Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20150601Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 NOTICE OF HPC CALL UP - 223 E. Hallam Street .................................................................................. 2 ORDINANCE #21, Series of 2015 - Gibson Matchless Subdivision .......................................................... 2 ORDINANCE #20, Series of 2015 Charter Amendment Implementation ................................................... 2 ORDINANCE #1, Series of 2015 – 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Lodge, Planned Development, Design Reviews, Demolition, and Growth Management .......................................................................................... 3 ORDINANCE #14, Series of 2015 – 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Tree Removal Permit Appeal ............................................................................................. 8 1 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order at 5:00pm with Councilmembers Romero, Daily, Mullins and Frisch present. NOTICE OF HPC CALL UP - 223 E. Hallam Street Amy Simon, community development, told the Council HPC granted conceptual approval for a major redevelopment project for the Berko family Victorian. The proposal is to demolish the non-historic construction as well as a non-historic garage along the alley. The Victorian will be picked up for a new basement and an addition built behind it. There will also be restoration work to the house. HPC granted approval for a combined side yard setback variance, rear yard setback variance, and a floor area bonus. Mayor Skadron stated this is a call up decision by City Council. Councilwoman Mullins said she would like to proceed with call up. She has a few concerns about granting the 500 foot bonus and moving the house and dropping it. It is changing the resource relationship to the lot. There is no evidence of what was there originally. It is a guess as to if it is being restored to what was there originally. She also question the setbacks. It was a 4 to 3 vote by HPC. She would like HPC to take another look. Councilman Frisch has no problem putting it back on the calendar to discuss it further. Councilman Romero noted in the minutes the unresolved status of HPC and the 4 to 3 vote. He has no objection of the call-up. Councilman Daily agrees with Council and the call up. Mayor Skadron concurs with Council and HPC minutes. Councilwoman Mullins moved to call up 223 E Hallam to a future date; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, Series of 2015 - Gibson Matchless Subdivision Councilman Frisch moved to continue to June 8, 2015; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #20, Series of 2015 Charter Amendment Implementation Jessica Garrow, community development, stated this is the public hearing to incorporate the charter amendment into the land use code. The charter amendment requires a public vote on any project that increases height or floor area beyond the zone district maximum, decreases any required housing mitigation or decreases parking spaces required in the code. It also applies to all lodge zone districts east of the Castle Creek. The code amendment references a public vote in all applicable zone districts. It included a new section in the common development review procedures sections as it is the first place applicant’s looks when starting an application. The code amendment remove certain provisions that were approved in ordinance 9 regarding height and floor area increases. Staff is recommending removal of these provisions. Mayor Skadron stated this is removing the two feet over the max and five percent from ordinance 9. Councilman Frisch said there was discussion of removing the entire ordinance 9. Ms. Garrow said Staff talked about removing the entire ordinance 9 but there were a number of other provisions that fixed some incorrect code references and grammatical errors and they did not want to remove those. They are also 2 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 proposing the limits on requests on reductions on affordable housing mitigation remain in the code. There is also a new section on growth management. Staff is proposing that remain intact. Councilwoman Mullins said she thinks it is awkward to be taking those two things out now. Councilman Frisch said there are two conflicts between 9 and referendum 1. Referendum 1 said no flexibility so we have to take it out. Ms. Garrow said it added a level of confusion and removing it makes it very clear. Councilman Daily said he understands the rational. Mayor Skadron said nothing in the land use code conflicts with the referendum. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #20, Series of 2015; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #1, Series of 2015 – 232 E. Main St., Base 2 Lodge, Planned Development, Design Reviews, Demolition, and Growth Management Sara Adams, community development, stated this is a continued public hearing for Base 2. It is a redevelopment with a three story lodge with a basement. Comments from second reading are mostly concerns about parking. The project is require by code to provide just over 20 spaces on site. Last Tuesday the proposal was for 12 off site spaces to be determined by the development agreement. Council was concerned that was not enough. The number of lodge rooms has decreased by providing a rear year setback decreasing the parking requirement. The applicant is proposing to provide 15 spaces and a parking audit. The rear yard setback has been added all the way up the back of the building. Not the length of the building. To address Councilman Romero’s ground floor lodge room question the ordinance has been changed to allow that. For Public amenity, a green roof area has been added and the top terrace has been made a bit smaller. This helps to provide a buffer. For construction timeline the applicant is requesting an expedited permit review and landuse review. This has been added into the ordinance. If Council decided to move forward there will need to be a few changes to the numbers in the ordinance. Why is Staff supportive. This project is required to go through a planned development review that uses the underlying zoning as a guide. When there is a community benefit there can be some variance to the underlying requirement. When staff looked at the context and the benefit and where else could this go they felt the review criteria were met. The architecture and massing fit the context and there was a community benefit for adding the small lodge rooms and it provides a lot for the community. Staff is supporting the project. The reviews include planned development, growth management, major development, conceptual approval, demolition and commercial design review. Mitch Hass and Mark Hunt Mr. Hunt stated he is here to try to be part of the solution for finding affordable lodging. They have worked well to come up with part of a solution. It is important to address some of the concerns of the community. He said he spent time with Junee, Mario, Cavanaugh and Ben. He said in no way is he trying to undo referendum 1 but is trying to understand it better. Parking, we are going to increase the parking from 12 to 15. An audit is a good idea and we are comfortable with it. We are providing parking and it is a condition for approval. Setbacks. The reality is there are setbacks on every side of the building. He believes in setbacks and believe they help break up the mass. He showed pictures of the alley conditions. He showed the site plan 3 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 with the upper left hand corner pulled back. Holding the corner preserves the architectural integrity. He stated he is looking for Council support and knows it is not black and white. Councilwoman Mullins asked how the parking audit will work. Ms. Adams said the specifics will be in the development agreement. What is included in the ordinance is the audit is conducted two years after the CO. The real specifics will happen in the development agreement. Councilman Romero said placing the detail into the development agreement is key. What is the typical pace from approval to development agreement. Ms. Adams replied for this project there is one more review at HPC then start working on the entitlements. Councilman Daily said he supports the relatively tight timeframe. He appreciates the inset above the front doors. Councilwoman Mullins asked how tall the Jerome is. Ms. Adams replied the corner of Monarch and Bleeker is 50 feet four inches. Councilman Frisch said last week the parking was 20 and the proposal was 12. Ms. Adams said two lodge rooms were lost so now the requirement is 19. Councilman Frisch asked about vesting. Ms. Adams said it would be the standard three years and will be set at HPC. Councilman Frisch said it is not fun to reach out to people who don’t agree with you but I heard a lot of great things about that. It goes a long way to do that. Mayor Skadron said he wants to know more about how the changes to the property affect the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Haas said they tried to soften the rear façade and provide some relief. They pulled the rooftop deck away from the neighbors to the north. Mayor Skadron asked about the principle of the transition zones. Ms. Adams said the four corners have different zoning. Commercial Core, C1, mixed use. There is a mix of residential homes, bed and breakfast and commercial buildings. In the 1880’s mixed use and R6 is what it was. In the context of transitioning to commercial core it is on the outskirts. The Hotel Jerome is one of the iconic landmarks and pushes development more than what allows. If this was located in the middle of Main Street or the other end of Main Street it would be a completely different discussion. Mayor Skadron asked what did you learn from Junee Kirk. Mr. Hunt said he feels bad for people who show up at the very end. It is easy for people to be against something. He talked about rooms on the ground floor and how you lose the human factor and the experience. He wants the building to be authentic and use authentic materials. It could be a buffer and a transition to the neighborhood. Mayor Skadron asked for the height of the Cortina. Ms. Adams replied 21 feed to the gabled roof apex. Mayor Skadron said the allowable FAR in mixed use is one to one and this is 2.66 why is this acceptable. Ms. Adams stated Staff had many meetings about the floor area and does not take the ask lightly. At the end of the day they are looking at the buildings across the street where there are much bigger buildings. Staff felt the building fit into the neighborhood. Balance was achieved. That is what the planned review criteria looks for. Mr. Hunt said the alternative would be a commercial building. Councilman Frisch said if it was a commercial building the height could be 28-30 feet. He said he thought HPC pushes for lot lines. Ms. Adams responded he may be thinking of the commercial core. In the Main Street historic district it is ten feet off Main and five on the sides. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Cavanaugh O’Leary stated he met with Mark today. He said he was one of the sponsors of referendum one. He said he is here on his own behalf and a developer himself. After meeting with Mark he is taking an about face and supporting this application. As a developer he is excited about this. He thinks Mark added a lot of fun stuff. There is some hair on this. He would like to see more parking and more affordable housing. It is a tradeoff. We need more affordable lodge 4 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 rooms and this will bring the visitors we desperately need. He changed and supports this. If Council does supports this and the opinion is referendum one does not apply he does not think this should be referred to the voters. He hopes people who are against this does what he did and gets more informed. 2. Mick Ireland asked Council to consider the bigger picture of how to heal a community. This application suggest we don’t have zoning in Aspen. Borrowing from different zones is problematic. Suggest we honor mathematics. If you are going to sacrifice parking ask what is the cost of that to the community and is it the same as for affordable housing. You don’t have any assurance of affordability for rooms. The advantage of referring this to the voters lets them know Council respects them. Council could also rezone the property. 3. Ruth Carver, 116 S Aspen, said she does not mind anything about the appearance. The City should never allow any less than the required spaces. Developers should pay what the public pays and should provide the required parking. 4. Norma Dolle, said for her lodge there is some parking in the back and they use street parking in the front. People park in the front and go to the Limelight instead of paying to use the limelight. Parking is bad for everyone. 5. Duncan Clauss stated he strongly supports the project. Council does a good job of weighing the community benefit and variances. This is an important piece of adding to the growth of Aspen. 6. Denise Deiers said it is not a big issue with the visibility but an issue with the parking. It is a more affordable lodge and will have more drivers. Without having parking closer to the site it will put more encroachment on the neighborhood. 7. Warren Klug stated the local bed base continues to shrink. It is a clear goal of city to see the development of affordable lodging. You cannot build a straight hotel and make it work financially without free market except this one. He believes the small size of rooms will demand a small rate. Mr. Hunt is proposing what the city has asked for with reasonable assistance. He believes it is wrong to retroactively impose referendum 1. 8. Sam Hewins said it is an amazing project and much needed. It is a new fresh look and will keep Aspen moving forward. 9. Mendel Mintz said one of the greatest challenges living here is finding bed rooms. This is something we desperately need. It is a small price to pay to get something like this here. 10. Lori Winterman said this is a phenomenal project. If she did not have a house here her children would not be able to come here. We need the energy and vitality. For parking she suggest utilizing valet and never see the car. 11. Bill Stirling said it is an ongoing tug of war with the town and resort. A constant balancing act of town and resort. Referendum one shifted the balance to town and is not what is best for the resort. This is a creative reasonable compromise and the best interest of the town and resort. Use the parking garage. Use the LP affordable housing calculation. Height is below the Jerome and only four feet higher than Carl’s. We moved here in the first place more for the resort than the town. 12. Bill Tomcich stated he has never come in to town and not had a place to park his car. Sometimes he has had to pay for it. Rarely has he seen a sign in front of the garage saying it is full. These rooms are small and only so many people will be willing to pay for them. 13. Ben Genshaft stated he represents the 117 N Monarch owners. Enforcing the underlying zone district requirements does not mean saying no to affordable lodging. On the set back issue the five feet is very meaningful to his clients. He appreciates the changes that were made. He wishes the setback went all the way across the rear. The 10 foot front setback is not enforced. The mass and scale is another compromise. He would like a full five foot setback in the rear. 14. Bill Barringer said he is very happy with the redesign of the project. He is supportive of the project. He fears if the project is not approved this becomes a mixed use with ground floor convenience/retail use with much more of a parking impact. 15. Alex Halpern, publisher of aspen peak, said she wants to see this go through after 40 years of disappearing lodging. She loves everything about the project. 5 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 16. Maria Morrow stated the greatest challenge with the lodging problem is how to add rooms. She believes we failed with ordinance 19 because it tried to add too much. She reminded Council overlay is a zoning tool. She urged Council not to go to the voters with this. It is unfair to apply retroactively. Parking estimates have changed over time. We can’t expect Mark to solve our problem. 17. Rob Colzecki said this feels like an international town with a hostel vibe. The rooftop will bring a mix of people and will bring a great energy to town. 18. Scott Rider, 223 E Hallam, said this will be the entry statement to the west end. Down zoning created very high values. Affordable commercial took a hit. We need to focus on affordable retail. It’s cool the free market stepped up here. Says yes as a neighborhood guy and a community guy. 19. Dana Horton stated she supports what Bill Stirling and Maria Morrow said especially about parking and vehicles. 20. Jim Farrey speaking on behalf of wife who supports the project. Don’t think we need more traditional retail on the corner. She applauds the city and Mr. Hunts application. 21. Tom Frank said architecture tends to get lost. It is important we get the best product and design for Aspen. Ms. Adams added several email she received to the public record. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Romero said the 15 off site parking spots would be documented as part of development agreement. Is there any precedent of a shared use of the parking garage in an agreement. Ms. Adams and Mr. True both replied no. Councilman Romero stated his past opinion was no to a private use of a public asset. Now he is saying to consider the use of the Rio Grande. Mr. Hunt said the original plan was to utilize the garage and put a we-cycle station there. Councilman Romero said he is sympathetic to what the neighbors are saying while trying to find a way to top off the parking. He appreciates the movement on the setbacks and recognizes the damage to the product. The rooftop green space pulls the activity zone back and gives the additional buffer and is appropriate. He will support that. He would like to see the audit in the development agreement. He asked for a comment on a deed restriction for affordability. Mr. Hunt said he feels it is affordable by design. What happens when things are bad. Councilman Romero said FAR is the pivot point for the compromise. He is compelled to consider it and accept it in the face of securing this lodging. Councilman Daily said this lodge is what Aspen has been looking for for 40 years. Now we are going to get two of these lodges. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on the growing popularity of high end hostels and how that concept is coming to America and how cheap but cool is appealing. This is a perfect example of that. Parking. Until today he was resistant to the alternative being the Rio Grand. Listening to Bill, the trend is less use during the high season. Objections to use of that facility are no longer and you should add that to your arsenal. The suggestion that this Council should refer this to a public vote. To do so following Council approval is an inappropriate role of Council. Our role is to make decisions in the best interest of the community and stand behind those decisions. Councilwoman Mullins said the heart of the matter is there is a real difference in passing a variance that will help a developer or help the community. This will help the community. With limited space for development downtown those spaces need to be maxed out. She supports this project as enhancing downtown. As for the friction between town and the resort. She does not see that. They are so intertwined. Much of the public comment has come from out of towners who want to come to town. By rejecting something like this we are closing the doors. Philosophically she support the project. The green buffer on the rooftop is effective mitigation. Thanks for that. For Height the elevator is 45.5 feet. She supports the three foot variance. She supports the expedited review. She does not think the 10 foot setback is appropriate in the front especially with the Cortina. Five foot in the back is a good gesture 6 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 even though it does not go all the way. For parking the code requires 19 and they are offering 15. We need to compromise. Council needs to look at a policy. She would be satisfied with 15 and an audit in two years. Art commented perfectly on referendum one. Councilman Frisch asked if parking is based on how big of a building it is. Ms. Adams replied the parking is based on the amount of net leasable and the number of lodge rooms. Councilman Frisch said one of his concerns is what makes a healthy community over the long haul. 80 percent of the customer base comes from 20 percent of the people. He doesn’t want Aspen getting to a 99 percent to one. A healthy community is not just paying bills but a diverse community. We have an AACP and a land use code that do not line up at the end of the day. For parking this is a great chance to instill a neighborhood experiment with the garage. He would love to see 19 versus 15. It is wise to keep it as an options. It might be good to proactively come back to Council and let us and the community know what the parking solution is. He suggests 19 parking spaces in the garage. Councilwoman Mullins stated she would support 15 spaces offsite with a mandatory audit in two years. The garage would be a last resort. Other options should be looked at before the garage. Mayor Skadron said parking in the code is a minimum parking requirement. We are telling developers to develop something and invite the cars. That is upside down. A minimum parking requirement forces a marriage between development and auto usage. If you consider our parking problem through the lens of too few spaces it leads to a result to build more. If you view our parking problem through the lens of too many cars it leads to a solution to reduce automobiles. This project and subsequent projects should be leading us towards a solution that speaks to fewer cars in town. Parking requirements decrease the amount and variety of certain products in our city. The onus on the developer should be to build a program to reduce automobile usage. He is not at a point to say a city asset should be used to satisfy the parking requirement. He thinks the audit is a good intention. Mayor Skadron stated he concurs with Bill Stirling and we should consider a deed restriction on room size and consider a prohibition on combining rooms. He is not sure how we define affordable or how by law we would enforce it. Cities thrive when they offer more choices not fewer. That is the value in the equation. Regarding the referral he does not support the referral to the voters and he concurs with Councilman Daily. This project has a lot of merit. He is struggling to avoid growth that is inconsistent with the context, density and history with the built environment versus attempting to manage development that contributes to the long term vitality of a demographic diverse visitor based economy. We need to evolve, change and grow and learn from the stories of our past. He said he has a bit of a challenge with the setback and FAR. There is a hurdle to get over what is proposed because it starts to diminish the value that contributes to our cultural identity. He is very sensitive about this transition zone. Councilman Frisch asked if the issue is the variance being given or is the building out of character for town. Are you less concerned with the variance than the fit? Mayor Skadron replied yes. It is adherence to the underlying mixed use zoning. The project has merit and the town does not lose. At some point we have to manage these values. Mayor Skadron said the primary issue is the density and setback. Councilwoman Mullins stated the front yard setback is appropriate. There is a mistake in talking about this as a transition zone. There are underlying guidelines that create a frame work in which you can accommodate the needs of the town. What is the greatest benefit to the town. Retail, office or something that brings in people from out of town, appeals to a different demographic and creates incredible vitality on that corner. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance # 1, Series of 2015 Mr. Bendon said Staff would like to add within the parking section a sentence stating “the applicant may use the City’s Rio Grande parking garage to meet this requirement on a variable demand basis at rates set 7 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 by the City.” also the audit by “a third party mutually acceptable to the City and applicant” and at the end of the section at additional transportation demand measures add “shall be required by the City of Aspen which may include additional use of the City’s Rio Grand parking garage the City Council or the applicant may either accept the Staff findings or request City Council review the matter”. Mayor Skadron mentioned the We-Cycle station. Mr. True said it need to contain an analysis of impacts of using the garage. If it does not work for the City they may need to look for other sources for parking. We need to make sure we are not committing to using the garage if it does not work for the City. Mr. Bendon revised the language to “15 off street parking spaces are required if authorized by the City Manager the applicant may use the City’s Rio Grand parking garage to meet the requirement of up to 19 spaces on a variable demand basis at rates set by the City”. Mr. True said there was talk about the prohibition of combination of units. Ms. Adams said the ordinance contains a specific number of units but that specific language could be added. Ms. Adams suggested adding language stating “lodge rooms cannot be combined”. Seconded by Councilman Daily. Councilwoman Mullins stated she will support this but not parking at the Rio Grand. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch said he wants to back up what Councilman Daily said. He did not support the referendum from the start. There are already implied powers from the start. There is no legal reason why we should retroactively put it back. He gives credit to Jim to seek outside council for another opinion. This can come back anyway by the voters by petition. ORDINANCE #14, Series of 2015 – 211 E. Hallam AspenModern Negotiation for Voluntary Landmark Designation and Tree Removal Permit Appeal Amy Simon, community development, told the Council this is a 6,000 sf lot that contains the former Berko photography studio. The lot was created through a subdivision approved in 2012. The lot is on the Aspen inventory of historic structures. There has never been any action taken to identify the Berko studio as a contributing historic resource. The studio was Ferenc Berko’s and helped put Aspen on the map. It was designed by Ted Mularz. In terms of worthiness, it meets three to four designation criteria and scores 17 of 20 points on the system and is considered a best example. This is our twelfth voluntary landmark in process and fifth residential negotiation. The project has been to HPC and Council saw the call up. The studio sits very far back on lot. In its time that was a sensible location. Now it is going to be the primary structure and it is hidden from view. It was decided to move the studio to the front of the lot and rotate it. The property will become a duplex. HPC granted conceptual design approval and this will go back for final design. HPC granted a 500 sq ft bonus, rear, side yard, front yard setback variances and reductions of residential design standards. The applicant would like to uphold those awards and discuss some others. The first is waivers of building permit fees of 100,000 dollars, water tap fees of 30,000 dollars and impact fees waivers as well. The applicant is also asking for waivers of tree removal fees. The staff recommendation is to support the dimensional variations awarded from HPC and ask the applicant to pay the building permit fees of 100,000 dollars. The Staff recommendation includes asking the applicant to pay the water tap fees with the exception of the reduction /credit of 6,000 dollars. Staff is asking Council to waive the impact fees and 60,000 dollars in tree mitigation fees. Staff is recommending the applicant pay the mitigation fee for the tree that is being appealed. To offset the 156,000 dollars in fees they suggest the applicant pay, Staff is supporting the granting of one TDR. The applicant would also receive a waiver of 100,000 dollars in fees. The Staff recommendation would provide the applicant with 140,000 dollars in incentives for preserving the building. This is the fifth residential negotiation and all five designations were considered best examples. This has important family history tied to it. The Lundy house did not receive a waiver of any permit fees. We want the program to be successful. 8 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 There is a tree appeal on the table. HPC discussed the tree. The permit was submitted to parks and it was denied. It was submitted to the City Manager and upheld and is now remanded to Council. HPC felt in the case of a cultural resource, the applicant said they will not pursue the project if the tree removal is not granted, HPC felt the historic resource is more important. That is one of the reason staff felt the applicant should pay the fees. Ben Carlson, City Forester, stated he met March 2nd with the development team where they submitted a permit for removal of all trees on the property. Prior to the submission the owners were advised by the Parks department the preservation of the spruce tree would be a priority. The tree is proving the city with improved air and water quality, reducing storm water runoff and providing wildlife habitat. The permit was issued and approved the removal of all the trees with the exception this spruce tree. The other trees were allowed to be removed due to being overcrowded or in poor health or to allow the applicant to enjoy their property. The top of the tree is flawed but can be mitigated. A tree risk assessment report was conducted and Mr. Carlson found two issues with the report. First the rate of people in the alley is low. Second, the overall risk is low. The property owners identified the tree as a hazard tree. The tree does not meet the mitigation as a hazard tree. No tree can be managed completely of risk unless it is removed. Based on our interpretation of the municipal code we ask that Council uphold our decision and the City Manager’s decision and uphold the tree removal denial. Ms. Simon stated HPC would welcome an amendment to keep the tree. Staff supports the landmark designation. They recommend that Council waive the impact fees and a portion of the water tap fees, the tree mitigation fees approved by parks. They pass on HPCs recommendation of the tree removal but pay the fees. They recommend Council accept the dimensional variations and grant the TDR, expedited review and five years vesting rights rather than three. Councilman Romero asked if the applicant is in line with Staff’s recommendation. Ms. Simon replied that the applicant would like to discuss some counters. They feel come construction costs are not addressed by the incentives. Nora Berko stated this has been a working studio since 1957. They could sell, build a duplex without the studio or build a duplex while preserving the studio. They have established five project thresholds that must be met; create a multi-generational family duplex with units that function independently, preserve and enhance the Berko Studio by bringing it forward, livability, financial responsibility and long term preservation. Retaining the tree for short term preservation is not an option. HPC voted 5 to 0 for removal of the tree. The studio was built in 1964 as simple, beautiful and affordable and guided Harry Teague’s vision. The entire block has sold within the last six months. AspenModern gives them the possibility of staying in an empty neighborhood. The project has three preservation goals; the studio, cultural and community. Community benefit #1 Harry Teague stated the first community benefit is the studio preservation. It will bring the resource to the front of the lot so you can see it. It will create two sensible living units. Both front doors will be seen from the street. Community benefit #2 Mirte Mallory presented the second community benefit as cultural preservation. It will keep the Berko archive in Aspen. Community benefit #3 The third community benefit is community preservation. They will continue to live on the property and contribute to a year round lights on community. AspenModern can be the incentive to help stay. Philip Jeffreys reviewed the incentives. Each owner values incentives differently. The net incentive to the applicant is 140,000 dollars. Staff’s memo does not capture the complete picture. Per HPC guidelines, preparation and relocation, foundation, chimneys and windows would cost 210,000 dollars in direct preservation costs. 9 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 Howie Malory talked about Ordinance 28. 1.d. “City Council shall seek to be equitable in the benefits awarded through the negotiation process”. Mr. Jeffreys said they are requesting a cap in the building permit fees of 30,000 dollars. They are looking for a waiver of 70,000 dollars in building permit fees. They are also asking for one restricted TDR for 1230 Snowbunny Lane. Ms. Mallory said the long term resource protection outweighs the short term. Long term locals can remain on their property. Affordable housing isn’t the only option for kids who grew up in Aspen. It is possible for local family to redevelop their home. Councilman Daily asked what is going to happen to the Snowbunny Lane property. Mr. Mallory replied they will sell the property to pay for this. Councilwoman Mullins asked why is the TDR restricted. Mr. Mallory replied due to the overloading of the market with too many TDR. By putting it on our property it makes our parcel more saleable. It was not an easy decision. Councilman Frisch said there have been five residential properties completed. Ms. Simon said there are more we are interested in pursuing. Councilman Frisch said with the tree issue and everything else. Tree, building, dog, people that’s the priority of this town. It was implied in the staff memo that the tree is a deal breaker. For the history of your father and the property, why does the tree really need to go. Mr. Teague replied the tree is leaving for a few reasons. The inappropriateness for the scale of resource. The effect on the livability of resource. Councilman Frisch replied the bigger the tree the bigger the value the community places on it. Councilman Romero stated he supports the HPC recommendations and removal of Tree number one. His preference is using the second TDR as the final incentive and leaving the permit fees alone. Councilman Daily said he supports staff recommendation. He prefers the TDR incentive. The partial building fee waiver is a little strong. He is supportive of the tree removal. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Stan Clauson summarized a letter from Barbara Reid and David Hyman . They are excited about the project. It is a beautiful modern addition. AspenModern provides way to look at individual projects. 2. Ryan Elston letter. It is an incredibly valuable property. Don’t overlook the financial of voluntary designation. 3. Lisa Ballinger, Aspen institute. The Berko studio would be displayed for all to see. Please support this project. 4. Bill Stirling, AspenModern is one of the city’s most unique programs. We have far fewer of the historic buildings than we do trees. 5. Scott Rider, owner of neighboring property. Don’t buy the premise it’s this or nothing. He has been supporting the human aspect of this application. He is in favor of this application while against some of the components. He has a hard time with the fees. As a neighbor he would rather see the tree stay. 6. Mark Hunt said he believes there are exceptions to the rules. He thought it was a great application. He does not think it sets a precedent. With the tree, this family has given so much back through the generations. That should go into the equation. 7. Phyllis Bronson, AspenModern criteria and the relevance of the property to significant people or significant events in town. Iconic family not entitled. Howie with his endless hours on open space. That first criteria is significant. Ben presented an extremely valuable discourse on the tree. The design is esthetically beautiful. If we don’t keep projects like this alive what are we doing. The tree should go. 10 Special Meeting Aspen City Council June 1, 2015 Ms. Simon submitted letters from Susanna Reid who is supportive of the application and Jack Johnson who is also supportive. Chris Forman, parks department, stated the location of the tree is not maximized in the south east corner in terms of energy. Staff’s Interaction with the applicants have been fantastic. The location is not in the middle of the property. 45 percent of the community forest is found on private property. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins stated one of the criteria for landmarking is significant persons. The other is the resource itself. She has great faith this project is being done by the family for the family. She question the five year vesting. The FAR bonus is well deserved. The tree has no historic pattern or specimen quality and does not see the reasoning to save the tree. She supports what the applicant proposes. Councilman Daily said it is a wonderful project. The community is the winner. 140,000 dollars from the staff recommendation and the second TDR is a significant value. Councilman Frisch said three years vesting. With trees he think we are making a fairly big statement of how we are valuing the trees in town. This has not been our philosophy in the past. From a financial standpoint the TDR is as generous as I want to be. Mayor Skadron stated he respects Councilwoman’s Mullins comments. Councilman Romero said he would support the second TDR being unrestricted and no building permit fee waivers and three years vesting. Tree removal is allowed and mitigation is paid by the applicant to the City. Mr. Bendon asked Council to recognize the tree removal is necessary for historic preservation and the physical integrity of tree. The motion is amended to include the language suggested by Mr. Bendon. Councilman Frisch asked if we can back up the tree coming down for historic preservation. Mr. Carlson said criteria E in the tree ordinance can explain the removal. Mr. Bendon brought up the tax benefit program from the state. Councilman Romero modified the motion to add the recapture schedule with a four year vesting schedule and a four year recapture window. Councilwoman Mullins said she can’t second it and doesn’t support it. Councilman Romero made a third amendment to the motion saying he prefers to keep the schedule the applicant brought with a three year vesting and a five year claw back at CO. Seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor of the amendment, motion carried. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Mr. True recommended Council go into executive session pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(a) purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal other property interest; and (b) conference with attorney. Motion to go into executive session at 11:35pm by Councilman Romero; seconded by Councilman Daily. At 11:58pm, Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. At 11:58pm, Councilman Frisch moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning, City Clerk. 11