Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19770214Rsgular Meeting Aspen City Council February 14, 1977 Mayor Standley caltsd the joint meeting ~o order at 5:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt, De Gregorio, Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, Wishart, Commissioners Child, Edwards and Kinsley present. 1. Joint Gommunications Agreement. Mayor Standley stated this is basically the contract that was discussed earlier that calls for a 60/40 split for this year in the cost of the communications system. City Manager Mahoney stated the City was happy with the agreement. The Agreement was worked about between the Sheriff, Chief of Police, and Joint the City and County Managers. George Ochs said the County was happy with it. Communicati( Agreemsnt Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the agreement; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. George Ochs mentioned that the County has been working on a plan for a joint facility for the sheriff and police departments in the basement of the Courthouse. Ochs said he had been getting a lot of negative feedback, and if the Council is.·not interested in the idea, the County does not want to spend any more time working on it. Mayor Standley answered that the Council has never discussed it. Mayor Standley asked for a memorandum explaining the idea, the costs, the pros and cons, before the Council will talk about it. Ochs said he would have this ready for the next joint meeting. 2 n=F~n u~y council February 14, 1977 2. Disconnec~Midland/Park. The County presented a petition to disconnect part of Disconnect Midland/Park subdivision from the City. Mayor Standley told Council the City had to ing do this by ordinance. County Attorney Stuller pointed out ~here may be a change in the Midland/ legal description. Park Councilwoman Pedersen moved to accept the petition; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Councilwoman Johnston stated she has a problem with this; when Midland/Park first came up it was decided that it would be best to annex the whole thing to the City. When the administrative delay came along, it was taken out. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that employee houslng per se may be exempted from the GMP, and then this project may be back where it started. It may be unnecessary to do anythingLright now, and wait to see what the City is going to do about employee housing. Councilman Wishart pointed out that Housing Officer Brian Goodheim needs to expedite this by the summer. The City can always re-annex the project at any time. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Johnston. M~tion ~arried. 3. Transportation Alternatives Study. George Ochs passed out a questionnaire to be ~hswered by Council. The first ten questions are about transportation generally; the Transports final question is specific recommendations for a transportation system. tion Study~ Sandy Knaub gave agendas for the transportation consultant meetings. Tuesday, February 23, Ks an all day meeting with the Commissioners, Council, and Citizens Advisory Board. This meeting is intended for people who are up to speed on the study. The meetings Thursday, February 24, will be s meeting for the general public and will be a detailed presentation of what ~as been going on with the studies. Wednesday the Council and Commissioners are scheduled to talk with the consultants. 4. OEDP - Overall Economic Development Plan. Mayor Standley reported that counties that have high unemployment qualify for certain types of federal funds, direct aide grants and loans. Pitkin County qualified two years ago but did not go through with getting Overall the plan submitted. George Ochs told the Boards he had assigned C~nncilwoman Johnston Economic and Brian Stafford to work on the OEDP. This is a big task and requires the formation 6f Developmer a board to get input from all areas of the community. This will probably be a two month Plan process. Brian Stafford said he had gone to Denver and met with department heads of the regional EDA. Stafford has asked what an OEDP study involves, etc. A committee needs to be formed which will be representative of the City, County and all entities involved. The Chamber and Snowmass R~sort will be involved. Stafford stated the hard part is ~o describe the potential for economic development and the strategies of what to do and how. Ochs stated the study and OEDP are a requirement of EDA. Counties and Cities are not able to get any grant monies from EDA until they have completed this OEDP. Councilwoman Johnston pointed ou~ that this does not mean attracting large industry to this area but~means achieving desires in balancing out the economy ~n new areas. $. A-95 Review: Airport Development Aid Program. Mayor Standley stated this grant application ~as to widen the runway, lengthen the runways? generally updating the master Airpor~ plan for the airport. Ochs said this is consistent with the master planning for the Develop- airport, which outlines projects on a short, middle, and3~long range projects. The ment property acquisition was approved by the FAA. This is the next step. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the grant application with favorable comment; seconde~ by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. 6. High~ay 82 East - Opening Independgnce. Pass. Mayor Standley told the Boards that City Engineer Dave Ellis came back from a highway department meeting and indicated that if the City and County were ~'ht~rested, the state would plow open and keep open ~ndepen- Highway 8~ dence Pass on a one-time basis. Commissioner Kinsley suggested opening it up to Lost Independen Mann as an access for cross-country skiers. Councilman Parry pointed out there were Pass places higher up to ski and why not open it up all the way. Kinsley stated that the avalanche danger was significantly higher the last stretch of the highway. City Engineer Ellis told Council that the state highway department said if they open it up ~ust to Lost Man it would be a waste of money; therefore, they would only open it all the way. ~. - .......... .- ~u ~ ~ ~ ~ · Commissioner. Kineley~.moved.~thatthe' Comm£ssioners~.:and~CoUncfI~asRrtha~.the~highway~depart- ment open Independence up just to the Lost Man Reservoir; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Geri Fox, Chamber of Commerce, suggested that the City talk to Fred Braun of Mountain Rescue before they consider opening the pass all the way. Hans Gramiger pointed out that Aspen might get more weekend traffic from Southern Colorado if the pass were open. Commissioner Kinsley withdrew his motion. Councilman Parry moved that the City and County ask the s~ate highway department to open the pass all the way over; seconded by Councilman De Gregorlo. Councilwoman Johnston stated she felt that there was a safety factor involved besides just the avalanches. Councilmembers Behrendt, Johnston, Commissioners Kinsley, Child, and Edwards against the motion. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to ask the highway department to plow the road up to Lost Man and plow a place to park cars; if they won'~ do that, at least take the barriers down so that people can drive up there; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen ~u3 ~u~ COUNCIL~MEETING MINUTES Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the minutes of the January 24, 1977, Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Ail in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Katherine Thalberg, owner of Exlpo~e Bookstore, told Council she had been trying to restore an old house on Main street. There has been a lot of red tape; the procedure should be facilitated to encourage historic preservation. The plans got approval of the HPC; then a building permit was applied for. Ms. Thalberg planned to have a loft with Elevator children's books on it. The building permit cannot be issued because there is supposed requirements to be an elevator to the loft. Ms. Thalberg read from Ordinance 27, 1976, which allows relaxation of the uniform building code in the historic district or in historic structures. Ms. Thalberg stated she felt that her particular case was covered by this ordinance, and she should not have to construct an elevator to the loft. There will be a ramp to the back door. Mayor Standley pointed out that Council cannot authorize the building inspector to issue a building permit. If the building is covered by Ordinance 27, 1976, it is within the building inspector's purview to issue a permit. County Attorney Stuller said the language in the ordinance is broad enough to cover any aspect~of the building code. The interpretation is not handled by the building inspector. County Attorney Stuller suggested this is an administrative matter and a meeting shoul~ be set up with City Manage Mahoney, Meyring, the attorneys and Ms. Thalberg. 2. Paul Traeger with David Holliff has organized a group called Citizens Against Cloud Citizens Seeding. Traeger presented Council with petitions signed by people against cloud Against seeding. Cloud Seeding 3. David Holliff stated he was against cloud seeding but did not go into the reasons as they have all been stated. 4. Geri Fox, Aspen Chamber of Commerce, present a list to Council of 38 businesses and organizations that have donated $10,000 to the cloud seeding program. Ms. Fox stated she felt the program had meri~ and there would be no environmental damage. 5. Albert Fiorella also submitted a petition to Council signed by people against cloud seeding. ~ COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Wishart suggested that Council think about changing the salaries of Council Council and the Mayor. Councilman Wishart stated he could see, in ~he future, average Salaries working people not being able to serve~on this board because of the time it takes. Councilwoman Johnston concurred. 2. Councilman Behrendt asked Chief of Police Hershey for heavy duty enforcement on pedestrians in the crosswalks on Main street. Councilman Behrendt said there is no Pedestrians evidence that drivers know what crosswalks mean. Mayor Standley suggested that City in crosswalks Manager Mahoney hang the banner back up over Main street noting that pedestrians have enforcement ~he right of way. Councilman Behrendt asked that pressure be put on the state to re- paint the crosswalks. 3. Councilman Behrendt pointed out that the City was looking for labor intensive CETA projects. There is no organized dinah projects to run water all through town. Council- man Behrendt stated, if Council concurs, he would like to see the administration put together a program to get the maximum number of ditches running with the minimum street Ditches in tear up. Councilwoman Pedersen said she would like to have the administration submit west end to Council a master plan for opening the ditches; a feasibility study for which ditches are worth opening. 4. Councilman Behrendt pointed out that the speed limit signs on Brush Creek give both Metric Km and mph. The country is in the process of changing over to the metric system, system Councilman Behrendt asked the administration to look a~ this with the police and street departments, and slowly start the educational process of changing over to Kms. Councilwoman Johnston stated she felt%this was a great idea. 5. Mayor Standley told Council that City Engineer Ellis had submitted a memorandum regarding the Ridge of Red Mountain easement. The arrangements allows for closing and postponement of payment contingent upon the City receiving approval from various people. The City will close the deal, get the easement and go ahead to take joint occupancy of the road. None of the terms of the agreement have changed. Council concurred that Mayor Standley was authorized to sign the agreement. 6. Ma~or Standley told Council to be thinking of a general discussion of any items they might want on the spring election ballot. 7. Mayor Standley reported on the budget work session. Based on the receipt of sales tax information, the City is down 20 per cent over last year in sales tax revenue. City Manager Mahoney said no adjustments were needed as the City carried a million dolla~ surplus over two years. ~- ..... ~ ...... ~ February 14, 1977 Mayor Standley asked, to stimulate the local community, the administration to see if they could certify that funds were available to give an additional $20 rebate to all citizens who qualify under the food tax rebate. STUDENT COMlW_ENT Bus to 1. Nidole DeWolfe, ACDS, told Council they appreciated consideration of a bus going to ACDS Country Day School. This will help traffic alot. Lights on Ms. DeWolfe pointed out that there are not enough lights on Main street for the crosswalks Main St. at night. Mayor Standley agreed. SUB SHOPPE - Liquor License Renewal Mayor Standley told Council this was the standard renewal of a 322 beer license. There Sub Shopps are no adverse comments, and there have been no changes on the application. renewal Councilman De Gregorio moved to approve the renewal for the Sub Shoppe; seconded by Councilman Parry. - All in favor , motion carried. ARYA - Application for a three-way liquor license Arya - Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. City clerk repo~%ed a lease would be binding 3-way upon issuance of a license; that the file was in order, and that posting and publication liquor were complete. license Charles Fagin, representing H & C Corporation, d/b/a/The Arya, submitted petitions in favor of issuing this license. Over 500 signatures were gathered at the Arya restaurant. Fagin submitted extra letters of recommendation for the owners, Sadeghi and Manteghi, from local business people. Fagin told Council the purpose of applying for a liquor license is to clear up problems created by the Arya operating with a management contract with the Aspen Inn Club. When the management contract was re-written to comply with state liquor laws, the Arya put in a section that they would apply for thelr own license. Fagin stated that the Arya restaurant has been operating in the same manner since 1974 and will continue in the same manner. The Arya Ks one of the better restaurants in town. This license will not create a new outlet but just continue an existing outlet. There has been a restaurant on this premises for many years. Fagin pointed out that if this license is issued, the Arya will have its own license, separate from that of the Aspen Inn Club, and will be responsible for its license. Mayor Stanldey told Council that the Aspen Inn Club has submitted an 18E to redefine their licensed premises and delete that part of the Arya. The Aspen Inn Club will have to construct a kitchen before they can operate. Barry Edwards, representing Aspen I~n Club, told Council that the Aspen Inn Club would retain their 3-way liquor license but would not open for business until a kitchen had been installed. This would avoid having the Aspen Inn's license revoked or suspended and then going through a hearing process. Chief of Police Hershey suggested to Council they invite Chuck Dotson, state liquor inspector, to the February 28th Council meeting to go over these applications. Fagin stated that the Arya could continue to operate under the management contract, but they were trying to separate the fortunes of the Arya and the Aspen Inn Club. Chief Hershey stated he also had some specific questions with respect to a state audit he would like to have Dotson answer. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table both applications until the Febr~ary~28th meeting; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM REPORT Chief Hershey passed out a report on the Crime prevention program. Hershey told Council that Mike Chandler has been after a van for crime prevention. Chandler received Crime financing from AVIA who will pay the first year's lease; the City will be responsible Preventi0~ for the second year of the lease. Hershey told Council they could not get only a one. year Program lease because the price is so lease. Councilman Parry asked what the van would be used for. Hershey explained it would be used to carry around presentation material, motion pictures, slides, etc. The reason for the van is substantiated in the memorandum. Council indicated they were not interested in leasing a van for the police department. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - Progress Report GMP - Planner Bill Kane outlined the basic rationale for the GMP, where it stands in terms of Progress progress, the actual implementa~on of the plan in the City, and reported the progress Report of the P'& Z. Kane stated the projects held up by this plan were primarily projects involved in commercial development in the CC and C-1 districts. Kane presented a map of Pitkin County and the Snowmass development. The underlying rationale for the Pitkin County growth management plan is a balancing of bed and ski capacity between Snowmass and Aspen. The underlying consideration is a travel require- ment which presently exists between Aspen and Snowmass. Right now there is a 10,000 skier capacity at Snowmass and 6,000 skier beds. In order to take advantage of the full capacity of Snowmass, about 6,000 skiers must be imported. The bus system takes care of about 1400; the balance are in automobiles. Quite the opposite is true in Aspen. In the metro area, peak tourist and permanent population is estimated at 20,750. This generates peak skier of 10,900; Aspen mountain has a ski capacity of 3,000. At least 13,000 plus guest beds are right a~ the base of As.pen mountain. There is an inverse relation to beds and mountain capacity. The number 1 proposition of the growth management plan ~s to try to divert people to Snowmass. Last year the Commissioners passed a resolution supporting a master plan at Snow, ass for 2,424 dwelling units over a 15 year period. Regular Meeting The idea is to try to balance the two communities. One of the theories of the Snowmass master plan is self-sufficiency from a commerical standpoint. Right now every resident of Snowmass is depen, dent upon Aspen for milk and bread and is behaving in a satellite, GMP -cont. suburban way with Aspen. The West Village expansion will be 442 unrestricted units and 105 employee units; East Village will have 902 unrestricted units and 147~employee units The Snowmass plan is principally two big tourist village with a town center in between. For the total balance of this program, there must be an inverse situation in Aspen. Ther. is an excess of tourist units and permanent units for the services. ~he citizens advisory board on transportation is coming to the conclusion that the mode of transportat on is not as important as diversion achieved by rationale land use planning. Effecting settlement patters is the way to deal with travel. The second major goal of the GMP is to harmonize population projects with respect to utilities, sewer and water. The GMP should achieve the Briscoe/Maphis target for the water utility in the Aspen Metro area of 25,000 by 1990. This level of development will allow Aspen to operate~within the existing framework, existing physical plant over the next 15 years. As a bottom line, the plan addresses the potential for boom growth. In the planning office analysis, existing zoning and existing land use techniques are not adequate enough to defend against a sudden surge of growth. The present zoning will not defend against a 600-unit year as seen in 1971. The basic philosophy of the GMP is to divert to those areas that are most capable of handling new growth an overall growth rate of 3.4 per cent. This is based on 15 separate criteria; sewer, water, schools, roads, commercial support, professional support, places of employment, social services. These are recited in the plan. After a fiscal analysis which is in the report, 3.4 per cent growth is the bottom line. The P & Z has been working on this for two months, from a policy standpoint and an implementation standpoint. For the plan to have any meaning in the City of Aspen, three separate components of growth have been recognized, (1) permanent residential, (2) touri~ accommodation, and (3) commercial and office space. Commercial development was not par% of the original draft. Council felt tkis was remiss; when the plan was referred to P & Z a request was made to include a quota system on commercial constr~uction. To calculate the build out for the City, the P & Z looked at the existing zoning and the build out over 15 years. In order for the City to be in harmony with the growth rate established for surrounding areas, 80 per cent build out of existing zoning was estab- lished. This comes to 39 permanent residential units, 11 tourist units and 24,000 square feet of commercial. Kane reviewed the observations of P & Z that at the growth seminar it was discovered a general lack of precedent for regulating build ou~ in commercial areas. A major stumblin block of the plan has been the proposal for regulating the commercial projects. In any quota system, the P & Z will be evaluating projects that are basically in competition. T~e criteria used are in two areas, objective and subjective. The objective includes utility package, the ability to serve a sitel subjective is design criteria. The problem with the commercial portion is that in the CC and C-1 district, projects are all the same from the standpoint of objective criteria. There ~s nothing to differentiate between buildings; the distinctions would be purely subjective. If there were to be a quota system for the commercial projects, the P & Z would~si~ in judgment of architecture Another consideration, if the system works effectively, there will be to a certain extent the operation of the free market. The marketplace will dictate houw much space shall be built a year. The system won't exceed its own capability in terms of building out space. A thir~ consideration is that with commercial build out, the City could get back to another Ordinance 19 kind of proceeding. Kane pointed out there is a willingness to go forward with the ordinance and total program with respect to tourist and residential development. Councilman Wishart pointed out that when Council sent this to P & Z their main concern was commercial space and large buildings downtown. Kane suggested that the City take on the residential and lodging portion of the plan and get years experience in working with this. Then'~the Council can evaluate the plan and extend it to commercial development. Kane summarized (1) give an extension of time to P & Z and staff, especially to work with the county P & Z; (2) continue the administrativ delay on lodgings and new subdivisions; (3) recommend dropplng for now the commercial and office space pending the adoption of the plan and several years experience in working with an implementation system. Retain proposal to rezone office district ~o mixed use zone, R/MF-O with residences allowed by right; office only allowed by special review. (4) Retain the proposal to regulate the timing of tourist accommodations and permanent residen~ail construction. The planning office submitted a list of buildings in the CC and C-1 district that could be built out. There could possibly be 49,000 square feet built this summer in the CC and C-1 districts. The projects in the N/C and S/C/I zone total 96,000 square feet. With no growth management for 1977, the City is looking at a potential oi 145,000 square feet. Using the guidelines that have been talked about, there would be 125,000 square feet built. Kane stated his consideration about the commercial zone is that Council has not had the benefit about public comment on that portion of the plan. The commercial quota portion of the plan has a chance of poisoning the overall effort. Councilwoman Johnston stated she cannot agree, and said she had a concern for the whole community. Councilwoman Johnston said it is possible to evaluate, if necessary, down- town buildings with regard to one another using solar, energy conservation, housing, impacts on traffic. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that Snowmass was going to develop and there would be commercial impact there. Councilwoman Johnston stated she felt control of commercial development was far more essential than residential. The Council should not separate the idea of a growth management policy from an implementation plan. Kane answered that the growth management plan speaks in terms 6f population and popu- GMP lation impacts. The difficulty for the planning office is in documenting population cont. impacts and demand for services and coordination of all the components that commercial space generates. Kane stated that the planning office agrees that it is desirable ~o set an annual limit on commercial expansion, but the planning office does not know how to get there. Council suggested first come, first serve or a lottery. Chick Collins, Chairman of P & Z, told Council that the Commission essentially supports the planning office recommendations. Collins stated that implementing a quota system for the commercial area becomes totally subjective. Collins pointed out that it was much easier to ge~ a handle on the objective criteria for development. Collins agreed with Kane, that in terms of the growth management plan it may be jeopardized if more is brought in than can be handled. Mayor Standley stated that the system driver here is not the commercial space; it is tourist and residential beds. The quota now allows 11 and 39 units respectively. The bed units put the demand on everything else. The other area a mistake was made was zoning everything O, office, and there is an oversupply of office. The ~wo major problems, accommodations and office, have both been addressed. Mayor Standley pointed out that not one of the proposed projects is over the 1.5:1 FAR. The commercial area is getting a lot of pressure from the public; the planning office and P & Z both have questions about its defense. This area may jeopardize the rest of the GMP. One option would be to purchase land; the Council has not pu~ downtown pieces of land on a high priority. Mayor Standley affirmed the Council may be going after something that does not really serve any useful purpose. The build out will occur, whether ~n one year or fifteen. County Attorney Stuller stated if the Council agrees they would like to have a growth rate in the comraercial and office districts, they should establish it and apply criteria that makes sense. Architectural design does not make sense. Limit the growth to 3 or 4 per cent, establish need for that particular type of use. Establish the growth rate and tie it to something that makes sense to the Council. Ms. Stuller pointed out that Council will have to define the inter-relation between the cor~aercial uses and residentiaL. Councilman Wishart stated he did not believe that commercial development is a function of residential development. Councilman Wishart pointed out that there ~s a lot of pressure to turn Aspen into a regional business center. Ms. Stuller reiterated that Council ought to be able to determine what this community needs in terms of commercial and office space, and the applicant who comes closest to meeting that, should get the building permit. Kane stated he was trying ~o find some workable, equitable, fair, comprehensible basis for setting an annual quota-in the commercial area. At this point in time, the planning office and P & Z have not found the system to do this. The Council can choose to con- tinue the administrative delay to give time to come up with ideas. Councilwoman Johnston suggested that the planning office and P & Z use a citizens adivsory board, such as Petaluma did. Collins pointed out that the Commissioners were opening up the adoption approval for the Snowmass plan; this will encourage and crea~e commercial space out there and will take some of the pressure off the Aspen area. Kane asked that the Council give P & Z and the planning staff an extension on the administrative delay. Kane asked that ~his be extended to April 15th. Councilman Behrendt moved to extend the administrative delay to April 15; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley asked if Council were interested in the idea of dropping the CC and C-1 from the growth management plan. Councilwoman Pedersen stated she would like to have time to go through this and come up with some ideas in her mind, and would prefer not to do anything right now. Mayor Standley told Council that if anyone were interested to contact him, and he would put it on the n'ext agenda. HOTEL PROJECT/BERIRO PROPERTY - C/L ZONE Peter Van Domelin told Council this matter involves the property situated at the corner C/L zone of Durant and Galena streets, Six lots , zoned Commercial/Lodge. This ~s the only Hotel parcel of property in the City zoned C/L not fully developed. Van Domelin asked the Project Council to reconsider the decision made last month in not exempting this parcel of land from the administrative delay policy and the growth management plan. Van Domelin told Council the property was optioned in July 1976 and was zoned C/L, which provides for commercial core uses on ground floor. The FAR under the zoning is 2:1. There was a 40 foot height limitation and a 1~1 off-street parking requirement. At that time there was a pending resolution, adopted by the P & Z, recommending the FAR be reduced to 1.5:1 and that the height limitations be reduced to 28 feet. Van Domelin stated he started meeting with the planning office in August 1976 to discuss those changes. The primary question, at that time, dealt with the proposed reduction in FAR. Van Domelin urged that the planning office not reduce the FAR because it would not enable the property to be utilized for commercialized purposes as an economic matter. As a result of the P & Z resolution the Council accepted the height reduction to 28 feet and rejected the reduction of the FAR and maintained it at 2:1. Council also removed the off-street parking requirements. Upon adoption o~ an ordinance reducing the height limitation, the proper~y owner contracted with his architecht and commenced plans for a commercial/lodge to comply with requirements of the new zoning. These plans were approved by the onwers and it was anticipated these would be submitted for spring cons~ truc~lon. Van Domelin told Council that the plans do not require approval from any of the City's. agencies. When the policy of administrative delay was announced, the owners stopped all further work. Rowever, by that time in excess of $30,000 had been expended. In adopt~ the administrative delay, COuncil recognized there was certain harshness involved in imposing that policy and the GMP. Van Domelin stated it was his understanding that in the manner of fairness, certain projects should be exempted because funds had been expended and projects were along in the plannin~ stages in reliance upon preliminary or conceptual approvals of various agencies of the City. If a project met those qualifica- tions, it would be exempt from the GMP and the administrative delay. Van Domelin pointed out that numerous applications for projects, both commercial and residential, were exempted. The Beriro project was not exempted. Van D'omelin asked Council reconsider its action in not exempted that project and that it be reconsidered basically upon the criteria and the philosophy the Council adopted in January. Van Domelin stated that if the rule of preliminary approvals were applied in this case, it ~o~ld do injustice to the philosophy the Council adopted. Van Domelin ask that the Council consider first, there are no preliminary or conceptual approvals required for this project. The owner would have had no standing to appear before any agency of the City to request such approvals. Secondly, the Council approved the proposed project in providing the zoning, as recently as last December, which would make this project possible. Thirdly, in reliance upon these factors, the owner has p~oceeded to expend substantial funds towards the project and has proceeded farther along with the project than many projects which are exempted. Kane disagreed and stated that equity was not used as a basis for discriminating between the buildings. The basis used was to identify those buildings that would be regulated by a growth management plan and those that would not. Those that would would be held up. The planning office did state that within residential projects, new subdivisions under the GMP that have received preliminary plat should go along. There was no distinction drawn between the various commercial projects. Kane stated the planning office did not see how this projects differs from any other application before Council. If the Council wants to do a growth management plan, tough lines must be drawn. Ms. Stuller pointed out to Council that Van Domelin referred to his involvement in the process and the ratification Council had given him by virtue of rezoning; those zoning changes were not initiated by Van Domelin or for this property. Those changes were part of a series initiated by Council and P & Z. Ms. Stuller noted that no applications were given an advantageous position by reason of planning or private investments made. The exemptions in terms of past efforts were given to those who had gone substantially through the process to have received public ratification for their proposal. It is the public involvement or public ratification that constitute the estoppel. Councilwoman Pedersen recollected that various members of Council had problems with this particular project and the number of rooms involved, the commercial space. Council. woman Pedersen stated if the City was going to have a process that is valid they must draw a hard line. If the council starts granting exemptions, they render the whole process invalid. Mayor Standley agreed; tourist accommodations are the one thing the council has said they must do somethinq about. Additional lodging is totally inappro- priate in Aspen; the carrying capacity of public facilities cannot handle it. As a result of lodging, transporation problems have been created. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to deny the exemption to this project; seconded by Council- man Wishart. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT - Morss Property - Third & Main Russ Pielstick, architect for the project, asked Council'for an encroachment for the Encroachment Morss residence, which is located on Lot K and ½ of Lot 1, Block 54; the corner of Morss Third and Main. The existing house have five bedrooms. Pielstick stated there is not physical room to provide the required parking on-site. The house is in need of major remodelling. There is sufficient room between the house and Third street to provide the required parking. Pielstick told Council it :was suggested that they go to the Board of Adjustment. This will also require an encroachment. As the requirements, read now, all parking on Main street has to access from the alley; maximum road cut is 18 feet. There is a small disagreement with the engineering department on which alternative would best solve the problem. Councilwoman Johnston asked why the building was non-conforming now. Pielstic} pointed Out that there is not physically room to provide for 5 parking spaces required. Pielstick stated they intend to remodel to either housing or office. This does not vary the parking question at all. The requirements of the Uniform Building Code is if remodelling exceeds 50 per cent of value, then the building must be brought up to conformity. Engineer Ellis pointed out there is presently one parking space and five bedrooms. Assuming they remodel to 50 per cent of the value, they will have to bring the building to code. They need two things; (1) variance from the Board of Adjustment for reduction in the number of required parking spaces, regardless of the encroachment. (2) under two of the three alternates, they would need a variance to place the curb cut on Third street. The code specifically omits reference to corner lots. Assuming the Board of Adjustment grants a variance to the number of parking spaces and the access they need encroachment approval by Council. Ellis stated his preference for alternative; was stated in the memo, if they get permission to encroach they can put in five parking spaces. Councilman Wishart moved to grant the encroachment and go with alternative number 3; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST FOR ENCROACHMENT ~ Walton Property - Spring and Hopkins Eneroachmer Mayor Standley told Council this was a request to put in a low fence on the property. Walton Councilman Behrendt moved to approve subject to the engineer's requests; seconded by Councilman Wishart. Councilman Behrendt stated these conditions as bringing the sidewalk up to code and that the fence be 30 to 36 inches in height. Mayor Standley stated this was totally inappropriate; Walton put the sidewalk an at his own expense and work. The City has not bothered to ~put sidewalks in there, so we should not tell people what to do. Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table the request as the applicant was not present to discuss his plans; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers De Gregorio, Johnston, Parry. Motion carried. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 651 Monarch Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this final plan had been approved on July 26, 651 Monarc] 1976. The essential condition left at that time was to require short term rental of Final this facility in the L-2 zone. The planning office wants to know if Council still wants Subdiv. to restrict this to short term use. If there is no restriction, just allow the zone to dictate the use, then the planning office reconm~ends approval. Mayor Standley stated he had problems with the requirement for a snowmelt walkway. It seems absurd for the City to be allowing anything an energy consumptive as melting sidewalks. Clark stated the fire department wanted this; there is no requirement against it. The hill as very steep. Councilwoman Pedersen stated that if the fire department requested it, there must be good reasons for it. The street narrows as it goes up and there are a lot of tall building up there. Councilman Behrendt move to approve final subdivision subject to the changes suggested by the enganeering department and including the snowmelt walkway; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Johnston and Mayor Stamdley. Motion carried. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Wedum-Hyman Hal Clark reminded Council the project was originally zoned R-15; there was a conceptual Wedum- approval for 9 units at that time. It was rezoned to R-30; the project was.reduced to Hyman four units. That proceeded through final plat review and approval with Council and was Final approved with numerous conditions, one of which was having clear title to the property. Subdiv. Wedum-Hyman returned sometime after that and requested a PUD change with a deletion of defeated about 7,000 square feet from the plat. Council denied the request for a change in PUD. Wedum-Hyman returned to Council with a clear title to all of the property as shown on the plat. The planning office has, as in the past, recommended approval of the final plat. The planning office had suggested a different type of development, clustered on one side of the property. The developer was not willing to alter his plat after pro- ceeding that far in the process. The planning office drafted some additional considerations for the project, itemizing the negative constraints on the property. (1) poor access to this site. The individual homesites propose a driveway intersection on Gibson avenue. (2) Visual impact due to the large size of the structures from this site. (3) Lack of consideration of alternatives to the proposal of clustering on the east side of the property. (4) Potential adverse impacts on Spring street from this project, because of the potential for access from Spring street. (5) Aspen Metro sewer district under a 201 study, the City has been warned that a total moratorium might be appropriate. Randy Wedum, applicant, told Council that clustering on the east side of the property was not considered because it would more visually ampact the site. It would also put all the bulk of the development on one person's property (there are two separate property owners). Moving the buildings does not change the access problem any. The buildings are spread out more and have less impact with this plan. Wedum told Council he was coming to them with an amendment to an approved plat, approved in May 1976. It was approved with the condition of settling the property dispute. A loss of that property was create a reduction in the density allowed. There was much problem in settling the dispute. The deletion of land as a result of this dispute did take more than 3 per cent of the common area. The result of the loss of this property to Mr. Mayer is that it will be just open space. Essentially the only different thing between this and the approved plat of May 1976 is that there is a reduction of the common area, no other'impact as far as the development, lot sizes, density calculations, anything else have resulted. Councilwoman Pedersen pointed out that this parcel of land is eligible for two building sites as it stands. Clark pointed out that if two separate buildings were built, the only criteria for review would be if the building came within the 100 flood plain. Clark stated there will be two building sites there; the questaon is, does Council want four with the guarantees of subdivision approval. Councilman Wis~art moved that Council approve this, since it has already been approved, and because of the subdivision protections; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Standley stated he was still opposed to this pro3ect because of the five reasons identified earlier by the planning office; poor access, steep driveway to Gibson avenue; visual impact from the rest of the City; because they did not consider other alternatives, the adverse impact on Spring street and the parking ~roblem that goes therein, the sewer loading problem, and because the project represents a major change in the neighborhood and was opposed by the residents of that neighborhood. Councilwoman Pedersen stated she felt four units would have a devastating impact on the site and neighborhood. She would prefer to see the property zoned, no development. Single family dwellings with no control could really devastate the property. It is too bad that land is usable. Councilmembers Wishar~, Parry~ and Pedersen in favor of the motion; Councilmembers Behrendt, De Gregorlo, Johnston, and Mayor Standley opposed. Motion NOT carried. DISCUSSION OF ELEVATOR REQUIREMENTS IN THE UBC Mayor Standley told Council this item was on the agenda at the request of Councilman Behrendt. The UBC requires all two story structures to put in an elevator. Building Inspector Clayton Meyring looked into the possibility of changing this. Meyring sub- Elevator mitred a memorandum to Council to propose some relief not to requare elevators if there requirements is an occupancy load less than 10. Occupant load of less than 10 is a common figure used where less hazard is involved. Mayor Standley reminded Council when they discussed this previously the whole argument came to handicapped people and access. Perhaps the figure ought to be bigger if the line of reasoning as going to be changed. Councilwoman Pedersen pointed out that elevator requirements is historically damaging to buildings in this town. To design an entire building around ramps and elevators is a disservice. Councilman Behrendt stated he felt that buildings on over one and one-half lots ought to satisfy this requirement. Mayor Standley said this question is addressing historic buildings, when they renovate to over 50 per cent of their value, they have to come up to code. Councilman Behrendt stated he wanted to address the problem i~ not being able to build small buildings an this town. Councilman Parry agreed, and stated he would rather go with size or specific type rather than occupancy load. Mayor Standley stated if the Council wanted to change the UBC and have an ordinance Council should decide what way to go. It could be any two story building or less does not require an elevator, or go with the lot size, or historic building. It ought to be more liberal than it is. Councilman Behrendt moved to ask Meyring to draft a~change~to~the code dealing with structures of two stories or less, historic~structures, or structures on less than a lot and a half. Council discussed what criteria they should use for this change; occupancy load of the most densest, discretionary, lot size. Council decided they wanted no elevator require- ments for buildings one story either way, above or below ground. The staff was directed to come back and~resubmit~something reasonable to be drafted into an ordinance. ,~ E~LOYEE HOUSING AT THE WATER PLANT Brian Goodheim submitted a program to Council from ~esign Workshop to work on the water ~i plant housing site. They will be working with Council, as owners of the project. There Employee will be a $3,000 upset price; this is quoted in hourly rates which the Council can work Housing at up to at any speed. Design Workshop stated they can accomplish this in 45 days. water plant Councilman Wishart moved that Council allocate $3,000 and have Goodheim proceed as laid forth in the submitted work program; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Councilman Behrendt pointed out he did not like the high density proposed and asked if Council felt the same way. Mayor Standley stated one of the first things in the work program was to meet with Council and figure out how big the program will be. Councilwoman Pedersen asked if employee housing had been defined. Goodheim answered the City P & Z has in terms of the interim housing plan they have adopted. This came to Council 2 to 3 months ago, but the process was stopped to define a whole housing plan and a PMH zone for the City. Goodheim told Council the numbers of unit put up on the board at the last meeting were large. Some densities the City would not go with. If this were to be done, a 20 unit project would be a good number. Councilwoman Johnston asked where the City planned to store their buses when asked ~o leave the airport. Mahoney pointed out, administratively, there was no room for buses up there. Goodheim told CounCil these were the considerations to be looked at; housing for security purposes, storage, and housing. Councilman Parry said he felt these considerations were covered in the work program. This is the only piece of property the City has to move 5o. All in favor, motion carried. TROLLEY CARS Councilman Parry told Council there was a group of people who would like to bring trolley cars to Aspen so that people could see what they look like. These cars were built in 1899. The City of Detroit started using 8 of these cars; the state of Washington uses Trolley them. Councilman Parry said this group of people would buy the car and bring it here Cars and refinish to. The trolley group would like to know if they can get support from the City to allow the car to be on display either in the mall at the intersection of Galena and Cooper, or at Rubey Park. Councilwoman Johnston moved to allow the trolley car to be in the mall; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Councilman Behrendt asked for what period of time. Councilman Parry answered one year. Mayor Standley pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce had always wanted an outside kiosk information booth. That should be considered. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~87, SERIES OF 1976 - Dog Control O~d. 87 Mayor Standley told Council he had this ordinance put back on the agenda because it had Dog a majority in favor, but was not a majority of Counci. Control Councilwoman Pedersen moved to reconsider Ordinance #87, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Behrendt. Motion carried. ~ Councilwoman Johnston moved to reconsider approval on second reading; seconded by Council-ii woman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, nay; Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~88, SERIES OF 1976 - Air Pollution Control Ord. 88 Sanitarian Tom Dunlop told Council that the County has no~ been able to come up with Air any air pollution legislation yet. Dunlop'suggested the City pass this and if the County Pollution co~es up with something, it will~supercede the City's ordinance. County Attorney Stuller no action pointed out that time is no~ of the essence. Ms. Stuller invited the City to duplicate the County's regulations, when adopted, and the County can call on the City's sanitarian to help enforce it. Councilwoman Johnston stated it would not hurt if the City were ~o adopt this ordinance, and it would be good to have some laws on the books. Mayor Standley suggested the Council just let this go away. ORDINANCE ~86, SERIES OF 1976 Fire Alarms Ord. 86 Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance 986, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Fire Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Alarms ORDINANCE 986 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING AND UNIFORM FIRE CODES SO AS TO REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS IN EVERY APARTMENT HOUSE, LODGING HOUSE, DORMATORY, CONVENT, MONASTERY, ROOMING HOUSE, CONDOMINIUM OR HOTEL, TWO STORIES OR MORE IN HEIGHT AND CONTAINING MORE THAN FOUR (4) APARTMENTS OR GUEST ROOMS; FURTHER AMENDING THESE CODES BY REQUIRING THAT WHENEVER A FIRE ALARM IS REQUIRED, THAT BOTH AN AUDIO AND VISUAL ALARM BE INSTALLED (MEETING CERTAIN SPECIFICATIONS); AND REQUIRING THAT ALL SYSTEMS IN EXISTENCE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY WITHIN ONE YEAR HEREOF was read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #86, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye; Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~3, SERIES OF 197~ - Historic Designation of Taylor Residence Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed Ord. 3 the public hearing. H Designa- tion, Ross Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~3, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~3 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE TAYLOR RESIDENCE (LOTS K AND THE WEST HALF OF L BLOCK 44, ORIGINAL ASPEN TOWNSITE) AS AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SITE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IX OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance 93, Series of 1977, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wisha~t, aye; Johnston, aye; Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; ~ayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~4, SERIES OF 1977 - Mandatory Mail Boxes Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed Ord. 4 the public hearing. Mandatory Mail Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance 94, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Boxes Behrendt. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Pedersen. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~4 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A REQUIRE- MEN THAT NO MULTI-UNIT STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE UNITS RECEIVING MAIL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT THE INSTALLATION OF MAIL BOXES SUFFICIENT TO SERVICE ALL ANTICIPATED OCCUPANTS WITH MAIL DELIVERY was read by the city clerk. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance ~4, Series of 1977, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Pedersen, nay; Johnston, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. CITY MANAGER 1. City Manager Mahoney told Council there are no funds to operate the teen center. Memos have been submitted explaining the problem. $1291 is needed to keep the teen center Teen open until the end of May. Mahoney stated he would bring an appropriation ordinance in Center if the Council agreed. Lori Patterson explained that Council only gave the teen center funds money for labor through the end of January. They need money for a salary for 23 hours a week to keep it open at night. Finance Director Butterbaugh stated there is nothing in the 1977 budget for this at all. Ms. Butterbaugh asked Council, if they approve, to move funds from another recreation department activity. These funds will be replaced in the summer, if there are additional funds. Councilman Behrendt moved to juggle Recreation department's funds in order to find sufficient funds to take care of this request; seconded by Councilman Wishart. Councilwoman Pedersen stated that automatice replacement would not be guaranteed_if revenues are down. Mayor Standley stated he hated to see the Council juggling the Rec- reation department's funds. If the Council cares about the teen center, just go ahead and gzve them funds. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 42, SERIES OF 1977 Water Extension to Midland/Park County Attorney Stuller told Council that the legal description would have to be changed to agree with the new survey and the portion that will be disconnected from the City. Ord. 2 Water Extension Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 1977, as amended; seconded Midland/Park by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE a2 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF WATER SERVICES TO THE PROPOSED MIDLAND PARK SUBDIVISION AND DOING SO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11.3 OF THE ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER was read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance ~2, Series of 1977, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston~,~aye; Mayor Standiey, aye. Motion carried ORDINANCE 46, SERIES OF 1977 - Disconnecting Midland/Park Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #6, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Ord. 6, ORDINANCE ~6 Disconnecting (Series of 1977) Midland/Park AN ORDINANCE DISCONNECTING A TRACT OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.2 ACRES OWNED BY PITKIN COUNTY AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS, AND DISCONNECTING THE SAME PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF C.R.S. 1973, SECTION 31-12-501, AS AMENDED was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance 46, Series of 1977, seconded by Councilman Behrendto Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Johnston, nay; Pedersen, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~5, SERIES OF 1977 Mountain Bell Contract Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read O~dinance #5, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Ord. 5 Wishart. Ail in favor, motion carried. Mt. Bell Contract ORDINANCE ~5 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING A CERTAIN TERMINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND MOUNTAIN BELL COMPANY PROVIDING FOR PBX SWITCHING EQUIPMENT FOR THREE YEARS IN THE SAME LOCATION AT A CONTRACT TERMINATION LIABILITY OF $5,400 (WHICH AMOUNT REDUCED 1/36 FOR EACH MONTH OF SERVICE), ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #5, Series of 1977, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor S%andley, aye. Motions,carried. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adjourn at 9:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Kathry~ S. Hauter, City Clerk