Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20011126Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26~ 2001 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .......................................................................... 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS .............................................................. 2 CONSENT CALENDAR .................................................................. ........ ...... 2 · Resolution #109, Series of 2001 - Purchase/Lease Youth Center .......... 3 · Resolution #107, Series of 2001 - Contribution to Independence Townsite Purchase ....................................................................................... 3 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES .......................................................... 3 · Ordinance #44, 2001 - Code Amendment Subdivision without GMQS - 3 · Ordinance #45, 2001 - Code Amendment Stream Margin Top of Slope · Ordinance #46, 2001 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Unit Require Detached Unit for GMQS Exemption ................ ........................... 3 · Ordinance #47, 2001 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Unit - Removing Existing Mandatory Occupancy ................................................ 3 · Ordinance #48, 2001 - Fees for 2002 ........................... ~. ......................... 3 · Ordinance #49, 2001 - Supplemental Appropriation .............................. 3 RESOLUTION # 103, SERIES OF 2001 - Cemetery Lane Character Plan... 5 RESOLUTION #110, SERIES OF 2001 - Little Red Ski Haus Temporary Use ................................................................................................................... 6 ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2001 - Oden De-annexation ................. ~ ..... 8 APPEAL OF HPC DECISION - St. Clair 629 West Smuggler ..................... 9 RESOLUTION #108, SERIES OF 2001 - Creation of Open Space Board. 14 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 Mayor Klanderud called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, McCabe, Hershey and Semrau present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Gall Neben, Kinder Morgan, told Council they reduced the natural gas rates 28% in October. Whe. n Kinder Morgan went for their annual bulk purchase, they were able to reduce the rates to the city 8% for next year as well. 2. Jim Markalunas commended the streets department for the great brochure on snowfall and streets plowing. This is great information for the public. Markalunas noted not everyone is getting the message and perhaps the brochures could be put on the windshield of vehicles not moved for snow plowing. Markalunas said it is important for the city to set a good example and make sure their vehicles are moved in accordance with the plowing policy. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Klanderud thanked the Aspen Skiing company and the hundreds of volunteers who Worked to put on the World Cup ski races. The race was a great event and the volunteers and ASC employees worked hard to pull it off. 2. Councilman Hershey said he attended the University of Colorado and the Mayor attended the University of Nebraska. CU tromped Nebraska and took away any chance of Nebraska going to a bow! game. 3. Councilman Hershey said RFRHA was dissolved and merged with RFTA who will take over transportation planning and the rail corridor. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman McCabe moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Hershey. The consent calendar is: 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City, Council November 26, 2001 · Resolution #109, Series of 2001 - Purchase/Lease Youth Center · Resolution #107, Series of 2001 - Contribution to Independence Townsite Purchase. All in favor, motion carried. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES · Ordinance #44, 2001 - Code Amendment Subdivision without GMQS - · Ordinance #45, 2001 - Code Amendment Stream Margin Top of Slope - · Ordinance #46, 2001 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Unit Require Detached Unit for GMQS Exemption · Ordinance #47, 2001 - Code Amendment Accessory Dwelling Unit - Removing Existing Mandatory Occupancy · Ordinance #48, 2001 - Fees for 2002 · Ordinance #49, 2001 - Supplemental Appropriation Councilman Hershey moved to read Ordinances #44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Series of 2001; seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 44 (Series OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND PROHIBITIONS, SECTIONS 2C4801020 A~ 26.4801050 OF THE LAND USE CODE. ORDINANCE NO. 45 (Series OF 2001) 3 Regular Meetin~ Aspen Ci,ty Council November 2C 2001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO AMEND SECTION 26.435.020, AUTHORITY, AND TO REPEAL SECTION 26.435.040, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, AND ENACT REORGANIZED TEXT THAT AMENDS THE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PROCESS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE ROARING FORK RIVER TO A REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND ADOPT THE STREAM MARGIN MAP AS THE OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF TOP OF SLOPE AND HIGH WATER LINE OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER, AND TO CLARIFY REVIEW STANDARDS TO THE STREAM MARGIN REIVEW. ORDINANCE NO. 46 (Series OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520, THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, SECTION 26.470, THE METHOD OF CALCULATING FLOOR AREA FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, SECTION 26.575.020, AND ESTABLISHING DEFINITIONS FOR "DETACHED STRUCTURE" AND "ASPEN INFILL AREA," SECTION 26.104.100, OF THE LAND USE CODE. ORDINANCE NO. 47 (Series OF 2001) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROGRAM, SECTION 26.520 OF THE LAND USE CODE, CREATING A PROCESS FOR RELIEVING PROPERTIES OF MANDATORY OCCUPANCY ACCESSPORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTIONS. ORDINANCE NO. 48 (Series of 2001) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES. 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 49 (S eries of 2001) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $41,035; GOLF FUND EXPENDITURES OF $15,300; PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $25,000; AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DAYCARE FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,500; HOUSING FUND EXPENDITURES OF $185,500. Councilman Hershey moved to adopt Ordinances 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, Series of 2001, on first reading; seconded by Councilman McCabe. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Semrau, yes; Paulson, yes; McCabe, yes; Hershey, yes; Mayor Klanderud, yes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #103, SERIES OF 2001 - Cemetery Lane Character Plan Chris Bendon, community development department, told Council there was an 18 month process where staff worked with residents of Cemetery Lane to create a character plan. There were both neighborhood meetings and a neighborhood survey, which resulted in this plan. Bendon noted both Council and P&Z have met with the Cemetery Lane steering committee in work sessions during this process. Mayor Klandemd opened the public hearing. Toni Kronberg endorsed all the hard work done on this plan. Dave Stapleton said Council should finalize this plan so the residents can move on. Fred Peirce said the process has been long and fairly productive. The big issue was house size, which was mooted when Council voted on the house size ordinance this fall. Howie Mallory asked about the funding and time line for the Cemetery Lane improvements. Mallory said this has been in process 18 months and it is not clear what is the city's commitment to funding Cemetery Lane. Bendon noted the plan suggests the capital improvements will become part of the city's capital improvements and the asset committee will prioritize all the projects. Mallory said there was a vote to increase the mill levy for these improvements. Bendon said this is a $2 million plan and there is only $1 million in funding available. Decisions need to be made to either fund the plan or cut back the plan. Peirce said the parks department has not finalized 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 the plan and Cemetery Lane residents will be meeting with parks department to work on the final details. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Semrau asked the status of design review modifications for specific neighborhoods. Julie Ann Woods, community development department, told Council this is not on their 2002 work program. Community development department does have residential design standards as relates to FAR on their work program. Councilman Semrau said he would like staff to include work on the Cemetery Lane design standards for 2002. Peirce said the design review standards were a significant portion of the discussions at the neighborhood meetings. P&Z was concerned about the overall issue of whether there should be specific standards for specific neighborhoods. Peirce said the residents felt when they talked about the unique characteristics of Cemetery Lane, they were talking about them in the context of the design review standards and modifications of those standards. Councilman Paulson moved to approve Resolution # 103, Series of 2001; seconded by Councilman Hershey. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #110, SERIES OF 2001 - Little Red Ski Haas Temporary Use James Lindt, community development department, said this is a request for a 180 day temporary use to re-open the Little Red Ski Haus as a lodge. The Little Red Ski Has is located at 118 East Cooper is 21 bedrooms on 5300 square feet. Lindt told Council the Ski Haus was operated as a lodge for 37 years prior to 1999, during which time it was a legal non-conforming use. Lindt said the applicant is proposing to rezone this property to LP overlay after the temporary use expires. The lodge is currently zoned RMF which does not allow for a lodge as a permitted or conditional use. Lindt said parking is a large issue; there is only 1 parking space off-site. The applicant has proposed parking mitigation measures to purchase parking passes and to run a shuttle to the airport and to the parking garage. The 180 days of the temporary use permit can be used to evaluate the parking and the mitigation measures. Lindt pointed out the impacts will not be new to the neighborhood given the fact that there was a lodge there for 37 years. Staff recommends approval with the conditions in the memorandum and an added 6 Regular Meetin~ Aspen CiW Council November 26~ 2001 condition in response to the neighbor's concern that the informal parking space not be Used as it is accessed through deBergho£s right-of-way. David Fiore, representing the Little Red Ski Haus LLC, said the purchasers are a committed group and a group with the expertise to maintain the historic character of the neighborhood. Fiore outlined the partners in this LLC. Fiore noted condition #7 states one of the rooms not be used because the window egress is blocked. Fiore requested Council give staff the authority to allow use of this room if the furniture is rearranged and the window egress is no longer blocked.. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. Bob Kesselring said parking off the street is a problem and he would like the parking place not allowed for use. Kesselring said the streets near the Little Red Ski Haus are full during both high seasons. Kesselring suggested a yellow loading zone for one space in front of the Little Red Ski Haus so people do not park illegally. Marge Babcock, previous owner of the Little Red Ski Hans, said they have operated as a bed and breakfast for over 30 years. There is a lot of need for dorm style facilities. Music students have always stayed at the Little Red Ski Haus. Visitors return year after year. Amanda Boxtel supports this applications for visually challenged people as it is affordable and close to town. Steve Walker said the group would rather offer this as a lodge than one single family residence. Mayor Klanderud entered into the record an e-mail from Roger Fogel in support of this temporary use. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Hershey said he is pleased to see the community reacquiring small lodges after so many have been lost. Councilman Hershey moved to adopt Resolution #110, Series of 2001, adding condition # 10 that staff recommends the parking space in front on the grass be eliminated and amending condition #7 to if the chief building official okays the configuration, the staff has the discretion to approve the 7 Regular Meetin~ Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 northernmost room for occupancy; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #43, SERIES OF 2001 - Oden De-annexation John Worcester, City attorney, told Council the state law regarding annexation allows a property owner to petition to disconnect territory from city boundaries. The only standards are that Council has to give the petition consideration and Council can decide to de-annex strictly on Whether it is in the best interests of the city to do so. Paul Taddune, representing the applicant, told Council this property received subdivision approval from the county in 1988. Taddune showed the location of the Oden parcels. Taddune t°ld Council in November 1986, Oden entered into a contract to buy the property in connection with the community center. This agreement allowed Oden to buy the parcel and to lease back to the county so long as the property is used as a community center. In December 1986 the subdivision exemption was approved by the BOCC in order to accomplish the sale. Taddune told Council the frustration arises when trying to figure out land use approvals the Oden received in the county and what may apply in the city. In 1987 Francis Krizmanich, then county planner, wrote a letter to the BOCC noting only 2 lots could be created, that both lots would be restricted, that both lots could be provided with water service, and that both lots were out of the 100 year floor plain. In 1987, the BOCC granted general submission including that Oden should submit covenants restricting the property from further development, provide a fishing easement, the property would not be accessed along Red Mountain road. In December 1988 the county accepted a dedication for Red Mountain road. In 1989 the city started annexation proceedings. As part of that annexation, there was a memorandum from Ron Mitchell indicating the review of existing subdivisions in the proposed annexation area indicates that in virtually all cases based upon a consideration of standard zoning criteria, county zoning appears appropriate. Taddune said it was not the intentiox~ of the city to reduce any development potential for any parcels being annexed into the city. Six months after Oden received his development approval, the city annexed the property and then zoned the annexed properties R-30, R-15, R-15A, RMF/A, RMFA/PUDi Taddune said this rezoning of the annexed Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 property created confusion on this parcel. Taddune said the applicants would like to be allowed to de-annex back into the county, have the development rights and subdivision approvals reaffirmed and then annex back into the city. Taddune said there is about 1,000 square feet less development than would be allowed in the county. Krizmanich said it appears the Odens have lost development rights by being annexed into the city. Carol Ann Jacobsen told Council there were statements made that there would be no slope reduction, that all land could be used for floor area ratio. Ms. Jacobsen said the city zoning negates some of the promises made in the county. Worcester pointed out when this de-annexation is approved, Council has lost any jurisdiction over this property. Worcester suggested rather than voting on this ordinance, staff continue to work with the applicant to decide whether the applicant wants to de-annex. Councilman Hershey moved to continue Ordinance #43, Series of 2001, to December 17~; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. APPEAL oF HPC DEcIsION- st. Clair 629 West smUggler John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council this is an appeal of the record and is not an opportunity for the applicant to argue the merits of his application. The facts found by HPC are not subject to dispute and Council should not re-weigh the evidence presented to HPC. The standard of review is whether Council should reaffirm the decision of HPC or shall determine there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process. Worcester noted the city's code does not define those terms. Worcester said if Council finds there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process, Council may take any action they see fit to remedy the situation, including a reversal, referring back to HPC or amending the conditions. Amy Guthrie, community development department, told Council all HPC meetings were open to the public; adequate public notice was provided, the applicant was given ample time to make their presentation and comments were taken from the public. Ms. Guthrie said both HPC and staff related their concerns to the design guidelines, which is an adopted document. Staff and HPC were clear about their concerns. Ms. Guthrie told Council at the 9 Regular Meeting Aspen Ci,ty Council November 26, 2001 last meeting, staffrecommended approval; however, HPC felt there had not bee adequate response to the concerns about how the building had been approved. Ms. Guthrie recommended Council uphold HPC's decision, as there is adequate information on the record as to why they voted as they didl David Myler, representing the applicant, agreed this is not an abuse of discretion. However, Council's task is to determine whether the HPC was arbitrary and capricious, or overly subjective, resulting in a denial of due process. Myler stated an arbitrary decision denies due process. Myler said the decision has to be fair, it has to be based on facts and circumstances applied to the standards and criteria for the case. Myler said HPC members opposing this did not objectively evaluate this application nor did they objectively apply the standards and criteria, Myler told Council it is within their authority to determine whether the HPC properly applied the guidelines to the facts. Stephen St. Clair, owner of 629 West Smuggler, presented renderings and drawings of the proposal, starting with exhibit A. St. Clair said he started the process with Fred Jarman, had a work session with HPC, and then had a pre-application conference. St. Clair told Council at the first presentation, he was told the addition was too big and needed to be subordinate to the historic building. St. Clair presented exhibit B, which was submitted for a work session in February 2001, showing how this was made to be subordinate with trim, stepping the addition back, changing materials. The comments from HPC in the work session were that they were looking for change in materials, change in the roof lines, and change the connector piece to delineate between old and new, change in window materials, and lower the garage. Myler said this work session resulted in direction to make changes to the project, which he listed for Council. Myler pointed out in response to these changes, St. Clair came up with plan C. St. Clair showed Council how the roof height had been lowered, the jog between the two buildings was inCreased; the materials between the old and new were changed to accentuate the difference; the windows were changed, the garage was lowered. At the April 11th work session with this plan, HPC commented they were looking for more delineation on the connector; they did not like the windows, go back to the siding at a previous presentation, change the eave 10 Regular Meetin~ Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 details, they liked the two-story garage better than having the house extend to that garage. Myler said at this time the Board began to express the feeling that the addition was not subordinate to the historical house. They also wanted the connector squeezed together. St. Clair told Council HPC suggested he look at other historic additions and examples the HPC felt complied with the standards. Myler presented pictures of 3 structures on West Francis, West Smuggler and East Bleeker, HPC selected as being consistent with the standards. In none of these was the addition smaller than the original structure; the garage and additions are larger than that proposed for 629 West Smuggler. This resulted in a new design, exhibit D, with a reduced roofline, the job was increased, the plate heights were brought down so the windows matched, the siding was put back on, and the 2nd story garage was put back in. At the June 27th HPC meeting the HPC indicated the design was closer but the problems were the roof height relating to the connector, the width of the chimney, the railing in front of the window, the deck and the depth of the deck off the rear of the house. Myler said the HPC wanted the applicant to narrow and lower the connector to one story as the size and mass of the addition was a problem to HPC. St. Clair said when he investigated making these changes, it could not physically be done. Myler said the allowable FAR on this site is 2,840 square feet without a bonus for historic designation. Myler pointed out at the June 27th HPC meeting, St. Clair urged HPC to outline what it would take in the way of changes to the project in order to get approval. There were conditions outlined in a motion to restudy the connector, eliminate the west upper floor deck on the addition; restudy or eliminate the south deck; clarify the design of the folding doors of the south elevation offthe master bedroom, and restudy the chimney stack on the addition. Exhibit E was the last design, showing the roofline was reduced additionally, the jog was increased, the siding was changed to a different width, the deck was removed from the front, the chimney was made smaller. St. Clair said he thought he did everything the HPC requested. Myler Said one of the standards is that the addition be subordinate to the historic house. The guidelines do not tell exactly what would make an addition subordinate. Myler said the applicant has satisfied the objective Criterial The HPc felt the connector and addition'were too large. Exhibit E 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 was the final version and wag denied by HPC on August 8th. Myler noted Staff's memo found "the applicant team has been able to address all of the concerns raised at the June 27th meeting and all of the relevant design guidelines". Myler pointed out there were 7 HPC members presented at the June meeting and only 4 members present when the project was denied. Myler said this adds to the degree to which subjectivity was allowed on this project. Councilman Paulson asked if I-IPC told this applicant what it would take to satisfy them. St. Clair said the minutes outline generalizations related to this application. Myler said of the comments at the final meeting, 6 were new comments. The comment about the addition not being subordinate was the hardest one for the HPC to get over. There are no specific directions in the guidelines. Myler said the HPC was arbitrary and their decision was not based on practicality and evidence as presented. Myler said the concern about the west elevation was new, as is garage must be accessed from the alley, and too much mass fronts Sixth street. These concerns were not brought up before the August HPC meeting. Ms. Guthrie said the HPC had the same concerns consistently and did not bring up new concerns. The HPC was clear about their concerns and felt at the August meeting it was time to settle the issue that the standards were not met. Ms. Guthrie noted HPC did not specify which standards were not met; however, she assumes none of the standards were met by this proposal. Councilman Paulson said this process is very convoluted, and if mass was a problem, HPC should have said that at the outset. Councilman Paulson said he cannot understand'how an applicant could go through 5 iterations ora project and not get to finality. Worcester said the issue is whether the applicants responded to HPC's requests. Ms. Guthrie said staff felt the response was barely there from the applicant, there was a limited response. Ms. Guthrie noted at the last iteration, staff said the standards had been adequately met; HPC did not reach the same conclusion. Ms. Guthrie said the efforts of the applicant were not meeting the concerns of HPC. Mayor Klanderud opened the public hearing. 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26~ 2001 Lisa Markalunas, HPC member, said HPC does not always agree with staff; that is why there is this review process with the citizen board, rather than staff approval. Ms. Markalunas said everyone on HPC was interested in the importance of this house in the west end. Any addition will have a significant impact on the historic house and she did not feel in any way that the addition was subordinate to the historic house. Mayor Klanderud closed the public hearing. Councilman Hershey said it was the opinion of staff that the applicant had met the 7 requirements of the HPC from the June 27th meeting. It appears that the rules might have changed in the middle of the game. Ms. Guthrie stated the original staffrecommendation was not to approve the project. Ms. Guthrie said the rules of the game were not changed; HPC and staff expressed the same concerns over and over again. Myler said the system seems to allow subjectivity and personal preference come into the decision. Myler agreed with the fact that many times HPC told the applicant they did not like the connector. Myler said the applicant told HPC the connector they want does not work for the structure. Myler said in the final analysis, this project complies with their standards and guidelines. The addition is subordinate; it is shorter and smaller. The addition is compatible with the neighborhood. This is a 2700 square foot house. Myler said he does not feel a property owner should be required to sacrifice his allowable floor area and the functionality of his design in order to achieve a minimal differentiation between what is old and new. Myler said he feels the decision was overly subjective and arbitrary. Myler requestedCouncil reverse the August 8~ decision, grant conceptual approval and send the project back to HPC for final approval. Myler requested Council find this addition meets the basic guidelines; it is subordinate and it not too big and is acceptable. Worcester said Council's job is not to second guess the HPC even if they disagree with the decision. Council must uphold HPC's decision unless they find there was an abuse of discretion or denial of due process. Worcester stated the applicants have argued that arbitrary and capricious behavior is a form of due process. Worcester agreed some arbitrary and capricious behavior rises to a denial of due process. 13 Regular Meeting Aspen Cit~ Council November 26, 2001 Councilman Mershey said this is a difficult situation. MPC is a volunteer board that does a lot of hard work.~ Councilman Hershey said, however, in this case thc process seems shocking. Councilman Mershey moved to adopt Resolution # 111, Series of 2001, reversing the decision made by MPC on August sth and to grant conceptual and partial demolition approval for the property located at 629 West Smuggler and to return the matter to HPC for final review; seconded by Councilman McCabe. Councilman McCabe said it appears the property owners tried diligently to address the concerns of the MPC and in keeping with owner's rights to develop the property within thc allowable floor area and to make the structure work. Councilman McCabe said the application appears to meet the criteria and thc actions of MPC appear to be capricious. Councilman Paulson said he hopes thc new HPC process will eliminate this type of situation and by the second appearance in front of MPC specific issues are laid out to be met. Mayor Klandemd said this appeal without knowing which standards the project did not meet is very difficult. Councilman Semrau agreed this is difficult because thc nature of HPC is inherently a judgment call. Councilman Semrau said the HPC seemed to be consistent in that judgment and that the connector did not serve the goal of the guidelines. Councilman Semrau said he does not think the applicant understood how to execute the guidelines, which was I-IPC's determination. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Semrau. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #108~ SERIES OF 2001 - Creation of Open Space Board Jeff Woods, parks department, told Council this Board has been created to give recommendations to Council rather than as a legal decision making board. This board is to concern themselves with the new 1/2 cent sales tax for purchase of open space and to choose the priorities of the greenfrastracture as outlined in thc AACP. Woods said there is a bigger wish list than there are resources to purchase open space. This is set up to have one member who is a city resident as well as a member of the county open space board and 4 city residents. This will be a recommending board only. This board is set up to sunset in December 2005. 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 26, 2001 Councilman McCabe said he is not interested in making government any bigger or adding to the bureaucracy. Councilman Hershey agreed he is not interested in more task forces or committees. Councilman McCabe said it is the Council's purview to make decisions on purchasing property, and Council makes these decisions on presentation of the facts from staff. Steve Barwick, city manager, noted the alternative to having a board is Council making the open space plan, prioritizing the properties and working out financing. Councilman Hershey agreed he does not think a buffer is needed between staff and Council on open space. Mayor Klandemd said she fees additional citizen input is a positive thing. Councilman Semrau said citizens with real estate expertise may bring that to the Board. Councilman Semrau said there is very little downside to having an open space board. Councilman Semrau said Council does not have the time to work on the priorities and the purchases. Councilman Semrau moved to adopt Resolution 77108, Series of 2001, with a change to A(1) if no one from the Pitkin County Open Space Board is interested in serving on this board, a city elector will be appointed; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Councilman Semrau, Paulson and Mayor Klanderud in favor; Councilmembers Hershey and McCabe opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Hershey moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Semrau. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman McCabe. Motion carried. Councilman Hershey moved to go into executive session at 9 p.m. to discuss property acquisition of Hunter Creek park, per C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) and personnel issues, per C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(f); seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Hershey moved to come out of executive session at 10:15 p.m.; seconded by Councilman McCabe. All in favor, motion carried. Council scheduled a Burlingame work session for December 5 at 3 p.m. Councilman Hershey moved to adjourn at 10:25 p.m.; seconded by Councilman semrau. All in favor, motion carried. 15 Regular Meetin~ Aspen Ci~. Council November 26, 2001 16