Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19821012 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 1982 Mayor Pro Tem Michael called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht and Parry present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION-(1)Letter £rom Francis Whitaker dated 10/11/82 "Honorable Mayor, Councilwoman and Councilmen: I cherish my freedom, I treasure my ability to live my own life and run my own business with a minimum of government interference. I am absolutely appaled by the proposal that the City of Aspen act as licensing and collection agent for the new Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA). I read that Councilwoman Michael is not bothered by the compulsory membership requirement, also that John Francis doesn't want to "jam the program down anyone's throats." What Mr. Francis probably means is that he DOES want to jam it down the throat of anyone opposed. That is my definition of compulsory. If the City Council has the power to compel such membership and dues payment, I have lost a vital part of my freedom. I doubt the City Council has that power, an opinion shared by one former City Attorney. It is also doubtful that the stated goals and objectives of ACRA are bona-fide municipal purposes. The goals, enhancing Aspen's image, a marketing plan, a sales office and reservation system are clearly for the benefit of a special interest group, commercial and not municipal. As to Aspen's mmage, it would be far better to improve Aspen, and let its image take care of itself. A million plus dollars a year would go a long way to improve the City, cleaner streets and alleys, more sidewalks for pedestrians, more trees planted, more parks and open space. Those are municipal purposes. I have successfully operated my business mn Aspen for 19 years, the secret of my success is 'quality, service, and a fair prmce. I wish to continue on that basis without outside help or interference. Not too many years ago, the City of Aspen closed and sealed the doors to my business, because of my refusal to collect and pay an illegal tax. I was forced into court to protect myself and my livelihood. The City lost the case. Have any el you ever had the government close your business? It was a frightening and expensive experience. I pray it may not happen again. Respectfully yours, Francis Whi~aker" (2) Joan Lane inquired about a piece of land. the Rio Grande old right-of-way and reminded Council a few citizens came in several weeks ago to ask the Council To consider looking at this as open space before it gets a 27,000 square foot warehouse built on it. At that time, the Mayor said he would hand that over to his staff and Ms. Lane would like to know what happened. Chapman said he had not understood that it was a request to consider it as an acquisition of open space. Chapman thought the request was for a s~atus report on the property. Chapman met with the planning staff and was told there were some issues that had to be resolved regarding the property. Chapman asked staff to check out the problem with easements across the property which might be compromised, and also to check into the history of that particular parcel. Chapman said when the Trueman Center was being developed, that property was offered to the City for acquisition for approximately $300,000. The City had a choice of talking cash for park dedication or that piece of property and the City chose to take cash and the property remained mn ownership of the Trueman Center. Chapman talked with the Parks Association people and asked them to look at this property and give the City their input as to whether this is a high priority acquisition. Chapman told Council he has not heard back from them. Councilman Parry said he heard a rumor that the park dedication money was never paid and asked if that could be checked on. Councilman Collins said that in the last two joint meetings with the County they asked for some information on that planed area on the Trueman Property about trails and trail easements. Councilman Collins said he would like to get a map and put it on the agenda of the precise plan for that area. There was no other Citizen participation. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Knecht said he would like to table Ordinance ~50 on Election Dates as Bill and Mary Martin and some other members would like to be present when it comes before Council. Councilman Knecht moved ~o table Ordinance #50, Series of 1982. Councilman Collins seconded the motion. Ail in £avor, motion carried. 2. Councilman Collins moved to have a brief item with the Planning Department regarding the proposed warehouse and storage on the Trueman Property as well as the trails; Seconded by Councilman Knecht. Ail in favor, motion carried. 3. Councilwoman Michael said the Wheeler Architects were in town and the Council should meet with them. The meeting was set for 11:00 A.M. on October 13, 1982. 4. Councilwoman Michael brought up the question of appointments. Council interviewed four applicants with the P & Z and they need to appoint an alternate. She said she felt Council should wait for Mayor Edel. However, on the Commercial Core and Loding Commission, David Fleisher and Rich Perez have applied, Councilwoman Michael asked if Council wanted to interview the two. Councilman Parry said he knows both of the people and would like to appoint them and the CCLC has no problem with these applicants. Councilman Parry made a motion to appoint David Fleisher and Rich Perez to the CCLC. Seconded by Councilman Knecht. Ail in favor, motion carried. 5. Councilwoman Michael said there is a meeting tomorrow over housing consolidation at the Community Center and at 5:00 p.m. there is a budget meeting on non-profit requests and Thursday, October 14th a meeting on the arts groups budget requests. 6. Councilman Parry moved to put The Zeits building permit problem on the agenda. Councilman Collins seconded the mormon. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #51, FIRE STATION REZONING TO PUBLIC/SPA AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Colet~e Penne, planning officer, said the request is rezoning from park to public with an SPA overlay to allow an addition to be built on to the existing fire station and an addition by the fire station of a building on the east property line. The tenant for the building will be the Thrift Shop. the SPA plan will indicate the uses as allowable; these will be fire district uses and The Thrift Shop. Ms. Penne reminded Council they sponsored this application to rezone. The SPA for this sets the area and bulk requirements that will be used on the property. Any deviation from the site plan that is adopted will have to go through an SPA amendment process. The fire station does have some plans for expansion in terms of offices or housing which will have to come through Council at the time of development. Ms. Penne said the ordinance to rezone and adopt the SPA Plan, Ordinance 51 is before Council for first reading. There is also a special review requirement for the parking. The parking proposes is five spaces on the alley side. The criteria for evaluation of rezonlng of The site ms in the commercial core zone but the use has been a public use for years and ii is within the vicinity of other public uses. City Hall and the County Courthouse. Ms. Penne pointed out the greenspace offered by the park is being retained on the site to some degree. The site plan proposes quite, a bit of landscaping a walkway. Ms. Penne said the expansion of two uses are of community benefit; those being the Fire Department and the Thrift Shop. J.R. McArthur said the long range planning of the fire district proposes a office for a fire marshal and fire chief. The building for the Thrift Shop had to take into consideration those long range plans. Councilman Knecht moved to grant the special review of the parking as outlined in the site; seconded by Councilman Parry. Ail in favor, motion carried. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance #51, Series of 1982 on first reading, seconded by Councilman Knecht. ORDINANCE #51 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO. TO REZONE FROM PARK TO PUBLIC/SPA THE PROPERTY AT 420 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE FOR USE AS A FIRE STATION COMPLEX. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #51 Series of 1982 on first reading, seconded by Council Knecht. Roll Call. Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST TO WAIVE UTILITY HOOK-UP CHARGES - Thrift Shop Karen Kashinski asked if the City could help the Thrift Shop by waiving utility hookups, building permit and cut fees. Ms. Kashinski told Council the building will cost $100,000. We have a contractor who has given Time and materials and we have an architect who has done this design free of ch arge. Chapman said the City can't waive sewer fees. and probably can't waive the building permit. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 1982 Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council the true applicant is the fire district and not the Thrift Shop; the building is being constructed basically to accommodate ~he future plans of the fire district. Chapman told Council the water hookup fees would probably be about $2,000, Electricity $30.00, the Parks fee do not apply. Councilman Knecht moved ~o waive all City applicable utility connection fees associated with the Thrift Shop including water hookup, water cu~ fee, electricity anm the city's share of the building permit; seconded by Councilman Parry. Ail in favor, motion carried. The Thrift ~hop askea council if they could use the white house on Spring and tfopkins. Because of the change in Code, Council said it would no~ be feasible. ASPEN INN GMP City Attorney Taddune told Council this item has been tabled by consent of the applicant and city a~vorney. ORDINANCE #52, Series of 1982 - Timeshare Alice Davis, planning office passed out an Ordinance with a few language changes from the last one Ms. Davis said the major issues are outlines in the memo. Ms. Davis said the major mssues are outlined in the memo. Ms. David would like Council to go over these issues and decide whether or not they agree wmth the way P & Z dealt with them. The Planning office agrees in mos~ areas with the P & Z. Nick McGrath told Council they are presenting Timeshare for first reading. At the next meeting and public hearing, we would make a fuller presentation. Councilman Knecnt said he gathered up a great deal of information on this and feels that time snare would be the worst thing that could ever happen to Aspen. It adds all kinds of parameters where There could be slipshoddy real esrate on already developed real estave. Councilman Knecht said this is a step backwards in Aspen's ~ouris~ facilities, and the city should concentrate on quality. Councilman Knecht said that the bad things far outweigh the good things mn timeshare. McGrath told Council that is the way P & Z started, and he felt he made some good presentations. McGrath said he would like a public hearing. Councilman Collins said he feels like this would be openmng Pandora's box and the long range impacvs would be serious for the ~own. McGrath suggested that his view of what ms appropriate is that this ought 5o get ~o the public hearing s~age. This committee has worked on ~his with the City since May and has had a lot of meetings. The committee ms asking vo reach some compromise so this can get To the public hearing stage. Kaufman told Council the committee was pu~ together of local citizens who studied time share for five months. The local citizen group was all positive and the P & Z after five months was positive. Kaufman told Council they are not going to give the public an opportunity and P & Z members and its time share committee an opportunity for a public hearing and it is very unfair. Council agreed to pu~ it off until the fifth person is here. Councilman Parry moved to table Ordinance #52, Series of 1982, seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roger ~funt said he was the minority mumber on the P & Z and didn't vote for this proposal because he didn't consider it restrictive enough. Hunt would like to see Council go forward with it and it should be more restrictive. Ail in favor motion carried. ORDINANCE ~3, Series of 1982 - Exemptions from Growth Management Plan Sunny Vann said the Planning office has been working with revisions ~o the growth managemen~ regulatory process for twelve months. Vann said they made extensive revisions mn both the City and County. The coverage was ex~ended in the County to include commercial and lodge development. We have revised the quota procedures for residential in the County and the City as well as commercial and lodge. The zone coverage for commercial development has been expanded to include all zone districts consistent with the ~riginal recommendations of growth managemenv plan. This ordinance is the keystone of all our regulatory reform; the method by which we keep track of the quota system itself. Vann said the svaff has the ormginal growth management plan and has found that many of the original recommendations i! are still viable today. Vann said the problem that has occurred is that certain assumptions that were made have not necessarily proved ~o be correct. Alan Richman told Council the issue is complex and the questions are detailed. Councilwoman Michael said the important issue is the growth issue as it has been in this community for the last ten years. The exemptions reflect community concerns and issues that Council thought important enough to exempt. Richman said there is no reason to undermine what are considered to be community priorities in addition to the growth priority. Richman said those priorities and community objectives can be accommodated by this proposal. Richman outlined the existing exemptions on the books, and how they came To be and what the implications oi those exemptions are and the growth management policies in terms of the actual growth rates. The P & Z addressed three areas in their resolution recommending this code amended to Council. First and most significan~ is that the civy should be deducting employee housing units from the quota itself once they are constructed, while continuing to exempv employee units from the competition process. Secondly, the exemptions on the books were looked at to determine whether any of them are inappropriate and should be eliminated. The staff looked at the exemptions themselves and the procedural aspect of these exempt~ions vo see il they work. And if nov, is there a review mechanism that needs modification. Richman listed the twelve existing exemptions are under the quova sysvem. They fall into a couple of broad cavegormes. One is legal requirements. This ms primarily the development of single family and duplex units on lots which were subdivided in advance of growth managemenv. That was one of the original ones mn the growth managemenv plan. There are a couple that are technical exemptions: one for essential governmental projects which was considered vo be legally outside of the growth management sysvem: anovher is for construction based on building permits whici~ were issued prior to the growth management system, and finally an exemption for all developmenv which is not specifically limited by the quotas. Richman samd the ovner area that staff has examined was the community priorities which nave been exempted from tee growth managemenv system on a competition basis and mn certain cases an exemption has also been gmven from the quota itself. There are cases where one doesn'v have To compete for the right to build a unit or vo expand a commercial s~ructure in the historic building but also when the unit is built it is nov included whey we call the bookkeeping sysvem. This aspecv - of exemptions was focused on. In ao way did the staff avvempv to deal with the community prmorities or vry vo eliminave any of those. Richman told Council it was assumed vnav the housing priorivy and the historica~ designation priormvy would be maintained. The question is how vo accounv for the growth which occurs through vhose exemptions. The P & A addressed three things: the firsv conclusion regarding community priorities and they are appropriate and it should continue vo be community policy that exemptions be given vo projecvs which meev communivy objectives Exemptions from competition are appropriate for employee housing, and for historically designated svrucvures. These are ~tan~ - things in a community. P & Z felt that all growth essentially h~'Ta~ distinction in verms of its impacv on the community. Richman stated it makes no logical sense to exclude any type of growth from the quova sysvem, unless by doing so it essentially puv an impediment vo the abilivy to achieve the community objectives. As long as the city can continue to meev community priorities and still have a growth management sysvem w~ich is comprehensive and which takes into accounv all vypes of growth, the P & Z Commission felt comfortable with the ability vo bring everything under the quova sysvem. Richman pointed our through data ii nas been proved that employee housing could onctinue to be developed in the commun~vy commensurate with what has been developed in the past while keeping it under the quova. Richman said secondly P & Z realized vna~ if vney were going to include all developmenv within the quova sysvem, there might be a chance ay some point in the future for the quova vo be used up based on employee housing development. Ri~hman saia ay the present time there is no danger of this but a long-range plan would wanv vo make sure that the plan does nov disin£ranchmse the free market person from ever being able ~o compete under the growth management sysvem. Some flexibilivy has been provided vo insure the availability of free marke~ quota for competition under the residential growth management system. The third area relates to if an exemption is awarded should the developer have to mitigate the impacts of their development. ? & Z ~elt that the theme o£ ~rowth management plan is that development should be approved which will mitigate the impacts on the Community as much as possible. I~ somebody is ~oin~ to receive an exemption from competition~ which in and o~ itsel~ is a major incentive~ there is no reason to also exempt that project from impact mitigation. The plannin~ office believes that all projects that receive exemptions from GMP should be able to mitigate their impacts. Richraan want through the ~rowth data to show exemptions have caused some problems. The important numbers are the level of employee housin~ ~rowth and £ree-markat housin~ ~rowth which the City have experienced durin~ the past £iva years. The totals the City has experienced for 1977~ which was the year that ~rowth management was initiated~ through the end o~ last year is a total 60 units a year o£ residential development; Thirty-£our of those have been ~ree market units and twenty-six o~ those have been employee units. The residential quota was to be 39 units a year. The County as well has exceeded its ~rowth rate; it's quota was 27 in the metro area and it had 54 units developed. Councilwoman Michael said the ~ro~th rate was incorporated and planned for under the GM?. The minute the City began to exempt units it created another ~rowth rate. Vann told Council this ra~lects a chan~e in posture when the City decided to exempt employee housing. Vann said the original GMP~ which included all development and employee housin9 was 39 units a year. Theoretically the GM? was based on some abilities to sustain and pay £or services in this community amon~ other objectives as well. A decision was made to exempt certain projects~ and the ~rowth rate which the City has been experiencin9 is 60 units. Richman noted that creatin~ methods by which employee units could be developed outside the quota system resulted in 60 units a year. Richman said there are a number of projects which have been approved over the past few years which have not bean developed. When you consider that 60 units a year for the past five years have been developed, it is interesting how few of them have actually come out of the growth management competition system. There is a backlog of units sitting out there over the city's head as a potential to continue the growth rate that we have experienced. There ara 290 units which the City has Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 1982 approved which have not been built; the Marolt project Which is 100 units; 100 plus units have been allocated to Mr. Cantrup; various residential projects which have not ~et been built; the commitment to the Smuggler/Pitkin Resort Project, which has not yet been built and a couple of other small projects. In the City the only approved lodge project which is now under building permit at the present time as the Lodge in Aspen. There are two pro3ects which are under review at the present time; a 67 unit addition at the Hotel Jerome and a proposal for a large GMP project totaling around 100 units. Richman said the major area of free market development in the City is on previously subdivided lots. Richman said that the key is out of the 300 unit total, 122 and 8 have been deducted from the quotas. The rest of the units essentially have had no effects on the quotas. Employee units do not compete; five units have been exempted, three in Park Central West and two at 1015 E. Hyman. Richman went through a chart of how build out becomes available; there should be 39 units available to the residential competitor this year. However, because of the economic situation and projects which have or will expire there may be a potential of about 100 units available for competition next year. Richman pointed out if employee housing and free market housing are totaled, the city has exceeded the growth rate and it seems there is a logic massing by not deducting the employee housing which has occurred from the quota system. . ~ployee housing doesn't compete for quota but should be deducted from the quota. Richma~ told Council a substantial portion of growth something around 35-40% has been e~ployee housing. Richman sai~ if those units had been deducted from the quota or some portion of them to have been deducted from the quota, the resultant availability for the free market would have been substantially less. The staff recognazes that it is not possible to always account for employee housing project within the quota - Castle Ridge is the perfect exemple If Castle Ridge would have been acco~nted~ for in the quota that would have wiped out two years worth of quota. Th~ staf~ll explain there is a method by which Council can choose not to include a p~e~t such as that within the quota; in that case Council must take into account the overall growht management concept. This is a bookkeeping system. When a unit is built, is it pu~ aside into a special category or included as a unit of growth. Richman sai~ if employee housing as included within the quota, there is still plenty of room for residential development in this communaty. Sunny Vann told Council the staff feels with deducting employee units that there would be a quota available - particularly in the economic situation we are But even if there as a dramatic change in that, with 100 unit potential build out and 39 units comang into it on a year to year basis, there is going to be something there for people to compete for. Vann said the question is not so much what the growth rate should be but how from a sustainability point of view and a comprehensive approach, should it be kept track'of. The city feels the quota is too small and wants to sustain a higher level of growth, it is very easily accomplished by samply ancreasing the quota. The growth management process is a dynamic one, and the staff continues to monitor the implications of the growth in this community on such things as services, changing community priorities and so forth. In the next couple of years the priorities may shift. Council has the ability to change the quotas and adjus~ the exemptions to meet those priorities. Vann said this recognizes up front all the growth in this community. Vann said this is at least a mechanism to keep track of and identify growth. This system does not gave an outright commitment to 39 free market units every year. Based on shifting priorities to lodge council has increased the quota. Vann stated this will still accomplish the same level of free market development that has been occurring over the last few years. City Manager Chapman pointed out the sangle biggest component of growth is previously subdivided lots; those are exemp5 from compeition and get the first choice. Chapman said he is concerned that these 581 previou~sly subdivided units could take up 39 units a year for the next 14 years. Vann said if the city still has an employee housing problem, and needs a large project and Council wants to exempt it to facilitiate its construction, that forces Council to make a decision. Council either finds a way to accommodate the project through expansion of service or recognize the impact can be mitigated over time by some other decision. Vann told Council they have said the city can sustain "x" amount of growth in the future. If it doesn't occur in one year, theoretically, it can be accommodated next year. Chapman told Council there has to be some legal analytical basis to the numbers. Based on studites the City can grow at a rate of 39 units a year. The City only granted 26, so if those other 13 are out the window forever, this could be forming a basis for challenge for the whole allocation system. Gideon Kaufman said he doesn't feel the issue is to include employee housing or not. The city should look ~t all the growth; employee housing is growth and free market is growth. The residential is 39. The city is requiring all of the commercial and lodge and all the new areas to supply employee housing added to that the built-out potential for existing lots. The reality is conceivably there could be a quota of eight. Kaufman pointed out the problem arises if someone wants to build a large pro3ect, this makes it difficult for anyone to be able to do a development of any kind of size. Kaufman said the city gets the employee housing from the GMP and free market development. Kaufman told Council he doesn't have a problem with the concept of counting employee units an the quota; however, he does have a problem with the number which is drastically reduced the 39 units, down to a manlmum of eight. Richman said there is a point that hasn't been broached with Council, which is if all the free market quota is used in any one year, there is a legal safeguard to insure that at a minimum there are eight units available for free market development. Those eight unitsa~eeight free market units, not four employee units and four free market units. The developer could then match this with any number of employee units. Under the present legislation, there is no provision for insuring a quota in each year unless Council borrow against future year. There is greater protection in this ordinance for the free market developer than there is now. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance 53, Series of 1982. Councilman Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 53 Series of 1982 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-11.2 AND 24-11.3 AND REPEALING SECTIONS 24-11.8 AND 24-11.10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM AND THE METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND LODGE DEVELOPMENT QUOTAS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #53, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. Mayor Pro Tem Michael said she would like this %o move to the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Michael said she would like the system to have some flexibility toward employee housing. Councilman Knecht said he is in favor of including employee housing as there is a dual growth .rate in the GMP and it doesn't do any good not to count employee housing. Roll cass vote; Parry, nay; Knecht, aye; Collins, nay; Michael, aye. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Parry moved to reconsider Ordinance #53, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved ro adopt Ordinance #53, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #54, Series of 1982 - Code Amendment GMP Submission. Alan Richman, planning office, told Council the dates for GMP submission currently are Commercial-September 1; Lodge - September 1; and Residential-January 1. Richman said there are some problems with these dates. Changing these dates is for the benefit of the applicants. It is difficult for developers to deal with all the various applications and for P & Z to schedule their work sessions and scoring sessions to deal with that many applications. Richman said the January 1 residential date is one that is universally hated by all developers; it forces them to come in here on New Year's eve and submit their applications. Also, the January 1st application date makes it difficult for residential applicants to turn around into that building season because it only gives five months of review time to get processed. The planning office suggests to move Commercial ahead a month to August 1st, and move ldoge back one month to October 1st and move residential up a month to December 1st. This will allow some regularity in terms of theprocessing and give P & Z time ~o deal with the process. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance ~54, Series of 1982. Seconded by Council~Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 54 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-11.4, 24-11.5 and 24-11.6 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE ANNUAL DATE FOR THE SUBMISSION AND PROCESSING OR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND LODGE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance 54, 1982 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. Motion carried. MALL FOUNTAIN REPAIRS Monroe Summers reminded Council they had asked Travis Fulton the cost of repairing the fountain to high quality. It would probably cost in the neighborhood of $13,616. The staff did ask for two other informational bids to try and be more precise and came up with bids in excess of that amount $17,865 plus design costs which would put it in the neighborhood of $19,000 and $19,848. Summers requested Council to approve an additional $3,616. Council has approved the othe~ $10,000; but it has not been appropriated. Travil Fulton told Council he would do stainless steel, welding and building cages this Fall. Councilman Knecht moved to approve an additional S3,616, for Mall fountain repairs and authorize the staff to prepare the necessary documents; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 55, SERIES OF 1982, AMENDMENTS TO HISTORIC DESIGNATION. Colette Penne, planning office, said this ordinance makes a change in Section 24 on Historic Section designation. P & Z suggested that the HPC instead of having seven members and three alternates, go to seven members and one alternate. There is a problem with attendance. Ms. Penne spoke to the HPC about P & Z's recommendatKon and they don't like it. HPC prefers to keep seven and three. Councilman Parry said if HPC wants three alternates it should stay that way. Ms. Penne pointed out subsection (b) which states "to review and render decisions on individual building permit applications". Councilman Parry asked if it wouldn't be better to revKew and make recommendations to Council. Ms. Penne said an applicant has appeal power to Council but HPC does not recommend Council's final action. Ms. Penne told Council she added language that HPC shall include members with expertise in the fields of design, architecture, history, real estate and law. That Ks not all encompassing. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance 55, Series of 1982. Seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 55 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE IX, OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE - HISTORIC DESIGNATION Councilman Knecht moved to approve Ordinance 55, SerKes of 1982, with seven regular members and three alternate members. Councilman Collins seconded. Councilman Collins asked how this orlgKnated and what are the changes in ~his from the present ordinance on the books? Ms. Penne said the memo outlines all the changes. The things that are changes are number 1, it changes composition which Council is leaving the 7 and 3. It adds the language that people from various fields need to be appointed. The HPC functions as a design review board. Ms. Penne said the only fair thing to do is ~o have people who have some design background and real estate background. The other thing that changes is that in the Code as it presently reads, applications orKgKnate from the Building Dept. They don't do that on a functional basks - they originate with the Planning Office. Ms. Penne said she also added the language that a building inspector will be assigned a~ liason to the HPC because as the Code presently reads any decision that is rendered has to be sent in writing ~o the building department within 10 days of the decision. That is a delay that is not necessary because the decisions are made at the meetKng. The applicant knows that and so does the building department. Those are the changes. Councilman Parry asked about colors. Ms. Penne responded that none of the design criteria are part of the Ordinance. Roll call vote. Councilmembsrs Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. ZEITS BUILDING PERMIT City Attorney Taddune told Council that Zeits is proposing to build in five feet of an easement that may or may no5 be there. He said Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary studies this situation and determined that all the easements in the area are 10 feet as opposed 5o 15 feet. Esary asked Mrs. Zeites if she would agree to dedicate to the City a ten foot easement and suggested Mrs. Zeits submit a signed indemnification agreement agreeing to indemnify the City in the even~ somebody felt that the city permitted construction in their easement of right-of-way. The opinKon from the EngKneering Department is that the easement wi.il never be called upon and this is merely a formality. Councilman Parry moved to accep~ a ~en foot utility easement from Rober~ and Terry Zeits with respect to the southeasterly boundary of Block 1, West Aspen, Subdivision Filing No. 2 and move to authorize and direct the Mayor or the City Manager to execute an indemnity agreement between the Zeits and the City in exchange for the issuance of Building Permit No. 5541. Seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENTS APPROVAL ON PENNE, DAVID & HORN EMPLOYEE UNIT Assistant City Manager Ron Mitchell told Council according to the sales agreemen~ any Kmprovements have to be approved by the Council prior to the improvemenss being implemented. They received bids. This is the maximum price that the bids have indicated ~o enclose one room and install a fence area to provide some security. If Council approves this, it would be added to the value of the home. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the construction improvements requested on the Penne Davis Horn employee unit to a maximum expenditure of $7654; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. TRUEMAN PROPERTY Colette Penne presented a map and told Council that nothing can be developed on Lots 2, 3 and 4 until until an SPA amendr~ent is processed. Gideon Kaufman said this was done by Trueman before his subdivision. Trueman went through both the P & Z and City Council to get the Trueman subdivision approved. Kaufman said before his client purchased Lot 3, he checked with the zoning map, checked with the Planning Office and also with the minutes which showed that this particular lot was discussed whether or not development should be allowed. Kaufman stated development is not prohibited on this lot. As a matter of fact, the City turned down the opportunitH of taking thislot in lieu of park dedication fees because the city wanted the money instead of a lot. Kaufman told Council his client went through the growth management pland ant at P & Z they received the highest point total of any of the GMP applications. Hal Clark of the Parks Association contacted Kaufman because the Parks Association has concern about the sensitivity of the area and because the Pitkin County Parks Association does not have $400,000 to buy the property. Kaufman and Hal talked about the possibility of coming up with some kind of compromise where the back part of this lot may be donated to the Pitkin County Parks Association for a park on the back and development moved up in the front. Ms. Penne said one of the reasons it had the highest score is because they are g~v~ng employee housing over what they need. The P & Z, for this allotment, recommendation only one year's allocation and a bonus to build one building. The plan ls to have the Koch Lumber building with a 400 foot office, which is exempt from GMP because it ~s an individually designated structure; a 400 square foot employee unit, three warehouse buildings and then two employee units. Kaufman said his client took the least impact use in all the SCI. Kaufman showed where it will be landscaped and where the bike trail will be. Ms. Penne told Council P & Z instructed her to draw up the resolution to Council requesting that the city consider purchasing the property. PARKING STUDY Chapman said the group is getting into procedures. Instead of appointing somebody from the Planning Department, Chapman suggested that when they come to the point when they need help they should ask. AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING GUIDELINES 1015 EAST HYMAN Alan Richman, planning office, said the project received approval ba~k in 1981 to develop under the GMP. The developer came into the low income guidelines and the way applications were scored at the time, it was advantageous to maximize the size of the units in terms of floor area. By the s~mple fact of maximizing the size of the unit, it makes the unit unaffordable to the low income person. Richman said at the time this applicant came ~n, the city didn't have income occupancy guidelines. The city only had sales price restrictions. The developer is not asking Council to change the sales guidelines - he is quite willing to sell it at the guideline ~o which he has been designated. The developer is asking Council to allow somebody outsids the low income occupancy area to occupy the unit. The small GMP pro3ects typically have not gone through the housing office for marketing purposes; the city has let the developers market it themselves. Richman said this has the potential for causing some enforcement problems. The planning office is going to come forward with a recommendation so that GMP units do go through the housing office. Richman told Council this is a five unit project with three of the units being free market and two employee. The applicant is concerned about having some input into which employee gets to occupy the un~ts. Kaufman told council this is a small project where it ~s a mixed employee-free market project. Kaufman said his client wants to sell at the same low price - he just needs someone instead of making $8,000 a year who is making $12,000. The units will still be an employee unit within the guidelines it would just be sold to an employee who fits into a higher income category. Councilman Parry moved to make all the necessary changes to agreements and approve the application to permit sale of employee units at 1015 East Hyman to moderate or middle income employe~s and that the Mayor execute subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form. Seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. FOOD TAX PROCEDURES - Submitted separately. Sheree Sonfield said she is trying to address Council's question at the last meeting about the substantiation of dependence. Council agreed on the concept of using the individuals social security numbers in order to go to the voter's registration list and using that an an indication of residency for the people that were applying. In order to address the issue of dependents there are several alternatives; income tax forms, doctor or medical bills or proof as school registration. Only those particular staff members who were directly involved with the food sales tax program in the department would have access to ~he income tax forms. If someone Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 12, 1982 did want to substantiate their dependents, but didn't want to leave their income tax returns, they could come in and show it to someone in finance to verify the dependents. A person would never have to le~e their tax return with the city. Ms. Sonfield said it is very important to do this verification because there have been fraudulent applications. Out of 1400 applications last year at least 1000 had dependents on them. Councilwoman Michael asked about reviewing applicants and ask them to substantiate the±r residency and if they are declaring dependents, give them the choice of Colorado income tax return, medical bills, or the dependents names or school record which could be verified. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the recommendations for applicants for food tax refunds for the first year show proof of dependents by a choice of Colorado income tax return, doctors bills or school registration verification and for new applicants thereafter; seconded by Councilman Parry. All were in favor except Councilman Knecht. PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Budget Including Revenue Sharing Funds. Mayor Pro Tem Michael opened the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt use of Federal revenue sharing funds for the purpose of expenditures in the area of the police protection servicss and financial and general administration. Seconded by Councilman Knecht. Mayor Pro Tem Michael closed the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried. APPROPRIATION ORDINANCES. Ordinance #56, Series of 1982 - Golf Course Fund. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance 56, Series of 1982, seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. (City Clerk read Ordinance). Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance 56, Series of 1982; seocnded by Councilman Collins. Roll Call; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. ORDINANCE 57, Series of 1982 - Transfer Various Funds Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance 957, Series of 1982. Seconded by Councilman Collins. kll in favor of reading Ordinance 57. Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 57 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $3,800; TRANSFERRING $29,330 FROM THE GENERAL FU ND .TO THE WHEELER FUND; APPROPRIATING ICE GARDEN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $4,000; APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $4,400; APPROPRIATING WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND (1982 BOND) EXPENDITURES OF $10,070. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~57, Series of 1982. Seconded by Councilman Knecht. Sheree Sonfield said there was an item that Council had not seen yet and that was S3800 to secure the recreation department. There have been some thefts at the skating rink. The next two are corrections which Council is aware of. Lefty Brinkman's contract to teach figure skating and salaries for the water management plan. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Michael, aye. Motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL Grog Shop Councilman Knecht moved to approve the renewal of the Liquor License Renewal of the Grog Shop. Seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL CONSIDERATION Ordinance ~50, Series of 1982 - Election Dates Knecht moved to continue the puboic hearing and to table Ordinance 50 until the next meeting. Councilman Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to continue the meeting until October 20th; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 9:15 p.m. Continued Meeting Aspen City Council October 20, 1982 Mayor Pro Tem Michael called th~ meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. with Councilmembers Parry~ and Collins present. City Attorney Taddune told Council the reason the meeting was continued until today was if the opportunity presented itself, the Council might be able to act upon the applica- tion for amendment to Cantrup's 1978 growth management application. Taddune told Council in discussing the matter with the applicant, they are not prepared to present the application today. Taddune said certain documents have not been given to his office and the purpose for continuing the meeting no longer exists. Councilman Collins moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S~Koch, ~ity Clerk