Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19770110 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 10, 1977 Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt called the joint meeting with County Commissioners to order to 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers De Gregorio, Johnston, Parry, Wishart, City Manager Mahoney, Commissioners Shellman, Edwards, and Kinsley present. 1. Hunter Creek Diversion MoratorIum - Joint Resolution. County Attorney Stuller told Hunter the boards this resolution was on recommendation from Dave Randall and had been written Creek so that both the City and County could sign it and send it to various governmen~ Diversion representatives. Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the resolution; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Planning Office Contract. Planning Director Bill Kane pointed out that the City Planning Manager had felt some conflict with the contract giving the planning office authority Office ~o administer zoning ordinances, and with the Charter delegating that responsibility to Contract the City Manager. Kane added some language ~o the contract which would specifically enable the City Manager to delegate this responsibility. The Charter makes the City Manager the-chief enforcement officer of all ordinances. Councilman De Grego~omoved ~o approve the planning office contract for 1977; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner Kinstey moved to authorize the chairman to sign the planning office contra~t seconded by Commissioner Shellman. All in favor, motion carried. 3. Growth Managemen~ Plan Progress Report. Planning Director Kane told the Council and Commissioners that the planning office had finished the second draft of this plan. It GMP - Progress has been presented to both P & Zs. City Council has taken specific actions with respect Report to implementation of this plan. The mos~ general goal of this plan was to try to defer future growth to Snowmass; the plan allows 191 units to Snowmass in 1977, and 40 in thew city limits of Aspen. The City has an administrative delay holding on projects right '' now. The planning office has drafted an implementation packet for the mechanics of the proposed quota system. Kane pointed out that the Council has asked for some amendments to the growth management plan and has asked for comment from the City P & Z in 30 days. County Attorney Stuller will help ~o convert the implementation package into ordinances for the City to implement this plan. The County feels less pressure because they do not have projects of the same magnitude pending. The original growth management plan excluded employee housing projects from the annual quota system. The Council and P & Z felt they ought to come in on a quota system like any other project. Commissioner Shellman asked the City how they felt about the Midland/Park employee housing project, which is proceeding through annexation process. Shellman stated that an opinion should be given~because people are anticipating this housing next year. Kane pointed out that points on the quota system are given for low and moderate income housin~ These can be 30 of the 62 possible points. Publi'c initiated projects used to be exempt. Housing officer Brian Goodhelm said that the Midland/Park was in conformance with The original draft of the growth management plan and no problems were anticipated at that time. Goodheim stated that the growth management plan and employee housing are incompat- ible goals. Goodheim said that if there is no exemption made for employee housing aside from the growth management system, the County will not get employee housing at all. Councilwoman Johnston suggested that the County withdraw their application for annexation if ~he City will suppor~ ~hem in any way they can and keep costs low, like PIFs. Goodheim asked Co'uncil if the City would service this pro~ect with water. Council indicated there was no problem with the water extension. Ms. Stuller pointed out this had to be ratified by ordinance and reviewed by County P & Z. Councilwoman Johnston moved that the City put the growth management plan on the Council's ~ agenda; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner Edwards moved to withdraw the Petition for Annexation on Midland/Park; seconded by Commissioner Kinsley. All in favor, motion carried. 4. HUD Community Development Grant. Betty Erickson told Council and the Commissioners this is a pre-application to HUD that has been submitted. Pitkin County is 22 out of HUD Community 58 applications. Ms. Erickson had requested $148,000 for renovation of the old hospital Development for a community center. $68,000 is requested for employee housing next ~o the hospital; Gran~ this ~s for water and sewer taps. HUD will help on public services but not on building. Bill Kane said it would help the'application if it could be verified that this applica-~ tlon ~s supported by the City and County. This ~s a community project with M.A.A. the community center and the hospital. Councilman Wishart moved to verify that this is a city and county project; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. 5. A-95 Review. CETA Modification. Ms. Erickson recommended this grant with favorable comment; however, it might be appropriate to have a local review board for CETA funds. City Manager Mahoney stated he had heard that American Cement had received some CETA funds. Mahoney said he did not think that public funds should be distributed that way. The City and County ought to have something to say about who gets these funds. Ms. Erickson told the boards that COG had established a review board for CETA funds because they don't feel that one person should be making these decisions. Commissioner Edwards asked if a local review board would have any force or effect. Commissioner Shellman recommended that if a review board were set up, it should no5 be larger than the city and county manager. Shellman questioned whether such a board would disincline ~he CETA peopla to'put money into this community. City Manager Mahoney said he and George Ochs would talk to Pat Hart of the employment service and come up with some recommendations. Councilwoman Johnston moved to forward the grant with favorable comment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. A-95 Review - State Rail Plan. Kane told the Boards ~hat the Federal Rail administration is putting up $100,000 to the Colcrado Department of Highways to study state rail trans- State Rail portation. Three committees will be set up. Mayor Standley would be an effective ~pokes~ Plan man on these committees and has volunteered to do it. Council and the ~ommiss~oners appointed Mayor Standley for the City and Commissioner Kinsley for the County. Councilman Wishart moved to approve with favorable comment with Mayor Standley and Commissioner Kinsley as Pitkin County representatives; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 6. Report to State Highways'Commission. George Ochs said that the City and County were on the state highway commission agenda for January 20 in Grand Junction. Ochs stated he Highway 82 intended to represent the Commissioners and Council and ask for safety improvement to Safety Highway 82. Ochs has been downval.ley to various government; his proposal has not been Improvemen~ supported by downvalley governments. Ochs will also give an up date o~ the transportation alternative analysis study. Ochs will explore any possible bicycle path grants. This was presented last summer, and the state did nothing about it. 7. Wright-McLaughlin Report on Sanitation Facili.t¥ Improvements. Kane reminded the Boards Sanitation that the A-95 review for 201 facility plant expansion was tabled at the last joint meeting Facility pending a more thorought presentation by the design engineers. The Boards' concern was that land treatment alternative had not been fully developed or given adequa.te considera- Improvement tion. Ron McLaughlin, Wright-McLaughlin, said they had looked at five basic alternatives for land treatment. McLaughlin stated they were required to investigate land treatment as an alternative to the 201 plant. The looked at land treatment at the Owl Creek basin, public areas (golf course), using the Salvation Ditch, and already irrigated lands. These were shown to be substantially more expensive. The least expensive would have been using the Salvation Ditch, which would cost 1.4 million dollars in capital costs more than in- plant a5 the Metro site. An advantage of using the Salvation ditch is that it would keep additional water in the Roaring Fork. McLaughlin pointed out that improving the in-plant facilities would not eliminate having land treatment in the future. Whenever Pitkin County could work out an arrangement with the Salvation Ditch company, land treatment could be implemented. Councilman Wishart moved to approve the A-95s for both Aspen Metro and Snowmass Sanitation Districts with favorable comment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt called the meeting to order with Councilmembers De Gregorlo, Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, Wishart, City Manager Mahoney and County Attorney Stuller prese~ MINUTES Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the Council minutes of December 13 and December 27; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the accounts payable for December 1976; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilwoman Johnston stated she would like to delay'because she had just received her accounts payable. Councilman Wishart asked why the water department~ malls, transporation had so many unauthorized purchase orders. Finance Director Butterbaugh answered these were end of the year cl~ean up on capital projects. All in favor (Councilmembers Behrendt and Johnston passed); motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt announced that anyone wishing to address the growth managemen5 plan/building moratorium would have a chance to under that topic on the agenda. 1. Randy Wedum requested that the Wedum-Hyman project be placed on the agenda for final Wedum~ approval. Wedum stated 'the only major change since Council had seen this project was a settlement in a property line dispute. P & Z has given this project final approval. Hyman Council said they would hear this final subdivision on January 24 as there was no informa- tion in the packet for background. C-1 down- 2. Stephen Ware said he would like ~o discuss the C-1 downzoning. This will be heard zoning during the Growth Management plan discussion. 3. Jeffrey Evans stated he would like to discuss Kane's definition of administrative delay. This will also be heard later. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Johnston requested a follow up on what is happening at the Institute Institute with the roads, etc. Council had asked the administration to check this out and write a memorandum. City Manager Mahoney answered that Art Hougl&nd had written a memo to Councilwoman Pedersen stating that everything is in compliance. 2. Councilman De Gregorio asked about funds Ted Armstrong had acquired relating to a recreation project. City ManaGer Mahoney answered that Armstrong has made application for these funds, but the City has not received any yet. 3. Mayor~_Pro Tem Behrendt stated that given the rid~rship repor~ for December and cost Bus per passenger, it seems that the parking shuttle ought to be eliminated. The cost per passenger is S4.65. Councilman De Gregorio pointed ou~ that part of bus ridership is system education of the public; this route ought to be given a chance. Mahoney agreed, stating it would be unfair at this point to eliminate a route that has not had a chance to prove itself. Councilwoman Johnston concurred; perhaps the City should give this route one more month. STUDENT COMMENTS Nicole DeWolfe, Aspen Country Day School~ was present but had no comment. GROWTH ~NAGEMENT PLAN Planning Director Bill Kane submitted a memorandum to Council on building delay and revlswed that with Council. In December, a second draft of the Growth Management Plan Growth was submitted to Council. In general, this plan proposes to set an annual quota for Management residential construction in the city and county; proposals to-set public policy with Plan respect to expansion and location of sewer and water; amount and location of skiing expansion. When this plan was presented to City Council, the reaction was that this plan did not go far enough in terms of its absence of any discussion or regulation of commercial and office space in downtown Aspen. Council's feeling is that office and commercial expansion has been the primary growth component in the City. The plan, in order to be more complete, should envision controls and phasing of the construction in the CC and C-1 districts. In response, on December 13 Council discussed a building moratorium, a shut down on all building activity for a specified period of time. Statutory authority is for 180 days at a t~me. The City Attorney was directed to put thoughts together on how this might be accomplished. Ms. Stuller and Kane worked together and given the goals of the growth management plan and the Council objectives discussed, that a total building moratorium was an extreme action. At the December 27th Council meeting, Council directed the staff to create and sustain an administrative delay on any projects inconsistent with the goals or operation of the GMP. The Council.also directed the plan and implementation ~' ordinances to go to the P & Z and reouested that P & Z comment within 30 days. This was referred to P & Z December 27th. Kane submitted three documents: (1) memorandum reoardino clarifications of the buildino delay and C2) an inventorv of existing unbuilt lots ~n the CC and C-1 district. This will characterize for Council the exact build out of unbuilt lots. This does not includs any expansion or reconstruction. Kane read his memorandum into the record. "In order to clarify the Council action of 12/27/76 regard~hg the administration delay of projects pending the adoption of a growth management plan some official action in ~he for] of a motion by Council would be desirable. This motion should approve the following action: 1. That as of 12/27/76 no building perm~t~shall issue for any tourist or lodging accommodations and that any planning activity for such facilities shall be h~ld in abeyance pending adoption of a growth managemen~ plan or an appropriate implementation technique (i.e., zoning change or subdivision regulation change). 2. That of 12/27/76 no building permit shall issue for any new office building or retail commercial construction in the CC, C-i, or 0 districts and that any planning activity for such facilities shall be held in abeyance pending the adoption of a growth management plan or appropriate implementation technique. Renovations to existing buildings shall be excluded. This was further reinforced by Council's desire to rezone the office districts to R~M.F. 3. That no new subdivision activities involving new construction shall be processed ~s of 12/27/76 pending the adoption of a growth management plan. However, those projects having received preliminary plat subdivision approvalby the Planning and Zoning Commission as of 12/27/76 shall be processed in conformance with existing subdivision regulations. Such subdivisions, however, will be processed at the risk of the subdivider and continuation through the process at this time shall not guarantee a building permit should the project not receive final sub- division approval prior to the adoption of the growth management plan. Any subdivision not having received preliminary plat subdivision approval by 12/27 76 shall be halted pending the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Projects involving the modification of existing structures shall not be affected ~by this action. This does not mean any project ~nvolving a net increase in floor area. 5. Building permits on existing lots ~n any zoning districts previously discussed in this memo for activities not involving subdivision shall not be affected by this action. 6. That any modification or expansion of an historic structure shall be exempt from the overall growth management plan and the temporary restrictions cited above. 7. That employee housing projects, even if initiated by local governmen~ should be subordinated to the overall growth rate and shall be specifically halted by this action." Kane read a list of pending projects and how this action will affect these projects. Those not affected:~ City~Hall remodel, Trueman development, Hotel Jerome expansion, Sunrise, Aspen Wild, 651 Monarch street, Post Office, Aspen Savings & Loan, Performing arts; golf course expansion, Flcradora. Those pro3ects affected: Park Central West, Aspen Institute Development, Midland Park, Aspen Inn, Curt Chase Property, City Housing at Water Plant, Expansion of Aspen Grove, Aspen Center Bank Building, Maurice Beriro building on Hopkins street. Kane told Council that the planning office was suggesting that anyone having received preliminary approval should proceed through. There is a large jump in expense fro~ conceptual approval to preliminary approval in architectural and engineering fees. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated that there will be two public hearings on these proposed changes; both P & Z and Council. Councilman De Gregorio moved to ratify Bill Kane's memo of January 10, 1977, as a state- ment of Council's action; seconded by Councilman Wishart. .......... · Main zoned C-i, said he under- Buzzy Ware, owner of the lots at the corner of Spring and stood that there might be a delay to the C-1 zone and that Council might impose an FAR of .75:1, down from 1:1. Ware showed Council a diagram of lots in the C-1 that were Growth build out, not built upon, and below the FAR of 1:1. Presently there are 4½ blocks of Management buildings at the 1:1 or over. 23,600 square feet more could be built in the C-1 zone Plan if the FAR were left at 1:1. If the FAR is lowered to .75:1, another 14,850 square feet could be built. The 14,850 square feet represents approximately 6 per cent of the build- ings presently in the C-1 zone; the 23,600 square feet represents 10 per cent of the total building. Ware proposed that if the Growth Management Plan were adopted and moves the FAR down to .75:1, the City will save less than 3 per cent of building in the C-t zone. Ware submitted that the present 1:1 FAR is sufficient in the C-1 area. Jeffrey Evans read three paragraphs from the Constitution of the State of Colorado to Council, under Article 2 Section 25, regarding due process and administrative delay. Evans stated that because the Council is legally required to go to preliminary plat by Council's own laws, they cannot suspend these laws. Evans said he felt this process was obscuring the real problem, the growth of office space in the downtown core. County Attorney Stuller told Council these were digests of three cases, not quotes from the Constitution. Ms. Stuller stated that local Courts have told the City that no land- owner has a vested interest in any zoning on his property until he has a permit issued and has relied on that permit. The second theory is that up until the time of permit issuance, a governmental agency'may change the designation on certain properties. The question is, what are the procedural requirements. The City's code specifies procedural requirements for adoption of changes. In addition to those requirements, the City is using the common law theory of administrative delay. Administrative delay has never been discussed by the Courts of Colorado, but has appeared in many courts across the country. A governmental agency which proposes changes to its Code and announces its intention to make these changes, may direct its administrators to not issue permits in derogation of those changes until it has a reasonable period in which to implement the changes proposed The time period must be reasonable; the agency must with all due diligence begin their deliberations. At the last Council meeting, the council did announce four specific changes to the zoning code; (1) eliminate tourist districts, (2) amend the office districts to multi- family uses, (3) se~ up ratio for commercial uses in the community, and (4) adopt the specific recommendations of the Growth Management Plan, setting up a quota for new housing starts in the community. Ms. Stuller stated there is precedent for administrative delay, and given the speed with which the deliberations are occurring, the City is making a good faith effort not to abuse ~he doctrine but to use it to protect against an under- mlnlng of its objectives. Kane pointed out this delay connotes that projects are being held up pending resolution of this plan. The plan went to P & Z for comment; the planning office has drafted the ordinances required to implement this plan. If the P & Z acts in a timely way, this could be back to Council in February and could be resolved by the end of February. This is far less severe than the discussed moratorium. This is a control on a few of the zoning districts. Kane stated that anybody with a subdivided lot can build a single family house. Anybody envisioning construction in the N/C or S/C/I districts can get a building permit application, assuming they have passed all the reviews. Bob Throm, president of the Aspen Board of Realtors, said it seems that the Growth Manage- ment Plan as proposed contains many great impacts. The Council must listen to as much citizen participation as they can get. This is a greater issue than the rail problem or the mall. Throm implored the Council to listen well and open up their thinking. Tom Wells stated that this process will be ~antamount to a one year moratorium for any normal size building project. Lynn Clark stated that people an the planning process would like to stay in that process for the day the plan is ~mplemented and would like to continue to go through the hearings, etc. Kane said the planning office has suggested projects that are going to be held up be halted from the planning process (i.e. HPC, or P & Z) pending resolution of this plan. Should the quota system be implemented, those people having gone through the process already would be first in line for the quotas. It would be prudent ~o hold up now and put everybody on an equal footing, to see all the applications at one time. Andy Hecht, speaking for Wally Birk, pointed out that subdivisions through the process to prelimin~.y plat would be allowed to continue on, and asked if the same type of relief for applicants on commercial buildings. Ms. Stuller pointed out that these do not go through a procedural process but merely apply for a permit. Hecht pointed out that the Aspen Grove building has been through a negotiation/planning process with the City. Ms. Stuller stated that private planning activity has never been recognized by Courts as giving one a vested interest ~n any particular approval. The theory behind the sub- division is that by the preliminary stage, a great deal of public endorsemen~ has been to the project and reliance is reasonable. Pete Van Domelin, representing Maurice Beriro, stated he was also very concerned about the criteria used in determining the "favored" list. Van Domelin suggested that there are many arbitrary considerations involved. The City Council should not only not be arbitrary, but should avoid the appearances of being arbitrary. Beriro has spent five months with the P & Z and Council on his two projects. Other projects should be con- sidered as being exempt because of the reliance, money spent and good faith efforts. City Clerk re-read the motion. All in favor, with the exception ~f Councilman Parry. Motion carried. Aspen Inn ASPEN INN CLUB Liquor License Renewal Club - renewal Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the renewal; seconded by Councilman De Gregorlo. City Clerk told Council that the Aspen Inn Club had submitted an addendum to the manag~e- ment contract with the Arya, which had met the state's approval. The lease is correct; Aspen Inn Club has met with the sanitarian's inspection. There have been papers sub- mitted for a purchase and sale, but this will be considered later. All in favor, motion carried. LE CABARET - Purchase & Sale Councilman Parry moved to approve the purchase and sale of Le Cabaret; seconded by Le Cabaret Councilman De Gregorio. Purchase & Sale Brooke Peterson, representing Abe Siani.- the purchaser, told Council that the new operation will not be run like the Crystal Palace but will have meals separate from the show, which will be more like concerts that a dinner show. The menu will range in price from moderately priced and a la carte to extensive and full meals. Peterson told Council that out of the proceeds of the purchase price to Le Cabaret, sufficient funds are being held out to pay the outstanding debts. Siani told Council he was in charge of food and beverage operations at a country club before moving to Aspen. All in favor, motion carried. TRUEMAN Final Plat Approval and PUD Hal Clark, planning office, stated that the planning office recommends approval of the final plat. The final plat, PUD and SPA rezonlng are all being done at once. Trueman Project Final Subdiv. Councilman Wishart moved to approve the final plat and PUD; seconded by Councilman Parry Approval City Engineer Dave Ellis said he recommended final plat approval but wanted to discuss the capital improvements necessary in this area with Council. Ellis stated that Trueman has agreed with the reimbursement formula worked out for Puppy Smith street. Trueman has worked with the City extensively and has used the alignment given for Mill street, which is an 80 foot right-of-way. In the plan for water and electricity, there are certain requirements that the City has the obligation to complete somewhat independent of Trueman. The capital improvement for water Would provide a 12 inch main on Mill street and would cost roughly $19,334. This is a high priority. Trueman's building site will necessitate the relocation of an 8 inch line; Ellis recommended that the City pay for overslzlng Trueman's 8 inch line. In electric utilities, Trueman would be providing service to his commercial development, which is a small percentage of the total project. Ellis stated that a loop system would be bes~ in this situation. It will cost about $20,635 to implement this. Ellis proposed that the City pay for 50 per cent of the street lighting improvements on Puppy Smith street~ there is no lighting there now. All utilities that exist now will be taken ou~ and the new ones will be undergrounded. Ellis told Council that the biggest expenditure in con3unction with this pro3ect is improvine' ~!! street and the storm drainage system. The $202,000 figure is a conceptua estimate to ~xtend a 48 inch storm drain which now terminates at Bleeker and Mill. Mill street will having to be regraded and widened. Of the total cost, the storm drainag~ %~itI be approximately $80,000. Trueman's participation will be in the range of $39 30.~o ~!is pointed out that construction of Mill street in 1977 is not feasible as Lhere are four major construction projects on Mill street. Ellis stated that it is important to realize that by approving this development and the possibility of a post office, there will be extreme traffic problems. The Council has to make a commitment for sums of money to be spent in the next couple of years to · mprove the roadway. The landscaping in this area will not be put in until all the · mprovements have been completed. City Manager Mahoney said he would like to incorporat the storm drainage to the Aspen Sanitation facility. Councilwoman Johnston asked about these costs and the budget. Ellis answered that the water at $19,334 is urgent for 1977; the electric costs at $20~635 are also important. This is a total of $40,000 for 1977. Finance Director Butterbaugh stated that these funds are available. Councilman Wishart amended his motion to give final plat approval for subdivision and PUD and authorize the Mayor to approve the subdivision agreement and to include the recommendation of the city engineer; that water and electric improvements are critical for this year; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Behrendt and Johnston. ~otion carried. ORDINANCE #70, SERIES OF 1976 Rezoning Trueman Property Councilman De Gregor~o moved to read Ordinance ~70, Series of 1976; seconded by Council~ Ord. 70,1976 woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. Rezoning Trueman ORDINANCE ~70 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES OWNED BY JA~ES R. TRUEMAN AND ASSOCIATES ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTERPL~N FOR THE SITE; THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTERPLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA, ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #70, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Johnston, aye; Wishar~, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. SUNRISE APARTMENTS - Final Subdivision Approval Sunrise Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this is an eight unit apartment - 5 one-bedroom Apts. units and 3 studios. The lot is 9,000 square feet and is zoned R/MP. P & Z granted Final preliminary plat approval. These units will be submit to the six month leasing provision. Subdiv. City Manager Mahoney has reviewed the cash dedication fee; Dave Ellis reviewed the final plat. The planning office recommends approval. Councilman Parry moved to approval final subdivision; seconded by Councilman Wishart. County Attorney Stuller pointed out that the subdivision improvement agreement had dropped a line in paragraph two. Paragraph 5 should have the six month leasing restricti¢ language added from the ordinance. Clark pointed out that originally these units were going to be apartments; they will now be condominiumized. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Johnston. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #76, SERIES OF 1976 - Dittmar Annexation Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance ~76, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Ord. 76 Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Dittmar ORDINANCE =76 Annexation (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 AND 16 OF BLOCK 1 PITKEN MESA SUBDIVISION, AND THE ROADWAY ADJACENT THERETO, TO THE CITY OF ASPEN; WHICH ANNEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 was read by the city clerk. Councilman Parry moved to approve Ordinance ~76, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Johnston Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~88, SERIES OF 1976 - Air Pollution Control Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing. Ord. 88 Air Pollu- Curt Baar stated that this was not so much an ordinance to control pollution than to tion Contr( give the City power to close streets wherever they want to, or to go through with the parking permit system. Sanitarian Tom Dunlop answered that the intent is to eliminate the cause of the pollution problems for the length of time it takes for the inversion to break. Dunlop pointed out this may only amount to four hours. Dunlop stated this is by no means a permanent thing; it will only be during excessive amounts of pollutants. County Attorney Stuller noted that ~he County was also working on regulations for air pollution control. If the County promulgates air pollution regulations, then those of the City are superceded and become moot. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table Ordinance ~88, Series of 1976, until the City and County got together. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman De Gregorlo. J. Dunsmore of the fireplace store had drafted a letter regarding this ordinance~ Dunsmore told Council he felt this ordinance was definitely the right approach. Dunsmore pointed out that (1) fireplaces should be defined so that people know what they are talking about. (2) Fireplaces pe~ se should not be put in the same class as radiant room heaters. Dunsmore stated he did not feel that radiant room heaters should be ruled out. (3) All wood has the same number of btus no matter what kind of wood it is, and one has to burn the kind of wood that is available for the area. Councilwoman Johnston said she hoped this ordinance could move expeditiously. Dunlop said he was sure the problem with just a matter of clarification with the Coun~ty. ORDINANCE #89, SERIES OF 1976 - Mandatory Mail Boxes Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Behren~t had some Ord. 89 changes to the ordinance that were suggested by postmaster George War~. Mandatory Mail Boxes Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #89, Series of 1976, as amende~; seconded by Councilman De Gregor~o. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE a89 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFO~ BUILDING CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A REQUIREMENT 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 RESIDENTS WITH MAIL DELIVERY was read by the city clerk County Attorney Stuller pointed out that this changed the ordinance so that mail would have to go to any building, no~ just residential buildings. This changes the ordinance a lot. This should be renumbered and have another public hearing. Councilman De Gregorio moved to table. Ordinance ~89, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. CITY MANAGER 1. Shaw Property. Mahoney stated that at the noon meeting it was the Councilmembers present opinion, and they directed Mahoney, to make a counteroffer of $100,000 for the two lots west of the Wheeler Opera House. Shaw Property Mahoney asked Council how they wanted him to deal with the triangle piece of property for sale. Originally there were three pieces of property the Council was interested in. Mahoney s~ated he had contacted Ramona Markalunas; the price on the triangle was $100,000; price on the two lots west of the Wheeler Was $180,000; price on the Koch lumber property was $600,000. Mahoney stated they could not possibly reach an agreement price for the Koch lumber property. There is an encumbrance of a lease on the south 60 feet of the two lots until 1990. The City would be precluded from doing any con- struction; therefore, the Council recommended the counteroffer of $100,000. Mahoney asked what Council wanted to do about the triangle. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated he would like to see the City buy it. Councilwoman Pedersen moved that the City execute the contract to purchase the Shaw triangle for $100,000; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Finance Director Butterbaugh told Council that the ter~s are acceptable on the contract and that ~he money will come out of the open space fund. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Water Bonds - Resolution #1, Series of 1977 Councilwoman Pedersen moved to put Resolution ~1, Series of 1977, concerning water Res. 1,1977 bonding on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Water Bonds Councilwoman Johnston moved to read ~esolution #l, Ser~es of 1977; seconded by Council- woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #1 (Series of 1977) WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is necessary to · ncrease the treated water storage capacity and to construct and install other improvements to the City's water system; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of such improvements is approximately $850,000, and the City Council has determined that general obligation bonds of the City in the amount not exceeding $850,000 should be issued for such purpose; and WHEREAS, Section 10.3 of the City Charter provides in part that securities issued for the purpose of acquiring, improving or extending any municipal utility system may be issued without the question of issuing such bonds being approved by the qualified electors of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed issue of general obligation bonds will be for the purpose of ~mprovlng the water utility system of the City, and pursuant to the City charter, no election is required prior to the issuance thereof; and WHEREAS, the anticipated ra~tes of interest of the bonds ~s at a low point for the last three years; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that timing of the bond sale can be advantageous to the City; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Manager and Finance Director are instruction to initiate action for the sale of the bonds. The maturity schedule, interest rates and other terms will be determined in consultation with Kirchner, Moore and Company, Denver, Colorado. The timing of the sale will be subject to the approval and ratification of the City Council in the form of an ordinance. Council also directs that the proper ordinances and actions be made available for the sale of the bonds. The maturity schedule will be as follows: Year Amount 1977 $ 25,000 1978 50,000 1979 50,000 1980 50,000 1981 50,000 1982 50,000 1983 75,000 1984 100,000 1985 100,000 1986 100,000 1987 100,000 1988 100,000 RESOLVED AND APPROVED THIS 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 1977. 21'49 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 10, 1977 County Attorney Stuller pointed out this resolution was merely the authority to negotiate rather than the final appropriation. Councilman'Parry moved to adopt Resolution #1, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #86, SERIES OF 1976 Fire Alarms Ord. 86 Fire Alarm Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt stated there is some confusion in the way this ordinance was written and it needs to be re-submitted next Council meeting. - ORDINANCE ~87, SERIES OF 1976 - Dog Control Ord. 87 Mayor Pro Tem Beh~endt reminded Council this ordinance was tabled after a discussion as Dog Control to whether the excreta section should apply just to dogs, or to all animals. Council asked that the increasing fine fcr excreta be changed to $20 per offense. Councilwoman Johnston moved %o read with the amendment for the fines; seconded by Council- man Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE a87 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE MAKING VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING ANIMALS; MORE SPECIFICALLY, PROVIDING THAT OWNERS MUST REMOVE EXCRETA LEFT BY THEIR ANIMALS; ESTABLISHING A PENALTY ASSESSMENT OF $20~00 FOR THE OFFENSE (WHEN CONCERNING DOGS); AMENDING THE CODE BY PROHIBITING THE HITCHING OF ANIMALS WITHIN OR UPON PUBLIC PROPERTY (EXCEPT IN DESIGNATED AREAS) AND FURTHER PROHIBITING HITCHING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SUCH AS TO PERMIT THE ANIMAL ACCESS TO ANY PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TO INTERFERE WITH TRAFFIC OR SO AS TO EXPOSE THE PUBLIC TO AN UNSUPERVISED ANIMAL; AND, F~NALLY, IMPOSING A PENALTY OF $10.00 FOR THE ILLEGAL HITCHING OF DOGS was read by the city clerk. Councilwoman Johnston moved to adopt Ordinance ~87, Series of 1976, ©n first reading as amended; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll Call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, nay; Parry,. nay; Behrendt, nay. .Motion NOT carried. Councilman Parry moved to amend Ordinance ~87, Series of 1976, to just include dogs; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Council discussed waiting until Mayor Standley returned to vote on this motion. Council- man Parry withdrew his motion. Councilman De Gregorlo moved to reconsider the motion to adopt Ordinance ~87, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. ~Aii in favor, motion carried. Councilman De Gregorio moved %o approve Ordinance ~87, Series of 1976, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Wishart.~ Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, nay; De Gregorio, aye; Behrendt, nay. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1977 - CETA Appropriation Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance ~1, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilwoman Ord. 1,197 Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. CETA AppropriatiDn ORDINANCE #1 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $4,743.11 FOR EMPLOYMENT OF ADDITIONAL CITY PERSONNEL; RECOGNIZING THE RECEIPT OF A LIKE AMOUNT IN THE FORM OF A CETA GRANT AND ALLOCATING THE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE GENERAL FUND was read by the city clerk. Councilman De Gregorio moved to adopt Ordinance ~1, Series of 1977, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; Wishart aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adjourn at 8:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 1977 Mayor Standley called the joint meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrend De Gregorio, Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, Commissioners Edwards, Child, Kinsley and City Manager Mahoney present. COMMUNITY FACILITY BOARD REPORT John Stanford, planning office, reported to the Boards that the CFB has passed two Community resolution regarding the Wheeler Opera Ho~use. One requested that the Council consider Facility a performing arts center for the designation of the Wheeler. A master plan will be ...... ~n~d for the Wheeler, which will include the two lots adjacent to the Wheeler.