HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19781204Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM in the City Council Chambers. Coun-
cilmembers present were Parry, Isaac, Behrendt, Van Ness and Anderson. Also present were
Karen Smith of the Planning Office, City Attorney Ron Stock, City Manager Mick Mahoney,
Transportation Director HJ Stalf and Marty Hershey.
Smith began with a discussion of the water plant housing. She noted the property on a map.
To annex this property, they could either annex the hospital and the adjacent County prop-
erty or the Opal Marolt property. In terms of time frame, they must finalize the ordinance
on employee housing amendments to the GMP which will be finalized by mid February and they
must draft an ordinance for a PMH zone. She spoke with Stock and Reents about initiating
a design competition. Conceptual subdivision would occur after the annexation and after th,
adoption of the PMH zone. Zoning of the property could occur with the Conceptual stage.
Preliminary plat takes 60 days, Final plat takes 30 days. She estimated they could break
ground in late August.
Donald Ensign did not feel the design competition would assist and may move them back in
time. Councilman Behrendt felt it was a good approach to achieve the best result. Smith
stated that it would be based on site plan and elevations although it would not be guaran-
teed to be the finalized plan.
Chuck Vidal felt they need to set up their program, considering factors such as cost, aes-
thetics, rental markets, site plans, etc. He also felt they should double their time frame
to be realistic. Councilman Behrendt agreed with this.
County Commissioner Michael Kinsley asked why they desire to annex this property. If they
leave it in the County, the County will assist them in achieving their goal without annexa-
tion. Mayor Standley said the Planning Office felt this was the easiest way to go. Smith
noted that the County's deadline for application for this is June 1.
Finance Director Lois But%erbaugh asked if these units would be individually.owned or rente
Mayor Standley said they would be rented. Butterbaugh~said they should not consider the
type of bonding they propose as it is inappropriate. Mayor Standley asked that they work
this out and discuss this at a later date.
Stock noted that out of 60 people surveyed in City Hall, 20 owned their residences, 37
rented with 22% of those in Aspen. Mayor Standley noted that they would expand this survey
to the County and Hospital and include more specific questions to determine the exact needs
The study session then turned to the question of annexation. Mahoney noted that it would
cost the City $150,000/year in services, lost revenues and donations to annex Silverking
and Smuggler. He felt it is important to the residents of these two areas to become citi-
zens of the City. They must address the problem of overlays in services by the City and
County. He felt these needs could be served efficiently and cheaply by the City. He
noted his concern with water service outside their governmental jurisdiction because of
the threat that the PUC may take over.
Smith noted the issues discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission were the affects of
annexation on the Master Plan, Zoning, Subdivision and Growth Management Implementation.
She suggested they may need to amend the 1966 Master Plan and the 1975 amendments to that
plan which deal with the Roaring Fork East, Buttermilk,~Airport and Owl Creek areas. The
Planning Office recommends that there be no overall changes in density or land use but
there may need to be some changes in language. She compared City zoning to County zoning;
S/C/I vs. B-2, RR vs. AF-2. Smith noted that there is a problem with creation of non-con-
forming lots. The solutions would be an abatement provision with possible extensions or
exemption. She compared the subdivision application procedures of the City and County.
Mahoney noted that they must survey all land that they annex.
Stock noted that they cannot, without agreement of the property owner, bifurcate the prop-
erty. He felt it would take five annexations to get to the Airport Business Center. He
also noted that with the 1/6 contiguity law, it would take about 9 years to annex to the
Airport Business Center via the railroad. He felt the real problem would be getting out
to the ABC. There is vacant land that can currently be developed on that the property
owners wilt probably want to negotiate for better zoning. This remaining open space is
very important to the residents of the valley.
Councilmember Van Ness did not feel this annexation idea could fly if they could not obtain
the ABC. Martin Hershey noted that the owners out ~here are interested and willing to ne-
gotiate. He felt they need to go further into the information stage. Mahoney asked for a
positive Council directive to begin this further study.
There was a question from the audience if anyone could petition to be annexed into the City
Stock said anyone owning land contiguous to City property-has the legal right to petition
to annex. The City does not have a legal responsibility to annex any property they don't
want to.
Councilmember Behrendt left the meeting at this point.
Mayor Standley asked Mahoney to prepare a flow chart of the annexation process with time
frames, sequences and costs. He also asked for a map showing the definitive line for an-
nexation. Stock noted that it would cost $95,000 for Lone Pine to tap into the City water
system; it would cost $45,000 if they are annexed. Mayor Standley asked for specific
strategies to accomplish this annexation. Councilmember Van Ness asked for the cost of
annexation if they cannot annex the Airport Business Center, the cost of annexing Silver-
king, etc. Stock noted that it will take approximately two Council meetings to annex each
of seven steps.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Sheryl ~men, Deputy City Clerk