Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20181203Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 2 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 2 Minutes – November 26, 2018 .............................................................................................................. 2 ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2018 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program Code Changes ............... 2 ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and ..................................... 3 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development ........................................ 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Hauenstein, Frisch and Mullins present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Toni Kronberg said we need an intervention on what was voted on for city offices. 517 E Hopkins is asking to be all commercial. The city is recommending denial of turning it into all commercial when that was proposed in the statement of facts if it was to be city offices. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilman Hauenstein said rest in peace #41. Thank you for your service George H. W. Bush. Happy Hanukah. It is also the beginning of Advent. We are entering the darkest period of year with the least amount of sunlight. This is a high time of year for depression. Give people a smile. Councilman Myrin said Steve and I rode the bus from the airport the other day. The RFTA stations have a board that announce upcoming busses. My suggestion is to duplicate those board in the baggage areas. Mayor Skadron said he will chat with the transportation team and county as well. Councilman Myrin said he picked up a paper version of the paper. There are a lot of help wanted and almost no rental ads. It is an unhealthy ratio. His suggestion is going forward, work on a code amendment to phase out the 35% discount. Also consider phasing out the 100% reduction for essential public facilities. Also change the fee in lieu payment to reflect more realistic pricing. Councilwoman Mullins said some of us went to the Castle Creek bridge celebration. It was a lot of fun. Thanks to everyone who worked on that project. The Wheeler continues to have a lot of great projects. The programs have ramped up for the holidays. Councilman Frisch said there is lots of great snow up there. Mayor Skadron said there are only 18 more days until the days get longer. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins said for the RUEDI water and power authority, April is doing a great job. See Councilwoman Mullins for more info. Councilman Frisch said Nordic ran a tiny test at the high school Nordic track. Councilman Hauenstein said CCLC had a nice presentation from Kemo Sabe. They view retail as a social event. It’s an interesting concept. Mayor Skadron said RFTA is finalizing plans on the mil levy increase. It was a big win for Aspen and the valley. CONSENT CALENDAR • Minutes – November 26, 2018 Councilman Frisch moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 2018 – Renewable Energy Mitigation Program Code Changes CJ Oliver, environmental health, said these changes will revise chapter 8. There have been no changes since the first reading. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 3 Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #26, Series of 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development Mike Kraemer, community development, told the Council this is a continuation of the November 26th meeting. This is the third hearing on this. There is general consensus of the site planning and lift corridor. For the proposed uses on city parks we feel we have basic approval from Council. We also feel Council generally agrees on the lot reconfiguration for Lift One Lodge as well as the height, massing and scale of both projects. Staff heard general approval of Gorsuch Haus. There are comments of Lift One Lodge size, but no major redesign needed. For the subdivision and rezoning of Gorsuch Haus, issues that need further discussion and specific direction included affordable housing mutation and requests for discretionary reviews, cost sharing proposal, project phasing, impact to lift 1A operation, winter maintenance of S. Aspen Street and Dean street. Affordable Housing mitigation for the Lift One Lodge application include ski museum as an essential public facility. If that determination is made there can be a waiver of mitigation. The second part is the employee generation review calculation. There is the ability to incentivize a lodge project with this review. Baseline required mitigation is 59.3 FTEs. That number can be reduced by 13.68 FTEs. Total mitigation would be 45.62 FTEs. Jessica Garrow, community development, stated what is being proposed is an audit at 5 years. Gorsuch Haus Lodge density special review and employee generation review. The baseline required mitigation is 55.29 FTEs. If granted the reduction would be 28.97 FTE and if the employee generation review if granted it would be a reduction of an additional 6 FTEs for a total of 21.68 FTEs required. Councilman Frisch asked what is the difference between the 29 and the 6. Mr. Kraemer replied if a unit size accomplishes 450 net livable there are certain incentives. The code provides for someone to not accomplish those reductions and still get the incentives. Gorsuch is providing those required onsite amenities to meet the review. Councilwoman Mullins said there is no audit required for the density. Ms. Garrow replied no. Councilwoman Mullins asked how long has this been part of the code and have other lodges used this. Ms. Garrow said it has been there for quite a long time, at least 12 years. She can’t think of any other lodges that have used them. Mayor Skadron said the value of the mitigation should council grant the request is 3.3 for Lift One Lodge and 8 million for Gorsuch Haus. Mr. Kraemer replied correct. Councilman Frisch said if it gets built as planned is there a number of how many live people will be working up there. Ms. Garrow said we’ve only evaluated it under the Land use code. Each project is in a different code and has a different generation rate. Councilman Myrin said page 17 of the memo has category 4 of cash in lieu. The APCHA memo has mixing it. Ms. Garrow said she is not sure how to quantify that recommendation. The code dictates category 4. Councilman Myrin asked how do we align the APCHA memo with what is in the code. Ms. Garrow said the land use code clearly says category 4. Councilman Hauenstein asked if there was a wider variety of categories it would generate more units. Councilman Frisch said the lower the category the higher the mitigation. Councilman Myrin said the Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 4 APCHA memo rates suggested 100%, is that reflective of the calculations without the mitigation requests. Ms. Garrow said we believe the recommendation is against the reductions, follow the code. Stan Clauson, representing Lift One Lodge, said what was presented at the APCHA meeting were the mitigation methods not the actual numbers. They advocated for a range of categories. Councilman Hauenstein said the letter we got was from Ron. Did the board meet and discuss this. Ms. Garrow replied it was from the board. Ben Anderson, community development, discussed the cost sharing proposal. There are four questions staff is seeking clarification on. Does council support financial contributions from the City to an aspect of the project, specifically Dean Street. Secondly, do you support fees paid to the city be used, 80%, back into the relocation and white boxing of the skier chalet. If yes, what aspects. If yes, what total financial commitment. Primary requests include Dean Street improvements estimates of total costs are $1.2 million. City contribution is $760,000. $200,000 from the Dancing Bear project. The second request is the skier chalet with a total of $5.6 million and a city share of $3.6 million, 80% from development fees. Third is tree mitigation with an estimate of $359,000 with a proposal to have the money directed to on site park improvements. What is not in here is the restoration and relocation of the historic lift and bull wheel. Lift One Lodge is to contribute $650,000. Costs beyond that would be up to the city. Ms. Garrow said if Council is interested in cost sharing then we can refine. This is an area we would like clearer direction. Councilwoman Mullins said we also asked for direct impact of dollars and redirection of fees. Ms. Garrow said it depends on fees. Use tax helps fund the free bus program. Parks, TDM air quality go to parks and transportation to help fund specific infrastructure. The others are general fund. It would be a reduction in the amount of money that goes to the general fund. Use tax and impact fees have more specific direction. Mr. Kraemer said project phasing is one of the more complicated aspects. If referred to the voters and successful there will be final review at P&Z then construction documents and building permits and a construction start date. There are a lot of variables. We need to talk of assurances meaning if the project stalled. We also need to talk of vested rights. For snow melt, engineering, staff and applicants have been evaluating this. It is a complex discussion. We are looking for Council direction to provide direction if we are to require snow melting of S. Aspen Street. If no, then what maintenance would be required. If yes, the applicant is not in favor of it but there should be exploration of it. There should be at least a year study of the methods that are in place today including to evaluate efficacy of city plowing, snow storage and snow removal techniques. Conduct a detailed traffic study to determine a baseline, identify the snow melt technologies and evaluate financial and environmental costs. Identify alternative maintenance strategies. Identify level of service or safety concern triggers. Revisit within 2 years of completion of project and a possible metro district to fund snow melt. Ms. Garrow said there is so much work to be done to understand this. Lift one lodge Mr. Clauson showed an image of massing of the free market and main buildings. He showed the changes to the east elevation of the west building. He showed the reduction in the elevator overruns. The height with the overruns is almost completely within the maximum height. Scott Glass, architect, said the perceived height is reduced by about 5 feet. They changed the nature of the overhang by about 18 inches as well. We are working hard to make the building nestle in to the hillside. The uppermost portions of the building step back. In no way will there be a massive wall of building. Mayor Skadron asked for a comment on the view to the north looking up the hill. What is the width. Mr. Glass said at the widest it is 80 feet and narrow around 40. You will see the building terrace up the hill in 11 foot sections with the hill. It maps the natural terrain. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 5 Mr. Clauson said for affordable housing mitigation and employee generation review. There is complete connectivity between the two buildings and shared staff. It is provided by code to incentivize lodge development. Subject to audit after 2 years. For the cost sharing concepts, the differences in numbers are clear. The skier chalet building estimated cost is between $5.2 and $5.5 million. Gorsuch Haus provide $1 million and Lift One Lodge $1 million. The City of Aspen provides $3.6 million in reallocated development fees. Aspen Historical Society and Ski Co costs are associated with tenant improvements. He showed a slide with estimates of fees generated. If there were over runs they would be assumed by the applicants and not by the city. It is apparent that some fees relate to staff time, but some do not. For Dean Street, the estimated cost is currently $1.2 million. The original proposal did not have a cost associated with it. Dancing Bear has contributed $290,000. Lift One Lodge contributes $150,000 reprogrammed from the volley ball courts with COA the rest. S. Aspen road maintenance initial cost of $82,000 with Lift One Lodge paying $62,000 for sanding equipment and 20K for materials. Park development at Willoughby park are estimated at $1 million for park improvements and $500,000 for public restrooms. Our participation would be tree mitigation fees of $359,000. COA would be responsible for the remaining balance as part of overall park master planning. Interplay of lift structure with Lift One Lodge garage. The initial costs are hard to quantify but the return would be huge. Interplay of snowmaking infrastructure would be supplied by Ski Co. Flood/stormwater/mudflow/water quality runoff is also hard to determine but should be split equally between the Coty, Ski Co, Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge. This is truly a public private partnership. The city only being asked to reprogram those funds going into the city as part of this development. Councilwoman Mullins said the memo says the City would be responsible for mudflow. Mr. Clauson replied it should be split. Councilman Frisch said the lowest interest was you purchased it with an original contract. Then there is the argument that you move the lift. What is not mentioned in the public private partnership is the putting the lift on hold for maybe 2 years. It is a win win win to have the lift come down. Councilman Myrin said he read the minutes from the past meeting. How much money do you need to make this project work from the city. If the total sum was 3 million is that enough. Michael Brown, owner Lift One Lodge, said we made a proposal in our application. Councilman Myrin said without that the project collapses. Mr. M. Brown said we are prepared to have feedback on that application. Councilman Myrin said we constantly see applications asking for one thing and settling for something else. Mr. M. Brown said one of the conversations we went through last week were the many projects that came before the city and they are not success for the developers. Councilman Myrin said my question was what is it you need to make this project a success. Aaron Brown, owner Lift One Lodge, said this is not a binary discussion. It is all about probabilities. We are trying to come up with a proposal that has the most likelihood of getting built. It is not 100% likely of getting built as asked. The more money contributed the more likely it is of getting built. We’ve tried to put forward a proposal that has a high probability of getting built. Councilman Myrin said I see my obligation to the community as making a lift happen. If it takes more money we need to know that. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 6 Mayor Skadron said you are arguing regarding cost sharing that additional cost accrued are substantial improvements made outside the original approval. Mr. Clauson replied yes, mostly to the park and Dean St. Councilman Frisch said some not all are related to the renewed lift alignment. Mr. Clauson said most definitely. Mayor Skadron said related to affordable housing, early on you mentioned a synergy between the buildings. The code required 59 FTEs, the reconfiguration, you made a determination that the business plan requires fewer employees. Mr. M. Brown said the original from 2011 was 35FTEs. With the employee generation review it is still in excess of that number. The code says the lodge can handle whatever is necessary. Mr. Clauson said the code was readopted in 2016 and contains all of those same provisions. Gorsuch Haus Richard Shaw, design workshop, representing the owner, said as a community we have wanted a different type of bed base. Lodging plays a key role in the future. Quality means a certain type of hotel program and a certain type of design. Gorsuch Haus is a very compact lodge. 25% lot area is public amenity space. With that we are maintaining guest amenities and quality guest services. A lodge zoning compliant project relies on efficiency of service. There are 4 residential units that will not require additional staffing. The employee generation review requires shared staffing. There is also a provision of an audit after two years. Construction sequencing, while there is a lot in front of us the group is fully knowledgeable that each project can move forward and the corridor will be complete. There are no guarantees, however there are a number of techniques in the code that the city can use to make sure these projects can move forward. Vesting will begin 3 years from a point when returning skiing could be considered a reality. For S. Aspen Street he showed an image of the historic condition. Under proposed conditions, skier drop off and pick up area and available public parking is relocated from S. Aspen St. to Dean St. Average daily traffic will not materially change. Peak daily traffic will decrease. On Winter maintenance, the redesign was finalized in 2016 and reconstructed in 2018. The redesign includes snow melted sidewalks. Traffic volumes will decrease on peak days and not materially change on average days. City maintenance to pilot snow management programs. Properties can agree to re- evaluate maintenance. Jeff Gorsuch, owner, said he is honored to be a part of this. We have arrived at a really great point. We are looking for a landing that will go to the voters. There is a great group of stakeholders. He would like to see world class events welcomed back. It has been an honor to be a part of this. Councilwoman Mullins said one of the questions from last meeting was the conservation zone and ways to protect that and future development. We could do something now, but a future council could overturn it. Would you be willing to put a conservation easement on it. Mr. Shaw said any part of the land would not have an entitlement that would not normally exist. We are willing to remove the entitlement on the remaining part of the conservation zone land. Ms. Garrow said as part of the Ski Co preservation this is a topic that is very important to them and they may have some comments as well. Councilman Frisch said we talked about Ann’s comments last week. Not all development may be treated equally. I appreciate your comments. It may be a ski co discussion. Mayor Skadron said what did you say about sight restoration. Mr. Shaw said the code allows the city to request bonding around development as a financial assurance. The main reason I referenced that is there are existing provisions for these assurances that a project in the corridor may be required to complete. David Corbin, Ski Co, said Ann raised the conservation zone and remainder lot. Subdivision leaves a lot for conservation that is essentially the returning ski trail of about 5 plus acres. For us, we are satisfied with the idea of a plat note or other ordinance restricting residential development. It doesn’t meet the 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 7 acres to do residential development. I would not want to put a conservation easement on it because it unduly complicates the title 100 years from now. Councilman Frisch said the conservation easement is a tool to get to a goal. Are you saying 50 or 100 years from now you want residential development or a structure used for skiing. Mr. Corbin said 100 years from now we can’t predict what we would need for the company or the community. For the near future our uses are intended to be skiing. I think the protections are adequate. Councilman Frisch said the simple thing is do you want to have the ability to be changed by council or the vote of the public. Mr. Corbin said I don’t think we are making a distinction of council or by public vote. Regarding phasing or completion assurances, we perhaps more than anyone are highly incented to make sure skiing returns as quickly as possibly to this portal without interruption. The challenge in a development as complex as this is it is extremely hard to guarantee. The optimal schedule would mean we would be without a lift for one season. We recognize it could be two. If there was some sort of economic cataclysm there are other parties in the room. Suggest this be dealt with in the development agreements between the parties. Perhaps incentives and or penalties can be included in the agreements. Councilman Frisch said this is one of my biggest concerns. A small loss for the community is if the lift takes an extra year. I think we can all deal with that. The big loss for the community is when no incentive will do it and the project is 20 Million away from being done. I want a really high probability the lift gets done. Mr. Corbin said our interests are aligned. We want to see the infrastructure completed as soon as possible. It wouldn’t solve the problem of interrupted operation. Completion bonds attempt to guarantee that things may be built but not necessarily in what time. Councilman Myrin said how can the city provide the highest assurances to the community that the lift will be built regardless of the hotels. If the money being waived were to go to the lift would it help. Mr. Corbin said he is not sure I should be the one answering that. Councilman Myrin said the reason I ask you is you have built more ski lifts than the city. Mr. Corbin said the lift from bolts up is the easy part. Councilman Myrin said one piece of this is the garage at the base. If the city funded that initially would that help. MR. Corbin said a platform under it is an essential step for getting a lift in. Historical Society Chase Dillion, president of board of trustees, said we are working to deliver a ski museum worthy of Aspen. We must have no less than 3,000 square feet of exhibition space and no less than 14 foot ceilings. We have compromised in ways including in sharing the building with ski co. Councilman Myrin said we received a letter from Georgia Hanson, is the expectation just a white box. Chase replied yes. Mr. M. Brown said we have had ongoing discussions with cascade townhomes. They are not objecting to the project. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Paul Taddune, representing the lift one homeowners association. I urge you to accept the proposition that some of the development fees be used for the pubic portions of the project. The city should be willing to contribute to a history museum, relocation of historic structures and development of city parks. It makes sense for the city to contribute. 2. Sherri Oates said she’s seen every change in this town. I was 6 years old the day they opened the lift. She would love to see that part of the hill going again. We have to move forward again. 3. James Bartenson said the world is watching us for a world class resort to make a world class decision. The amount of time and money that went in to this project is great. Aspen has to keep evolving. 4. Mary Dominic Komer said Aspen is a community with many unique happenings and buildings. It would be really nice to see lift 1 come back where it was and have the world championships come back. Aspen is truly an international town. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 8 5. Charlie Bantis said he is on the chamber board and AVLT board. These are personal opinions. The deal junkie in me liked what I heard. Strike a bargain that everyone can live with. If we don’t do it now it could be another 10 years. I don’t know if we can go that long without hosting world cup. 6. Toni Kronberg said since the last approval with a platter lift and a dump truck this project has come a long way. She has been asking for S Aspen Street to be snow melted since 2006. The burden should fall to the city. 7. Luke Van Ardesdale, Balcome and Green, representing Robert Sheere who lives on the corner of Monarch and Gilbert street. He showed the existing approval from 2011 with Gilbert street terminating in a dead end. The Problem with that is it dead ends and violates the city code. Existing application is for a cul de sac but needs to be 15 Feet and Gilbert street is only 11 feet wide. There is no room to widen that. Currently Gilbert is only one way. He showed an image of 2 full size trucks trying to pass in summer. The issue with Gilbert St. as proposed with the cul de sac will be it will be the best ski drop off spot. Problem is the current proposal will address the current traffic problem with signage only. Signage will not prevent two way traffic on Gilbert street. The better solution is to put retractable bollards at the end of Gilbert st to limit traffic. Trish Aragon, city engineer, said it is a narrow street because the existing developments have encroached into the right of way. We can still make it work. Having a cul de sac absolutely is an improvement. Bollards are not supported by engineering or the fire department. This is not ideal. We are not asking to remove the encroachments at this point. Jim True, city attorney, asked how wide is the right of way. Ms. Aragon replied 30 feet. There is a portion that is narrower. Ms. Garrow said one of the issues is the existing approvals has the dead end without a cul de sac. It anticipated 2 way traffic without a way to turn around. Councilman Myrin asked is Monarch steeper than S Aspen St. Ms. Aragon said the steepest part of Monarch is 13 degrees. The steepest part of S Aspen is 17. The other part with the bollards is privatizing the street and engineering is not in support of that. Councilman Myrin said if the mechanism were not an issue that is a different issue. Ms. Aragon replied yes, I would have a difference stance and so would the fire dept. The other part of the privatization and the bollards is limiting for a certain period of time. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. A Brown said on the historical society it is important to note that they have architectural drawings showing exactly what the space will look like. They are well aware of what their space looks like on a gross space. Councilwoman Mullins said this is a really complicated project with lots of moving targets. It is a real simple easy win with a lift that moves down the mountain, new lodging, new city park, reinvigorated Ruthies and restored historic structures. We are attempting to see into the future. The city will still have its historic character. The city should be a partner in this project. We need to be assured we are not giving away too much but be assured the project can move forward successfully. The big decision tonight is do we want to be a partner. For affordable housing mitigation, the arguments are defendable and it is part of the land use code. For Gorsuch Haus it is an excessive reduction. For cost sharing there are a lot of unknowns. She would like to see more refinement and accuracy for costs. Tree mitigation makes sense. Project phasing is a concern that we lose the lift for more than a year. All the partners are compelled to get this done. Winter maintenance, she agrees with staff recommendation to take a season look. Snow melt seems like an excessive energy use. Councilman Hauenstein said on cost sharing and being a partner, this is a classic example of a public private partnership. Is there any precedent for fees being earmarked. Ms. Garrow said the best example would be fees related to pedestrian amenity. Councilman Hauenstein said he thinks the city should be a partner. He would be more comfortable with X number of dollars the city should be contributing rather than earmarking the fees. For housing mitigation, the baseline calls for 114 FTEs between the two projects. The waivers are a lot of money and a lot of housing. He would hate the project to succeed Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 9 solely on the back of housing. He would like to see the full 114 FTEs realized. Shorting on employee housing is a huge burden on the town. Phasing is unknown and in the interest of all applicants to get it done on time. He is not sure what we can do to make sure it gets finished. Snow melt, there are examples of geothermal to melt the snow. I can accept a one or two years for study. I don’t want to be given a choice between green house gas or damaging the roaring fork river. He would like to explore land at BMC for creation of workforce housing. On cost sharing the city has honored all the approvals of Lift One Lodge. One of those was for it to deliver the ski museum. Councilman Myrin said on affordable housing, he is not supportive in any of the reductions. On cost sharing, what does it take to fund this. Tell me what the big number is. He is willing to support the cost sharing to make this happen. He is not willing to support the cost sharing and end up with the Dancing Bear or Aspen Club. If that means the city spends the money to build the base, the garage and the foundation of the lift then the value comes back to us in a taxing district I’m happy to do it. I’m not willing to give it away in housing. On phasing, it needs to be addressed. We all have the same goal to make this happen. On snow melt, the city has started electric heat on bus shelter side walks. I think it is possible to heat with renewable energy. I think snow melt needs to happen. For the conservation zone there is progress making it as iron clad as possible. On height, thanks for bringing it down. It looks much better. The museum, I’m confused. The city managers memo says it will take considerable costs to operate yet there are no employees. Something doesn’t connect. It is a huge gift to waive housing. For this to have no housing provided doesn’t make sense to me. It is the code currently. Property taxing district – the bathrooms, sidewalks etc need to be world class. For Gilbert St, plastic bollards that can be driven over makes sense. Adding cars doesn’t. Councilman Frisch said how does this all come together. By next Monday there is going to be an ordinance that will then go to the ballot March 5th. Ms. Garrow said you have 2 draft ordinances that are substantially there. If we can get consensus tonight, we can return with a more complete ordinance. The actual ballot language would not be completed until the January 14th meeting. Mr. True said I’m a little concerned about the consensus given the comments we’ve heard tonight. Councilman Frisch said the Dancing Bear application required money that these applicants want to dip into. Will we hear a future application wanting some of this money. Ms. Garrow said the money from Dancing Bear has been collected. It goes in to city coffers and it goes into projects specific to Dean St. The idea with this is the permits are complete and there is no money to tap in to in the future. Councilman Frisch said S Aspen St, the goal is there should be a safe corridor. I’m in the camp of try other things before we get to snow melt but I think it needs to be there. I’m happy to start small but it needs to be part of the plan. The cost sharing is related to affordable housing. Bert talked about the taxing district. It is an interesting concept to be applied to the whole bundle of asks. I think the city has been partnering for years on this. This is not a sequencing conversation. The concern is the assurance if the economy has changes. On the conservation, my hope would be any further development that has to do with sellable FAR has to go to the vote of the people. If there is a possibility for residential development it will happen. I think we all agree the size, FAR and shape will be going to the voters. I appreciate the work on the height of Lift One Lodge. Government should be spending money when the private sector cannot deliver something. I appreciate where Ann and Ward are coming from. I need to hear more that this will not get done without further contributions. On affordable housing, it is the highest and most dire need. I’m not opposed to having part of the mitigation be part of a loan with payback through a district. It should be nice to collect as much as possible. Mayor Skadron said for cost sharing, I don’t believe the community should contribute one dollar of public money to this project. The city contribution has come in a number of places, changing conservation to lodge, floor area increases, activating park to facilitate a lift, amendments to original approval, decreases in affordable housing mitigation, lodge density privileges in height and floor area. Developers should deliver what they promised including the ski museum. I’m not one bit persuaded that a project like this gets derailed because of the cost sharing. The snow melt is needed but the developers should provide it. Once the hotels are built and the customers say it needs snow melted it will get done. The phasing is Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 10 acceptable and the lift will get done. On affordable housing, I can support the generation review. I can’t understand why a private developer would not be responsible for building for 100% of its employees. If their business plan can support the housing they are promising, either the applicants are so blind to the realities of this community that they can get by with so little employees, then so be it. I don’t know how you can get it done. That alone is worth 11 million dollars. Mayor Skadron said what I’m hearing from council is on cost sharing, the general consensus is there should be some participation. Explore a tax improvement district. On affordable housing, council is all over the board. Councilman Myrin said what you said makes sense only if you prohibit their employees from participate in the housing program. Otherwise it makes it more difficult for everyone else. Ms. Garrow said she heard there is support from the Mayor and Councilmember Frisch and Mullins to possibly grant the special review piece for Gorsuch Haus. Councilwoman Mullins said the reductions for Gorsuch are excessive. To the Mayors comments, it doesn’t mean if they are only mitigating for 29 employees they only have 29. They are still going to have 59, they just don’t have to provide housing for the other half. That is an incentive that is in the code to promote lodging. If we don’t like it then we need to go back and take a look at the land use code. That is the way it stands now. They are asking for something that is in there. It is at our discretion. I’m in agreement with Lift One. I think Gorsuch, by taking both reductions, that it is reducing the mitigation far too much. Councilman Frisch said if a project goes 55 FTEs, there is probably 80 some employees. We are already giving a 35% reduction. With Gorsuch there was two requests from them. One had to do with the technical aspect. Ms. Garrow replied that is reducing it to 26, the special review for lodge density. Councilman Frisch replied that is huge, 7 million dollars. They have the ability to get that by right not just ask. Ms. Garrow replied correct. It has clear review criteria that are met. The other piece is special review. They are also getting some additional height and floor area. It would be difficult to say we grant the special review for one piece but not the other. Councilman Frisch said the other aspect is the 6 FTEs from the employee generation review. To me that goes in to the bucket of the Lift One Lodge ask. Mayor Skadron said there are two members clearly on the side of no shorting of affordable housing. One on the side of supporting the generation review and one supporting some degree of this and one suggesting this could be resolved through the taxing district. Ms. Garrow said we can’t take this and come back to you with an ordinance next week or in six weeks. We need some clarity. Mayor Skadron stated we are clear on the cost sharing. On the phasing we have consensus around the acceptability of what’s been proposed and with what Dave Corbin presented around the lift. Councilman Frisch said it is not the accepting of the sequencing, it’s that there is a majority of council, in which I don’t think I’m in, that doesn’t seek any further discussions about the assurances. There is a majority of council that is basing on the market and incentives are going to drive the lift to get done. Councilman Myrin said he agrees with that. Mayor Skadron said there are two parts to this phasing question. One is what Richard laid out about how it is going to get done and the other is the assurances around the lift. About the lift, I am mindful about what Dave told us yet Adam and Bert are suggesting something more stringent. Councilman Myrin said he does not think there has been a full conversation about trying to figure out what happens when things turn into a Dancing Bear, Aspen Club or Base Village as far as the delivery of the lift. I do not want the lift to be held up. Councilman Frisch said he is not asking for a guarantee. I have some level of reality. I just think that if something goes a little bad or a lot of bad and the partners stop becoming partners and start becoming litigants and there is no lift. The problem with the sequencing is it is not a 3 to 5 million dollar solution to get the lift done. There needs to be some amount of 8 figure numbers that needs to go in for Dave to go to the upper management and say now we are ready to start bolting in the lift towers. There needs to be recognition. Mr. A. Brown asked about the risk we are trying to solve for. He said it is that the current lift get s torn down and the new lift doesn’t get built. The existing lift won’t be torn down until literally the project is shovel ready. In addition to that, our hole and infrastructure can be built and the parking structure can be built without the lift being torn down, we think. I think that is possible. Now we are talking about a situation where the existing lift is still operating, we have built the infrastructure required to put the new lift in. Now the risk is the old lift gets torn down and the issue is on Ski Co to put the new lift in place. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 11 We are not 100% sure that can be the case, but we are only talking about this narrow issue of either the lift just taken down and rebuilt on existing infrastructure or our hole and parking garage being dug so that a new lift can be placed on top. The old lift is never going to get torn down until we are literally ready to dig. Our financing is in place, our infrastructure permit is pulled. It is a narrower risk that having to build a whole building. Councilman Frisch said this is the first time we are hearing this. The timeline that was provided is different than what you just said. Mr. A. Brown said we are hoping this is the case, but we need to study it. Councilman Frisch said you are hoping there is a lot more work that can be done on the excavation of the garage before the old lift needs to stop and be taken away. Mr. M. Brown said for our project the current lift does not have to come down. We have the ability to start construction and build the necessary infrastructure then say to Ski Co land your lift. Mr. M. Brown said what it would involve is that Gorsuch would have to go after Lift One Lodge, not simultaneously. That is the assurance that you would need. They can’t construct with that lift sitting where it is. Mr. True said that is the dilemma you really have to face. The sequencing does involve Gorsuch based on what was presented. Once Gorsuch starts construction the lift comes down. You can’t have the new lift until the garage is completed. Mr. Corbin said they just didn’t describe an operable lift. Until the Gorsuch Haus actually goes, the existing lift can remain up the hill and prepare the future base for the lift. That doesn’t mean I would have an operable lift for a certain period of time. You can guarantee some things might be built but you probably can’t guarantee or find assurances of when they would be built or when they would be operable without disruption or interruption. That is what we don’t know now. We can’t make that concrete. That will be dynamic when everyone starts. I personally couldn’t get too excited about beginning Lift One Lodge structure, Gorsuch doesn’t start and we have a nice sculpture on the top of that structure that actually doesn’t turn. That’s done nobody any good. How do you fix that in time, I’m not sure you can. Councilman Frisch said he is not looking for guarantees but to increase the probability of the entire project getting done, not just the lodging component. Mr. Corbin said we share that vision and goal. Councilman Frisch said he appreciates the probability of the sequencing that maybe the lift can continue to spin while some amount of work gets done. Mr. Corbin talked about the scenario of Lift one Loge going first and two years later how accessible is the lift with a construction project going on below. You couldn’t get to the lift. Mr. True asked if the new lift were built on the garage prior to Gorsuch starting, could you build a new lift with the old lift still running. Mr. Corbin replied not likely. The alignments and the physical relationships would conflict pretty badly. Leaving the existing lift in place would conflict with the alignment of the new lift. There would be little sense in just building the lower terminal of the new lift and leaving the old lift in operation. If Gorsuch doesn’t go for several years and you start the new lift the closeness to the building envelope would mean I have to turn it off in the future when they do start to build. Mr. Shaw said this conversation is why it is important for the projects to be sequenced together. Councilwoman Mullins asked to review the affordable housing again. Mr. M. Brown said the employee generation review is not meant to be a gift. If it doesn’t bear out you owe the employee housing through the mitigation. Ms. Garrow said there is an audit at two years. If it is not shown there were efficiencies by not taking the free market mitigation on the front end and they actually did have more employees it is owed at the two year mark. Mayor Skadron said but if it should bear out the benefit is about 11 million dollars. Mr. M. Brown replied should it bear out the employees weren’t generated and there wasn’t a need for it. It wasn’t a gift, it never became reality. I think that is why it is in the code. Councilwoman Mullins replied that is why I supported that for both projects. The density reduces the mitigation so much more. Ms. Garrow said the special review for density is within the lodge zone district and allows the project to take advantage of the allowances as if it had more units per lot area. There are higher heights and floor area and lower mitigation. If council supported the height and floor area and not the mitigation then we could write the ordinance to say that is approved through planned development or the special review is granted for the two but not the mitigation. Councilwoman Mullins said she will go with what Steve said because the employee generation means there are no additional employees and if there are they will be mitigated for. I appreciate the changes to the architecture. Ms. Garrow said there are three that would grant the special review related to density, Steve and Ann support the employee generation reduction, Ward and Bert are against it. Councilman Myrin said he is happy to do it as part of the Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 12 package for the money and then get the money back somehow. Adam is right that it is money that nobody sees. Mr. M. Brown said the employee generation is an incentive for lodging. We are simply asking for that. These projects contribute 184 rooms to the lodging base and that is the impetus for it being in the code. Councilman Hauenstein said using the baseline of 114 FTEs he would be fine granting full relief as long as we end up with 114 FTE. If those are arrived at with a special tax district that is fine. I don’t object to the applicants getting the breaks of the incentive programs, I just don’t want the delta to be on the back of the employee. The 114 is what I want. If the 67 is what the applicants can be granted, that’s fine, just make up the difference. Mr. Clauson said a special tax district is very complex and will require a tremendous amount of time to analyze and bring forward. We are better off looking at what the code can provide. Councilman Myrin asked if it is possible to get the number of employees of the St. Regis, Jerome and the Nell and the number of rooms among them. Ms. Garrow said it may be possible. I think what I heard is there is support for the special review, there is still a question on the employee generation review. We can come back with language related to both next week. Councilman Frisch said the APCHA board said don’t even get involved in the audit. Ms. Garrow replied correct. The point Michael and Stan have made is important. You are not waiving those employees. You are saying as an incentive to help this project, trust but verify. If there are employees that are generated they have to be mitigated. Councilman Frisch asked if there is a maximum cap to these numbers for employee generation. Ms. Garrow replied it is an audit to the free market piece specifically. Councilman Myrin said it would make no sense to do a taxing district after the fact. The answer to everything is it is just too complicated and that is what was presented tonight. We hear that all the time. I think it is worth trying to accomplish. Councilman Frisch said he is happy to talk about it. On the street melt, I think there is enough support to leave it in the language that we might have to pull that trigger at some point. If that is the case we need some discussion on the mechanisms to pay for it. Mayor Skadron said the direction on snow melt is to not explore it. Ms. Garrow said it is to not mandate it. Councilman Frisch said it is to have something in the ordinance that it might come in the future. We need some level of direction as to how it gets paid for. Councilwoman Mullins said staff’s recommendation is pretty clear. See what happens this winter, do some traffic studies, look at alternative then bring it back to council. Councilman Myrin said like a sidewalk agreement it need to have an agreement as to who is going to pay for it when it is time to put it in. That is what Adam is asking for. Councilwoman Mullins said that is a tough thing to ask someone. She is not sure that is something you can ask of the applicant or ask it of the city. Mr. True said there is one way to address the snow melt issue through the ordinance where you really are deferring the consideration after you explore the necessity and who may feel a need for it other than the City of Aspen. If the City feels a need for it there is a way to form a special district because it is specifically authorized as something under special district and taxing powers of that district. You just want the property owners that are the applicants to agree not to veto if it goes to a vote of the property owners. I think in the ordinance, and I think we have done this in the past, the ordinance can say if you create a special district for the purpose of doing the snow melt that these particular owners will not object. They will have to join the district that you create. We have talked about that as a possibility and I think that can be done. Councilman Hauenstein stated he does not like unresolved and undefined and leaving it to a future council. He would support finding a cost sharing percentages between the applicants and the City if the snow melt is needed for a future council to have it as guidance. Mr. A. Brown said it shouldn’t be lost that millions were just spent on S. Aspen Street on improvements mandated by the developments going along the street pursuant to a cost sharing agreement between ourselves and One Aspen Townhomes. Councilman Frisch said I don’t think anyone wants to do anything more to S Aspen Street from a financial reason and an environmental reason. The problem is if the road becomes so unsafe that your guests and your deliveries and Gorsuch’s team is affected by it, the community might want to have an option to ensure there is a safe street created. Councilman Frisch said your preference would be to not have any discussion about any type of future snow melt that has anything to do with the Lift One corridor application team and the onus should be on the city. Ms. Garrow said every council member supports the proposal that was in the memo. The test it out for two years and see how it goes. There are a lot of concerns related to environmental impacts. We would move forward a potential district in the future if it is determined if the snow melt is needed. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 13 Ms. Garrow said the majority of council has indicated there is some participation but probably not for the ski museum. It is really city infrastructure and things that were not part of the original obligation of the Lift One approvals and potentially dealt with through a taxing district. I want to be clear that is the direction so we can continue to work with the applicants. Councilwoman Mullins said that may be the majority but I certainly think the City should help with the ski museum. To what extent I’m not sure. The ski museum, the restored lift, the skier chalet, the steakhouse, they are all going to be long term assets for the city and it would behoove us to make sure it happens and we don’t lose those structures or that one structure. Councilman Frisch said I totally agree on your goal, is it your assumption that if the community doesn’t help take care of some priory purchased obligations from the developer that the entire project is at risk and that is why we need to get them over the finish line. Councilwoman Mullins replied that one particular resource is at risk. Councilman Frisch stated it is not at risk. They have a legal obligation to deliver a black box per agreement they bought. Mr. M. Brown replied we are making a voluntary designation of that building to preservation. We are not obligated to that particular building. Our current entitlement is that but who knows if that gets built either. Councilman Frisch asked if you are thinking after all this work for two year you want to go back to the original plans that you bought. Mr. M. Brown said I’m telling you with certain whether or not we would do that or nothing. Councilman Myrin said that is very helpful to hear that. That is what we need to be aware of on council. We need to be making sure we are getting what we want for the community. Councilwoman Mullins said what has been put together is a really good project. Twenty years from now people will look at it and appreciate what this council did, if we support it and an integral part of that is the historic resources and we need to at this point we need to partner with these guys because there is no obligation on their part to preserve them. Mr. M. Brown said what I can tell you is our existing approval, while we hope to build it, we aren’t going to put ourselves in a financial jack pot like the dozens of lodges that have come before us have done. You didn’t give us what we needed on the vested rights. We took the risk. If the situation with the economy is not favorable at the time the development is ready to go then we aren’t going to build. We aren’t going to go broke like the dozens of lodges before us. Councilman Frisch said I think we all want to focus on this proposal as opposed to the one that was purchased. Ms. Garrow said there are still some outstanding questions on cost sharing which I’m not sure will be resolved tonight so we can continue the conversation next week. We can do what we can to the ordinances to address all the other items that were discussed tonight and go from there. Mayor Skadron said you are desirous of a number from city council exclusive of the ski museum. Ms. Garrow said as we walk away from this meeting trying to put the direction into actual ordinance language, what I heard and what you summarized is there is some support for participation but not for the ski museum. I’m not really sure where that leaves us in terms of coming back. Mr. M. Brown said we’ve proposed cost sharing on two areas, the museum, park and street. Councilwoman Mullins said before we exclude one part or the other I think everybody needs to understand the consequences of excluding the ski museum. We need a more in depth discussion as to what happens. Ms. Garrow said that is what we need to have on the 10th. What we need going in to the 10th is if council is really focused on yes cost sharing but for the park and public infrastructure improvements not including the museum, what does that look like. Mr. M. Brown said that would be helpful to us. Ms. Garrow said these are the key improvements that are part of the cost sharing. We need some clarity if you are interested in participating in some way. Mayor Skadron asked should the city dedicate the fees it’s been paid to offset development expenses. Mr. M. Brown said for tree mitigation it gets spent right there. That is where they would go otherwise. Barry Crook, managers office, said the city manager has been clear that he thinks that kind of dedication of fees is inappropriate and is not a precedent you would want to set. That doesn’t mean you can’t say whatever is up there that is left 4.4 million dollars should come from the City and we have to go figure out where it comes from. There was some notion somewhere raised by someone that development fees would be turned back into the project costs. We don’t think that is a good precedent for the council to set. Councilman Myrin said he would prefer one big number then figure out how much we want to recapture, if any. The other thing that has come up is if the ski museum isn’t funded the applicant might look at using that for affordable housing, is that the case. Mr. M. Brown said if the city isn’t interested in participating in cost sharing elements we are going to have to get creative. If that means part of the steakhouse building goes back to dormitory or there are alternatives for the skier chalet the burden would shift back to us to think of what Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 3, 2018 14 are the alternatives. Ms. Garrow said we will do our best to put two ordinances together that address what we heard tonight. Councilman Frisch said from day one of the joint venture the assumption was there would be some type of historical society building here. Then it got combined with skier services. Now I’m hearing that whole thing might be proposed to be voted on without any type of ski museum what so ever. I think the probability is higher unless there is some type of cost sharing community investment discussion. Mr. M. Brown said it would force us to be creative and to think of other solutions. Jeff Woods, parks, said the historical society is very much a part of this. They were voted on in 94 to have a museum on Willoughby park. If they exercise that right this whole project falls apart. I think we need to be creative and work together. The historical society is part of this unless they opt out. They have a 99 year lease on the property. If they exercise their lease they could potentially check mate the whole project. Councilman Frisch said from day one of the joint application of the lift coming down there was always a plan of a historical society museum. It has now been shared with some skier services. 10 minutes ago what I think I heard Michael say was if there is not any cost sharing from the community they might turn the building that was to be the museum into something else. Mr. Woods said the museum is a critical component. Mayor Skadron said we are at a point where we need to move this. We have clarity on three of the four topics. There will be further discussion on the cost sharing component. Council needs to be specific on the degree to which we are willing to offer. Councilwoman Mullins said she has heard overwhelming support for this project. We are supportive of this going forward. We do want it to pass. If you are getting overwhelming support for what is proposed I’m not sure it is in our best interest to start picking it apart. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue Ordinance #38, Series of 2018 to December 10, 2018; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to continue Ordinance #39, Series of 2016 to December 10, 2018; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn at 11:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk