Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20061211 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 ALL STAR COMMUTER AWARDS ...............................................................................2 CITIZEN COMMENTS ..................................................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .................................................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR....................................................................................................... 2 . Apres X Concerts - Noise Variance Request .........................................................2 . Resolution #100,2006 - y, Sales Tax Transit Budget for 2007 ........................:....2 . Minutes - November 27, 2006................................................................................ 2 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES ................................................................................... 3 . Ordinance #49, 2006 ~ Wienerstube GMQS; Subdivision..................................... 3 . Ordinance #50, 2006 - Water Service Agreement - Gardner Bishop.................... 3 ORDINANCE #44, SERIES OF 2006 - 134 E. Hyman Hearthstone House Historic Designation......................................................................................................................... 3 RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2006 - Temporary Use Sleigh Rides at the Golf Course................................................................................................................................. 4 ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2006 - Fees .................................................................... 4 ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 2006 - Supplemental Appropriations ............................ 4 ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2006 - Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment ........................5 ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2006 - Adoption of Civic Master Plan ..........................9 ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2006 - Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment ...................... 12 RESOLUTION #98, SERIES OF 2006 - Failed Motions and Tie Votes - Sky Hotel.... 13 RESOLUTION #102, SERIES OF 2006 - Contract to Purchase 312 West Hyman........ 19 ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2006 - Six Month Moratorium in CC Zone................. 20 1 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5 :00 p.m. with Councilmembers DeVilbiss, Johnson, Torre, and Richards present. ALL STAR COMMUTER AWARDS Lacey Gaechter, environmental health department, reminded Council these awards are presented quarterly to employees who use alternative methods of transportation to get to work. The awards go to Todd Hancock, parks department, and Glenn Carris and Ralph Sheehan of the golf department. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Klanderud wished everyone a happy holiday and joyous and successful new year. 2. Councilman Torre said there have been a lot of different activities over the past two weeks, including interviews and appointment of a new Councilperson. Councilman Torre thanked everyone who applied and congratulated Jasmine Tygre on her appointment to Council. Councilman Torre said he hopes the community supports Ms. Tygre in her new role. 3. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to introduce a moratorium ordinance to the action items; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor K1anderud. Motion carried. 4. Councilwoman Richards said there is a Club 20 meeting in Aspen this week. There will be appointments to Club 20 and anyone interested should attend. Councilwoman Richards said she attended the CML water session last week. The issue is keeping water in the Roaring Fork Valley. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Torre. The consent calendar is: . Apres X Concerts - Noise Variance Request . Resolution #100,2006 - Yz Sales Tax Transit Budget for 2007 . Minutes - November 27,2006 All in favor, motion carried. 2 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11. 2006 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES . Ordinance #49, 2006 - Wienerstube GMQS; Subdivision . Ordinance #50, 2006 - Water Service Agreement - Gardner Bishop Councilman Torre moved to read Ordinance #49 and 50 Series of2006; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 49 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, A SUBDIVISION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR MULTI-YEAR ALLOTMENTS FOR THE 307 S. SPRING STREET SUBDIVISION, LOTS D-I, BLOCK 100, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO ORDINANCE NO. 50 (Series of 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1998, WITH GERD M. ZELLER AND JOHN GALARDI AND CINDY GALARDI FOR PROVISION OF TREATED WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS TO PROPERTIES KNOWN AS THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTIES (39590 STATE HIGHWAY 82 AND 39600 STATE HIGHWAY 82), AND APPROVING A RAW WATER AGREEMENT FOR THE SAME PROPERTIES Councilman DeVilbiss stated he is going to recuse himself on the Wienerstube application due to his extremely close relationship with the business and to avoid any perception of impropriety. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #49, Series of 2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Roll call vote; Councilmembers DeVilbiss, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #44, SERIES OF 2006 - 134 E. Hyman Hearthstone House Historic Designation 3 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to continue Ordinance #44, Series of2006, to February 26, 2007; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #101, SERIES OF 2006 - Temporary Use Sleigh Rides at the Golf Course Joyce Allgaier, community development department, told Council this is a request from the same operator to run the same operation as last year's at the golf course. Ms. Allgaier told Council there were no complaints last year. Ms. Allgaier noted in the future this will be a community development director sign off if there have been no issues. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Torre moved to approve Resolution #101, Series of2006; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2006 - Fees Paul Menter, finance director, told Council the average increase of departmental fees is 2 to 5%. The CPR and first aid training fees have decreased 22 to 42% because the training is being done in house rather than hiring a contractor. The drop-in fee for youth summer camp has been increased 30% because there is a lot of demand for the program and staff is trying to maintain a balance between residents and guests. The Wheeler has reconfigured their fee structure and added a show replacement charge. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of2006, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. Councilman Torre complimented staff on trying to keep the fees at an affordable level. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #47, SERIES OF 2006 - Supplemental Appropriations Paul Menter, finance director, told Council this appropriation ordinance adds budget authority to meet the operating and capital needs to insure the budget is in the right places. This increase is $6.2 million, of which $4 million is interfund transfers. Of the new appropriations, $265,000 is a one-time community development department request for consulting services for the moratorium. There is a $76,000 appropriation for ARC as they are generating more revenue and need to offset these with expenses. 4 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11,2006 Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Junee Kirk said stafftold her there were no funds available for the social dance project and she asked ifthere are funds that could be appropriated for the dance project. Menter said that is a 2007 budget issue; this is closing out 2006. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Torre moved to adopt Ordinance #47, Series of2006, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Torre, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Johnson, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2006 - Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment Ben Gagnon, community development department, told Council the applicant has removed the fourth floor and it is no longer part of this application. Gagnon noted the employee mitigation has decreased from 2 to 1.42 because of the removal of those lodge rooms on the fourth floor. Gagnon said the courtyard changes are not covered by the PUD; there is no less or more open space in terms of the dimensional requirements. Sunny Varm, representing the applicant, told Council there are 3 outstanding issues; the changes to the courtyard, the parking, and changes to the historic portions of the hotel. Laura Kirk, DHM, went over the courtyard designs showing Council renderings of both the Main street and Mill street courtyards. Ms. Kirk pointed out there are accessibility and egress issues with the current plan. Ms. Kirk went through the existing courtyards, its uses and its accessible paths. Ms. Kirk told Council the functional relationship will remain the same with the new courtyard plan. They want to update the materials and address the accessibility. The pool has been shifted to the west to create a lounge deck area in a sunnier part of the courtyard. Ms. Kirk told Council they have worked with the city parks department to make sure the significant vegetation is being maintained. There are 5 mature spruce trees that are being kept, which drives the design of the courtyard. Ms. Kirk told Council there will be a small tree removal mitigation fee, which has been agreed upon with parks. Ms. Kirk said the green area is much the same size, reduced slightly to address the accessibility issue. Ms. Kirk noted the rendering of the courtyard on Mill street and the improvements they propose to make it a more usable, enjoyable space. Vann told Council the original 1983 approval for expansion ofthe Hotel Jerome included no on-site parking. The city approval included 60 off-site parking spaces, 35 of which were for employees. The owner also agreed to participate financially in the construction of the municipal parking garage. The subsequent owner processed a PUD amendment, which included an on-site parking garage. The PUD agreement required 51 on-site parking spaces and no reference to employee parking. In 1990 another PUD amendment was reviewed and at that time, the city required 27 of those 51 parking spaces be for employees. The P&Z felt that on-site employee parking would help eliminate parking congestion in this neighborhood. 5 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Varm told Council there are currently 37 parking spaces as 13 spaces have been converted to office, workshops and storage spaces. Varm noted the current land use code only requires parking mitigation for commercial square footage in a hotel. Varm said the total commercial in the hotel Jerome would only require 15 spaces. There is no parking requirement for hotel units in the commercial core; nor is there any parking requirement for employees not housed on-site. The amendment proposes 47 parking spaces. There is no amendment in the number of spaces currently. The request is to be relieved of the requirement that 27 parking spaces be signed for employees. Varm said parking was proposed for underneath the courtyard; however, the parks department was concerned about retaining the trees. Varm told Council the Hotel Jerome provides bus and/or parking passes to all full time employees. Vann said the key employees and managers have parking spaces in the garage or in the city's parking garage. Employees are encouraged to carpool, take the bus and ride bicycles. The Hotel Jerome has several alternative commuter programs with incentives and prizes and over 60% of the employees participate in those programs. Varm told Council there is a new parking policy for employees of the hotel, that they cannot park anywhere except on Bleeker, Monarch and Mill. This is a written policy designed to keep employees from parking in the residential neighborhood. Councilman Torre asked about the consequences of not following the PUD agreement regarding the assigned parking. Gagnon noted zoning violations are complaint driven and staff was not aware of this situation until they received the application. Varm said over time when these parking spaces were not needed, they got co-opted to other uses. Steve Bartolin, representing the applicant, told Council the Hotel Jerome can control where their employees park; they carmot control where guests park so they are trying to keep spaces available in the garage for guests. Bartolin said at the last meeting, the sentiment was that the Hotel Jerome is a treasure of the city and when the renovation is complete, will it be recognizable. Bartolin told Council they have staked their reputation on what was done at the Broadmoor. Bartolin passed out a packet ofthe renovation work at the Broadmoor, before and after their work and explained the work done. Bartolin said their approach to the work at the Jerome will be respectful of its character and history. Bartolin said in the Jerome bar, the back bar needs restoration; it will be restored not changed. The bar needs new furnishings; however, nothing structurally will be changed. There are two original chandeliers in Jacob's Corner, which will be relocated into the J Bar. Bartolin told Council the front desk is original but was in a different location. The front desk will remain where it is. The staircases are original and will remain where they are. The lobby fireplace was put in in the 60's and it will remain. The lobby clock is original and it will remain. There is an old paging device, original to the hotel, and it, too, will remain. Bartolin stated anything that is original will remain. The Century Room fireplace will be relocated; it is not historic and was put in in the 60's. Bartolin said only 6 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 a handful of floor tiles that are original. The carvings around the fireplaces will remain the same. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Dick Butera, previous owner of the hotel, told Council he bought the hotel when it was condemned and close to destruction. Butera said the hotel has not changed since it was renovated in the 1980's. Butera said this was done from a sense of community obligation because one carmot make a 90-room hotel work financially. The Hotel Jerome is the heart and soul of Aspen. The Hotel Jerome has been charmed for over 100 years; owners come along and save it when needed. This proposal is about Aspen's soul and the proposal should be supported. Bert M yrin stated he supports the remodel ofthe interior of the Hotel Jerome. Myrin said this proposal is what development in Aspen should be. Joe Myers said he loves the Hotel Jerome and enjoys all the public spaces of it. The Hotel Jerome is a Victorian gem; the public areas are the public's areas used for all sorts of community event. Myers said he would like to see the renovation be first quality Victorian work. Sally Golden thanked the Council for letting the public speak on this proposal. The owners have shown sensitivity by removing the fourth floor. Ms. Golden said she is in support of this amended proposal as in character with the existing hotel. Toni Kronberg said the valet parking on Main street is a dangerous situation. Junee Kirk urged Council to preserve the historic elements in the public space of the Hotel Jerome. The Hotel Jerome is a tourist draw and Council should insure it remains historic and true to what exists now. Mayor Klanderud entered letters from Bill Stirling and from Carlton Siemel into the records. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Gagnon said discussions about the interior remodeling of the Jerome are representations of approval and in the finding statement are included as part of the record and part of the approval. Varm said this is a PUD amendment and one of the conditions is that it will be recorded and will supersede the previous agreement. Varm stated they will memorialize the statements regarding the interior remodel. Councilman Torre asked if the landscaping was presented to HPC. Vann said if this is approved, the project will be reviewed by HPC and the exterior garden area will be part of that review. Councilman Torre asked who will be doing the renovations. Bartolin told Council Tad Gallian will be the master designer for this project and will oversee them all to make sure they are cohesive. Gallian has experience in renovating historic properties all over the U. S. Councilwoman Richards stated she is okay with the courtyard changes, with the addition of the exterior fitness center, with the parking changes. Councilwoman Richards said she 7 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 would like a better condition regarding the interior remodel. Councilwoman Richards stated she has faith in the new owner's intentions. Councilwoman Richards said she would like a condition to more specifically reference the details of what is to be preserved in the interior to keep the authenticity and the texture of the originals. Councilwoman Richards stated she would like surety of the effort to maintain all salvageable elements of the bar and lobby area, which have historic qualities. Varm said the applicants can accept a condition to preserve all salvageable historic elements. Bartolin told Council about 1% of the tiles in the lobby are original and they will be used somewhere in the hotel renovation. Varm suggested the applicants and the city come up with an acceptable list of what is going to be preserved. Councilwoman Richards said she would like a process that creates more surety but is not burdensome on the applicants. Councilwoman Richards said this could be the historic preservation officer reviewing the interior and a list of elements that will be preserved. Bartolin said he can compile a list documenting the preservation in the J Bar, the staircases, and the fireplaces. Bartolin reiterated there is not that much that is original in the hotel. Councilman Johnson said historic preservation standards exist. Councilman Johnson said interiors are not protected in Aspen; however, it was raised as an issue of public benefit as part of this PUD amendment. Councilman Johnson said for his support, there would need to be a condition of approval giving staff oversight on the interior renovations as well as identifying best practices within the historic community. Bartolin noted very few hotel developments are not residentially or fractionally driven. Varm said some language has been draft by the city's historic preservation officer. Varm said this language is too broad but they could accept "the applicant is required to submit a written inventory of all original features existing within those interior areas of the hotel Jerome that are customarily open to the public or the public is typically invited (the public rooms, not the guest rooms or back of house), this inventory must be accompanied by current photographs and copies of any photographs of interior of the hotel Jerome available from the Aspen Historical Society. The historic preservation officer will verify the completeness of the inventory. Any old elements can be documents as original will be added to the list." V ann said staff wanted the right to physical inspection every day; any discrepancies would be taken to HPC. Vann reminded Council the hotel will be closed in the spring and they are concerned about disagreements and the impact on their schedule. Varm suggested that there be an inventory and also the applicants state what they are willing to do to or with those items. The historic preservation officer will review this with an appeal to the city manager and then to Council. That document will be part of the PUD agreement and give the city assurance that the applicants will do what they say. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see some wording included about the Hotel Jerome being a signature historic building and will be treated as such. Varm said the intent of the inventory is to identify the items that have historic import and to identify what the applicant's proposal is for those items. Councilman Johnson said he has no problems with the courtyard, as long as the Jerome plans to continue community functions in the courtyard. Councilman Johnson stated he has no problems with the spa, 8 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 with the Cortina plan, with the employee-parking plan, or with the change in the garage. Council requested time to consider this amendment. ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2006 - Adoption of Civic Master Plan Ben Gagnon, community development department, reminded Council this process started in 1999. Gagnon said there were a lot ofthings going on in the civic core; the fire district was looking into relocating; the youth center was moving; the roof over the parking garage was leaking; the county government was looking for more space; Aspen Theatre was looking into a permanent facility; the parks department was working on a master plan for Rio Grande park; the city is looking into more space; the Art Museum was looking into relocation; ACRA was looking at a new location; Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District was considering master plarming its property. The community development department decided this should be looked at as a whole rather than address each project individually. Gagnon said a civic master plan advisory group was formed consisting of up to 25 members representing the fire district, the youth center, Pitkin County, Theatre Aspen, ACRA, the Wheeler, various art and non-profit groups, the Library and citizens at large. The first core principle the task force came up with was to abide by the Aspen Area Community Plan, which was approved in 2000. Other core values had to do with good plarming principles for downtown. Every section of the civic master plan addresses the guiding principles of the AACP. The first core principle adopted by the task force was "civic use belongs in the heart of town". Gagnon said when the task force looked at space needs for various community groups that was the core principle. Gagnon noted over the years, the city has taken on civic obligations beyond what is typical, like affordable housing, day care, trails, low cost space to non-profits, providing space for ACRA. These functions have been found to be important as core obligations of the city and the task force wants to make sure these functions continue to happen. Gagnon said the task force realized the city is in the midst of a moratorium and did not talk about actual building while Council is re-writing the rules on how development will happen. Gagnon stated this plan creates no entitlement but provides context for informed decision making in the future based on the goals of the AACP. Any code amendments will apply to all of these sites. The plan also talks about appropriate use of public land in the future and requires anyone who wants to build on public property to show they are consistent with the goal of the civic master plan. Gagnon outlined the existing uses on the property north of Main street in the civic master plan area. Gagnon pointed out one reason this space does not work well is that buildings are positioned with their backs to the space. The library has the ability to expand 40 feet to the east. A one-story building could be built on the north side ofthe hill towards the Rio Grande park. Gagnon said one theme in the task force was that available public meeting spaces do not rise to the level of business in Pitkin County. There is the chance to build a more modern meeting room with views. The task force looked at all the sites in the civic master plan and discussed what would be appropriate for each of these sites. 9 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council the task force was a very dedicated group that met for years on this. Bendon reminded Council the land use code was amended recently to determine whether documents should be regulatory or guiding. Bendon said a regulatory document is a tool to be used to evaluate development; it will not approve that development. Bendon said after adoption, any new proposal for the area will be evaluated according to the principles adopted in the civic master plan. All projects will need to go through a full plarming review and a full set of hearings, and this adopted master plan will be used to evaluate any proposals. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Jackie Kasabach, task force member, said the core principles in this plan are meant to be principles by which the city can evaluate anything in that area. The master plan does not state what goes where and should be looked at in context whether the principles make sense. Bert Myrin said his objection to this plan is regarding meeting hall space and the statement that the current meeting spaces do not reflect the importance of decisions being made. Myrin said people can make great decisions in any space. Junee Kirk urged Council urged Council not to adopt this as a regulatory document. Ms. Kirk noted the master plan refers to the former youth center as dead space and should be remodeled or used for offices. Ms. Kirk said this master plan has already decided this space is idle and not used. Ms. Kirk said this document is pro-development. Ms. Kirk told Council when her group wanted to use the youth center for dance lessons, they were told it was needed for office space and city staff did not want to spend money on that space. Kent Reed pointed out there are no indigenous performing arts groups as part of the task force, which is an omission. Reed said the statement that this is a failed space is erroneous. Reed said the space can be put to use, like the outdoor theatre during the summer. Reed said there are many uses for the former Youth Center rather than remodeling it into office space. Toni Kronberg said the master plan is a large document and Council should review each section separately. Ms. Kronberg asked if this master plan precludes recreation uses stated in the Rio Grande master plan. Mayor Klanderud noted there are things listed in the Rio Grande master plan that will not happen anymore, like the trolley barn or rail station. The civic master plan fills in other areas. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman DeVilbiss noted in the staff memorandum under role and authority of supplemental plans or documents, states "it has always been the intent ofthe Civic Master Plan Advisory Group to make the Civic Master plan a 'living' document that can be relied upon in the future to provide guidance". Councilman DeVilbiss said it seems a thin line between regulatory and guiding and to be a 'living' document implies a flexibility. Councilman DeVilbiss said it is worthy to emphasize Council is enacting a living document and not something set in concrete. 10 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Councilwoman Richards agreed this document adds flexibility through the core principles to allow for new ideas and to check with the compatibility of the plan. Councilwoman Richards requested modifying language relating to the plaza being a failed or dead space, more like a space not adequately used as it could be to give it potential. Councilwoman Richards said there needs to be more strongly worded that throughout the process it has been determined that there is a need for civic meeting space as well as progranuned meeting space for governments and civic space for rehearsals, dances, social meetings. Councilwoman Richards said she would like that emphasized in the master plan, not just meeting hall. Councilwoman Richards said the sidewalks improvements should not supersede other community sidewalk plans, like those in neighborhoods. Councilman Johnson said he thought Council decided not to pursue shared meeting space and that city meetings would be in city hall. Councilman Johnson commended staff and the task force. Councilman Johnson said this area will probably not be used for transportation and a new plan was needed. Councilman Johnson agreed it is difficult for community groups to find meeting places in town. Councilman Johnson stated this is not a document that enables development; there are many more steps to go through before any development approved. Councilman DeVilbiss said he thought the intention of 'meeting space' was not necessarily for government but for places to have community meetings. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would prefer if this were adopted as a guiding document. Bendon said staff felt by adopting this as a regulatory document, it will be a tool that can be used to evaluate development. Bendon noted the Rio Grande Master Plan is based on assumptions that have changed. The Rio Grande Master Plan is a guiding document. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #46, Series of 2006, on second reading adopting the Civic Master Plan as a regulatory document softening the wording as discussed; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre thanked the staff and citizens who spent 6 years working on this master plan. Councilman Torre stated he agrees with the core principles; however, over 6 years things have changed. Councilman Torre pointed out the ordinance refers to this as a development document and he does not support endorsing a development proposal. Gagnon said the phrase "development proposal" should not be in the ordinance and this should just state civic master plan and eliminate development proposal. Councilwoman Richards amended her motion to include striking "development proposal"; seconded by Councilman Johnson Councilman DeVilbiss said this should be adopted as a guiding document and that the core principles be adopted as the regulatory aspect. Councilwoman Richards said she does not understand how the regulatory principles can be regulatory; these principles are broad stroke points. Bendon said the master plan holds better as one document rather than taking the core principles out. Councilman DeVilbiss reiterated the core principles are the heart of the plan and that is what should be adopted. 11 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Mayor Klanderud thanked everyone who served on the task force. Mayor Klanderud said the process was exciting, ever-changing. Mayor Klanderud said the civic master plan provides direction. Mayor Klanderud stated she accepts this as a regulatory document rather than guiding. Gagnon told Council P&Z recommended two conditions; one is that like uses should be clustered with like uses whenever possible. This statement is consistent with the core principles. The second condition is that enhancement of existing conditions should be permitted, like being able to reconfigure the parking. Councilwoman Richards amended her motion to include those two conditions; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, no; Torre, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #42, SERIES OF 2006 - Hotel Jerome PUD Amendment Sunny Varm, representing the applicant, told Council he and the city attorney came up with a condition for the ordinance regarding the interior renovation. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #42, Series of2006, on second reading with the added condition; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. Councilwoman Richards noted she confirmed with the applicant that the fireplace facing the lobby, while not an original feature, will be preserved in this effort. Mayor Klanderud thanked the applicants for their willingness to agree to interior preservation and for hearing Council that the additional floor would not have enhanced the historic presence ofthe Jerome in the community. Councilman Torre said his concern for the landscaping is that it continue to welcome the public into the garden area. Gagnon noted there are changes in the ordinance. Section 2(b) should be removed as it refers to a height plan of the 4th floor, which is no longer part ofthe application. The allowable floor area has been refined to 114,934 square feet; commercial 15,985 square feet; hotel 59,214 square feet and 39,735 square feet of other. Section 10(3) the exact employee mitigation requirement is 1.42 employees and cash-in-lieu will be for the.42 employees. Mayor Klanderud brought up the requirement that developments will adhere to construction management mitigation in place at the time of building permit. Varm said that is agreeable. Councilman DeVilbiss read from the ordinance "All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity". 12 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Torre, yes; Johnson, yes; Richards, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #98, SERIES OF 2006 - Failed Motions and Tie Votes - Sky Hotel Chris Bendon, community development director, reminded Council one of the responsibilities of his position is to provide interpretations of the land use code, which is a formal process and an applicant can request the director provide formal written interpretation of the land use code. The appeal ofa director's code interpretation is to Council and the criteria are whether there was a denial of due process; whether there was an exceeding of jurisdiction; whether there was an abuse of discretion. Bendon told Council the Sky Hotel had a lengthy review at P&Z ending in a tie vote on a motion. Plarming and legal staff during the meeting advised a tie vote constitutes a failed motion and that a failed motion constitutes a denial. A resolution was prepared and was signed by the chair. Bendon told Council since then there has been a lot of discussions between the applicant, the city, the adjacent property owners about the action or whether an action actually occurred at the P&Z meeting. Bendon said staffrealized what was needed was a formal interpretation of the code and that all parties should be applicant to that interpretation. The applicants were David Myler, Sky Hotel; Jody Edwards, Chateau Dumont and Chaumont; and Tom Todd, Aspen Alps. Bendon said the interpretation states that a Board is required to act, and there are 3 actions provided in the land use code. Boards can either approve a project, approve a project with conditions or deny a project but they must take one ofthose 3 actions. The code also says the action is by motion and it requires a majority in favor of that motion. The code says a failed motion is not an action and a tie is effectively a failed motion and not an action. The interpretation says the Sky Hotel application is pending until an formal action is made. Bendon noted section of the land use code reviewed were "quorum and necessary vote" in the P&Z section; "quorum and necessary vote" for Board of Adjustment; "quorum and necessary vote" for HPC. All 3 ofthose sections are identical. The application for Sky Hotel was at P &Z but staff reviewed the other sections to see if there was other guidance. Other sections of the land use code reviewed were "Actions by decision-making bodies". Bendon told Council he looked at the City Charter, Section 4.7, Council procedure on voting; City Council rules and procedures adopted by resolution and Roberts Rules of Order. Bendon said staff looked at past minutes and former cases on how ties votes and failed motions have been treated, all of which were pertinent in this review. Bendon said staff recognized there is inconsistency in the way tie votes and failed motion have been treated in the past, which highlights the need for formal interpretation of the code. Bendon said staff feels the interpretation could potentially cure a procedural mishap in the Sky Hotel case and allow due process to be provided to all affected parties in the fairest marmer. Bendon reminded Council there is the potential for a pending case, and the merits of the Sky Hotel application should not be discussed. 13 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Bendon noted the packet contains two resolutions; one affirming the code interpretation and one reversing the code interpretation. Council is required to take action and the options are to affirm, to reverse, or to modify the interpretation. Councilman Johnson requested an explanation of procedural irregularity and to identifY the appellant. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council Jody Edwards is the appellant; he asked for a code interpretation and did not like the answer and is appealing that decision. Worcester reminded Council there are rules and regulations relating to procedures and the essence is whether the applicants have been treated fairly. The burden of proving this claim is on Edwards to show procedural irregularity. Jody Edwards, representing Chateau Chaumont and Chateau Dumont, gave Council a copy of Code section 26.210 which is the section creating the authority for the community development director to interpret the code. Edwards said regarding the issue failure to approve or tie vote being no action, the community development director acted within the scope of his jurisdiction. Edwards recommended Council approve the resolution affirming the community development director's action with a modification. Edwards pointed to the interpretation, "land use code requires quasi-judicial boards to act upon cases. Action at a minimum requires a majority in favor". Edwards stated that is within the scope of the community development director's powers. "Failed motions shall not be considered action", Edwards agreed. "Tie vote on a motion shall be considered a failed motion", this is within the jurisdiction of the community development director to make that conclusion. "Land use cases shall remain pending until acted upon", Edwards stated that was beyond the scope of the appeal filed but he does not object. "The Sky Hotel redevelopment application shall be considered pending until the P&Z takes action on the application". Edwards says he objects to that statement because Resolution #36, Series of2005, states the P&Z denies the Sky Hotel. The P&Z Chair and the Assistant City Attorney and Deputy City Clerk signed this resolution. This is a valid resolution of denial and was not reconsidered at that or a subsequent P&Z meeting. Edwards pointed to Code section 26.210, 20(b), which has 18 subparagraphs listing jurisdictions, authority and duties. Edwards noted nowhere in those jurisdictions does it grant the community development director the power to repeal or revoke an live, signed resolution. That would be in excess of one's authority. Edwards noted in the community development director's memorandum, he asserts that resolution was a mistake. Edwards said that is not true; the resolution was signed after consultation with the city attorney's office. Edwards noted there is another resolution in Council's packet, which failed because of a failed motion to approve. The community development director did not suggest that resolution be repealed. Edwards suggested Council adopt the resolution affirming the interpretation and in the "Now, therefore be it resolved" clause state "that the city council affirm community development director's interpretation of the land use code regarding failed motions and tie votes except for the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading 'interpretation' contained in the land use code interpretation issued by the community development director effective October 13, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto". 14 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 Edwards reiterated the clause would be saying Council reaffirms what the community development director did except for particular instance. Councilwoman Richards said she does not see the connection between the resolution and the memorandum. Mayor Klanderud asked if this means a tie vote is a failed motion and therefore the P&Z has failed to act, then the applicant has an opportunity to return to P&Z for action. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council an appeal was filed in the Sky case within the appropriate time frame. The P&Z resolution approving the denial is dated January 31, 2006, and Dave Myler filed an appeal February 10, 2006, which was within the time frame. Dave Myler, representing the Aspen Club Lodge Properties, said Edwards seems to be saying the pi arming director has the authority to interpret the code but not to apply that interpretation. Myler said that is not what the law provides and it is not sensible. Myler stated he supports the interpretation of community development director. The language of the code that comes into play is clear, it is that P&Z carmot take action without a majority vote authorizing that action and a denial is an action as is an approval. P&Z took no action when it voted on January 31,2006, on a motion to approve the project and a tie vote. Staff advised the tie vote constitutes a denial with no reasons expressed. The resolution signed by the chair ofP&Z was also signed by the city attorney's office that at the time interpreted the provisions to state that a tie vote on a motion to approve constitutes denial. The resolution was prepared after the fact and there was no motion to adopt the resolution and no vote on the resolution. Myler said he asked the question, after reviewing the code provision, how this could constitute action. There were not 3 P&Z members who agreed with the reasons for denial stated in the resolution. Myler said after discussions with staff, Bendon concluded the P&Z could not have acted on January 31, 2006, so the application is still pending. Myler stated he agrees with that conclusion and the community development director has that authority under the provisions cited by Edwards, to render interpretations and if one carmot also apply them is meaningless. Myler said it is appropriate for staff to go back and correct mistakes when they are discovered. Myler said the decision by the community development director has afforded all parties with adequate notice and due process. Bendon did not exceed his jurisdiction and based on the authority cited in support of this interpretation, he did not abuse his discretion. Myler said Council should encourage staff, applicant, or citizens in the process to raise questions as to whether the code is being properly interpreted. Myler pointed out the applicants did file an appeal and did that on the assumption there had been a denial. Myler said the applicants have been prepared to present their case to Council as to why P&Z acted arbitrarily and caprious1y. Myler said the record shows the application was denied for no reasons because there was never a resolution of denial with findings and reasons approved by a majority ofP&Z. That is an abuse of discretion per se. Myler told Council he thought the city should focus on the tie vote issue; get an interpretation and decide whether there had been a denial or not rather than processing an appeal that is only relevant if there was a denial. Myler said staff has come up with a sensible rule for 15 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 dealing with tie votes in the future. This rule avoids anomalies and avoids a situation where there is a denial for no reason. Myler reiterated the application is still pending; there is a live appeal. There is no prejudice to anyone to send this matter back to P&Z. Myler said if the reasons for the rules and regulations are to assure a fair process where everyone has the opportunity to participate resulting in an action approved by a majority vote, no one is prejudiced because that is what will happen. Myler stated either approval or denial will require 3 votes. The integrity of the process is upheld with Bendon's interpretation. Myler stated he does not agree this interpretation should not be applied to the Sky Hotel case. Edwards reiterated there is a P&Z resolution that has been signed and the general public has the right to rely on actions of the various boards of the city. Edwards noted the appeal of the Sky Hotel has not been completed and actions have been taken that indicate an attempt to waive the appeal. Edwards stated it is beyond the jurisdiction of the community development director to repeal a live, existing, signed resolution. Councilwoman Richards noted in general resolutions of approval are presented to Council, not resolutions of denial. Councilwoman Richards recollected where there has been a tie vote, these were considered a failure because of a lack of majority approval. Councilwoman Richards said Council is asked to make their motions in the affirmative and it would be unusual for P&Z to have resolutions of denial to consider. Councilwoman Richards said in her experience, she has not seen an application with a tie vote that was not treated as a no vote. Councilwoman Richards said her issue is whether the community development director was offering an interpretation or setting policy. Councilwoman Richards said it is difficult to take a resolution signed by P&Z Chair and staff and state it is invalid. Worcester reminded Council there is an appeal pending to that resolution. Worcester noted the appellant has conceded a tie vote is a failed motion and is not an action. Worcester agreed Council has always been told that a tie vote is a failed motion. Worcester stated he cannot recall where there has been a tie vote and Council has not allowed the applicant to come back with an amended application. Worcester said it is true a tie vote is a failed motion. Worcester pointed out under the Charter, any ordinance requires an affirmative vote of 3 Councilmembers. P&Z is required, under the land use code, to take an action. Councilwoman Richards said it seems the Sky Hotel should have proceeded to Council with a resolution to deny stating a 3 to 3 tie vote. Bendon told Council there were 5 different reviews and 4 of the actions ended at P&Z and would not have been forwarded to Council. Worcester stated it is proper for the community development director to make a code interpretation under the existing code. Worcester said this is not an issue of new policy; it is appeal of a code interpretation. The community development director exercised his authority to interpret the code and the party adversely affected by that interpretation can appeal to Council. Bendon told Council using past actions regarding tie votes lent little guidance. Bendon used the Code and the Charter to help interpret the code. Bendon told Council from time to time he has been asked to give formal interpretation, generally when an applicant does not like the 16 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11,2006 answer. The community development director is also called upon to interpret the zoning map, which is also appealable to Council. The theory in having the community development director interpret the law is that they should try and interpret the laws they deal with on a daily basis. Myler stated the city has had a policy that is in conflict with the language of the code and it has not been brought to anyone's attention. Myler noted the code states, "all actions shall require the concurring vote of a majority but in no event less than three", there cannot be a denial by a tie vote; it is not possible. The only disagreement here is whether this interpretation should be applied to the Sky Hotel or not. Edwards would prefer it not be and the issue be brought before Council in the context of the Sky Hotel's pending appeal. Myler stated the Council should determine if the interpretation is correct and apply it to this application. Councilman DeVilbiss asked if the opinion of the community development director would render the signed P&Z resolution ofJanuary 31,2006, null and void. Worcester stated the resolution was entered into and also there is a pending appeal to that resolution. Worcester said the logical consequence of reaffirming the community development director's interpretation is to render the appeal moot. Councilman DeVilbiss said he feels Council should be hearing the appeal on the denial. Mayor Klanderud said this appeal is on the correctness of Bendon's interpretation. Worcester asked Myler ifhis appeal on the Sky Hotel would be the same issues. Myler said it would be the fact that the tie vote denial was without expressions of reasons. The expressions of reasons in the resolution were without a vote by P&Z. Edwards said there are two different appeals; one is that filed by Myler on the tie vote and the second appeal is on what the code means. Edwards stated the appeals filed on February 10, 2006, acknowledges a tie vote was a denial and appealed on other grounds. Two months later there is a letter from Myler requesting staff reconsider the tie vote issue. Edwards pointed out the second appeal was not filed within the requisite 14 days. At this meeting Council is looking at staffs interpretation of the code. Edwards reiterated it is beyond the authority of the community development director to render null and void a resolution. There is an appeal pending on that resolution. Councilman DeVilbiss said he would accept the interpretation and add the sentence offered by Edwards. Councilman Johnson said he distills the issues as whether or not a tie vote is a failed motion and whether a failed motion is an action. Councilman Johnson said it seems it has been the practice of the city to say tie votes are not failed motions but are denials and a failed motion is an action. Councilman Johnson said his conclusion was that this is a policy question and should have come to Council through the city attorney. Councilman Johnson said he could not determine that it was Bendon's charge to interpret voting from the land use code. Bendon said when there was a motion and a 3 to 3 vote, staff and legal staff advised that a tie vote was a failed motion and a failed motion was a denial. Bendon said that was shooting from the hip and bad advice. Under the thought that everyone deserves a full hearing, stllff is trying to correct that error. Bendon said 17 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 with more time or thought, staff might have advised the P&Z to have the applicant change a condition or to do something to move the application forward. Councilwoman Richards said this feels more like policy making to her than an interpretation and taking the outcome of policy making and projecting it backwards a year. Councilwoman Richards said at that time, all parties walked out of the meeting feeling as if a decision had been made by a process that decisions in the past had been made. The Board did not try another motion at that time. This seems as if Council is being asked to rewrite the outcome of a meeting that was not successful. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to approve a City Council resolution affirming the interpretation of the land use code regarding failed motions and tie votes with the addition of the sentence or clause in the paragraph that begins NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the community development director's interpretation of the land use code regarding failed motions and tie votes except for the last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading "interpretation" contained in the land use code interpretation issued by the community development director with an effective date of October 13, 2006. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the resolution reversing the interpretation of the community development director. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman DeVilbiss stated there is no basis to reverse Bendon's direction. Mayor Klanderud moved to approve the resolution affirming the interpretation of the land use code regarding failed motions and tie votes without the clause suggested by Edwards; seconded by Councilman Torre. Mayor Klanderud stated her conclusion is that there is no action; therefore, there is no denial. This would allow the Sky Hotel to move forward and allow citizens and adjacent property owners to have a voice in that action. This provides due process. Councilman Torre stated he does not feel Bendon abused his discretion in making his determination. Councilwoman Richards said approving this motion would define how Council and P&Z will treat tie votes in the future. Councilwoman Richards said she supports the concept of letting the appeal of the resolution go forward but she carmot support upholding the code interpretation. Mayor Klanderud in favor; Councilmembers Richards, DeVilbiss, Johnson and Torre opposed. Motion NOT carried. Myler commented that the city, when they adopted the code, chose to treat a tie vote as no action because the land use code states a majority vote is required to take action. A denial is as much an action as an approval. Myler said the code provision trumps the case law that goes either way. Councilman Johnson said there is a difference between the way the city's general practice and the land use code. Bendon told Council there are 3 sections of the land use code, P&Z, BOA and HPC, all have the sentence, "All actions 18 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 shall require a concurring vote of a simple majority". The code also states, "All decision making bodies shall act in accord with the time limits established in this title". Bendon said the last sentence says when the city gets an application, they have to act upon it and the code describes the way in which to act; approve, approve with conditions or deny. Bendon said a tie is not a simple majority. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the resolution reversing the planning director's code interpretation; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilmembers Richards, Johnson and Mayor Klanderud in favor; Councilmembers DeVilbiss and Torre opposed. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11: 15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #102, SERIES OF 2006 - Contract to Purchase 312 West Hyman Bentley Henderson, assistant city manager, reminded Council last month they discussed the purchase of this property to further the affordable housing program. Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted this is a 6,000 square foot parcel zoned R-6, which contains an existing chalet style house. Staff has looked at retaining the 2 two- bedrooms units within the chalet and building a carriage-style building on the back ofthe property with two units for a total of 4 units. Ms. Guthrie said there may be unused FAR and Council could consider selling TDRs or selling one or two ofthe units as free market units. Henderson said approval ofthis resolution would give staff 30 days due diligence and 60 days before closing to firm up any of the approaches for developing this property. Henderson told Council there is no timeline for development. Mayor Klanderud pointed out there is a $1 million subsidy/unit or $436,000/bedroom to develop 4 affordable units on this parcel. That would be the highest subsidy in the affordable housing program. Mayor Klanderud said Council has indicated they are reluctant to use the TDR program on historic properties; however, this would bring the price down and she would not object looking at that possibility. Councilman DeVilbiss said he feels the historic aspect of this property has a value, which justifies this price. Councilman DeVilbiss acknowledged there is property that could be purchased for affordable housing at much less cost. Steve Barwick, city manager, said there are condominiumized units in the $700,000 range that could be purchased for affordable housing. Councilman DeVilbiss said this is a high price to pay for affordable housing and the city should do what they can to recoup some of those costs. Councilwoman Richards said it is important for the city to quickly clear up its intent regarding historic designation of post WWII structures. The action of purchasing this for affordable housing is separate from interest in historic designation. Councilwoman Richards agreed this is an expensive purchase; however, the future of affordable housing in Aspen will be expensive. Councilwoman Richards pointed out purchasing property 30 19 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11, 2006 miles away for less cost would defeat the purpose of the affordable housing program, to rebuild a sense of community and liveliness within the city. Councilwoman Richards said she, too, would like to look at ways to reduce the subsidy. Councilman Johnson said he likes that two goals, affordable housing and historic preservation, are being furthered in this purchase. Councilman Johnson said this is being inventive in furthering the goals of the AACP relative to infill and to affordable housing. Councilman Johnson said he does not have a problem using TDRs. Councilwoman Richards moved to approve Resolution #102, Series of 2006; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Councilman Torre said this would be mixing the two goals of historic preservation and affordable housing. Councilman Torre stated he does not support purchasing this property. Councilman Torre said he does not support using the TDRs. Mayor Klanderud said the process by which this got to Council is unsettling. Councilmembers Johnson, DeVilbiss and Richards in favor; Councilman Torre and Mayor Klanderud opposed. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #51, SERIES OF 2006 - Six Month Moratorium in CC Zone Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #51, Series of 2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 51 (SERIES OF 2006) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS REGULATED BY SECTION 105 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE FOR ANY PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL CORE ("CC") DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; AND, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilman DeVilbiss moved to adopt Ordinance #51, Series of2006, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Johnson. Mayor Klanderud stated she will not support this ordinance because there is not an emergency and the short and long term impacts will render serious results. Mayor Klanderud pointed out Council just approved an application for the Hotel Jerome and this ordinance could have impacts on that approval. Councilwoman Richards asked for impacts on the Hotel Jerome for second reading. Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council if this ordinance passes, the Hotel Jerome would be unable to apply for a building permit. Bendon pointed out a list of exemptions included in the ordinance and Council may add one to exempt the Hotel Jerome. 20 Rel!:ular Meetinl!: Aspen City Council December 11,2006 Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 :30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. Steve Barwick, city manager, suggested Council consider an exemption for businesses that are moving within the CC as the same business. Councilman Johnson noted during Council discussions on land use code amendments, they have been attempting to create a code that would support and enhance community character. Councilman Johnson stated this ordinance will give Council time to find tools to accomplish those ends to maintain the character and the city institutions, while retaining the best of the past to grow in an orderly and thoughtful way. Councilman Johnson stated this is not a contrived emergency; it exists and the city does not have the tools to protect the town's character. Council and the citizens have not had meaningful dialogue on what they want Aspen to be. Councilman Johnson said this ordinance will protect what the city holds valuable while Council looks at proposed solutions. Councilman Johnson stated when the law does not advance the interest of the public, the law should be changed. Councilman DeVilbiss stated this will enable a reasoned discussion about amendments to the land use code to accomplish what Council wants without creating a rush of building permits. Councilman DeVilbiss agreed the city has not manufactured the emergency. Councilman Torre said he supports this action as he feels the city is under siege and he wants to protect the community. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Mayor Klanderud said she feels this is an extreme action, which assumes that reasoned discussion could not take place without a moratorium Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnson, yes; DeVilbiss, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mayor Klanderud, no. Motion carried. Council will consider second reading of this ordinance at 5 p.m., Tuesday, December 12, 2006. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 11 :25 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Torre. All in favor, motion carried. 21