Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20060206 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Mayor Klanderud called the special meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Richards, Torre, Johnson and DeVilbiss present. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2006 - Limelite Lodge Final PUD James Lindt, community development department, noted the sections of the project and adjacent projects are included in the packet. Information on the tree heights has been provided. Lindt reminded Council they asked about alley paving and why the Dancing Bear was not required to pave the alley. Lindt said there was discussion at P&Z about paving. The HPC was discussing whether it was appropriate to pave gravel alleys in the downtown core and HPC decided it was preferable to leave them gravel. The city engineer has recommended the alley be paved because of the additional traffic. Staff included a condition the ordinance requiring paving, which will make it easier for the city to maintain. Council questioned why P&Z was not in favor of bulb outs along Monarch. P&Z felt these were additional obstruction to vehicles. Staff feels the bulb outs will provide additional traffic calming and will provide better visibility for pedestrians. Councilman DeVilbiss requested the height ofthe northeast corner of the Hotel Jerome for comparison purposes. Staff calculates this 55' or 56' to the top of the parapet. There was a question about preserving the trees at Monarch and Cooper. Lindt said the parks department feels comfortable these can be preserved because the applicants are maintaining a foundation wall with a full height basement, which will protect the trees. Dale Paas, representing the Limelite, thanked Council for scheduling a special meeting. Paas told Council the team has looked at design changes. The applicants want the project to be in balance with Council's concerns, with the community's needs, and to remain a viable business. The applicants have made substantial changes to address these concerns. John Cottle, architect for the project, presented boards with the changes since the last meeting. On the residential building, the third floor is removed from the edge of the building so the heights along the street are 26', 25', 28', and 29'. The third floor is setback 26.5' off Cooper street and 28' from Aspen street. Cottle presented a roof plan of the residential building, showing where the roof is pulled back from the street edges. Cottle showed the section through the residential building and 210 Cooper. Councilman Johnson said the purpose of a section is to show the space of buildings so one can see how far apart and how high buildings are. Cottle said the height of 21 0 Cooper is 28' and this section illustrates when the sun is the lowest, December 21 st, that the 28' high parapet on the residential building casts the shadow, not the 3,d floor ofthe residential building. The shadow does not quite make it to the curb. Robin Schiller, architect, noted by pulling the building back off the street edge, the 3,d floor went from 3 units to I unit. Cottle showed a section through the residential building and through the proposed Dancing Bear. The Dancing Bear is one floor higher than the residential building. Cottle showed renderings of Monarch and Cooper from Wagner park. Cottle showed the trees, the parapets of28', the setbacks of39' and 42' on Wagner park. The trees have been I Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 surveyed at 68',64' and 58'. Cottle pointed out the parapet at 26',29' and 28' so the building is two stories along the edge. The highest point ofthe building one can see is 34'. Cottle pointed out an element of the residential building that was 40' and is now 26' and a 39' element, which has been reduced to 28'. The back line roof went from 40' to 34'. There are 14 condominium units, 6 lock off units and no affordable unit in the south building. Cottle pointed out the height is virtually the same at 210 Cooper across the street and the 3'd floor is set back off the street. Lindt passed out a memorandum outlining the revised affordable housing implications and revised dimensional requirements. Councilwoman Richards asked how much square footage has been reduced by making the residential building smaller. Schiller said about 3700 square feet of sellable area has been eliminated. Cottle told Council the applicants reviewed past P&Z and Council comments and one thing that was constant was retaining the number oflodge rooms. This proposal has 125 lodge rooms. The comments emphasized recognizing the alley and Cottle showed the Monarch street fa<;ade of the lodge and where a section in line with the alley has been set back 10' on the ground floor and 17.5' above. These hotel rooms have been made smaller to accommodate the setback. There is a small pocket park on street level. The 3 story brick element has been made smaller. Cottle showed a rendering of the southeast corner, the setback of the building with a 14' element tied into the notch. Cottle pointed out that the 4th story facing Wagner Park has been shortened about 40' and 22 feet of that 4th story is setback IT to 22'. Cottle showed a rendering of Monarch and Hyman showing the notch in between the building. Schiller told Council the applicants have a draft construction management plan in the PUD application. There is a requirement that this plan must be approved by the city before construction begins. Schiller said they are working on an agreement with the city on how the alley is used. The lodge will have a trash compactor to reduce the number of trash trucks. Deliveries will be taken on Cooper Avenue. Schiller stated the applicants feel bulb outs are a good feature; however, if Council does not want bulb outs, these can be eliminated. Schiller said as far as these units remaining mid-market, the units are small, 500 square feet or less; there is no restaurant; there is no spa; there is no room service; there are no amenities that a high end hotel requires. Sue Woolery, applicant, reminded Council the Limelite Lodge has been providing affordable lodging in Aspen since the 1960's. The Paas family has been fully committed to Aspen for over 40 years. Ms. Woolery noted this is no longer a viable business; the buildings are functionally obsolete and expensive to maintain and are not attractive to customers. Ms. Woolery said the family could sell out and leave town or to work to redevelop the properties. Ms. Woolery said they assembled a redevelopment team. Ms. Woolery said redevelopment was not possible without financial assistance, which the lodge will receive from sale of free market condominiums to create a mid-market lodge. Ms. Woolery said they have designed this project to try and retain good relations with the neighbors and to address their concerns. Ms. Woolery stated the applicants are not absentee owners. Ms. Woolery said the lodge incentives allow a way to pay for a new hotel. This application combines creative options to use free market and lodge units in 2 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council Februarv 6. 2006 combination. Ms. Woolery said a new Limelite lodge is in the best interests of Aspen's future. Lindt noted the issue of employee credit and if Council grants 8 employee credits from the lodge to the free market, there would be no affordable housing required. If Council were to give 2 credits, the applicants would be required to mitigate for 3+ employees. Mayor Klanderud asked if the applicants are operating all 3 properties with 42 employees. Ms. Woolery said they have been operating with 42 employees since they took over the Snowflake last year. Councilwoman Richards asked what percent of the project is free market after the reduction of the 2 units. Schiller said the free market is 38% of the project. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Colin Commings, tour operator, told Council his company brings about 1500 guests to Aspen in the winter and one reason they bring so many to Aspen is the mid-priced hotel rooms. The Limelite books 470 room nights this season and is about 20% of the clientele. Melissa Shennan, 210 Cooper, asked about the parapet at the corner of Cooper and Aspen and how wide it is. Cottle pointed out the parapet, 28' which goes 2.5' to a roofterrace and then 26.5' off Cooper street and 38' off Aspen street. Cottle showed this on tab 8, sheet 15. Bennett Bramson stated it is a difficult choice balancing becoming a world class community and wanting to remain a small town. Bramson pointed out the community spends much money marketing Aspen around the world. Bramson said if the community is going to grow, affordable units are needed to remain competitive. Bramson encouraged support of this project. Bob Wade, Ute Mountaineer, supports the project. Wade said Limelite and Ute Mountaineer share the same customers. The Limelite supports locally owned businesses. Warren Klug, Aspen Square, supports this application and feels the applicants have worked hard to address concerns that have been brought up. Klug said a building of 125 lodge room and 15 condominiums will not be a small building; however, this is in the right location, appropriate on the edge ofthe downtown area. Klug said it would be too bad for the community to lose a family business, to lose a moderately priced lodge. Klug said this could be replaced with multi-family condominiums, which would do nothing for the community. Forrest Woolery, applicant's family, told Council they are looking forward to doing this project. Woolery said there is an extended family supporting this business. Woolery said selling out may be more lucrative but they want to be in the lodge business. Andrea Clark, 210 Cooper, stated this is not a PUD. Ms. Clark said it is offensive that the architects state the height has come down rather than starting with the required height. Ms. Clark said this will not meet the code language. Ms. Clark stated she would rather see a mixed use development of 42 feet across the street. There are 2 separate owners with a street running between the properties. There is no sharing of common elements as 3 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 required by the PUD. There are two separate condominium regimes. The lock off units may not be allowed by definition in the codes. Josh Behrman, Mountain Groove Productions, told Council without the Limelite Lodge, it would not be possible to bring to town a lot of the entertaimnent that he books into the Wheeler. Behrman said the Limelite has been generous with accommodations and with rates. Kris McKinnon, director of World Sales Aspen Skiing Company, relayed a conversation with one of their top producing tour operators who is concerned about the continued loss of moderate lodging in Aspen and without moderate lodging Aspen will lose market share to other resorts. Not all Aspen's clients are high end and the diversity of the tourists mirrors the diversity of this community. Ricki Newman, 210 Cooper, said the city should make sure the large spruces are protected. Cottle said that tree is shown on their plan. Brad Osburn, director of Right Door, supports this project and he would like a chance to work with the applicants to use one or more of the cabins from Deep Powder. Bob Leatherman, 210 Cooper, stated he- is still concerned about the lack of agreement on alley management. If this project proceeds, the neighbors should have input into the construction management plan. Stan Hajenga, Mountain Chalet, told Council there are escalating costs by putting off redevelopment. Haj enga emphasized there has been a decrease in the amount of mid-priced lodge rooms. The town has just lost two lodges and there is a lack of ability to serve larger groups. Steve Siefert said he sat on the infill committee of residents and elected officials who worked hard to propose code amendments that would work. Siefert said a financial model that could accommodate all proposals could not be created. Siefert said this is a creative plan that could work financially. Siefert said continually squeezing this project is dumbing it down to where it is not feasible and the applicants will leave. Francesca Macpherson, sister cities, stated she supports this proposal. The applicants have been strong supporters of the Sister City programs for the last 15 years. Bill Tomcich, Stay Aspen Snowmass, said Council should consider the consequences of approval or denial of the project. Tomcich said the consequences of denial are unknown; however, the properties will not continue to operate. The proposal is a known quantity and serves a need in the community. Brett Husky, Snowmass Resort Association, stated he supports the applicant and the application. Husky said in destination marketing it is important to appeal to 3 different economic segments and all 3 are required for a successful destination. It is also important that the rooms in a destination are always being upgraded. Tim Belinski, Obermeyer Project, supports this project. Belinski said their project has worked with this development team and the team can get ajob done. This development teams deals well with the neighbors and with the construction trades. Andy Modell stated he is in favor of the project. Rob Henderson, St. Regis, said they are in favor of this project. This town needs the moderate rooms. Jim French, 210 Cooper, said Council has their documents, which speak for themselves. French said these changes may address 10% of his issues and the remaining 90% are not addressed. 4 Special Meetin!!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Alan Bush stated his comments still stand. Bush agrees the community does need a project of this nature. Rich Wagar said these applicants have heart and soul and he would like to see them stay in town. Toni Kronberg stated she supports this project. The bulb outs are a great idea especially in a pedestrian friendly town and Monarch should become more pedestrian friendly with a connection to Wagner Park. Ms. Kronberg said most areas of this project are within the height code. This is a good project. There is underground parking, which will take cars off the street, and the guests can walk everywhere in the community. Don Larabee, 210 Cooper, said he is impacted by height on this project. Larabee illustrated how the building will affect his sight plane from the first floor unit. Larabee said he does not see the reason for this project nor how it improves the neighborhood. Larabee objected to the building and to the fact it is over 28'. Bob Bailey said Aspen is a tourist town and it seems logical that Counc'il would want to support a project that which brings tourists to town. Craig Cannon stated as a special event producer, he has received support from the Limelite. Cannon supports the applicants because their values are strong and this project brings together many parts of this community. Mick Ireland said this community has been willing to reject the marketplace as the sole arbiter of growth decisions. This community has agreed not to accept the dictates of the market but to decide how they want the community to be. Ireland stated this has resulted in the highest property value per capita in the state. Ireland said he has only heard one public benefit for approving the project, which is moderately priced lodge rooms. Ireland stated there is no guarantee these rooms will remain moderately priced or that they will remain lodge rooms. Ireland said the lack of moderately priced lodge rooms is a failure because the community has allowed residential free market housing to displace lodge rooms. Ireland said there is a traffic crisis in this community. Ireland pointed out the employee generation statements are not true in reality and this will add employees and traffic to highway 82. Curtis Paas told Council he has been in the hotel business since a child. Paas said he loves the business and loves doing it with his family. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman DeVilbiss noted that staff has recommended Council approve the Limelite PUD in 4 memoranda. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if Lindt had seen the Limelite pro forma. Lindt stated he did not see the pro forma. Chris Bendon, community development department, said he saw the pro forma. Bendon said when staff was writing the land use code, Council asked staff to work with the lodging community and to discuss what types of incentives would be useful in redevelopment. Councilman DeVilbiss asked ifBendon agreed not to divulge the information. Bendon said he did. Councilman DeVilbiss referred to a July 25, 2005, memorandum and that incentive lodge was mentioned twice. Lindt agreed that was so. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if incentive lodge is a specific section in the land use code. Lindt answered it is a specific section of the growth management code. 5 Special Meetin!!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss asked if incentive lodge developments could be approved solely by P&Z. Lindt said that is true; however, in this case, it is a combination of review of all land use actions required and Council is the final review body. Councilman DeVilbiss stated this is a PUD and not an incentive lodge development. Councilman DeVilbiss said he feels staff is not impartial in their recommendations. Lindt stated this project meets the qualifiers for an incentive lodge development. Councilman DeVilbiss said according to the land use code, the free market could be 25% of FAR and this project is 40%. Councilman DeVilbiss noted the setback requirements are 5' and this proposal is to build to the property line. Lindt said only in areas; there are some setbacks in other areas. Councilman DeVilbiss said another waiver is open space. Lindt agreed the applicants have requested a waiver of pedestrian amenity to 10% and will pay cash-in-lieu for the remainder. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the applicants request a 5 year vested rights. Lindt stated staff recommends 3 years vested rights. Councilman DeVilbiss stated the applicants request Cooper Avenue be closed during construction. Lindt agreed that is what they requested; however, staff does not agree with that request. Councilman DeVilbiss said the applicants request 42' high residential component of the project. If this were not a PUD, what would the height limit be. Bendon said if this were not a PUD, the residential portion would be 42' because it is a component of an incentive lodge development. If it were a purely residential project, the height is 28'. Councilman DeVilbiss noted the project requests an infringement into the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Lindt said they have made a request to intrude into the view plane. Mayor Klanderud said at the last meeting, Council agreed that the intrusion into the Wheeler view plane was minimal. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the bulb outs are on public property. Lindt said they are and the bulb outs would reduce in a loss of on-street parking. Councilman DeVilbiss said it appears that in the January memorandum, staff acknowledges this is a PUD rather than an incentive lodge. Lindt stated staff believes this is both a PUD and an incentive lodge development. Lindt told Council P&Z recommended approval with a recommendation that the height of the residential component be reduced 10 to 15%. When the applicants submitted the final application to Council, they did not make that change. Councilman DeVilbiss stated those conditions were not met and since the project has been changed, should not this be referred to P&Z. Lindt said that is at Council's discretion. Mayor Klanderud said she understood this to be a 0 setback project. Lindt said the distances from the property line vary; however, on each fa<;ade there is one portion that goes all the way to the property line. Councilman Torre asked why the applicants did not comply with the P&Z's condition of reducing the height 10 to 15%. Cottle said they exceeded that reduction in areas. Schiller said the request to reduce the height 10 to 15% was not discussed during the meeting. Schiller reported this condition was added at the last minute with no opportunity for the applicants to respond. Schiller stated the applicants do not think it is realistic to reduce the entire residential building 10 to 15%. 6 Special Meetin!!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Schiller said there was no discussion about what this meant. Schiller noted the applicants have listened to the concerns and have lowered the building to 42' and have made changes that have made a difference to the visible mass of the building. Mayor Klanderud said the way the residential building has been lowered in this presentation is not a 10% straight across but makes a more interesting building because of the different heights. Councilman Torre said the reductions in the residential building are in the right direction but he would like to know why the applicant couldn't meet the 10% as requested by P&Z. Cottle said the reductions in the residential building make a more significant impact on the street than a 10 or 15% reduction 30' into the building. Cottle showed where there are II' and 14' reductions, which are greater than 15%. Councilman Torre said he would rather see the residential portion of the project at 28' but this is a give and take process. Councilman Torre said he supports the bulb outs; they are important because of the zero setbacks in the rest of the project. Councilman Torre said he would eliminate the two lodge units that sit right offthe patio and open the project up to the west. Councilman Torre said he would like to see decorative amenity to the outside of the lodge building. Councilman Torre said he would like to see some reflection of "old Aspen" in the lodge building. Councilwoman Richards said she likes a lot of the changes that have been made in this project and the project has come a long way. Councilwoman Richards said one of her requests was the building be reduced across from 210 Cooper and that across from Wagner Park was good as it was. Councilwoman Richards said she feels the section on the south should look different from the lodge component. Councilwoman Richards said this design has responded to neighbor concerns about sunlight and shadows. The Cooper street side is a good compromise. Councilwoman Richards said she likes the variation of the brick work on the lodge building. Councilwoman Richards said more could be done on the Hyman avenue side of the lodge building. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see a rendering of the full building on that side. Councilwoman Richards said she likes the alley treatment on the Monarch side. Councilwoman Richards stated this is a difficult decision and many people have worked hard on this issue. Councilwoman Richards said she supports this project; this is in the lodge district where lodging is desired. Councilwoman Richards said compromises have to be made in order to see that happen. Councilwoman Richards said the market in Aspen does not respond to any economic forces. Councilwoman Richards said the Council's rejection of the market will not make it respond the way the Council wants. Councilwoman Richards agreed there is a traffic problem in this community. Councilwoman Richards noted she supported Burlingame because she was not going to hold affordable housing hostage to the fact that the transportation problems have not been solved; neither will she hold hostage the redevelopment of lodges. Councilwoman Richards said Aspen is in a good economic cycle and people are looking for brakes; however, less than 2 years ago people were looking for business and at the continuing decline of the bed base. Councilwoman Richards pointed out this is a resort 7 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 economy and although it is important to protect the community, it is also important to protect the economic engine into the future. Lodging should be located next to Wagner Park. Councilwoman Richards said if the community does not plan for and accept change when the opportunities are presented, then one ends up in a crisis mode. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to avoid the swaying pendulum. Councilwoman Richards stated it is Council's job to accept or reject the statements of staff. Councilwoman Richards noted she sat through many infill meetings. This project is a hybrid as it is a PUD. The applicants tried to match the intent of the incentive lodge district but had to ask for accommodations to make their project work. Councilwoman Richards stated within a PUD all areas are negotiable. Councilwoman Richards said there is risk inherent in any project and the Council's job is to determine the fit and look of the building and not what is an appropriate profit. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see the bulb outs, to have the alley paved, to require the employee audit after two years of operation, to require an open space in lieu payment at 25% less what is provided on site; and to have more enhancement ofthe fa<;ade on Hyman avenue side. Councilman Johnson said asked if requiring bulb outs will become common practice. Bendon said it is something staff would like to see more of; however, it is not prevalent in town. Councilman Johnson he does not like bulb outs. Councilman Johnson stated this is a well articulated design. The material use and change is elegant. Councilman Johnson said he can see references to the historic architecture of Aspen, like the cornice feature at Hyman and Monarch. Councilman Johnson said he is concerned that the materials referenced on the presentation boards are what gets built and they are not value engineered out of the project. Councilman Johnson said the employee generation will have to be addressed through an audit and payment in lieu. Councilman Johnson said he had been convinced the room size and lack of amenities will keep the price of the rooms reasonable. Councilman Johnson said the Paas family has made certain representations and he accepts those. Councilman Johnson agreed the Deep Powder cabins are significant and relate to an era in Aspen that is quickly passing. Councilman Johnson said he would like to see them reused. Councilman Johnson said he hopes the applicants work with 210 Cooper on the alley and construction management. Councilman Johnson stated he finds this meets the PUD process and it does have some elements of the incentive lodge in it. Councilman Johnson said it is Council's job to accept or not recommendations from staff. Councilman Johnson agreed it is inappropriate for anything referred in Council Chambers not to be available to Council. Councilman Johnson noted there is no mention of financial considerations in the land use code and Council is not required to know anything about financing. Councilman Johnson said he would like to be clear about employee generation in the residential component. Councilwoman Richards asked about the building fa<;ade of the lodge on the north end. Councilman Johnson agreed it is not the same sophistication level of the rest ofthe building and could improve with more articulation of the elements. 8 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Mayor Klanderud stated she likes this iteration ofthe program, likes the graduated and erratic roof, and likes the notch on the Monarch street. Mayor Klanderud said both alleys will be paved. Mayor Klanderud recommended staff review the suggestions from Andrea Clark about construction management. Mayor Klanderud stated she is very concerned about construction management, especially in conjunction with two projects to the south. Mayor Klanderud said she does not feel PUDs and incentive lodge projects are mutually exclusive. This is similar to other PUDs reviewed by the city. Mayor Klanderud said Council is to make land use decisions and financial statements are not part of Council's consideration. Items are either good land use or bad land use. Mayor Klanderud agreed it is uncomfortable when staff is privy to information that Council is not. Mayor Klanderud stated she will support this application. Few applications come to Council that are 100% perfect; there are compromises within the code, with the applicant. Council works for the best interest of the community. Mayor Klanderud noted the history of moderate lodging goes back to the first growth management quotas and to the first down zoning. The lodges were non-conforming, which is a disincentive to redeveloping lodge properties. Mayor Klanderud said there was hope with infill and with discussions with the lodge community over the past year, that the community might get what was needed. Mayor Klanderud said she likes the 125 lodge rooms and the smaller size of these rooms, which makes it more probable they will stay affordable. Mayor Klanderud noted the applicants are already operating with 42 employees, not 48. Mayor Klanderud said she would support credit for 2 rather than 8 employees. Mayor Klanderud said once all the free market units are sold, their association may not wish to continue with the Limelite Lodge. Mayor Klanderud said an audit in 2 years may not completely address the affordable housing issue. Mayor Klanderud said she would approve this with 3.36 affordable housing units and an audit in 2 years after full operation. Councilmembers Johnson and Richards agreed. Councilman DeVilbiss asked who showed staff the pro forma. Semanski said he showed it to staff prior to the application. Semanski told Council it was conceptual and did not apply to a forthcoming project. Semanski said this pro forma had to do with the lodge zone district code amendments. Bendon told Council he has not seen a pro forma for this project; the pro forma he saw was generic and prior to the Limelite project coming to the city. Bendon said he does not have any financial information about this project. Semanski said his pro forma had to do with lodge code changes and 25% of free market total as a financial engine for lodge redevelopment. Bendon reminded Council there was debate between Council, staff and lodging community as what was the appropriate percentage of free market. Percentages between 10 and 25 were discussed. Councilwoman Richards agreed there were business owners on the infill committee to help structure codes that would actually work. Councilman DeVilbiss stated because there continues to be an insistence that things can or cannot be done for this project to remain viable, he would like a better handle on that. Councilman DeVilbiss said this has not been proved to him and the code provides the 9 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 applicant has the burden to show the reasonableness of the application, Section 26.445.050. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the anticipated construction costs of the lodge and the free market. Semanski said that information is confidential. Councilman DeVilbiss asked the anticipated room rates. Paas said on today's costs, the rate would be $165 to $185; however, that is misleading because there are many different rates for groups and there may be different rates for different rooms. It is almost impossible to forecast the rates through this project. Councilman DeVilbiss said ifhe accepts that there has to be an economic engine to drive a lodge redevelopment project, the question is how big does that engine have to be. Councilman DeVilbiss asked what is meant by two separate condominiums regimes. Semanski said in the hotel there is one condominium for the family so that condominium will be separate from the lodge. There are separate condominiums for the free market and the one hotel condominium unit. Councilman DeVilbiss said amendment to the land use code asserts an economic engine is necessary to redevelopment oflodges, especially moderate price lodges. Councilman DeVilbiss said these code amendments increased heights for buildings in the lodge zones and initiated incentives for lodge redevelopment. There is a provision that requires only P&Z approval to build a 42' lodge and free market redevelopment. Councilman DeVilbiss stated Limelite is not an incentive lodge. Councilman DeVilbiss noted there is no way for Council to evaluate the needed size for a economic engine. Councilman DeVilbiss said increased FAR, decreased open space, alley vacation, no employee housing mitigation, two different condominium regimens, a 42' free market residential component, infringement into the Wheeler view plane is not his vision of what Aspen should be. Councilman DeVilbiss said Council should say no to a 42' high wall across from Wagner Park, say no the allowing a 42' high condominium. Councilman DeVilbiss stated approving projects like this will add to the transportation problems on highway 82. Councilman DeVilbiss said he feels the costs of this project outweigh the benefits. Councilman DeVilbiss said he feels it appropriate to adopt a moratorium on development of this type and to reconsider infilllegislation including economic engine concepts and building heights. Councilman DeVilbiss stated this is an urgent matter. Paas said this is a family development and they are trying to be closed for only one winter, they request final action. Councilman Torre moved to approve Ordinance #1, Series of2006, with amendments to Section 13, striking the first paragraph which discussed the affordable housing unit in the free market condominium and in the second paragraph, move it to section 14, add language "an employee audit on the lodge component and the residential component of the development" and the base line would be 40 full time employees, the applicants will get credit for 2 based on 42 to get to 40 and if they show 40 requires additional employee generation; amend the language to "should the housing audit referenced above indicate that the new Limelite lodge is employing more than 40 full time employees, the Limelite Lodge, Snowflake and Deep Powder to be demolished have 42 full time employees, after consolidating ownership, of which 2 full time employees should be credited to the free 10 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 market residential component in order to lower its employee housing mitigation requirements to 3.36 affordable one-bedroom housing units" these can be units or cash- in-lieu; Section 29 add that the applicant submit and record an alley vacation plat; the pedestrian amenity requirement in Section 17 that the mitigation requirement be based on 25% as the standard code requirement minus what is being provided on site; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Mayor Klanderud brought up including the agreement for 210 Cooper to work with the applicants on the use of the alley. Councilwoman Richards said that agreement should be between the city and 210 Cooper. Bendon said there are two issues; one is the construction management plan. It is the city's obligation to insure the adjoining properties are not inordinately inconvenienced during construction. The second issue is the use and characteristic ofthe alley after construction. It is a city right-of-way and the agreement should be between the property owner and the city. Semanski agreed to restrict deliveries for the hotel; Section 13 of the ordinance should include no deliveries in the alley. Mayor Klanderud asked about closing Cooper. Schiller said their plan includes closing off the eastern part of Cooper for construction. Councilwoman Richards asked about a construction walkway through Cooper. This is a safety issue because of construction on two sides of the street and a liability of pedestrian walking under a crane boom. The use and closing of Cooper will be negotiated as part of the construction management plan. Another issue is parking along the west side of Monarch be closed during construction. Councilman Johnson said it is difficult to build projects without a construction staging location. Mayor Klanderud said she wants to eliminate parking of construction workers at the site. Councilwoman Richards said she can support it limited to construction staging and moving around the building. This will be addressed as part of the construction management plan. Councilwoman Richards said safety is the number I issue. Also projects have to be able to take delivery of materials. Councilwoman Richards suggested staff manage this throughout the process with as much residential parking available as possible. Councilman Torre supports staff having control over this; however, he would prefer to have it closed only when needed. Councilman Johnson asked for an amendment to the ordinance to include the statement about material representations made. Bendon said he will add language stating the applicant's material representation are considered part of the application and part of the approval as Section 32. Councilwoman Richards asked about possible improvements to the fa<;ade on the Hyman avenue side. Worcester pointed out the applicants have made a material representation that what has been shown to Council is what will be built. Councilwoman Richards said she would like the applicants to have some flexibility on that issue. Cottle said where they can within the bounds of approval make it better, give that fa<;ade more scale and more variety, they will. Cottle stated the basic massing of the building is appropriate for what they are trying to accomplish. They will continue to look at ways to articulate this, define the scale and increase the light. Council agreed they could accept this. 11 Special Meetinl!: Aspen City Council February 6. 2006 Mayor Klanderud said neighbors are concerned about what is going to directly impact them. The entire community may be a beneficiary of Council approvals. Mayor Klanderud stated this, like Burlingame, has to do with growth and change. The mix of affordable housing and lodge rooms will continue to keep Aspen a great community. Councilwoman Richards noted there has been discussion about two different parcels, one with a condominium and one with the lodge. Councilwoman Richards said the city does not own the land under the streets and if this were to be vacated, the land falls back to the adjacent property owners. Councilwoman Richards stated she would not be comfortable with two parcels separated by two blocks. These are visually linked. Councilwoman Richards said she would entertain a discussion to review the economic engine or the incentive lodge district. Councilwoman Richards pointed out the AH, affordable housing zone, allows a person greater free market rights when they build affordable housing on their property. There are also dimensional variations in order to get affordable housing. Mayor Klanderud said this is a PUD and any changes would be an amendment to the PUD, which requires Council approval. Mayor Klanderud stated the certificate of occupancy for the residential portion will not be issued until there is a CO for the lodge. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, no; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 12