Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19880906Continued Meeting____ Aspen Citv Council September 6, 1988 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmember Tuite and Isaac present. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE PUD AMENDMENTS Mayor Stirling said Council is going to go over the amended PUD agreement, to determine whether this project should be exempted from Ordinance #31, the demolition moratorium, and decide issues of recording the plat, the foundation permit and what period of time will be required f or an extension to accomplish this so the final amendment will be in place. Mayor Stirling said Council will then discuss the two ballot issues for the October 11, 1988, election; the initiated petition and the potential land trade on the Thomas property for employee housing. Mayor Stirling said he was disturbed by the decision made by the HPC to move the "Berko" house. Mayor Stirling proposed a joint work session with HPC, P & Z and planning staff to discuss some issues that have been raised. Councilman Isaac asked if there is a mechanism to change the HPC decision. Mayor Stirling said the HPC would have to do this internally. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council the majority of P & Z member expressed the same sentiment and could not believe there was no recourse to the HPC decision. The P & Z is interested in learning was can be determined from this process and what can be done about the process. Council requested staff select some proposed dates for a study session. Mayor Stirling asked if staff got clear enough direction from Council on Ordinance #31. Richman said he has put together the public hearing notice. A lot of ideas and solutions will evolve out of the public hearing process (Councilwoman Fallin came into Council Chambers). Mayor Stirling said this is an opportunity to deal with issues of density, GMP issues related to employee housing. The code does not allow the flexibility that the town may need. (Councilman Gassman came into Council Chambers). City Manager Bob Anderson told Council the school board would like to meet jointly with Council and the BOCC. Anderson suggested starting the scheduled meeting September 19th at 4 p.m. The school board would like to discuss school locations and other issues. This meeting is scheduled to hear from COG. Mayor Stirling said at the last meeting the applicant gave the Ute City Place to be included in the housing plan for phase one of the Ritz Carlton. Mayor Stirling said after the audit is done in two years, the Ute City Place will not be credited to future development. Mayor Stirling said this is a tremendous contribu- tion and is 20 percent beyond what is required under the existing 1 Continued Meeting Aspen Cif Council September 6, 198.8 employee housing regulations. Mayor Stirling acknowledged the response to the employee housing problems in town. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council staff has gone over the PUD agreement and has made many changes. Richman said staff feels comfortable with the agreement. The commitments and representations that have been made through the process are included in the PUD agreement and adequately represent the requirements that should be placed on the project. Richman said the first issue touches on extension of this approval process. Richman pointed out page 6 of the agreement establishes a detailed project construction schedule. The agreement calls for a date by which the applicant shall complete submission and obtain a sequential, i.e. foundation permit. Richman said the applicant s have suggested they will be completed by October 3, 1988. Richman said this is a reasonable date for staff to have completed review of the agreement, the plats and to go through foundation review. Richman said there is no possibility this can be completed by September 12. Perry Harvey, representing the applicant, told Council they should have the plats in to staff tomorrow. Harvey said he is a little concerned about the October 3 date because the city has a new chief building inspector and the assistant is on vacation. Harvey told Council staff has been excellent in the timeliness of their response and review. Harvey said the applicants can meet what they need to do for the October 3 deadline. Richman said staff can commit to meeting to October 3 deadline. Councilman Isaac moved to extend the date to October 3 for completion of the review of the foundation permit and whatever else needs to be done; seconded by Councilman Tuite. City Manager Bob Anderson said there has been some contention as to what a building permit means under the law. Anderson asked if staff has reviewed the term "sequential building permit" and is comfortable with this phrase. Richman said staff is comfortable this does not relieve the problem of the continuous process versus the series of incremental permits. Richman said staff has been looking at this as a series of permits. Mayor Stirling said he would hate to have to do another extension and would like this date to be realistic. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Richman said in the previous agreement there was a table to indicate approximately when construction would begin and end but it gave the owner the ability to start earlier and end later. Richman said this section tried to be more specific about how 2 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 6. 1988 the phasing would occur. The foundation work will begin after October lst and will be completed on or about March 1, 1989. Structural work will take place over the next 3 months to the summer of 1989. Exterior facade erection and interior finish will take the project into the remainder of 1989. Richman said these dates are not binding but are to give the city an indica- tion of the phasing and the length of the process. Richman said starting on page 8 there is language which tracks from the prior PUD agreement recognizing all the details of the construction, like barricades and entrances, authorizes the city engineer and building inspector to be in charge of those details. There is language stating the staff needs to keep in mind the disruptive activities should be scheduled to minimize activities on adjacent property owners. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, suggested this page also state October 3 f or consis- tency. Harvey said this page said he would like to clarify the last sentence to read "structural erection above grade". Mayor Stirling asked the difference between fast track building permit and sequential building permit. Richman said fast track is the colloquial term used in the building department. It is the process when the city has not seen the plan for all phases of construction and an earlier permit is being issued. Anderson told Council there is nothing technically called a fast track building permit; it is taking advantage of the code which allows the sequencing to move along. Harvey said the permit process has already been split, and they wanted to keep that going. Mayor Stirling suggested the term should be sequential throughout the agreement. Council agreed. Councilman Isaac said page 7 discusses Summit Place and Galena place gives the dates of October 1, 1988, for construction to start and completion on or after October 1989. Councilman Isaac said this is not very precise. Harvey said the applicants do not know when these projects will be built. Councilman Isaac asked when the approvals for these projects expire. Richman told Council once these projects receive their building permits, they are under the UBC f or expiration, which has to do with a certain amount of progress every 180 days. Harvey said the applicants are concerned about access to Summit Place during construction of the Ritz. Harvey said this agreement acknowledgs that upon submission of a building permit, detailed construction will come in. Richman said these are not large projects and there is not a lot to be learned from being more detailed. Councilman Isaac said he would like a cut off date that these projects would have to come back to the city for another permit. Richman said Galena Place is a growth management project, and they need to have their building permit approved in the next year. Summit Place is reconstruction credits. Richman said the dates are in 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 the agreement to put the city on notice f or planning purposes. Richman said he is comfortable with the language the way it is. Richman said page 9 sections are the descriptions of the six aspects of th e PUD. Page 9 points out the limitations estab- lished in Resolution #11 for number of units and FAR. This also refers specifically to a plat, which will have the elevations as part of the plat document. Richman said pages 10 and 11 are the basic utility, public improvement program associated with phase one. Page 12 has to do with reopening South Mill and guaranteeing it will be open on or before September 1, 1988. The applicant has specified the manner in which it will be open and the way it will be reconstructed and repaved. Richman said the language on pages 13 and 14 on landscaping is from the code and the prior agreement and includes financial assurances. Richman told Council the financial assurances that have already been provided deal with public improvements. These are not assurances that the hotel will be built or that any aspect of the private improvements will be built. These are assurances that the utilities will be in place, the landscaping will be done. Richman said the costs were estimated and the bonds secured before excavation started in April. Richman told Council he noticed that the landscaping was only guaranteed to 100 percent; both the old Code and new Code requires this be 125 percent of the costs . The r ea son f or thi s i s to have money available for replacement. 25 percent above the 100 percent is held by the city for 2 years to cover replacement costs. For public utilities, the city holds 10 percent until one year after the improvements are in place. Richman said because the landsca- ping is increased to 125 percent, additional security will need to be posted by the applicant. Richman said there are some items that were not listed for financial security, and these two will increase the amount of the bond the city is holding. Richman said an item added was guaranteeing the paving of Dean street. Mayor Stirling asked how much the applicant will be posting above the $1,228,000. Harvey said the landscaping is $400,000; an additional 25 percent will be $100,000. Harvey said it is his understanding that the paving on Dean street is an on-site improvement, not an off-site improvement because the street was vacated, and it was not required to be guaranteed. Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council the rationale for considering Dean street as an item of guarantee is that the city reserved this for pedestrian and emergency access. This should be guaranteed to a basic city standard. 4 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 6. 1988 Councilman Isaac asked if any of the public improvements have been started. Harvey said the applicants have completed about $95,000 for the 12 inch water main on Galena, which was put in in conjunction with the improvement district. Next week the applicants will start work on the storm sewer. Harvey told Council there has been over $500,000 of undergrounding work done. Harvey said there will be $828,000 f or off-site improvements and $500,000 to guarantee 125 percent of landscape improvements. Mayor Stirling asked where things stand with loan commitments. Sarpa said the applicants are working through selection of a lender with Morgan Stanley. Specific loan provisions have been offered, and the applicants are negotiating these terms. Sarpa said a bank will want to know that the official zoning process is complete before any disbursements are made. Sarpa said it will take another 3 or 4 months until there is a closed loan. Sarpa said the applicants are prepared to move forward immediately. If they can obtain the f oundation permit, they will move toward the next phase. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants are involved in a project in Scottsdale. Sarpa said they are. Mayor Stirling said he had contact with a realty group in Mesa, Arizona, who indicated that the loans were in default. Mayor Stirling said he talked to Meribank also and there was some difficultly with the city of Scottsdale and the golf course. Sarpa said there was no techni- cal default. There were extensive interactions with golf course design, hotel and residential designs. The process took longer than anticipated. Sarpa said the project was acquired by them at a time when it was running out of time. Sarpa said they brought Ritz in. Sarpa told Council Hadid Development Company has never had a default, never had a foreclosure from a bank. Sarpa said the hotel in Scottsdale is about 300 rooms; Ritz feels if they are to be successful there, they have to rely on group business. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicants have financing in place for that project. Sarpa said they do not; that project is months behind the one in Aspen. Richman pointed out on page 16 the paragraph that starts, "Any time and from time to time", this is a provision that allows the owner to substitute the form of the financial guarantee from one form to another as long as that form meets the requirements of the code. Mayor Stirling asked if the code requires Council approval. Taddune said the code requires that the city attorney approve it as to form as well as the city manager. Taddune said this has been referred to the Council as information items. Councilwoman Fallin moved to add the words, "and with Council approval"; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried. 5 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Richman told Council the applicants posted $650,000 for the excavation of the hotel site. This is separate from the $1,228,000. The owner is requesting when a foundation permit is issued and construction begins on the foundation that they will have the right to obtain that $650,000 back. Richman said this language was anticipated in the escrow instructions associated with the $650,000. Richman said he is concerned that the construction work will stop and not commence again and the city is without protection to fill that hole back up. Richman suggested until this project is above grade, that the city retains the money. Council agreed. Sarpa told Council this was not required as part of the PUD or the Code at the time. Sarpa said it was suggested by staff that the applicants might make a gesture to the city about protecting it. As part of these negotiations, it was committed that the 5650,000 would be posted until the foundation permit was pulled. This is how the current escrow agreement reads. This was confirmed in resolution #11. Sarpa said this is a change in the original agreement. Sarpa said the applicants recognize staff has a valid point. The applicants would like to address that gap. Sarpa said there are questions about the 4 or 5 month period if the applicants get a foundation permit, how far does this go until permanent financing is in place, and what happens if permanent financing takes longer. Sarpa said it is difficult for the applicants to get a partial bond. The applicants will have in place a guarantee from the contractor to do that portion of the work. The applicants will be willing to commit to building up to grade so the city's risk is nothing more than filling the hole. The applicants will only come up to grade until they have full and permanent financing in place. Harvey said if the applicants get a bridge loan to do the foundation, they want to assure the city they would not do just that work. Sarpa said the applicants will leave the 5650,000 guarantee in place through that period. The applicants will agree to amend the escrow agreement to bring the construction to grade. Council agreed with that amendment. Sarpa said in consideration for the 25 percent on top of the total 51,800,000 the applicants currently have posted, they would like to be able to use some of that 5650,000 to off set that extra 25 percent. Sarpa said when the city finds that they do not need the 5650,000 in place, the applicants could use that to cover the 125 percent for landscaping. Mayor Stirling said that seems fair. Richman said he has no problem with that and will add it to the agreement. 6 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 Richman said the next section on page 18 i s employee housing . The commitment is to 198.5 employees; 161.5 that are required plus the 37 at Ute City Place. Harvey said the commitment is to provide 161.5; the applicants are providing 198.5. The PUD agreement is all right as stated. Richman said the agreement goes through all the employee housing components as described in the original agreement. The units at the Grand Aspen are new, and the Ute City Place is back into the agreement. Mayor Stirling asked if there is any intention to upgrade the Alpina Haus or Copper Horse. Harvey said in the prior PUD there was inspection by the building department with upgrades required. These have all been accomplished with the exception of one exit stairway at the Alpina Haus. Harvey told Council at the time these are required f or housing, the applicants will look at the properties to see what is required. Sarpa said the applicants do not own these properties and part of the problem is the extent of making investments on behalf of another owner. These are deed restricted and the applicants have the requisite to maintain them at certain levels. Saul Barnett asked what the employee housing requirement is and how it differs from the Roberts PUD phase one. Richman said during this amendment process, the staff recalculated the employee housing requirements based on the current program f or this project, looking at hotel rooms, residential units and commercial space. Richman said the restaurants space in the Ritz is significantly less than in the Roberts program. This reduced the employee housing generation significantly. Richman said when the applicants went to P & Z, they did not have to replace the Ute City Place because the employee generation was much lower. Ute City Place has been re-introduced, although not required. Barnett said the total number of employees housed under the Roberts PUD is less than in this agreement and how much less is it. Harvey said it is a matter of a few employees. The appli- cants have reduced phase two by 105 hotel rooms so there should be a decline in the impact of phases one and two. Mary Martin asked how many employee units were required of the Ski Company hotel and the Hotel Jerome. Richman said 7 units were required for Little Nell and 19 employees at the Hotel Jerome. Ms. Martin asked why there is such a wide discrepancy. Richman said the Hotel Jerome was not under the growth management system but under exemption for a historic structure. Richman said today a project like that would be required to provide substantially more housing. The Little Nell project is much smaller. The applicants did an analysis of employees required, which was presented to the staff and it was accepted as reason- able. The Skiing Company's commitment was to provide 35 percent 7 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 of employees generated, which was the minimum at the time. The requirement is now 60. This applicant was required to meet the 35 percent, and they provided 60 percent. Richman pointed out page 20 of the agreement. Richman said this is the first time there is a major off-site development of employee housing going along with a new development project. Richman told Council the owner suggested language that if Ute City Place is started but not completed, they want to be able to obtain a c/o on the Ritz. The applicant is providing rooms at the Grand Aspen as security to be provided as employee housing. Richman said the agreement recognizes that the applicants has not closed on Ute City Place yet and is not able to file the deed restrictions. Richman said page 24 refers to the audit and the language is as positive as it can be for the city's interest. This recognizes that 198.5 employees are being provided with housing. Richman said the city talked about if the audit shows there were less employees than were being provided with housing, the owner would receive a credit. Richman said he assumed the credit would come in at less than 161.5 employees and Ute City Place will never provide the owner with any additional credit. Richman said the language is written if there are more employees than 198.5, the owner is required to provide for 60 percent of those employees. If the requirement goes below that, the employee units remain as they are. Richman said the applicants have gone beyond what their earlier commitment was during the review process. Richman said he is pleased with the language in this section. The applicants have also agreed that the auditors can be chosen by the housing authority. Councilman Isaac brought up the issue of smaller parking places. Harvey told Council the applicants are initiating a code amend- ment on that. Richman said staff preferred not to have this addressed in the agreement but to indicate the city is encoura- ging a code amendment. Harvey told Council the applicants submitted a parking plan showing 220 full size parking spaces so they are meeting the terms of the agreement. Richman pointed out on page 36 regarding phase two, the commit- ments made earlier regarding the number of rooms and the square footage is committed to. Councilwoman Fallin said if ownership for phase two changes, does this PUD run with the land and not the owner. Gannett said the agreement runs with the land. Hughes said anyone who buys this property, buys lots with these constraints. Richman said most of the language regarding phase two is premature; answers of financial, housing and site improve- ments are not known. 8 Continued Meeting Ashen Citv Council September 6. 1988 Richman said page 38 identifies the requirements for the proposed ice rink and addresses the rezoning. This clarifies that the owner will apply for rezoning within 90 after receiving the full building permit for phase one or no later than April 1, 1989. If by April 1, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation, the planning office will initiate that rezoning. The applicants have agreed to pay for administrative costs. Richman brought up #3 on page 41 has new language regarding demolition of the Grand Aspen hotel. The applicants have agreed to demolish the Grand Aspen within 3 years of the date of the c/o on the Ritz. Richman said the agreement says if the owner has not demolished and the city sees fit, the city can demolish and the applicant will pay for it. Richman reminded Council at the last meeting, they wanted to look at the automobile disincentives, particularly as they applied to employee housing, and audit them at the same time when the employee housing audit takes place. This is addressed on page 42. Richman said #9 is the commitment towards the Aspen Ski Club replacement building and has not changed from the last agreement. Richman said #10 on page 43 is the commitment to fund $250,000 towards drainage improvements, including drainage study and obtaining easements. The language has to do with how the city can draw down on that money. Taddune said there is a notice and provision section in this language, if the city engineers intends to draw down for specific purpose and the applicants do not think it is within the spirit of the plan, it goes to Council for resolution. Jay Hammond, city engineer, told Council the city will not begin a study until spring or summer of 1989. Council agreed to put April 1, 1989, in the agreement. Richman said page 46 replaces the original language regarding the old lodge improvement district. This language commits the owner to provide improvements which correspond to the improvements being built on South Galena and South Mill and to construct one portion of those improvements with money the district is transf- erring back to the applicant. The language needs to tightened up so that the improvements are completed. Taddune said there should be a schedule indicating that the applicants are commit- ting to certain level of improvements. Hammond said he has this in the f orm of a deduct change order from the contractor, which would be the appropriate exhibit to this agreement. Richman said page 48, reconstruction, is a repetition of the earlier agreement. This refers to schedule 8 of the attachments. Richman told Council there are 275 hotel units and 42 residential units that either have been or are intended to be reconstructed during the course of the PUD construction schedule. Richman reminded Council the code sets a 5 year time table from which 9 Continued Meetinq___ Aspen Citv Council September 6. 1988 have made agreement on the employee housing units. Harvey pointed much of the acceptance and negotiations by the applicants has been on reliance that for the applicants to look at a new set of rules, throws the negotiations into limbo. Harvey said the essence of the administrative delay is to examine and create a reconstruction requirement and on-site requirement for sub- division. Harvey noted the applicants have a reconstruction requirement in the overall employee housing schedule for 161.5 employees. Councilman Isaac moved to exempt the Aspen Mountain PUD from the administrative delay of Ordinance #31; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Mayor Stirling said Council tried to establish criteria for the exemptions heard last week. Mayor Stirling said he feels this project meets the threshold and it would be fair to grant an exemption. All in favor, motion carried. Saul Barnett said in the PUD agreement there are a significant number of items to be done by the applicant following construc- t i on and an issuance of certificate of occupancy of phase one . Barnett asked what is the city's position if things that are supposed to occur do not and what remedies does the city have. Richman said the city has tried to collateralize some of the requirements like demolition of the Grand Aspen, provision of housing at Ute City Place. Richman told Council staff spent a lot of time on these commitments. Barnett said he would 1 ike to be sure there are remedies the city has and that whatever assurances are given are adequately secured. Richman said the ultimate remedy is not to permit occupancy of the building if the conditions of the PUD agreement are not met. Barnett said if the city wants to collateralize this, perhaps they should have a mortgage on the property to secure the financial obligations. Sarpa said the applicants have spent an inordinate amount of time looking at all the assurances. Sarpa said the assurances in the agreement and those already done are very strong. Barnett said when he ready the Roberts agreement, he was not sure there is any effective enforcement the city has to make sure that the require- ments that are supposed to be accomplished after phase one is completed are anything other than the right to sue the applicant for damages under a breach of contract. Hughes pointed out this is a five-lot planned unit development. The city does have some approvals they can withhold from the applicants. Hughes said the applicant cannot walk away from the remaining 4 lots of the PUD. 11 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6. 1988 Paul Hamwi said if the city spends money or performs work on property owned by someone else, they would have some lien right. Taddune said the agreement could be amended to provide for lien right that would be superior to any existing financing. Hamwi said this would mean a lending institution would be taking a second position. Taddune said this would require that the financier would have to satisfy the condition in order to maintain a security interest. Sarpa told Council the applicants plan to make as part of the construction loan a line item of the financial assurances already given. Taddune ask if the lender would commit to the city. Sarpa said this is asking the appl- icant to increase the funding f or the project. Hughes said the city can always withdraw the c/o on the Ritz. Richman told Council he will present a resolution for Council's action on the September 12 meeting. RESOLUTION #28, SERIES OF 1988 - Special Election Ballot Ques- tions Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, told Council he tried to put in language that was more neutral that addressed the concept of what this question deals with. Gannett said the inserted language has the Ritz Carlton in it. Councilwoman Fallin said she does not like the language. Councilwoman Fallin said this question should be a separate issue and not a yes or no vote specifically on the Ritz Carlton. The question carries an implication for land use that is far beyond what happens with the Ritz. Councilwoman Fallin said she feels the question should be on the ballot without any editorial comment. Councilwoman Fallin said it is up to both sides to campaign prior to the election to make their case before the election. John Sarpa told Council the reason they suggested this language was that after the petition was circulated the applicant had a lot of people comment that they were confused and did not under- stand what it's impact is. Sarpa said this is a confusing ballot and there were attempting to clarify its impact. Mayor Stirling said he does not like the idea of legislating by ballot except by electing the people who are elected to legislate. Mayor Stirling said this petition exemplifies that people are expressing a lack of confidence in the elected officials. Mayor Stirling said the people who circulated the petition feel time is of the essence. Mayor Stirling agreed this ballot issue has long term conse- quences f or the city. Mayor Stirling said he does not support the additional language. Mayor Stirling moved to pass Resolution #28, striking the underlined portion in question #1; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. 12 Continued Meeting Aspen Citv Council September 6. 1988 Councilman Isaac stated he does not feel question #2 should have to go to the voters and this decision should be made by Council. Mayor Stirling amended his motion to not have the underlined language in question #1 and deal with the entire resolution separately; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Mayor Stirling read the underlined language; "Said ordinance is intended to apply to all proposals within the Aspen city limits for hotels or other multi-family dwellings meeting the definition of a hotel for which approval may be or has been sought under the planned unit development limitations and guidelines of the Aspen Municipal Code, including the proposed Ritz Carlton hotel and ice rink and park". Mayor Stirling said this is a generic ordinance that deals with long range consequences. Mayor Stirling said it is inappropriate to put a separate paragraph in a generic ballot issue. Wainwright Dawson said if there is going to be an ordinance that came about because of the Ritz, then the Ritz should be in the question. Dawson said if this is going to be a generic ordi- nance, it should be a generic ordinance for the future and explain to the voters how it will effect the town and its future. Councilman Tuite asked what the city is going to do for the election. Councilman Tuite said he would like some explanation to the voters so that this is a coherent ballot issue. Mayor Stirling said the Council can determine what they want to do for the election. Councilman Isaac said the planning office was to give Council an analysis of what this will do to the land use code, the parcels effected and the ramifications. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling said question #2 is a proposed ballot question to deal with the use of the western portion of lot 4 of the Thomas subdivision by the Aspen Valley hospital for employee housing. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, said this piece of property is almost an island. Gannett told Council the Thomas property was purchased in 1972. The city is asking for a small piece to be sold or transferred to the hospital or the housing authority. The property is not deed restricted by sixth penny f unds nor by use. This property was annexed in 1979 and was subdivided in 1982. This ballot is for one portion of lot 4. The third issue on the ballot is to ask that the right-of-way be replatted so that it conforms with the construction. Gannett said this is currently zoned public and will have to be rezoned to RMF. Councilwoman Fallin said she wants to make sure this gets public hearings. Walter Ganz, hospital board, pointed out this is a technical issue and would be hard to explain. This 13 Continued Meeting AspenCity Council September 6. 1988 is 1/3 of an acre. This is not land that was ever dedicated for public or park purposes. Ganz said the city has authority to transfer this land without going to a vote of the people. Mayor Stirling said the city recently had an election and asked for permission to transfer about 1/4 acre. The voters turned this down. Mayor Stirling said he is very sensitive to the issues of open space and feels it is prudent to ask the voter to dispose of land owned by the city. Ganz said this will not effect major issues of the community. Jane Ellen Hamilton, representing the hospital, reminded Council this is not a transfer to a private party but is something that is going to benefit the public. The units will be available to the public. Ms. Hamilton said this is not asking the city to give the property away but to work in conjunction with the hospital. Councilman Isaac said there will be public hearings on this project. The city will participate in the process. Councilman Isaac said the city is asking private businesses to take care of their housing needs yet the city is not addressing the needs of the city staff. Mayor Stirling said he never feels issues are too technical for the voters. Councilman Tuite said this is not going solely f or the hospital; units will be available to the general employees. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Resolution #28; seconded b y Mayor Stirling. Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling in favor; Councilmembers Tuite, Gassman and Isaac opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Resolution #28, Series of 1988, without questions 2 and 3; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Fallin and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Kathryn,. Koch, City Clerk 14 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council September 6, 1988 demolition occurs to when reconstruction can occur to make sure that there is not construction unanticipated by the city and service shortfalls occur. Richman said 116 previously demolished are mostly Blue Spruce and Aspen Inn units. Many of the residential units still stand. Some of the residential units have been demolished more than 5 years ago, and this was extended by Council in an earlier process. The applicant is asking for a 5 year period of reconstruction of the hotel units commencing on the date of recordation. Richman said he fails to see the need for this because once a foundation permit is obtained for reconstruction, these units are vested and the reconstruction provision of the code is irrelevant. Richman said some of the residential units may not be demolished for several years. Richman said he can see the rationale for paragraph (b) but not for paragraph (a). Richman reminded Council the demolition of the Grand Aspen is scheduled for 3 years after the c/o on the Ritz. Harvey said when the applicants install the park, they will tear down the units. The applicants want to tie the reconstruction of those to the demolition permit on the Grand Aspen. Harvey said these date should jive. Harvey said there are people living in units where the park will be. Mayor Stirling said the time for the hotel units is too long. Mayor Stirling suggested substitut- ing the 5 year period for 2 years after demolition of the Grand Aspen. Richman said for the lodge units, the code covers the issue and it does not need to be addressed in this agreement. For the residential units, the applicants are asking for some- thing that goes beyond the length of the code. Richman recom- mended deleting paragraph (a). Richman said the reconstruction units will all be used in the development of the Ritz. Harvey said the applicants want some verification that these are existing units because it corresponds with the growth management allotment. Richman said this update verifies these units. Council agreed to delete (a) and makes (b) (a) , leaving it as it reads. There will be a schedule 9 attachment. Richman said staff needs to verify the park dedication fees; this will be done at the foundation permit stage. Councilman Tuite moved to direct staff to make the changes on the PUD agreement and bring the final corrections to the September 12 meeting; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Harvey said the applicants have requested to be exempt from Ordinance #31, the demolition moratorium. Harvey told Council the PUD agreement is an integrally related agreement and each portion relates to another. The applicants are required to process submission on phase two and the ice rink. The applicants 10