Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060724 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Julv 24. 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................... 2 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................................................................................... 3 . Resolution #56, 2006 - Contract Purchase ofthe Wheeler Orchestra Pit Cover ... 3 . Resolution #57,2006 - Contract Replacement Caterpillar Wheel Loader............. 3 . Resolution #58, 2006 - Contract Replacement Dustless Street Sweeper................ 3 . Resolution #55,2006 - Contract Golf Course Pump House .................................. 3 . Minutes - July 10, 2006.......................................................................................... 3 . Resolution #59,2006 - Supplemental Funds $7,000 for Senior Living Survey.... 3 ORDINANCE #24, 2006 - 1001 Ute Consolidated PUD ..................................................3 ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 2006 - Lift One Condominium Consolidated PUD....... 9 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 2006 - Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision .............. II ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment......................... 13 RESOLUTION #52, SERIES OF 2006 - 434 East Cooper Call Up HPC Decision........ 17 I Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Julv 24. 2006 Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers DeVilbiss, Torre, Johnson and Richards present. Mayor Klanderud announced there has been a phone survey of citizen residents, which is being presented as on behalf of the city planning commission. Mayor Klanderud said staff is investigating this as the city did not commission a survey and has nothing to do with this survey. Mayor Klanderud said the city was told by the people doing the survey that they would cease making telephone calls. CITIZEN COMMENTS I. Toni Kronberg said the Friends of Rio Grande Park are circulating a referendum petition to bring Ordinance #22 to the voters. The main part of Ordinance #22 is rezoning the area from Park to PUD. Ms. Kronberg reported people are signing the petition because they do not want a building at the recycle center; however, people do like the convenience ofthe recycle center location. Ms. Kronberg said one issue troubling people is the lack oftuming radius once one is inside the recycle center. Ms. Kronberg said people would like to go back to the original design so this can be a win/win situation. Lee Cassin, environmental health department, said there are confusions about the recycle center. It is not going to cost $1 million. Council has not approved any budget. Ms. Cassin told Council a building was designed at the request of the neighbors, who preferred some cover to keep the area neater and more attractive. Ms. Cassin noted the buildings will be sunk into the ground to make them less visible. Jeff Woods, parks department, told Council they worked with representatives of the skateboard park to integrate the two elements. COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Mayor Klanderud presented How We Are Smart by W. Nikola Lisa, dedicated to Torre and written by Torre's uncle 2. Mayor Klanderud requested adding to the consent calendar a request for funds to survey citizens over 55 regarding future needs. The entities involved are Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen Valley Medical Association, City of Aspen and Pitkin County, each being requested to contribute $7,000 to plan for living residences or facilities. Council agreed. 3. Councilman DeVilbiss said he received a survey phone call stating it was from the city. Councilman DeVilbiss said when he asked who hired them, he was told they were just a survey company and were hired from a company in Alaska. Councilman DeVilbiss requested anytime the city commissions a survey Council be alerted so they will be aware. 2 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 4. Councilman Johnson stated he supports Councilman DeVilbiss' request Council be informed of any survey undertaken by the city. Councilman Johnson said when he took the telephone survey; he realized it was not a city effort because the questions were so loaded. Council agreed they want to be told when the city is doing a survey. 5. Steve Barwick, city manager, stated staff is withdrawing Ordinance #33, impact fees, to make substantial changes. It will be resubmitted later. Barwick requested an executive session be added to the end of the agenda. 6. Councilwoman Richards said she attended the subcommittee meeting of Club 20 on natural resources. Councilwoman Richards said resolution ofthis group do not become policy until the entire board of directors vote. Councilwoman Richards said there have been statewide efforts to reach concurrence on water policy. The 64 counties reached an agreement that any mountain diversion should benefit both the receiving and sending areas for water and impacts for any basin of origin should be mitigated. Councilwoman Richards noted there is no mention of water conservation in these policies, which is a concern, and she will work to obtain a policy addressing water conservation. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended adding the agreement to fund the senior living survey not to exceed $7,000; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. The consent calendar is: . Resolution #56, 2006 - Contract Purchase of the Wheeler Orchestra Pit Cover . Resolution #57, 2006 - Contract Replacement Caterpillar Wheel Loader . Resolution #58, 2006 - Contract Replacement Dustless Street Sweeper . Resolution #55,2006 - Contract Golf Course Pump House . Minutes - July 10, 2006 . Resolution #59,2006 - Supplemental Funds $7,000 for Senior Living Survey All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #24. 2006 -1001 Ute Consolidated PUD Councilman Torre recused himself as he is employed with the adjacent tennis courts. James Lindt, community development department, reminded Council this is a request for subdivision approval to construct 2 single-family residences and an affordable housing unit. Lindt said at the last meeting, Council agreed with the concept of subdivision but wanted a site visit and clarification on some issues. A site visit was conducted July 17 3 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Julv 24. 2006 with Councilmembers Johnson and Richards. Lindt noted rock fall and avalanche mitigation was a concern; there is an avalanche report by Peter Lev and a rock fall report by Nick Lampiris. Both reports conclude a wall on the south side of the proposed houses would be a good precautionary measure. The applicant proposes a 4' wall. Stafflooked at the adjacent Aspen Chance subdivision to see what they were required to do for rock fall and avalanche mitigation. There were no requirements for rock fall and avalanche mitigation on the Aspen Chance subdivision. Staff is comfortable with the 4' wall as a precautionary measure and the wall is included in the ordinance as a condition. There was concern about landscape and the defensible space standards for fire mitigation. The applicant hired Art Hoagland, consultant on defensible spaces, who reviewed the applicant's plan, suggested changes and those changes have been made. The vegetation between Ute Avenue and the proposed buildings has not been reduced. Another concern was the snow melted driveway required by the fire marshal. Lindt told Council the fire marshal has re-looked at the driveway and has stated a driveway maintenance plan is acceptable in lieu of snow melting the driveway. Lindt said the fire marshal determined a snow melted driveway is not energy efficient, could get turned off and would not be anymore effective than a winter maintenance plan. Lindt recommended approval as staff believes this meets the review standards for subdivision and suggests Council limit the floor allowed for the two single family residences to 3800 square feet each, consistent with the Hoag subdivision. Councilwoman Richards asked about the number of cottonwood trees that would be removed due to relocating the tennis courts. Lindt said II cottonwoods and I spruce, 8" or greater, would be removed. There are more trees being removed; however, they do not meet the 8" standard. Councilwoman Richards asked if there are trees being removed for the driveway. Greg Mosian, landscape architect, said the location of the driveway works with the existing trees. Councilwoman Richards asked if this were not approved in the city, what would be the access route in the county. Lindt said it would be the same access and the tennis courts would still have to be moved, requiring an 8040 review in the city. Glenn Horn, representing the applicant Latham Stearn, told Council there are 2 Chen Northern reports and 2 reports by Nick Lampiris and an avalanche report by Peter Lev, all concluding that the geologic hazards affecting the site are minimal, mostly because there is not a long run above the site. The reports state if there were to be an incident, the structure and people in the back yard would be protected by a wall. Horn said the applicants were concerned about the wildfire because they are dependent on landscaping screening. The applicants hired Art Hoagland who stated no material need to be removed on the north side of the driveway. Hoagland recommended changes to the east and west, removing some proposed spruce trees and replacing those with aspen trees and to alter the shrubbery to break up the continuity of the ground vegetation. Horn pointed out 1001 Ute landscape plan, July 24, 2006, showing the changes recommended by Hoagland Horn said Council raised the issue of the capability of the affordable homeowner to pay the same sort of dues as the free market owners. The applicant states the homeowners' 4 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council Julv 24. 2006 association will be structured so that the affordable housing owners will not be responsible for dues; that will fall on the free market only. Horn said the larger issue is neighborhood compatibility and floor area. At the site visit, concern was expressed about removing the cottonwood trees for the tennis courts. Horn said the landscape plan is the key to making this project compatible with the neighborhood. Horn reiterated II cottonwoods and I spruce would be removed and whatever gets removed has to be reviewed by the parks department and mitigated. Horn showed a chart of the trees being removed and what will be replaced; the applicants are proposing to plant 69 aspen trees between I" and 4.5" in caliper and 57 spruce trees between 8' and 16' in size. Horn said there is a disparity between the base floor elevation of 100 I Ute and to the east, the Newfoundland and Hoag lot 3. Horn presented a drawing showing the 8040 line, above the 1001 Ute, and the 8000 foot elevation, which is the base elevation for the houses at 1001. Horn showed the intermediate contour lines, indicating the base floor elevation ofthe Newfoundland is 8070, and the base floor elevation of Hoag lot 3 is 8060, both higher than that proposed for 1001 Ute. There is a buffer between 1001 Ute and the Hoag lot 3 of over 200 feet. The base elevation of the house to the east is 5300 square feet in size and is 20 feet above the proposed houses at 1001 Ute. Horn said these drawings illustrate that the 1001 Ute should be comparable to the Aspen Chance to the east rather than the Hoag. Horn pointed out the Aspen Chance lot 7 is 9271 square feet, lot 6 is 5587 square feet, and the 1001 Ute lots are proposed to be 5040 square feet. The Hoag lot 3 is 3603 square feet, 220 feet to the east. The Newfoundland, which is 70 feet higher, is 5904 square feet. Horn presented a chart of the comparison of the base height elevations; Aspen chance lot 78025, Aspen Chance lot 6,8020,1001 Ute at 8000, Hoag at 8060 and Newfoundland 8070. Horn noted the proposed houses will only be one story above the 8000 elevation, 8020 with the top story. Horn reiterated the positives are a 40% density reduction, 4.1 acre open space dedication; trail easement dedication, a category 4 affordable housing for sale unit, reclamation of an unsightly site and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Horn presented computer graphics of how this would be seen from the neighborhood. Horn showed views from different places on Ute avenue with computer simulations to insert the houses, 1001 Ute Avenue views east from west. The predominant view from Ute Avenue will be the affordable housing unit on Ute. Horn told Council when Alan Chozen acquired this site; his primary purpose was to control the feel of the development on site. Chozen started the process several years ago and decided to sell the property to someone with a similar vision to his. Horn said throughout the process, the applicants have wanted to make it a win/win project and have consented to all the city's requests. Horn said the only remaining issue is staff's recommended floor area of3800 square feet versus the applicant's request of 5040 square feet. Horn said the applicant can build 3700 square feet per side of a detached duplex by right. Horn questioned going through a process with all the costs and work involved when one could build 3700 square feet by right. Horn said the process that is set up creates incentives for a property owner to enter the planning process, and the incentive is receiving more floor area in exchange for giving community benefits, like a trail 5 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 easement and open space dedication. These would not be on the table ifthe applicant had just built a detached duplex by right. Horn said the materials illustrate the proposed development is compatible with the Aspen Chance subdivision to the west and the request for 5040 square feet of floor area is consistent with the land use code and with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Horn noted there was a favorable recommendation from the open space board regarding the donation of the 4.1 acres of open space. Lindt gave Council a letter from Peter Thomas supporting the 5040 square feet. Brian Flynn, parks department, told Council the 4.1 acres of potential open space sits in an area identified as wildlife habitat. The trail easement across the property is important to the city and will help connections to the Ajax park. Mayor Klanderud asked how a winter management plan would be enforced. Ed Van Walraven, fire marshal, said one has to go on a signed agreement stating what will be done. Van Walraven recommended a change to the wildfire management plan that there be on-going maintenance of the defensible space. Latham Stearn, applicant, said he will have a contract with a plowing company to plow on a regular basis. Councilwoman Richards asked if there is a possibility to reconfigure the tennis courts instead of pushing into the cottonwood grove. Horn said that was studied and the road takes up too much room and with the standard tennis courts, it will not work. Horn told Council they approached the Gant about eliminating one court. The Gant has the right to maintain 3 courts and they did not agree with eliminating I court. Councilwoman Richards said the area to the right of the tennis courts is a thick wood and the representation is to replace it with manicured landscaping. Horn pointed out where Alan Chozen lives and told Council the applicant has an agreement with Chozen on what the landscaping will look like. Chozen likes the dense forest like growth. Horn said the proposed landscaping should be similar. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Sydney Rose, Gant G-I05, told Council they filed a letter of concerns about enjoyment of the use of the tennis courts. Rose said the tennis courts are a unique and valuable amenity of the Gant and the owners of the Gant voted not to sell off the tennis courts. Rose said the proposal to relocate and reconstruct the courts means they cannot meet the agreement to have the courts available for use. John Worcester, city attorney, stated this is an agreement between the Gant and the developer; the city is not a party to this private contractual agreement. Donnie Lee, general manager ofthe Gant, stated the Gant has entered into a letter of agreement to try and answer these concerns. Mayor Klanderud entered into the record a letter from Susan Welch about the appearance of the retaining wall. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman DeVilbiss noted the size ofthe buildings in this application has not changed in the past two weeks. Councilman DeVilbiss stated staff still recommends the size of the building be reduced. Councilwoman Richards said she could support a slightly larger 6 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 size than that recommended by staff but smaller than the square footage being requested by the applicant. Councilwoman Richards said the staff recommendation is for 7600 square feet between the two houses and an affordable housing unit. The letter from Peter Thomas goes over what would be allowed by right and under county zoning. Those numbers are inclusive of ADUs and there is an advantage for the single family houses not having to have ADUs included in their structure. Councilwoman Richards noted this is a prominent site and having something smaller would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Councilwoman Richards said a lot has been made about the lower elevation of these proposed houses than structures adjacent to it; however, that makes these structures closer to the street and to the trails. Councilwoman Richards stated she has concerns about the trees and asked if everything was done in the site planning to save the trees. Mayor Klanderud said this is proposed as a one story structure above ground. Mayor Klanderud said it is difficult to see this site from across the valley; it is lower than structures to the east and to the west. There is a deed restriction that the tennis courts will never be developed. There is a donation of 4 acres of open space and a trail and a for sale category 4 affordable housing unit. Mayor Klanderud stated she supports the applicant as submitted. Councilwoman Richards said this looks like a three story structure to her, not a one story structure. Jack Miller, architect, said the structures will be below the allowable height limit. Councilwoman Richards said the applicant's request is for 30% bigger buildings than the recommendation from staff. Councilman Johnson agreed there are positive portions of this project. Councilman Johnson said the applicants dealt with his safety concerns outlined two weeks ago. Councilman Johnson noted his concerns about the visibility of the projects from Smuggler Mountain have been addressed; however, the argument of the staff for a lower FAR is the view from Ute Avenue. Councilman Johnson said this, too, is his concern; this is a large group ofbuildings. Mayor Klanderud asked if the open space were not being donated, how many residences would this property accommodate. Lindt said two are allowed; however, there is enough lot area to go through subdivision and growth management and have up to 5 residences. Councilman Johnson said he is concerned about the subdivision criteria #2, the proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. Councilman Johnson said there are other houses with similar square footages; however, it makes more sense for this to have smaller structures in this location. Horn told Council the applicants could do one 6,686 square feet containing one ADU single family house on this property by right without any review, except 8040. The applicant chose not to do that. Councilwoman Richards said her greatest concern is that the two 5,040 square foot houses could read as one house. This is a lot of mass very close together. Councilwoman Richards reiterated the applicants are receiving a 300 square foot bonus by not having to have an ADU within their structures. Stearn said this is an expensive site to develop. The applicants have put in two years of work and money on this project. The applicants have worked with the neighbors and 7 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 with the city to plan a project that was acceptable. The separate category 4 affordable housing unit is a benefit. The objective is to get two 5,000 square foot houses. Stearn pointed out the Ute Place subdivision across the street has 18 units all over 5,000 square feet. Stearn said with all the costs into this project, 3800 square foot units are not feasible. Stearn said ifhe develops in the county, the open space benefits will be lost. Stearn said the footprints of the houses are only 2% coverage ofthe. Stearn told Council the applicants went to the Open Space Board, who were in favor; the P&Z who were in favor. Mayor Klanderud said she understands the concern about smaller houses to fit within the community; however, this area is not within the core that is looking for that size. This is more of a rural area. Mayor Klanderud said some building could happen on this site with no community benefits. Councilman Johnson noted it is this community's experience with development that has resulted in a rigorous and difficult process. Councilman DeVilbiss said the fact there are larger houses is true; however, that does not mean Council should vote for a project. Councilman DeVilbiss noted the applicant brought up viability of the project and once an applicant brings that up, there is no ordinance to evaluate claims regarding viability. Councilman DeVilbiss said the picture makes this structure look like 2 or 3 stories above grade. Councilman DeVilbiss stated he will agree with staff's recommendation. Councilwoman Richards said she could consider house sizes larger than staff recommended but not 5,040 square feet. Lindt said the P&Z approved this unanimously at 5,040 square feet. Councilwoman Richards said the trees are a concern and she supports the staffrecommendation. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of2006, as written with house sizes of3800 square feet; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Stearn said he is not interested in that approval. Councilman Johnson stated this is a PUD and the purpose of a PUD is to set the dimensions of projects and that is what Council is doing. Stearn said ifview is the concern, how does one come to a rationale determination of what is acceptable. Councilman Johnson said if the applicant is willing to come back with a different design at 5,040 square footage, he is willing to look at that. Stearn asked what percentage decrease of the linear view would be acceptable. Councilman Johnson said it is the responsibility of the applicant to listen to Council's concern and to respond with a proposal. Lindt said the applicant has suggested a condition to look at redesign and the possibility ofreducing the visibility of the structures. Visibility was one of the reasons for staff's recommendation of the limitation on square footage. Lindt stated there are community benefits to this project. Chris Bendon, community development department, said if Council is interested in seeing ways to minimize the appearance of this project with variegated heights, setbacks, materials, staff is willing to look at a redesign and bring that back to Council. 8 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Councilwoman Richards withdrew her motion; Councilman DeVilbiss withdrew his second. Councilwoman Richards reiterated she is concerned with the square footage and would be willing to look at a redesign. Councilwoman Richards said she might find 4500 square feet an acceptable size. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see the structures less visible and closer in size to staff's recommendation. Councilman Johnson said looking at height and square footage is quantifiable. Councilman Johnson said it will be easier to address Council's concerns about the visibility of this proposal with a smaller FAR; however, it is possible to achieve less visibility with less square footage. Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #24, Series of 2006, to August 14; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Ordinance #27, Series of2006, Code Amendments TDRs to August 14; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Johnson stated he has to recuse himself on Ordinances #28 and #29; on the first he lives within 300 feet and on the second he is the manager of a business in the building. ORDINANCE #28. SERIES OF 2006 - Lift One Condominium Consolidated PUD Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council this project is located at 131 East Durant, corner of Durant and South Aspen street in the lodge zone. This is an existing multi-family building. The allowable height is 28'. This existing project has elements of 42'. The applicant has applied for a PUD to establish the height for additional elements of the proposed upgrade, which would be 44' 6". Bendon said staff and P &Z tried to balance out two competing interests. This is a non-conforming structure and is too tall for the height of the zone district. Bendon noted the theory behind the non- conforming statutes is to minimize the investments in the non-conformities that the buildings will go away through time. The second issue is that building need aesthetic improvement. This building will likely continue and these are improvements to the neighborhood. Staff came down on the side of approving the improvements and allowing a greater height. Bendon said P&Z had the same perspective and their recommendation 4 to I was to approve this project. This is only a PUD to consider the height triggered by the aesthetic improvements. Bendon stated this meets all standards for PUD approval. Bendon showed where the 42' elements on the existing building occur. Bendon said on the Durant street side this is a four-story building with a 42' height on the flat roof at its most extreme point. 9 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Paul Taddune, representing the applicant, said this proposal is a condominium makeover; there is no development request, no additional FAR. Taddune said the application responds to the community plan, to have an eclectic design and modernized buildings. Seth Hmielowski, Caudill Gustafson, showed A2.0, the existing elevations; A2.1 north south elevations; A2.2 east and west elevation; A2.3 perspective of the existing structure. Hmielowski said one of the challenges is to break up the flat roofline, which dates the building to the 1970's architecture. This will only be done in a few locations. There are 4 comer balconies where a gable roof is proposed. Hmielowski pointed out the 3 stair towers and the elevator tower. There are 8 locations where the building is proposed to go above the existing roofline. Councilwoman Richards asked how high the new elements are. Hmielowski said all roof elements are 4'6" above the existing roof; the elevator tower extended 6'6" above the existing roof, which would make it 46'6". Hmielowski pointed out the various elements and their proposed heights from the Durant side and the Aspen side. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if other details are being added. Hmielowski said windows will be replaced; there are some windows being added. Councilwoman Richards asked if the decks are being enclosed. Hmielowski said there is a double cantilever over the decks, which have begun to sag. Columns have been added to stop that sag and to jack the existing decks up. The decks are not enclosed nor is there an expansion in the size of the decks. Councilman Torre asked ifthis is the only option for renovation. Councilman Torre said the request for variances in heights in a non-conforming structure seems to go against the direction the city is headed. Hmielowski noted the existing building is all flat roof and they are trying to break it up with some gables. Councilman Torre asked if there are other designs not requiring an amendment to the existing heights. Hmielowski said there other designs retaining the prominent flat roof. Councilwoman Richards said the flat roof contributes to the view of Shadow mountain over the building. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know how this design affects the views. Taddune said this building was built in 1972 and the codes have changed. Taddune said there was a proposal to add an additional floor through a PUD. Taddune noted the new lodge at Aspen may be taller and block out Shadow mountain. Taddune said the proposed design is consistent with the AACP, harmonizing and creating interest in buildings. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Taddune told Council this building has not been renovated since 1972. This is a legally created non-conforming building. Mayor Klanderud said there is a concern this will set a precedent for other non-conforming buildings. Bendon agreed there are buildings throughout town that have been made non-conforming because of code changes in the last 30 years that may want to make aesthetic improvements and this could be precedent- setting. Bendon noted every PUD is unique and Council has to examine each one and decide whether it meets the PUD standards. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the height limit in 1972. Bendon said staff is not sure and there were different ways to measure the 10 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 height 30 years ago. Mayor Klanderud noted there is not a request for increased FAR and this does function as a condolhotel. The request seems to be consistent with the goal for improvements in the lodge zone. Taddune agreed this is consistent with a planned unit development. Councilwoman Richards asked the height of the clock tower. Hmielowski said the clock tower adds 6'6" and the gables add 4'6". Councilman Torre said these are small changes, yet the building is already above the allowable heights. Councilman Torre stated he struggled with this and feels there are options other than raising the heights of the building. Councilman Torre said he has problems with the clock tower element and would not approve it. Councilman Torre said there will be impacts to the neighborhood and also this is precedence setting. Councilman Torre stated he is having problems approving increased heights just for aesthetics of a building. Councilwoman Richards stated she, too, has concerns about the clock tower. Councilwoman Richards said there are ways to spruce up the building without putting gables on all corners. Councilwoman Richards stated she is not inclined to go above the current configuration. Mayor Klanderud noted the elevator is already 3 feet the height allowed and the proposal is for 6 feet about that. Hmielowski said the increased height is for maintenance and for snow shedding. Councilwoman Richards suggested a site visit to see how these elements will affect views from Durant and from neighboring properties. Councilman DeVilbiss and Mayor Klanderud agreed to a site visit. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue ordinance #28, Series of2006, to August 28; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #29. SERIES OF 2006 - Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision James Lindt, community development department, told Council this is a subdivision request to allow construction of one free market residential unit and one category 4 affordable housing unit located in the 500 block of east Durant. P&Z has granted the necessary growth management review; HPC has granted final design review as the building is located in the historic district. The HPC also granted a view plane exemption that other buildings already block the view plane from Cooper street. Lind told Council the free market unit is proposed at 3300 square feet; the affordable unit is two-bedroom category 4 rental unit. Lindt noted this addition is within the dimensional requirements of the CC zone district. Lindt showed the elevation facing to the south with the proposed addition, noting the free market and the affordable housing unit. The CC zone district allows 42' feet and the proposal will be under that as well as under the allowable FAR. There is no parking requirement for residential units in the CC and no parking is proposed. Lindt told Council this application meets the subdivision review standards in effect at the time the application was received. The free market unit is proposed at over the 2,000 square foot cap in the code; however, this application was received before that addition to 11 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 the code. Lindt noted the affordable housing unit is on the upper floor, more than the minimum size required, and is a quality unit. Lindt said as far as the growth management implications, the affordable housing unit is greater than 30% ofthe free market floor area, which is code requirement. Lindt told Council there was a free market residential allotment available from the 2005 GM allotment pool. Staff and P&Z recommend approval. Mitch Haas, representing the applicant, stated this is an A+ location for residential units; Y2 block from Aspen mountain, I block from Rubey Park and I block from City Market. Haas said the affordable housing unit is proposed to be very high quality. HPC, P&Z and the housing board all recommend approval. The deed restricted unit will be over 1,000 square feet. Haas stated the building is proposed at 35'; the allowable height in this zone is 46'. The build out of the project would be 28,000 square feet and the zoning would allow 54,000 square feet. Haas told Council the affordable unit is proposed to be for rent; however if it is out of compliance with the housing rental restrictions for a year, it will become a for sale unit. Haas noted the logic is similar to units in lodges because the unit is mixed in with residential units and commercial spaces. Suzanne Lovell, architect, told Council 1/10 of this unit will belong to the housing office and it is required to be rented. Councilman Torre moved to suspend the rules and extent the meeting to II p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Lovell showed the stair tower, the balcony on the side of the affordable unit, the storage, and the floor plan as well as where the unit will be located in the building. Haas introduced photographs of the existing building, the floor plan AI.I with the affordable unit, and the view plane study for HPC, rendering of the proposal after completion, site plan AO.l showing the area highlighted. Councilman Torre asked if a shade study of the alley has been done and the hazards that may exist from lack of sunlight in that alley. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards stated this application meets the code; it also demonstrates why it was important to put a moratorium into effect. The FAR allowed for the additional free market is creating an affordable housing unit, which is what infill is about. Councilwoman Richards said not enough attention was paid to what will happen within the infill. Councilwoman Richards said the percentages of affordable housing to be gained is too low. The emergency code amendment adopted recently limits the size of free market units to 2,000 square feet and too much ofthe FAR is going toward a large free market residence. Councilwoman Richards suggested the deed restricted unit be lowered to a category 3. Councilwoman Richards said she feels a 3,000 square foot free market unit could support a category 3 unit. Councilwoman Richards noted this unit will not have on site parking. 12 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of2006, on second reading; seconded by Mayor Klanderud. Mayor Klanderud noted this was reviewed and approval by the housing board, HPC and P&Z and forwarded to Council. This application was submitted under the existing code and asks for no variances from the land use code. Councilwoman Richards reiterated the location and the addition of a large free market unit can support the unit being rented at category 3 levels. Steve Marcus, applicant, stated if that is the only item holding up approval, he will commit to category 3. Councilman DeVilbiss said the applicants have not asked for any concessions and is a clean project and he cannot agree with lowering the category. Mayor Klanderud agreed this application meets the requirements and the applicants have the right to expect to be treated with objectivity of the code in place at the time. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, no; DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, no; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion NOT carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of2006, on second reading amending the affordable housing unit to be a category 3; the applicant has agreed to support that request; seconded by Councilman Torre. Mayor Klanderud stated she will support this only to approve the project and not hold it up further. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, no; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30. SERIES OF 2006 - Burlingame PUD Amendment James Lindt, community development department, told Council this application is submitted by the city of Aspen asset management department representing the lot owners of the single family lots at Burlingame, phase 1. The request is for several PUD amendments. Lindt showed the Burlingame site plan and where the single family lots are located. Lindt said one request is to amend the rear yard setback. The original setback was 10' and the applicant is requesting a 5' setback for accessory structures like garages or sheds. The second amendment is a request to amend the allowable FAR, which was approved at 2200 square feet plus a 500 square foot garage exemption. The applicant requests 2500 square feet plus a 500 square foot garage exemption. Lindt noted the third request is to increase the height limit from 25' to 30' as calculated by the code. The 4th amendment is to remove the fire sprinkler requirement for the single family residences. Lindt told Council staff supports the reduction in the rear yard setback as the lots are tight and most of them back up to the open space. It is consistent with the R-6 zone, which is the most comparable zone based on lot size. Lindt said these lots range from 3200 to 4200 square feet. 13 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Staff does not support the request to amend the FAR to 2500 square foot with 500 square foot garage exemption as this would overwhelm most of the lots. Lindt said the allowable FAR is consistent with the housing guideline requirements. Lindt told Council the request to amend the height is because standard modular housing does not fit within the 25' requirement because of sloping lots. Lindt stated staff does not support this; however, Council will have to look at the cost implications ofthis. Lindt said modular construction could be modified. Lindt told Council the fire marshal does not support removing fire sprinklers from the single family lots. Lindt reiterated staff does support the rear yard setback amendment but does not support the other 3 requests. Mayor Klanderud asked if these amendments would apply to all lots at Burlingame. Lindt answered these would only apply to phase I; that is the way the ordinance is written. Lindt noted if these amendments were approved, staff would evaluate how they work in phase I and see ifthey should be added to phases 2 and 3. John Laatsch, asset management, told Council there is a 4 to 4.5' grade change on the 5 lots on the south side of Forge road and on the north side, there is a 5 to 5.5' grade change. Laatsch said there are varieties in height because of the grade changes to all of Burlingame. Laatsch agreed custom construction or custom modular construction would achieve a lower height but at greater costs and at what point do the units become no longer affordable. Laatsch noted each lot is different and each lot has a different square footage. Councilwoman Richards asked what the cost difference range would be to have custom modular design. Laatsch said there is not enough repetition in lots or designs to affect any cost savings. Lindt said Council has a broader responsibility in looking at these requests; staff is looking at the requests from a land use perspective. Councilwoman Richards said there is some issue in stepping down using modular design and building a foundation that allows stepping down, the foundation is exposed and that becomes counted as FAR. Councilwoman Richards said there are issues intertwined relating to affordability, sticking with the code and what counts as FAR. Lindt said FAR is measured based on percentage of exposed wall area, multiplied by the square footage in a basement and that is subtracted from FAR above. Laatsch noted these lots were meant to be restrictive and to encourage affordability. Councilman Johnson asked the cost of sprinkling the units. Ed Van Walraven, fire marshal, told Council he has contacted sprinkling companies and has been quoted prices from $2 to $3.50/square foot. Councilman Johnson asked when the fire sprinkler requirement went into this project. Lindt said it was in the original approval ordinance. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Jennifer Carney, lot owner, thanked the city and stated they feel this is a chance of a lifetime to be able to stay in Aspen. Ms. Carney said this has been a learning process. Ms. Carney said the PUD amendments suggested by the lot owners are all about affordability. Ms. Carney told Council the cross section of their proposed modular would fit within the 25' limitation; however, the grade change in combination of the 6/12 roof pitch makes it almost impossible. There are challenges with the slope and topography. 14 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Ms. Carney said they are try to respect the design aesthetics of Burlingame and are trying to maintain the height limitation on the front side. The additional height would be measured from the back side. Ms. Carney told Council the modular construction is much more affordable than custom construction. Ms. Carney said stepping down costs additional architectural fees and drafting fees required by the modular company to redraw the plans. Ms. Carney said they are trying to design with livability in mind and not have a lot of stairs. The construction time with modular construction is much shorter. Ms. Carney requested Council consider the challenges of these lots. Diana Ettlinger, lot owner, said these requests all relate to affordability, not building huge houses. Ms. Ettlinger said a 6/12 roof pitch and a 4' slope present obstacles with a small lots and with affordability. The modular development adds additional height because it adds I' between floors. The subgrade is difficult because the lots slope from front to back 4' within the building envelope and from front to side 2'. The height is measured from the lowest point on the lot but the buildings are limited to 25' on the front of the lot. Ms. Ettlinger pointed out staff says it is not feasible to do 2500 square feet on the lots. This issue is not about larger houses but about full basements. Ms. Ettlinger said modular houses require either a crawl space or a basement; they cannot be built on slab. Ms. Ettlinger said with the slope and FAR reduction, one cannot fit a full size basement with a 2200 square foot house. Ms. Ettlinger said typically in the city houses are not required to be sprinkled unless they are 5000 square feet or larger. Ms. Ettlinger stated she is not opposed to sprinkling the houses but it is an added costs. Mayor Klanderud entered a letter from Mare Wolfer into the record. Ms. Carney told Council she spoke with Madeline Osberger, who could not be present but supports the PUD amendment requests. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Lindt said he feels the height limitation is the most challenging to affordability of units at Burlingame. Allowing more height would further the ability to use standard modular construction. Laatsch told Council the city is putting together an adjustment on the interest charge from the date from which one closed to July 31 when the lots will be turned over to the purchasers. CORE is looking for more funding or grants to help with the energy efficiency and affordability for the single family lots. Councilman Johnson asked how the 25' foot height limitation was arrived at. Leslie Lamont, Burlingame design team, told Council 25' is the standard residential height in the city. Ms. Lamont reminded Council the design team presented a substantial PUD amendment with 2 lots D-2, G-2 because of the grade change there, the multi-family buildings were eliminated and two single family lots were created. The design team was encouraged to stick with the basic residential requirements, which was 25' height limit. Those lots are part of phase I but are not part of this lottery. Councilman Torre said the Council wanted heights to keep this development at a smaller scale. Lindt said there are steep lot on the perimeter of town that have height limit requirements of25'. These lots 15 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 typically do not have modular construction and are free market houses. Lindt noted the majority of the R-6lots are in the west end and tend to be flatter. Councilman DeVilbiss said it seems like the city is trying to make one size fit all. There are small lots with different percentage of grade change and this may not be addressed with one PUD amendment and still keep the houses affordable. Councilwoman Richards stated she supports maintaining the fire sprinklers. Councilwoman Richards said she would prefer to preserve the integrity of the project with the original design standards and adjust the price of the lots. Councilwoman Richards said she assumed these lots would be flat and ready to build on. Councilwoman Richards reiterated the city should make price adjustments necessary to keep these within affordability and within the design standards that will affect all residents at Burlingame. Mayor Klanderud said she would support the rear yard setback change and would not vote to forego the fire sprinklers. Mayor Klanderud stated she would not support an increase in FAR but could support some height increase to 28'. Councilman Johnson agreed he could support the rear yard setback change, would not support an FAR increase, yes on installing fire sprinkler. Councilman Johnson noted if the city does not require fire sprinklers for houses less than 5,000 square feet, this should be looked at in general. Councilman Johnson agreed it seems difficult to make a change in allowable height that would work for all lots. Councilman Johnson suggested maintaining 25' on all facades that face another structure. Lindt said if one had no grade change on a lot, there would be a 25' height limit; if one had a grade change from the front of the building envelope towards the back of 4', one would have a 29' limit on the rear of that parcel. Mayor Klanderud said that kind of formula will not work for all lots in this phase. Laatsch noted in phase I, not this lottery, there are 2 lots with 12' grade changes. Councilwoman Richards said this ordinance could be written to affect only these 7 lots. Councilwoman Richards said this project was design with a certain aesthetic and a height change would be tinkering with that aesthetic. Councilwoman Richards noted the change from 25' to 30' is a 20% increase. Councilwoman Richards said all the city's demands for these lots do not fit under the price cap and the city may have to either raise the price cap or lower the purchase price. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed to support the decrease in the rear yard setback, would not support increasing the allowable FAR, would vote against the deletion of the fire sprinkler. Councilman DeVilbiss suggested asking staff for refinements on what could be done about the grade change on the lots and how that affects buildability and affordability. Lindt said a majority of the lots fall away from the streets and suggested retaining the 25' height limitation on the front of those lots and allowing the height limit to be what it is required on the back of the lots as long as a consistent roofline is maintained. Lindt said the 2 lots that fall toward the street would need a different solution. Chris Bendon, community development department, noted there is a code provision designed for lots that fall away from the street and allows one to maintain the same height the first 30' of 16 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 depth from one's front yard. Bendon said this section can be referenced, height will match the change in the slope. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2006, on second reading requiring fire sprinkling, allowing the rear yard setback change, allowing the height formula that the lots that slope away towards the open space to be calculated as described by staff; the other two lots unaffected at this time and can be revisited, and maintaining the current FAR ratio; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre asked about the FAR increase and subgrade spaces and trying to accommodate the modular construction. Councilman Torre said if an increase in subgrade FAR were allowed, it would not affect the footprint of the buildings. Councilman Torre said he supports requiring fire sprinkling and allowing the rear yard setback and the height calculations as described but would like to know about the FAR. Lindt said whatever percentage of exposed wall in the basement, exposed through a window well, light well or egress well, where it drops away from grade will be counted toward the FAR, which would reduce the overall above grade space. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would prefer to have more information and more thought before making a decision on this request. Councilman DeVilbiss said he could support granting a change in the rear yard setback, not to delete the fire sprinklers and not to amend the FAR request. Mayor Klanderud asked if the modular units request a full basement. Bentley Henderson, assistant city manager, told Council they require a full foundation, which could be a full crawl space or a full basement. Henderson said a partial basement/partial crawl space results in some lost square footage. Councilman Torre said a full basement space is non-intrusive and he supports that for added livability. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #52. SERIES OF 2006 - 434 East Cooper Call Up HPC Decision John Worcester, city attorney, said Council voted to call up the HPC decision. Council is considering the record established by HPC in review of this decision. The code states Council will affirm HPC's decision unless there is a finding by Council that there is a denial of due process, HPC exceeded its jurisdiction, or abused its discretion. If Council finds there is evidence of the above, they may reverse the decision of HPC, alter the conditions ofHPC's approval or remand the case back to HPC. Worcester pointed out the land use code does not define what is means by exceeding jurisdiction or abusing discretion. These are terms of art that courts have dealt with. Worcester stated a denial of due process may be found ifthere is procedural irregularity that took away a significant right of the applicant or was an active violation ofthe applicant's constitutional or statutory rights. Worcester said an abuse of discretion is if the decision 17 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority. A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision is grounded in misconception or misapplication ofthe law. Worcester noted Council has the record from the HPC and their job is to determine whether there was a denial of due process, abuse of discretion or HPC exceeded their jurisdiction. Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council 434 East Cooper is located in the commercial core historic district so HPC has review over any alternations to the property. Ms. Guthrie noted Frits Benedict's office designed the building in 1965. This structure was included in the 2000 historic inventory update process and was discussed as potentially historically significant. No action was taken to initiate historic designation. Ms. Guthrie said the applicants wanted to discuss remodel of the building, which would essentially become a demolition, and approached staff. Ms. Guthrie noted a work session was held with HPC. The issue is whether this building is historic. Staff presented background information on the building, HPC had a site visit and requested more information. The community development department contracted with an outside historic preservation consultant. Another work session with HPC was held and there was a discussion of how representative of Benedict's work this building is. Community development department recommended a public hearing. The applicant requested demolition permission from HPC and a public hearing was held May 24th. HPC conducted a public hearing and considered testimony and made findings the demolition was appropriate. Ms. Guthrie stated staff feels HPC did not act improperly and recommends Council uphold their decision. Chris Bendon, community development department, said with the standards of denial of due process, whether HPC exceeded their jurisdiction or abused its discretion, the first two are straightforward. HPC is the authority, through the land use code, to make this decision and they followed the protocol in making that decision. Bendon stated when regarding abuse of discretion, it comes down to whether HPC did their job with integrity and staff feels they did. Bendon said there was a significant level of discussion, site visit, review of criteria, review of the paper about Benedict's architecture, review of the work by a third party consultant. Bendon noted this was a six month review and was not a decision taken lightly. Tom Smith, representing the Bidwell Investment Company, stated they support staff's recommendation. Smith noted he submitted a letter dated July 14th. Smith said the decision on whether to allow demolition is a decision Council has delegated to the HPC. This decision is subject to appeal or to call up; there has been no appeal. Smith said HPC considered the criteria, discussed those criteria, and applied those criteria with the testimony and documentary evidence in making their decision. Smith reiterated this building is not listed on the historic inventory; HPC considered the integrity of the district and determined there were no buildings of this same era on the inventory. Smith pointed out the building was discussed on how it met and did not meet historic guidelines. Criteria were discussed, like open spaces, building setbacks, pedestrian engagement, storefront character. It was determined consideration of those criteria mitigate in favor of 18 I...... Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 approving the application. Smith noted 2 members ofHPC opined the matter would not have been considered difficult without the connection to Fritz Benedict. HPC members felt Benedict's connection to the building did not warrant protection as an historic structure. The evidence showed Benedict's personal involvement was indirect and minimal. Smith said there is evidence to support HPC's decision and requested Council uphold HPC's decision. Smith noted there is a condition that the demolition permit will not be issued until there is conceptual approval of a replacement structure. This will give HCP a chance to compare the two structures with compatibility with the historic district. Councilman Torre asked under what criteria HPC evaluates the new structure. Ms. Guthrie said this is located in the historic district and there are commercial core design guidelines. Councilman Johnson asked ifHPC has placed a condition that they see conceptual review before demolition on other projects. Ms. Guthrie said she cannot recall an application for a free standing demolition; however, this condition is specified in the code so that there is not a large hole in the middle of town for a long time. Councilwoman Richards said this issue is solely on the record. Councilwoman Richards stated she finds no evidence submitted that Fritz Benedict was not a significant contributing architect and person in this community. Councilwoman Richards noted there are comments that HPC looked at the building separate from the Benedict connection. Councilwoman Richards stated it was exceeding the jurisdiction to separate the architect from the building. Councilwoman Richards said she found no evidence submitted that this building was not designed through his shop or under his supervision. Councilwoman Richards said she found no evidence this building is not representative of the 1960's boom and construction and the rebirth of modern Aspen. Councilwoman Richards said she found no evidence that it does not contribute to the downtown core in the context of the 1960's. Councilwoman Richards said she found a lot of testimony on how the building works, on the cost of repairs and the cost of upkeep. Councilwoman Richards said that exceeds HPC's jurisdiction to consider repair and upkeep costs. Councilwoman Richards noted one of the HPC members testified he interviewed tenants outside the public hearing process, which is not appropriate. Councilwoman Richards said there were comments about whether this building is commercial successful and whether a new building would be more successful. Councilwoman Richards said that exceeds HPC's jurisdiction. Councilman Torre said he wanted this brought up to look into a contradiction between staff and HPC recommendations. Councilman Torre noted this building's significance in the downtown core is undeniable for what the architecture it represents means to this community and its historic context. Councilman Torre said the city's consultants recommended this has historic value and it should be land marked. Councilman Torre asked why this was not heeded. Ms. Guthrie said that was just part of the testimony. Staff recommendation was also that the building did not meet the demolition criteria. Ms. Guthrie pointed out the HPC took all that into consideration in coming to their conclusion. 19 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Councilwoman Richards said there was a debate on whether this building was the best representation of Benedict's work or not. The HPC noted Benedict's contributions to the community but with dueling historic consultant's reports, the argument became whether this was the most significant contribution of his work. Councilwoman Richards said that exceeds the jurisdiction of HPC. Councilwoman Richards said there was testimony on what was the intent of the owner of the building, which should have been insignificant to the decision. Councilwoman Richards said there are comments about the materials, and that this was a cheap project. Councilwoman Richards said the discussion moved away from whether Benedict was a significant contributing member to modern Aspen's rebirth to whether this was his best representational example. Councilwoman Richards said it is not the charge of the HPC to select and to preserve the best representational examples of any architect. Councilman Torre said the record states, from the Tatanka report, this building represents the best remaining example of his commercial projects in Aspen. Councilman Torre said he is concerned about the denial of due process, that the HPC approached the owner of the building in 2000 for compliant designation. Councilman Torre said this triggered the applicant to request approval for demolition as the first step of redevelopment. Mayor Klanderud noted a denial of due process can be found if a procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affects a significant right of the appellant or the administrative body acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Mayor Klanderud said a decision may be an abuse of discretion if the decision ofthe administrative body, HPC, is so devoid of evidentiary support it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. Councilwoman Richards said she feels this is an abuse of discretion with the HPC member who interviewed tenants in the building; when the member stated one has to look at function, success, space and what has happened. Councilwoman Richards said no evidence was submitted that Fritz Benedict was not a significant contributing member of the community. Councilwoman Richards pointed out another comment about the lack of success in the patio and that an HPC member noted they were looking at this purely as a building and not associated with Benedict. Councilwoman Richards stated it was exceeding the jurisdiction of the Board to remove the architect from the discussion. Councilwoman Richards said the HPC exceeded their jurisdiction to pick only the best examples of Benedict's architecture There are no guidelines in the historic section stating that each genre of building should be narrowed to one best example. Mayor Klanderud stated she could find nothing in the record to support any of the three standards Council is required to follow in the hearing. Councilman DeVilbiss stated there is not a denial of due process, as defined by the city attorney, not an abuse of discretion nor did HPC act in excess of its jurisdiction. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would love to see the building remain as it is; however, to be fair he cannot find a denial of due process, abuse of discretion or actions in excess of jurisdiction. Councilman Johnson said he disagrees with the decision. Councilman Johnson noted there are numerous times HPC acknowledges the value of Benedict and the significance of his contribution to the post war renaissance of Aspen. The Board then makes a decision to demolish based on issues of functionality, whether the architect liked the 20 Rel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 design, and the commercial viability of the basement space. Councilman Johnson stated he does not find what they did rises to the level of denial of due process, or that they abused their discretion or exceeded their jurisdiction. Mayor Klanderud agreed the HPC took what they were doing seriously. Mayor Klanderud said there are architects who contributed to the community; however, that does not mean everything one does is worthy of preserving. This was a potential landmark site along with many other properties and this list was the catalyst to the amendments to the historic preservation code to try and make it more objective. Mayor Klanderud noted this building did not make it to the inventory, nor did Council put it on the list. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 12 a.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Klanderud said she does not feel one HPC member talking to the tenants of the building rises to the level of meeting the three requirements to overturn the decision or to remand it to the HPC. Councilwoman Richards reiterated she can find no evidence in the record that there is no historic significance of this building. Smith pointed out there are 3 specific criteria to find against demolition and none of these criteria speak to looking at the architect who designed the building. Councilman Johnson said regardless of whether he agrees with HPC or not, to uphold their decision, he needs to find they considered the criteria and used the criteria to make their decision. Councilwoman Richards moved to reverse HPC's decision on the grounds that they have exceeded their discretion in terms of taking testimony on the tenancy, the commercial viability hinging their decision on those factors and that the Board abused its discretion that there is no evidence submitted on this record that this is not a significant building, that Fritz Benedict was not a contribution to the history of Aspen or to the downtown core; seconded by Councilman Torre. Councilmembers Richards and Torre in favor; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, Johnson and Mayor Klanderud opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to approve Resolution #52, Series of2006, to uphold the decision of the HPC; seconded by Mayor Klanderud. Mayor Klanderud requested that the Resolution be amended to include not exceeding their jurisdiction. Councilman DeVilbiss accepted that amendment. Councilmembers DeVilbiss, Johnson and Mayor Klanderud in favor; Councilmembers Richards and Torre opposed. Motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to go into executive session at II :55 p.m. pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) purchase or acquisition of property and 24-6-402(4)(b) advice from counsel; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. 21 !,tel!ular Meetinl! Aspen City Council July 24. 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Torre moved to come out of executive session at 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adjourn at 12:30 a.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. 22