Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19940627Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, Richards, Waggaman and Reno present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Ralph Melville, Mountain Chalet, told Council the pa rking in front of the Mountain Chalet was changed to no overnight parking. Melville said he was told this was for the winter only for snow removal. Melville said he would like the overnight parking restored for the summer for the convenience of his guests. The parking department will review this and report back. 2. Ralph Melville, Mountain Chalet, said there was a party by the gondola saturday night. He called the police department and was told a permit was issued by the environmental health department. Tom Dunlop, environmental health department, told Council he cannot find a permit issued by his department or by the special event committee. Dunlop said his department does not issue a noise permit for beyond 9:30 p.m. Keith Ikeda, police department, said his officers have the power to revoke a special event permit if there is excessive noise. Ikeda said he will make sure the supervisors know this. Dunlop said he will report back to Council. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Paulson said he has received a number of calls from citizens concerned about the tree cutting on Independence Pass at Weller and Lost Man campgrounds. Councilman Paulson said the forest service is doing this because the trees are getting bigger and more room is needed to allow access to the campground parking lots by RVs and campers. Councilman Paulson said he feels this is an example of government gone awry. 2. Councilman Reno said he is putting together a slide presenta- tion on house sizes to show there are issues other than size of a structure. Councilman Reno said he will schedule this for HPC and P & Z and encouraged Councilmembers to attend. Amy Margerum, city manager, noted the planning office put together a slide show for this issue in the county and suggested they be contacted. Ms. Margerum said there is a work session scheduled for July 5th to discuss floor area ratios. 3. Amy Margerum, city manager, announced at the recent Colorado Municipal League conference the city received an innovative program award for the child care program. 4. Amy Margerum, city manager, thanked the police department and Barbara Umbreit for the quick response to the emergency situation with the phone lines at the Kraut property. This was outside the 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 city's control and staff made sure people were covered with emergency services. 5. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council the Commissioners are making their final decision about the intercept lot tomorrow night. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Reno moved to adopt the consent agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. The consent agenda is: A . Resolution #52, 1994 - Mayor's Deed Maple B . Resolution #53, 1994 - Defend and Indemnify Municipal Employees C . Resolution #54, 1994 - Authorizing Settlement of Centennial Lawsuit D . Resolution #55, 1994 - Hydrant Replacement Program Bid Award E . Resolution #56, 1994 - Notice of Award - Water Engineer- ing Services All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1994 - Residential Permit Parking Program Randy Ready, transportation director, told Council since the beginning, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the Implementa tion Plan have seen residential permit parking as a means of compliment- ing the paid parking in the core area. If the disincentive of paid parking is to really work, parking control in downtown must go hand in hand with parking control in residential neighborhoods. Ready said the purpose is to make the streets more livable, more pedestrian oriented, safer and reduce the number of vehicles that currently park in the residen tial areas. This ordinance is not specific in terms of boundaries and fees. These are to be handled through administrative policies, which will be presented to Council later in the summer. Ready said the addition of "business vehicle" permit has been added to cover business vehicles located in core businesses. This ordinance authorizes business delivery vehicles to park in residential neighborhoods when not in use as delivery vehicles. The ordinance gives a mechanism to limit the number of non-resident owned vehicles parked long term in residential neighbors. Ready told Council permit parking programs have been tried successfully in other communities. Ready said this proposed program is a time limit exemption program which allows up to 2 hours of unrestricted parking for any vehicle. There are also 6 types of permits; resident, resident-guest; lodge-guest; HOV and car pool; all day 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 passes costing $5 per day; business vehicle permits. Ready told Council marked service and delivery vehicles will not have to acquire permits. The proposed boundaries need to take care of the spill over effects from the core but should not be so complicated as to take excessive staff time. There are 3 zones proposed; zone A which is west and north of Main extends to 5th on the west and Francis on the north. Zones B and C have the mountain to the south and the river to the east. Ready showed Council a chart of the types of permits. The resident permits will be issued annually and will be free the first year. Residents will need to give some proof of residency. There is a resident/guest permit for guests staying over 2 hours, will be issued to the resident for their guests and will have the same number as the resident's tag. The lodge/guest permits are disposable, good for up to 7 days for $1 and only for lodge guests. These permits will be sold to the lodges in bulk. There are HOV permits for vehicles with 3 or more persons and will be issued at the parking garage or intercept lot. Ready said there will also be a day pass as there is not enough off-street parking to accommodate all the vehicles coming into town. The permit is valid on a certain date for $5/day There is also a permit for commercial core delivery vehicles. Lisa McMonigle, transportation department, summarized the comments from the public meetings on the parking permit program. Residents on the east end beyond the boundary expressed concerns that there will be spill over into their neighborhoods; also the east end lacks the options of an intercept lot and good bus service. West end residents feel the boundaries should include the entire west end. Lisa said there were concerns about people needing their car for business, for meetings and not being able to afford to pay for permits everyday. Lisa said another suggestion is that business vehicles have the business license visible in the vehicle. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Chuck Hall, west end resident, said the west and north boundary is artificial and cuts right across the community. Hall said this should follow the historic district boundary rather than splitting the west end. John Gates, east end, said he does not feel the 2 hour program will not work as the 90 minute parking does not work; people just come and move their cars. Kirk Scales, Francis between Fifth and Sixth, said this area is local residents with no garages. Jackie Kasabach, east end, said the biggest flaw of the plan is that it concentrates on the down valley commuter. The plan cannot be put into effect in the east end; there is no bus service beyond Mountain Valley and no intercept lot. 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Ann Ibbotson said she favors expanding this to all neighborhoods. The boundaries seem to be arbitrary. Ms. Ibbotson said she would prefer permit parking only and eliminate the timed-parking. This may be easier to enforce. Marie, Original and Hopkins, said they will need a space for tradespeople. Marie applauded Council for trying to do something with the residential parking problems. Marcia Corbin, west end, said outside zone A and the M.A.A. parking lot will have to be monitored for spill over problems. Anne Murchison, Fifth Avenue condominiums, said residents should not have to pay anything for their parking permits. Ms. Murchison suggested residential parking permits be extended to the entire town. Roy said this proposal is a government out of control, bureaucracy growing exponentially. Roy said government mandates do not cure things. David Ellis, zone A, said he would like to see an inclusion of residential non-profit guest permits. Staff said they would include this in the ordinance. Shelly Harper, TIC member, said the committee envisioned the core as the most expensive parking; the prices would slide as one gets out of the core. Ms. Harper said TIC is concerned the parking garage will be filled early in the a.m. and there will be no place for people who need a place for 2 to 3 hours. Molly Campbell, TIC, said this was a very difficult process. The Committee listened to a lot of residents, business owners and consultants. Ms. Campbell said this plan is part of a whole; there are to be several intercept lots, east/west shuttles. Ms. Campbell said everyone will have to learn to make a life style change regarding their vehicles. Dale Paas, Limelight Lodge, urged Council to keep the plan as flexible as possible for the first year and also to give staff leeway to make changes in the program. George Vicenzi said he feels there are ways to cheat on this system. The city needs to be ready to respond to these. Helen Klanderud said this plan seems to expanding the problem by moving it out of town rather than solving the problem. Jan Collins said this is creating an intercept parking lot in the west end. Councilwoman Richards said the boundaries of this plan should be able to be changed rapidly. It would cost too much to have the entire town restricted and there would not be any money left over for shuttles. Councilwoman Richards said the city cannot design a system that will catch everybody at first. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Randy Ready, parking director, agreed this plan should be flexible with prompt responses. Ready reminded Council the larger the parking district, the more administrative and enforcement personnel 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 that will be required. Ready told Council staff is working on programs that will help with residents on the east side of town including east/west shuttle, dial-a-ride, increasing bus service. George Krazoff, consultant, told Council staff surveyed over 40 communi ties that have residential parking permit programs. Krazoff said these permit parking programs do work and are supported by the residents. Krazoff urged Council to keep the program as simple as possible; the present complexity is caused by mixed residential, lodging and business uses. Krazoff agreed the biggest problem right now is the traffic from the east side of town. Councilman Reno said he does not see that this program is tied to any incentives. Mayor Bennett asked about a kiosk on the east end to enable people to pick up parking permits. Ready said staff is trying to find a location. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed the price of parking in the garage and the price of parking in the neighbor- hoods has to be looked at. Councilwoman Waggaman said the residential permit should be a minimal price; if people have more than one car it should be a higher permit fee. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would prefer not to move the boundaries until there is experience with the permit system. Mayor Bennett said he would like to see business permits offered in several month increments. Mayor Bennett said the neighborhoods east of town have to have some alternative service, shared rides, dial-a-ride, something. Mayor Bennett said the boundaries can be changed with a 10-day notice and a public hearing. Mayor Bennett said he feels a $3 neighborhood pass makes sense; however, he can live with $5. Mayor Bennett said this is one step in a larger program. Councilman Paulson said he feels this program should cover the entire city limits. It will eventually and this should start out that way. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1994, as amended on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Ready reminded everyone that the residential parking program will not become effective until the intercept lots are functioning. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1994 - Collection of Delinquent City Charges Dave Bellack, assistant city attorney, told Council this is based on state statutes and allows the city clerk to prepare and sign a one page complaint to make liens for unpaid city charges. This only relates to items with a nexus to real property. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of 1994, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1994 - Smuggler Superfund Site Institu- tional Controls Councilwoman Waggaman moved to table Ordinance #25, Series of 1994, to July 11; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1994 - Aspen Institute Vested Rights Extension (Meadows SPA) Councilman Reno moved to read Ordinance #31, Series of 1994; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #31 (Series of 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, EXTENDING THE VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THREE YEARS FOR THE ASPEN INSTITUTE AT LOT 1-A OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION was read by the city clerk Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council staff would like two conditions attached to this request. The applicant would like to extend their vested rights for 3 years for the last remaining 12 unit lodge building. Ms. Johnson told Council all the rest of the items in the 1991 SPA have been substantially completed. Ms. Johnson said staff requests two easements on lot 1A; (1) a revised trail alignment and (2) a storm water retention easement in the race track oval. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, stated the Aspen Instituted continues to oppose both of these requests. These were requested in the initial SPA approval. Council determined not to require the storm retention pond or the trail easement at that time. Councilman Reno said he would like the history of these requests before second reading. Sara Garton, P & Z member, said the Board felt the storm retention pond was an unfair exaction in a vested rights request. Councilman Reno agreed it seems to be unfair to change the philosophy from the previous approval just for a vested rights extension. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Charlie Marqusee said the neighborhood was strongly opposed to the retention pond at the original approval. Council voted not to require this pond and to leave the race track as open space. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1994, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Reno. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING LACET SUBDIVISION CLARIFICATION John Worcester, city attorney, requested clarification of a PUD approval. The issue is whether or not the plat is clear with respect to what can be built in a 25 foot area between the property boundary and the building envelope. Worcester told Council the record is ambiguous as to what was reviewed. The record discusses "setbacks" which is defined in the code and "buffer" which is not defined. Worcester said the applicant made representations and the adjacent property owners understood "buffer" to mean a wild, pristine area that would not be encroached upon. Staff heard "setback" and assumed this meant what is defined in the code. There are things that legitimately can be built in a setback. The neighbors have concerns about what is built in the area now. Staff is asking Council to clarify what they meant when they approved the plat with a 25 foot area. This area would have a 10 foot setback and for this subdivision it was expanded to 25 feet. Worcester told Council lots have been purchased with the notice of a 25 foot area, which is ambiguous. Staff showed a video of the Council meeting of the original PUD hearing process. Councilman Reno said a "buffer" is something in between and a "setback" defines where one can build. Councilman Reno recollected a buffer was to be an actual green space in between what would be built and the existing properties. Mayor Bennett agreed and said the phrase used on the video tape was "deed restricted open space". Councilwoman Waggaman said she heard this was to be more restric- tive than setbacks. The applicant also said "no building can happen in there". Councilwoman Waggaman said building means wall or anything else. Ms. Johnson said one house is being built. It originally had a sub-grade walkout patio to exit a basement. That exceeded even the definition of setback. The developer has agreed to reduce this to what is minimally allowed for egress. This will meet the defini- tion of setback but does not meet the spirit of "buffer". Lennie Oates, adjacent property owners, said everyone was clear with the concept that this would be an area that would not be built on. 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Ms. Johnson said staff feels if this was to be a wildlife area, this would have been made more of an issue at the time of approval because it is different from standard subdivision approvals. In this case, lots were be platted and a conservation "no man's land" was not discussed. Mayor Bennett said the confusion comes when the staff is familiar with the terms and Council is not. Councilwoman Waggaman said there has been a precedent of "creeping construction" and city codes are being interpreted in a more generous sense. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would prefer this be interpreted more strictly. Council woman Richards said she felt t his area would be used as one's yard not for any development. David Muckinhirn, developer of lot 1, said he came across no language which would lead him to understand that these lots were restricted in any way other than any other subdivision. Muckinhirn said 5 out of 7 lots have changed hands and the purchasers of these lots probably do not understand there are any extraordinary restrictions on these lots. John McCormick, lot owner, sent a letter saying variations from regular setbacks in the Lacet subdivision would cause a harsh and undue burden on the homeowners in this area. Worcester said property owners have purchased these properties subject to PUD approvals which included a provision that they are subject to all material representations made by the applicant. Worcester said showing the videotape, the initial intent was a 25 foot buffer as the neighbors understand it. Worcester said it is also incumbent upon the city to clarify this and record it so that any potential purchasers will get notice of this. Pete Stone read a letter from Gerta Walls, 610 Fred Lane, support- ing no building in the 25 foot buffer. Peter Stone said he recalls very clear words about the buffer zone. Stone said the adjacent property owners need this buffer for privacy. Mayor Bennett said nothing that has not already been built can be built in this buffer zone. What is already there, as long as it is legal in a "setback", can remain. Glendenning said originally there was a 10 foot setback on two sides of the property. This was moved back an additional 15 feet. Glendenning said a patio or an eave might be important to a purchaser of one of these lots. Worcester suggested drafting a resolution which will be recorded to inform future purchasers of this buffer. Councilwoman Richards moved to direct staff to prepare a definition of the allowed uses or non-uses within the 25 foot buffer zone of the PUD of the Lacet subdivision for the next Council meeting, based on the minutes of this meeting; seconded by Councilman Reno. 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 All in favor, motion carried. WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Phil Overeynder, water department director, told Council this is in response to the water audit done in April. The water audit program was three parts; (1) a comprehensive leak survey of 55 miles of city water distribution system; (2) an evaluation of the metering program to check the accuracy of the metering, and (3) a review of customer service records to see if the city is getting a complete metering. Overeynder said the audit found in excess of 65 leaks which may constitute up to 19 million gallons per month being lost. Normal usage is 3.8 million gallons per day; June usage was 8 million gallons which would have been in excess of capacity of the old west plant. There are also a significant number of leaks in service lines. Overeynder said there are 2800 meters installed. The intent was to pull out and reinstall about 250 meters. The labor would be $9100. A significant number of these meters should be replaced rather than reinstalled and the recommendation is to replace them now rather than go through the ordinary asset replacement program. It will also be less inconvenient to the property owner. Overeynder requested $50,000 for the water meter replacement program for 1994. Overeynder said in order to address the 65 leaks, staff has a list of 7 leaks that are believed to be significant and early action should be taken. Overeynder requested $20,000 for preliminary engineering on this work. Overeynder told Council money is available for these requests from fund balance without changing the rate structure. Councilwoman Richards moved to approved $50,000 for water meter replacement program and $20,000 for engineering services from water fund balance; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR FUNDS HOUSING OFFICE - Juan Street & East Hopkins Tom Baker, housing department director, said on Juan street there is a guaranteed maximum price/design build approach. On East Hopkins, a low bid has been received and there are preliminary budget figures. Baker said the intent is to have these projects out of the ground to the point where there will not be unexpected costs. Staff can then come to Council to set the price of the units and the subsidy. The East Hopkins units are $180,000 per unit for the 4 three-bedroom units. Juan street is anticipated at $175,000 for three-bedroom duplex unit, $190,000 for free standing 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 single family unit and $150,000 for the free standing two-bedroom historically renovated unit. Baker requested funds for Juan street not to exceed $159,000 and for East Hopkins not to exceed $171,000. Baker said staff figures the subsidy for Juan street at $63,000 per bedroom and East Hopkins at $77,000 per bedroom. Councilwoman Richards asked if value engineering has been done with the architects on both of these projects. Baker said it has been done; it was most effective on Juan street. Councilwoman Richards moved to appropriate $159,000 from the housing day care fund for the Juan street affordable housing project; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Councilman Reno abstained due to a conflict of interest. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to appropriate $171,000 from the housing day care fund for the East Hopkins affordable housing project; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #51, SERIES OF 1994 - Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement to Purchase the Denver Rio Grande ROW John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council they have seen this IGA before. Worcester noted he raised two issues previously; one is the city's voting power is similar to that of Basalt's even though Aspen's contribution is 23 percent and Basalt's contribution is 2 percent. The other issue is whether the half cent sales tax can be used or not. Amy Margerum, city manager, said one reason Aspen's percentage was larger was that Aspen/Pitkin County have passed a use tax and were willing to spend that money for this purpose. Ms. Margerum noted an important issue to Garfield County was that the Rio Grande right-of-way be used as a transportation corridor all the way into Aspen and not cross over to the highway. Reid Haughey, county manager, told Council their comments have been considered by the Roaring Fork Forum. Aspen asserted the voting should be proportionally based on the financial contribu tion. Haughey said other communities felt if it were structured that way Aspen, Snowmass or Pitkin County, any two could be a majority. Haughey said the Forum felt a compromise was to require a 2/3 majority in order to pass any motion. 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 Haughey said this IGA provides for negotiations of purchase of the Rio Grande right-of-way, provides for proceeding with a master plan, and authorizes a purchase for separate acquisition up to $2.9 million. The Forum codified what could be agreed upon. There is not an agreement to purchase the right-of-way without agreement from each individual jurisdiction. There is also additional protection of adoption of the master plan. Haughey said Garfield county is very concerned about participating in this if the right-of-way is used only for a trail and also that it not reach all the way into Aspen. Garfield County is interested in mass transit purposes for commuters. This agreement authorizes negotiation and for staff to come back if the price is less $2.9 million. Haughey said the price is limited by the funds raised by the use tax and by the energy impact grant of $500,000 that Garfield County received. If you take the proportional share of Garfield county, it arrives at $2.9 million worth of purchasing power for everyone. Mayor Bennett pointed out the upper valley would have a 56 percent vote if this were done by proportion of funding shares; 56 percent is not controlling interest. This agreement is giving the down valley controlling votes. Haughey said he does not see the upper valley/lower valley as being distinct voting blocks. Mayor Bennett said he has difficulty ceding control of an internal Aspen transpor tation to anyone else. Mayor Bennett said if the 8 miles of right-of-way is in Aspen and the terminus is within the city, this might be at total odds to the transportation system Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County are working hard and spending a lot of money on. Haughey said a master plan will have to be adopted, there is a real feasibility study being done, as well as the Aspen to Snowmass transportation project. Haughey said if Aspen does not want to use the right-of-way, the agreement would fall apart. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Reno. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards asked if the master plan has to be adopted unanimously. If not, there could be a master plan with Aspen left out. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about putting in a large share of the funds and not having any control over what happens in Aspen. Ms. Margerum pointed out the last 8 miles of Rio Grande right-of-way are not part of this agreement. Ms. Margerum suggested this portion of property could be included in the master planning process. Mayor Bennett asked why the city's concerns were 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 not addressed by the other entities. Haughey said this agreement is the product of 9 months work and negotiations. Councilman Reno moved to direct John Worcester, city attorney, to be in contact with the other parties in the agreement to pass on Council's concerns; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Mayor Bennett said this agreement does not talk about what happens to the funds if this agreement is terminated. Mayor Bennett said those who put in the funds should get their funds back. Councilman Paulson said he want to buy the Denver Rio Grande right-of-way and hopes this will not kill the purchase. Councilwoman Richards said at the last Decision Makers meeting $100,000 was allocated for appraisal and work on this right-of-way. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like to see the upper valley have slightly more votes for their larger financial participation. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 27, 1994 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1 ................................ .......... COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1 ................................ ......... CONSENT AGENDA 2 ................................ ................. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1994 - Residential Permit Parking Program 2 ................................ ................... ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1994 - Collection of Delinquent City Charges 5 ................................ ................... ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1994 - Smuggler Superfund Site Institu tional C ontrols 6 ................................ .... ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1994 - Aspen Institute Vested Rights Extension (Meadows SPA) 6 ................................ ... EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING LACET SUBDIVISION CLARIFICA TION 7 . WATER METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 8 ................................ REQUEST FOR FUNDS HOUSING OFFICE - Juan Street & East Hop kins 9 .. RESOLUTION #51, SERIES OF 1994 - Approving an Intergovernmen- tal Agreement to Purchase the Denver Rio Grande ROW 10 ....... 13