Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19960924Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, Marolt and Waggaman present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Jacob Richards, with Cliff Little, Jed Woolley, and Yuri Ognacevic, told Council they are going to Moab, Utah, to compete in 24-hour mountain bike race. Richards requested a Council donation of $160 or 10 percent of their operating costs. Richards said they feel they will be a good representation for Aspen. The 24 hour races started in Aspen. This 24 hour bike race contributes to environmental projects. Richards said the riders will be representing Aspen and have Aspen sponsors. Councilman Marolt moved to approve $160 out of Council contingency for the 24 hour mountain bike race; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman requested the group report back to Council on the race and how they did. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Waggaman said October 15th there will be a meeting in Glenwood Springs to present possibilities of state rail and a 50-year plan. This will be a public hearing. 2. Councilman Paulson said Independence Pass will close to through traffic next week for road work. Drivers will be able to go up to Lost Man trailhead on the west side. 3. Mayor Bennett said the city’s trip to Washington D.C. was extremely successful and useful. Council representatives met with a lot of election officials and the head of transit agencies. Council heard a very positive and was left with the notion that federal money for rail is not impossible. 4. City Manager Amy Margerum said the Glenwood City Council would like to schedule dinner with Aspen Council either October 16 or 23. Ms. Margerum said the RFTA Board would like to join this dinner. 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 5. Amy Margerum, City Manager, said the county open space board would like to have lunch with Council. This was tentatively scheduled for October 15 or 16. 6. City Manager noted on the consent agenda there is a change in the OTEK budget for transportation; an increase of $4500 in order to have OTEK help with summaries of the transportation meeting. 7. Councilman Marolt moved to remove Ordinance #35, Series of 1996, Rezoning Maroon Creek Subdivision, from the agenda; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Waggaman requested the Moore Pool Master plan be removed from the consent agenda and placed at the end of the meeting. Councilwoman Waggaman suggested this committee might not be appointed until after the recreation district election. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #36 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTERS 25.04 AND 25.16 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH LATE PAYMENT CHARGES FOR PAST DUE ELECTRIC AND WATER UTILITY BILLS was read by the city clerk Councilman Paulson moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Marolt. The consent calendar is: · Minutes - August 26, 1996 · Resolution #52, 1996 - Historic Preservation Maintenance Loan - 1000 E. Cooper · Resolution #55, 1996 - Historic Preservation Maintenance Loan - 525 W. Hallam · Resolution #53, 1996 - Contract Water Treatment Plant Site Improvements · Ordinance #36, 1996 - Late Charges Utility Payments 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 · Resolution #54, 1996 - Art Museum Banners · Request for Funds - Transportation · Request for funds - Red Brick Capital Funds · Remote Networks Budget approval Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCES #33 AND 34, 1996 Maroon Creek Annexations John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this annexation has gone through all the statutory required steps. This is the final step in the annexation process and whether to annex the property is up to Council. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Chuck Vidal, representing Maroon Creek Development Corporation, said when this was first discussed and agreed it, the annexation was to be economically neutral on their side. From the landuse standpoint, it was neutral. Vidal said the timing of this annexation has created economic ramifications. Vidal asked for relief from the real estate transfer tax being applied to the first sale from the developers. Vidal told Council they have sold a significant portion of the project and are negotiating the sale of several lots. Any sale after this initial one would not be exempt. This would only apply to 8 single family homes and 2 town house sites and is a one time exemption. Mayor Bennett said he feels the same rules should apply to this as to any other land sale or subdivision. Mayor Bennett pointed out the real estate transfer monies pay for the Wheeler, arts funding, and affordable housing, all of which benefit the entire community. Vidal said timing is the issue. If this annexation were 6 months later, all the properties would be sold. Councilman Marolt said he would be willing to exempt any deal that is in the process. Andy Hecht said when the property was approved by the county, certain exactions were traded out. This was not one of them. Hecht said this will be a cost the project had not budgeted for. Amy Margerum, city manager, said when the city did an economic analysis on whether to annex this area or not, the income of the RETT was a huge portion of the economic analysis. Ms. Margerum point out that Williams Ranch project is 70 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 percent affordable housing, and they are paying the RETT. Councilman Paulson agreed that any deals in the middle of negotiation could be exempt. Councilman Marolt said he does not understand why the city would be under any obligation to create an exemption for these sales. Councilwoman Waggaman said the purchasers will use the services that the RETT provides. Councilwoman Waggaman pointed out all real estate sales in the city pay real estate transfer tax. Hecht said there is one townhouse currently under contract. Hecht said he can demonstrate to staff that the contract work has already begun. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to approve the pre-annexation agreement with the owners of the parcel to be annexed and that the city waive the RETT one time only on the sale of the town house lot 18; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Wendy Erickson asked if the Pomegranate site is being annexed. Worcester answered it is not. The Aspen Country Inn is being annexed. Ms. Erickson asked if this land is being rezoned. Mary Lackner, community development department said the Aspen Country Inn will be zoned park because it is located on the same parcel as the golf course. Ms. Erickson asked if the Inn will be torn down. Hecht said the developers have requested an extension of time in which to tear down the Inn in order to enter into negotiations with the housing authority and the city to see if there is some other use that might be beneficial to the community. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #33, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers, Paulson, yes; Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 1996, with the pre-annexation agreement for the one townhouse on lot 18; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1996 - Text Amendment - Veterinarian Office Councilman Paulson moved to read Ordinance #37, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 ORDINANCE #37 Series of 1996 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT: SECTION 26.054.100 DEFINITION OF “VETERINARY CLINIC”; SECTION 26.28.130, RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT; SECTION 26.28.160, SERVICE/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT; SECTION 26.28.180, OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT was read by the city clerk Suzanne Wolff, community development department, said this is a proposal to add a definition of veterinary clinic to the landuse code as well as add it as a conditional use in the office zone district. Ms. Wolff said veterinary clinic is neither an allowed or conditional use in any zone district in the city. Staff has proposed to add this also to RR and S/C/I. P & Z approved the text amendments. Those P & Z members voting against the text amendment were in favor of allowing the use in S/C/I and RR but not in the office zone. P & Z members did not consider this compatible with surrounding uses. Ms. Wolff read the definition into the record and pointed out it does not propose outdoor facilities and kenneling is specifically not allowed. Ms. Wolff said this amendment is consistent with the AACP; one of the goals is to encourage locally serving commercial uses. Ms. Wolff said the most tourist-oriented zone districts were excluded. One of the text amendment standards is whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing landuse and neighborhood characteristics. Ms. Wolff told Council staff does not feel this proposed use would conflict with any allowed uses in the S/C/I or RR uses. The office zone district allows a variety of uses. The concern would be that a veterinary clinic not create any detrimental impacts on residential uses. A conditional use would allow P & Z a review the use and a chance to see if any of these adverse impacts could be mitigated. Ms. Wolff recommended approval of the text amendments. If the amendment is approved in the office district, the current applicant will have to go back to P & Z for a conditional use review. Councilwoman Waggaman asked if there is a limit on the number of cats or dogs a homeowner can have. Ms. Wolff said there is no maximum number. Councilwoman Waggaman supports this amendment and would ask the P & Z to 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 look at number of employees, number of doctors, where the sick animals are kept, if there are critically ill animals. Mayor Bennett asked what recourse the city has to enforce conditions arising from a conditional use permit. John Worcester, city attorney, said this would require the city asking compliance and if the property owner did not comply, it would end up in court to enforce these conditions. Stan Clauson, community development director, pointed out the city code provides for penalties of up to $1000 per day for violations. Graeme Means pointed is the office zone is very linear and very frequently abuts residential areas. There are also a lot of residences within the office zone. The office zone is a dense zone. There will be odors, which could be vented out next to someone’s sleeping area. There will be biological waste, feces, chemicals, etc., which will need to be handled and will probably be handled out in the alleys. There will be barking dogs, increased traffic. Means stated he is opposed to this text amendment as it will not be compatible with surrounding zone districts as well as the office zone district. Joe Krabacher, 706 West Main, reminded Council the Stapletons received a variance for minimum lots size of 6,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet and a variance of the 60 foot width in which to do this office building. The Stapletons also received an on-site parking variance and increased the project to a 1:1 FAR. This would allow a 4,000 square foot building on a 4,000 square foot lot with minimum setbacks. Krabacher said there are differences between a professional office building and a veterinary clinic. A clinic would operate 24 hours a day with emergency calls. Animals do have infectious diseases. The waste needs to be carefully regulated. Krabacher said it will be difficult to tell whether this clinic is boarding healthy animals. Krabacher said this use is appropriate in the S/C/I zone, not the office zone district. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would approve this text amendment for the S/C/I and RR zones but not the office zone. This should be a conditional use review no matter what zone it is in. The size and scale of the operation should be reviewed. Councilman Marolt said he would have a hard time supporting this in the office zone. Councilman Marolt said he is willing to take this to second reading in order to hear from the applicant. 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 Mayor Bennett said he would like to give the applicant a chance to discuss this at second reading. Mayor Bennett said he shares Council’s and public concerns, which come down to smell and noise. Mayor Bennett said he would like to hear more about the 24-hour a day operation, the question of standards for waste and if the waste from this use will be handled differently than the medical clinics already on Main street. Councilwoman Waggaman said this does not have to be an emergency facility and operate 24 hours a day. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 1996, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Marolt. Mayor Bennett suggested for second reading, staff consider additional language under the definition of veterinary clinic, an enclosed facility within a building for the care and treatment of “small” animals and adequate provisions are made to avoid “any and all” adverse impacts on the neighborhoods which might result from noise, orders, waste and the like. Councilwoman Waggaman asked staff t report if there are regulations on medical clinics or the waste regulations can just be handled by environmental health and how quickly can complaints be remedied. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, no; Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. JOINT RESOLUTION #1, ENDORSING TWO-LANE WITH LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE TO THE DSEIS Randy Ready, assistant city manager, told Council the Snowmass Town Council made one change to the joint resolution, changing “two widely separated traffic lanes with adequate emergency shoulders” to “adequate shoulders”, deleting the word emergency. This change was accepted and approved by the BOCC. This just makes the size of the shoulders more vague. Mayor Bennett pointed out that the EIS comments contain language defining the shoulder and are Council’s comments. Mayor Bennett read, “the total platform shall be as narrow as possible, consistent with community character and consistent with community character that the desire for the travel lanes to be separated by a grassy median”. Mayor Bennett said this may compensate for the term adequate shoulders. Mayor Bennett said there have been lots of changes and compromises in this plan; these have been better for the community. Mayor Bennett said with this vote, the 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 community will be making a decision. If this election is approved, the entrance will be directed towards a two-lane divided parkway with light rail. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed this is a reasonable compromise; it does not preclude a 4-lane if it is needed in the future; tries to protect the open space as much as possible; it is a way to afford light rail. Councilwoman Waggaman said she sees this as flexible rather than constraining. Councilman Marolt said he would prefer an unencumbered two-lane. Mayor Bennett said the language states, “widely separated as narrow as possible”, which is not very limiting. This would provide a two-lane with 30 to 50 percent more capacity than the existing two-lane. Councilman Paulson said he feels it is unfair that the other two governments changed this resolution at the last minute, leaving Aspen almost no choice but to go along. Mayor Bennett said the city can put the emergency wording back into their own comments to CDOT. This area is within the city, so the city’s comments carry weight. John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council this is an environmental clearance only and CDOT has to come with the design. These are things the city wants CDOT to consider in going to the next phase of this project. Councilman Paulson said there are two governments trying to tell Aspen what they should have inside Aspen. Councilman Marolt said he will support the resolution even though he does not agree. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to add joint Resolution #1, Series of 1996, to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt joint Resolution #1, Series of 1996, with the deletion in 3(a) of the word “emergency”; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Paulson. Motion carried. Councilman Paulson said he would like a clause added stating that he opposed this resolution. Mayor Bennett suggested this be added into the comments. The resolution cannot be changed at this point and still be a joint resolution. COUNCIL COMMENTS TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS Councilman Marolt stated he feels this document is counter productive and he cannot support it with any language. Councilman Marolt said the city needs to acquire the right-of-way before these questions can be answered. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, said these questions are at CDOT’s request for assistance 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 with scoping for the final EIS. This is a process the CDOT would like to proceed with and with the city’s cooperation. Ready said this is not staff’s attempt at resolving the issue but to raise the issues as questions to be resolved during the FEIS process. Mayor Bennett said under federal law, the city has a limited opportunity to pose technical comments and questions. The deadline is tonight otherwise the city could wait until after the election. Councilman Paulson said he wants a protest statement over the changing of the joint resolution in these comments. Ready said the emergency shoulder issue is readdressed in #1 and the city can ask for full analysis on the design alternatives on the modified direct alignment. Ready suggested language “The majority of the Aspen City Council supported the inclusion of the word ‘emergency’ in joint resolution #1 paragraph 3.a”. Council changed this to “the resolution was passed without the word ‘emergency’ in a spirit of cooperation with the Town of Snowmass”. Councilman Paulson said the ultimate solution to solving Aspen’s traffic problems is building the rail first before the highway is upgraded. Ready suggested another comment, “If rail is implemented first along with appropriate TM measures, without realigning the highway, would that solve the current traffic problems”? (Councilwoman Richards came into the meeting.) Ready said these are FEIS issues posed in the form of questions to be addressed during the final environmental impact statement. The rest of the document addresses the supplemental draft EIS and addresses issues and information presented in that draft EIS. Ready went over the suggested changes since last time Council saw this document. (1) The city is committed to working with FWHA, CDOT, and FTA in expediting approval and construction of the preferred alternative on a modified direct alignment with a cut and cover segment as long as no more than two widely separated traffic lanes with adequate emergency shoulders are constructed and a double rail platform is provided. Furthermore, phasing of the rail project within the EIS corridor is not necessary. Local resources will be available without the need for new taxes to complete the rail system at the same time that the new two lane parkway is constructed. Ready noted FEIS issue #1 is new; the words environmental, operational and physical were added to define impacts in #3 to have CDOT look at the differences 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 between bus and rail in a comprehensive fashion. #6 asks what future process would be necessary to analyze Galena street as a trolley route . Councilman Paulson asked if the draft covers the 4F questions adequately, could these be challenged and is there a question in this document about these. Ms. Margerum said is would not hurt to ask that. Ready noted an added sentence to question #11, “Is single track possible across Marolt and to what extent is single track feasible throughout the corridor?” Questions #12 addresses the Maroon Creek bridge and concerns of the Pomegranate owners with a sentence added, “Can the existing Maroon Creek bridge be reinforced to accommodate part or all of the new alternative thereby minimizing impacts to either side of the existing bridge?” Ready pointed out #17 is a new item to address the concern about construction phasing and related impacts and mitigation. Number 18 addresses staff’s perceived need to continue to work through the EOTC process. A proposed #19, “Please secure FTA cooperation and approval of the FEIS and the record of decision in order to expedite future FTA consideration of rail system plans and funding requests.” Councilwoman Richards asked if assurances this document satisfies the requirements of a MIS should be added. Clauson read #20, “If rail were implemented first along with appropriate TM measures would that adequately address current and future highway congestion without adding additional highway capacity”. Councilman Paulson said his goal is to prove that if rail is implemented first, places like Snowmass Canyon could be spared four-laning. Ready said addressing issues outside the entrance to Aspen corridor is another EIS and will be a separate process. Council requested “throughout the highway corridor” be added. Ready said these 20 questions are being posed as part of the FEIS scoping effort. The rest of the document addresses the draft EIS. Councilman Paulson said he wants to make sure the valley traffic is addressed before gondola to and between ski mountains takes place. Council agreed to adding to #16 “as a subsequent measure of the overall valley transportation”. Ready pointed out in the draft comments, #9 is to clarify what the city is talking about in the rail bonus like (in Denver we understand the rail bonus to be approximately 27 percent). Ready said in #32 is added, “reliable convenient cross platform transfers to a higher quality of service with an overall faster trip time 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 versus transfers involving a wait in extreme weather conditions”. This also gets to the rail bonus issue. Mayor Bennett suggested adding a sentence urging CDOT to respect the integrity and viability of the historic rail line throughout the Roaring Fork valley. This could fit in the section talking about linking rail and getting to Brush Creek. Mayor Bennett also suggested the addition of, “The system should minimize impact on the Pomegranate neighbors and we urge CDOT to analyze the following: keeping the existing Pomegranate berm intact as a screen; using or removing the existing bridge; reconfiguring the soccer field, putting green and or driving range”. Councilman Marolt asked the possibilities of incorporating the historical bridge into this system. Mayor Bennett said this document asks CDOT to analyze that. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards asked if the city can request that all design work shall fully incorporate all rail engineering at the same time, engineering and analysis of the rail should be completed at the same time as the highway. Councilwoman Richards asked for assurances that a mechanism will insure that the 2 lane section of highway 82 to the Maroon Creek intersection will be abandoned concurrent with any traffic using the new alignment. Worcester said the city will not sell the right of way until there is a deal on the abandonment. Councilwoman Richards said she just wants to know what the mechanism will be. Councilwoman Richards asked if CDOT can give assurances that no construction begins on the Marolt property until the city is ready to proceed funding the rail system. Councilwoman Richards said the segments CDOT chooses to build are usually the flattest and most convenient. Councilwoman Richards said she does not want to see the highway built across Marolt without taking care of the rest of the highway. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to ask the question if the Marolt section could be the last segment built. Mayor Bennett noted the question might be if CDOT is willing the plan its phasing in cooperation with the city. Council suggested adding the question, “Will CDOT participate in prioritization of the construction schedule with the city of Aspen?” Councilwoman Waggaman asked that in #12 regarding the Maroon Creek bridge that the city ask CDOT of they will look at moving or reinforcing the Maroon Creek 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 bridge. Council agreed. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like to add, “The city of Aspen acknowledges that these comments are being placed before CDOT at their request and intended to be addressed in conjunction with the development of the FEIS”. Councilman Paulson moved to endorse the final comments to the draft supplementary EIS as amended at this meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Councilman Marolt said he feels his no vote will represent a yes vote on the project. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Marolt. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. MOORE POOL MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE Councilwoman Waggaman suggested this should be put off until after the election on the recreation district until November because the city asks a lot of their citizens committees. Tim Anderson, recreation director, told Council he has been working with the rec district representative. Anderson said anything this committee develops can be passed on to the rec district. Councilwoman Waggaman said she is concerned that the committee members will get frustrated with the process. Councilwoman Richards said she would like Anderson to draft a mission statement for this group and also let them know that what happens with the Moore pool will depend on the outcome of the election on the recreation district. Councilman Marolt moved to bless the citizens committee; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting September 24, 1996 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ....... 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 2 Minutes - August 26, 1996 ................................ ................................ .................. 2 · Resolution #52, 1996 - Historic Preservation Maintenance Loan - 1000 E. Cooper · Resolution #55, 1996 - Historic Preservation Maintenance Loan - 525 W. Hallam · Resolution #53, 1996 - Contract Water Treatment Plant Site Improvements · Ordinance #36, 1996 - Late Charges Utility Payments · Resolution #54, 1996 - Art Museum Banners · Request for Funds - Transportation · Request for funds - Red Brick Capital Funds · Remote Networks Budget approval ORDINANCES #33 AND 34, 1996 Maroon Creek Annexations ........................... 3 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1996 - Text Amendment - Veterinarian Office ...... 4 JOINT RESOLUTION #1, ENDORSING TWO-LANE WITH LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE TO THE DSEIS ................................ ................................ ........... 7 COUNCIL COMMENTS TO DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS .............................. 8 MOORE POOL MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE ................................ ................. 12 13