Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19720327 1293 g~gular Meeting .......... ~sp~n C~y Council ~rch ~, 19~72 Mr. Curt Baar suggested the Golf Association be contacted on their recommendations. Council outlined the criteria in wh~ h they would negoiate would be $300.00 a month as a top maximum figure. Mayor Homeyer and Councilman Comcowich to work on the negotiations with the g01f pro, golf association and Mr. Fiene. Sales Tax Sales Tax Reports - Manager Wurl submitted the reports and stated briefly the 1% City tax Report has increased over last year 69% and County 2% increased 48%. Opera Opera House Grant - Memorandum from the Planner was submitted stating the consulting House committee of the State Historical Society advises that they cannot predict when a Grant decision will be made. Auditors Auditors - Communication from present auditors, Alexander Grant and Company was submitted to Council stating they were unable to obtain the working records from the previous aud- itors, Dan Handy and Associates. To prepare the necessary figures would cost, an additional $3,500 plus 120 hours of employee time or could exclude verification of opening balances which would not exceed 31,000. Mayor Homeyer stated that regardless which way the matter went, whether we received the working papers or had to pay the extra costs, the matter must be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction. Councilman Whitaker moved that the City Council officially request cooperation of Dan Handy and Associates to make the necessary working papers available to the present City a~ditors. Seconded by Markalunas. Finance Director Veeder stated he felt the lack of cooperation could have been caused by their dissatisfication on how the City notified them of their release. It was printed in the newspaper and this is where they read same. They were officially notified when the new auditors were hired. Manager Wurl pointed out under their ethics you are .required to release present auditors before obaaining anot.her. Councilman Comcowich moved~ to amend the motion that in the event the City's plea is not met, the City Attorney be authorized, to pursue with vigor this matter through all necessary channels. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Main motion - All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #2, Series of 1972 - Mayor Homeyer opened the public hearing, there being no comments, Mayor Homeyer closed the public hearing. Councilman Walls moved lo read on second reading, by title only, Ordinance #2, Series of Ordinance #2 1972. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. All in favor, with exception of Councilmen Whitaker West Aspen who voted nay. Motion carried. Sub, Filing # 3, Lot 3 ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1972, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO OF THAT CERTAIN TERRITORY OR REAL ESTATE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE, LYING OUTSIDE OF, BUT ADJACENT TO: THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO was read by title only by the City Clerk. Councilman Comcowich moved to adopt on second reading Ordinance #2, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker nay; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carted. Ordinance #3 Ordinance #3, Series of 1972~- Mayor Homeyer opened the public hearing. Square Foot Limitations (Verbatim of Public Hearing)- ~ ~: a~ .~ and Use Change C. M. Clark - I would like to start out by saying for 10 years I have never asked the Council for one thing, In the 10 years I have been fighting to maintain the integrity of our commercial area from spreading and strip zoning to occur. There are certain things in this ordinance that I think Council has not given proper weight. I purchased C-2 property approximately 7 years ago when it was in the County and purchased the C-C property approximately 8 years ago. I 'would like to start out with the comment generally that one of the things that I disagree with whole heartedly is true in all commercial areas is the drug stores being limited to 3,000 square feet and I think those who have been in Tom's Market or City Market, Crossroads or Carl's, I don't think you people have any idea of the square footage involved there and how crowded they are now. I think those thinks should n~t come under the 3,000 square foot limitation, they should come under the 12,000 square feet. I would like that looked into. I would like to see a report back to you people on specifically, Crossroads and Carl's with the number of square footage in- volved there and I think you can draw your own conclusion on how crowded they are. That is a general comment. Of course, I object Vehemently on the C-C area where I own property. I don't have anything in the C-1 area. However, I think it is wrong there, also. Again, when I puKchased property I did it with a reason in the C-2. It was in'the County 7 years ago, ~3wn by the river. 1294 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 27, 1972 Was pKomi~eR at that time, or I should say, at the time it was taken into the City on~ Public Hearing the North Annexation that the integrity ~s being challenged now and I would like to state Square Foot in what areas iT's being challenged. In paragraph Sub C-2 Commercial under intention Limitation ~ which is not being changed; the intention of C-2 Commercial.or ligh~ industrial, as we spoke, of it at the time. It was rezone~ to C-~ "to allow the use of land for retail service and commercial purposes. Limited industrial uses, accommodations and recreation as well as ~ Now, specifically excluded from the C-2 Commercial area is the guts of the entire C-2 area whihh is Paragraph 2 of the Aspen Code which says "any general retail or service commercial use including the following and similar uses: vehicle equipment rental, sales, storage,and repair." To delete any general retail service commercial use from C-2 commercial 'area i.s unheard'of~ It's stated that that is the intent. That's what the owr~s were promised at the time it went from Pitkin County under the North Annexation into the City. That's what we were promised again when it was rezoned to C-2 to establish a light industrial area, obviously that is completely being revised. Also they have limited industrial uses including the following and similar uses. Builders supply and lumber yards and as long as I have been coming to Aspen since 1952, Aspen Lumber was down there. Just because Rio Grande chose to vacate the property and probably will master plan it, I see no re~son why'we should be penalized with disallowing a use that has been in use as long as I-have been coming to Aspen. Also contractor's yards is being disallowed. I ~annot believe that a C-2 light industrial area could not have builders supply, lumber yards and contractor's yards. That was the entire intent of the thing. You can still put in dry cleaning plants, transportation depot, printing plant but the rest of the uses are taken out. I cannot understand. Rio Grande, I talked to them this afternoon and unfortunate%y I did not call them b~fore now. They have no idea that this was going on. My inten~tis not to speak!~f~r them or say anything of their feeling at all. I just ~honestly beliebe with the largest un- developed area in ~commercial zone to limit the uses is ridiculous. I just don't understand~ I would like to know the thought behind what has been promised to us~'through these years. I have given a cursory examination, I, myself did n~t realize what was going on until Saturday and-I was just ~briefly going through the Aspen today and happened to pick it up and zeroed in on it and I am sure it's just loaded with hookers all the way through. It's not what it is intmnded to be on the surface. The intent on the surface is to limit the size of the buildings, which is fine. I have no quareel or argument limiting the size of these buildings. I don't want any monstrous 50,000 square feet Safeway~. I agree with that thinking, But it's like we are redrafting, like let's just change~the whole thing. Let's do away with the intent, let's do whatever we want to do, ~. let the owners be dammed. I am sorry that the ~eeling has come to that in Aspen. The grapevine has it and % just heard this, that the City wants the property. I don't think that to go the other step and make the C-2, the inten~'~o~C-2 bring it null and void which is half happening here. They're n~t trying to rezone, j~st do away with the uses that you could use it for, one of the same. I would sincerely like this City Council in light of what I think, could be easily passed over. I think the intent is not obvious here. I think it is covered under the subterfuge of the entire thing of this limitation which grew out of the Safeway problem at the Airport Business Center. I think the intent in which you're interested is it brings it all into light with what the County did. But they have gone so far beyond that, I would like you to seriously look into it and give it more study. I can't believe you, Scott, as a contractor, see contractor's yards being done away with in the light industrial area. The only place that we have unless you want to lease for the money John wants at the airport. Herb Bartel, Planner - Just several pointsc~of clarification. First, as far as the elim- ination of general retail uses in the C-2 district is concerned as the regulation now reads, "any general retail or service commercial use including the following and similar uses: vehicular and equipment rental sales storage ardrepair." To replace that paragraph we have this paragraph, "any of the C-1 commercial use district s~bject to all use, square foot limitations, open space lot area requirements." So, I must take exception with Mr. Clark's statement, we have not eliminated the general retail uses, in fact, we have included everything that is allowed in C-I, as the uses permitted by right in the C-2 district. With respect to the comments on lumber yards, contractor's yar~'~ con- struction yards, we have put a heavy blow on construction yards.~and lumber yards. This is not included because it was felt that that was a general service area and to accomm- odate that we have included specific provision for shop craft industry, cabinet, plumb- ing and electrical shops providing all material is stored in a building, provided no unusual traffic hazard, noise, dust fumes, etc. So there is no question we have elim- inated construction yards as we know them with heavy equipment, outdoor storage, but we have provided specifically for those craft type industries which I have outlined. C. M. Clark - ~erb, what you have said, in very legal terms, is that you have changed C-2 to C-i, In brief, the things that were approved in C-1 can be used in C-2. Why didn't you just try and rezone C-2 to C-1 if you were going to do that. What you have ~ done away with is all the uses we had in light industrial or C-2 and as far as your uses, I would like to refer back to the Master Plan of "66" which has some weight when you're fighting from the other side wherein lumber yaCds, contractor's yards, concrete plants, etc. are permitted. You say these uses are permitted certainly, the C-1 uses are permltte~. Public Hearing You say these uses are permitted certainly, the C-1 uses are permitted but what happened Square Foot to our C-2 rights. Why didn't you rezone it C-1 if that's what you were going to do? Limitation Herb Bartet - Certainly, the uses that were permitted uses in the C-2 district are con- ditional uses such as warehousing. We have specifically eliminated lumber yards, con- tractor yards and construction y~rds. I believe those were the only mmjor changes with ~ the exception of the use square footage limitations which is a general amendment proposed for all commerciR1 districts. C. M. Clark - Herb, I think you would be hard pressed to say that you could not have warehousing with builders supply and lumber yards but you c~uld have warehousing in that district because I have a building permit to build a warehouse in that district, you can't see that. Also, what about vehicle equipment sate~, rental and repair which you did away with and that was not a conditional use nor was warehousing a conditional use. Herb Bartel - That is my point. We have changed some of the uses that were permitted by right to conditional uses which means subject to approval of the Board of Adjustment. One example is warehouses. C. M. Clark - We had the right to use it, we had the right to use all this. This now you have done away with a whole lot of the area and the rest of it has to go under the Board of Adjustment which you could hold your breath forever. I haven't had the Board of Adjust- ment approval yet on anything. That's like the ring of death on it. Herb Barrel - I can't speak for the Board of Adjustment. C. M. Clark - I think if you look into the record, when you go in for a conditional-use how many of them are granted. I think you will find they are few. You have eliminated in all intents and purposes, yes, it is a conditional use. I want to know h~y you want to change this versus the Master Plan. That was established to take the pressure off indus- trial of the commercial core and that is why I went down there and bought that property. Now you are changing that, where do we go from there, Herb? Herb Bartel - It's a position for the C-2 district to'be service area with speciality light industrial uses as compared to the general light industrial use. You usually get construction yard~, etc. C. M. Clark - Thank you, but you're going against all the things that were promised and led to believe at the time we bought it and throught these many years. Herb Barrel - On the question of Rio Grande, we did approximately one year ago when the amendment was originally proposed showed to their representatives, I do not have their names, Mr. Delaney called this afternoon, we read the section to him, although we did not ask him whether they opposed or not, we felt that ~ they did, they would have.sent that message. If the Council wishes, certainly, you may hold this section of the proposal for additional consideration. I think the square footage part of the amendment is a separate part of it and free standing amendment. The original publication did include language to the effect that uses in C-I, C-C and C-2 would be changed by this amendment. Councilman Whitaker - I agree with Mr. Clark that the purpose of the C-2 zone was exactly the way-it was in the original ordinance. It was to provide a place for light industrial uses and I find this as a resident and consumer and a businessman that it's extremely time consuming and expensive to go out to the airport and I don't want to see everything moved out to the airport. C. M. Clark The only comment I would have at this point would be relating to your point, hold that in abeyance and approve the rest of this drug store problem. I don't think I should have to fight that alone. You people have fought the battle as long as I have in and out of these drug stores and grocery stores. When is the relief coming? It's not going to be in the 3,000 square foot s~Ore. To give you some idea of the size City Market is, it's a little over 12,000 square feet. That's the size we're talking about maximum. That wouldn't make a dart on a ~ajor drug store in Denver, or any shopping center grocery store and you're talking abnut 3,000 square feet for a drug store.~ Councilman Walls -I think the basis on this in regard to what you are talking about isza chain~operation. A drug store, what's a drug store? Are you talking about selling sporting goods equipment, groceries, the whcleball of wax. Wh~t we are talking about is a DRUG STORE. Herb Barrel - We-did go out and look at these and viewed the square footages and at the time we proposed the amendment and we felt they were definitely not drug stores but were in fact department stores. It's not our intent to limit those to 3,000 square ~feet. -The other information, the County Commissioners this afternoon approved both the neigh- borhood shopping district and square footage limitations. The square footage limitations in the County, however, the 12,000~square foot limitation. The 3,000 square foot limi- Public Hearing tation is comparable to the City's, based on the differences that occqr. Square Foot Limitation Councilman Walls - In other words, in a commercial development such as John's, we could have a 12,000 square foot supermarket, we could also have a 12,000 square foot discount store, or two of the~. Herb Bartel - Yes, it's no question you can have more than %2,000 square feet of retail space and in the same vicinity. The limitations do not restrict the total retail space in any district. Mayor Homeyer closed the public hearing. Councilman~Walls stated the ordinance does not change all uses so feel this is not a rezoning. Councilman Whitaker stated the character of the zone is going to change by eliminating the main items. Councilman Ny~trom stated he did not feel we need contractor's yards in this area. Councilman Markalunas stated she did not feel the City should zone out these uses. Councilman Walls stated the Council has to look at positioning uses in an area. Lumber yards and contractor's y~rds take alot of space, are heavy traffic generators and are unattractive uses. The airport business center is a much better area for these types of uses. Councilman Whitaker sta~ed this will cause contractors to store their materials in their own yards. Mr, Barrel stated this zone allows everything, it's an open district. Mr. Clark stated the area in question in the C-2 zone is about 13-1/2 acres. The lumber yards that did,~exist there, did not improve the premises since they were on a month to month lease. Councilman Comcowich questioned if the Crossroads and Carl's Pharmacy would be non- confroming under this ordinance since they are not strictly drug stores. City Attorney Kern stated the interpretation of Carl's and Crossroads would be that they are department sgores~ that sell drugs. The use would be based on what the primary bus- iness conducted. This is a matter of enforcement and could not be a part of the ord- inance. Man~'non-conforming uses would be created by this ordinance. Councilman Walls moved that Ordinance #3, Series of 1972 be read on second reading and Section 6.be deleted and related wording in the title of the Ordinance and post haste consideration be given to Section 6. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Roll .call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whit- aker aye; Mayor Homeyer .aye. Motion carried. Ordinance #4, Series of 1972 - Councilman Walls moved to read on first reading Ordinance Ordinance #4 #4, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. All in favor, motion carried. Commercial Planned Neigh- ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 1972 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF borhood District THE CITY OF ASPEN BY ADDING SUBSECTION (d), SECTION 10.1 OF CHA~TER 24 ENTITLED C-PND COMMERCIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT was read by title only by the City Clerk. C Councilman Walls moved to adopt on first reading Ordinanqe #4, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Roll call vote - Councilmen Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Comcowich aye; Whitaker aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer~aye. Motion carried. Ordinance #5, Series of 1972 - Councilman Markalunas moved to read on first reading Ordinance #5 Ordinance ~5, Series of 1972. Seconded ~y Councilman Comcowich. All in favor, motion Historic carried. Zoning ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1972 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES, COMBINATIONS OF STRUCTURES, SITES AND AREAS WHEN DESIGNATED FOR PRESERVATION AS AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THE CONTINUED CON- STRUCTION OF STRUCTURES AND COMBINATIONS OF STRUCTURES COMPLIMENTARY TO THOSE OF HISTORIC VALUE WITHIN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT; MAKING PROVISION FOR THE CREATION OF AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE; CREATING A PROCEDURE FOR THE DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES, COMBINATIONS OF STRUCTURES, SITES AND AREAS AS H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE OF ALL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS WITHIN AN H, HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT AS THEY PERTAIN TO SECTION 9.1 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN was read by title only by the City Clerk. Councilman Markalunas moved to adopt Ordinance ~5, Series of 1972. Seconded by Council- 1297. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 27, 1972 man Comcowich. Roll call vote - councilmen Comcowich aye; Walls aye; Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Whitaker aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Ord. #6 Ordinance #6, Series of 1972-Councilman Walls moved to read on first reading Ordinance Zoning #6, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. All in'favor, motion carried. Code Fee ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 1972, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REINACTING SECTION 11 OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, INCREASING THE FEE FOR ZONING CODE AND MAP AMENDMENTS TO FIFTY ($50.00) DOLLAR$.~CLARIFYING THE PROCEDURE IN AMENDING ZONING DESIGNATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BETWEEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REVIEW PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS OF H, HISTORIC OVERLAy DISTRICTS was read by title only by the City Clerk. Councilman Comc owich moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. R~solution #4 Resolution #4, Series of 1972 as follows was read by the City Clerk. Hunter Creek Valley Councilmmn Whitaker moved to read Resolution #4, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried. Resolution No. 4 (Series of 1972) WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Aspen has entered into a resolution recommending and encouraging the purchase of the McCulloch properties in Hunter Creek Valley by the U. S. Forest Service for use as public domain land. AND WHEREAS, The City of Aspen recognizes the unique natural features and rec- reation potential of Hunter Creek Valley and particularly the land presently owned by the McCulloch Corporation. ~ND WHEREAS~ historically Hunter Creek Valley has been used for hiking, riding, cross country skiing and camping by citizens of Aspen and its visitors, and if such land is privately developed would create overuse on other public lands surrounding the City of Aspen. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, that the U.~. S. Forest Service be encouraged to purchase the McCullock properties in Hunter Creek Valley for use as public domain land, and that this resolution together with the res- olution of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission be transmitted herewith to the Us. S. Forest Service and such other agencies and organizations capable of achieving the purposes of this resolution. Councilman Comcowich moved to adopt R~solution #4 with the inclusion of fishing. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Roll call vote - Councilmen Whitaker aye; Walls aye; Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Comcowich aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Signs Signs - Attorney Kern stated he has requested the building inspector to give him an up to date report on what still exists. Councilman Comcowich stated in San Franciso they require tubes from the building to the dump trucks during remodeling and construction, thus keeping the streets and sidewalks free from debris. Council request the City Manager obtain a copy of their ordinance. Councilman Griffin moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m., seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Ail in favor, meeting adjourned. Lorraine Graves, City Clerk