Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060123 Regular Meeting: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 GREEN TREE AWARD TO ASPEN SKIING COMPANY............................................. 2 OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS......................................................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 3 RESOLUTION #5, SERIES OF 2006 - Contract with CDOT for Highway 82 Maintenance........................................................................................................................ 3 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2006 - Skier's Chalet Alley Vacation ............................. 3 ORDINANCE #53, SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Plat Vacation....................................... 5 ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Lot Split .............................................. 5 ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2006 - Limelite Final PUD.............................................. 8 1 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council Januarv 23. 2006 Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Torre, Richards, DeVilbiss and Johnson present. GREEN TREE AWARD TO ASPEN SKIING COMPANY Lacey Gaechter, environmental health department, said the Green Tree award recognizes businesses in Aspen for their environmental efforts. Ms. Gaechter announced The Ski Company received 23 green leaves this quarter and is being recognized for their membership in Aspen Global Warming Alliance and Chicago Climate Exchange, that all paper products are approved by Green Seal, that Montage Restaurant sources whatever food they can locally, and for using biodiesel in their snow cats. The ARC is donating one-day passes to all Ski Company employees. Matthew Hamilton, Aspen Skiing Company, accepted the award and thanked the city for the recognition. OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARDS Steve Barwick, city manager, commended Ruben Medina, human resources; Tara O'Bradovich, city attorney's office; Richard Pryor, police department; and Rebecca Hodgson, city manager's office, for extraordinary work in the past quarter. Mayor Klanderud and Council presented those employees with plaques and a bonus check. Mayor Klanderud stated the city of Aspen is fortunate to have these employees and other employees who work so hard for the city. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Toni Kronberg thanked the city attorney and city manager for the jobs that they do. They are both smart, current men keeping the city on track. Ms. Kronberg said the entrance to Aspen is a big problem and Aspen needs to redo the EIS. Ms. Kronberg said she hopes Aspen and the EOTC will fund this. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Klanderud extended her sympathy to former Mayor Bill Stirling and to Katharine Thalberg's daughters. Katharine left a great legacy to this community. Council seconded this thought. 2. Councilman DeVilbiss recognized the Mayor for running an excellent meeting on the drug policy last week and for giving everyone a chance to be heard. 3. Councilwoman Richards noted the BLM is taking comments on oil shale production guidelines for western Colorado and the deadline for comments is January 31 st. The oil shale plateau extends as far as the edge of Carbondale. Councilwoman Richards said Aspen has an interest in this from the Canary Initiative and energy production, which will be 2: I in terms of energy expended versus energy received. Mayor Klanderud said the Aspen Wilderness Workshop sent out some points of information on this. . 2 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 4. Councilman Torre reported on the fire station COWOP and asked whether Council wants a check in or report before the process gets any further. James Lindt, community development department, said the fire department needs a cost estimate and plan in early February for their bond issue election in May. The COWOP has come up with a general program and the task force wanted to know whether Council needed to check in. Councilman Torre said the issues discussed as being important to Council are in the program; thrift shop, interaction with street. Councilwoman Richards suggested the Council get the minutes from COWOP and the program sheet, review them and if they have issues, these can be brought up at the next meeting. Council agreed. 5. Mayor Klanderud said RFTA board voted not to pursue the excursion train so it is no longer on the table. 6. Councilwoman Richards announced the historic preservation commission is awarding outstanding projects; the awards are being presented tomorrow at the Wheeler Opera House lobby at noon. This is open to the public. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Klanderud requested Resolution #5, Series of 2006, be pulled from the consent calendar. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the request for noise variances for the core parties February 11 and March 18; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards noted these parties have gone over well with the community and have been well run by the applicants. RESOLUTION #5. SERIES OF 2006 - Contract with CDOT for Highway 82 Maintenance Mayor Klanderud asked about plowing. Jerry Nye, streets department, said from Cemetery Lane to mile marker 39, the city only does pothole patching and will do snow hauling ifit gets too built up. CDOT plows through the roundabout and to Cemetery Lane. Mayor Klanderud asked if the city uses salt. Nye said the city uses 3/8" crushed gravel. Councilman Torre moved to approve Resolution #5, Series of2006; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to approve the minutes of January 9,2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor; Councilwoman Richards abstained, motion carried. ORDINANCE #4. SERIES OF 2006 - Skier's Chalet Alley Vacation 3 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss asked whether the city owns the street and alleys. John Worcester, city attorney, said the city owns the rights-of-way in trust for the public. The city cannot sell streets. The state statute dictates how a street can be vacated and in this instance, it is 50% to the owners on each side, and in this case the owner is the same. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the city charges for infringement on rights-of-way. Worcester said the city has encroachment licenses and fees. Councilman DeVilbiss said there is a verbal statement that this building, which sits on a city-right-of-way will be renovated. Councilman DeVilbiss stated if the building were to be torn down, the right- of-way should revert to the city. Worcester said if Council adopts this ordinance, the applicants would have ownership in fee simple title. Councilwoman Richards said for second reading, she would like staff comments on why this ordinance is separated from the renovation application. This may be out of sequence. Councilwoman Richards said she would prefer to see the renovation plans before she approves a vacation ordinance. Jody Edwards, representing 710 South Aspen LLC, said they recently purchased this property. Title has transferred with a large amount of money sitting in escrow pending this vacation. Edwards said because the building has been in this location for 40 years, no one thought there would be an issue with this vacation. Edwards said he cannot make the statement that that there are no plans to tear down and rebuild the building. Edwards said the redevelopment plans are fluid. Edwards noted there are letters from Comcast, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, Qwest and Holy Cross that they do not need this alley. Edwards said he is not aware of any property around this that would need utility service through this building. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know whether this building is historically designated. Councilwoman Richards stated it does not make sense to vacate an alley with a building on it that may not be preserved. Councilwoman Richards said if the building is demolished and the alley is vacated, it would increase the FAR for the applicant's property. Councilwoman Richards said she would like an idea of the city's ability to service this area with water and electricity. Mayor Klanderud requested a map including the Skier's Chalet and Holland House and what has been vacated. Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of2006; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO.1 (Series of 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY SITUATED IN LOTS 4 THROUGH 11 OF BLOCK 9, EAMES ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. 4 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council Januarv 23. 2006 Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #53. SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Plat Vacation ORDINANCE #54. SERIES OF 2005 - Brumder Lot Split Ben Gagnon, community development department, told Council this is located on East Bleeker street to the east of the Community Church. The request is to vacate the approval of a 1998 historic lot split and to approve a regular lot split for this parcel. The applicant states there was a mutual mistake between the applicant and the city. The initial application was in 1996; it expired and was approved again in 1998. Gagnon reminded Council they requested more information on what happened in 1996. Gagnon said in 1996 the applicant did a survey showing that all parcels came to 11,963 square feet. It was noted on the survey that was the prorated number and it was also noted that 12,000 square feet was the number of record. Gagnon said there is no discussion in memos or minutes whether the applicant was entitled to 11,963 square feet or 12,000 square feet. Gagnon said staff surmised when the applicants came in with townsite lots, it was common practice to use 3,000 square feet/lot. Gagnon said staff did not realize that that applicants were entitled to 3,000 square feet/lot because it was not in the code but was a practice of the city. Gagnon concluded both sides could have done better; the applicant could have pushed the issue and the city could have added this practice to the code. Staff agrees that there was a mutual mistake in processing this application in 1996 and 1998. Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicants came in today, with no past approvals, could they apply for a lot split. Gagnon said they could ask for a regular lot split. Lennie Oates, representing the Brumder Trust, said the standard to be met is that a plat may be vacated for good cause shown. Oates said that burden has been met. Oates noted he provided an affidavit from a previous city planner stating that he never understood the interpretation that short lots in the original townsite were to be treated as 3,000 square foot lots. The other affidavit is from the trustee of this trust indicating he was advised and believed the only way he could proceed was through a historic lot split. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Johnson asked if Council has the entire application. Gagnon answered he only presented the most relevant parts of the file. Councilman Johnson asked if staff has reviewed all approved historic lot splits to determine how many others might argue this same position. Gagnon said he has not. Mayor Klanderud said the community development department is good in working with applicants to make them aware of their options and that may not have happened in this instance. Mayor Klanderud noted the applicant also did not ask their options. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to be certain none of the benefits that accrue to historic lots splits would go with this approval, 5 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 like the 500 square foot bonus and that the HPC has review over any additions or new development. Oates stated that is understood. Gagnon pointed out there is a condition in the lot split to cover additions or new development. Gagnon said this property would still be eligible for a 500 square foot FAR bonus because the entire lot was designated as a historic parcel. Gagnon said the bonus comes with the property not through the process of historic lot split. Gagnon said it is difficult to meet the criteria for a 500 square foot FAR bonus. Oates said he is willing to concede the 500 square foot FAR bonus and put a note on the plat to that effect. Councilwoman Richards said the parcels maintain their eligibility for an FAR bonus when a development is brought in. Mayor Klanderud noted in 1998 lot A had an FAR of2,344 square feet and under this proposed ordinance 3,240 square feet would be allowed not including an 500 bonus. Lot B, which had 1,913 square feet under 1998 approval, would also be allowed 3,240 square feet under this ordinance. These are substantial FAR increases. Mayor Klanderud said she does not want to see a 500 square foot bonus allowed at all. John Worcester, city attorney, said if the applicant is agreeable, this could be added to the ordinance as a condition. Councilwoman Richards asked if this property were coming through a standard lot split procedure rather than a historic lot split, would the affordable housing mitigation requirements be different. Gagnon said a standard lot split requires mitigation and that will be met. Councilwoman Richards asked if the applicant and Council could allocate the total FAR between the two parcels in order to lessen the FARon the historic site. Chris Bendon, community development department, said this can be done in a historic lot split but not a standard lot split. Bendon said in a standard lot split, the size of the lots can be varied but in this case there is only 12,000 square feet to work with. Bendon said the only way to get a lot less than 6,000 square feet is to go through a historic lot split, which results in less FAR. Councilman DeVilbiss said the applicant's argument for good cause to vacate the plat is the mutual mistake. Oates said it is. Councilman DeVilbiss asked what the applicant's obligation was to investigate their options at the time and are they bound to that. Worcester reiterated that is the basis for the applicant's questioning whether or not there was a mutual mistake, and where did city staff make the mistake. Worcester stated he is not sure city staff made a mistake that lots are presumed to be 3,000 square feet in the west end. Worcester said no proof has been provided that no one considered there were alternatives for this parcel other than historic lot split. Worcester noted it is valid that the code should have stated that lots in the old west end are presumed to be 3,000 square feet. Oates said in land use the first thing an applicant does is to have a pre-application conference with community development staff and the applicant is seeking input from staff as to what can be done with their property. Councilwoman Richards said her concern is whether Council wants to make the policy in the future that all west end lots are to be treated as 3,000 square feet. Councilman Johnson said the applicant may have wanted to limit development on that property in 1996 and now wants to change that. Councilman Johnson pointed out in the memorandum, staff cites the 2003 Chart House argument and it was still not clear in 2003 about the difference between record and survey oflots. Councilman Johnson stated in 1996, the city approved exactly what the 6 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 applicant asked for. Councilman Johnson said the applicant may have received bad advice, but there is no evidence that staff made a mistake unless it is the city's policy to correct applications in order to maximize FAR. Councilman Johnson said he finds no good cause for plat vacation. Councilman Johnson said he would like to see the entire case file from 1996 to see ifthere is evidence one way or the other in order to see what the understanding was. Gagnon said his investigation found no discussion whether this was the correct lot size or what the choices might be. Councilwoman Richards said if this were coming in right now as a historic lot split with an assumption it was 12,000 square feet, what would the FARs be. Gagnon noted the historic lot split calculates FAR in a different way than lot split subdivisions. The historic lot spit calculates FAR based on the entire fathering parcel; regular lot split calculates FAR based on two parcels being created. Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the reference to the 1959 official map of the city and townsite of Aspen and the statement that the lots were supposed to be 3,000 square feet each. Bendon said in the Chart House discussion, the 1959 map refers back to the 1880 townsite plat where there were notations that streets were 75 feet wide; alleys were 25 feet wide; lots were 30 by 100, 3,000 square feet. The lots on this map were very small. Councilman DeVilbiss said this is a basis for the assertion that the lots were supposed to be 3,000 square feet each. Oates said his client would not have wanted to minimize the development potential on his property. Councilman Johnson said it seems as if the applicant got bad advice and now wants the city to agree they made a mistake as well. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #53, Series of2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Mayor Klanderud said she does not accept the "mutual mistake" argument. Mayor Klanderud said it is important city staff to let applicants know what their options are; however, there is no indication that these questions were asked. Mayor Klanderud noted vacating this plat after 8 years, there would be a considerable increase in FAR for these properties. Worcester told Council the first time the issue of size oflots came to his attention was about 18 months ago. Worcester said his advice was to treat these lots at 3,000 square feet but that has never been set out in writing. Councilman DeVilbiss said the notation on a map that street are 75 feet wide and lots are 30 by 100 is an announcement of that policy. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, no; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #54, Series of 2005, on second reading; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Councilwoman Richards said this is a fairness issue and it is difficult to judge whether there was an omission by city staff about all options available. 7 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Johnson, no; DeVilbiss, no; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion NOT carried. ORDINANCE #1. SERIES OF 2006 - Limelite Final PUD James Lindt, community development department, told Council this application is submitted by Limelite Inc., and Limelite Redevelopment LLC and requests final approval for PUD and associated land use requests for redevelopment of Limelite, Deep Powder and Snowflake Inn with an incentive lodge development. This proposal contains 125 lodge units, 17 free market residential units and 1 affordable housing unit. The other land use requests include partial alley vacation, subdivision, Wheeler view plane review, and growth management reviews. Chris Bendon, community development department, reviewed the land use code amendments including lodge incentives. Bendon stated this is the first project under the revised land use infill amendments. Bendon said in 1998, the Aspen Area Community Plan was being revised. In the growth committee, there was discussion about controlling the quantitative amount of growth and regulating the quality of growth as well. This dealt with location, type of uses and character changes, where and how should the community expand. Bendon said the committee recommended focusing growth where growth should occur; this is where the infill concept bloomed. Bendon said the committee questioned why this type of development was not happening. The city hired a consultant to research this issue and Alan Richman wrote "barriers to infill development". Richman researched the city's code, talked to appraisers and real estate companies. These barriers broke into 3 categories; zoning, heights, floor areas, view planes, parking requirements; second was the exactions and mitigations that financially hinder a project; third, the city process for reviewing projects was not predictable, was highly risky and an impediment to development. In 2000 the AACP was finalized and adopted and 13 of the top 25 items dealt with encouraging infill and that growth and change had an effect on the quality of the community and that growth should be directed into areas already developed - to grow within not outward. After adoption of the AACP, Council appointed an infill committee that worked with staff and analyzed the entire land use code. In January 2002 the infill committee presented their findings to Council, HPC, P&Z. Bendon said during 2001 to 2002, the economic sustainability committee looked at factors in the upper valley. Their number one recommendation dealt with rejuvenating the lodging bed base, both in quantity and quality. After the infill committee recommendations were presented, staff drafted code amendments, which were presented to P&Z in 2002. P&Z worked on these and developed one large code amendment. These code amendments were not adopted. Council felt all these code amendments were too much to understand at once and directed staff to bring these back in work sessions with Council. Council suggested that there be "sticks and carrots" to development. Bendon 8 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 said all during this time, there was a continued loss in quality and quantity oflodge beds. Council directed staffto involve the lodging community in the lodge code amendments. Staff involved the Gems of Aspen and the lodging association and worked on ways the city could help the lodging community with the problem of decline in the bed base. Council indicated they were wanted projects to "qualify" for lodge incentives. The incentives were to increase the allowed height to 42' and increase the FAR, and that the mitigation for additional lodge units would be half that required for other development, and the process would be more predictable. Bendon said the recommendation was a 500/500 qualifier and in order to receive increased dimensions, a project would have to have a density of lodge rooms equal to or greater than I unit per 500 square feet oflodge area and the lodge units would average 500 square feet or less. The new lodge code amendments were adopted in spring 2005. Bendon read the list of permitted and conditional uses in the lodge district and reminded Council that single family and duplex were removed as permitted uses in that district. Dale Paas, Limelite Lodge, told Council the Limelite Lodge has had staying power for the last 48 years. Aspen has always been an exciting place with adaptability and the Limelite has tried to change to stay up with the community. Paas said he and his family take the corner of Monarch and Cooper very seriously. It has been their home for almost 50 years. Paas said between conceptual and now, they have tried to address Council's concerns and have tried to amend the project to be consistent with the city's goals and codes. Steve Semanski, representing the applicant, reminded Council the original proposal was 110 rooms and this proposal is 125 new, under 500 square feet average rooms in the lodge. Semanski said they have just found out that the alley is not counted in the lot size and the 3,000 square feet has to be deducted and the proposal still meets the under 500 square feet average room. Semanski said the south side has 16 free market condominiums and 1 affordable housing unit. All of the properties, Deep Powder, Limelite, and Snowflake, are in the lodge zone district. Semanski noted I affordable housing has been added, due to a request from the housing board, in place of the cash-in- lieu payment. This unit is in the south building on the street level, facing Aspen street. This will be a rental unit, owned by the lodge. The unit is planned at 650 square feet and the applicants request income and asset waivers. The applicants met with HPC to find a solution for the Deep Powder cabins, which is that they will be moved if a suitable site can be found when the applicants are ready for construction. The applicants will pay the moving costs up to $20,000. Robin Schiller, architect for the project, said the applicant participated in the meetings on the land use code amendments and supported them. The applicants stated during those meetings that the threshold numbers were not what it would take to make this project feasible. The city adopted a percentage of free market and increased heights by right. This project is in front of Council as a planned unit development because those threshold numbers do not workJor this project. Schiller said this team worked to redevelop a lodge that would have as many or more lodge rooms and that would operate more efficiently 9 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 and be more economically viable for the owners. Schiller presented an aerial photograph of the south and north parcels. Schiller said originally the free market and lodge units were to be intermixed; however, that would perpetuate one of the operating difficulties of the existing lodge, which is crossing the street for maintenance and for guest conveniences like breakfast. This led the team to design the lodge in one building. Schiller said there are physical differences between the systems in the lodge and the condominiums; lodges use baseboard heat; condominium purchasers want higher-grade heat. The lodge needs finishes and features that are practical and easy to maintain. If the condominium units were mixed in with lodge units, this would necessitate a homeowners association in with lodge business. Schiller said mixing them would address two different market; mid-market lodge guests and free market condominiums purchasers. Schiller said at this point, the applicants began to look at purchasing other sites, and buying the Snowflake gave the opportunity to put the lodge units all on one site. Schiller noted people have stated a parcel on the north side and a parcel on the south side of Cooper are not contiguous. Schiller used Tab 6, the site plan. Schiller stated there is nothing in the city's land use code requiring parcels be contiguous. Schiller said there have been questions about the underlying height of 42' under the current zoning for this project. Schiller said the current code for lodge zone for mixed-use projects specifically states 42'. A concern was raised about the use of the alley, which is being vacated. Schiller pointed out they have created a receiving entrance and a freight elevator off Cooper Avenue where the lodge has traditionally received deliveries. The trash will be accessed off the alley. They will use a compactor to minimize trash pick up. John Cottle referred to new design sheets and passed them out to Council. These are all noted as "new tab" with clarifying images or information. Cottle said this project is similar to what was approved at conceptual. Cottle showed a view at Hyman and Monarch, the southeast corner of the building. The impact of the building on Hyman Avenue was discussed at conceptual and as a result a portion of the 4th floor has been back from 12' to 24' at various spots to reduce the impact and shifted the impact toward the mountain. Cottle said at conceptual, Council commented that the building needed more variety. Cottle noted the different articulated pieces of the lodge with their own rhythm, windows, materials and fenestration styles. The building consists of smaller scale elements. Cottle said since conceptual, the height of the building was reduced to 42' with 10' floor-to- floor ceiling heights. The 42' is at the entrance, the site slopes 4' to the north. Cottle went through all heights throughout the lodge structure from the tallest part of the building on Hyman, tab 9 sheet 1 shows these in exact measurements. Cottle said the building steps down to the street, Cottle pointed out the two-barrel vaults, one facing Aspen mountain and one facing west and pointed these out on the site plan. These are architectural elements that add variation and elegance to the building. The building on . Cooper avenue at the west is one story with two units. There will be kitchenettes in half of the units. There will be some kitchens. 10 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 Cottle reminded Council that at conceptual review, they stated they did not want any part of the residential building to be over 42'. Cottle showed the floor plan of the residences, new tab 8, sheet 17, this shows 5 lock off units with independent keys that can be rented out separately; Cottle pointed out each lock off unit. These are approximately 650 square feet. Cottle showed the location of the affordable housing unit facing Shadow mountain. Cottle said since conceptual, the residence building has been reduced from 4 stories to 3 stories. The mass increased slightly in the middle in order to fit in 3 stories. There are no penthouse units. Cottle showed views from Wagner park, from Monarch, using tab 8 sheet 13 and from Cooper street using tab 8 sheet 12. The gable roofs have been replaced by arcs, overhangs, which help to bring the building down. The building is built in 30' increments, varying the mass in each block; smaller building layering to larger buildings. There are entrances from Monarch, Cooper and Aspen streets to each portion. The materials are red rose sandstone and buff sandstone. Cottle said the floor-to-floor height on the 1st floor is 12' and varies between 10' and 13' on the other floors. With structural and mechanical systems, the ceiling height is 9.5'. The residential building facing Wagner Park is now a two-story building with a third story set on top of it. Cottle noted the roof plan for the residential building is tab 9, sheet 4. Cottle told Council P&Z asked the applicants to reduce the heights 10 to 15%. Cottle said they have taken off an entire floor and they cannot accommodate a 10 to 15% reduction. Cottle stated changing the parking ramp and some of the parking structure, the height of the building from the trees west has been reduced down to 40' as a maximum. In the trees, the building is still 42' . The highest part of the residential building is 42' rather than 48', which is an 18' reduction. These are from conceptual approval. The parapet is 37' and has been reduced 6' or 23%. The front elements up Aspen street are 29' reduced down from 33'. Cottle showed 64' and 57' high trees and the buildings along Cooper, which are 40',28' and 29'. Cottle showed where the 50' gable roof has been lowered to a 40' roof; another section that was 39' is reduced to 29'. At conceptual Council expressed concern that the building have variety and light; this building is smaller, shorter and has articulation. The building steps down to 2 stories at the edges. Cottle said there were objections that these buildings were creating a canyon on Cooper avenue. Cottle noted that the setbacks on the north building are 22' on the upper floors and on the south side are trees and a building set back in the trees. On Tab 8 sheet 8, Cottle showed the view from Wagner Park and the building pulled down lower. Tab 12 show the Wheeler view plane and the legal description of the view plane; how it crosses the property; an absolute elevation with no buildings, how it would cross the property; and the buildings in front of the Limelite obscure all but a small portion. Jerry Biehl, Limelite Redevelopment, told Council this company will enter into a management and leasing agreement with the Paas family to manage and lease the condominiums. Biehl said as the homeowners move in, they will take over the 11 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 association and the Paas family will provide management services. Biehl said the redesign with some lock off units will make the property more feasible for short-term rental. Biehl noted that owners cannot be forced into renting; however, there will be incentive from use of the pool and common area, housekeeping will be provided, and the management company will do the booking. Biehl said he will stay on the homeowners' association board for several years in order to get to know the owners. Biehl said he does this with his companies. Schiller said the applicants feel this project reflects the city's goal for lodging redevelopment. The project conforms to the underlying zoning in almost all respects. There are benefits to the public. Schiller said sir.ificant design changes have been made to respond to the city's directions. The entire 4 t floor has been removed from the residential building in order to bring that building under 42'. This is a viable project that will provide 125 lodge rooms. There are 21 keys available for rental at the owner's options. There is one affordable housing unit; there is underground parking. Schiller said this project supports economic revitalization. Lindt identified discussion issues for Council. The first is consistency with conceptual approvals. Lindt reminded Council height and massing was discussed at length and the lodge is in much the same form as approved at conceptual. The residential building has been reduced to below 42', which is the height limit in the underlying zone district for an incentive lodge development. P&Z recommended a reduction between 10 and 15% on the residential component. Since this application is being processed as a PUD, Council has the authority to request that reduction. The FAR in the ordinance, because the applicant included the alleyway for which they are requesting vacation, is incorrect and it will be 2.53:1. This would increase the density to one lodge unit to 488 square feet. Changes in the program are including 5 lock off units; managing the condominium, which is consistent with the conceptual resolution to make the residential units more rentable short term. Lindt said the applicants will contribute $20,000 toward relocating the Deep Powder cabins if a locations if found. The conceptual resolution required the applicants to make a good faith effort at relocating these cabins. Another condition of the conceptual approval was for a truck turn around at the end of the alley, a turn around for snowplows and trash trucks. The fire department has reviewed this and would back in rather than turn a fire truck around in the alley. Addressing the growth management employee mitigation requirements, the applicant believes they will need 40 full time employees to operate the lodge. To operate the 3 existing lodges, 48 fulltime employees were required. The applicants believe they will need fewer employees because of efficiencies and the applicants would like a credit of 8 employees to put toward the residential buildings, which will then require mitigation for Y, employee, which will be met by the I affordable housing on site. P&Z and the housing board agreed with the efficiency argument as long as there is an employee audit after 2 full years of operation and the applicants will be required to mitigate for any employees above that 40. 12 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 Lindt noted the requirement of the underlying zone district for pedestrian amenity is 25% of the site and the applicants are requesting a waive to 10%. The applicant is proposing bulb outs on Monarch street for a traffic calming measure. The applicants will pay cash in lieu for the remainder of the requirement. Staff believes the bulb outs are important in traffic calming. P&Z felt the reduction down to 10% is appropriate but they did not support the bulb outs. The city engineering department requests the Monarch street right- of-way be widened to 54 feet. Staff believe this contradicts the traffic calming measures and it will cause an uneven line along Monarch street. Lindt noted the development would encroach in the western portion of the view plane. Council can approve an encroachment into a view plane ifit is insignificant impact. This was discussed at the conceptual level and staff feels the encroachment does not impact the main focus of the view plane, which is Aspen mountain. The majority ofP&Z felt the encroachment into the view plane was insignificant. There are several conditions in the ordinance that address construction management. The applicants would like to use the western 10' of Monarch street for construction management and staging. The parking department would prefer these parking spaces remain open. The applicants propose to close Cooper avenue between the residential and lodging buildings for staging. There is public input requesting at the minimum a pedestrian access to Wagner park. Lindt said this application has the ability to satisfy lodging goals in the Aspen Area Community Plan and this proposal is consistent with the conceptual approvals. P&Z has recommended a 10% in reduction in the residential building. Councilman Torre asked the percentage offree market versus lodging. Lindt said the free market residential is 40% of the floor area, which has not changed since conceptual. The code requirement is 25% for an incentive lodge development. Councilman Torre asked about the setbacks. Schiller said the buildings are pushed to the property lines in order to the meet requirement for 1 lodging unit per 500 square feet. It is a tight fit on the site. This project is adjacent to the commercial core and the lack of setbacks is appropriate in this location. The bulb outs try to bring the park closer to the property. Cottle said the project started with the face of the building set in 30" but with the excavation, it is to the property line. There are variations. Councilman Torre said during the lodge code amendments, he envisioned free market as fractional units. Councilman Torre asked why this does not work in the Limelite project. Paas told Council they looked into fractional ownership, which is different from a mid-market hotel. Paas said they do not have the expertise to run a fractional ownership property. A fractional ownership takes an affiliation with a national entity to be successful. Councilman Johnson asked if both of these alleys are paved. Lindt said the Limelite alley is paved and the south alley is not paved. Councilman Johnson asked about the Dancing Bear approval. Lindt said the engineering department required the alley next to the Dancing Bear be paved. Councilman DeVilbiss asked about the trees on the south side of Cooper. Lindt answered the parks department feels these trees can be maintained. Schiller said the applicants will leave the existing foundation in place and will build the new foundation on the other side of the wall, away from the trees. The trees will be 13 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 fenced and the excavation will be done under the city's direction. There are some trees that will be removed at the direction of the parks department. The applicants will go through the tree evaluation and mitigation process. Councilman DeVilbiss asked for a listing of the public benefits. Schiller said the largest public benefit is preserving and adding existing mid-market lodge rooms. Another public benefit is preserving the bulb outs and doing traffic calming. The applicants are providing underground parking, more than is required by the code. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the code section, which allows 42' high buildings in the lodge zone. Lindt said Section 26.710.l90(D)(7), the dimensional requirements allow 42' flat rooffor an incentive lodge development. This is one development application consisting of a free market and a lodge component in the lodge zone district. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Bill Tomcich, Stay Aspen Snowmass, said in 1995 there were 22 economy lodging properties; 11 of these have disappeared; 4 have been redeveloped into high-end accommodations and 2 have shut down. There are only 5 economy properties remaining. The Limelite and Snowflake are in the moderate category and the priority is to preserve these rooms. Tomcich noted that these two properties represent 20% of the remaining moderate category rooms. Tomcich stated he strongly supports this property. Matt Blank supports the Paas family redevelopment, which will provide an infusion of moderately priced lodge rooms and will allow Aspen to remain competitive in the tourist market. Carol Riley, ski.com, has worked in the lodging industry. Ms. Riley told Council her company books about 60,000 people into 75 resorts and about 15,000 are booked into Aspen/Snowmass. Ms. Riley said there are few places for people looking for moderate hotel rooms. Ms. Riley told Council the integral ownership properties have a lot of restrictions, like minimum night stays and arrival times. Kathy Pitner, 210 East Cooper, said although they are supportive of the Paas family and their plans, she would like to see the project done in a different way. This will take away from Aspen's sense of place and being, a small town mountain historic feel. This project will cause a canyon effect on Cooper street. This will open the door for massive buildings south of Durant, away from the mountain and will change the nature of Aspen. Bob Leatherman, 210 Cooper, told Council the association is not opposed to the lodge development component but does oppose the free market component; its size, height and density. Leatherman said a written agreement should be required between their association and the applicants covering times of delivery in the alley, idling restrictions, number and type of trucks allowed. Leatherman said there should also be a construction management agreement entered into between the 210 Cooper, the applicants and the construction company. Leatherman said they would like assurances on what will be done to protect their building during excavation and construction. There is a large spruce tree that is valuable and important to their association and they would like this tree preserved. Leatherman said parking on Cooper street is valuable; they do not have enough on-site 14 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 parking for all their vehicles. Leatherman said they have to have on-going access to Wagner Park throughout the construction. Leatherman noted that dropping the height to 42', which is all that is allowed by code, cannot be called a concession. Ricki Newman, 210 Cooper, stated she appreciates the compromises that have been made on the building. Ms. Newman said she is concerned about the trees, which should be retained. Ms. Newman said if she has to look at a bigger building, she would prefer to look at it through trees. Peter Loring, 210 Cooper, said he outlined some of his concerns in a letter; height of the private residences, creation of a dead end alley, the 18 to 24 month construction period, and long term parking in the neighborhood. Loring said if this goes forward, they would like Council to consider parking on this block of Cooper to be reserved for residences of210 Cooper. Loring said the condominium association is concerned about the pressure that may be put in the alley if it used by multiple services; the neighbors are concerned there may be more than one truck in the alley at a time. Elizabeth Bryan, 210 Cooper, said they did not expect to see the proposed mass of the buildings across the street. The heights are 40', 30', 39' and the building is not 10% reduced. Ms. Bryan said what will make this project marketable is location, location, location; not ceiling height. Melissa Shennan, 210 Cooper, said they are concerned about losing their views of Aspen mountain but are also concerned about the effect of the massive buildings on Cooper Street. This is a monolithic 42' high building stretching the entire block with minimal setbacks. The street will be a dark, icy, tunnel. The spruces already shade the street and it is a sheet of ice all winter. Ms. Shennan said Council should ask for a scale model of this project. This building is inappropriate in Aspen and would be more appropriate in a typical urban setting. Guy Noble asked if Council has considered how many large projects will be going on at the same time. Ms. Noble said it appears the sidewalk does not exist on the west side of the residential development. Cottle said the sidewalk will be there. Traffic in this area is a concern, especially truck traffic associated with construction. Jim French, 210 Cooper, submitted documents to Council and asked Council to compare these documents to the application. Ron Christian said the Limelite is an important place for visiting family and friends to stay, a place they can afford. Dwayne Romero said the Obermeyer project is a great example of what this development team is involved with locally. Romero said there are uses of articulation, materials and fenestration in the Obermeyer building. The development team also had a good track record of construction management, neighbors, parking. Romero said this team is working with good ethic and integrity. Shelley Roy said she was on the community plan committee that wrote a lot of the AACP. Ms. Roy said she loves the historic character of Aspen. Ms. Roy noted that the historic ceiling rights are taller than current ceiling heights. Ms. Roy said it is difficult to mix residences and lodge units; these two have different needs. Ms. Roy said Council has set up a good process to work with lodge owners to try and keep some of the bed base in Aspen. 15 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 Jim Scull, 210 Cooper, said he is concerned about the livability factor for residents across from this building. Toni Kronberg asked what could be built here if this project is not approved. The lodge district was created in response to what the community asked for. The two main functions of Aspen are the community and the resort. This would be a community-based hotel that supports guests attending sports and schools functions, special events. Alan Bush said Council should make sure these units cannot be fractionalized. Bush noted South Monarch is narrow, is a bus route and it is already difficult to travel that street and the bulb outs would further narrow Monarch. Bush stated this is a better project than that submitted at conceptual. Bush said the rules state one may build "up to" 42', which does not mean Council has to approve 42'. Lindt entered into the record letters from Bob Leatherman, Jim Scull, Diana Sirko, Bennett Bramson, Warren Klug, Linda Singer and Peter Loring. Councilman Johnson moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Torre. Motion carried. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Cottle went over six specific locations where the height was reduced significantly to 28', 37',40',35' and 29'. Cottle pointed out the building setbacks from property lines; these are on the upper floors, not ground floor on the lodge and residential buildings. These setbacks open up the views and let sun in. The corner of the lodge is set back 24' in both directions. Mayor Klanderud asked about the mechanical portions ofthe building, over 42'. Lindt answered these typically do not count in the height and can be above the 42'. Cottle said on both sides, the allowable height is 42', which was changed for a specific reason, to encourage and revitalize the community. This is in the lodge zone and this is a lodge incentive project. Councilman Torre noted the incentive package has stipulations with give and take on both sides. This is not 42' by right; there are requirements to be met to gain that 42'. Bendon said the height in the zone is 28' for projects that do not meet the 500/500 qualifiers. If a project meets the 500/500 qualifier, the allowable heights are 38' for sloped roofs and 42' for flat roofs allowed by right. This project meets those qualifiers. Councilwoman Richards noted the zone district also has a 25% open space amenity. Once a project is a PUD, there is a give and take on a variety of Issues. Councilman Torre said the free market component is part of this package and the threshold was set at 25%. The 500/500 allows a height of 42' but it was a package. Councilman Torre said he sat through the code amendments and seeing what these are manifested as and how the neighbors react to what is trying to be accomplished, Council did not made a blanket change in height limits. Mayor Klanderud asked the parking requirement in the underlying zone district. Lindt said the infill code amendments reduced the parking from. 7/unit to .5/unit. Mayor Klanderud asked how the employee number was arrived at. Lindt eXplained that prior to the consolidation, the applicants suggested they had 48 full time employees, each of the 3 lodge developments employed a total of 48 full time employees. This has been reduced to 42 employees because of 16 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 efficiencies. Mayor Klanderud said an argument could be made the credit is 2, not 8 as the current consolidation has already created that reduction. Lindt agreed Council has that authority. Mayor Klanderud said one of the arguments for not mixing the residences and the lodge unit was crossing the street; however, their program entails crossing the street for maintenance, breakfasts and apres ski. Paas said they are interested in building a workable hotel and need to have condominiums to finance it. Paas said their plan would inconvenience the condominium guests, not the hotel guests. Paas reiterated the type of lodge guests and the condominium guests do not mix. Mayor Klanderud asked if all deliveries would be made to the front ofthe hotel. Schiller said the intention is to take deliveries off Cooper at an entrance for skiers and for receiving. Councilman Johnson said he has problems understanding the need to separate the residences and the lodge units. Cottle said there are differences in operational costs that are required to operate a hotel efficiently and operational costs for free market residences. The continued livelihood of a hotel depends on operational efficiencies. The free market charges can be flexible and change. Mayor Klanderud noted the demand for services at the free market residences may drive up the demand for employees. Schiller said although there may be some cross usage of amenities, the free market condominium owners may not want to share lobbies with entire rugby teams. They have different expectations for quiet, privacy and luxury, which are not compatible with a mid-market lodge. Cottle agreed many projects have condominium units on top of hotels; however, these are not mid-market hotels but luxury hotels. Councilman Torre stated he supports the lodge components and questions the residential component. Councilman Torre said he would like to see some work done on the residential project to bring it where Council can approve. Councilman Torre said he is concerned about the requested variance in the view plane. Councilman Torre said the pedestrian amenity waiver being requested troubles him and relates to the lack of setbacks. Councilman Torre said second and third floor setbacks are not pedestrian amenities. Councilman Torre said 40% of free market versus the lodge floor area is a large concern. Councilman Torre said 40% was beyond was Council was considering and the comparative size of these two buildings is almost equal; the footprint looks the same. Councilman Torre said he does not want to give up a city block to residential; that was not the intent oflodge incentives. Councilman Torre said he is concerned about the height of the residential building. Councilman Torre questioned 14' floors in this building. Councilman Torre stated the location is the true beauty of this project. Councilman Torre said heights going up, alley vacation and only getting 15 more rooms is an issue. Councilman Torre stated he supports P&Z's request for a 10 to 15% reduction in height. Councilman Torre said he thinks the applicants can get the project to where it is acceptable; however, he cannot support this exact proposal. Councilwoman Richards suggested this meeting be continued rather than try and make a decision at this late hour. Councilwoman Richards said construction management contract details will take time. Councilwoman Richards noted the city codes were a 17 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 reaction to building in the 1970's begetting full block length, no setback buildings. There were mitigations required, all of which built up to the town seeing no reinvestment or redevelopment in the core. The city put a lot oftime into the infill codes and it is critical to get this project right. People probably did not visualize a project under the infill codes with amalgamated sites that is this big. Councilwoman Richards said she is making her decision on how this town will live with this project in the future and how people will feel about it. Councilwoman Richards stated the project is a little too big. Councilwoman Richards said the vacation of the alley creates a single long, large block face larger than any in town. Councilwoman Richards said she could support the large lodge building ifthere are some other concessions. Councilwoman Richards agrees more lodging is needed. Councilwoman Richards stated she appreciates the greater articulation, and the change in the roofline of the residential building, and the work done to find a place for the Deep Powder cabins. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports the separation of the residences and the lodge as they are not truly compatible. Councilwoman Richards said she does not favor a flat 10 to 15% reduction in the residential building but would rather see the building broken up more, lower some heights in front of the 210 Cooper residences. Councilwoman Richards said the height behind the trees is appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about the size of the building on the corner of Hyman and Monarch and the 4th floor on the Cooper street and the building on the Snowflake site should be predominantly a 3 story building. Councilwoman Richards said she wants a separation in the two buildings like what alleys do for blocks. Councilwoman Richards said Aspen looks and feels special and the size of buildings has a lot to do with that feeling. Councilwoman Richards stated the residential building should have more pedestrian amenities and setbacks on the ground floor. Councilwoman Richards stated for her lodge redevelopment is getting amenities and the type oflodge rooms people want. Councilwoman Richards said she would prefer the 4th floor on the north of the lodge be eliminated. Mayor Klanderud said she understands how this came in as one application and is considered part of the lodge redevelopment; however, if the residential portion were to come in by itself, it would have a 28' height limit. Mayor Klanderud said she did not envision a project like then when Council discussed having free market part of a lodge redevelopment. Mayor Klanderud said there is no guarantee the homeowners association will use the management services of the Limelight. There is also no guarantee that this will remain a mid-market lodge. Mayor Klanderud said this decision needs to be made very carefully because this building will be on site for a long time. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to see the alley opened or the building modified around it somehow. Mayor Klanderud stated she is a strong proponent of a construction management plan. Mayor Klanderud said she will support a continuation of this meeting. Councilman Johnson said the applicants have done a good job on the massing, architectural detailing and heights. Councilman Johnson stated he would like the paving or not paving of the alleys addressed by staff. Councilman Johnson said he would like to see a section through the Dancing Bear and the Limelite residences running north to south and a section through 210 East Cooper and the Limelite residences running north to 18 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council January 23. 2006 south. Councilman Johnson stated he would like a survey on the tree heights. Councilman Johnson said he understands the lack of integration between north and south parcels; however, he is concerned about the tenuous and financial management relationship that will exist after the project is complete. This is a PUD and it cannot be separated except by Council amendment. Councilman Johnson said these two are not very well matched. Councilman Johnson said he cannot see any way to insure the public benefits, like mid-priced hotel rooms, lasts into the future, especially ifthere were a new owner. Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman DeVilbiss. Motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss stated he is concerned about the alley vacation. Councilman DeVilbiss said this is essentially two different projects and uses the lodge incentives to build taller condominiums. Mayor Klanderud said she would like to hear more about the bulbs outs. Mayor Klanderud stated the city is being asked to allow increases in height and reduction in open spaces and the public benefits have to balance the ends. Mayor Klanderud said she can approve the intrusion into the view plane. Councilman Johnson agreed and noted their presentation on the issue of the view plane was very clear. Paas said he appreciates the opportunity to be able to look at this again. There are some reductions that will take the project below the lodge incentive. Mayor Klanderud and Councilman Johnson said they have no problems with the lodge building. Councilwoman Richards reiterated she is troubled by the height and length of an entire block of building. Councilman Torre moved to continue Ordinance #1, Series of2006, to a special meeting February 6 at 5 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to adjourn at 11:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. 19