Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19820125JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Knecht, Collins, Parry and Commissioners Klanderud, Kinsley, Child and Madsen present. 1. Joint Housint Authority Agreement. County Housing Director Jim Hamilton told the Boards this is the resubmission of a contract the housing office has been operating under since June 1981. The County housing office is qual~ifying people for Castle Ridge under the city's guidelines; this is not part of the manager's contract. Originally, the city asked the county to do this because of the city's work load. Hamilton said he did not think this would cost the city much money as there probably won't be much turn over at Castle Ridge because the city did not raise the rents. Hamilton said it takes one to two hours to qualify a person. There is a waiting list of 20 to 25 people for Castle Ridge who have already been qualified. Commissioner Kinsley moved joint approval of the agreement; seconded by Councilman Parry All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES COuncilman Parry moved to approve the minutes of August 10, 1981; seconded Iby Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Parry moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Lee Dodge, a long time resident, requested a review of the city's parking policy. Mrs. Dodge said that the locals do not know what areas will be covered by meter maids. The meter maids have said they cannot cover what they are supposed to every day. Mrs. Dodge said this seems to be a little haphazard and there should be a policy review. Mrs. Dodge suggested the meter maids concentrate on the central core area so that the cars will be moved. If the city does not have enough personnel, they could buy ticketing cars to make the process go faster. City Manager Chapman told Council the central core is concentrated on, the more outlying areas. The meter maids do have other jobs to do. Police Chief Rob McClung said he does not have enough personnel to enforce this sufficiently. Council requested staff to review the parking. 2. Jon Busch, representing the Aspen Gay Community, presented a letter to Council. Mayor Edel suggested this should be put on the agenda as part of the meeting. CounCilman Parry moved to add this to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel said this would be the first item after Councilmember Comments. 3. Kurt Bresnitz, Alpine Jewelers, told Council he felt there is an.~inadequacy in this community as far as snow removal is concerned. Bresnitz said he has been presented with letters from the police department said that snow on the unused portion of his property has to be removed. Bresnitz pointed out in.the mall, taxpayers are paying for snow removal for stores on the mall. Bresnitz told Council he spent over two days trying to hack away at 20 inches of ice. Bresnitz said he is paying for snow removal on the mall with his taxes and he cannot get relief a block away still in the business core area. Bresnitz told Council he hired a city snow removal vehicle and paid $25 for 1/2 and hour. Bresnitze said he felt that snow removal vehicles should be rendered available to the community. Bresnitz stated the removal of snow 24 hours after a snow storm has not been enforced on the city's sidewalks. Mayor Edel suggested that Bresnitz work with City Manager Chapman and parks director Jim Holland to investigate the cost of a program like this and other solution to the problem. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Edel told Council he has received a letter from Aspen Leaves regarding a contribUtion. Encke King told Council in November they applied for a grant from the Colorado Humanities Program for $1,000. They were granted the $1,000 if Aspen Leaves coUld get matching funds. The Aspen CMC has given $300, and Aspen Leaves is requesting $700 from the City of Aspen, Now the CHP says they would like some indication that the money will be donated by January 27; if this happens, CHP will give Aspen Leaves an additional $500. City Manager Chapman pointed out the city was not sure there would be any money to contribute to arts groups until the city knows what the debt services will be for the Wheeler Opera House. The Council and staff decided the only way to proceed is to try to deal with these contribution requests as they come. Mayor Edel said Aspen Leaves is not asking for a lot of money and the return is very good. King told Council this is for a series that brings in speakers, poets, lecturers. There are four main programs. Councilman Knecht moved to put this request on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the request for $700 to the Aspen Leaves literary Foundation and that the request by paid by Wednesday, January 27, 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Mayor Edel requested another item be added to the agenda. City Attorney Paul Taddune explained to Council there is a request from Spencer Schiffer that the city stipulate a waiver of the 30 day filing date seeking judicial review. On December 28~ 1981, the Council rejected an amendment to the 1978 GMP allocation for the Aspen Inn. Councilman Parry moved to add this request to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. 3. Mayor Edel requested that the new bus bar agreement be added to the agenda; Council- man Parry moved to add the bus barn agreement to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Mayor Edel presented a letter from Bill Trost saying that at the November 23 Council meeting, Council directed staff to insure equitable collection of of occupation taxes. Council requested a report be done and a list of delinquent businesses be available. ASPEN GAY COMMUNITY "~Lr. Mayor, Councilmembers. I appears before you today with great trepidation, for my cause may arouse resentment and prejudice among those less enlightened in our community. But there are times when, as an American citizen and an Aspen resident, I can no longer remain silent about injustice. I have been and am being discriminated against. Gay men and women have been and are being discriminated against. I have been permanently barred from the Paragon Bar - and the reason? I refused to stop dancing with another man - the Methodist minimister of the Aspen Community Church. After Six months o~ n'eg0tiat, ion~cby the American Civil Liberties Union attorney Thomas Crumpacker, a settlement was reached with Paraqon attorney Joew Edwards in which, on a trial basis, the Paragon would rescind its same sex dance rule and allow me and the gay community full use and privilege at t~e faCili~y~ As you may be aware, several hundred gay men have returned for a second year this week for a week of skiing in Aspen. Following a meeting last Thursday set up at the Aspen Gay community's request, by the City Attorney, and including the City Manager and representa- tive from Aspen dance bars, I once again found myself permanently barred from the Paragon. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss ways of avoiding problems this week. I had don. nothing beyond this to provoke their action. Same sex dance rules as well as other forms of discrimination such as selective use of cover charges and turning off music when gays are on the dan~e floor, has been with us here for a long time. City attorney Paul Taddune has expressed an opinion that same sex dance rules do not discriminate. As a basis for his position he cites Paragon attorney Edwards' reference to a Disneyland case where the court rules that a same sex dancing rule was not in viola- tion of California law. That case is totally and completely irrelevant in Aspen's situation. California law does not include proscriptions against sexual orientation. Aspen Municipal Code, section 13-9~ does, and very clearly. The courts have ruled on and commented on same sex dance rules in at least one case exactl' paralleling that of Aspen. In a very detailed opinion by presiding judge Steve Russell of the Municipal Court of the City of Austin, Texas, he stated the following: 'This Court holds that the City may protect its inhabitants and visitors from discrimina- tion based on their sexual orientation, and that an ordinance to assure such protection is not arbitrary, capricious or irrational . Almost twenty years ago, when black and white students were going to jail in astonishing numbers for the right of black Americans to east at department store lunch counters, the issue was not the quality of th~ cuisine The issue was and is one of human dignity, of the right to go about one's daily life without being publicly marked as inferior, less than human. The Austin City Council faced this issue, as did the jury in this case. The Court can do no less.' This 16 page opinion is documented extensively with nearly 200 years of jurisprudence from all levels of the federal court system including the Supreme Court when, in 1883 Mr Justice Harlan ennunciated what was to become law in the 1960's. 'Places of public amusement are established and maintained under direct license of the law. The authority to establish and maintain them comes from the public. The colored race is a part of that public. The local government grating the license represents them as well as all other races within its jurisdiction. A license from the public to establist a public of public amusement, imports, in law, equality of right at such places, among all members of that public.' As Gay Americans we are no less a part of that public, and the Aspen City Council in 1977 saw fit to guarantee our right to free and equal access to public accommodation through ordinance Ordinance whish is being flagrantly ignored. With this statement, I respectfully request Council to direct the Cit~ Attorney to enforce the letter and intent of the law your law" was read to Council by Jon Busch. City Attorney Taddune read from the Municipal Code, part of section 13-98 defining '~discrimination". Mayor Edel asked if there have been instances of gay people dancing in town, this week, and having been stopped. Busch answered this happened at the Paragon when gay men were on the dance floor; however, maybe the sound system broke down, maybe no discrimination was intended. Mayor Edel pointed out one of the items from the agreemen~ was that the Paragon would not be advertised as the gay spot in town and asked if this has been done. Busch said there were areas they tried to do. The various national and international gay guides to cities around the world are the result of letters from people who visit these cities and write letters to these publications. The Aspen Gay Community never informed any publications that the Paragon, as an example, was the place. Busch stated they felt that, ~inoe they had not instructed them, if the Paragon wanted their name removed, they should ask the publications to have their name removed. Busch stated whatever they agreed to does not alter the fact that what is going on in this town is a violation of a municipal ordinance. Mayor Edel asked if the problem were only with the Paragon. Busch said that was the major problem; however, at the meeting the manager of Andre's stated if he personally saw men dancing, he would ask them to stop. City Attorney Taddune told Council there was a meeting with the city, bar owners and gays to try to resolve this. Taddune said he had spoken to the police department this morning and was told there were no problems. Busch stated his fundamental complaint is that the city is not enforcing its anti-discrimination laws. Busch said there is a file of complaints in the police department dating over a year. Mayor Edel said they had this meeting to anticipate and try to resolve any potential problems. Mayor Edel asked if there is just this one complaint between Busch and the Paragon or are there a series of incidents Taddune stated his position is that this law is a little bit fuzzy and absent some clarification from the judiciary with respect whether it is a violation or not, Taddune feels it is not appropriate to prosecute a criminal action. In the ordinances, there is a provision that allows a person who feels discriminated against to bring a civil action. Taddune said the city spent quite a bit of effort trying to bring out an accommodation, and until this week things seemed smooth. Taddune said he is not certain what Busch's complaint is, is it that the Paragon stopped the music when several persons were dancing. Fred Kamm said if the law is not going to be followed, it aught to be scrapped. Let the courts decide this issue, if there is an issued. There have been agreements made that have not been honored. Busch walked into the Paragon and was requested to leave. Busch told the Paragon to call the police; there was a report filed. TaddUne Said he has not had a chance to review the report. Mayor Edel said that Busch is stating that the city is not enforcing a law; how can a law be enforced when no incidents have come up. Taddune said when he met with the bar owners, he requested th%y be tolerant when the gay groups were in town, and his information is that most of the bars have been doing this. But for this incidents, the city attorney has had no other complaints. Judy Thurman, Paragon, told Council Busch was 86-ed over a year ago mostly for being a trouble maker. The Paragon had gone to the police department and filled out a form to have this person 86-ed. Being thrown out of the Paragon friday night had nothing to do with sexual preference issue. Busch said that as part of the agreement last summer, this was to have been worked out. The council is losing site of the fact of enforcement of city law. Mayor Edel said he did not see that laws are being broken. Busch stated he filed a complaint with the city last April asking for judicial relief from the city; that has not been done. Mayor Edel said the city has had in depth, long range discussions on this and to say that the city did not follow through is not the fact. Tom Crumpacker, told Council that last summer there were negotiations and agreements over this disagreement. The problem that exists now has to do with Busch and Crumpacker's letter was that Busch was no longer to be 86ed from the Paragon. Busch has done nothing except stand up for rights of the people. Mayor Edel said he is committed to this law. On the other hand, he did not see where the I: city has not upheld the law. Terry Quirk, poliCe department, told Council that he had a conversation with Busch Sunday night and we agreed moderation was the key to the whole thing. Quirk said he has been out to see if the ordinance is being enforced; Quirk sees this on a nightly basis and there does not appear to be a flagrant problem. City Manager Chapman said that Busch has filed a complaint. The staff does notknowthe nature of the complaint exactly; to say the city has decided not to enforce the complaints is at best premature and maybe counter-productive to what the city is trying to do. Police Chief McClung informed the Council that the department has had no problems with the issues deal- ing with gay rights until Friday night. The police department will take the complaint, evaluate it and take it under advisement with the City Attorney. B!usch said he did not want to set up a situation but if one arose, would the city respond. Chapman answered that the city has responded; it may not the way Busch wanted but putting this to a court. Chapman said the city hopes what they have done will be effective; aside this one complaint it seems it has. Chapman said he hoped that this tonight does not trigger something the rest of the week. Chapman suggested he and the city attorney look at the complaint; talk to the police department. If this is a matter of the agreement being misunderstood, the attorneys should get together and find out where the communication got confused. If the complaint is something else, like music being turned, the staff will have to do more investigation. Council agreed with the course of action. INITIATIVE ON MINERAL POLICY ASSISTING COLORADO TAXPAYERS Mayor Edel introduced Carl Lehrburger and this item. IMPACT is working statewide on an initiative to pass a mineral several tax, which has had trouble passing the state legisla- ture. Mayor Edel said he hoped Council would endorse this initiative. Mayor Edel said states adjoining Colorado have significant severance tax~s. Lehrburger, representing IMPACT initiative, told Council they have been meeting to draft a proposed Constitutional amendment to raise a several tax and to provide for how the revenues will be allocated. This organization is composed of individuals and groups. The proposal, if passed, will provide a minimum percentage of gross production of mining in the state. This will also expand the applications for the revenue; presently this can only be spent for water. IMPACT Initiative anticipates having this on the ballot in November. Councilman Knecht moved to endorse the concept as proposed by IMPACT initiative; seconded by Councilman Collins. And to wish them well in their effort with the voters. Councilman Parry said the Council is getting a one-sided view; there is no arguement against this, or what the problems might be. Councilman Parry agreed it is good to put this on the ballot, but the Council knows nothing about this. Mayor Edel said this has been around in the state for a long time; it has been consistently defeated in the legislature. Mayor Edel said the voter should be able to decide. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried. EXTENSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION EXPIRATION - 700 S. Galena/925 E. Durant Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request for extension for the expira- tion date for a development allocation alloted to 700 S. Galena and 925 E. Durant, alloted in 1978. This extension is requested pursuant to SectiOn 24-11.7(a) giving Council the sole disCretion in granting extensions on a showing of good cause. Ms. Davis said this was granted in 1978, and at that time, the Code said that "plans sufficient for a build- ing permit issuance be obtained within a two year period". The two year period expired on February 1, 1980. A request for extension on the 925 Durant project was made and was denied in October 1979. Another request for the units on 700 S. Galena was made in October of 1979, at which time Council found out they did not have the legal means to provide an extension. The Council directed the attorney to draw up an ordinance so extensions to free market units could be granted. This ordinance was passed in January 1980 and also increased the time limit for free market units to obtain a building permit from 2 years to 4 years. This ordinance kept the time frame for employee units and for mixed projects at 2 year expiration date. Ms. Davis told Council this ordinance evolved out of the request for an extension on the 700 S. Galena project. However, there is no record that HBC came in after the ordinance was passed and asked for an extension. Unless the extension is granted this evening, both projects expired at that time. The 925 Durant project has received all subdivision approvals. The 700 S. Galena project is at preliminary plat stage; the P & Z tabled this project in order to obtain more detailed information on some problems. The P & Z at that time felt the expiration date was February 1, 1982. Tabling the plat would make this go past the February 1, 1982, deadline and P & Z recommended Council should extend the dead- line not to exceed 30 days. Ms. Davis said Wi~ther the allocations expired in February 1980 or not, the important thing is to determine what the intent of Council was at that time. Ms. Davis told Council, after researching the minutes, the intention was extend the deadline for the South Galena project but not for the employee units. Council had indicated they wanted the employee units built as soon as possible. If Council believes an extension is warranted, the planning office recommends an extension of three months. Mayor Edel said the applicant came to Council and assured Council that 925 Durant wou~d be built; what has happened. Mark Danielsen, representing the applicant, told Councii~ the 925 project has received final plat approval from P & Z and Council. The free market portion of the project subsidizes the employee unit; this project has been brought forward for preliminary plat approval. Mayor Edel asked why this has taken so long and why nothingtl has been built. Spencer Schiffer, representing the applicant, said that the 925 Durant project cannot succedd without the South Galena project. Schiffer pointed out immediately following the approvals for 925, the applicant started the approval Process for 700 S. Galena. Schiffer explained the applicant thought he needed final plat approVal for 925 before proceeding with the free market pOrtion of the project. Danielsen explained at the time they were working on 925 Durant, the Code had said that all projects had to submit plans sufficient for a building permit issuance within a period ending on the second anniversary of the deadline for submission for the application. The plans for 925 Durant were submitted before the deadline, February 1, 1980. The building department notified Council there were deviations in the plans from the GMP submission. On March 10,. 1980, Council approved the change in plans. The purpose of the change in plans was to hopefully accommodate more units on the site. Vann said the Council did not approve the plans; they allowed the applicant to amend his application for a different building configuration. Various items had to be resolved for this project. Then subdivision exception review was obtained. The project proceeded to Council for final plat approval. Danielsen stated the building plans were sufficient for a building permit and were filed within the deadline. The applicant continued to go on with the review process. The final plat was approval; the exemption from the R/MF moratorium was granted; the units were exempted from the GMP; and, the city obtained 50 year deed restrictions on the 925 Durant units. Schiffer had submitted a letter to Council outlining the chronology of both projects. Schiffer said the planning office, in reviewing their records, feels there may be a problem that the 925 project may be dead because plans were not submitted within the time frame. Schiffer said that the chronology illustrates it is impossible to take that position. Plans were submitted in January 1979; they were rejected because they deviated from the GMP applica- tion. There are seven actions outlined in the letter taken by P & Z and COuncil. Bill Drueding, building department~ told Council the plans were submitted, rejected, and sent back to Council. No plans have been resubmitted; there is no building permit applica- tion at this time. Schiffer told Council the complete working drawings and plans are now ready. Schiffer said he would be willing to accept any time frame for the project. Schiffer said he did not think this project should be killed on technical grounds. Councilman Parry said one of the biggest problems is all the time conStraints. Vann told council, theoretically, both projects expired in 1980 when construction was not started on 925 Durant. Because of the request to amend the application, and the review steps, and the staff proceeding on the assumption an extension had been obtained, the process has drug on to this point. Councilman Knecht moved that the extension on these two projeCts be granted until May 1, 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Edel asked when this would be bUilt. Danielsen told Council part of the conditions will set up a constrUction schedule for both projects. Councilman Collins said he had problems with all these delays; this has gone on and on and on, and he cannot support this extension. City Attorney Taddune told Council there is a provision in the Code that 180 days after a building permit construction must be commenced. Vann pointed out that projects can always apply for extensions under this. Councilman Parry said the ~eason the growth management plan was instituted was to delay growth; now Council is concerned with making it happen. Why should Council put restrictions on to make growth happen. Drueding told Council if the building department received a good set of plans, a building permit could be issued in two or three weeks. Mayor Edel asked if the city could have an agreement drawn up that within 30 days subsequent the building has to be commenced and within a six month period that the majority of the building has to be completed. Taddune told Council the granting of an extension is within the sole discretion of Council; if the applicant makes representations to persuade Council to agree with the extension, they can be held to these. Schiffer said the applicant could agree to a commencement date and a reasonable period of time to complete construction~ Schiffer said he would be willing to work with the city attorney to draw up an agreement. Taddune said he had a reservation about problems with weather or construction. Schiffer said their intent is to do what Council is asking for; there could be problems with the heavy snow and large runoff. Mayor Edel asked if they would allow the city building department or city manager to be the sole judge of this. Schiffer said they could agree to this. Vann asked what happens if the applicant fails to comply. Mayor Edel said the project is done, gone forever. Mayor Edel restated the extension is to May lst; the applicant has voluntarily offered, lto agree that if work has not commenced by June 1st, and if construction has not been complete 90 per cent within 6 months subject to review by the city manager and the city attorney as to untoward forces was what he wanted. Councilman Knecht amended his motion to add commencement date of June 1st. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. 1982 LODGE GMP COMPETITION Planning Director Sunny Vann told Council they are required to allocate the lodge quota by December 1st of each year. There were two applicants in 1982 lodge GMP process; Lyle Reeder - Lodge at Aspen, and Hans Cantrup with an expansion of the Aspen Inn, The plannin¢ staff met with Council November 19th to discuss the amount of the lodge quota and to hear appeals filed by both applicants protesting the outcome of the scoring of P & Z. At that meeting, the quota was determined; there was insufficient quota for both applicants. The planning office requeSted that the appeals be tabled pending resolutions of some issues identified by the planning office subsequent to the P & Z scoring. Vann told Council in looking at the 1978 GMP amendment for the Aspen Inn, some problems were run into both with the 1978 amendment and the 1982 application for the Aspen Inn. The Municipal Code requires the planning office to reject applications that are not in compliance with the Code. As a result of Council's actions on the 1978 GMP amendment for the Aspen Inn, which is the basic building block for the 1982 application, the 1982 applic~ tiond does not comply with the Code. The planning office must reject the 1982 GMP applica~ tion for the Aspen Inn. The application was rejected on January 20, 1982, and Cantrup's appeal of the P & Z scoring is a moot point. Lyle Reeder is now the only viable applicant for a lodge allocation; therefore, there is no need to continue his appeal. Vann told Council the Aspen Inn was a phased application with the 1978 competition represents the basic building block for the entire project. Portions of the Aspen Inn were constructed that were not in compliance with the 1978 application. The applicant then requested an amendment be processed to clarify this. An amendment was submitted, which Council rejected. The 1982 GMP application is predicated on receiving the amendment and is an integral part of it; therefore, Council cannot consider the 1982 application in the context of the original 1978 application because it is not constructed and does not comply with the basic requirement of the Code, which says one cannot deviate from what an approval was received for without obtaining an amendment for it. Vann told Council the 1982 applicant cannot be checked with the 1978 amended application because it does not exist at this time. City Attorney Taddune read an applicable Section of the Code. Taddune said what exists now is a structure that does not conform to the allotment granted in 1978, so the 1982 application, which is based on the 1978 application is different because the applicant constructed something which he had no developmental right to do. Vann said, technically, this is not a discretionary item. The applicant cannot comply, therefore he cannot compete. Schiffer told Council the apPlication was submitted in August; the competition was held in October, at which time the applicant won the competition. Schiffer pointed out it was reviewed at that time and no one said anything about it. Vann explained that Alan Richman scored this application and Vann was processing the 1978 amendment. There is no question this problem was not caught at the time of submittal. Vann said until the staff got deeply involved with the 1978 amendment, the problems were not found because this is a cumulative thing. Mayor Edel asked that the two issues be separated and that Reeder's application be approved. Schiffer objected because since they won the competition from P & Z, Council needs to formally reject the application. Taddune read from 22-11.3(c) stating that the planning office shall reject applications which fail to satisfy certain criteria; the planning director has made a determination that the Cantrup application should be rejected on the basis it fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24. Councilman Knecht said this is very unfair; the determination should have been made was the application was made. Richman told Council there was not a final word from Council until December 28. The 1978 application does not exist; therefore, it cannot be added onto. Schiffer submitted a letter on behalf of the applicant for the record. Schiffer~ said they disagree the 1982 application is predicated upon the validity of the 1978 application. Schiffer said at this stage, the staff can turn to the Code and say the planning director can reject the application when an allocation has been awarded. Richman said this application has not gone into the second step of receiving allocation; there is adequate legal precedent existing in Pitkin County. Chapman told Council, to simplify this, the Aspen Inn had approval for step 1; they built step 1 and step 2 without getting approval for step 2. The applicant has submitted for step 3; Council has rejected step 2. The planning office and building department have to look at step 3 without a step 2 and they cannot do it. Mayor Edel said there is no motion on HBC application. Councilman Collins moved to direct the planning office to prepare a resolution awarding a development allocation of 31 lodge units to ~. Lyle Reeder and to authorize Mr. Ree-er to proceed further with additional approvals required from the city prior to obtaining a building permit; seconded by Councilman Parry. Schiffer said he felt the Aspen Inn application had to be formally rejected before Council could approve another. Taddune said the Code states that something that does not comply should not be considered. All in favor, motion carried. JUDICIAL REVIEW/ASPEN INN 1978 GMP AMENDMENT Spencer Schiffer said because of the failure to approval the 1978 GMP amendment on December 28, in order to preserve their rights to litigate this issue, they need to file a law suit by Wednesday. Schiffer said the applicant has had discussion with the staff and is hopeful they can resolve this issue short of litigation. Schiffer said he would like Council to authorize the city attorney to enter into a stipulation granting the applicant an additional period of time within which to file the appeals and the suits. City Manager Chapman told Council this could proceed in two ways, litigate and design. Chapman felt it was in everyone's interest not to litigate but to have the Cantrup organi- zation concentrate their time and energy on getting a PUD application in. The staff is suggesting in order to permit this, the City give the applicant an extension of time. Chapman said the staff would like to see the project done, but done in an orderly process. Chapman recommended the city enters into a stipulation whereby the city agrees the appli- cant will not lose their rights to appeal provided a PUD application is filed by a date certain and that their rights to appeal would be extended to a period beyond that sub- mittal. The applicant can decide, based on what happens with the PUD, whether it is in their best interest to file legal action. Councilman Knecht moved the Council extend the deadline for the legal action date one month; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Collins asked if by doing this, the city was waiving their rights. Taddune outlined that if Council takes a certain action, in order to go into Court and ask for a review of that action, a lawsuit has to be commenced within 30 days of that action to seek judicial review. If an applicant waits beyond the 30 day period, Taddune can move to dismiss the action because it was not filed within the statutory limitation. The staff is proposing to work with the applicant to assist them in submitting the PUD and the amendment to the 1978 GMP application for the Aspen Inn would be approved in the bigger picture, and any appeals would be moot. The city would be waiving their right to request the Court to throw the lawsuit out on the basis it was not timely filed. The applicant has indicated they may file the suit; then stipulate to extend the time for any action on the lawsuit to take place. Mayor Edel said if the applicant is going to sue, let them put the suit on the books and proceed. Mayor Edel said he wanted to be free to make his decision without any obscurity of the issue. Taddune said what the applicant is suggest- ing is if there is a lawsuit on the books, the city and the applicant won't actively go after each other until the other process is worked on. Tom Kirwin told Council the intention of the Cantrup organization is to cooperate with the staff and hold the actual progress in abeyance long enough to try and work this out. Councilmembers Knecht and Parry in favor; Councilman Collins and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Winter Haven Condominiums Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request for exception from full subdivision for a triplex on West End street. Mayor Edel said the memorandum from Ms. Davis is explanatory. Councilman Parry said the engineering conditions could be eliminate because all the conditions have to be on the plat in the engineering review. Council agreed. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the request for subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization subject to the following conditions: (1) applicant agrees to comply with the requirements of Section 20-22 of the Code including, (a) units be deed restricted to six months minimum leases with only two shorter tenancies per year; and (b) existing tenants are given written notice of the condominiumization and they are also given the right of first refusal in purchasing their unit; (2) the engineering conditions listed in the memorandum; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor~ motion carried. LITTLE ANNIE SKI AREA ~ FINAL PLAT This is being tabled at the request of the applicant until February 22, 1982. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 2~'~ 1982 RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 1982 - Adopting 1982 Pay and Classification Plan Councilman Parry moved to read Resolution #1, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Knecht RESOLUTION ~1 (Series of 1982) WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Personnel Director is responsible for preparing and recommending to the City Manager a pay classifica- tion plan and pay. schedule, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the classification plan and pay schedule should be adjusted annually to represent the cost of living increases and the position classification adjustments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the proposed 1982 pay schedule and classification plan for City employees, as approved during the 1982 budget sessions, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, is hereby adopted. Personnel Director Patsy Malone told Council these five per cent increases had been reviewe, and approved by Council during 1982 budget sessions. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution ~1, Ser~es of 1982; seconded by Councilman Knech All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1982 - In Lieu of Tax Payments from Electric Fund Councilman Parry opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Councilman Parry closed the public hearing. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance ~5, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, nay; Parry, aye Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 96, SERIES OF 1982 - Non-profit budget appropriations; ACES and Aspen Council for Youth. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance 96, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~6 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATIONG $15,000 FROM CURRENT YEAR APPROPRIATED REVENUES IN THE LAND FUND FOR A CASH CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND APPROPRIATING $7,000 FROM CURRENT YEAR UNAPPROPRIATED REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR A CASH CONTRIBUTION TO THE ASPEN COUNCIL FOR YOUTH was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adop~ Ordinance ~6, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. BUS BARN AGREEMENT City Manager Chapman told Council the original contract Council authorized between the architectural engineering firm, the city and the county for construction of the bus main- tenance facility did not work out. The city and county were not able to reach an agree- ment with the architectural engineering firm and had to go into more negotiations with a new firm. This has resulted in a six week delay. Another contract has been received and reviewed by the transportation consultant. Chapman requested Council approve the contract subject to the approval by the city attorney. This is basically the same contract with modification the city tried to get the original architect/engineering firm to incorporate. The fee structure is the same; there are more guarantees from the firm. Councilman Knect moved to approve the contract for the bus malntenance facility subject to the approval of the city attorney~ seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor; Councilman Collins abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Collins moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry.i All in favor, motion carried. K~ City Clerk