Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060227 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Februarv 27. 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS.................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 2 . Resolution #10,2006 - Acknowledging Members of Aspen Global , Warming Alliance. ............. ....... ......................... ... .......................................................................... 3 . Supporting APPA Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Program ..............................................3 . Minutes - February 6, 13,2006..............................................................................3 ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2006 - 410 S. West End Street Subdivision .................... 3 ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 2006 - Supplemental Appropriation Wheeler .................3 ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 2006 - Blue Vic, 202 North Monarch Subdivision ......... 4 ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot Split/PUD ..................... 11 ORDINANCE #7 SERIES OF 2006 - Water and Electric Rate Increase........................ 14 RESOLTUION #11, SERIES OF 2006 ~ AABC Affordable Housing Contract............. 15 RED BRICK FUNDING ..................................................................................................16 1 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Februarv 27. 2006 Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Torre, Richards, DeVilbiss and Johnson present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Toni Kronberg requested Council approve money to hire a pool consultant before starting the public process for the outdoor swimming pool. Tim Anderson, recreation director, told Council he spoke with a pool consultant who stated it would be overkill to do a study on this size pool. A consultant would cost $30,000. Council agreed to discuss a consultant at their work session tomorrow night. 2. Bert Myrin passed out the results of the online poll from the Aspen Times about imposing a construction moratorium until the city figures out where to go and the results were 82% in favor. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Richards requested staff to give attention to the recycling center; the snow has started to melt and there is trash and plastic all over. 2. Councilwoman Richards noted she attended the CML policy session in Denver. Some ofthe bills that were not municipal friendly were killed. A new bill, H.B. 1349 prohibits municipalities from giving preference to locals businesses. Aspen has a provision to allow a 10% difference in order to keep business in the valley. This may affect that provision. 3. Councilwoman Richards said she attended the Region III transportation meeting in Grand Junction and met with Tom Norton, the head ofCDOT, who is visiting all the regions in Colorado. Councilwoman Richards said there is a concern when federal monies are part of projects; it knocks everyone out of place in the funding line. Councilwoman Richards said the proposed tourism funding bill has the potential to take $20 million from CDOT. Councilwoman Richards noted referendum C, which will give more revenues to the state, also gives more competition for those dollars among education, transportation and health programs. 4. Councilwoman Richards said she will be attending the Club 20 meeting where they will be discussing the roadless area protections particularly those that should continue as protected. There will also be recommended changes to the endangered species act. Councilwoman Richards said she will take Council's position on the roadless legislation to this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Torre moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. The consent calendar is: 2 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 . Resolution #10,2006 - Acknowledging Members of Aspen Global Warming Alliance . Supporting APP A Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Program . Minutes - February 6, 13,2006 All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9. SERIES OF 2006 - 410 S. West End Street Subdivision Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #9, Series of2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.9 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE COOPER APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUMIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A MUTI-F AMIL Y BUILDING CONSISTING OF TWO FREE-MARKET RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND TWO DEED- RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 S. WEST END STREET, LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 118, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Councilwoman Richards said for second reading she would like information regarding the current configuration of units on site particularly the replacement ofthe affordable housing units. Councilwoman Richards noted the housing units seem to be underground. Councilwoman Richards said the housing office mentioned the daylight standards in their referral and she would like a copy of those in the packet. Councilman Johnson said he would like to know the square footage is divided among the 5 units and how the existing apartments are owned. Mayor Klanderud agreed she is concerned about the sub-level units. Mayor Klanderud said in the spirit of the replacement section of the code, could there be a consideration ofreducing the free market units and putting the replacement requirements on site rather than cash-in-lieu. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed about the affordable units. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #8. SERIES OF 2006 - Supplemental Appropriation Wheeler 3 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 Gram Slayton, director Wheeler Opera House, said this formalizes Council's direction from the January 24 work session for the formal marketing plan, the physical improvements and the co-promotion arrangements. The finances have not changed since January. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of2006, on second reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 2006 - Blue Vic, 202 North Monarch Subdivision James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this was continued from the last meeting. The property is to the north of the Hotel Jerome and contains two different zone districts. The 9,000 square feet to the west is zoned R-6 and the 6,000 square feet to the east is zoned MU (mixed use). The applicant is requesting a subdivision to split off the eastern portion of the parcel. Lindt said access to the parcel was the main issue at the last meeting. The applicants originally proposed to open the alley from Monarch street to access both parcels, which Council did not favor. The applicants offered an alternative of opening the alley off Mill street to access lot 2 and to have a curb cut off east Bleeker street to access the residence on lot I. Lindt stated staff continues to recommend access off Monarch street as the best access. Amy Guthrie, historic preservation officer, gave Council a photograph from 1890 showing a pathway where this proposed alley is. Ms. Guthrie also presented a 1904 Sanborn map, which is documentation of exact conditions in town for fire insurance purposes. Ms. Guthrie noted on the Sanborne map this property with outbuildings that are oriented against the alley suggesting alley use. Ms. Guthrie said at the last meeting, it was brought up that this lot was unusual because the house is oriented towards the side street and it would be awkward to have an alley. Ms. Guthrie pointed out at least 8 other lots where houses face the side street. Ms. Guthrie said the property to the north, 212 N. Monarch, has head in parking and does not have a garage. HPC would prefer ifthere were a garage in the future that access be off an alley. It would be difficult for 212 N. Monarch to have a garage without an alley. Ms. Guthrie noted the city cannot deny someone to have some access to his or her property. Chris Bendon, community development department, said if Council decide they do not want to open this alley, they may find there is no public purpose for the alley and will get a request to vacate that alley. This alley land would go to property owners on each side of the vacated alley. Bendon noted one of the purposes of alleys is that they break up mass on blocks and the development on North Monarch could be 20 feet closer together by virtue of moving the property line. Bendon reiterated the city code allows one access 4 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 per residence in residential areas and there could be an access permit off North Monarch for this structure. Ed Sadler, assistant city manager, reminded Council they adopted a sidewalk plan, which indicated a sidewalk along North Monarch to the Red Brick was appropriate. Sadler noted Bleeker street has a fairly steep slope and is shaded by the Hotel Jerome. The proposed access is right on that slope. Lindt said Council had asked iflot 1 could be further subdivided; it could through a historic lot split. Lindt gave Council letters from Tom Smith indicating disagreement with that. Councilwoman Richards asked if this would allow reconfiguration of the lots. Lindt said it depends on whether and to where the historic house would be moved. Councilman Torre asked if this is one or two development rights. Lindt said it would only allow one single-family house. A regular lot split would not be possible because there is a review standard in the regular lot splits stating one cannot further split a lot and this would be a historic lot split. That is not being proposed in this application. Lindt said another issue was whether the development rights for the Jerome Professional building would be affected by opening the Mill street alley. Lindt told Council the Jerome Professional building would receive no additional FAR; however, they may be able to use more of their site but it would not change the dimensional requirements. Lindt stated this application meets the review standards for subdivision. Staff prefers the Monarch street access. The alternative of opening the Mill street alley and using Bleeker street for the residential lot is acceptable. Stan Clauson, representing the applicant, said there is agreement that splitting offthe mixed-use parcel from the residential makes sense. The applicants have proposed several accesses. The first was opening up the alley off North Monarch and using it for both parcels. There was opposition about increased traffic in the neighborhood. The applicants proposed a split access with alley off North Monarch, which would serve only the residential property, and an alley off North Mill, which would serve the commercial property. The neighborhood still opposed that plan. The 3'd alternative was to have the commercial traffic access off North Mill and the residential access from a curb cut on east Bleeker. Clauson noted there has been beneficial use ofthe alley off North Mill without any official approvals from the city. Clauson said the windows of the Moss building look out on to the alley and there is a patio in the alley. Clauson told Council there is 20 feet from building to building and the fire department will support a 16-foot wide access. This would allow 4' on the Moss building side, which will accommodate the existing air conditioners and the foundation and will provide some landscaping to soften the alley. Rather than concrete, the plan is to use interlocking pavers. This will result in two access points 20' apart on Mill street. Clauson said if the access for the residential lots is approved on Bleeker, the applicants would request vacation of the alley off North Monarch. Clauson noted vacation of alleys does not lead to increased floor areas. 5 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 Clauson told Council the 9,000 square foot parcel with the historic house on it could be the subject of a historic lot split, which would have to be reviewed by HPC and Council. Because of the size of the lot, it could have a duplex on it and it would not need to be attached. A conventional lot split would not be allowed. The maximum development that would be allowed is two residences on the 9,000 square foot parcel. Ms. Guthrie told Council the commercial lot could be split under the historic lot split; however, one lot would have to contain a residence. The historic lot split does not create more square footage, it allows different ownership. Clauson noted the rendering shows the existing house moved forward on the property; however, nothing has been approved. Tim Semrau, applicant, told Council he contacted a representative of the Jerome Professional building and told him support of opening this alley meant the Jerome Professional building would have to use this alley if they were to redevelop. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Tom Smith, representing the Phillip Hodgson, said it seemed like at the last meeting, Council gave direction not to open the North Monarch alley. Staff is arguing Council should reconsider that. Smith noted 6 P&Z members thought it was a bad idea to open the Monarch alley. Smith stated that is an alley in name only and does not go through to Mill street. This would be a dead end alley and it would be nothing more than a driveway. The Bleeker street alley has been moved to the west and improves the situation. Smith told Council P&Z recommended against opening the Monarch alley because they do not know what is going to be developed on this property. Smith told Council this applicant is trying to accomplish something they cannot do directly under the Municipal Code. Smith said if this were reviewed as a subdivision, they applicant could not come back and apply for a lot split. Smith stated the applicant knows how many lots they plan. Smith said this applicant has not shown consistency with the comprehensive plan or the surrounding uses to gain subdivision approval. Smith stated the purpose of the historic lot split is to take a single historic lot, allow it to be split once for-an additional single-family house. Smith said these lots are merged into one ownership and this parcel is what is subject to the historic landmark lot split, not a further subdivided piece. Chris Faison said he uses the west end pedestrian way and this section is a passageway to the west end and sets the tone for the walk. Council should be careful to keep this a residential area. Phil Hodgson said he thought the decision about access was made at the last meeting. Hodgson said important Victorian houses had a lot ofland surrounding them, Hodgson said these large houses and their yards should be preserved. Perry Michaels, representing the KNSO building, said when this building was built in 1978, it was allowed to be built with no setbacks. It is not a secret that this building encroaches on city property. Ms. Michaels stated she is opposed to having the city contribute financially to a private development. This seems to be a driveway, not an 6 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 alley. Ms. Michaels asked who will pay the landscaping, maintenance and snow removal. There will be relocation costs of electric transformers and landscaping. Ms. Michaels asked if this city will have money in escrow to make sure these improvements are complete. Bert Myrin, 218 North Monarch, said he supports the access off Monarch, that alley spaces break up massing between buildings. Myrin said he is not supportive of the notion of vacating the alley because of more massing. Myrin said TDRs might be used to preserve the large lot. Lisa Markalunas noted there has been not HPC approval of this project but an informal work session about what might happen on the property. Ms. Markalunas said Aspen is losing settings for the historic buildings. Walt Madden, Monarch street, said Council does not know what will happen to this property after the subdivision approval. There are no limitations to what the businesses on the commercial lot may be. Lindt entered into the record letters from Perry Michaels and Bill Parsyback. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Torre asked about the existing parking pad. Lindt said the parking pad for 212 North Monarch is in the alley and staff could find no city license to allow that parking pad. Councilman Torre asked about possible vacation of the alley off North Monarch. Lindt answered Council is not required to vacate that alley; however, the main reasons for alleys is for access and for service. If the alley is not opened, staff suggests it be vacated. Councilwoman Richards asked about the allowable size for the commercial building. Clauson said the allowable FAR is .75:1 and it could go to 1:1 with special review. The building could be 4500 square feet or 6,000 square feet with special review. Councilwoman Richards asked ifthere will be affordable housing requirements for the mixed-use building. Clauson said the mixed-use proposal would have to go through growth management, which process looks at affordable housing mitigation. Councilwoman Richards asked the maximum number of employees generated by a 6,000 square foot mixed use building. Lindt said the maximum would be 13 employees. Councilwoman Richards said years ago, Council determined adjacent lots in same ownership should be merged into a single lot. John Worcester, city attorney, said if these lots were held in common ownership by 1977, they are automatically merged into one parcel. Councilwoman Richards said the intention ofthat was to maintain growth control in the west end. Worcester agreed the intent was to limit the number of development rights and at the same time Council developed the lot split concept to allow these lots to be unmerged. Over the years the city has appreciated that smaller house are better even ifthat means two houses, so the system of lot split was allowed. Councilwoman Richards asked what size house would be allowed on a 15,000 square foot lot. Lindt said 4,020 square for a single-family house. The existing house is 2,050 square feet. 7 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 Councilwoman Richards asked if subdivision is a discretionary act of Council. Worcester said there are standards in the land use code. If Council finds those standards have been met, the discretion has been removed. Council does have discretion determining if those standards have been met. The first standard listed in the memorandum talks about consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Worcester stated this is a subjective standard and Council may use discretion to determine whether an applicant has met that standard. If an applicant meets all the standards for subdivision, the discretion is gone. Councilwoman Richards said criteria 3, the proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards said the surrounding areas are lots K, L, and M and Council does not know what the historic lot split will be and its configuration may be driven by the access allowed in this approval. Councilwoman Richards said she does not like the incremental approach of this. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports the Mill street access for the mixed-use building but it could affect where the affordable housing would be for this building. The subdivision will drive design and future development of surrounding areas. Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the statement that the application will relocate the existing above grade utilities in the alley and ifthere is a license for those utilities. Lindt said there is no requirement for utilities to have a license. Semrau said there are 3 transformers and they can be moved onto the applicant's property or elsewhere. Mayor Klanderud agreed at the last meeting there was a consensus to not open the Monarch alley. Mayor Klanderud said information presented at this meeting has caused her to rethink that position. Mayor Klanderud said alleys do create a break between buildings. For future planning, if the property to the north were to redevelop opening the alley for access to that property would be a public benefit. If there were no alley, there could be two curb cuts off North Monarch. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about incremental lot splitting. Mayor Klanderud said she prefers history In context and the historic value of that house is its setting. Mayor Klanderud said she would agree to opening the alley off North Monarch and ending it so that it cannot be a thoroughfare to Mill. Councilman DeVilbiss said Bleeker is an icy street and he does not favor using that as access. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city could open only a portion of an alley. Worcester said the city does not need to open the entire alley and there is a grade change in this alley. Councilman DeVilbiss said there is already a use of the unopened alley with a paved parking pad. Councilman DeVilbiss stated opening North Monarch for access to the residential building is preferable to accessing off Bleeker with access to the mixed- use building off Mill street. Councilman Johnson said the maps provided by staff are helpful and persuaded him the alley has been opened at sometime. Councilman Johnson said unopened alley is a dead end driveway now. Councilman Johnson agreed the access decisions can affect future 8 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 land development for the subdivided parcel. Councilman Johnson agreed large lots need to be preserved. Councilman Johnson stated his preferred outcome is access to lot 2 from the Mill street alley. Councilman Johnson said if something could be worked out between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and the city to preserve the large open space, he would like to see that. If that cannot be achieved, the alley on North Monarch should be opened for access. Councilman Torre said the historic picture shows a pathway, not an alley. Councilman Torre agreed the assessment of the mixed-use parcel is appropriate. Councilman Torre stated he cannot support the opening of either alley and would support using Bleeker as access as less obtrusive and impacting. Both parcels could get access off Bleeker. Councilman Torre said moving the historic house and taking up a smaller parcel deters from its historic value and he does not favor that. Opening the alley would be against the pattern set in this neighborhood. Allowing development to encroach into that space would change the historical context. Semrau reiterated all that is allowed on lot 1 is 4,080 square feet ofF AR whether it is in one house, two houses or a duplex. Semrau said a house attached to this historic structure would be inappropriate and two smaller houses would be more appropriate. Semrau said this meeting is the first time he learned the mixed-use lot could be eligible for a lot split. Semrau stated he would be willing to reduce the size of the lot so that it could not be split again or to put a deed restriction on lot 2 so that there is no further subdivision. John Worcester, city attorney, asked the applicant if they would agree to a condition this that there would be no further subdivision. Semrau said he would. Semrau pointed out that HPC has complete control over the siting of the historic house. Ms. Guthrie noted if this were to be a historic lot split, that would need Council approval. Council may also call up an HPC decision. Semrau said if the access is by a driveway off Bleeker, the house will have to be moved to the west in order to accommodate the driveway. Clauson stated the reason the code provides for incremental possibilities in subdivision is to have the assurance a subdivision is possible and that the access is known. Clauson said the applicant could not have presented plans for a building on lot 2 because there are 3 possibilities of access and they each generate a different building. Clauson said the alleys off Monarch and off Mill are the public rights-of-way for purposes of access and for utilities and they should be restored to those uses. The only lot that is under possibility for a future split is lot 1. Mayor Klanderud said a deed restriction on parcel 2 would address her concerns about future development. Councilwoman Richards urged Council to vote no on this subdivision application. Councilwoman Richards noted Council is addressing little issues forgetting this is incremental. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know where a second residence on lot 1 would be before she approves this application. A subdivision would allow up to a 6,000 square foot building on lots Nand 0, which would not currently be allowed. This approval would increase the developability of this parcel without a complete set of plans. Councilwoman Richards said a mixed use building may be appropriate on lots No and 0 but she would like to know how a lot split will affect lot 1, 9 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 where the affordableJlOusing for the commercial building will go. Councilwoman Richards noted approving this subdivision will be driving the design of the commercial building. Councilwoman Richards said this does not meet the review criteria that the proposed subdivision be consistent with the character ofthe existing land uses in the area. Councilwoman Richards noted the existing uses are historic houses and a historic neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards stated it is not known what a future lot split will do to the character of the existing land uses in the neighborhood and whether it will adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see more refinement of the plan. Councilman Torre noted Council is looking at making the Mill street corridor h more pedestrian friendly as part of the civic master plan. Councilman Torre stated opening the Mill street alley goes against the years of the civic master planning process. Councilman Torre said he can only support a single curb cut off Bleeker. Councilman Torre said he favors keeping the alley off Monarch as a green space as it currently enhances the neighborhood. Mayor Klanderud said she cannot support a Bleeker access; that is one of the worst hills in town during the winter. Mayor Klanderud reiterated a lot split on lot 1 would have to be approved by Council. Mayor Klanderud stated if the applicant is willing to deed restrict lot 2 and the development conforms to the land use code, she could support that. Mayor Klanderud said approving this ordinance would designate access and would allow subdivision between the residential and the mixed-use parcel. Mayor Klanderud stated she would not support a sidewalk along Monarch street. Mayor Klanderud said she can support opening the alley for use for the residential parcels only with design and assurance that there is a break and that the alley does not go through to Mill street. Mayor Klanderud supports opening the alley from Mill street to parcel 2. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed. Councilman DeVilbiss pointed out the public alley way has been appropriated by the property owner to the north for private use. Smith said there are agreements with the city. Councilman DeVilbiss stated it is a public right-of- way and there is no reason not to open is. Councilman DeVilbiss emphasized Bleeker is an icy mess in the winter. Councilman Johnson said any future resident of the historic house would benefit from the property remaining undeveloped, as would any adjacent property owner. Councilman Johnson said there should be a dollar amount to pay for the benefit of this open space and that the city would also benefit from this property being undeveloped. Semrau said he would pursue whether the neighbors will participate financially in buying the lots and keeping them open. Councilman Johnson said he favors Monarch for residential access and Mill for commercial access; however, he would vote no at this meeting because the proposed subdivision does not meet the criteria that it is consistent with the existing land uses in the area. Councilman Johnson stated he feels the proposed subdivision could adversely affect future development of surrounding areas. Councilman Johnson said this subdivision does not meet several criteria in the code. 10 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 Mayor Klanderud said it is unfair and unreasonable to ask a private landowner to preserve their property as a park. Clauson showed an illustration of the house as it would be historically restored. Clauson said the reality of restoring a house in poor condition to its original look takes economic resources. Restoration of this property would require an economic engine to make that happen. Clauson stated there is nothing automatic about this development; not the development on lot 1 nor the development on lot 2. Lot 2 will need growth management allocations from P&Z and review by HPC. Clauson pointed out this discussion about access has illustrated how different the building on lot 2 would be depending on from where it is accessed. Councilman DeVilbiss noted the city set up the zoning and the subdivision is appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said the city also set up the merger of ownership of lots into one lot if they are owned that way prior to 1975 and then allowing subdivision if Council felt it was appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said when people purchase a historic property, they know what it would take to restore it. Councilwoman Richards said she does not think purchase of the parcel that may be subdivided off would be appropriate for the city's open space fund. Councilwoman Richards said she does not see a public gain by opening the alley off north Monarch. Councilman Torre reiterated the opening of the alley is not a necessity for the development or for access of the residential off Monarch; the owners could do a private drive. Councilman Johnson said he would like to know the cost of giving up development rights, the cost of retuming the housing to its original historic condition, the interest of the neighbors to participating in purchasing the green space because of the added value to them, and whether TDRs and/or open space funds can be used. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #2, Series of2006, to March 13; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5. SERIES OF 2006 - Castle Creek Road Lot Split/PUD Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this is located at 488 Castle Creek road. Bendon showed the location of the property, Castle Creek road, Marolt Ranch and the Aspen Valley Hospital. Bendon said the request is for a PUD amendment and a lot split. There is no PUD plan for this property. The property was annexed in 1980. This property is zoned R-15A with a PUD overlay. The property is 35,800 square feet. The R-15A zone allows duplexes when one side is deed restricted as affordable housing. Bendon told Council when the city considered the initial zoning on this property after annexation, the records indicates with the slope reduction it would reduce the net area below that which would allow a lot split. Bendon said lot area is what derives the density, floor area, ability to do a lot split. When a PUD is applied to a property, it implements the slope reduction and eliminates the potential for a lot split. In 1999 the property owner requested a rezoning to remove the PUD overlay, which was reviewed by staff and P&Z. Both staff and P&Z recommended against the rezoning because it did not represent a community benefit. Bendon said the property has 11 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 development potential and any rezoning should leverage that development potential for the community benefit. The 1999 rezoning request did not go to Council. The current request is to split this property into 2 lots and to allow for 3 structures; 2 free market and 1 affordable housing unit. There is no actual PUD plan for this property. The code allows that the physical development function as a PUD plan. Bendon noted almost all annexations in the 1980's had a PUD overlay added to the property. Staffis recommending approval finding there is a community benefit. The PUD and lot split review criteria have been met and P&Z recommends approval. Bendon said staff feels this site has development opportunity and there should be community benefit, which is an actual housing unit rather than cash-in-lieu or an ADD. The project will be broken up into 3 smaller structures and the proposal does not over build the site. There will only be one access point. Bendon said in order to qualify as affordable housing, the unit has to be resident/occupied. Staff requested a lower category and the applicants agreed to a category 7 for a 1500 square foot unit. Bendon said there will be a net increase of 1800 square feet in the free market square footage. There will be 1500 square feet of affordable housing which will be a unit part of the housing inventory. Mayor Klanderud asked if an ADU will also be required. Bendon said an ADU will be required. Mitch Haas, representing the owners, showed the existing triangular shaped lot. The proposed site plan manages the property efficiently and appropriately. The slope is only around the periphery ofthe parcel. The existing housing sits in the middle of the property. Haas showed where the access is at the corner and noted it is not in the safest location right next to the trail and across from the bus stop. Haas noted this property is directly on a bus route. Haas said the applicants did a soils study, had geologists study, had a wildfire analysis done. All these are included in the application and the findings are that the slopes do not present a problem and the wildfire hazards do not exist; therefore, there is not a reason to decrease the density. Haas told Council it seems the concerns in 1980 were that the city would be annexing a property to give away a free development right with no community benefit. As a result a PUD overlay was added and it was zoned R-15A to get an affordable housing unit. Haas said a single family house of over 5,000 square feet of FAR or a duplex of about 6,500 square feet is currently allowed. The applicant would rather do smaller houses and proposes one free market house on lot I in the corner of the triangle. The mitigation for that house would be cash-in-lieu or construction of an ADU. Lot 2 would have a free market unit and an affordable housing unit. The applicants have agreed to category 7 rather than RO; category 7 has a cap of $482,000 and the applicants propose a 2,000 square foot affordable house. Haas said the applicants feel this size and category unit will provide a community benefit. Haas said because of the topography, these buildings will read as single story structures. The project will connect to city water and be taken off the sewer. The applicants will underground the utilities on site. The access will be improved, moved further into the 12 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 curve and will be a single access. Haas said they are requesting dimensional variances; however, this is a difficult parcel and they are giving a community benefit. The applicants request to vary the minimum lot size for lot 1 in order to give enough square footage to lot 2 to have a detached affordable housing unit as well as a free market unit. Haas said slope reductions are required in order to reduce the wildfire, mud slide and avalanche hazard and guarantee adequate fire protection access. Hass reiterated that one unit of added density will not affect the soil stability on site. The geologic hazards were also studied and it was found these do not exist on this property. Haas told Council a wildfire expert found that this is in close proximity to fire protection and one unit will not change the ability to fight fires on this property. Haas said this project advances community goals, is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, complies with the land use code with minor PUD variations, and provides a community benefit. Councilwoman Richards said this PUD request is for 8,359 square feet for 2 free market houses plus an affordable house. The current maximum R-15A would allow 5,445 square feet so the difference this amendment would allow is 3,000 square feet. Bendon agreed the difference is 3,000 square feet but of that 1500 square feet is for an affordable unit. Councilman Johnson asked ifthere will be a condominium association to include the free market and the affordable unit. Haas said there will be some shared common elements, like the driveway. Councilwoman Richards asked ifthe deed restricted unit will go through the housing lottery. Haas said the ordinance would allow the owner to sell the deed restricted lot or to build the house and sell it. Bendon said if Council has a different preference for the unit, they should specify whether the unit should be built or not. The ordinance states it will be sold through the housing office. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Mayor Klanderud asked how appropriate is if to require this to meet the city's residential design standards. Bendon said he feels it is appropriate for every location in town. Bendon said without designs, it is difficult to tell whether this project will need a variance or not. There is a process for administrative and for P&Z variances. Bendon reminded Council for Burlingame the standards were waived in lieu of design guidelines just for Burlingame. Mayor Klanderud said the city's design guidelines are more appropriate for downtown development. Bendon told Council the guidelines have been amended and are less stringent for a property out of the downtown. Mayor Klanderud noted the requirements for construction management are not stringent enough and she would like the condition to read, "will meet the construction management in effect at the time". Haas agreed with that condition. Mayor Klanderud said under employee housing, she would rather the applicant build it than offer a lot for sale. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer the ADU be built rather than receive a cash-in-lieu fee. Councilwoman Richards said on lots with steep slopes, the FAR accrued to the remaining land and the houses looked outsized, which is a reason for slope reduction. Councilwoman Richards said this lot would be limited to 5445 square feet and this 13 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 approval would increase that to 8,000 square feet of building. Councilwoman Richards said one cannot see the existing building now; the new development will read as one house from the highway. Councilwoman Richards said the issue is how much growth can one support to get one unit of affordable housing. Councilwoman Richards said she does not support the trade off. Councilwoman Richards said she would rather have less square footage and one ADU. Councilwoman Richards suggested if this is approved, there should be a condition requiring no reflective material on the roofs. Haas said applicants can chose to build an ADU or put money into cash-in-lieu. Haas said occupancy is not mandatory; the ADU has to be detached. Councilman Johnson said he would like to require the ADU be built rather than a cash-in-lieu payment. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would not like the condition ofreflective roofs to inhibit the ability to have solar panels. Council agreed solar panels should be exempted. Mayor Klanderud said she, too, is concerned about the homeowners' fees and would like them restricted to common elements only. Worcester suggested a condition that the community development department review the condominium declarations. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of2006, on second reading finding that the review criteria for this application have been met and incorporating any conditions outlined by Council; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre stated this would add a lot of buildable square footage on this lot. Mayor Klanderud noted when this was reviewed by P&Z and turned down in 1999, one reason was there was not sufficient community benefit. Mayor Klanderud said there is slope reduction, which is not buildable. Mayor Klanderud said she would prefer not to see one large 5,000+ square foot building; this proposal has the benefit of smaller buildings and of2 affordable units and ofan improved access. Councilwoman Richards noted this ordinance would allow 55% more FAR than what would be allowed by right, and it will be fairly visible. Mayor Klanderud said 1500 square footage of that will be affordable housing. Haas said his calculations are a by right single family free market dwelling of 4735 square feet including a 300 square foot ADU. This proposal is 6550 square feet of free market, an 38% increase, which would still only require a 300 square foot ADU. This proposal includes both an ADU as well as a 2,000 square foot deed restricted unit. This is a 667% increase in deed restricted housing. Council agreed they wanted the developer to build a unit, not offer a lot for sale, and that the unit be built to the same energy standards as required for free market development. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, no; Richards, no; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #7 SERIES OF 2006 - Water and Electric Rate Increase 14 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 Phil Overeynder, water and electric department, told Council the last adjustments in water rates was 1988 and in the electric fund was 1992. Overeynder noted the operations have been made more efficient over this time. In 2004, the utility business plan was complete; the city looked at purchases of renewable energy. In the water department there has been capital proj ects for a system that needed attention. The result of the business plan was a new water and electric rate structure that provides incentives for conservation. These were implemented in 2005 for conservation and staff reported at the end of2005, more revenue was being collected and staff wanted to look at this into the future. Additional capital needs have been identified. Lee Ledesma, water department, outlined the different water districts. Ms. Ledesma presented charts with current electric consumption rates for residential, small and large commercial and how this ordinance would affect those users. Ms. Ledesma went over two options for rate increases; option 1 would generate about $150,000 additional revenue annually and option 2 would generate $80,000 annually. Council agreed with option 1. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance e#7, Series of 2006, on second reading with scenario 1 fee structure; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. RESOLTUlON #11. SERIES OF 2006 - AABC Affordable Housing Contract Ed Sadler, assistant city manager, told Council they used the developer model for this project, received 5 applications, narrowed it to 3, one withdrew. The review panel unanimously selected Willis Pember. Sadler told Council there was a representative of the Airport Business Center on the panel. This project is smaller than originally proposed but fits within the site and within the covenants of the ABC. The Pember proposal is for o or near 0 net energy use at around the same costs as Burlingame. Councilwoman Richards asked how this compares to the Novy project presented in 2005. Sadler said the costs are higher but this is a more realistic scale. The costs are $217/square foot versus $185/square foot presented earlier. This project is only 5 units. Councilman Johnson asked how realistic is 0 energy project and does this run any risks of the square footage costs escalating because of untested technology. Sadler said these concerns are those of staff, also, and they will be addressed in the contract. Doug said the original idea was that this be a landmark green built project and because of the size of the density of construction and the roof space, this could approach 0 net energy using different building materials, like an R-40 wall versus an R-19 wall. They plan on using photovoltaic, geothermal and solar processes. Councilman Johnson asked about roof garden spaces for the units. Sadler said the panel decided they did not like the idea; these are family units; there is expensive equipment on the roof. Councilman Johnson said he 15 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council February 27. 2006 would like the design team to continue to consider these. Mayor Klanderud said roof gardens in urban areas are great; but this building is surrounded by open spaces. Councilwoman Richards agreed she would like more information about roof gardens but that the project should continue. Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to approve Resolution #11, Series of2006, contract with Willis Pember; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. RED BRICK FUNDING Councilman Torre moved to appropriate $40,000 for the Red Brick improvements; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson moved to go into executive session at 10:10 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) to discuss property acquisition; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to come out of executive session at 10:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. 16