Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19810330 Special Meeting Aspen City Council March 30, 1981 Mayor Edel called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Michael, Collins and Behrendt present. WATER BOND ELECTION City Manager Chapman introduced a resolution which will put on the May election an issue for the issuance of $9,000,000 of general obligation water bonds. The use of this money has been outlined in the water management plan for treatment, distribution, storage facilities. Chapman said there is no obligation to go to the voters on this; however, Council has decided that is what they want to do. Mayor Edel said he was concerned that the voters would think the repayment of the bonds was to come out of general fund taxes, which is not the case. Chapman said the city would ha~e to make clear in information the money is to come from water revenues. Council discussed adding some language to indicate where the repayment will come from. Mayor Edel said it is important to tell the voters in specifio language how the city hopes to pay for these bonds. Councilman'Behrend suggested adding the phrase "the intent is to pay these debts entirely from water utility revenues insofar as possible". Chapman said he would call the bond attorneys to see if this addition is all right. Councilman Collins asked why this is a general obligation issue rather than a revenue bond issue. Chapman said the percentage points are better. A person from the audience said the radio had announced that water rates would go up 10 per cent per year. Lois Butterbaugh told Council if the entire bond issue passes, the first three years the city will invest those monies not yet spent and lower the amount of the water increase necessary to meet the debt service. There will be quite an increase in connect fees. Mayor Edel stated this issue is very important or the city will be left with a second- rate water system. The issue is based not on large growth but on the 3.4 per cent GMP rate. Council compared the housing bond issue which went to the voter in the winter of 1980 to see if the wording was the same. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution 919, Series of 1981, with the addition of "the city's intent is to pay these debts from water utility revenues insofar as possible" seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. SALE OF THE PLUM TREE INN - Resolution ~18, Series of 1981 Monroe Summers told Council there has never been a subdivision of the land which contains the Plum Tree itself. The engineer surveyed the portion of the land containing the inn, parking and tennis courts. It is 3.9 acres. Some of the people interested in the propert indicated they would like to also purchase some land to the east, which is where the 5.2 acres comes from. It is basically the parks department storage area. There is no access to the property. Chapman pointed out this particular ballot question, if passed, is not an obligation to sell the property. The city could still enter into a longterm land lease. Council decided for the ballot question that the total acreage should be included. Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Collins and Mayor Edel preferred the 4.0 acres; Council- Special Meeting Aspen city councl£ march ~u, man Isaac said he would go for 5.2 acres just for flexibility of the developer. Summers said strong consideration should be given to development of the entrance road and the parking area. Council said this should be part of the negotiations for ~ale or lease. Francis Whitaker said there is a provision for 25 additional units; that would seem to tak~ away from open space. If the density is maintained as is now, the automobiles and people can be accommodated. Whitaker stated he was a member of Council when Texas International PetrOleum came in with their proposal for development. This was a full scale subdivision convention center, shopping center, condominiums and apartments. The Council realized what this development would mean to the entrance of the city; the Council worked hard and quickly. The voters approved a sixth penny sales tax for this and other open space purchases, and 212 acres was saved from development. Since then the city has rezoned parts of this land for other development, like the parks department offices and temporaril, an automobile impound lot. Council is now considering a developer's proposal to take away' additional open space to rebuild the Plum Tree Inn. On January 21 the Pitkin County Parks Association approved the following motion; "that the City Council make a proposal with respect to the Plum Tree property based on the highest and best use for the community~.as evolved through the appropriate planning process. If the proposal is accepted by the voters, the funds generated or an equivalent amount, shall be used for the acquisition of open space". Whitaker said the city determining what is the best use for the community is better than considering what is best for the developer. Whitaker stated if the Council wants support of the Plum Tree sale, there should be no increase in development and no lose of open space. There should be a firm commitment that money released by the sale will go for open space and open space only. Whitaker reported in the sixth penny fund over 10 years the ratio has been 70 per cent to open space purchases and 30 per cent to "other". In 1979, however, the ratio was 52 per cent for open space and 48 per cent for "other". Connie Harvey said this land was bought as open space and the Plum Tree should remain as part of the whole property. The tennis courts should be for the people and not for some private developer. Ms. Harvey said the whole thing should be torn down if it cannot be managed. More units should not be added. Mayor Edel said he felt the opportunity of giving the citizens of Aspen a chance to say sale or not sale is a benefit. This should be a two-issue question; that of the sale itself, and the density or further development. Hal Clark said he felt it a necessity to get rid of the Plum Tree for economic and physical reasons. The real question is what to do with the Plum Tree as is and it would be hurting the issue to include the expansion issue into the election. Clark said he sensed a concern from the citizens as to whether the money from the sale of the Plum Tree would be used for additional open space. Jon Seigle said that first Council has to determine how much money they want from the sale of the Plum Tree; the rest of the questions will fall in line after that. Seigle stated the way the proposal is now, the first phase has no profit in it without being able to expand. The price and the quantity of development go hand in hand. Fred Smith said the rezoning question could lose the election. The Council should look at the fact that it is imperative to have a quality support the for gol~ course; it is best supported with a lodge facility rather than a condominium-apartment development. Connie Harvey asked if the tennis courts would be protected for the public and at an affordable rate. Mayor Edel said this will be part of the agreement so the use won't change at all. Francis Whitaker said he thought condominium units with kitchens would be a poor support for a good bar and restaurant. The lodge unit will work best with a golf course and support facility. Mayor Edel said he felt control of the density is a key issue. Mayor Edel said the question to the voters is not if the sale should be for condominiums but should the Counci~ have the right to negotiate a sale. Councilman Behrendt pointed out this is a non-~onfor~n¢ use and anyone who buys or leases it and wants to do anything out there, will have to have some zoning legislation. City Attorney Taddune told Council not only could they control the use and size of the development through zoning but also through the terms of the sale. The City is the owner of the property and condition the sale on the proposed use. Hans Gramiger said he felt it would make a big difference to the voters if the use was to be condominiums or lodge units. Council went through the resolution Paragraph by paragraph to settle on language to send , to the voters. They discussed 25 units versus 50 bedrooms . Council stated the figurei of 2.5 million seemed to be the correct figure and that is accessible. Chapman agreed below a certain figure, Why not make it open space. Council agreed to go with the 50 bedrooms and not mention the 25 units. In paragraph two, the question is whether to restrict any further growth at all. Chapman pointed out to Council this paragraph says if there is going to be any further development, it must go through growth management plan Hal Clark pointed out the voter may agree to the question that there will be no further development other than what is already there unless the question is resubmitted to the voter. The rationale is there would be further development on land purchased by the sixth penny. Councilman Isaac suggested adding a sentence stating, should any further development be sought by the purchaser, the terms of this development will be submitted to the voter for approval. Council discussed whether GMP approval for the additional units should ~ome first or the vote of the electorate should come first. Chapman pointed out it really doesn't matter because both approvals are necessary. Taddune outlined language for the ballot question, "Should any further development be sought by the purchaser or his succes- sors and assigns, approval for such further develOpment shall be obtained by a majority of electors voting thereon, and the necessary allotment for any additional units must be obtained pursuant to the growth management quota system". Councilwoman Michael moved to approve paragraphs one and two under form of question in the tract of Resolution ~18; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilwoman Michael added deleting the words "with a maximum of 25 Units", substituting 4.0 acres for 5.2 acres in the first paragraph. All in favor, motion carried. Special Meeting Aspen City Council March 30, £9~1 Councilman Behrendt moved to add "Should any further development be sought by the purchasez or his successors and assigns, approval for such further development must be obtained by a majority of the electors voting thereon, and the necessary allotment for any addition~ ~ units must be obtained pursuant to the growth management plan; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Council discussed the third paragraph which states Council may enact such zoning legisla- ~ tion which may be necessary to accomplish the terms of the sale. Taddune said the city would be zoning this for a specific purpose to accomplish a particular sale; so the city it asking the voters to approve this. Chapman said the issue of spot zoning is problematical in this sale; if the public approves this, then it is a de facto argument. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt the third paragraph; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to include some working designating the dispostion of the funds to be achieved by the sale; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Behrendt said he wanted some words to assure the voter that proceeds of the sale would go to retire the ~i{~ debt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Resolution #18, Series of 1981, as amended above; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. CASTLERIDGE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the management contract; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Council has had a study session on this. The contract has been changed to tighten up the legal wording; there were no changes of substance. Chapman asked Council to approve this; the staff will have to come back with a resolution from the housing authority approving this~also. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. , City Clerk ~.