Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19810126Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 26, 1981 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 4:10 with Commissioners Kinsley, Child, Blake, Klanderud and Madsen and Councilmembers Collins Behrendt, Isaac and Michael present. 1. Busway Feasibility Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor Edel said he thought a lot of engineering studies of the approach to town were going to be done; there is no mention of the studies in the agreement. Councilman Collins pointed out the memorandum of understand~ ing refers to the scope of work which is attached. Curt Stewart, county manager, said a consultant has to be selected, and a contract negotiated. Stewart pointed out the memo is drafted for the tasks to be don incrementally; if the unfeasibility of a busway is proven as a result of this work, the study would not be completed. The reasons for this are to save money, and if the highway is to be engineered in that corridor, the city and county should not be paying for it. ~gu~ ~v~e~ng AsPen city Council January 26, 1981 tewart told the Boards in the EIS still pending, the highway department was leaving the determination of what will happen at this end of the valley up to the city and county. This study is the mechanism by which the Boards can reach that decision. Councilman-Isaa~ I noted in 93 on page one the phase that Aspen and Pitkin County can meet the operatin~ costs of their transit operations. Councilman Isaac asked if the County could meet thelrql now, as they are cutting back operations and staff. Kinsley said the County has stated ~.~ during budget time they will not be able to operate a bus system. Kinsley said they woul~ , fund a bus system through a district. Councilman Isaac said he was concerned if the cityi i went ahead with this study and the joint maintenance facility and the county drops out. i Kinsley said in terms of a bus barn, he wanted to be certain there was a district on linei! before the county puts any money into the facility. Stewart told the Boards the staff has researched the legal requirements for the formationil of a district, and .a work session will be scheduled. For the maintenance facility, the county has a grant from UMTA for $5,500,000. If the county does not want to have anythin~ to do with that facility, the city can pick up the ball and go with it. Stewart said a system in this valley has to be created that works for everybody. Councilwoman Michaelil asked that Snowmass be included in these meetings. Child said Eagle county is planning a transportation district election; perhaps the two districts can be joined or work together. Councilwoman Michael moved to appove the memorandum of understanding between Pitkin County and the City of Aspen and the State on the busway feasibility study; seconded by Commissioner Kinsley. All in favor, motion carried. RUEDI RESERVOIR RESOLUTION #3, SERIES OF 1981 John Musick presented a letter and resolution, which had been changed at the direction the Boards to take out any threatening response and put in a more positive offer. Snowmass and Carbondale have signed similar resolutions. City Manager Chapman requested a change of language to "take into account" the CWCB's study, because the Boards do not know what study will be, to substitute "is fully responsive to". Commissioner Child questioned the liability of the dam to the owners in number 6, page three. Musick suggested strengthening that with "in contract negotiations, we do not intend to assume those liabilities". MUsick explained he wrote the letter the way it was because the four items listed were important considerations to the Boards; the issues are to be raised specifically and they will be addressed in the negotiations. Councilman Behrendt moved to approved Joint resolution #3; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Commissioner Child. Motion carried. REPORT ON OIL SHALE 1981 CONFERENCE Commissioner Kinsley told the Boards he had attended the first citizen-based conference on oil shale in Grand Junction with members of staff and many people from Aspen. Kinsley said it was very successful. The conference toured the Rio Blanco/CB tract and the Parahoe facility and got the story from the industry. The next day, the conference got the view from other people involved, citizen advocate, environmentalists, planners. The last presentation was a show of the western states and all the energy developments; it is very awesome, oil shale is only part of a potential impact. Kinsley said millions of dollars are being invested by different industries. Facilities are underway. Kinsley gave the Boards some reports; one from environmental health officer Lee Casein, about the effect On air and water quality. Kinsley said the 400,000 barrel a day level is a near certainty, and what ~s needed ~s to~i figure out how best to deal with the impacts and to mitigate the impacts of this develop-il ment. One report outlines constraints on development beyond a 400 barrel a day operation which is crucial. ~T~is ~evelOpment could give a population increase in a two county area per year about the size of Glenwood Springs. The constraints are air quality standards; the leasing policy of the BLM. 'A favorable area is the area of subsidy and various Federal supports; however, the philosophy of the federal government on oil shale and government assistance is very consistent. Kinsley suggested that both bodies join the Wester Colorado Congress, a western based operation created by this conference and is an amalgamation of recreational and environmental interests. Kinsley said it costs $50 to join. Councilman Behrendt Said he would like to see if Snowmass wants to join also. Mayor Edel said the CAST board will discuss oil shale to see what kind of action they can take. Councilman Behrendt moved the city and county and perhaps Snowmass join Western Colorado Congress; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Isaac questioned the unauthorized purchase orders and said that department head~ are not to spend money without permission at this point. City Manager Chapman told Council he had asked all department to submit plans for a 5 per cent budget cut in 1 per cent increments. Council asked to see a copy of the 5 per cent cut back report. Councilman Isaac said he would like a policy of no more unauthorized purchases, especially in light of decreased revenues. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council there are times when this is unavoid- able and it is not a case of a department spending unauthorized monies. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Mickey Shemin told Council he has been working on a project with the Aspen High School students to raise money for their graduation. Shemin had suggested trying to put on a circus at the Wheeler Opera House; however, he has run into opposition from the fire Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, marshal. Shemin had given the proposition to City Manager Chapman, who was position about it. There were a list of conditions, cinluding having people patrolling the building. One of the conditions was that the acts be approved by the fire marshal. There is also a structural report from the engineer saying nothing over 1000 pounds. The fire marshal said he did not want animals on the third floor of the Wheeler because they could panic or rush into the audience or block fire exits. Shemin tried an alternative location, the elementary school, and got another list of conditions from the fire marshal, some are reasonable but some are exaggerated. Assistant City Manager Butterbaugh told Council that Swales still has the lease for the third floor. However, any act on that floor must have the permission of the city manager. The staff has spent a lot of time tyring to figure out what could be done there, and evaluated this proposal from being the owners of the building. Ms. Butterbaugh pointed out the administration has the option of approving or not for any reason at all and the staff has explained to Shemin their concerns. The staff objections are not necessarily to the animals but with the large crowds. City Manager Chapman explained the staff told Shemin he had best look for alternatives. The fire chief and fire marshal have gone over this several times, and this building needs a lot of code improvements. 2. Jeff Sachs asked to speak briefly about the Castlewood/Headgate Conceptual PUD. Mayor Edel said this is not a public hearing; he should submit this item to the City Manager and there is ample time to speak at the public hearings at P & Z. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Van Ness asked about the new traffic light on Main street. City Manager Chapman told Council the state highway department has completed its study, which showed that two additional lights are warranted. The highway department will get back to the city with a full report of where and what the construction schedule is. Councilman Behren~ t requested these lights be set up for timing. 2. Councilman Van Ness stated it is never too early to plan for air conditioning for the Chambers for the summer. Councilwoman Michael said people in the back of the room still cannot hear. 3. Councilman Isaac said he would like the water shortage possibility discussed and asked the City Manager and water department to initiate a plan for conservation of water. Councilman Behrendt said he would like the water department to finalize putting people on meters. 4. Councilman Behrendt brought up the sixth penny land fund report and requested this be scheduled for'the next Council study session for an update. 5. Councilwoman Michael stated the malls need sweeping and requested Chapman to inquire about the schedule. 6. Councilwoman Michael reminded the Council of lunch with the Snowmass Town Council and County Commissioners on Tuesday, 7. Mayor Edel requested ordinance #50, Series of 1980, be taken out of the consent agenda and moved earlier up on the agenda. CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE CONCEPTUAL P.U.D./SUBDIVISION REVIEW Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded Council the last place this is in the process is a revised submission of preliminary plat before P & Z. There was concern on both the planning office and the applicants in the ability to interpret directives from P & Z and Council at re-entering the process at preliminary plat. The staff has looked for a proces by which the applicant could reutnr to conceptual before Council to get an idea how well they had interpreted the Council's directives. One concern on behalf of the applicant in re-entering the process there was time that may be wasted in continuing the process and being able to proceed in the spring, by coming back to conceptual at Council at this time, it was worked out that no additional time was lost. Another concern of the applicant revolved around their legal concerns about their position as a result of prior Council approval. Acting City Attorney Bob Grueter presented Resolution ~4, saying the applicant, by going back to conceptual has waived none of the legal rights they might have. Grueter stated whether or not they have any legal rights or not, he is not sure. This keeps both parties clean. Councilman Van Ness moved to read Resolution ~4, Series of 198; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #4 (Series of 1981) WHEREAS, there is concern on the part of Marolt that it may jeopardize legal rights which may have accrued by virtue of actions by the City of Aspen during the heretofore subdivision process, and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has requested Marolt to choose between two alternative methods in continuing the subdivision process, that is Marolt may submit an amended Preliminary Plat, or go back to City Council at conceptual phase, and WHEREAS, the City, through its staff has stated its preference that Marolt go back to City Council at conceptual phase, and WHEREAS, it is the position of the City of Aspen that Marolt, by going back to City Council at conceptual phase, shall not waive any rights which may have accrued during the heretofore subdivision process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the City of Aspen hereby covenants and agrees that Marolt will not waive any legal rights which may have accrued d~ring the heretofore subdivi sion proceedings, and that by going back to City Council at conceptual phase, Marolt shall not be deemed to have waived any rights, legal or otherwise, with respect to any prior actions on the part of marolt or the City of Aspen in Aspen City Council ~e~ ~ January z~, ±~± connection with the subdivision process for the subject property and the Annexation Agreement executed in contemplation thereof and that Ma~olt shall retain the same rights, remedies and claims as may have accrued and which may have been asserted if Marolt did not agree to go back to Council at the conceptual phase Councilman Van Ness moved to adopt resolution ~4, Series of 1981,; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Sunny Vann reminded the work session of December 8, 1980, between Council and P & Z was in response to some concerns raised by P & Z. It was a consensus of P & Z and Council this particular project was desirable and could be improved. These are that the employee housing be relocated to the southernmost extremity of the site; the overall density be reduced to around 100 units; Main street right-of-way be dedicated as the preferred align- ment for entrance of Aspen; the project be subject to six month minimum lease restrictions and efforts be made to minimize the rental rates for the emplOyee portion of the project. The applicant has addressed all these concerns, and the city has had work sessions on transportation. Vann told Council the revised project has relocated employee housing portion on the south the overall density is reduced to 104 units; 73 employee and 31 free market units. The emPloyee portion is 36 two-bedroom units, 19 one-bedroom and 18 studioes; the sizes of these units have been reduced but are within the guidelines. The average per square foot rental cost is approximately $.70, slightly below the upper~end of the current price guidelines for middle income; however, at the time of occupation, this cost will approxi- mate the moderate income category. These units are consolidated into six buildings, thre~ stories. Vann said from the point of view of the planning office, the underlying zone density without using residential bonus is 100 units after slope reduction, rights-of-way, etc. Density of 104 units would necessitate rezoning to residential bonus to get the extra units. Vann stated a reductiOn3 of 4 units would not have any drastic effect on the visua~ impact. In order to accomplish that, the overall density reduction would be 80 or 90 units. Vann told Council there has been little site or design change in the free market portion of the project except to remove a few units. The remainder of the site, the open space would be dedicated to the city. The Main street right-of-way would be dedicated along the original alignment. The free market portion of the project does intrude into the old Midland right-of-Wa~. On the basis of the engineering report, it is conceivable the city would have a portion of the property at another site and the crossing of the river could occur there. There is a potential for some alignment; however, it will not be dedicated. Vann said language could be inserted in the subdivision agreement that the city, as owner of the propertY, to utilize it for a right-of-way in the event one were required. Vann told Council the applicant has requested an exemption for parking from the one space per bedroom. A satisfactory agreement was worked out; they will provide two spaces per unit as covered parking, with additional spaces indicated on the site plan in the event it were required. Vann said the consensus of opinion regarding access is that the project should be serviced off Cemetery Lane; there should be no access to Castle Creek from the employee portion of the project. Councilman Behrendt asked if there is to be a trail from the employee portion to the transportation stop. Vann said a condition of the P & Z approval is a trails system integranted into the existing county trail system and for~ access to all different transportation alternative. Councilman Behrendt asked if there were a provision to maintain these trails in the winter, by plow, to indicate some access to the bUsway. The applicants said that was fine with them. Vann said the remaining issue becomes the six month minimum lease restrictions, which Council and P & Z both turned down a request for exemption. Vann stated there is no mechanism to exempt as this is a requirement of condominiumization, and the Council would ha~e to amend the Code for that. Vann said he needed from Council an affirmation of the plan as submitted as to density, rents for employee units, their siting and size, a position regarding the six month minimum lease, the Main street and Midland r~ghts-of-way,! and any other attached conditions. CoUncilman Behrendt asked if it is stated the city intends to revise the whole area plan of access and transportation. Vann told Council th~ subdivision agreement which they will execute will include language with flexibility to hook intO the city's system - the concerns will be spelled out. Councilman Behrendt said he would not like to impose the present six month ordinanCe; however, he would like some kind of six month rental restrictions imposed. Jim Mulligan, attorney for the application, told Council this six month restriction is essential issue. The applicant can go with condominiums or fee simple townhouse lots chose condominiums because they are easier from packaging, marketing and financing, It also could b~ easier for the city to deal with one entity rather than 31 owners, etc. Mulligan stated he understood the concern of setting a precedent for other projects, but he felt Section 20-19 allowed an exemption and would not set a precedent. Mulligan said they feel it is difficult if not impossible to finance with the six month minimum lease restriction. Mulligan reiterated they could go with the fee simple lots; however, they prefer the condominium process. Mulligan told Council the six month statute came about because of tenant displacement with no other discussions and was passed to solve the tenant displacement problem in conversions. This project does not displace but adds to the employee units of the local housing stock. Mulligan said the planning office has indicated this is not applicable in residential districts like R-6 and R-15, and they are not doing anything in conflict with the underlying zone district in asking for an exempti~. Mulligan suggested this exemption could be achieved by amending the 70/30 ordinance to allow exemption or through Section 20 of the Code to show undue hardship. Bub Grueter, acting City Attorney, told Council that Section 20-22 does not speak to whether it is conversions or new buildings or both. P & Z has been working on an amend- ment and has not come up with anything. The underlying zoning does not require six month minimum leases, only when a project is condominiumized. The 70/30 ordinance does not address the six month minimum lease question; this comes from Section 20-22. Grueter told Council he feels there is a method to exempt the project from six month minimum leases in 20-19, if it is the desire of Council. Councilman Isaac agreed one of the reasons for the six month clause was for conversions; however, there is another desire to keep tourists in the downtown area where services are and not have this spread all ove town. Councilman Van Ness agreed and added it was the expressed concern of Council that residential neighborhoods not become tourist-oriented, with big changeovers. It was also the concern of Council to preserve residentail neighborhoods as well as protect tenant displacement. Vann stated the issue from planning's point of view is a land use issue, which is to retain short-term areas. The 70/30 ordinance was not intended to have tourist related areas in exchange for employee housing. The planning office has argued that as an R-15 zone, this is inappropriate location for tourist-related uses. The applicants have planned for packaged amenities for short-term tourist related uses. There is a mechanism around this restriction by going to fee simple interest, which the City does not regulate In the condominiumization of this project, the integrity of the zone district remainds. Grueter told Council they could make the six month minimum requirement in the PUD no matter which method the applicant chooses. Vann said staff needed a directive of whether or not to allow short term use of the project. Mayor Edel stated the Council and staff have been trying to restrain tourist accommoda- tions to certain areas. If this project is opened up, it would be defeating that purpose. Mulligan pointed out if the surrounding neighborhoods do not have these restrictions, then this project would be consisten with those neighborhoods. Carly Wood presented a plan of the project with the employee portion moved to the south as requested, reduced in size Co 4.3 acres with a density of 73 units. The access to the parcel is from Cemetery Lane and follows an alignment of the connection ~roposed between Cemetery Lane and Castle Creek. The developer will build a 30 foot roadway to access that parcel; it could be extended in the future to 60 feet and on to Castle Creek road. The Main street extension is accommodated and has been worked on with the City staff. The plan as presented does not negate any decisions made with staff in work session. Ms. Wood pointed out that of the 35 acre parcel, the portions developed will be 6.8 acres and 4.3 acres, Which is 11 aqres. The remaining 17 acres will be open meadow, an extensi~ of the Thomas property, the river corridor is left untouched. The road rights-of-ways, open space, river corridor, givers the City 22 acres of dedicated land. Ms. Wood stated the applicants feel this 800 feet of open space is sufficient for any future right-of-way that might go through. It is detrimental to this project having the Main street and Cemetery Lane extensions go through, not to mention a possible roadway on the other side of the parcel. Mayor Edel asked if Opal Marolt were going to retain her home. Ms. Wood answered yes and it would be moved to be contiguous with the barn to make a last vestige of the Marolt ranch. The family may wish to make it a museum. Councilman Behrendt asked about the old Marolt driveway. Ms. Wood showed where it is and said it could be abandoned or made into a trail. Vann told Council there will be open space agreements for all parcels dedicated to the city, which the parks department will review prior to approval. Councilman Isaac asked if the Marolt house was included in the 31 free market units. The applicant answered it was not'counted as it will not be a unit. Councilman Isaac asked how long and under what guidelines the employee housing would be. Vann said they will be dedicated for 50 years and they fall at the upper end of the middle price guidelines, which is approximately $.70 per square foot; however, with the city increases , at the time of occupance, the price guidelines would fall in the moderate category. Restricting the project to moderat9 at this point would be considerably less than $.70 per square foOt. Vann said he would like Council to address the density of 104 units, the rent structure, the building envelopes of the revised location of the employee housing, Main street right- of way dedication and what they wish to do about Midland right-of-way, the six month minimum restriction or prohibition against short term, and the access issue, trails and busway issues to be figured out. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Castlewood/Headgate conceptual PUD/subdivision review with the following conditions: (1) that the development include 104 living units, that being 73 employee housing units and 31 free market units, (2) that rentals on the employee housing units conform to middle income guidelines of $.70 per square foot, (3) that the development provide two parking spaces per dwelling unit with the provision of one parking space per bedroom in the event it is determined it is required, (4) the provision of right-of-way for possible Main street extension; dedication of two major oper space areas, the land along the Castle creek corridor and the undeveloped area south of the free market portion of the project; (5) prohibition against short term rentals in the development, (6) access to the development to be off highway 82 in the Cemetery Lane areai and (7) location of the employee housing units to the southernment portion of the propert seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Jeffrey Sachs, representing Aspen Growth Management Foundation, said the groups feels thi project is the moment of truth for the ~growth management plan in Aspen. This is a specia and critical open space area at the entrance to town, and the planning office has tried to keep it that way. Under the county, 16 or 17 units would be permitted and most of them would be employee housing. The land has been deliberately upzoned to R-15A/PUD to allow 104 units. Sachs said he could not recall a precedent after the growth management plan has been adopted to allow a private person to upzone his land, apart from going through the growth management process under the applicable rules for development. Sachs stated the 70/30 ordinance is a good ordinance applied to a modest size project, but to a project of this size, it will totally defeat the growth management plan. The reason is that there is no competition; because of no grading and scoring, they will not achieve quality. Secondly, no projects will be dispersed through the city. One of Council's is tO disperse employee housing throughout the city. The city is setting a precedent for each large parcel of land to be developed into a ma~or housing project. This is contrary to good planning; the density should be in the city core and not the outskirts. The city'~ annual quota under GMP of 39 units is used up by many exemptions before people are even allowed to compete for the free market units. If the Council allows projects like this to be approved and counted, the ability of developers in the city to obtain an allotment is defeated. Sachs said a revenue bond for this applicant is highly discriminatory. This is not available to all other earnest developers to come in and compete in the GMP. Sachs told Council if they went ahead and the developers may rely upon the conceptual approval, his group may make a special effort to seek a referendum or initiative to either repeal the 70/30 ordinance or to limit it by amendment to projects about the size of a dozen units. Sachs said the group agreed with the six month rental restrictions, that it has always been the sens of Council they do not want to create tourist areas in residentia zones. Sachs pointed out in the PUD process, the Council can impose any restriction they want, even if-the applicant goes with fee-simple town lots. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Isaac and Collins. Motion carried. PLUM TREE INN PURCHASE RECOMMENDATIONS Acting City Attorney Bob Grueter disqualilied himself. City Manager Chapman reminded Council staff has presented a marketing plan in September, Council had approved this, and staff had indicated they would bring to Council recommendations regarding the offers received. At that time, Council rejected the idea of selecting the preferred alternative and reopening the bids. Staff recommends to stick with the marketing plan; however, it was always intended that negotations on the proposals would take place. Staff would like Council to narrow the field of applicants to between 1 and 3, Chapman told Council the negotiating process could be either sequential or simultaneous. If there is one proposal that Council feels very comfortable with, establish a deadline and negotiate a firm contra( If there are two proposals Council is interested in, staff recommends entering into a simultaneous negotiation. Chapman said if Council can narrow the field to 1, 2, or 3, the staff recommends getting the same firm which gave the City the original opinion of value, review the economics of the proposals and give a definite opinion of value on these proposals. Council will have to develope a list of negotiating goals. Josh Saslove of the Moore-Biard group said they would like the opportunity to sit down with Council after they have found out what the community wants and needs. They would be able to make a lot of concessions and changes. Mayor Edel said he read the five proposals in depth, and from the five has come up with two that are strong offers. These do have some elements lacking that would be of benefit to the city. Jim Trueman, Red Roof Inns, told Council they made a firm offer addressed to what Council asked for in September. Trueman said they put forth a number to buy the Plum Tree, asked to add 20 similar units. Chapman reminded Council from the beginning, it was intended the city would negotiate on any offers that were received; the city is trying to arrange the best outcome. Jon Seigle representing Aspen Park, told Council their concept is to have a destination resort at the golf course to complement the city's efforts at the golf course. They have attempted to get the aesthetics up to 1980 standards. Aspen Park submitted to tear down the lodge w~ng keep the existing public facilities, and replace the lodge rooms with 50 condominium units of 112 bedrooms. They propose to renovate the existing public portion of the project, the tennis courts and pool and keep them public. They propose to donate the pro shop, office, locker room and golf-cart storage to the City. There would be a restaurant and bar, a conference room for 100 people, and employee housing. Seigle said this project would generate the most money for sale, and revenue on a yearly operating basis. (Councilman Collins left Chambers). The HBR groups was not present. Hans Gramiger handed out a rating sheet with a self rating and explained his proposal. They plan to house all employees on site. Gramiger stated this community needs a destination resort. Gramiger said the city only received proposals for condominiums, quick get in and quick get out. Gramiger said on behalf of his principle, he made an offer for a destination resort, full-service hotel complex with large convention facilities. Gramiger said as long as there are plans to redevelop a non-conforming use, the justification for doing this must be a substantial benefit to the long range economy of this resort, not a condominium project strictly for profit. Mayor Edel read a letter from Councilman Parry, stating the Council should determine the number of units they want at the site. Aspen Park would not double the density. Council- man Parry stated he would like to see a good pro shop, storage for carts, conference facilities. Councilman Parry's choice was Aspen Park. Mayor Edel said he felt there are two proposals which warrant the city's pursuit, Red Roofs and Aspen Park. Mayor Edel said he felt it was important to have an adequate pro shop and storage facilities and there be some sort of contingency there be no cost to the city for some time period. Aspen Park showed how they would remedy the employee housing and would house 10 to 20 employees depending upon the needs of the project. Councilman Behrendt asked how many existing square feet there is now and how much they propose. Seigle answered %here is about 24,000 for the lodge part now and propose close to 60,000 square feet. Mayor Edel said the interested parties in negotiating with the city should depost a $50,000 interest bearing check. . Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council that all proposals would involve review by thet P & Z and Council, and new legislation depending upon which is chosen. Councilwoman Michael said her choices would be Red Roofs, Aspen Park and ~BR; all three of them are in the middle of the road in terms of number of bedrooms that is reasonable. Councilwoman Michael sa~d she would vote for one only ~f all support facilities at the golf course are provided by the developer; the parking is reasonable; the employee housing is commen- surate with the number of employees. Councilwoman Michael said she thought the existing lodge is not attractive to the entrance to town. Councilwoman Michael said not one of the proposals offers enough money. Councilman Behrendt said his first choice is Reed Roof Inns; their proposal is the simplest Councilman Behrendt said he was concerned about the GMP. Aspen Park proposal has a lot more construction. Councilman Isaac said his first two choices are Red Roofs and Aspen Park; however, he is leaning toward Red Roof because they have more experience in lodge management. Councilman Isaac said not everyone who comes to Aspen wants a condominium to stay in. Councilman Isaac asked Red Roofs about employee housing. Jim Trueman said they have suggested 12 to 15 units, which would house employees to run a lodge that size. Councilman Van Ness said he did not think the building is that ugly. Councilman Van Ness said he like the Red Roof proposal best. He would prefer to see the building stay the way it is. Councilman Van Ness said the Council has a responsibility to make sure the communit gets a good value on this. Councilman Behrendt moved to have the city manager enter into further discussions with Aspen Park and Red Roof groups on the Plum Tree property for February 23; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Councilman Van Ness said the Council has to sit down and decide what the parameters are. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #50, SERIES OF 1980 - Employee Units in Lodges Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #50, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 950 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANACE AMENDING ARTICLE XIII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OP ASPEN BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW SECTION 13.11 WHICH ALLOWS THE ENLARGEMENT EXTENSION, CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION, OR sTRUCTURAL ALTERATION OF A NON-CONFORMIN( LODGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND ESTABLISHING~A REVIEW PROCESS, CONDITIONS AND REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SUCH APPROVAL was read by the city clerk Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Mark Danielsen requested the deletion of the 700 square feet limitation on the size of the units in the residential areas to allow lodges in R-6 and R-15 to have more than 700 square feet dedicated to employee housing. The larger lodges need to create more employee housine Danielsen suggested the limitation be taken away and allow the employee units to be done by special review. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there are no area and bulk requirements in the residential zone; therefore, a limitation on size was put on these units. This also allows the conversion of existing lodge rooms to employee housing and the creation of new lodge units as long as it evens out. The 700 square feet was the size of proposed caretaker units in-the R-6 through R-30 zones and reflects the comments received from the public. In the other zones, there are FARs that would limit the size of the overall bulk consistent with the zones. Gideon Kaufman told Council there would be a safeguard to the size of the units because this is a conditional use and would have to have review and approval. Kaufman said the purpose of this ordinance is to get employee housing; if the units are in the basement, there is no impact on the bulk. The Council should allow flexibility in case the right projects come along. Vann pointed out there is unlimited square footage in a basement. because there is no increase in the bulk. Perry Harvey told Council the P & Z wanted to cut back on special review; however, he felt the 700 square feet is an arbitrary numbers, and that flexibility is really important. The goal is produce employee housing and to produce it in a equal share throughout the community. Putting in the 700 square foot will limit and will put the employee housing underground. Councilman Isaac said he would agree with a clause for special review. Council discussed this and decided to stay with the 700 square feet. Councilman Van Ness moved to adopt Ordinance #50, Series of 1980, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Behrendt, abtain; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Gideon Kaufman passed out some proposed changes to the lodge condominiumization ordinance which should address some of Council's concerns with this ordinance. These proposed chang~ will go to P & Z. ORDINANCE 95, SERIES OF 1981 - Aspen Sanitation District Rezoning and Emp!oyee housing Mayor Edel asked if there had been any discussion about exchanging property with the sanitation district so they could be somewhere else and give the city the property so the city could maximize the use of the space for open space. Albie Kern, representing the applicant, said this has never been discussed. The~operation of the sanitation district has been suspended but not cancelled; they may have to come back and operate. Councilman Behrendt said the thrust of the community has been to move the sanitation facility. Sunny Vann reminded Council they had tabled this and asked him to look into various matter~ regarding this. The employee units will be solely for the use of the sanitation district and there is no need for more than four urrits. The amount of land that is being rezoned to residential bonus, there can be no further intrusion to the south along the greenway. There are no plans to dismantle the sanitation plant because of the uncertainty of the future. There is a physical limitation to the number of units they can build. Vann told Council his recommendation for approval is contingent upon the limited nature of impact there is n'ow. Vann explained to Council this is an application to utilize the residential bonus overlay to construct four deed-restricted employee housing units. This property is zoned under two different categories; "public" and "park" with a drainage overlay. This RB ordinance does not provide for construction of housing in the "park" zone; therefore, it is necessar, to rezone a portion of the property from "park" to "public" to allow construction of employee housing. Because this is a multi-family structure, it also requires subdivision approval. Vann told Council there will be no parceling of the land; this is defining a zoning boundary. They have taken some land out of park, rezoned it public and RBO. Vann told Council since all area and bulk requirements in the public zone are established by SPA, the Council must adopt an SPA plan for the site, as well as special review approval for th~ employee housing units. P & Z reviewed this and addressed all reviews separately. This area is part of the greenway plan; however, Council adopted a housing plan which said ther~ will be some trade-offs in the name of employee housing. The location of the units will mitigate the concern of intrusion into the greenway. Vann pointed out this is a low densit area, There was an original concern this development might preclude the use of this area for snow dumping.~ Vann told Council the advantages of this proposal is that it does cluster the development to minimize the impacts on the greenway. There is 100 feet of greenway preserved between the units and the river. This development may force a new solution to the city's snow dumping issue. Deed restricting all four units will be consistent with the city's adopted housing action plan. The parking and utilities proPosed are sufficient. The site is clos~ to major services and to transportation. P & Z recommended approval of the rezoning from park to public/RB subject to the following conditions; existing vegeHation be preserved on the site; improvement of the landscaping of the remaining greenway when snow dumping is removed; stream margin review, identification of 100 year f!oodiplan - avoidance of devel- opment in that location; approval of on-site drainage; deed restriction of the unit; a revised site plan. Albie Kern told Council the sanitation district is trying to provide four employee units for their employees. This is a public institution supported taxpayers. They are provid- ing these units to upgrade and keep their employees. Kenn reiterated with the growth of the area and the use of the joint plant, the old sanitiation plant may have to be opened again. Councilman Van Ness as'ked about the snowdumping issue and what the arrangement is. Kern said the city would like some assurance or find out what is going to happen; Kern stated he did not know what will happen. Councilman Van Ness pointed out the Council has passed legislation to permit and encourage this type of housing, and this plan does not seem to interfere with the other issues. Vann told Council this procedure also requires subdivision exception for the four unit multi-family complex; there is no parceling of the property involved. The,P & Z attached conditions to this exception. The third approval required is an SPA approval for the site plan itself, the setbacks, the area and bulk, open space, etc. The fourth review required is sPecial review approval for the employee housing units, which is conditioned upon six month rental restrictions, a deed restriction to moderate income guidelines, and a prohibi- tion against condominiumization. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #5, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~5 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE FROM P (PARK) TO Pub (PUBLIC) AND Pub/RB (PUBLIC/RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY) was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance 95, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councllmembers Isaac, aye; Van Ness, ave; Michael~! aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Edet, aye. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Va~ Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #7 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE, ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA LL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Behrendt, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the applicants request for subdivision exception with the following conditions: (1) revisions of the final plat to include existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant, (2) revision of the final plat to include adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment, (3) revision of the final plat to include Mill street right-of-way and proposed access including necessary easements, (4) prohibition against condominiumization; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to grant special review approval for the employee housing units subject to the following conditions; (1) six month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22; (2) deed restriction to moderate income guidelines, (3) prohibition against condo- miniumization; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. RIO GRANDE TASK FORCE REPORT - This item was tabled until February 23, 1981. Regular Meetin9 ..... Aspg~ ~!~Y_ ~o?Dnil ............... J~npg~Y ~6~.__~8! ............................... LIQUOR LICENSE;RENEWAL - Andre's Club City Manager Chapman asked that this be tabled so that Council has an opportunity to look at the supplemental questionnaire the staff has developed. ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1981 - Noise Abatement Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All i~ favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 92 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 16, SECTION 1 THROUGH 4, OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "NOISE" AND ENACTING A NEW ORDINANCE CHAPTER 16, SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 11, INCLUSIVE, ENTITLE "NOISE ABATEMENT", WHICH RELATES TO DEFINITIONS AND STANDARDS, PROHIBITIONS, EXEMPTIONS, PERMITS AND RELATED MATTERS was read by the city clerk Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Gideon Kaufman, representing Andre Ulrych, pointed out to Council the purpose of the CC zone is to enhance the business character in the central core of the city. Permitted uses are nightclubs; residential uses are limited to accessory status. Kaufman told CounCil that Ulrych spent a lot of money to renovate and operate this night club. This is an asset to the town and is within the character and intent of the CC district. This ordinance will adopt new guidelines that will affect the operation of this business. In the past, noise ms measured 25 feet from the property line now it is measured from where the occurance takes place. The 25 feet can make a big difference. Tom Dunlop, environmental health officer, explained to Council he does not go out and look for violations; this is handle~ on a complaint basis. Dunlop told Council he has had complaints, infrequently, against Andre's for the last two years. There has been complaint against other businesses in town also. Dunlop has worked with these businesses trying to work out how to keep things quieter. Councilman Van Ness asked what this ordinance changes Dunlop answered th'e decibel level is 55 at night and 60 during the day in the commercial core. Dunlop told Council noone complains during the day about noise levels. Another change in the ordinance is to measure the decibel level from the property line rather than from 25 feet away. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Beh~endt moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael left Chambers. ORDINANCE ~3, SERIES OF 1981 -Model Traffic Code Amendment. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #3, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Behrend All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #3 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 19-2(a) OF THE 1977 EDITION OF THE MODERL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES BY THE DELETION OF THE WORD "MUFFLERS" was read by the city clerk. Mayor Edel opened,the, public hearing. Dunlop explained this ordinance is necessary to make the former ordinanc~ work. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconde< by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Nostdahl-Marthinsson Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this is a request for condominiumization of a building on Park Avenue, zoned R-6 and containing 10 two-bedroom units, one of which is occupied by Mr. Marthinsson. The rest of the units are rented within the city's price buidelines; the applicant has agreed to deed restrict 9 units within the city's guidelines. The engineering comments are to have a resubmission of the improvement survey; agree to enter into a sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement district, if one is formed; and install a new water meter and remote meter reading register. The attorney has commented these units should be restricted to six month rentals. Councilman Behrendt questioned why the rental units were only restricted for 5 years; why not 50 years. Vann explained that under the condominiumization section, it only asks for 5 years. The housing director has recommended 5 years restrictions at current rental rates with an annual adjustment. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the applicant's request for subdivision exception for Nostdahl-Marthinsson with the following conditions; (1) applicant comply with the engineer- lng comments outlined above and detailed in their memeorandum dated December l, 1980; (2) applicant complies with the notice and option provision and six-month minimum lease restric- tion of Section 20-22; (3) imposition of a five-year rental restriction on the building's nine rental apartments, said restriction to be based upon the current rental rates with annual cost of living updates as established by the City's housing guidelines resolution; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Oliver-Carr ~lan Richman, planning office, told Council this is a proposed lot split in the R-6 residen. zone on Smuggler street. The proposal is to slit off three lots, which are undeveloped, from 3 lots which have a condominiumized duplex on it. If Council approves this, the applicant would have the right to construct a single family dwelling outside the GMP. Richman told Council that exception to GMP review would be due to the original lot having a 3038 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 26, 1981 pre-existing dwelling and as a result of no more than two lots being created by this subdivision. The engineering department requested a revised plat reflecting the change in the common elements of the existing condominium project. The attorney and housing director had no comments. The P & Z recommended approval on January 6, 1981. Councilman Van Ness moved to except the Oliver,Carr subdivision from full compliance with the subdivision regulations for purposes of condominiumization subject to the following conditions; the applicant's submission of a revised plt to the engineering department reflecting the deletion of lots K, L and M from the common elements of the existing condominium project. The revised plat should be submitted to the engineering following final approval of this application by city council; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilman Behrendt brought up the sidewalk, curb and gutter improvement district and aske( why is was not a condition of this application. Richman said it could be added, Councilman Van Ness amended~his m~tion to add the applicant must agree~to enter into a sidewalk improvement district, when one is formed; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION~EXCEPTION - Coachlight Chalet (Lodge condominiumization and reconstruction) Alan Richman, planning office told Council this lodge is located on 12,000 square feet and the applicant is requesting subdivision exception and condominiumization of a new lodg~ to be rebuilt. They propose 11 studio units, one 3-bedroom and two employee housing units The applicant is requesting only one unit at this time because P & Z did not approve the second unit. This falls under Section 20-23; they will not increase the number of units. The applicant is meeting the intent of Section 20,23. P & Z had some concern about the lobby not being able to provide breakfast and informational services to what had been provided. The engineering department reviewed the condominium map and found it to be adequate; they suggested the encroachment issue should be clarified. The attorney stated the application meets the intent of Section 20-23; however, the applicant should designate that services are contracted on a twenty-four hour basis. The housing director requests the employee units be under group ownership of the condominium association. Richman told Council the planning office recommendation contained four conditions, which have been met by the applicant since P & Z. The fifth condition of the P & Z, which was to enlarge the lobby, the applicant has met this also. Councilman Behrendt moved to except the Coachling Chalet from full compliance with the subdivision regulations for purposes of lodge condominiumization the number of employee units subject to P & Z approval, otherwise there will be two pillows; seconded by Council- man Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Ordinance 950, Series of 1980, was dealt with earlier; Ordinance 94, and liquor license renewal for the Arya were requested to be tabled until February 9th. Confirmation of Audit Firm was the only item left on the consent agenda. Councilman Van Ness moved to. approve the consent agenda; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to table Ordinance 94, Series of 1981, and Arya liquor license renewal to February 9; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Ka~hr~n S~/Koch, City Clerk