Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19960826Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order with Councilmembers Marolt, Waggaman, and Richards present. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were none. COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Richards asked about paving of Main street. City Manager Amy Margerum said it will start the day after Labor Day. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinances #33, #34, and #35, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #33 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AS DESIGNATED AS THE “MAROON CREEK CLUB SUBDIVISION (NORTH) PROPERTY” ANNEXATION ORDINANCE #34 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AS DESIGNATED AS THE “MAROON CREEK CLUB SUBDIVISION (SOUTH) PROPERTY” ANNEXATION 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 ORDINANCE #35 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A REZONING FOR THE MAROON CREEK SUBDIVISION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF ASPEN were read by the city clerk Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Marolt. The consent calendar is: · Minutes - July 22, August 12, 1996 · Resolution #48, 1996 - IGA Pitkin County Clerk Coordinated Election · Resolution #49, 1996 - Purchase of Procktor Property · Request for Funds - Council Chambers Sound System - $5900 AMP General Fund · Ordinance #33, 1996 - Maroon Creek Club North Subdivision Annexation · Ordinance #34, 1996 - Maroon Creek Club South Subdivision Annexation · Ordinance #35, 1996 - Rezoning North & South Maroon Creek Club Subdivision Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1996 - Adopting Uniform Election Code City Clerk Kathryn Koch told Council in order to have a coordinated election with Pitkin County, it is necessary to adopt this Code. This Code will only be used in a coordinated election and allows the County Clerk to run the election. The election this November will be a polling place election. The city could have an election the same day as the county and choose to have a separate election. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1996 - 935 E. Hyman Waiver of Park Dedication Fee Stan Clauson, community development department, told Council this is the property on east Hyman that contains the rock, which Council has designated historic. The property is being developed with 2 free standing houses. The applicant has requested a waiver of the $7268 park dedication fee. The park dedication fee waiver is available as a historic preservation incentive to offset the impacts of compliance with HPC. Clauson noted there are no standards by which a waiver is measured. Clauson reminded Council one of the conditions at HPC is that nothing will be built in front of the rock that would obscure the rock from view from the street. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Richards, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment Small Lodges Dave Michaelson, community development department, reminded Council these series of amendments address small lodge including amendments to the GMQS as well as a change in use provision for small lodges. Michaelson noted the LP zone would become an overlay and the properties zoned LP would drop into underlying zoning. The LP zoning with underlying zoning would recognize small lodges as a use by right and allow them to exist or to expand. Allowing the lodges to go back to the underlying zoning would allow them similar uses as adjacent properties. Michaelson said staff will need to prepare another ordinance to rezone these 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 properties. Michaelson said the Hotel Aspen and Molly Gibson have both office and R-6 zones and the uses will be refined when the lodges are rezoned. Michaelson presented a chart that shows the development potential under underlying zoning for each property for conceptual build out numbers. Michaelson said each owner will have to go through a specific analysis for their property. Michaelson said one issue is mitigating conversion, the concept of growth versus change. Michaelson said staff tried to find a method to allow conversion and not put additional burdens on the community. Michaelson said the conversion factor used is that 2.5 tourist accommodation units equals the impacts of a three-bedroom single family home. Michaelson said it was important to the community and the lodge owners to have a mechanism where lodges could expand. Michaelson said with the 2.5 conversion rate, if certain lodges expanded using that number, there would be a residual left over unit count. Michaelson said staff suggests this residual serve as a pool for lodge expansion as opposed to additional free market homes. At the last meeting, Councilwoman Waggaman suggested having an immediate pool available for lodge expansion. Michaelson said these 11 units could be available for lodge expansion and in 1998. Staff would look at how many conversions took place between lodge units and free market and come up with a number, which if greater than 11 units in the pool would roll over to the next year. Michaelson said the first year, staff would have to be careful how many lodge units were allowed to change to free market. Michaelson said there is a letter from Alan Richman, representing Si Kelly and the Buckhorn Lodge, on the issue of small lodges that are outside LP, proposing 4 different methods of integrating these types of lodges into this code amendment. Michaelson said staff feels by having commercial lodge (CL) zoning, the Buckhorn has uses that other LP lodges do not. Michaelson said one idea staff would like to investigate is the concept of vertical zoning. Michaelson told Council the AACP directed staff to look at vertical zoning, which would allow different zone districts for different levels of a particular structure. Michaelson said a question of Council was how was this process work, how would the mitigation be dealt with. Michaelson said there will be a lottery for lodges there will be a free market lottery, a lottery for conversion to non-residential uses only for lodges zoned office, and a lottery for lodge expansion using the residual pool. Michaelson said Council feels there should be a pool available for lodges as soon as possible. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Michaelson told Council the rate of conversion is 14 units per year which was arrived at in discussion at P & Z, where everyone felt comfortable that 14 conversion of lodge units per year was not a wave of conversions. Michaelson said every lodge has a different buildout potential due to underlying zoning. Each lodge would pull the number they needed until beyond 14, which may mean using 1 or 2 units from the next year’s pool. Michaelson suggested allowing one lodge more than there are units to pull their quota. That way if a lodge were denied conversion because they could not meet the criteria in the change in use provision, another lodge would be ready to go. Michaelson reminded Council the 11 available lodge expansion units came from the 1995 revisions to the GMQS. Michaelson said the city cannot go back prior to 1995 because that is when these units became available. Michaelson said the 11 units was an acceptable growth rate. Michaelson said staff feels the development of free market units would require mitigation per Ordinance 1, either an ADU or cash- in-lieu. There are no waivers to housing mitigation, park impact or parking in these amendments. Michaelson said commercial or office will have to mitigate for 60 percent of the new employees. Staff recognizes that some lodges have housed employees. Michaelson said there is also a difference between a lodge that employs 5 or 6 people and the development of a free market home. Michaelson said the time to assess that would be within the change in use provision. Michaelson said staff needs time to work these through. Michaelson said office space and commercial would mitigate for their employees. Michaelson said staff thinks the suggestion of having a pool available immediately for lodge expansion is a good one and that has been added to this ordinance, Michaelson reminded Council at first hearing affordable commercial space was brought up. Michaelson said staff favors a way to encourage keeping locally serving businesses in town; however, the LP zone is not the appropriate place to do this and it should be looked at with all commercial and office development. Michaelson said a question at the last hearing was whether there is a way to keep a lodge from acquiring the majority of expansion units. Michaelson answered the rate is controlled. There is language to prevent banking, if an applicant does not pull a building permit within 18 months, they would lose the allocations and not be able to enter into the lottery for 5 years. Another question is whether this should be competition-based for free market or office expansion. Michaelson said one of the main goals is to allow the conversion to take place and to allow lodges to expand 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 outside the traditional GMQS competition. Michaelson said he feels the standards for the change in use provisions are more stringent than those included in the current change in use provisions. Michaelson noted another issue from the last meeting was whether a group of senior citizens could purchase a lodge and live independently. Michaelson pointed out there is a group home provision in every zone district; a group home is defined as a permanent building owner-occupied, used exclusively for residents for not more than 8 persons 60 years or older. Gideon Kaufman, representing the small lodges, said they would like to set up a mechanism to be able to borrow from the future because lodges do not exactly fit into the given quota. Kaufman said they would also like to be able to start the lottery this year. This process has taken a long time and will still take awhile to get through the entire process. They would like to have 14 units available in 1996 and again in 1997. Michaelson said they are only concerned about having time to get the submittal packet together yet this year. Kaufman suggested to start out by borrowing from unused quotas and to make them available right now. The accounting can be done later. These units will only be borrowed. Councilwoman Richards said she would like the ordinance to contain an affirmation of vertical zoning. Mayor Bennett suggested Council direct staff to come back with a recommendation on how to incorporate vertical zoning. Councilwoman Richards favors creating a larger pool for the first year and have one this year because of all the time and work that has gone into it. Councilwoman Richards brought up required occupancy in ADU units that will be built as a result of conversion to free market. Michaelson told Council he has been directed by P & Z to revise the ADU regulations and is scheduled before P & Z in September. Michaelson said one proposal is not to give FAR bonuses for accessory dwelling units. Michaelson said another proposal is that ADUs have to be either managed by the housing office and rented for six months or the developer pays cash-in-lieu. Michaelson said he would rather revise the ADU regulations as one piece. Councilwoman Richards agreed she does not have to have two separate regulations for ADU units. Councilwoman Richards asked about employee housing mitigation. Michaelson said if a lodge housed 5 employees and was changing use, one issue would be whether the employees were unique to the lodge. The employees will not go away and this should fall within the 50 percent replacement program. The intent is to 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 balance what is there now versus what is going to be there as well as not dropping below the 60 percent mitigation requirement of GMQS. Councilwoman Richards asked what happens if a project applies and loses 3 years in a row because the lottery is random and there are not enough units available. Councilwoman Richards asked if this project should be weighted for the next year. Kaufman said in the GMQS lottery, an applicant has to expend money to be able to compete. In this lottery, one just need apply. Michaelson said staff feels that not every single lodge will compete in this lottery. Mayor Bennett said this is an issue that Council may want to look at again in 1 or 2 years. Councilwoman Waggaman suggested if a lodge applied 2 years and was not successful, they might get 2 entry tries for the third year. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Joe Wells , representing a small lodge owner, told Council they would like to not wait until spring 1997 to be in a lottery for an expansion. Wells said people may apply for both lotteries and perhaps lodge owners should have to pick the one under which to proceed. Wells said the internal FAR issue is the percentage of the total square footage of the lot devoted to a particular use, not 1:1 FAR which is building square footage related to lot square footage. Wells suggested internal FAR may be better stated as a percentage because it is a percentage devoted to the use. Michaelson said staff feels comfortable with the language. Michaelson said as a way of encouraging affordable housing as a trade off for increasing FAR, this is sound. Councilwoman Richards suggested this issue be part of the land use code clarification or simplification. Wells said the date of the lottery and an immediate pool of units are the important issues. Alan Richman reminded Council he had submitted a letter about the Buckhorn Lodge being included in this or addressed somehow equitably. Richman said the Buckhorn is similar to the LP lodges being discussed. The Buckhorn was a non- conforming lodge when the small lodges were addressed in the 1970’s. Richman said the mix of uses on the property would have just exchanged non-conformities. Richman said CL zoning can be just as constraining on a property as LP zoning. The CL zone requires commercial on the first floor and lodge units on the second floor. Richman said in the list of alternatives, 2 would allow these 9 lodge units at the Buckhorn to become office. Other alternatives would allow the lodge units become long term rental. Richman said the Kelly are reluctant to spend a lot of 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 money without knowing if Council supports vertical zoning. Richman said the Kellys do not want to become the private application for vertical zoning. Mayor Bennett said he would support vertical zoning. It seems like a logical solution to the Buckhorn problem. Councilmembers Richards and Marolt agreed. Councilman Marolt said he would like to see it be part of this ordinance Michaelson said the only research ever done on vertical zoning is what appears in the AACP. Staff would like a chance to discuss this with other communities and also take it to P & Z. Michaelson said vertical zoning has been successful in other communities. Richman offered to collaborate on the research. Richman asked if Council sponsoring the vertical zoning would take them off the code deadlines for zone amendments. Worcester said yes they would be off that deadline because Council is sponsoring the code amendment. Diane Moore, ACRA, said this ordinance goes toward creating a level playing field. Ms. Moore recommended the 35 percent of the total pillows in the LP zone district be used as a starting point for this ordinance. Ms. Moore said the impact on the reduction of the bed base is minuscule. Jasmine dePagter said not all of the lodges owners will apply for conversion or expansion immediately. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Kaufman said if there is a 14 unit lottery in November 1996, in 1997 there could be two 7 unit lotteries. This is to get relief for the past buildup of units. Michaelson said that is all right as long as this is not increased beyond 14 per year. Kaufman said all 3 types of lotteries should be held in 1996. Michaelson said as long as this integrates the concept of lodge pool it will work. Council supports the immediate creation of a lodge pool. Stan Clauson, community development director, noted that a fundamental premises is that the location of a lodge determines the zoning available. The lodge may exist on a property that when converted may only accommodate one or two single family houses. The zoning is not being changed to accommodate these parcels of land. Some lodges are in the multi-family zone and would do well as multi-family structures. Clauson said some lodges may demolish; some may renovate within their structures. Clauson said the flexibility exists to do different things with the property but one must do what is allowed by zoning. Clauson said he feels these regulations respect the zone districts and also provide for flexibility within that limitation. Clauson said they feel like they have achieved a balance for the city and 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 for the lodges. Clauson said staff and the committee have reached a consensus that it will not hurt the community to have some of these lodges convert to something else. Clauson said some concerns in this are that Aspen will lose their lodging base, that the historic character of these types of lodges should not be lost from the community. Clauson said this is similar to the city’s design standards ordinance and is complex to address all these concerns. Mayor Bennett asked if it necessary to put the specific lottery dates in the ordinance rather than reference the number of units available per year. Amy Margerum, city manager, said it may be better not to have the dates in the ordinance because staff will not have to come to Council and change the ordinance every time the date changes. Clauson said the staggering of dates for the lotteries is to permit staff to assess the number of units that will be vacated. If there is an initial allocation pool, the staggering of dates is not so important. The ordinance could state there will be one date each year for each lottery as decided by the community development department. Council needs to decide whether there is to be a lottery in 1996 and how many units will be available. Councilwoman Richards suggested there be a lottery November 1996 with 14 units and 7 in 1997. Council agreed. Councilwoman Richards moved to amend the Ordinance on page 7 to delete the schedule and application in the change in use paragraph and to add the schedule for the change in use or lodge expansion lottery will be established annually by the community development director starting in 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to amend Section 5 inserting that there will be 14 units sometime in calendar year 1996; 7 in 1997 and 7 in 1998; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Bennett said he is comfortable using the 35 percent number because of the enormous public process this amendment has gone through which included the ACRA, lodge representatives, business community and P & Z. 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Councilwoman Waggaman moved to amend the ordinance on page 7, second paragraph to include the language presented by Michaelson at this meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Kaufman brought up whether Council will have the flexibility to grant an excess allotment for 1 or 2 units. Michaelson said the lottery will progress until it exceeds 14 units. If a lodge goes over that 14th unit, it will come off the following year so that the unit rate stays the same. This could be limited to the amount of units that can be borrowed. Councilwoman Richards moved to amend the ordinance on page 7 as the lottery progresses a running total of potential build out of units of commercial square footage determined by underlying zoning shall be kept and the lottery will continue until the 14 annual units was exceeded by not more than 2 units; those units will be considered multi allocation units and will come off the following year’s pool at the discretion of P & Z, the specific language to be worked out by staff; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to amend Section 5 on page 5 that the annual development allotment to include language that the ordinance shall incorporate 11 lodge expansion units for the initial lottery pool; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Clauson said on the ADU units, he would prefer not to have several different rules governing ADU and would like to have this come through the system. Staff and P & Z are working on general rules for ADUs. Council agreed to wait for that legislation. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #29 with the amendments that have been added; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Marolt said he is disappointed that there is not more in here for the lodge owners. Councilman Marolt said the problems with the small lodges was the process. Kaufman said the small lodges worked hard with the city. This ordinance addresses the Council’s concerns and hopefully will address the concerns of the small lodge owners. 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 ORDINANCE #32, SEERS OF 1996 - Braden Alley Vacation John Worcester, city attorney, told Council the Bradens own lots Q, R and G and H. The Bradens filed an action for quit claim for the portions of the alley north of lot Q. A deed was executed in the 1800’s for a portion of the platted so the city no longer has an interest in that portion. The city still owns the portion of the alley north of lot R, which the Bradens are requesting the city vacate. Worcester told Council the city currently has an easement for a trail. The parks department does not think it will be an easy place to put in a trail through this easement. In exchange for this vacation, the Bradens will give the city an easement from the top of the bank to the bottom where the north boundary of the old trail easement is. The parks department can construct a 10 foot trail with shoulders on each side. After it is constructed, the city will do an as-built survey and record it. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards asked if the city can require the property owners not to fight any construction of a trail actually being built. Worcester said this can be required of the current owner but not run with the land. Dave Mylar, representing the applicant, said his clients would be willing to add some language or write a letter stating they will not oppose the city’s efforts to develop a trail. Mylar agreed to add to a license agreement, “Petitioners agree not to oppose or object to construction of trail which is undertaken and completed in compliance with the existing easement and the new easement and license agreement described above”. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #32, Series of 1996, including the language to be in a license agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #50, SERIES OF 1996 - Temporary Use Permit Blazing Paddles Suzanne Wolff, community development department, told Council Blazing Paddles is requesting a temporary use permit to continue to use the skating building at the Silver Circle ice rink, lot 6 Aspen Mountain PUD until September 30th. Ms. Wolff told Council lot 6 was restricted during the approvals for the Aspen Mountain PUD. Ms. Wolff told Council the applicants were told this use would be acceptable and have been operating all summer based on that. Staff has discovered that the intent 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 was not to have any commercial operations at the ice rink. Ms. Wolff said this is only to allow them to operate until the end of the summer season. Ms. Wolff said staff has had no complaints about Blazing Paddles and this actually takes traffic off downtown streets. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if the applicants can be asked to load on the side streets rather than on Durant avenue as Durant is a major transportation street. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Doug Niehaus, manager of the Tipple Inn condominiums, said Blazing Paddles has been parking and loading on Dean street between the North of Nell and Tipple Inn. The concern is this area is getting congested with skateboarders, roller bladders, people that use the alley for “just a minute”. Niehaus said they would like the applicants told not to use this area. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Stan Clauson, community development director, said this approval is to get the applicants through the season. Staff has not intended to take an exhaustive look on how Blazing Paddles operation may be changed. Clauson said Blazing Paddles will not be able to return unless there is an amendment to the PUD. This amendment would take a look at the entire area, including traffic and parking. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to make sure the Dean street is not being used as a parking area. This should be enforced by the police. Councilwoman Richards said she would be willing to look at an amendment for the ice rink area to have it be more available for community uses and more lively. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Resolution #50, Series of 1996, the temporary use permit with the condition that the trucks and loading not happen on Dean street Tipple Inn area; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Mayor Bennett said he would be glad to consider a request for an amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD and using empty space there makes sense. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #51, SERIES OF 1996 - Submitting a Ballot Question re Transportation Corridor 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this resolution would put a question relating to use of city-owned property to provide a transportation corridor on the November 1996 coordinated election. Worcester reminded Council the deadline for certifying to the county ballot questions is Tuesday, September 10th. Mayor Bennett said the purpose of this ballot measure is to satisfy CDOT, who has told the city that they need and expect an election on open space before they will chose the preferred alternative in the final EIS or come out with a record of decision. Mayor Bennett said he feels this is a reasonable request. Mayor Bennett said another purpose for this ballot question is that the public process has come a long way in the last year and a half with citizen groups and elected officials meeting and it makes sense to give the voters an opportunity to approve the direction this project is heading. Mayor Bennett said this is not a final approval of any transportation program. There will also be elections on county open space and bonding for the project. Councilman Marolt said he does not want to risk a no vote on the right-of-way and alignment. Councilman Marolt presented some proposed ballot language. Councilman Marolt said he would like to acquire a consensus of the public. Mayor Bennett said Councilman Marolt’s questions are fundamentally different from those presented in Resolution #51. The first question asks voters whether or not the Council may request that the phasing be changed from the SDEIS. The second question is open space use question. Mayor Bennett said the language in Resolution #51 is specific approval of a two-lane divided highway with light rail versus a question saying the city will accept anything CDOT chooses. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Hans Gramiger stated he is for the rail system; however, any ballot question on the open space will be misread by the electorate. Gramiger said this ballot question is premature. The question is also premature for all the unknown things, like bridge design. Gramiger asked why the city is willing to risk all the work on this project with an unnecessary vote. Gramiger asked if the voters turn this down, what kind of a position will the city be in. Jasmine dePagter said the citizens task force has put a lot of time and effort into the transportation issue. Ms. dePagter said she feels this wording is vague; the voters will want to know every detail. Councilwoman Richards said this question is concise but embodies all the consensus items of the alternative H citizens task force. This task force supported the modified direct alignment with cut and cover only if it 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 was a no phasing alternative that could only go straight to rail, could never be a 4 lane with HOV restrictions. This question asked the voters if they will accept that. Bonnie Murray agreed a transit question should be put to the voters. Ms. Murray said a lot of the citizens are together in wanting to see this come to an end. Ms. Murray said this question is concise but it will line up all the factions and allow them to vote no. The no-builds, 4 laners, no train groups will all vote no. Ms. Murray said the city should not risk having the question voted down. Ms. Murray suggested the question ask if the corridor across Marolt be approved without being any more specific, not giving CDOT carte blanche. Councilwoman Richards said there are some things missing from this question, like financing for transportation. Council intends to continue this meeting in order to fine tune the question. Ms. Murray suggested the question have an end date on it so the voters know something will finally happen. Si Coleman said the public may perceive this as a blank check. Coleman said if Council wants this question to pass, it needs to have bulls eye at the end of the process; has to be more definite. Richie Cohen suggested language be added that the transportation system be subject to review of the citizens as long as it conforms to CDOT’s standards. Jean D’Alessio said there is consensus on this project and the momentum should not go down the drain. The language has to be understandable to the voters or it will be defeated. Frances Ullr questioned how this can be a two lane parkway when there is too much traffic for the existing two lanes. Mayor Bennett said this will take public outreach and education. Some of this depends on having a light at 7th and Main. Right now traffic is merging and decelerating, which creates traffic jams. Margot Pendleton said she thinks the ballot language is understandable; however, it may be better to put the election off until May. Ms. Pendleton said she is just starting to see attitudes change towards the light rail concept. Councilman Marolt agreed the momentum is key. Councilman Marolt said in order to keep momentum and keep the task force and governments working, they need a vote of confidence. This ballot language is a vote of confidence and that the voters are willing to let the transit go through open space. Councilwoman Richards said the Council was trying to write ballot language which defined a corridor across Marolt for the specific modified direct alignment straight to rail approach that the citizens task force produced. Councilwoman Richards said 14 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 the language proposed by Councilman Marolt is supportive of the phased 4-lane, 104 foot wide, maybe tear the asphalt later approach to town. This was rejected by the citizens committee. Councilwoman Richards said the city has maintained a strong position with other elected officials that the phased 4-lane is unacceptable and is too wide a swath across Marolt, that the money for rail will disappear into something else. This is asking the public to affirm all the elements of the compromise that have been worked out so far. A phased 4-lane kills the compromise. Councilwoman Waggaman said a vote this November is not appropriate; there are too many other things on the ballot. Councilwoman Waggaman said at the last EOTC meeting, the city and county were in agreement. By May, the governments will have design and financial planning further along. Paul Murray said he does not see any wisdom in waiting past November. Murray said he does not like the light rail transit language in the ballot. Coleman said he wants this to pass but is nervous about putting this on the November ballot. Coleman said no one knows what this project will cost. Coleman said the question should be clear and concise with a clear goal. Mayor Bennett said the costs have not jumped around in the budgets the elected officials have seen. Mayor Bennett said that 3 different engineering companies have come up with identical numbers for rail to the airport at $50 to 55 million. To go to Brush Creek will add $13 million. Charlie Tarver said the BOCC is 4 - 0 in favor of 2 lanes of traffic with a rail system; the City Council is 4 to 1 in favor. The citizens task force came up with something that worked for everyone. Tarver said the Council has to be leaders in this project. Tarver said there is danger in putting this question off to another election. There has never been as much community consensus on a plan; however, this was a compromise. Tarver said the ballot question should be concise. There should be a lot of education on this issue. Denny Vaughn said there a number of organizations - environmental, recreation, historic - who have real problems with CDOT’s preferred alternative. Vaughn said people would be skeptical of a vote in accordance with the supplemental DEIS. Vaughn said he would like to see the vote deferred until there are more details. Shelly Harper suggested adding a sentence to why the city is putting this to a vote; that CDOT wants to know the will of the people. 15 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards said issues that need to be worked on for the ballot language are what does modified alignment mean, will this create confusion with CDOT’s modified versus H; is there a way to add closure to the agreement; some assurance that design and financing will come back for another vote; adding language about cut and cover or mitigation for lost open space and removing the existing highway; perhaps adding why there is a vote; exploring whether to include anything on corridor width. Councilwoman Richards said she has heard a lot of agreement to have a successful ballot and ballot question. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to have the question on the November ballot. Mayor Bennett agreed this has come a long way and, too, would not want to put this issue off. Councilwoman Richards moved to extend the meeting to 9:05 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Bennett. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR FUNDS - CORE Amy Margerum, city manager, told Council CORE has requested $7500 for the Energy 2000 Forum. The have modified their request to $5000. Ms. Margerum told Council the Energy 2000 conference has only received funds from the city once for $1000 for a speaker. Ms. Margerum said this can be funded from the electric fund which has money for education. Mayor Bennett said he does not have a problem supporting this. He would like to see it combined with Healthy Mountain Communities and turned into a full day with round table discussions and valley leaders. Mayor Bennett moved to give $5000 grant as long as CORE invites Healthy Mountain Communities regional transportation forum to participate in a full day event; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Marolt moved to continue the meeting to noon Wednesday, August 28; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. 16 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 17 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting August 26, 1996 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ..... 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 1 Minutes - July 22, August 12, 1996 ................................ ................................ ..... 2 Resolution #48, 1996 - IGA Pitkin County Clerk Coordinated Election ............... 2 Resolution #49, 1996 - Purchase of Procktor Property ................................ ......... 2 Request for Funds - Council Chambers Sound System - $5900 AMP General Fund ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2 Ordinance #33, 1996 - Maroon Creek Club North Subdivision Annexation ......... 2 Ordinance #34, 1996 - Maroon Creek Club South Subdivision Annexation ......... 2 Ordinance #35, 1996 - Rezoning North & South Maroon Creek Club Subdivision 2 ORDINANCE #31, SERIES OF 1996 - Adopting Uniform Election Code .............. 2 ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1996 - 935 E. Hyman Waiver of Park Dedication Fee ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment Small Lodges ............... 3 ORDINANCE #32, SEERS OF 1996 - Braden Alley Vacation ............................. 11 RESOLUTION #50, SERIES OF 1996 - Temporary Use Permit Blazing Paddles . 11 RESOLUTION #51, SERIES OF 1996 - Submitting a Ballot Question re Transportation Corridor ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 REQUEST FOR FUNDS - CORE ................................ ................................ ......... 16 18