The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20110207 THE CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011 5:00 P.M. City Council Chambers I. Ordinance #1, Series of 2011 - Ordinance #48 Negotiations - Given Institute II. Executive Session MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 7, 2011 RE: The Given Institute Historic Preservation Negotiation 100 East Francis Street — Ord. No. 1, Series of 2011 Public Hearing, continued from January 24, 2011. SUMMARY: The preservation of the Given Institute is the subject of this "Ordinance 48 negotiation" and was last considered during a public hearing on January 24, 2011. At that meeting, City Council responded to the proposed preservation plan and provided feedback and guidance to the applicant, SC Acquisitions, LLC. The hearing was continued to tonight — February 7 Since the last hearing, the applicant presented the City with a letter (Exhibit A) asking for clear guidance. The City Council met in executive session on January 31 to review the applicant's letter and to draft a response letter. Attached as Exhibit B is the response letter. Tonight's hearing will be an opportunity to further discuss the response letter and to hear from the applicant. Staff expects tonight's hearing will clarify expectations and result in a definition of next steps. Staff has reserved time on Council's February 14 agenda for a continued public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — January 26 letter from J. Bart Johnson Exhibit B — February 4 letter from John P. Worcester WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA I7% T A JOHNSON &VELASQUEZE ) Bart Johnson 970.544.4602 johnson @wcrlegal.com January 26, 2011 VIA E -MAIL Aspen City Council c/o John Worcester City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Given Institute Property Ordinance 48 Negotiations Dear Council Members: I am writing on behalf of SC Acquisitions, LLC with regard to the ongoing Ordinance 48 negotiation process concerning the Given Institute property. Our client has had an opportunity to consider the feedback and comments you provided at the meeting that Mitch Haas and I had with you last Monday evening. A successful Ordinance 48 negotiation obviously requires mutually satisfactory terms. At the heart of the Ordinance 48 lies the idea that an applicant, in consideration for agreeing to historically designate and preserve an architectural resource, receives benefits or incentives that make the preservation effort worthwhile. Our client has received a lot of feedback and, in some cases, harsh criticism from the public and the City concerning its proposal to preserve the Given building in the context of an overall project that remains feasible. SC Acquisitions, LLC has patiently considered the feedback and has responded in meaningful ways to all of the concerns. Our client has essentially done everything that has been asked of it throughout this process. It became apparent this past Monday evening that the changes made so far are not enough to satisfy the City. We are now at the point where it seems that in exchange for preserving the Given, SC Acquisitions, LLC would be required . to meet or exceed all code requirements, plus offer to sell /donate half of the site for non - profit and/or public use. The benefits and incentives contemplated by Ordinance 48 have fallen by the wayside. SC Acquisitions, LLC has reached a point where it does not see any reason for it to spend additional time and money trying to rework its proposal to make additional changes, especially given that the pattern thus far has been for such changes to be accepted by the City as a new baseline for requesting yet more concessions and changes. Yet SC Acquisitions, LLC is willing to continue with the Ordinance 48 process if the City Council is willing to invest some effort in giving us a clear indication of what it would find acceptable. Though it may be unorthodox, what SC Acquisitions, LLC is requesting at this point is a written counter - proposal from City Council detailing the terms it would find acceptable for preservation of the Given building. We 13505EVENIPOQP5INWEE4SUITE 450 DENVER COLORADO 80202 u 729- 35 x720 351 4745 429 EAST MAIN STREET SUCE 2'T ASPS N COLORADO 816 1 w 976- 5447006 , 8664920361 WCRLEGAL. Aspen City Council c/o John Worcester January 26, 2011 Page 2 believe City Council could take up the issue in either a work session or executive session and then have City staff deliver the proposal to us for consideration by our client. Our client would then evaluate the proposal and determine whether it is acceptable or whether an acceptable middle - ground might be achievable, whereupon we would provide a prompt response. Thanks for your work on this matter. We will look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, v J. Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP cc: Amy Guthrie Chris Bendon Mitch Haas Steve Zweck - Bronner (A0005172 / 1 1j'Ji�- s February 4, 2011 J. Bart Johnson Waas Campbell Rivera THE CITY OF ASPEN Johnson &Velasquez LLP 420 E. Main Street, Suite 210 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Given Institute Property Ordinance 48 Negotiations Dear Bart: After receiving your January 26, 2011 letter regarding the status of negotiations for the preservation of The Given Institute, staff requested an Executive Session with City Council to determine their position on the requested counter - proposal. Council provided direction Monday night, and asked that staff forward their comments to you, in preparation for the next public hearing scheduled for Monday, February 7th. This letter will be attached to the staff memorandum for that meeting and City Council may want to discuss provisions of this letter in greater detail. City Council understands your client must determine whether or not to continue with the negotiation. They are hopeful that their counter- proposal is viewed as a position that is still flexible. As you know, however, the input received from citizen boards and the public to this point indicate that the existing zoning should be adhered to, with few exceptions. Following are the areas for discussion that Council believes are fundamental to an approval. 1. LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT PROVISIONS- City Council requests a three year time frame to identify and assist a non - profit in the purchase of Lot 1 and potentially Lot 2. 2. VESTED RIGHTS- City Council supports a five year period of vested rights for the negotiation terms. The subdivision and growth management allotments would be vested in perpetuity by virtue of the filing of a plat. 3. FEE WAIVERS- City Council will only support fee waivers if they are a "performance bonus," offered as an incentive for a negotiation agreement that successfully facilitates non -profit ownership of Lot 1 and possibly Lot 2, including the potential to ensure public access. It is understood that the applicant already intends to pay the fees if a non - profit purchase does not happen. 4. SUBDIVISION- Council expressed some ambivalence about the number of parcels that the property is subdivided into, but does consider the currently proposed Lot 2 to be an especially challenged development parcel. Council does believe there is potential for the development of two residences in addition to the Given building. 1 5. FAR- Council will require the residences built on this property to comply with all aspects of the Land Use Code. However, Council is open to the idea of a single home on the eastern portion of the site and would consider an FAR allowance of 6 -7,000 square feet for this house. 6. TREES- City Council will require all heritage trees to be preserved. Council would consider removal of a very limited number of these trees in a "make -or- break" situation or to incentivize the development of no more than one house on the eastern portion of the site. 7. PURCHASE PRICE- City Council seeks a purchase price of $3.75 million for Lot 1 and $3.75 million for Lot 2. 8. HALLAM LAKE BLUFF- City Council expects the development to conform to the Hallam Lake ESA, including along the eastern bluff. Council would consider some relief to incentivize the development of no more than one house on the eastern portion of the site. 9. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS- City Council is not in support of waiving the applicable Residential Design Standards. Council did recognize that some of these provisions may not be readily applicable and could be varied according to the code. Both City staff and Council appreciate your client's willingness to bring forward an application that aims to preserve The Given Institute. The complexity of the negotiation process and the many community goals and expectations which affect this property are challenging. Your client's diligence has been valuable in this complex discussion. Sinter ly, Chris Bendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen copy: Aspen City Council John P. Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning Steve Zweck - Bronner, Managing Senior Associate University Counsel, University of Colorado 2 SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION cat Date February 7, 2011 Call to order at: fin. 1. Co ncilmembers present: Councilmembers not present: d Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland - Kg Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero Torre ❑ Torre `Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson 11. Motion to go into executive session by ; seconded bycj` Other persons present: AGAINST: FOR: 2 Mick Ireland ❑ Mick Ireland Ed Steve Skadron ❑ Steve Skadron Dwayne Romero ❑ Dwayne Romero Torre n Torre Derek Johnson ❑ Derek Johnson 111. MOTION TO CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION OF: C.R.S. 24 -6- 402(4) (a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest 0 onferences with an attorney for the 1 cal publ ody fort a purposes o eceiving legal ad i eific legal questions. py) � c� C(� ^` l et (c) Matters required to be kept confidential by federal or state law or rules and regulations. (d) Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations, including defenses against terrorism, both domestic and foreign, and including where disclosure of the matters discussed might reveal information that could be used for the purpose of committing, or avoiding prosecution for, a violation of the law; (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators; (0 (I) Personnel matters except if the employee who is the subject of the session has requested an open meeting, or if the personnel matter involves more than one employee, all of the employees have requested an open meeting. IV. ATTESTATION: The undersigned attorney, representing the Council and being present at the executive session, attests that the subject of the unrecorded portions of the session constituted confidential attorney - client communication: �ktitES R The undersigned chair of the executive session attests that the discussions in this executive session were limited to the topic(s) described in Section III, above. / / %/( v / Adjourned at: E