Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20190722Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 1 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES – Sister Cities Award ............................................................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 COUNCIL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 3 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 3 BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4 ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2019 – 2nd alternate member to the CCLC ............................................... 5 ORDINANCE #2 AND #15, Series of 2019 – Re-adoption of the updated Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual to Title 29, Re-adoption of the Water Distribution Standards, Re-adoption of the Engineering Standards (combination of the updated Design Standards and the updated Excavation and Construction Standards); and other amendments to Title 21 and Title 29. ................................................... 5 ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2019 – 730 E Cooper Avenue (Base 1 Lodge) Minor Amendment to a Project Review .............................................................................................................................................. 6 ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2019 – 981 King Street – Minor Subdivision Amendment to Remove On-site Affordable Housing Unit ................................................................................................................ 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Mesirow, Mullins, Richards and Hauenstein present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES – Sister Cities Award Mayor Torre said tonight we have an unscheduled public appearance. Last week there was a meeting in Houston that Ward attended regarding Sister Cities. It was an international conference of the Sister Cities organization. Aspen won another award. Mayor Torre asked the board members to stand and be recognized. The award is the best overall award. Defining excellence in your program and presented to Aspen Sister Cities. Councilman Hauenstein said my involvement tells me it takes people with commitment, passion and time. Aspen has seven Sister Cities. It is something we can all be proud of. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Ruth Harrison presented council with a bunch of issues including hope that lift 1 corridor will go away, buy the Su Casa building and offer spaces to locals to own their own businesses, Smuggler parking issues, Hopkins stop sign, Mill Street is not safe, Maroon Creek Road and the round about. 2. Lee Mulcahy – gave out handouts. The APCHA guidelines that were in effect in 2015 said 60 days from date of first letter a notice of violation will be sent. The first letter was sent on July 17th. That means the notice of violation could not have gone out until September 15. It was sent on August 25. APCHA jumped the gun. This is all based on a premature notice of violation. 3. Sandy Mulcahy said on Friday we received notice that APCHA’s attorney has requested to appoint the transfer of title to a third party. They have the power and authority to come to our home and say you are trespassing. I’m not leaving that home. 4. Ziska Childs said one of the first things the Wheeler board asked for from council was help for the mission statement for the board and the directors. The board would be able to serve better with a mission statement. 5. Peter Fornell said the new city offices are in the best interest of town. We can trust you to develop and design a building both functional and architecturally unique. Having a centralized environment is critical. Concerned we may be entering into a project that may contain more than city offices need. He questions the necessity of a meeting space. 6 designated meeting spaces belong to the city. We need to know if there is pressure on our existing spaces or not. All meeting spaces are scheduled through the clerk’s office. Not once have I heard anyone talk about the occupancy rate of these rooms. 6. Toni Kronberg said transportation should be one of council’s top goals. She asked if Taster’s has a lease. Hopes lift 1 doesn’t go away. Asked about Arc funding for the fitness center and outdoor pool. 7. Chris Bryan said he is here with the Brown family. There has been a problem with Georgia Brown. They have a lease at the Ute City building but have been denied the opportunity to have a store front presence in the Saturday Market there. Their entrance is blocked by another vendor. They didn’t have a lease by the December 31 deadline. They didn’t have a lease until June. They would like to be present at the Saturday Market. Mayor Torre asked did they go to the CCLC meeting. Mr. Bryan replied yes. Councilwoman Mullins said I went to CCLC and they explained what they wanted and why they should get the space. CCLC also made a very good argument as to why they should not get the space. Mr. Bryan said they did not finish the market Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 3 last year because their lease expired. Councilwoman Richards said we are not supposed to make decisions at the table that aren’t part of the agenda. You will not get direction from us to change anything but direction to have staff look in to it. We are not going to take an action to cure your issue tonight. Councilman Mesirow said this is the 4th or 5th time someone has approached me as to how people are selected. Councilman Hauenstein said I’ve been going to CCLC meetings for 2 years. They have spent considerable time and effort for a fair matrix as to who gets in to the market. There is a protocol. I think it is transparent. Jim True, city attorney, said staff is not going to make a determination but we will bring forth the CCLC position. Sara Ott, city manager, said staff is not involved as a decision maker for the market. Mr. True said t he city is not blocking their store. The sidewalk is clear and empty. CCLC heard the arguments and made a determination. That can be brought to you at another meeting. If you want to discuss it further after you’ve seen the minutes from their meeting. Mayor Torre said we will get the minutes from the CCLC meeting. We will think about it. I understand time is of the essence, but we are just seeing you here. We cannot guarantee you action between now and Saturday morning COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Torre gave kudos to the Pathfinders 5K. It was an amazing event for the first year. Amanda Boxtel for Bridging Bionics hosted a fantastic event at the Jerome. The Sheriff’s Cup last Monday raised $170,000 for Huts for Vets. He has concerns from the airport group. We are almost half way through the one year process. If you’re not paying attention you should. He did not feel as if Aspen’s voice is being heard. There has been talk about forming a Pitkin County caucus that represents the City of Aspen. Contact me for more information. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Ms. Ott introduce Tracy Truelove, communications director. Tracy said she is excited to be here. Pete Rice, engineering, spoke about the Hallam pedestrian way outreach. July 31 is a neighborhood social. There are 4 more public outreach events planned as well. The bikeway is a critical commuter connection. Very excited to get this started. August 12th will be the start date. BOARD REPORTS Councilwoman Mullins attended the CCLC meeting. She is impressed with the energy and ideas and is very encouraged. CCLC is on the right track. Councilwoman Richards attended the Club 20 meetings in Snowmass Village. They had a progressive agenda and good information. They discussed transportation, telecommunications and 5G. Councilman Hauenstein attended the Houston international sister cities conference. He made great connections especially with millennials. Sister Cities was established in 1956 to promote world peace through citizen diplomacy. There are opportunities for expansion for our program. The people is what makes the program work. Mayor Torre said I got my introduction to sister cities through Jill and Don Sheeley. Many thanks to Don and the entire family. Councilman Mesirow attended his first northwest council of governments meeting. There is a bill out there for tax revenues that leave ski areas and get disbursed to be retained by ski areas. Staffers from both CO senator offices were there. DOLA has 6 Million set aside for census outreach. They talked about the 2008 second home study. There is a question as to if we should do it again. Significant interest in a study Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 4 that focused on short term rentals. Ms. Ott said currently there is a position funded in the finance department for auditing lodging tax for these short term rentals. Working with APCHA on it as well. Approached by one of the major platforms to enter into an agreement but we feel it does not represent the community’s interest. CAST also does work in this area. Mayor Torre attended RFTA as the alternate. 2 agenda items; approve audit and board support for the solar farm. He also attended the board of health. The BOCC is looking at the tobacco tax county wide. Looking to mirror what the City of Aspen has done. Councilwoman Mullins said the other important thing with the transition of Torre is when the board was formed it was an experienced based board of city and county representatives. One of the changes they made at the meeting is they need alternates. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Richards moved to amend item 6C citizen board appointments to add Ann Mullins as city alternate to the Board of Health once the guidelines have been updated. Seconded by Mayor Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar with items 6B, 6C, 6D and 6E; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Reso #82 – Garmisch and Main Mayor Torre said he would like more discussion about the project. What are alternatives here. I looked at the contract and thought the scope was rather large. Is there something that can be implemented easier. Trish Aragon, engineering, said we have been limping this area along for a while. Severe safety issues in the area. This has been something identified as to do. Mr. Rice said the phasing is broken out with phase 1 to do homework, property lines and utility information. Phase 2 looks at what are the problems, start the public outreach, get bus information and develop more detail plans. We will sit back down with you to review the problems and potential solutions. Phase 3 starts the construction documents. Mayor Torre asked what is the budget. Mr. Rice said next year we will come back for the remaining budget of $340,000. Construction is estimated at $750,000. Councilwoman Mullins asked what is the total contract. Mr. Rice said 458,000 is the total. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see the project proceed. When I’m a motorist I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen a pedestrian almost hit. I think of this like the project at the castle creek bridge area. At the end of the day it has greatly enhanced the public safety to use the mass transit system. It does look inadequate to me now. It is pricy to work like this. She would like to reach out to C dot and RFTA for potential funding. Doing this in phases allows us to see that it is worth proceeding. Mayor Torre asked has C Dot, RFTA or the EOTC been approached to share funding. Mr. Rice said we are starting that process. Ms. Aragon said C Dot wants to know what they are funding before they commit to it. If you want to be successful this is the way to do it. Councilman Mesirow asked how do you evaluate the safety aspects. Ms. Aragon replied the feedback we’ve got from police, bike safety team and RFTA. Mr. Rice said the numbers are tough to do for that. Councilman Hauenstein said we previously had a work session where we went around and looked at sidewalk areas. There will be obstacles here when the Molly Gibson is redeveloped. This is a public safety improvement. The citizens demand public outreach and it doesn’t come for free. Mayor Torre said he will vote against this tonight. It is definitely an area where I want to see improvement. Concerns about the Molly Gibson and pending construction. Phase 1 and 2 contracts lead to other contracts that I may or may not support in the future. Councilwoman Mullins said I’m in that area frequently. That area is very confusing for bus drivers and the people trying to get on the bus. It is a very messy situation and we are trying to create a seamless transportation where people are comfortable and safe. I think it is very important to go ahead with this. Mayor Torre said you are right. Things need to happen here, but I don’t think this contract is the best way Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 5 to do it. Councilman Mesirow said he is struggling with this. It is a good project and he sees the need from a safety standpoint. It is a big price tag but does not strike me as the most acute need. Councilwoman Richards said I don’t know how to value a human life opposed to a housing unit. To me human life is at risk here. For me it is public safety and that is a prioritization. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Resolution #82, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor except Mayor Torre. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 2019 – 2nd alternate member to the CCLC Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #20, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 20 (SERIES OF 2019) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 43, SERIES OF 2007 TO ADD A SECOND ALTERNATE MEMBER TO THE COMMERCIAL CORE AND LODGING COMMISSION. Councilman Hauenstein said the current chair is an alternate member. Alternate members carry every bit as much weight as a regular member. We have more people interested, qualified and passionate about the board. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #20, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #2 AND #15, Series of 2019 – Re-adoption of the updated Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual to Title 29, Re-adoption of the Water Distribution Standards, Re-adoption of the Engineering Standards (combination of the updated Design Standards and the updated Excavation and Construction Standards); and other amendments to Title 21 and Title 29. Ms. Aragon said this is part of the 2019 work plan. Title 21, 25 and 29 revisions to include Title 21 to clarify the appeal process for engineering permits and comply with proposed accessibility requirement. CMP regulations were relocated to Title 29. CMP enforcement policies adopted into Title 29. Recommended to have enforcement in the code. We took the design standards and excavation standards and integrated both documents into one. The standards have been updated to address current industry standards. Tyler Christoff, utilities, said Title 29 water distribution standards are now referenced. Last time they were updated was 2014. It is a user friendly document and best practices. Ms. Aragon said modifications since first reading include Ordinance 2 revised to include the reference to title 21. Engineering design standards are now called engineering standards and include the excavation and construction standards. Mr. Christoff said there is additional specificity around commercial agriculture use of potable water system. Raquel Flinker, engineering, said questions include are property owners responsible for cost of undergrounding electric services, yes. What is cost for McSkimming undergrounding. Holy Cross is responsible for that area. We asked them for numbers. What undergrounding model was used for the base of smuggler. We are unable to find the records. The history of undergrounding in Aspen started in 1976 when the downtown undergrounding project was created. It was financed by a utility revenue bonds. 1987 local underground district 1 created for west and east side of Aspen. Each lot was responsible for the cost related to the benefits received. 1990 improvement district 2 for Cemetery Lane was created. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 6 Councilwoman Richards said they were all special improvement districts. We would have the history for how long it took to pay back. It would be helpful to have that information. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. 1. Gordan Baym said he is concerned with the overhead power lines in Aspen grove. He spoke about fire danger related to utility lines above ground. Mayor Torre closed public comment. Mayor Torre asked have we done an assessment on the undergrounding issue. Ms. Aragon replied that is Holy Cross’s realm. They are highly motivated to have lines under ground. Councilman Hauenstein asked about the process between the City, Holy Cross and the homeowners. I understand that the home owners are responsible for the cost to bring the underground connector to their house. He asked about the cost for undergrounding. Would we do an ordinance that says that Aspen Grove needs to have under ground power lines then Holy Cross would have to come in and underground the feed. He asked about the logistics. Ms. Aragon said council can chose to outline this area as an improvement district. Holy Cross is not going to pay for the undergrounding. It would be those citizens that are in that district or other means to pay for it. The other way of creating an improvement district is from the neighborhood themselves. They can come forward with more than 50 percent of the neighborhood onboard. In the past the funding of the district has been the homeowners responsibility. Councilman Hauenstein asked do you know if Holy Cross has financed this in the past. Ms. Flinker replied from the historical records it seems like they have not. Ms. Ott said typically in a process like this there would be a negotiation with the utility on design fees. After comes the conversation of who’s paying for what. Holy Cross makes a payment to the city annually and that would be the extent of their financial commitment. Councilman Hauenstein said a next step might be to get 50 percent buy in from your neighborhood. Ms. Ott replied if it is a community issue it is at the council table. If it is a neighborhood issue it is up to them. Councilwoman Richards said this is a specific and discrete issue. I don’t think it is something we are going to mandate into our codes. I think we should take a look at it. I consider this a work session item not related to this public hearing. Councilwoman Mullins said I agree. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 2019 – 730 E Cooper Avenue (Base 1 Lodge) Minor Amendment to a Project Review Mike Kraemer, community development, said this is a minor amendment to a project review. Background on existing conditions include the Buckhorn lodge constructed in the 1960’s. There is basement and 1st floor commercial with 2nd floor lodge units. CL zoning. 2015 conceptual approval for MU lodge with 42 units around 177 square feet each. 2,500 square feet of ground floor commercial. At the time there were variances for height, affordable housing and parking. There is a code requirement for the plan submission deadline. They did not meet the deadline. Council reinstated the resolution and approved with removing all zoning variations at the time. 2016 final approval was for 42 lodge units and 200 square feet per unit. Today it complies with all commercial zoning requirements. Sublevel parking Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 7 garage and amenity space. 2018 vested rights extension for approvals. Certain ideas floated around a change of use. The vesting is until July 7, 2020. The request is for a minor amendment to a project review. The applicant is requesting to eliminate a sub grade level. 2 options. Eliminate the amenity space and retain the parking or eliminate subgrade parking level and retain the amenity level. The dig is almost as deep as the building is tall. There are a few other requests including convert roof top mechanical to roof top bathroom. Currently there is a 6 foot height exemption for mechanical which is not the same for bathrooms. During staff review we noticed an elevator overrun clarification. The maximum height of 48 feet for the overrun. In the approved plan set there is a 49’10” overrun and inconsistent with previous approvals. Staff would like affirmation of the 48 feet. At the last meeting there was discussion around lodge amenity space. It functions as part of the lodge, spa, ski storage, fitness room. Is not commercial net leasable mitigation. There is ground floor commercial for a tenant. The sub grade level is amenity space. Not generally open to the public. Pedestrian amenity – commercial design that connects the public through active outdoor space, patios, 2nd level decks, rooftop decks. Examples are Volk plaza or paradise bakery. Base 1 is code compliant in the amenity requirements. Majority of space is the rooftop bar/restaurant. They will be open to the public. The public access easement was secured for public access. On affordable housing, the small lodge unit incentives reduced the mitigation. Base 1 has 200 square feet lodge unit sizes which equal a 10% mitigation rate. MU lodging gets 10% mitigation for lodge and commercial FTE generation. Analysis – if subgrade parking is selected a car elevator will be needed and commercial net leasable will drop to 2,348 square feet. It is less than 400 square feet of the approved amount. Councilwoman Richards said on the original application wasn’t there a car elevator shown then. Mr. Kraemer replied there was a car elevator. Councilwoman Richards asked what caused the drop in square feet. Mr. Kraemer replied if lodge amenity is selected the car elevator is not needed and the full 2,745 of commercial net leasable can be developed. Construction of rooftop bathrooms creates a displacement and reduction in 2 lodge units. If no rooftop bathrooms there would be 36 lodge units. Mayor Torre asked where are current bathrooms to be accessed on the rooftop. Mr. Bendon replied they are on the next floor below. Mr. Kraemer said there are a lot of different numbers that are analyzed. We don’t want to discredit or not give them their due at the hearing. Generally speaking the greater the number of lodge units and commercial net leasable the higher the affordable housing mitigation and parking requirements. In contrast, the lesser number of lodge units and commercial net leasable the lower the affordable housing and parking requirements. This is a problematic request and staff can’t support the removal of subgrade parking. Today we don’t have an application submitted for any off site parking. The applicant has identified Benedict Commons and the Rio Grande garage for offsite lodge parking. Both sites are problematic and staff cannot support either location. There is a parking constraint in the downtown and if we take leases away from those spaces it will exacerbate the problem. Staff recommendations – approve the removal of the basement lodge amenity and retain the parking. Approve a lodge unit density of 36 units. Approve commercial net leasable area of 2,348. Approve affordable housing mitigations and requirements. Approve a minimum of 15 parking spaces and allow cash in lieu to satisfy the remaining. Deny conversion of rooftop mechanical to bathrooms. Reaffirm maximum elevator overrun height shall not exceed 48 feet. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned the loss of the amenity level will detract from the usability of really small hotel rooms. She asked if there was a way to have assurance as to what amenities would be moved in to the rooms including microwaves and coffee makers. Where will ski lockers be now if not Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 8 in the amenity level. Suggested some of the commercial space needed to be dedicated to the amenity level so the rooms work. Concerned with it turning into a high end boutique lodge. Mr. Kraemer said Rachael asked staff to create a depiction on the floor of what a 200 square foot unit would be. What is on the floor is 16.5 feet by 12 feet. Councilman Mesirow said on the request for bathrooms, currently the allotted overrun is 6 feet. Mr. Kraemer said the code height exemption is for mechanical of 6 feet. Rooftop bathrooms do not get the same exemption. Councilman Mesirow said he understand the displacement of 2 rooms. When did it go from 42 to 38. Mr. Kraemer replied that happened earlier. The previous approval was 177 square foot size per room. Councilman Mesirow asked how does it work if the room configuration changes. Mr. Kraemer stated should the applicant in the future want to combine units they would have to amend the approval. At that time we would recalculate. If it goes to the next level they would have to pay the additional mitigation. Applicant Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said there was a sister project at the time that was not approved. He reviewed the design inspiration. Rooms are small but nicely appointed. We want it to feel like you are staying in a high end place but very small. With the small size comes a small price tag for room rate. The approval is for 2 basement levels. The deepest is a valet parking service. It is a deeper garage so cars can be stacked. The regular level basement is the guest amenity. Main floor is commercial , 2 primary spaces. Commercial tenants need ADA pathways. We also need a transformer. All of this is eating away net leasable. Office, check in and ski storage on the main level. 2nd floor is 20 lodge units. The current plan is for 38 lodge rooms. 3rd floor is 18 lodge units. 2 of those are currently bathrooms to serve the rooftop deck. The deck is amenity space with public access. There are 2 mechanical areas on the rooftop that are fully enclosed. Two areas with equipment that is sitting on the roof. The enclosed areas are full head height. There is not an allowance for bathrooms to get an exemption on height. We are not requesting the bathrooms be there. It could trigger a ref 1 vote. We have allotments for 40 lodge units. We want to keep the remaining 2 allotments so if the code is amended we can move the bathrooms to the roof and change the bathrooms to lodge rooms. Councilwoman Richards said that makes sense. She would like more elaborations on the rooftop. The deck is open. Is there a roof over the restaurant component. Mr. Bendon said it is basically an open roof bar. Mark Hunt, applicant, said the idea was communal use. Early on it was a question of that space is there, we are not asking for any more height. It is not just losing the 2 rooms. The space is open to the public then you are going into a level with guest rooms. It is more of a security issue. Mr. Bendon said it is a very busy corner. An amenity on ground level would not be as desirable. Councilman Mesirow asked for clarification on the Ref 1 comment. Mr. True said the concept is if there is a broad base amendment to allowances within a zone district that does not kick in Ref 1 as long as it is not associated to a specific project. They are asking for the request to change the code not the application. Mayor Torre asked are there rooftop deck plans other than a bar. What is the programming up there. Mr. Hunt replied it is not fully programmed. I could see a hot tub up there potentially. Mr. Bendon showed a profile of the building. The tallest things are the elevator overruns. Since the approvals, we went through construction drawings and pricing. The cost to build is more expensive from the sidewalk down then the sidewalk up. It is a deep hole and the shoring is expensive. It is at the point where the project doesn’t work. It is not even close to working. We had that discussion with council. We first wanted to reimagine the building as affordable housing. If not housing maybe a simple one story commercial building. That is what happened to Base 2. It is going to be a bank. That conversation migrated back to is there a way to rescue this. We’ve suggested one of the basement floors need to be sacrificed. We feel it should be one of the parking ones. The amenity space is partial to the guest experience and we feel it is important. Parking is a necessary evil. The cars will go somewhere. If you Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 9 drop keys to a valet you don’t know where it is going. As long as the car comes back it works. Our preference is to keep the amenity space. We understand your hesitancy of where will the car goes. With 1 basement level we can park the minimum on site. If we find an appropriate location we can come back and talk about the amenity space. We can find places on the ground floor to be amenity. We would like to rehouse some of the existing tenants as independent commercial businesses. We do have ski storage. The bar area is an amenity, whether it is a separate business or not. Typically these spaces are designed with a little place for everything. We could get there in terms of an in room amenity. Council is aware there could be a risk of us coming back asking for 6 rooms instead of 38. It would require a full review and go back to council. The purpose of the project is lots of rooms, well designed but small. The town is the amenity. Mr. Hunt said micro hotels are fascinating and fun. They are small rooms but well appointed. The whole point is a small room with a great shower and great bed. There is fun stuff in the basement and on the rooftop. Something is going to have to give. For something that hits the mark it is hard to believe that 12 to 15 parking spaces is going to wag the dog. I’m confident we will find the parking. Give us the ability to find something that is viable. Based on the properties that we have, we have to be able to find 12 parking spaces. No one will experience the parking garage except the valet. We believe in the project. If this is something that you believe in we are here asking for your help to get us to the finish line. Mr. Bendon said in the recorded plan set an elevator shaft is 49’10”. Where it is measured is 48 feet. We are fine with the 48 foot limitation. We comply with it and don’t plan on asking for anything higher. Mayor Torre said tell me more about your experience with micro hotels. Mr. Hunt said they are some of the most successful hotels in the country. Citizen M is typically more urban, NYC, Boston and LA. They are looking in to resort markets. Hotel rooms here are outrageously expensive. We don’t want to get in to an affordability conversation. It opens the door here. I enjoy staying in them. They generally have great public amenity spaces. You are there to sleep and take a shower. This product works very well in places that are very expensive where the price point is so high they become successful. Also in areas where you are not going to hang out in your room. Aspen is one of those places. Councilman Hauenstein said when you came back and asked about removing a sublevel I asked what do you want to build here. Mark said this. Mr. Bendon said the current approval has the parking spaces stacked. Our proposal is one regular size level. We can get 15 spaces there. Councilman Hauenstein said if you had stacked parking you would need a deeper basement. If you did that would there be space for the amenity level. Mr. Hunt replied we tried that. If you shared the bottom level it would need 2 stair cases. Then you lose the parking. Councilman Hauenstein asked if you were to drop the whole building a few feet could you have bathrooms on the roof. Mr. Kraemer replied it would have to go down at least 7.5 feet for that to work. Councilwoman Richards asked where would the mechanical go if they were bathrooms. Why 2 not 1. Mr. Bendon replied one would work. There is outdoor mechanical space as well. We would have to put more in the basement as well. Councilman Mesirow said he would love to see this be successful. Diversity in our lodging base is something we lack. When this was initially proposed part of the pitch was base 1 and base 2 . Mr. Hunt said our hope is we could find other places for these types of hotels. Councilman Mesirow said if we eliminate the amenity there is reduced commercial and parking in a deeper basement. I assume removing the amenity versus the parking would have a larger impact on the bottom line of the project. Mr. Hunt said I think that is fair. Councilman Mesirow said if we chose the amenity are you comfortable with working with staff on the parking. Jen Phelan, community development, said if you kick the can down the road you could be triggering ref 1 because we don’t know how you will be accommodating parking. Right now, the code does not allow for offsite parking, it is through special review with P&Z. Does council feel approving a resolution saying we will provide off site parking to satisfy ref 1. Mr. True said ref 1 requires that a variation which reduces the requirements in amount of off street parking requires a vote. As long as you are not changing the amount it would not kick in ref 1. You would have to provide at least some specific provision as to when that would be provided. That would assure it is complying Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 10 with the requirement for the amount. I believe there needs to be a definitive statement as to when that would be provided. Otherwise it would be varying the amount. Mayor Torre opened public comment. 1. Peter Fornell said I can’t imagine an easier decision for all of you to make. We all go on vacations. We research the places we are going to go to. If I research a hotel and it says no dogs I either leave my dog at home or find another hotel. I’m guessing they will market the hotel with no parking. Either I don’t bring my car to Aspen or I find another hotel. It will be more important for the guest to have a cup of coffee and read the ski report then go where is my car. We have a chance to have a hotel here that will serve a different group of people. If I was a resident living in this part of down town I would be thrilled to hear the new commercial building doesn’t have parking and disincentivizes it. It is pretty simple to me. I think we need to look at this hotel on its merits. Give the guests a public amenity and forget about the parking. Encourage the operator to market themselves as such. 2. Toni Kronberg said I don’t agree with staff recommendation to remove the amenity and leave the parking. What is a lodge without amenities. We are a transit oriented community. Aspen boasts about car free. Not putting the bathrooms on the roof lose 2 lodge units. The car elevator takes away commercial space. Talked about impacts of digging a double basement. They are not allowed in residential zones because of construction impacts and the neighbors. Hope you can make this work for the community at large. 3. Jim Farrey said I am a friend and work associate of Mark. I’m dying for this project to commence and be built already. I trust he doesn’t get his CO without the parking. The alternative is a single level building. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said there is a neighborhood and a strong one in that part of town. On parking, it would be great if we could do these projects with a minimal amount of parking and push alternative modes of transportation. You tried it with Base 2 and didn’t get the support of the community. If the parking disappears it would have to go to ref 1 and we take the chance of the whole project disappearing. I want the project to happen. I don’t want to put the burden on the neighbors. In terms of the amenities, maybe the synergy can be built up between here and the crystal palace. There are amenities in the first floor and on the rooftop. The whole town is an amenity. I don’t think the people staying at this hotel will be at a loss for amenity. If parking is not provided in the hotel the burden falls on the neighbors. I support the parking in the basement. Councilwoman Richards said I agree with Ann on this. I’m open to coming back to convert the parking if another solution is worked out. This is a neighborhood. I wish I could make the numbers work for you. I wish ref 1 had not come in. I can’t lose the parking. I want to see it go forward and see it successful. Councilman Mesirow said keeping flexibility for the bathrooms make sense. He feels strongly the amenities are more important for the project success. It will make it a better project for the people staying in it and a better project for the community. I would rather have a vibrant fun spot over the concern that there may be some parking impositions in my neighborhood. My preference would be go with the amenity and guarantee as a requirement that the parking is provided and wherever it is landed there is full support from that group and staff so it is not impinging on a neighborhood. Councilman Hauenstein said one of the things about Base 1 is it complies with the underlying zoning where Base 2 did not. The code as applied and in place now requires parking but does not require an amenity. I would like to see this built with parking and the amenities. I understand the numbers don’t crunch that way. I don’t feel it is fair or just to the neighborhood or to the town to push parking off on the streets. I want the parking to be on site. If there is a way to work in the amenities I’m open to it. I cannot in good conscious put the burden of this parking on the neighborhood. I want to see this built and be successful but not at the expense of the neighbors or the rest of town. Mayor Torre said I’ve stayed in micro hotels and haven’t’ use the amenity space. I wasn’t supportive of the changes. This project went through a lot of work just to get here. It is difficult doing an amendment Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 11 to a previous council’s decision making. For me I would not support keeping the amenity and eliminating the parking. More favorable to maintaining the parking. It is difficult for me to make a decision just based on the applicant’s financial hardship. I support parking remaining and the amenity going. Mr. Kraemer said some of the numbers need to be firmed up and we would like the ability to work with the applicant to ensure we have the correct numbers. Mr. True said I understand and think you could amend the ordinance to reflect the determination of the correct net leasable floor area. Section 1 subparagraph E is commercial net leasable. You are not sure that number is accurate. Mr. Kraemer said the approval hones in on the numbers. Staff had 36 numbers, Chris had 38. If we change the 36 to 38 on paragraph c of section 1. On net leasable the square feet keeps moving. I would like to have a buffer in there to migrate 5 to 10 percent as determined by staff. Councilman Hauenstein said I would favor going one floor below for the bathroom and only have 1. Mr. Bendon said there is a question about the occupancy and if 1 is permitted. Mr. Kraemer asked is it alright to just acknowledge the math is correct and figure out that we have the correct numbers prior to council signing. Mr. True said the mechanism needs to be final. Ms. Phelan asked could we say baseline of 38 up to 40. Mr. True replied you could as well as amend the ordinance to say net commercial floor area. You can continue it and come up with the exact numbers. Councilwoman Richards suggested continuing this for tomorrow to approve the ordinance with the correct numbers. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the item and move on to the next item and continue at the meeting tomorrow. Seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 2019 – 981 King Street – Minor Subdivision Amendment to Remove On-site Affordable Housing Unit Kevin Rayes, community development, said the request is to remove the onsite affordable housing requirement. It is a minor subdivision amendment. APCHA reviewed this in April. Existing conditions – lot 4 of Astor subdivision. Located in R6 zone district. 17,800 square feet. There is a duplex dwelling on site. One side is a deed restricted affordable housing, category 2 unit. It is required to be on the property as prescribed in the original subdivision agreement. The other side of the duplex is the main residence. The request is to remove the affordable housing unit. The property owner is planning on tearing down and building a single family dwelling. He showed photos of existing condition. The history behind the subdivision includes it being annexed into the city in 1971 and originally consisted of 3 lots. In the 70’s the subdivision had 2 duplexes on it. Lot 3 was a vacant lot. Around 1980 the owner of the subdivision requested to rezone from R15 to R6. It was a controversial request at the time. Neighbors felt it was inconsistent with neighboring properties. It was Ms. Astor’s intention to provide affordable housing on each parcel if she was permitted to increase the density. Ordinance 2 of 1983 completed the rezoning with the condition that permanent employee housing would exist on site. A subdivision agreement was also approved. 2 dwelling units per lot. Occupancy in 3 of 6 units is restricted to low, moderate and middle income occupants. 14 years later an amendment added a 4th lot to the subdivision. In order to add the additional lot, the lot lines were reconfigured and lots renumbered. Part of the approval was a condition that says the new lot also has to provide an affordable housing unit on site. Lot 1 has a category 1 unit on site. Lots 2, 3 and have category 2 units on site. Owner of lot 4 is requesting to remove the onsite affordable housing unit. There are two criteria to consider when removing an onsite affordable housing unit. The amendment responds to issues raised during the original review or addresses an issue that could hot have been reasonably anticipated during the review. Staff finds it is not met. Representations made to council during the subdivision clearly show they had to weigh the option of a community benefit of onsite affordable housing with the potential of rezoning an area inconsistent with surrounding neighborhood. 1979 memo stated intention to develop 3 duplexes and see 50% of these units deed restricted as employee Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 12 units. Highly desirable in seeing 3 dwelling units for affordable housing in perpetuity. P&Z recommended approval 5 to 1 to retain employee housing. Criteria 2 states the amendment is consistent with the approved subdivision. Staff finds this is not met. On site affordable housing is included in the original subdivision agreement. Restricts occupancy to APCHA qualified tenant. APCHA recommends council deny the request. Staff requests council deny the request. Received a public comment over the phone from Tony and Kathy Welgos. Hope council deny the request. Affordable housing is difficult enough and we should not be removing it. Negative precedent for properties that have same requirement. Councilwoman Richards said for the affordable housing credit program and the future occupant of the unit, are they renting it or buying half of it. Ms. Phelan replied with the credit how does it currently operate. Typically, the developer will develop the housing voluntarily and put it up for sale at a certain category. The units sell but they get credits based on the number of employees housed per unit. That is what sells on the open market. Councilwoman Richards said she will not support this application for other reasons. There is a point if you allow people to buy off mitigation from an existing unit you are only getting half the value for it. I have a hard time with going against the other recommendations. Applicant Steev Wilson and Ryan Lee, Forum Phi, said we don’t agree with staff. Does this address an issue that could not be addressed during initial review. The credit program didn’t exist then. We are ok with one unit and one affordable housing unit. We just want to use a credit to mitigate for that. Does it diminish the community benefit. No. We are willing to purchase it. The 1980 unit doesn’t meet APCHA criteria now. We could retire this deed restriction in favor of the best thinking we have right now. The credit program delivers fantastic results. Employees should live in town and above grade. They don’t here. Other benefits include converting to a modern deed restriction. We would have to deliver the credits prior to demolition. Not sure why it is considered a detriment. The program is doing everything we wanted it to do. APCHA voted against this because they viewed it as a loss of a unit. This supports the credit program and retires a substandard unit. Mayor Torre opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Torre closed the public comment. Councilman Mesirow said staff has it right. The criteria are set. While supporting the credit program is important, I would like to keep lived in units in town. I’m against the ask. Councilwoman Mullins said you made a good case. I go back to the intent of the previous councils and respect what they were trying to do. I don’t want to overturn that. The credit program is great but we need to continue to have options. I support staff recommendation. Councilman Hauenstein said the thing I keep going back to is in perpetuity. The subdivision was created with affordable housing units on site in perpetuity. I support staff recommendation. Councilwoman Richards said I agree the historical research was important. I agree with Ward and in perpetuity. It is also about having diverse neighborhoods and dispersed housing. I think when the property was purchased it was known what the deed restriction was. Giving up the location of this is not a bargain I would be willing to make. Mayor Torre said I agree with council on this. This is kind of a bummer. It is not a win all around. When you get rid of a material unit and trade it for cash or credit it doesn’t trade at the same. We are losing actual housing and what we gain is not enough to make up for it. I will support staff recommendation. Mr. True said he requests someone move to deny ordinance #16 based on comments made by council and exhibit A. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 13 Councilwoman Mullins moved to deny for reasons stated by council, staff and exhibit A. Seconded by Councilman Mesirow. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. At 10:05 p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to continue this meeting to July 23 at 4:00 to consider ordinance 17 and executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 7-23-19 At 4:00 P.M. Mayor Torre called the continued meeting to order. Mr. Kraemer said this is a continuance of the discussion from last night. Further discussion on honing in on some of the lodge densities and commercial space. There have been revisions to the ordinance throughout the day. We wanted more precision on the lodge densities. Changes of minimum of 38 lodge units to a maximum of 40. Affordable housing FTE generation numbers as well as commercial net leasable. Maximum is 2,600 square feet for commercial net leasable. These are not construction documents and there will be further refinement. FTE generation rates will be calculated at building permit. Parking changed a bit. Included section 4 regarding combining or reconfiguring unit size. Further city review is required. Councilwoman Mullins said the ordinance says convert rooftop mechanical to rooftop bathroom, she does not recall approving that. Mr. Kraemer said that is what the applicants request was. There is a second whereas that states council does not approve that. Councilman Hauenstein said the storage on the roof top amenity are reserved if zoning changes they can be traditional lodge units. Mr. Bendon said those spaces could be used to relocate the bathrooms. Where the bathrooms are now on the 3rd floor they could be converted to lodge units. The occupancy is too great for 1 bathroom. Councilman Mesirow said he respects the differing opinion at the table on what to prioritize below grade. I will vote no. I hope this goes forward and is successful. Mayor Torre said your preference was to eliminate the amenity space. Does this move you towards the ability to complete the project. Mr. Hunt replied we do. Our preference was not the parking. I’m still hopeful we can find something that may open the door to something more vibrant. We will move forward with this project. Mayor Torre said I will support this. I am struggling with the 10% mitigation rate. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mullins, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mesirow, no; Mayor Torre, yes. Motion carried. Mayor Torre suspended the meeting for the work session. At 7:37 council resumed the continued meeting. Mr. True recommended Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(a) The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal or other property interest; (b) Conferences with an attorney for the local public body for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and (e) Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations and instructing negotiators regarding the potential sale of property. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive sessions; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. July 30, 2019 – special meeting for the purpose of executive session. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 22, 2019 14 At 4:10 p.m. Mayor Torre called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Mullins, Mesirow, Richards and Hauenstein present. Jim True, city attorney, recommended Council go in to executive session pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (f)(I) Personnel matters to discuss the city manager candidates. Councilman Hauenstein moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk