HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060508
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
Mav 8. 2006
PROCLAMATION - Month of the Young Child .............................................................. 2
PROCLAMATION - Arbor Day........................................................................................ 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS .....................................................................................................2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 2
. Resolution #31,2006 - Red Brick West End Remodel Contract ...........................3
. Resolution #33, 2006 - Wheeler Box Office Ticketing Software Contract ...........3
. Resolution #34, 2006 - MOU for Post Office Trail................................................ 3
. Resolution #35,2006 - Global Warming Conference Contract............................. 3
. Minutes - April 24, 25, 2006 ..................................................................................3
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .............................................................................. 3
. Ordinance #20,2006 - 719 East Hopkins Subdivision ..........................................3
. Ordinance #21, 2006 - Long Rezoning 802 West Main ........................................ 3
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2006 - Parking Fee Ordinance....................................... 4
ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 2006 - 410 S. West End Subdivision .............................. 7
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 2006 - 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision............... 8
ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2006 - Hannah Dustin Subdivision - 300 S. Spring ...12
ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 2006 - Code Amendment Political Activities of City
Employees .................................... ............................................................. ... ... .................. 12
RESOLUTION #36, SERIES OF 2006 - South Aspen Street SubdivisionIPUD Vested
Right Extension.............................. ................ .......................................... ... ... .......... ...... ... 12
RESOLUTION #37, SERIES OF 2006 - Appeal of Code Interpretation 2 Williams Way
...........................................................................................................................................13
I
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Torre,
Richards, Johnson and DeVilbiss present.
PROCLAMATION - Month of the Young Child
Mayor Klanderud and Council proclaimed Mayas Month of the Young Child and
extended appreciation to all those who care for the young citizens of the valley and
encouraged the community to be involved with young children. Council presented the
proclamation to Shirley Ritter, Kids' First. Ms. Ritter told Council May 18th is the Kids
parade and picnic. May 20th is the children's fair at the yellow brick. Kids' First Board
members and teachers were also present.
PROCLAMATION - Arbor Day
Mayor Klanderud congratulated Aaron Reed, city's forester, who has been certified as an
arborist/municipal specialist by the International Society of Arboriculture. There are only
4 municipal specialists in the state of Colorado. Due to Reed's efforts, the city has been
recognized for 3 years as a Tree City.
Mayor Klanderud and Council proclaimed Saturday, May 13th as Arbor Day and urged
all citizens to support efforts to care for all the trees and woodlands and to support the
community's forestry programs. Aaron Reed said the annual Arbor Day celebration will
be Saturday, May 13th at 10 a.m., including the tree give away to Aspen residents.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Dan Kitchen presented a map of the base of Highlands and base ofTiehack areas.
Kitchen said there should be a bridge spanning Maroon Creek to enable vehicles to travel
from Highlands to Buttermilk without having to go all the way to highway 82. Bridges
are needed for the future.
2. Ruth Kruger requested Council look at the traffic flow for people who live at the
Villas. With the current detours, it is impossible to get to the Villas legally.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Johnson stated he will be conflicted on Resolution #36, Series of
2006.
2. Councilwoman Richards thanked everyone who worked on and participated in
Earth Day.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman
Johnson. The consent calendar is:
2
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
. Resolution #31, 2006 - Red Brick West End Remodel Contract
. Resolution #33,2006 - Wheeler Box Office Ticketing Software Contract
. Resolution #34, 2006 - MOU for Post Office Trail
. Resolution #35,2006 - Global Warming Conference Contract
. Minutes - April 24, 25, 2006
Councilwoman Richards said there is confusion with post office workers about what the
trail will or will not do to their access and parking. Councilwoman Richards requested
staff make sure there is communication with post office employees.
All in favor, motion carried.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
. Ordinance #20, 2006 - 719 East Hopkins Subdivision
. Ordinance #21, 2006 - Long Rezoning 802 West Main
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to read Ordinances #20, and 21, Series of2006; seconded
by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 20
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 719 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE MUTI-F AMIL Y
BUILDING LOCATED ON LOTS E AND F, BLOCK 104, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
ORDINANCE NO. 21
(SERIES OF 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING
THE REZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE "LONG FAMILY PARCEL"
LOCATED AT 802 WEST MAIN STREET TO THE MU (MIXED-USE) ZONE
DISTRICT FROM R-15 (MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT)
FOR THE LAND DESCRIBED AS LOTS Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 12 IN THE
TOWNSITE AND CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinances #20 and #21, Series of 2006, on
first reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers
3
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion
carri ed.
ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2006 - Parking Fee Ordinance
Randy Ready, assistant city manager, stated it has been a goal of the city and of Council
to cap traffic at 1993 levels, below the level of frustration where there is gridlock. Ready
said this goal is listed in the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan, the 1993 transportation
action plan which gave the community incentives and disincentives for improvements to
transit, 1997 final environmental impact statement which stated the community's goal
was not achievable through transit alone; the 2000 AACP update; Council's 2005 retreat
requesting staff to begin to take meaningful measures to improve the pedestrian
environment and to decrease traffic, and the 2006 retreat again stating staff should do
what they can about transportation and parking in town.
Ready told Council the goal of capping traffic at 1993 levels has been achieved through a
giant effort over the past 12 years. Ready said Aspen is the only community, not losing
population that has been able to do that. Ready stated traffic does continue to increase
that the 1993 traffic levels has been touched 4 different times. Ready pointed out the
summer season is near when traffic will increase to peak numbers, resulting in gridlock
and frustration. Ready said staff is working on regional solutions; Congress has
authorized the bus rapid transit measure. Staff is working on the re-evaluation of the
entrance to Aspen. It will take time before there are solutions for Aspen and for the
valley.
Ready noted local transportation and parking measure is something Council has direct
control over. Council is discussing pedestrian improvements next week. Parking cost
and supply measures are critical and are under Council's direct control. Ready stated this
ordinance will help regain the balance between incentives and disincentives in order to
encourage people to use transit. Ready told Council since the implementation of paid
parking in 1995, there has only been one increase in the fees in 2002. Ready said $1.75
million/year has been spent on the incentive side. Increases in those incentives since
1995 include the cross-town shuttle, the Maroon Creek direct bus service, employer
outreach program, emergency ride home programs, TOP, and subsidies to the car share
program. Ready noted in June, RFT A will increase service to Glenwood to 30-minute
service. Council has also approved new service to the AABC and employee housing
west of town. Staff is looking at possible year round Galena street shuttle service.
Ready said Council directed staff to work on a construction mitigation program and this
is an integral part of the program. Ready told Council construction traffic and parking is
a primary complaint from neighbors about construction projects. This ordinance should
impact that construction parking. Ready reiterated the paid parking program works.
When the program was implemented in 1995, the results were immediate and parking in
the core was reduced from 95 to 70%. Ready said currently 750 to 1000 vehicles park in
residential neighborhoods without paying any fees.
4
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Ready said the neighborhoods were not intended to be free parking. There is a $5/day
parking pass for the residential zones. This action retains that pass. The extension of
paid parking to the residential zones will help turn the neighborhoods back to the
residents.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing.
Judson, assistant manager Isis and downtown resident, said he understands the need for
paid parking; however, for downtown residents will there be a parking pass. Judson said
he is concerned about the education aspect about the options for parking. Judson said he
cannot find a provision for long-term parking. Tim Ware, parking department, said
downtown core residents may still have a parking permit in a residential neighborhood.
Ware said there are no long term parking areas. Residents who are going to be gone for a
period of time can contact the parking department to work something out.
David Swersky said this ordinance is punishing those who can least afford it. Swersky
said paid parking seems to add to the elitism of Aspen. Swersky said this is scaring away
the middle class. Swersky said if the city is going to do this, the city needs to provide
more parking.
Mayor Klanderud entered into the record letters and e-mails received by Council. Mayor
Klanderud noted the majority of these are opposed to expansion of paid parking.
Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud said nothing will change in terms of residential and guest permits. One
can now buy a day pass for those areas. Councilman Torre said he does not support the
expansion ofthe paid parking; however, he does support an increase in fees for service
vehicle permits and will support the increase in towing fees since that is a cost being
passed on to the city. Councilman Torre said he would like to see more dispensers for all
day parking permit passes. Councilman Torre said he thinks this may bring more cars
into the core where people are feeding meters in town and taking up spaces for
commercial use rather than paying to park in the residential zones.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he wishes more could be done; however, this is the best the
city can do in the short term and reacting to a significant problem. Councilman
DeVilbiss stated staff has made a case for support of this parking ordinance.
Councilman Johnson asked ifbus rapid transit can be a reality. Ready said the first
hurdle is federal funding; then 50 to 60% of the funding will come from local
governments. Then the physical work of the best route and the stops will need to be
found. The total is about $126 million. The system is incremental and as funds are
available it will be installed. Ready said one riding BRT from Glenwood to Aspen can
expect to save 45 minutes off the present route. Councilman Johnson said he hears
comments that people would ride the bus if they could bring their dogs. Councilman
Johnson asked about bringing dogs on buses. Ready told Council there was an
5
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
experiment with dogs on two routes. Ready said every time RFT A does a ridership
survey, the results are split.
Councilman Johnson agreed the people who will pay for this are the Aspen's work force.
Councilman Johnson said he would like any revenues from this program to go into
incentives for getting people out of their cars. Councilwoman Richards stated she will
not support expansion of paid parking. Councilwoman Richards noted there have been
expenditures for incentives over the past several years. Councilwoman Richards pointed
out the transit component of the 1998 environmental impact statement, which would have
included transit to pick up future commuters. This has not been approved by the voters.
Councilwoman Richards agreed this measure could have a boomerang effect. It could
also turn voters against transportation. Councilwoman Richards suggested working with
the Ski Company and have an intercept lot at Buttermilk for the summer season. Mayor
Klanderud said she would like staff to reclaim the intercept lot at the airport.
Mayor Klanderud said she has heard little support from citizens for expansion of paid
parking. Mayor Klanderud agreed this makes sense from a policy statement but the
human element needs to be included. Mayor Klanderud said not everyone is using the
residential zones for all day parking. Mayor Klanderud noted the community has gone
through a lot of changes over the past several weeks and this is the wrong time to
implement one more change. Mayor Klanderud said she is going to vote against this as it
will not accomplish what the city is trying to accomplish and she is not willing to take
this step.
Mayor Klanderud said regarding the service vehicle permits, the $100 fee is too low but
she does not support the proposed increases. Councilwoman Richards said she is
concerned about the service permit fee change. People who do not use it that often could
use a parking meter. The way this ordinance is written is that a service permit could go
from $100/year to $75/week. Councilwoman Richards said to many businesses, every
little increase affects their bottom line. Councilman DeVilbiss noted not adopting this
ordinance is backing away from a program that has worked towards meeting the goal of
capping traffic to 1993 levels.
Councilman Torre move to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of2006, taking out mention of
the residential paid parking fees and leaving as previous language, amending Section 4
that the service vehicle fees be $200/permit and to look this in six month; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, no;
Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #17, Series of2006, deleting the
residential parking compliment, changing the service permit vehicle fee to a meter system
with the first hour $.50 and $1 for each hour thereafter, leaving the residential
neighborhood free for the first two hours; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Torre, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, no; Johnson, no; Mayor
Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
6
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
ORDINANCE #9. SERIES OF 2006 - 410 S. West End Subdivision
James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council at the last public
hearing they expressed concerns about the plans, specifically the reduction in existing
density and the fact that the affordable housing units were below grade. The applicants
have amended their plans and added another affordable housing unit. The plan is now 2
two-bedroom and one studio affordable housing units and two free market units. The
studio is entirely above grade. The living areas for the two-bedroom units are above
grade, making the majority of square footage for the affordable housing units above grade
with the bedrooms below grade. This fits within the dimensional requirements of the
zone district.
Lindt said although staff agreed with Council's concerns about the original proposal, it
was consistent with the multi-replacement program and the underlying zone district.
Lindt said the revised application addresses most of the concerns from the last meeting.
There is no longer a loss of density; they are more than rneeting the affordable housing
mitigation; the majority ofthe square footage is above grade. Lindt said this application
meets the subdivision review standards and recommends approval.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, reminded Council that whenever multi-family
structures that contain working residents are demolished, one is required to replace 50%
of the dwelling units, 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the square footage. This revised
proposal replaces 60% of the dwelling units, 100% of the bedrooms and 55% of the floor
area. The applicant has tried to address Council's concerns from the previous hearing.
Councilman Johnson asked the ratio of floor area, affordable to free market. Vann said
the total project is 7200 square feet and 2200 square feet is affordable housing in 3 units.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Mayor Klanderud asked about the on site parking and the request for a variance. V ann
told Council they have sufficient parking for all the units except for the studio. Vann
stated there is no way to put another parking space on site because ofthe width ofthe lot.
Vann reiterated the applicants are exceeding the affordable housing requirement with the
number of bedrooms and the square footage. This project is on the bus route and is very
close to downtown. The applicants request a waiver of one parking space. Mayor
Klanderud noted each free market unit has two parking spaces; affordable housing is built
in town and then there is no parking provided. Mayor Klanderud asked if there is a way
for the parking to be shared with or given to the affordable housing units. The owners of
the free market may not have cars.
Vann noted the original application complied with the city's regulations. Some of
Council felt the applications did not meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Vann said this was not the fault of the applicant as they relied on the regulations in effect.
Vann told Council the affordable housing units are rental units and the association can
manage who is renting the units and may find someone without a car. Vann agreed the
7
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
owners of the free market units will probably be absentee and there may be some sharing
of parking available. Councilman Johnson asked the square footage ofthe existing
structure. Vann said it is 5 one-bedrooms units of 4,035 square feet net livable.
Councilman DeVilbiss noted an argument can be made for allowing one less parking
space in that the applicants are accommodating goals of the AACP as opposed to meeting
the land use code strictly. Councilman Johnson said the goals of the AACP are one of the
criteria by which Council judges applications. Councilman Johnson stated he appreciates
the applicants amended their applications to try and meet some of the city's goals.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of2006, with conditions for
the Cooper apartments of 2 free market and 3 deed restricted affordable housing units, on
second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers
Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion
carried.
Vann said this was before Council in March and was continued. The applicants
redesigned the application, made changes, and renoticed. Vann noted this is now caught
in the moratorium and requested an exemption from the building permit moratorium.
John Worcester, city attorney, said there is an appeal process in the moratorium
ordinance and this does not meet the criteria for an appeal. Council said they were not
interested is exempting this project.
Councilman Torre asked staff to outline the natural pace of an application like this, after
approval, when they would demolish, when construction would start.
ORDINANCE #11. SERIES OF 2006 - 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, pointed out this request
encompasses two detached single-family residences on one lot, condominiumized and
historically designated. The applicants request subdivision approval to create two lots.
920 Matchless could build two single-family residences and 930 Matchless could have a
single-family residence with a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit. At the last
public hearing Council had questions on the existing conditions, whether the property
could be further subdivided, clarification on staffs recommendation, and the past history.
Ms. Phelan said this is zoned R-6, medium density residential. In 1987 the 5-lot Alpine
Acres subdivision was rezoned to R-6. That rezoning ordinance included a per dwelling
unit maximum floor area cap and added a PUD overlay to this lot. This lot is 16,000
square feet, zoned R-6 and containing two dwelling units. The caiculations for floor area,
the underlying zoning would allow 4,511 square feet total for the parcel. Ordinance #35,
1987, places a maximum cap of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit. For two dwelling
units on one piece of property, the maximum allowable would be 4,972 square feet. Ms.
Phelan said the limitation is the more restrictive ofthe two, which is the underlying R-6
zoning, or 4,511 square feet and two detached dwelling units. Ms. Phelan noted since
this is historically land marked, any changes to the property will be reviewed by HPC.
8
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
There could be two voluntary accessory dwelling units because ADUs do not count
toward density.
Ms. Phelan told Council stafflooked at the underlying zone district allowance for floor
area, compared it to Ordinance #35, 1987, for what would be allowed on the property and
determine which is the more restrictive number. For 920 Matchless on a lot of7,765
square feet, the applicants are requesting approval for two detached dwelling units. In the
R-6 zone, the allowable floor area is 3,485 square feet. This lot size is in excess of the
minimum square footage for a duplex or two detached residential dwelling units.
Ordinance #35 allows a maximum of 2,486 square feet per unit for a total of 4,972 square
feet. The more restrictive square footage is a total of 3,485 square feet for two dwelling
units on 920 Matchless.
930 Matchless is 8,600 square feet and the current zoning would allow two detached
dwelling units because the lot is in excess of the 6,000 square feet required for two
detached dwelling units. The applicants request an addition to the single-family unit and
a detached garage with an accessory dwelling units. Using the underlying zoning and
the lot size, the allowable floor area is 3,609 square feet. Under Ordinance #35, the
allowed maximum of 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit is the more restrictive
limitation. The garage and ADU has been reviewed and approved by the HPC. The HPC
granted a 500 square foot bonus for an exceptional project. Staff recommends 2,486
square feet for this lot plus the 500 square foot bonus for a total of 2,986 square feet.
Ms. Phelan noted Council asked about further subdivisions on this property. One is
allowed a 3,000 square foot lot with a historic lot split. If one goes through the historic
lot split process, the floor area ofthe fathering parcel is used. If Council approves the
recommendation of 3,485 square feet, the applicants could go through a historic lot split
on 920 Matchless but they would have to divide the allowable 3,485 between the two
lots. Subdividing 930 Matchless would increase the density and would require an
amendment to the PUD. Councilwoman Richards asked if further HPC bonuses could be
granted. Ms. Phelan said the code allows only one 500 square foot bonus to a parent
parcel so no additional square footage would be allowed. Councilwoman Richards asked
ifthere would be new housing mitigation requirements if one were pursuing further
subdivision. Amy Guthrie, community development department, answered that historic
lot splits do not have to provide ADUs.
Ms. Phelan recommended for 920 Matchless, 3,485 square feet and for 930 Matchless
2,486 square feet plus the 500 square foot HPC bonus. Ms. Phelan noted this is a PUD
and there are some variances being requested. Ms. Phelan pointed out that the PUD
overlay only applied to 2 lots in the Alpine Acres subdivision. Councilwoman Richards
said using staffs recommendation of3,485 square feet and 2,486 square feet and a 500
square foot bonus, the total is 6,461 square feet on these parcels. The current effective
limitation is 4,511 square feet. Councilwoman Richards asked what is the reason to
support this subdivision and additional FAR.
9
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Ms. Phelan said the applicants propose to create two lots in excess of the underlying
zoning and Ordinance #35 creates restrictions that other properties do not have. Ms.
Guthrie pointed out if the properties were limited to 4,511 square feet shared between
two houses, the likelihood is a bulky addition to historic cottages. If the applicants are
given more FAR to work with, a better plan should evolve. Councilwoman Richards
asked if new lots created by subdivision count against the growth cap. Chris Bendon,
community development department, said no because growth management allotments
already exist on this property.
Ms. Phelan reiterated in a scenario where there is underlying zoning, which takes into
account the use on the property and the size ofthe lot when calculating the allowable
floor area that is 4,511 square feet. Ordinance #35 states a maximum of2,486 square feet
per dwelling unit is allowed. If one uses the ordinance, 4,972 square feet is allowed. Ms.
Phelan said the code requires whichever is more restrictive is what is allowed. Ms.
Phelan read from the ordinance, "each dwelling unit in Alpine Acres shall be restricted to
a maximum countable floor area of 2,486 square feet". Mayor Klanderud asked where it
is stated that one has to use the lesser number. Bendon said the land use code requires if
there are conflicting regulations, the more restrictive is used. Councilwoman Richards
asked if the lots could be split more east/west. Ms. Guthrie pointed out that there would
be no access to the back lots.
Kim Raymond, representing the applicant, told Council in designing for these parcels,
she used the land use code and what is allowed in R-6 and then looked at how Ordinance
#35 restricted that. Ms. Raymond said for 920 Matchless on 7,756 square feet, in R-6
zone, 3,485 square feet for two single-family dwelling would be allowed. Under
Ordinance #35 for one single-family dwelling they would be allowed the same square
footage. There is no change requested for this lot. Ms. Raymond said for 930 Matchless,
they would like to stay with what the code provides for R-6 with Ordinance #35 added,
that lot should not be restricted to 2,496 square feet. This is an 8,636 square foot lot,
which would allow 3,609 square feet of FAR. Ordinance #35 would allow that 3,609
square feet in two single-family dwelling. Ms. Raymond said the applicants request what
Ordinance #35 would allow, which is 2,486 square feet per dwelling on each lot with R-6
as the underlying zoning.
Ms. Raymond said 930 Matchless is 8,636 square feet and has been designated historic, it
would be allowed two single-family dwelling. The applicants are only interested in one
dwelling unit at this time. Fred Peirce, representing the applicants, told Council the
square footage of any ADU is not additional square footage; it counts against any square
footage in a residence. Peirce reiterated one is allowed to build two residences on an R-6
lot and two residences at 2,486 square feet would equal 4,972 square feet.
Councilman Johnson asked if Ordinance #35 foresaw 4 dwelling units on these two lots.
Peirce said Ordinance #35 was enacted when R-6 only allowed one single-family
residence. The R-6 zoning has been changed to allowed 2 single-family residences.
Councilman Johnson noted the PUD has not been changed. Peirce said lots 4A and 4B
were created when the PUD was granted; lot 5 was not subdivided. Ms. Raymond said
10
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
the owner of one of those lots wanted to do a lot split and the only way that could be done
was to create a PUD. The reason they could create the PUD was that they convinced lot
5 to join the application so there was enough square footage to be a PUD.
Mayor Klanderud noted the request for 930 Matchless is 2,486 square feet plus a 500
square foot bonus, why is the applicant asked for additional square footage. Ms.
Raymond said they were trying to be consistent and to stick with the ordinance. R-6
zoning allows two single-family dwelling units on a lot of 6,000 square feet. Ordinance
#35 states one can build 2,486 square feet per dwelling unit.
Councilman Torre said for 920 Matchless, he can agree with 3,485 square feet as the
right by code. On 930 Matchless, he supports the request for 2,486 square feet and the
HPC bonus. Councilman Torre said he looked at this in the context of the neighborhood
and the pattern of this development falls in line with what exists in the neighborhood.
Ms. Raymond said this house is designed at 2,186 square feet and they would like to be
allowed what Ordinance #35 would allow and not be capped at 2,986 square feet but be
allowed what the other a lot is allowed.
Peirce told Council these two lots are owned by local residents who work in the
community. TJ:1e Dodaros would like to also be able to provide an ADU for housing.
The applicants would like the extra square footage to be able to both provide the ADU
and to expand if their family requires it.
Ms. Guthrie told Council HPC awarded an FAR bonus on the design that was presented
at that time. If a larger building is allowed, this will have to be reviewed by HPC again.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Ordinance #11, Series of2006, on second
reading, with the changes to the ordinance to specifically reference the 500 square feet
for the historical bonus be directly tied to the current development proposal, that 920
Matchless, lot 5B receive a 3,495 square feet FAR and lot 5A receive 2,486 square foot
FAR with the HPC bonus on lot 5A; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss.
Councilwoman Richards said this would allow about 2,000 more square feet on these
lots; however, it is appropriate with the neighborhood and will allow preservation of the
historic elements and front yard setbacks. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed what the
applicants are seeking is not in violation ofthe integrity of the neighborhood. Mayor
Klanderud stated she is still concerned about future historic lot splits on these two lots.
Ms. Raymond reiterated 920 Matchless at 7,756 square feet is receiving an allowable Far
of3,485 square feet and 930 Matchless at 8,636 square feet is receiving only 2,486
square feet and she would like the lots to have consistent FAR.
II
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Councilman Johnson said relative to the size of the lots and the development to the east,
these lots can support more FAR. Councilwoman Richards said this FAR seems tailored
to this development proposal and is 2,000 square foot upzoning by granting this
subdivision. Councilwoman Richards said this is a middle ground. Ordinance #35 is
silent on whether there would be a subdivision and on how many houses would be
allowed.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Richards, yes;
Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #16. SERIES OF 2006 - Hannah Dustin Subdivision - 300 S. Spring
Chris Bendon, community development department, said this needs to be continued due
to notice requirements.
Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #16, Series of2006, to June 12;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #18. SERIES OF 2006 - Code Amendment Political Activities of City
Employees
John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this repeals an existing code section
2.24.070(c), which prohibits city employees from running for or holding public office
unless they take a leave of absence without pay. Worcester noted there is another
section of the Municipal Code dealing with ethical conduct of all city employees. Staff
recommends adoption of this ordinance.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #18, Series of2006, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes;
DeVilbiss, no; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor K1anderud, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #36. SERIES OF 2006 - South Aspen Street SubdivisionIPUD Vested
Right Extension
Councilman Johnson stated he has a conflict because he lives within 300 feet of the
subject property.
Jennifer Phelan, community development department, told Council this a request to
extend vested rights for an approved development. Ms. Phelan said in 2003, Ordinance
#32 approved development for this property of 14 free market town houses and 17
affordable housing units with 3 years vested rights. This vested rights ends July 28,
2006. Ms. Phelan said between approval of this development, the property owners
applied for a hotel and fractional ownership project, which has received conceptual
12
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
approval. The request for extension of vested rights for one year is to allow the hotel
application be submitted for final review. Ms. Phelan told Council staff feels a hotel
would be better in this location rather than townhouses and recommends approval of this
vested rights extension.
Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told Council the PUD agreement for the hotel
project will state all prior approvals are negated. John Sarpa, applicant, said the hotel
project is taking a long time. The applicants took Council's comments and are
redesigning the building so it is taking longer to submit the final application.
Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Klanderud closed the public hearing.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked how the approvals for South Aspen subdivision came about.
Sarpa said the original proposal came when this property was purchased with a
conceptual approval for the townhouses. The new owners completed those approvals and
during that time the hotel design started. Vann said this property was zoned for multi-
family housing. No concessions were requested; the applicants were entitled to what they
asked for by right. Vann said during this time, it became apparent there was more
support for a hotel on this site. The applicants agreed to shelve the town home
development and pursue the hotel project. Unless an extension is granted, they will
submit for building permit on the townhouse project.
Councilwoman Richards asked what changes have been made in the lodge zone district
since this project was approved. Chris Bendon, community development department,
said the density for residential projects was lowered; the FAR for a residential projects
was lowered. The amendments lowered the entitlements for purely residential projects as
a way to disincentivize those and the opposite was done for lodging projects.
Councilwoman Richards asked if staff had time to analyze extending vested rights to a
project that no longer meets the code. Bendon said the residential project is not a project
staff would like to see developed in this location. Staff would prefer the applicant to
pursue the hotel development and the applicant needs more time to submit that project.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to approve Resolution #36, Series of2006, approving with
conditions to extend the vested rights for the South Aspen PUD as approved in Ordinance
#32, Series of2003, with a new expiration date of July 28,2007; seconded by
Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and to extend the meeting to 10 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #37. SERIES OF 2006 - Appeal of Code Interpretation 2 Williams
Way
Councilwoman Richards stated she has a conflict of interest because she lives in Hunter
Creek.
13
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Chris Bendon, community development department, showed Williams Way located
between Hunter Creek and Centennial condominiums, off Spruce street. Bendon
illustrated the original Aley property, pre 1999. The Aley property was subdivided in
1998 into lots I and 2. Lot 2 has a park now in city ownership. Lot 1 was sold to
Hicks/Kinney, the current property owners. Lot I is bifurcated by Williams Way and the
land south is a park easement, which was transferred to the city. The land north of
Williams Way contains the existing historic residences.
Bendon said during the development review, the property was listed as a historic resource
for the two miner's cabins located on it. Subsequently there was a lot line adjustment
with Hunter Creek condominiums. Bendon showed exhibit G outlining the area
transferred from Hunter Creek and area transferred to Hunter Creek. The result of that lot
line adjustment was that property contiguous to Smuggler Hunter Trust was conveyed to
them in even amounts of land area. This took place in 2002.
Bendon said in 2004, the Hicks/Kinney parcel went through development review at HPC
and received development approval to relocate the 2 small cabins, to rehabilitate them on
the property acquired from Hunter Creek and to build a new residence.
Bendon told Council in December 2005, Bob Nix an owner within the Hunter Creek
Condominiums, came to the city with questions concerning the history of this project.
Bendon said staff met with Nix and answered those questions. In February 2006, Nix
submitted a code interpretation request, exhibit A. Bendon said this code interpretation
request contained a series of 12 questions asking if the project were void for a variety of
reasons.
Bendon pointed out exhibit D is the language in the land use code authorizing the
community development director to render interpretations regarding the text of title 26,
the land use code, and to boundaries of the zone district map. There is a process for
doing this and there is an appeal process for an applicant who has requested an
interpretation to appeal that to Council. Bendon noted exhibit B is staffs response to Nix
finding that the request for a code interpretation was not seeking clarification of the code
but was seeking answers specific to a development application. The questions being
asked were not proper code interpretation subject matter.
Bendon told Council Nix considered that to be an interpretation of the code and has
appealed that, which is what is before Council. Bendon told Council they are required to
review appeals based on the standard ofreview, "A decision or determination shall not be
reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the
administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion". Bendon said
regarding due process, staff met with Nix, answered his questions and responded to the
code interpretation request within the required time.
Bendon said exhibit D outlines that the community development director has the
jurisdiction through the land use code to provide interpretations of the land use code.
14
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
Bendon said that exhibit D outlines the duty to provide interpretations of the land use
code and it is within the discretion of the community development director not to provide
interpretation if it is not seeking to clarify section 26. Bendon said he felt the code
interpretation request is an attempt to create a venue to discuss Nix's opinion of the
project. Bendon said a code interpretation is not the appropriate venue to discuss that
opmlOn.
Bendon pointed out exhibit I is the affidavit of notice of this public meeting. Bendon
said staff believes Nix has tried to notice this meeting for a vested rights revocation
hearing. Bendon noted there is a process in the land use code, which requires a public
hearing, when the city attempts to revoke someone's vested rights. Bendon said his
reading of the code is that it is the city that must be the party initiating that public
hearing.
Bob Nix, representing himself as homeowner in Hunter Creek, said before Council is the
appeal that Bendon ruled that the development orders were not void. Bendon stated in a
letter to Nix that he did not believe the issues raised rendered the two development orders
void. Nix told Council he did not set this for a public hearing; the case was continued for
a month when the city sent out an invalid notice.
Nix said the first petition started out in the community development department where
some administrative remedies could take place. Nix said when he heard his first petition
was in error, he went back to the code and realized there could be a direct petition to
Council to void the 2 development orders. Nix said in his public notice, he said he would
ask for a hearing instanter_on that petition, as ifit were a petition for a public hearing.
Nix said Council can grant his petition to hear this instanter and Council can hear the
substantive problems in this case. Nix told Council his title report shows this
development is an exception to his title; the Hunter Creek homeowners have a cloud on
their title.
Mayor Klanderud said this appeal is on Bendon's action of interpreting the land use code.
Nix said when he discovered problems with this deal, he went to the community
development department. Nix said staff listened to him but stated his was wrong. Nix
said he wanted to make a record and to appeal this. Nix looked at the statute to see how
one appeals a lot line adjustment. One has 14 days after an order to file an appeal to a
reviewing body in this city. Nix said nothing about the lot line adjustment was published.
Mayor Klanderud said that is getting into the substantive issues. Council needs to settle
the first issue first, which is the community development director's action regarding the
land use code interpretation and whether Bendon exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his
discretion or denied due process on the request for code interpretation. Mayor Klanderud
pointed out the authority given to the community development director is very narrow; it
is in terms of the text of the code or on boundaries of the zone districts.
Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city attorney has a recommendation on how Council
should proceed. John Worcester, city attorney, said Nix raised many issues that
15
Rel!:ular Meetinl!:
Aspen City Council
May 8. 2006
tangentially affect the city but also affect the Hunter Creek homeowners' association and
Mr. Hicks. Worcester said the essential questions raised by Nix are whether or not the
community development director's code interpretation of the code interpretation section
of the code is correct. Worcester stated Bendon is correct in determining that the
questions raised by Nix are not really code interpretations but are an attempt to get on the
record Bendon's opinion on how the code applies to this land use approval. Worcester
said Bendon did not violate anyone's due process, abused his discretion, or exceeded his
authority.
Worcester pointed out the second issue raised by Nix is a petition to Council to do
something. Worcester said every citizen has a right to petition Council. Nix has asked
Council to consider revoking Hicks' building permit and schedule a hearing immediately
to decide whether that building permit should be revoked. Worcester said there are
serious issues whether title will be granted to these properties. Worcester said this issue
should be in court and he recommends Council not have a hearing on the revocation of
anyone's building permit. Worcester said the real parties in interest are the Hunter Creek
homeowner's association and Hicks. Worcester noted Council does not have any
jurisdiction over the Hunter Creek homeowners' association. Worcester said the only
way this will get resolved is in court. Nix said he is also appealing Bendon's
interpretation that the development orders were not void.
Worcester said Bendon's letter stated Nix's questions were answered and staff does not
believe there is merit in them. Worcester said the letter states Nix asked for a code
interpretation and Bendon cannot provide that code interpretation because that is not what
the code interpretation section allows. The essence of Bend on's letter is that the
community development director is not going to answer the questions as if it were a code
interpretation. Nix has appealed that decision.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to approve Resolution #37, Series of2006; seconded by
Councilman Torre. Everyone opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Klanderud asked if Council's wants to schedule a revocation hearing.
Councilman Johnson asked about exhausting one's appeals. Worcester said he will
stipulate that Nix has exhausted his administrative remedies that would have been
available to him had Council decided not to deny his request for a hearing.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
All in favor, motion carried.
16