Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19821122JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with CommisSioners Kinsley, Blake, Child, Madsen and Klanderud present and Councilmembers C~llins, Michael and Parry present. Proposed Woodburning Regulation and Restaurant Grill Ordinance. Suzanne Caskey, Clean Air Advisory Board, introduced a proposed woodburning regulation that would limit the number of WOodburning devises that may be installed in Pitkin County. Ms. Caskey told the Boards this was a priority of the CAAB. There is a haze over Aspen in the mornings and the CAAB wants to do something about this. Part of the problem is automobile pollution, which they will try to address next spring. This will involve expenditures by the city and county. There are two reasons for regulating wood and coal burning stoves. One is the visible haze problem, wood burning is responsible for 69 per cent of the haze and is producing more particulants than cars. The other reason is the health problem. A woodburning stove prodecues 1500 time more particulate matter than an oil furnace, 750 time more hydrocarbon~ and 500 times more carbon monoxide. The particulant levels have been higher than EPA levels agreed. Ms. Caskey told the Boards that the CAAB along with the Deparment of Environmental Health have proposed, as the only reasonable method of control, a regulation that would limit the numbers of woodburning devices that may be installed in both the city and county. This regulation was considered most appropriate as information on which devices are the cleanest burning will not be available for a number of years and as advanced technologies, such as catalytic converters have not been perfected. Ms. Caskey said there is a consensus among health experts as to the hazards associated with woodburning devices and cities throughout the nation are beginning to recognize this. Ms. Caskey recommended the city and county adopt these regulations. Lee Cassin, environ- mental health department, told Council that pollution from wood burning stoves is toxic and there is no evidence which indicates to the contrary. Ms. Caskey said that Aspen exceeds EPA standards in terms of particulantS.' Councilman Collins asked if there is hope for improving an already bad situation. Ms. Caskey said wood stove manufacturers are getting better technology and improving the stoves as quickly as possible. Jay Densmore, representing the Burning Log, told the Board that health effects associated with woodburning devices have been acknowledged nationally, and the industry has been attempting to address this. Densmore disputed the amount of pollution attributed to woodburning devices, noting that automobile emissions constitute a much more significant component of pollution. The department of environmental health has indicated that approximately 63 per cent of Aspen's visible emissions can be attributed to automobile usage. Furthermore, that appoximately 97 per cent of the particulates and 75 per cent of the carbOn monoxide can be attributed to vehicular usage. Densmore agreed that the health impacts associated, with woodburning devices must be addressed, and the industry fully acknowledges this responsibility. The proposed regulation, however, is not appropriate at this time and the issue should be studied further. Densmore said this regulation that would allow only one woodburning device per unit would likely encourage a developer to provide a fireplace instead of a stove, the former being much less energy efficient and more of a pollutant. Densmore said two smaller, cleaner stoves may be much more appropria than one large device. Densmore suggested an educational program through pamphelts. The Boards should not hamper people by making them buy one big stove, which will pollute even more. Ms. Cassin said what they are interested in, bo~h visibility and health standpoint, is the number of particulates that are toxic and respirable. Ms. Cassin said they are not addressing the particulates that are so big they settle into the ground. If you look at toxic and respirable, woodburning and restaurant grills contribute much of the toxic in the are. Ms. Cassin said as far as the educational campaign, they have had brochures in lodges, articles in newspapers and radio spots. Ms. Cassin agreed the educational campaign is important and is an on-going effort. Commissioner Child asked if there is any way to retrofit the stoves to make them burn fast and efficiently. Ms. Cassin said currently there is not; however, this is being talked about. Commissioner Kinsely suggested that the department investigate a required design standard for woodburning devices rather than limiting the number. Ms. Cassin said there is a test used in the industry but has not been done on very many devices. When the informa- tion becomes available, the staff would recommend allowing clean burning stoves only. Councilman~ Parry said his problem with the ordinance is that people will get one large burning stove, Councilman Parry said this is making a law to prevent something that is not necessary to prevent. Ms. Cassin explained that woodburning devices are responsible for well over one-half of the toxic particulates and that 100 per cent of the woodburning particulates are respirabl~ Kinsley agreed there is sufficient information is available to indicate that a substantial portion of the toxic particulates can bet.attributed to woodburning devices. Kinsley supports a regulation limiting the number of Woodburning devices and suggested deleting the exemption provision for single family residences in excess of 3,000 square feet, as well as the addition of a provision that would preclude such devices in a duplex units less than 1,000 square feet. Ms. Cassin explained that the resolution as drafted is based upon numbers discussion. The Board was unanimous that the issue should be addressed but there was no consensus on the appropriate method for doing so. Kinsley moved approval of the resolution subject to the deletion of the exemption for single family residences in excess of 3,000 square feet, and subject further to an additional provision precluding the installation of such devices in duplex units of less than 1,000 square feet. Motion DIED for lack of a second. Child said the method of opeating a stove is important with respect to pollution levels and suggested using an alert system as well as an educational program in lieu of limiting the number of such devices. Klanderud suggested that the resolution differentiate between fireplaces, considered a significant factor with respect to the particulate pollution, and Woodburning devices. Kinsley said there is a measurable problems which people can see and smell in the downtown. Solutions to this problem are not going to be easy. This will require creating conditions which are not fun Commissioner Child moved to table the resolution to allow for further discussions; seconded by Commissioner Blake. All in favor, with the exception of Commissioner Kinsley Motion carried. This was a County motion only and Council did not participate. Mayor Edel suggested scheduling a meeting this discuss these items only. The Boards scheduled this for noon, November 29, 1982. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Councilman Parry moved to approve the minutes of July 26, 29, and September 27; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Anne Owsley, owner of Freddie's Cafe, read a letter to Council against a restaurant in Rubey Park. "Members of the City Council. As an Aspen restaurant owner, I would to protest the city plan for a restaurant in the proposed bus terminal at Rubey Park for three reasons. I think it is inappropriate for the government to create competition for tax paying private enterprises. Second, as evidenced by an actual count of 61 restaurants that have ceased operating in the past five years, it must be stressed that the restaurant business is an easy one to imagine starting, but an extremely difficult one to keep operating properly. Acting as landlord of a leased operation, the city will still be responsible for the quality or lack of quality at a bus depot restaurant. It would a more appropriate purpos~ for the city to encourage an efficious bUs system to move passengers qUickly out of the depot to their destination, alleviating congestion rather than creating it. What benefit is there in attracting traffic to the terminal and away from surrounding businesses. If you anticipate long delays for bus departures, let hte passengers do their waiting and eating at nearby restaurants, which enhance Aspen's reputation for established excellence. What we first heard of as a snack bar, turns out to be plans for 3,000 square feet. That basically looks small on paper, but it will be three times the size of a restaurant like Freddie's, certainly not necessary for a quick bite before boarding a bus. Last, if you can deny the need for an efficient bus terminal, it is also important for this city councJ to respect the intention of that city council who voted to purchase Rubey Park in the first place to assure us of a little green space in the center of town. Why not conside~ building a smaller depot with 3,000 square feet less overall rather than more." Mayor Edel said that Council reacted similar about the 3,000 square feet for a restaurant so it is far from a fait accompli. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS There were none. ENCROACHMENT REQUEST - Aspen Grove Building Assistant City Attorney Gary Esary said drawings were submitted. The engineering depart- ment haS no problems with the city's standard encroachment. Spencer Shiffer told Council this is for the canopies over the two stairways. This has been through HPC. Councilman Parry moved to approve the encroachment license onto %he Cooper Avenue right- of-way in favor of the Aspen~GrOVe Associates, in order to permit them to construct canopies over the exterior stairways of the Aspen Grove building. The encroachment license's'shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and the Mayor shall be authorize~ and directed to sign it on behalf of the city; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. 700 SOUTH GALENA J. D. Muller told Council he wrote a letter November 1, 1982, requesting a determination by Council of various matters by Council having to do with 700 South Galena. Basically, the issue of declaring the building permit invalid; declaring the subdivision agreement has been breached and is null and void, such that no other building permitt could be issued pursuant to it, and thus revocation of the plat; and directing the planning office to notify P & Z that rescission of the growth management plan allotment under which the project was undertaken be considered for rescission under the provisions of Section 24-11.7(b). Muller told Council that Jack and Don Crawford, property owners at the Tipple Inn do not want to consent to a postponement until December 13th as they are concerned abOut anything that might happen between then and now which might prejudice their ability to proceed. City Attorney Taddune explained Muller wanted the opportunity to speak to Council; some of the points Muller raised are being handled administratively. Taddune suggested this be referred to the city manager who has the responsibility to enforce laws and contracts. City Manager Chapman said the failUre to fulfill the requirements of the agreement, the building permit has expired. Muller said their concern is that this has gone on for a long time and nothing is happening. They are concerned this will continue to go on in limbo forever, if there is no decisions. Taddune said that Schiffer, on behalf of HBC, has realized the permits and approvals have expired. Sehiffer has requested the city consider extensions. Taddune advised Schiffer that this is between the applicant and Council, and that in light of what has gone on, the Council probably will not be very responsive to extensions. Schiffer told Council the proper procedure is to refer this back to P & Z, for them to make a recommendation to Council. Chapman said it is the position of the staff that the terms of the agreement have not been fulfilled, then there is no agreement. Schiffer said there are two questions; one is the subdivision question, the other is the GMP questiOn. The GMP question gets referred back to P & Z to see if there is still an allocation. The subdivision question would be decided by Council. Schiffer said there are other things the applicant has been discussing, and this will be resolved to Council's satisfaction. Schiffer said he would like to do this at the December 13th meeting. Mayor Edel stated the agreement has not been lived up to; there is no building permit. Schiffer said he felt it would be in everyone's interest to be tabled to the next meeting. Taddune said this should be referred to the city manager. Chapman said the building permit has expired. If the applicant reapplies, Chapman would look at the terms of the agreement and would tell the building department, they have failed to meet the terms of the agreement so a building permit should not issue. Chapman said he feels they would have to start the process over. Chapman said Muller and his associates are looking for some type of assurances from the city. Chapman said he would meet with Muller to find out what kind of assurances they are looking for. Muller said what he is concerned about is that this will go back to negotiations between the applicant and the city, and the adjacent property owners are not privy to this at all. Muller said some accommodation might be reached without their input. Taddune recommended this matter be referred to Chapman to be handled administratively as the Charter requires matters like this to be.handled. Chapman can report back to Council at the December 13th meeting. Chapman said the concern is that Muller and his associates would like to see something in writing, the determination in regard to this particular agreement. Mayor Edel suggested that Muller meet with Chapman to get this solved. Cou~ci~ agreed with this course of action. EASTERN WINDS Councilman Parry moved to add this to the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to approve the request for expended premises for Eastern Winds; seconded by Councilman Collins. Mayor Edel said he could not understand why these requests come to Council after the expansion has already been made. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #35, SERIES OF 1982 1983 Lodge GMP Allocation Alice Davis, planning office, told Council the competition was scored by P & Z on April.il9. There was only one application, the Carriage House. The total quota available for 1983 is 76 units, 41 of which are available from previous years. The applicant is requesting 26 units, the Council would carry over 50 units to next year's quota. Ms. Davis said the applicant is request 26 lodge units, 5 employee units for a total of 31 units. There will be a conference area, lobby, bar, dining area, health club, swimming pool and 31 parking spaces, which more than meets the requirement. Ms. Davis told Council the project is located at the corner of Aspen and Durant. There are six multi-family dwelling units currently there, and these will be torn down. The six units they will get credit for are not part of this apPlication. The applicant will have a credit of six units, which they will have to get permission to move these units to another location. Mayor Edel questioned the credit of six units and should that credit not be part of the 26 units requested. Mayor Edel said the city does not have a law to allow transfers. Ms. Davis said it is at their risk to have a credit later on, Richman told Council the law says.an applicant can demolish a unit and get a credit for it, by verifying that unit exists. The law does not say that unit has to be rebuilt as part of the rebuilding process. Richman said the applicant is not asking for those six units as part of this project. Ms. Davis said if Council never passes a law to allow transfer of credits, the applicant has lost these six units. Ms. Davis told Council the applicant only had to ask for 20 units because they would have a credit for six, but they asked for 26 units; therefore, they have a credit of six units. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council that an applicant can compete for any number of units under GMP that are allowed on the property by zoning. In this particular case, 26 units are allowed. The applicant could have chosen to claim a credit for the six that are there and compete for 20, or they could take a credit for 6 and compete for 26 in the event that something is developed in the city, such as a TDR, in which to use that six. If that does not happen, the six units are gone. Vann said he felt Council could force the applicant to use these six at this site. Schiffer disagreed stating there is no conversion ratio; these are multi-family units and how can they be converted to lodge. Schiffer said these are being torn down at risk. If there is no TDR ordinance, it means these units may be gone forever. Mayor Edel said the 26 units is fine; they competed for 26 lodge units. On this piece of land, the applicant is maximizing it at a total of 31 units. Mayor Edel said the end result is the city is getting six more units than are allowed on the land; there is no TDR, it does not exist. Taddune told Council without a TDR ordinance, the units the applicant proposes to inventory, cannot be built anyplace else. Mayor Edel questioned the verbiage about something that does not exist. Councilwoman Michael asked about the conference area. Mark Danielsen said it will be about 1650 square feet, will hold about 150 people for conferences and 100 -120 for dining. Ms. Davis told Council the resolution allocates 26 units and gives conditions that the applicant make representations to in the application. Councilman Parry moved to approve Resolution #35, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. Danielsen requested an amendment to delete getting HPC approval because this is not in the historic district. Councilman Parry accepted that amendment. All in favor, motion carried. COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROJECT - Aspen Downtown Storage Colette Penne, planning office, reminded Council the applicant requested on November 8 that this project tabled. Council allocated GMP allotment to project in the commercial core. This is in the S/C/I zone. The application as submitted and scored through GMP was a request for 24,750 square feet of commercial space in the form of three - two-level buildings to be developed on lot 3 of the Trueman center. This parcel does have an SPA designation, it will require an amendment to the SPA. The parcel is 1.47 acre. An office for the manager and a living unit will be in Historic Koch lumber company buildi] There are two 700 square foot employe units proposed near the river. The quota establishe~ by Ordinance 26, 1982, for development in the NC and S/C/I zones was 7,000 square feet. This is the only project competing in the S/C/I zone. Ms. Penne told Council the project met all required thresholds. P & Z felt that the coverage of the parcel by the project was rather intence. The project impacted the Rio Grande trail in a negative way and would possible have negative impacts on the adjacent wildlife sanctuary of A.C.E.S. P & Z's resolution was drafted to convey some of the discontent with the project as the scoring of the project did not adequately reflect this. P & Z recommended that Council allocate only one year's quota with enough bonus to construct the first of the three buildings. Ms. Penne told Council the applicant requeste~ tabling two weeks ago as they were reconsidering the project. The applicant has submitted a second plan, which addresses many of the conditions of P & Z. Gideon Kaufman said, technically, this plan cannot be amended in front of Council but has to go through P & Z. Kaufman wanted to show what was approved, what the concerns were, and what the new project is. Kaufman said in 1977 this parcel went through subdiv- ision into four lots zoned S/C/I With an SPA overlay. This project is to be located on lot 3. Kaufman showed the original plan. S/C/I is the lowest commercial uses; this proposal takes the lowest impact of the S/C/I, mini-warehouses, for this parcel, Kaufman reiterated P & Z's recommendation for one building. The applicant has come up with a new plan they feel is sensitive to P & Z's concerns and A~C,E.S. concerns. Kaufman said he felt this design was beneficial. Kaufman said he would like Council to examine the situation and see if they feel it is a better plan. Kaufman said they would like to complete the project at one time, rather than in phases. Kaufman said the original plan was for 24,000 square feet; the new plan is 21,000 square feet of which 4,000 square feet of that is not rentable space. Under the new FAR this space has to count. This project will have 17,000 square feet of rentable space out of a total that could be built on the parcel of 49,000 square feet. Tom Wells, designer of the project, pointed out at storage facilities, there is just a trickle of cars during the day. The unique feature of this project is that there are no openings; the siding is barnwood. Wells showed the circulation for the project. There will be extensive landscap ing. Wells discussed the trees and the trails possibilities. KaUfman said the applicant is asking for a feel from Council on the new plan; they are willing to go back to P & Z for rescoring. Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. told Council they appreciate the consideration of the developer. However, the A.C.E.S Board of Trustees formal position remains opposed to the project and still requests the Council consider purchasing this lot as open space. Regarding the new project, Cardamone said, as a biologist, 120 feet is too close to the river. Kaufman said the building is 200 feet away from the river. Mayor Edel said With a lot of land- scaping, trees, etc., would A.C.E.S. still object. Cardamone said if the project goes through with a lot of trees, it would help. Mayor Edel said the priorities of the Open Space Advisory Board go elsewhere. Mark Freidberg told Council he is strongly against this project. There will be frequency of use by both residents and visitors. Freidberg said visitors and residents experience the trail at the Rio Grande, and this piece of open space is the most valuable the city can look at. It is being used as a pedestrian use. Freidberg said the Council should think carefully before not buying this parcel. Freidburg said that with all the easements on this property, the Council never entertained the thought that this would be developed commercially. KaUfman said this project will provide a nice vista. Also, this project will fulfill an important community needs. The storage facilities in Basalt and at the Airport Business Center are full. ~People in town need storage. Kaufman pointed out that land is being given for open space. Mayor Edel said the applicant is asking for a commit- ment he cannot give. Taddune said this should not be taken as any commitment by the applicant. Mayor E~el said in a general sense, Council likes the second plan better than the first. Councilman Collins moved to extend the period of time in which a development allotment can be made for the 1983 growth management commercial competition in the SCI/NC zone, at the request of the applicant, until such time as the proposed amendment has been considere by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a recommendation for quota based on the amended plans has been forwarded to Council; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #66, SERIES OF 1982 - Vatdamar Mark Rezoning Alice Davis, planning office, told Council this is a request by Valdamar Mark to rezone property at the end of South Mill street. This is a 6,000 square foot lot; it is two lots merged under one ownership. Ms. Davis explained the north half of the property is zoned L-2; the other half is zoned R-15/PUD/L, which is a transition zone. The applicant is requesting the entire parcel by zoned L-2 and would like to build a duplex on the property Ms. Davis said rezoning to L-2 cleans up the lines but it also upzones the property and allows a higher FAR. The applicant has agreed to deed restrict to a duplex and to negotiate an PAR below that allowed. This could be done through PUD procedure. Ms. Davis said the applicant is not requesting PUD but one-half the lot has a PUD designation on it, and the planning office sees no justification to remove that. Ms. Davis said the surrounding land owners are afraid the structure will obstruct their viewplane. They have requested some additional setbacks beyond those in the code be established. Ms. Davis said the planning office feels this is more appropriate through the PUD procedures, not through rezoning. Ms. Davis said of the rezoning criteria, the only pertinent criteria is to be compatible with surrounding land uses~ This property is surrounded by condominiums, L-2 ~nd duplex. This is a transition area and is important to keep it as such. The restriction to a duplex and the FAR below the 1:1 allowed is important. The planning office feels a duplex is a reasonable request but should be limited further to PUD procedures. P & Z recommended approval of L-2 zoning with the addition of P.UD. The P & Z felt the following items have to be dealt with in the PUD process; restriction of the FAR, building envelope and setbacks slope, height and surrounding land uses. An ordinance rezoning the land with these items has been presented. Spencer Schiffer told Council the person drawing the zoning line probably did not know it was in one ownership. Also, Schiffer said in his research, when a property is bisected as this, the whole parcel should be rezoned to the leaSt restrictive zoning compatible with the surrounding uses. Schiffer pointed out this property is surrounded by L~2. Schiffer said that this was not zoned L-2 was probably an oversight. Schiffer said in L-2, lodges or multi-family can be built and the FAR is 1:1. Schiffer said his client is willing to compromise because all he wants to build is a duplex. Schiffer said he felt mandatory PUD is too severe. Ms. Davis said she felt this area is important for a transition zone from high density on to duplexes. Taddune said placing a PUD on this will allow the developer to build a duplex, which is the result the developer wants. Schiffer said he did not think PUD is appropriate on this small parcel. Ms. Davis pointed out that half the parcel already has a PUD designation on it. Council discussed why having a PUD designation, and decided they were in favor of L-2, deed restricted to a duplex and restricted to 4800 square feet. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #66, Series of 1982, as amended; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #66 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY ALSO KNOWN AS 918 SOUTH MILL STREET TO L-2 was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of 1982, as amended; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #67, SERIES OF 1982 - Land Use Application Fees Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this ordinance establishes the land use fees for 1983. The only change between this and 1982 fee ordinances is that the planning Office is going from a 50 per cent subsidy of code administration to 100 per cent wash; which is consistent with Council's recommendation in 1982. Vann told Council the code adminis- tration function is the processing of land use applications, routine public inquiry and minor code amendments. These fees cover the cost of staff and a portion of the overhead. In 1982, Council did not want to raise the fees wo cover the whole costs and chose to spread it over a two year period; this is the second half of the increase. Vann told Council the fee is set on the typical amount of time it takes to process a typical applica- tion. Council is going to review the special review and some planning processes to see if they can simplify the processes. Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #67, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #67 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82, SERIES OF 1981, SO AS TO REESTABLISH THE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CHARGED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #67, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilwoman Michael requested a review in six months on the smaller projects, how much they are costing, and how much time is spent on them. Vann told Council they have tried to keep this concept as simple as possible so that it does not become a nightmare to administer.. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. .Motion carried. ORDINANCE #68, SERIES OF 1982 - L-3 Rezoning Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #68, Series of 1982; seconded by CounCilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #68 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN EXISTING LODGES TO L-3 LODGE PRESERVATION was read by the city clerk Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council when Ordinance #38, Series of 1982, was passed, Council suggested the planning office do the L-3 rezoning as a class action. The planning office took care of all the steps and the lodge owners did not have to pay fees. Richman told Council virtually all the lodge owners were unanimous to be rezoned L-3. Two may want to be rezoned C/L rather than L-3. Richman said the planning office feels this is in the city's best interest and will be compatible with surrounding zone districts. P & Z was unanimously in favor of this approach. Richman said any lodge owners that wants to be removed from the L-3 category will submit this request in writing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #68, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmember Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, nay; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #69, SERIES OF 1982 - Golf Course Final Plat Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #69, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #69 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE ADDING A PUD DESIGNATION TO THE ZONING FOR THE GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION was read by the city clerk Richman told Council P & Z requested a PUD designation on the golf course when they were considering the preliminary plat. The conditions of this approval were that the Council approve a PUD and that the city submit a PUD plan identifying the existing improvements and short term development plans. The staff has no problems with this request as long as it does not delay the final approval of the plat. Richman said the staff will work on the PUD submission. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #69, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye, Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #58, SERIES OF 1982 - Thomas Property Annexation Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman COllins moved to adopt Ordinance #58, Series of 1982, on second reading; second, by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #59, SERIES OF 1982 - Thomas Property Rezoning Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #59, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. 1983 CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS City Manager Chapman said the report is self-explanatory. Chapman suggested the city begin to get good community discussion going about financing mechanisms. Council has decided these projects need to be done; what Council needs is public input on financing and timing. Councilwoman Michael agreed it is critical to get community confidence. Mayor Edel suggested Council come up with a list of names to be on a committee and submit these to Chapman. TEN MONTH FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Sheree Sonfield pointed out the ten month financial report and in the general fund, it is 4 per cent under budget, in expenditures. If this trend continues, the $250,000 fund balance projected at the beginning of the year will hold and may add to the favorable financial position between $100,000 and $150,000. Ms. Sonfield told Council in the other funds, if there is a negative, there is a positive to offset it with the exception of the Ice Garden, which is being worked on. City Manager Chapman said it is reasonable to expect by the end of 1982, the end of year balance will be $1,250,000. Council thanked Ms. Sonfield for the report and said it is much better than the old reports. ORDINANCE #70, SERIES OF 1982 - Appropriations Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #70, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE OF $13,616; TRANSFERRING $13,616 FROM THE MALL/TRANSPORTATION FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND; APPROPRIATING LAND FUND EXPENDITURES OF $14,200; APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $506; RECOGNIZING WATER FUND REVENUES OF $506; APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND EXPENDITURES OF $99,900; APPROPRIATING RETIREMENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $360,000 was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #70, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Environmental Health Director Tom Dunlop requested that Little Annie's be taken off the list and conditionally approved based on his health inspection. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Little Annie's conditioned upon a successful health inspection report; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the liquor license renewals for Aspen Mine Company, Galena Street East, Pablo's, Paddy Bugatti's, Pour la France, The Souper, Home Plate; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Collins moved to continue the meeting to November 29, 1982, at noon; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 8:30 p.m. Kathr ~ ~~'/ '~och, City Clerk Continued Meeting Aspen City Council November 29, 1982 Council met in Chambers at 12:05 with Councilmembers Michael and Knecht present. This is an adjourned regular meeting; there was not a quorum. Mayor Pro Tem Michael announced the meeting would be continued to December 1, 1982, at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Continued Meeting Aspen City Council December 1, 1982 Council met in Chambers at 5:10 with Cc uncilmembers Collins, Knecht, Michael and Mayor Edel present. City Attorney Taddune presented two ordinances for the issuance of $12,000,000 worth of bonds. These ordinances are comprehensive, dealing with bond prices and other issues. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance ~71, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~71 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SALES TAX REFUNDING AND>IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF DECEMBER 1, 1982, IN THE MUNICIPAL AMOUNT OF $11,605,000 FOR REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITION PURPOSES; PROVIDNG FOR THE PLEDGE THERETO OF THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE CITY FROM DESIGNATED SALES TAXES; PRESCRIBING DETAILS AND COVENANTS 'CONCERNING THE BONDS, THE TAXES AND THE REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT AND ACQUISITION PROJECTS; RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, IF ANY, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #71, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, Dye; Michael aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance ~72, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~72 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SALES TAX REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, SERIES DECEMBER 1, 1982, IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,105,000 FOR REFUNDING PURPOSES: PROVIDING FOR THE PLEDGE THERETO OF THE INCOME DERIVED BY THE CITY FROM DESIGNATED SALES TAXES; PPJESCRIBING DETAILS AND COVENANTS CONCERNING THE BONDS, THE TAXES AND THE REFUNDING PROJECT; RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, IF ANY, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; DECLARING AND EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance ~72, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edet, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION % 36, SERIES OF 1982 - Appointing William R. Jordan Deputy Municipal Judge Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution %36, Series of 1982; seconded by Council- man Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR EXPANSION - Skier's Chalet Councilman Knecht moved to approve the Skier's Chalet request for expanded liquor license premises; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Collins moved to continue the meeting to December 9, 1982, at noon; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 5:35 p.m. Kathryn ~ Koch, City Clerk