal and there is a
concern from the Christiana about that. We want to talk about the 1,500 square feet. There are zone
districts where this limitation applies. It does not apply to residential and LP or city owned properties or
SCI, NC, MU, CL, SKI, L. What is left is the CC and C1. They allow for lodging but not the principal
use. This is post moratorium. Our property on West Hopkins is zoned R6 with a LP overlay. It is our
position that the limitation should not apply. Our other argument is the unit sizes in the largest
configuration is they hover around 1,500. We are not looking at units that are obscene on their face.
Lastly, we are attempting to use an existing approval.
For the lodge amenity space the current entry point is pretty dismal. We want to provide an obvious point
for where the action is taking place.
The parking requirement is for 31 spaces on site. There are 32 in the garage. There are 11 surface spaces.
We prefer more rather than fewer. We heard that loud and clear from the neighborhood. The most
important thing for us is access. If they could be signed for the Boomerang we could live with that.
Heights – the property itself has a 6 to 7 foot fall. As designed the project has some internal heights that
we could not make sense of. There is a five inch change we are proposing on the west. We see this as a
technical correction.
This is an iron clad lodging operation. This is a lodge and subject to all the lodge operations. Yes, this is
absolutely a lodge and we are very aware of the limitations on use. Our first priority is we have a highly
functioning project and flexibility. We are intending to opt in to the lodge incentive program. We’ve
talked about the city’s request for an audit and are willing to comply.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
5
Mr. Witmondt stated when Marshall and I started thinking of taking on this here we have some history. I
started coming to Aspen with my father, now with my wife and child. Marshal started coming here when
he was in college. Together our two families bought a home on East Hopkins and that is what got us
interested in this project. When we were originally introduced in this project we thought it had a lot of
merit. We looked at programming and think it is a spot where families will want to be. The other aspect
was the sense of arrival and using the lodge as a place where you want to stay.
Mr. Bendon said we are in receipt of the Jody Edwards letter. We disagree with his assessment of the
vested rights. The city has been very clear with us. We also disagree with his assessment of Ref 1.
We feel we have a simple and modest amendment that is shovel ready. We can make the project better
and this will return lodging to a property that has historically had lodging on it.
Councilman Frisch said the ability was to walk in to the building department with a permit and build what
was approved. Some rooms get a little larger. Mr. Bendon said it is an attractive projective. It has its
design flaws. We look at this as a way to dramatically improve the functionality and guest experience.
Councilman Frisch said the 1,500 square feet was more of a suggestion then a violation of any zone. Ms.
Garrow replied correct, Chris’s characterization is accurate. This is a development and we felt it
important to highlight. It is not a technical violation. Councilman Frisch said without the LP overlay,
there is a single family house that can go up. With the LP there is no permit in process. If someone
wanted to put a lodge there they could. What dimensions would we be looking at. Ms. Phelan replied it
is a PD so it would be setting the dimensions. Councilman Frisch said it is not like this is zoned 2 or 3
stories as a lodge. Ms. Phelan replied correct. The Council in 2006 determined the dimensions through
the PD were appropriate for the neighborhood. Councilman Frisch asked if they can talk about your
hospitality background and where this fits in. Mr. Witmondt said neither Marshall or I are hotel operators
we are real-estate developers. We then always bring in a hotel operator. We go out to the best in class to
manage. In Two Roads we felt we found the best.
Councilman Myrin said the parking proposed reduction is justified because the code has changed. Ms.
Phelan said in 2006 it was 31 on site spaces. As part of the approval it also allowed for use of the right of
way. Today the standards state the minimum is 31 and could be reduced with mobility and improvements
on site to 29. The standards also allow for up to 42. The site plan shows 32 spaces in the basement which
meet the requirement. Engineering requests the right of way parking be updated to parallel and only
available to the public. Councilman Myrin said as approvers of the current PD we would set the parking
requirement. On site wouldn’t include the on street. Another moving part is the free market residences
are above 1,500 square feet. We can set that number in the PD. Ms. Phelan said there was not a cap in
2006. Today there is a range up to 1,500 and 2,000 with a TDR. Generally speaking, they are in the
range. Councilman Myrin said it would require a TDR if they are over 1,500. The exemption for decks
and stairs is new this time. Ms. Phelan said that was locked in via an ordinance last year. In 2006 the
drawings and plans did not reconcile. Last year the drawings and ordinance were reconciled.
Councilman Myrin said the butterfly roof is new. Ms. Phelan said we are seeing more of those today.
Mayor Skadron said the first standard includes development suitability. Ms. Phelan replied things like
steep slopes, mud flow zone, flood plane and natural hazards on site. Mayor Skadron said for item C, site
planning is not met. Is staff’s objection to the head in parking. Ms. Phelan replied yes, it would need
changed to meet the engineering standards as well as to massing. Mayor Skadron said character suitable
for indicative uses. Are the proposed dimensions suitable for primary use, specifically to proposed
program. Ms. Phelan said it is a departure from the original approval. Mayor Skadron said for the
Jerome approval, was that granted with the larger rooms. Ms. Phelan said there were a couple
presidential suites. Ms. Garrow said the request from the applicant is to reduce the number of units that
results in the larger size.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if they had to have larger units for the marker. What are you basing that
on, Two roads management or your gut. Mr. Witmondt said we spoke to a number of management
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
6
companies and looked at the Star report plus our own gut, residential neighborhood and our own
experience. We are still maintaining all the smaller rooms but allowing the flexibility and different
choices. We are opening up the market instead of saying one size fits all.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment.
1. Jody Edwards said he represent Steve Goldenberg, John Staton and the Christiana. He sent two
letters last week and wants to make sure they are in the record. Ms. Phelan stated they are in the
record as exhibit I. Mr. Edwards said it is a really simple matter. You don’t have jurisdiction to
review this matter. The development orders expire after 10 years. This is the 11th year. There is
nothing left to review tonight. The disagreement focuses on 26.304.080d. It is clear there is no
site specific plan order or vested rights that exist today. Without this there is nothing to amend.
The applicant is ignoring “in no case shall a development order be valid more than 10 years”. In
this case this has been done too long. There is an ultimate limit. The development order is not
valid. A permit does not constitute a site specific development plan. There is a good reason for
having expiration on development orders. Things change. The parking requirements are set forth
in ordinance 26 of 2006. It is 31 underground and 12 on the surface. It is a reduction in the
parking therefore you go to Ref 1.
Mr. True said Jody raised a lot of issues. I think Council should focus on the application that is in
front of you. If you want to consider these arguments I think you should consider the application.
The applicant has a right and the city has an obligation to study these arguments in more detail.
We received this letter Thursday night.
2. Daryl Shawl, president of the Christiana HOA, said he is interested to understand the agreement
over time as how it will impact the owners of the units. Those individual lodge rooms were
considered necessary by that council because there was a dearth of those units at that time. Now
what you are asking to do is defacto create a number of condominium units so it is not a lodge.
These have approved aspects of condominiumization that don’t make it a normal lodge. A lot of
things have changed over time and I’m wondering if they are addressing all the code changes
over time. Our neighborhood has remained relatively residential.
3. Dick Carter stated the height has not been focused on enough and the impact it has on the entire
neighborhood. They have good intentions but what they will do is put a big shadow over the
neighborhood. If there was such a need why hasn’t it been built before. There is no reason to
start it now.
4. Cheryl Goldenberg said she appreciates them reaching out to us. She has lived there since 1986.
I went to P&Z in 2001. They did not like what was happening. It was good will for the
Boomerang. It was never something that worked. It is just too big. It is bigger than the art
museum. The building that was approved doesn’t fit.
5. Steve Goldenberg said from today on you need to vote no. It has to be right for the site from
now. I appreciate Chris reaching out to us. You need to do what is right and legal. It is too big
and massive and it needs to be fixed.
6. Michael Hoffman, on behalf of the contract seller, read a statement from Steve Stunda. He said
this has been the most scrutineer project in Aspen history. They believe the building permit was
ready to be issued this past June upon payment of fees. The application you are considering
today seeks changes only to the exterior of the project. We strongly believe this hearing should
be focused only on the narrow interior changes. He urged council to approve the request. The
two bases that refute the 2006 approval are dead. The process we went through with council last
year gave us a new development order and vested rights. The vested rights either had power or
did not. We submitted our building permit application two years ago today and got notice the
application was complete, before the October deadline.
7. Toni Kronberg said she does not see any transportation mitigation in this ordinance. You could
have an additional 54 cars at full capacity. It is a very limited neighborhood.
Mr. Bendon said he wants to reinforce what is in our mind minimal changes to a live building permit. For
the parking within the right of way, we are large part subject to city direction.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
7
Councilman Myrin said page 56 does a good job of outlining the review standards for this. #C
compatible with context, he does not find this to be in any way. He agrees with staff on the head in
parking. Also, a discussion about reducing the number of rooms. He does not support it. Page 57, table
1 dimensional requirements is missing the free market units. The reduction in 6 units and parking by 3
units I don’t support those. Page 58, #2 – lodge unit size, I agree with staff that these units are proposed
larger than other zone districts in town. The reason for smaller units is to get people out of the units and
enjoying town even if we have to have tents over restaurants over Christmas. Page 59, parking, I don’t
see the reduction in the number of cars coming. Parking on street needs to go underneath the property as
car storage. Page 60 #E – design standards, the butterfly roof flys in the face of the adjacent properties. I
would support a denial of this ordinance tonight. If there is not support for that I would support the staff
recommendation for continuation.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is separating the request for the amendment from whether the application
should stand. We can consider the application on its own merits. I’m looking at just the amendment.
The small lodge program is quite successful and generated from a report. Our bed base is 40 percent
condos and the rest hotel and lodge rooms. The families are taken care of through the condo inventory.
What we need are the smaller rooms. What I see is this proposal going from more rooms to fewer is not
what we need here. What we need are the smaller units. The common areas are great. The parking I
would support. The architecture, I don’t have a whole lot to say. The entire project I think is too large. I
can’t support approving this amendment because what we are looking for generally is smaller lodging
units.
Councilman Frisch said the long term health of the community is best served by a community with
appropriate sized lodges. Any lodge approved regardless of size but it must be based on turn over. A
single ownership entity who wants to rent out as many rooms as possible for as much money as possible
as often as possible. The issue becomes in the condominium ownership model the master owner will
unload the financial risk from the master owner to the individual owner who very well might be happy to
keep dark unless they might want to use it for no more than 30 consecutive days or 90 days in a year.
When the rooms are being used it doesn’t matter who owns the lodge. The problem becomes and what is
the financial incentive for someone to put the rooms into the rental pool. A traditional hotel will want to
rent out as much as possible. The Gant model works because it is kept in the rental pool. The chances of
rooms that are condominimized being dark are vastly greater than those that are owned by a single entity
or is running the who building and that is a concern. I don’t think we should be involved in the room
size. If we are dealing with a traditional hotel the new room size is better than the old. If one has an
interest to maximize the condo they will want it to be as big and as nice as possible and that is the crux of
my problem. The layout and room size remains a rounding error of the issue. The elephant in the room is
the height and longevity of the project. I don’t have a tremendous amount of sympathy of the neighbors
who say it is a residential zone. If this was a two story building it would be a great path to success but we
have more than that we have to have a discussion on. Bigger is ok as long as it is filled up by a use that is
going to be used by the community.
Councilman Hauenstein said for him it is not so much ordinance 21, 2017 but 26, 2006. I don’t think we
would be talking about the issues Jody brought up if this was here two years ago. Page two of Michael’s
letter, the project shouldn’t expire until 2026. He would support continuing this. He wants to make sure
we have a live application.
Councilwoman Mullins said if we don’t approve the amendment we are still going to look at the validity
of the application. Mr. True said what happens with the remainder is a totally different discussion. The
owner of the property would have an opportunity to address that. If you deny that we are on totally
different footing on the validity of the permit that has been applied for. That may take a whole different
life. I’m not prepared to address that. What Mr. Edwards has raised is a jurisdictional question and if you
deny the application it is muted.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 11, 2017
8
Mayor Skadron said where he struggles is finding that what is presented satisfies the review standards and
dimensions points 2 and 3. Are the primary uses compatible with and enhance the neighborhood.
Councilman Myrin moved to continue to October 9th. Mayor Skadron said this is in part to satisfy Wards
desire as well as Adams.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is not clear why we are continuing if we are just facing the same thing in
October. Mr. True said you certainly may face the same thing in October. Assuming they have a valid
land use approval and then you may just be asked to do is approve the amendments in front of you right
now. Nothing may change except to answer Mr. Edwards questions. You very well could be right back
where you are. Councilwoman Mullins said she still stand by with what she said earlier.
Mayor Skadron said if the motion is made to approve what the applicant is proposing tonight and it fails.
Mr. Bendon said we have an interest in the legal disposition of the property itself. A lot of these issues
were brought up last minute. It is our preference the application be continued to understand the legal
disposition.
Councilman Frisch said on the legal issue in a couple weeks the city attorney may have a strong view one
way or the other. The reason we wait for October 9th is for more clarity. If we are going to get this height
in this box no matter what I think the applicant has turned it in. I think we should continue to October 9th.
Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Myrin, no; Mullins, no; Mayor Skadron,
yes. Motion carried.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 9:20 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
SPECIAL MEETING – September 19, 2017
At 5:45 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Frisch,
Myrin and Hauenstein present.
Jim True, city attorney, requested Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (b)(e)
conference with attorneys and determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to
negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiations regarding the Castle and
Maroon Creek diligence cases.
Councilman Frisch moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in
favor, motion carried. At 6:26 p.m.; Councilwoman Mullins moved to come out of executive session;
seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to
adjourn; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk