Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19870223Rec1ular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 1987 • 1 CITIZENS COMMENTS 1 MANAGERS COMMENTS - 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 1987 - Purchase Contract/Anderson 2 Duplex CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - 1010 Ute Avenue 3 CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - 1001 Ute Avenue 8 CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - 700 East Hyman 11 RESOLUTION #4, SERIES OF 1987 15 RESOLUTION #7, SERIES OF 1987 - Electric Underground 15 District RESOLUTION #3, SERIES OF 1987 - Annexation of Aspen Grove 16 ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 1987 - 7.5 penny Sales Tax 16 ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 1987 - Rezoning Moses Property 18 19 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Fallin, Walls and Isaac present. CITIZENS COMMENTS 1. Ken Moore said he has written a letter to Council inquiring if they ever informed the forest service that the Aspen area general plan of 1966 is deficient and not working, nor is the growth management plan and land use code. Moore said he has to reply to the EIS on Burnt Mountain and cannot see any significant issues given out by the forest service that have not been addressed by either of these plans. Mayor Stirling said the Council has drafted a letter to the forest service outlining their concerns about Burnt Mountain. Moore pointed out the growth management plan states growth will double every 20 years. If skiing is not set aside to balance growth, the growth management plan is out of whack. MANAGERS COMMENTS 1. City Manager Bob Anderson said the County would like the Council to add to the agenda a joint resolution on the Ruedi release issue. (Councilman Collins came into Council meeting). Mayor Stirling moved to add Ruedi release issue to the agenda. Motion DIES for lack of a second. 2. City Manager Bob Anderson told Council RFTA Board is ready to start the process of designing improvements to Rubey park. In order to start this process, the city has to be a joint applicant. Anderson told Council RFTA does not know what t hey want to do at Rubey park. Bruce Abel, general manager RFTA, told Council they have sent out request for letters of interest and qualifications, and will be taking a list of recommendations to the RFTA Board tomorrow. Abel told Council they hope to make a selection by March 21 and meet with the Council shortly thereafter. Abel told Council they plan to break ground after Labor Day and have the improvements ready for next winter season. Mayor Stirling moved to direct Council's representative, Councilman Collins, to work with City Manager Bob Anderson and Abel to bring about the city's being a co-applicant to be involved in the process; seconded by Councilman Collins. Abel said the Council will have to approve both conceptual and precise SPA plans; however, before the plan can even be submitted, it needs city approval. All in favor, motion carried. 1 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23, 1987 3. City Manager Bob Anderson told discussing expanding their facility and care. The hospital board would with Council to discuss these plans. a work session March 16 at 5:00 p.m. Council the hospital board is to deal with senior housing like to have a joint session Council scheduled this f or COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Mayor Stirling said S.B. 60 tries to protect developers by injecting some certainty into the land use process. Mayor Stirling said he would like Council to take a stand against this bill as it infringes on the freedom of municipal government. City Manager Bob Anderson said this bill changes the aspect of when a developer has invested rights from the building permit state to an earlier stage, when f final approvals are given in various processes. Anderson pointed out one of the deficiencies of the bill is that this is not defined very well. Anderson noted the 5 year time limit a developer is given might be attached. Anderson told Council CML is opposed to this bill. 2. Mayor Stirling said the sixth penny fund totalled $1,651.478, which was 5100,000 over the previous year and almost a 60 percent increase since 1979. 3. Mayor Stirling reminded Council there is a goals session February 24, 1987 at 1 p.m. There are Board interviews March 3, 1987 , at 4 p. m. 4. Mayor Stirling announced Al Blomquist has resigned from P & Z as he feels these should be split into two commissions, one for planning and one for zoning. ORDINANCE #3. SERIES OF 1987 - Purchase Contract/Anderson Duplex Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. City Manager Bob Anderson told Council staff met with Councilmembers Collins and Isaac to make sure all proposed improvements have been made and the proposed deal could be agreed to. City Attorney Taddune told Council this transaction will represent a purchase price of 5186,500 to reflect the most recent appraisal. The purchase price is to be paid by 5167,000 in cash with a first mortgage; the remainder will be a promissory note of 518,650 with an adjustable rate in favor of the city, secured by a second deed of trust. Taddune told Council the promissory note has interest and principle to be paid in 12.5 years from closing. The interest rate will be adjusted annually based on the index tied to the yield on U. S. Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity of one year. There will be a change index applied every 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 1987 year; the beginning annual interest rate is 7.25 percent. Anderson told Council he took the treasury bill rate last week and added 1.35 to it as specified to the conceptual agreement. Taddune said on each change date the city will calculate the new interest rate by adding 1.35 percentage points to the current index. This will be an administrative fee. The interest rate on the first change date will not be greater than 9.25 nor less than 5.25 percent. Thereafter the interest rate will not increase or decrease on any change date by more than 2 ber 12n2ager entnand The interest rate is capped on the high side y p on the low side by 2.5 percent. Taddune pointed out exhibit B of the purchase agreement will be an itemization of all the items the city has paid for or will pay for in the future. Taddune noted there are two items the Andersons will pay for, which will be added to the re-purchase price. One is the difference in the expense of restaining the exterior between $800 and $1800. The second is $250 for additional items that are already in the unit. The repurchase price will be increased by the difference in the staining and the 5250. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1987, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Fallin, yes; Collins, yes; Isaac, yes; Walls, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - 1010 Ute Avenue Councilwoman Fallin left the room due to a conflict of interest, she is abstaining from items b, c, d and action item a. Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council the residential GMP competition started with 4 applicants. The 1001 applicant did not meet the threshold, and staff is not recommending an allocation to that project at this meeting. Horn told Council 1001 will be appealing the score of P & Z because they are very close to the threshold. The other project is Cantrup's project at the base of the mountain. This project was awarded enough points to meet the threshold, however, the rezoning and street vacation associated with the project is still being heard by P & Z. Due to outside considerations, it was not possible to get through the rezoning process prior to Council's meeting. Horn recommended Council allocate units to that project but withhold approval of conceptual subdivision. Horn told Council this project is not included in the resolution allocating units. The staff has letters from Cantrup saying he would not object to 1010 Ute and 700 East Hyman projects receiving their allocations. Horn told Council all the applicants have agreed this process is 3 Re~r~l ar Meetinq_ Aspen City Council Februarv 23, 1987 a fair way to proceed. Horn said the request at this meeting is to allocate 18 units. If these are allocated, there will be 4 left. There are 35 units from previous years that have not been wiped out, which are available. Mayor Stirling said Council will be not dealing with all projects simultaneously. They are out of context . Gideon Kaufman told Council the Code reads that the first scorer gets his quota; the second scorer gets his quota. There is enough quota for the first two projects. The excess quota only comes into effect for the other projects if they meet the further review. Gideon Kaufman, representing 1010 Ute Avenue, reminded Council developing land in Aspen requires a balancing of community goals and developer goals. Kaufman said both developers and the city have been guilty of extremes of this, trying to ignore the impacts or to extract too much from the developer. Kaufman said the needs of the developer, adjacent property owners and the city should be balanced. Kaufman pointed out the inability to do this has lead to only 2 units being developer since 1977. The goal of GMP is growth control, not growth elimination. Councilman Isaac said some developers have been given allocations and have not built their projects. Kaufman said they tried to come up with a project that balanced all three needs to get a workable project. Kaufman told Council they spent a lot of time on this application and did their balancing before they submitted the application. The project is providing the cost of a new bike trail bed along the river, a new Nordic trail, a new downhill ski trail, dedicating land for a city park and providing improvements to that park, providing public parking, looping the city water system using city raw water for irrigation to help maintain city water rights, upgrading Ute avenue with additional rights-of-way, constructing a new Ute avenue trail, providing new fire hydrants and improving Ute cemetery. Kaufman said these are improvements for the city and neighborhood and will exceed $500,000. Kaufman told Council the project voluntarily reduced FAR and developed the site to 35 percent below allowable density. Kaufman said they have tried to be sensitive to previous proposals for this property. This area was going to be the base for the Little Annie ski area and was going to have 67 employee units, a parking lot, base facilities and free market duplexes. This development is proposed for single family residences. The P & Z liked the project and was unanimous in its approval. Kaufman told Council the planning office has recommended on.e change which would change the concept of the project and hurt its economic viability. Kaufman said to take the most valuable part of the property, which would be paying for the community benefits, is unfair. Kaufman told Council the ridge, with its view, is central to the project. They have already made 4 Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23. 1987 concessions on the ridge. They have volunteered to preserve view planes by limiting houses to one level. The highest portion of the ridge has already been dedicated to open space, and less than 40 percent of the ridge will be developed. Kaufman told Council the applicant is willing to comply with the P & Z request to provide elevations and to look at design techniques for the ridge. Kaufman said the intent of PUD is to allow usabl e amenities for people that live there. This project is less dense, single family, and has reduced FAR. Kaufman said the applicant met with the planning office about the lots in the meadow and adjusted the site location to address these concerns. The lots have been clustered in pairs in the meadow and the houses have been put on the edge of the meadow to preserve the views from Ute and to leave an open feeling. Kaufman said they feel this has been responsive to the planning off ice concerns, and is an innovative and special way of preserving the meadow. Kaufman told Council P & Z agreed and removed the planning office condition on the meadow. Kaufman said the applicant has come up with new trail ideas which were not envisioned when the trail master plan was adopted. The Aspen mountain trail through the park is new. The relocation of Ute avenue and trial linkage are new. Kaufman said this demonstrates that the trail plan should be flexible. The trail plan does show a trail through their property. The applicant's proposed trail is expensive but city funds may not be available for this alternative along the river. Kaufman said if Council feels an alternative plan is necessary, they are willing to work with staff on this. Dick Fallin showed the 1.6 acres the applicant is proposing to give to the city. The other side of the parcel is 6 acres. Fallin told Council the external concerns of the project are the view corridors along Ute avenue, the meadow open space, the ridge and the Roaring Fork river. Fallin told Council this plan is a result of the terrain. They have tried to enhance the meadow by clustering the house s around the exterior, develop the ponds, reshape the outer area. Fallin said the paired concept is to minimize the paving through the site. The city's parking requirement will be met on each site. Fallin showed where the improved bike trail and Ute avenue are proposed to be. Fallin showed the proposed Nordic trail. There will be a parking area adjacent to Ute avenue to be limited to daytime parking. Fallin showed the trail option A, to provide a loop and a unique experience along the river. The trail option B runs between the Gant, Calderwood and this project. Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council staff feels this is an exceptional subdivision and is very well done. The development 5 Regular Meeting- Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23. 1987 team has gone beyond the normal in trying to work with neighboring properties and the staff. Horn said this is an One site thi unusual site. Horn said there are 4 trails on trail would come from the Aspen mountain . s c ~ d tntol new provide ski out access to Little Nell and link di No the i which the trail system. There is a trail along Ute avenue, little east and to landscape. Horn applicants propose to move a said he feels this would be a better trail. til here option A along the river. This is located on d as t ro er y p P Y- art of another p e There is a bridge to be construc subdivision, which will link the Roaring Fork portion to Ute avenue. Horn pointed out the master plan calls for a trail Horn said across the site linking the bridge to Ute avenue. staff feels this link may be important as part of the commuting system. Horn noted the trails system serves two functions; ith the recreation and commuting. Horn said he has a ressed too it is problem w f a t p proposed trail B because property 1 i ne and i s too close to the Gan Calderwood and developments. Horn said the recommendation is ld h tav e d i f f e r e nt h ou preliminary review, the applicant s alternative to develop the trail. Horn suggested the trail be internalized within the subdivision. Mayor Stirling asked if the applicant is proposing to develop the trail option A on city property. Fallin answered the developer is committing to constructing the trail bed to prepare it for use in the trail system. Kaufman said the applicant feels this is a better alternative than just granting an easement for option B. Horn pointed out both the Code and master plan require staff to ask for trails outlined in the master plan, and staff feels it would be a good attribute to the trails system to have both trails. Horn said it is more important to obtain the easement than to foreclose the option of getting this easement. Kaufman said the applicant feels it works better to have the trail along the river. Kaufman said they do not believe there will be city funds available to build this trail by the river. Kaufman said they would like to opportunity to explore various alternatives and present these. Skip Berhorst, applicant, told Council the idea of P & Z's condition was to allow the applicant to present more detailed alternatives. Horn said the site has two major natural features, the ridges and the meadows between the two ridges. The developer has taken the approach of trying to preserve the meadows. The developer has said the houses on the ridge will only be one story. The staff has suggested that the houses on lots 13, 14 and 15 be dropped down so they do not protrude above the ridge. The ridge line wil l then be maintained in its natural state f or the adjacent property owners. Horn told Council P & Z accepted a proposal that the applicant will prepare east elevation drawings of the 6 -~ Reaular Meetina Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23, 198'7 houses at one story. The planning office still recommends the houses be maintained below the ridge line. Horn told Council another concern is the east meadow, lots 2, 3, and 4. Horn said that meadow is the predominant view going up Ute avenue. The applicant is working to minimize the impacts on the meadow and is working on making the homesite as tight as possible. Horn recommended approval with the conditions listed in the memorandum. Councilman Isaac asked w hat the purpose of the ponds in the meadows is. Kaufman said it gives the applicants an ability to irrigate without having to use treated water. Kaufman said the city has excess capacity there and if the water is not utilized, the rights could be lost City Attorney Taddune told Council a draft water agreement has been prepared. The use of excess capacity is to the city' s benefit. Mayor Stirling asked the total allowable build out on that property. Kaufman said there could be 26 units. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. John Kelly, representing Jack Davis, told Council he is not opposed to the subdivision. However, Kelly objected to the parking lot 30 feet within his client's door. Kelly said this is an 8040 area and it looks as if there may be disturbance to build this parking lot. Kelly said it appears the lot may be better located near the tennis courts. Horn entered into the record a letter from John Kelly outlining these concerns. Horn said the site is subject to both 8040 and stream margin review. Molly Campbell, Gant, told Council the developer has worked very closely with them and the Gant is generally pleased with the proposal. Ms. Campbell said the Gant feels this is an improvement to the neighborhood with the park, the A option trail, the berm and landscaping. Craig Ward, Nordic Council, read a letter into the record from Fritz Benedict saying this is the best design and lowest density development that has been proposed f or this property. Ward said a good thing about trail option A is it will stimulate the major loop system around town. Councilwoman Walls asked why the applicant located the parking lot where it is. Fallin said one consideration is that the Nordic trail needs a certain grade, and they needed that distance. The applicants felt the parking lot would be better in closer to the house so the house would look out over the top of the lot. Kelly said to the do that parking, it will have to be excavated into the hill . Kelly said his clients do object to a parking lot right by their front door. Kaufman said this will be reviewed by P & Z during the 8040 greenline review. Mayor Stirling suggested another condition stating during the course of 7 Reaul ar Meeting __ Aspen Citv Council February 23. 1987 the 8040 review, specifically the parking lot be addressed. Ed Zasacky, developer of Aspen Chance, told Council this is a good development and an improvement to the neighborhood. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to grant conceptual PUD subdivision approval subject to the conditions 1 through 24 in the planning office memorandum with an amendment to condition # 2 and a new condition referring to the 8040 greenline and the parking lot; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. CONCEPTitAL SUBDIVISION - 1001 Ute Avenue Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council this site is located to the west of the previous site. This site is about 6 acres in size, 2.65 acres of this site are located in the city, the remaining acres are in the county. Horn told Council the staff has ignored the county land for calculating density. The applicant has suggested deeding all the unincorporate d land a s ope n space. Horn told Council 8040 review on this parcel will take place during preliminary review at P & Z. The applicant is proposing one single family and 3 duplexes on site. The duplexes will be on lots are that 15,000 square feet, and the single family house will be on a 10,000 square foot parcel. Horn told Council the applicants are dedicating a trail easement across the parcel for the Ute trail. The applicant is granting an easement for drainage for water coming off Aspen mountain, which will help to resolve a problem in the area. Horn said a problem with this site relates to a perception of density and the feel of this site. This is a very steep site. There are 3 tennis courts on the front of the site and mine tailings on the rear. The applicants propose to regrade the mine tailings, move the tennis courts and put in an access road. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, told Council the proposal is a 4 lot PUD subdivision including 4 free market units and 3 low income one bedroom restricted units. The free market houses will be about 3800 square feet. The lot sizes range from 14,000 to 19,000 square feet. Wells told Council P & Z recommended conditional approval of the conceptual subdivision; however, the minimum score is 31.8 and the project received a score of 31.67 and the applicant has filed an appeal to be heard in March. Well s showed a drawing of the 1 imits of the mine tailing on site, the existing tennis courts, which are subject of a joint use with the Gant. The Gant has joined in this application so this parcel may be treated as one parcel. The concept is to regrade the mine tailings to a more natural configuration and to construct an entry road by shifting the tennis courts to the west. Wells told 8 Re~ula-r Meetinq__ Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23, 1987 Council the applicant will create the lots and do the improvements and then sell the lots to individual purchasers. Wells told Council there is no open space requirement in this zone district; however, there is considerable open space in the project. The common open space is the area around the entry road, landscaping above the tennis courts and in front of the tennis courts. Wells told Council the common area open space amounts to 14,500 square feet. The land around the building sites, which would be included in open space calculation, amounts to 61,500 square feet. There is also 4.08 acres in the county, which will be committed to open space. Wells stated the applicant believes the open space in the county is a great benefit; it ties up the parcel from future development. Wells told Council this project can comply with all area and bulk requirements. The applicant has asked for consideration in the manner of calculating heights. The bench will be graded so the final grade will be lower and will allow a higher building. The applicant proposes the heights be measured from the final grade rather than existing grades. Wells said the applicant has suggested reducing the front yard setbacks from 25 to 20 feet because of the grades. The closer the building sites are to the road, the less problems there will be from a design standpoint. Wells told Council the road can be moved so that each lot meets the 20,000 square feet per duplex lot. The present configuration with smaller lots is better for the city and for design. Wells said the benefit to the city from this project are a permanent trail easement, completing the drainage-way, and re-grading and re-vegetation of the tailings area. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Chuck Brandt asked what the planning office recommendation for this project is. Horn recommended this project be approved but there be a restriction against the residences being one story in height and prior to preliminary plat, the applicant should prepare a site plan which depicts the footprints for review of P & Z. Brandt, representing an Aspen Chance resident, told Council they are not opposed to the project but are concerned about the density. Brandt said he supported the earlier staff recommendation that either the bulk be reduced or one site be el iminated. John Nichol, adjacent property owner, told Council he will be impacted by the density of the project and by the re-grading of the entire project. Nichol read from the PUD provisions that residential development will encourage the preservation of site's unique, natural and scenic features. Nichol said this development will destroy natural vegetation. Nichol read from 9 Re~t~-lar Meeting Aspen City Council Februarv 23. 1987 the criteria that development must include open space for the mutual benefit of the entire tract, and that the unique features will be preserved and enhanced and be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Nichol said he objects to the density on these two criteria. Nichol said he does not object to the project on the whole. Richard Luhman, representing Aspen Chance, said when Council looks at a PUD they have to consider the issue of density, both real and perceived density. Luhman said the perceived density in this subdivision causes a problem and makes maximizing real density inappropriate. Luhman said the tennis courts cause density and are not strictly a subdivision amenity. Luhman said he feels the property is much better developed to 3 sites rather than 4. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Wells told Council a good deal of density on the site is removed by slope reduction calculations, reducing the density from 15 to 7 units. Wells said the applicant has assumed that the employee housing has very little impact regarding density. They are 600 square feet units. Wells told Council the Aspen Chance density is one dwelling unit per .43 acres, and this project density is one dwelling unit per .47 acres, excluding the employee housing. Wells showed drawings of comparative density of the Aspen Chance project and the proposed 1001 project. Councilman Isaac asked about the geological hazards from the avalanche path as well as the materials in the mine dump, which may be hazardous. Councilman Isaac asked if the city has a liability in approving a project with these hazards. City Attorney Taddune advised under Colorado law, the approval of a subdivision does not rise to liability; however, the issue is still being debated. Taddune told Council in the Aspen Mountain PUD, the Council required a disclaimer in the plat. Wells told Council this project is not in a historic avalanche zone, but it is being studied further. Councilman Isaac said he would like a condition or disclaimer that the city is not responsible. Horn told Council the employee units will be deed restricted units, not care-taker units. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see the whole site less dense and would rather see 3 sites than 4 sites. Councilman Coll ins moved to approve conceptual subdivision and PUD with the conditions outlined from P & Z on pages 9 through 13 and including as condition #1 that the applicant return with proposals to reduce the density or the bulk of the proposed subdivision; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. 10 Reg-ul-ar Meeting Aspen -City Council February 23, 1987 Councilman Isaac said he would like to be convinced there are no problems with the hazard areas. Taddune said the should be addressed at preliminary stage. Richman suggested adding to condition #15 a statement that the applicant will place on the plat such consumer protection information that may emerge from the studies by preliminary plat. Councilman Collins moved to amend his motion to add that language to condition #15; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, motion carried. COi~C-E SUBDIVISION - 700 East Hyman Sunny Vann, representing the applicant Hodge Capital Company, said this property is 4 lots at the corner of Hyman and Spring, consisting of 12,000 square feet. The applicant wishes to construct two duplexes. Vann told Council the property is zoned 0, off ice, and would allow construction of an off ice building and a multi-family structure. Vann said two duplexes is the lowest impact use for this site. The duplexes on this site provide a transition between the commercial core and the residential areas to the east of the property. The proposed project is below the FAR and is two feet below the maximum height for the zone district. There is no open space requirement in the 0, office zone; this project provides 40 percent open space. This project is located within two blocks of the commercial core and is on major bus routes. The applicant is installing sidewalks on both street fronts and is doing extensive landscaping. A fire hydrant is being installed and the historical drainage pattern is maintained, if not improved by the project. The project exceeds the minimum employee housing requirement for competition in this zone district. Vann told Council this project finished first in the GMP scoring competition before bonus points. Vann told Council the applicants have no problems with the conditions outlined in the memorandum. Vann told Council the applicant disagrees with the quota interpretation the staff has given. Vann said this is an issue of timing, consistency and fairness. The application involves 4 3,000 square foot lots which the applicant wants to split into two parcels and end up with two duplexes or 4 units. Vann pointed out under the GMP exemption provisions, one duplex can be constructed on the property by right. There is also the lot split provision which would allow a single family to be built on each of the two lots that are created. Vann said the applicant could build one duplex; submit an application for a lot split, and if approved build a single family house on the remaining lot. The applicant could then compete under GMP for the remaining unit 11 trla-r - Meetn4 Aspen City Council Februarv 23 , -1987 and end up with two duplexes or 4 units. Vann said the problem with this approach is time and money. Vann pointed out this approach would require the applicant to actually build the units to obtain the development objective of 4 units. Vann reminded Council they recently removed the provision requiring an applicant to actually build a residence to obtain a lot split. Vann said it would be simpler to submit a subdivision application, claim an exemption for a duplex which could be built today. If the subdivision were approved, claim an exemption for a single family house resulting from the lot split approval and to compete for one unit. Vann told Council the planning office has taken the position in order to claim exemptions, a building permit has to be obtained first or an applicant cannot take credit for what is allowed by right. Vann said he feels there is precedent for the approach for that exemption which is all owed by right, the duplex, could be part of an application without having to construct it first. Vann reminded Council the Wesson commercial and residential building was allowed a single family unit by right. Vann told Council the planning office took the position since Wesson could build a single family, by right, and add commercial space through the GMP process, Wesson could claim the single family unit as part of the GMP application without having to build it. Vann said the only difference in the Wesson project is that it is a mixed use project, but the concept is the same. Vann told Council the only benefit that accrues to the city is to require the applicant to provide more employee housing. Vann said this point is moot if the units are built first because there is no employee housing requirement for a duplex. Vann said this employee housing requirement is forcing the applicant to build the units to start with, and if these units are built, the city would not get the employee housing. Vann said it seems in the best interest to obtain approval for a project that has the same end result, let the market dictate when the units are built, pay an appropriate fee for the employee housing, and mitigate the impacts. Vann said the planning office interpretation is inconsistent with the goals of trying to simplify the process. Vann pointed out the planning office memorandum states if they are allowed to do this, it would be a substantial change in the application. If this is agreed to by Council and one unit is required to compete for rather than two, the only change in the application is the number of units, and the employee housing contribution. Vann said the applicant represents they will provide 45 percent of the employee housing requirement, which is in excess of the minimum requirement. Vann said that commitment will not change, they will still provide 45 percent, but the volume will be different as a result of one unit versus two. 12 Re-a-txl-ar-Meetinct__ Aspen Citv Council February 23; 1987 Peter Rosell, representing the applicant, said the difference in the approach is about $80,000. The applicant has been manipulated into providing this, and it does not seem fair. Steve Burstein, planning off ice, told Council this is an application f or an expedited subdivision review. Burstein told Council the applicant has committed to a good landscaping program. The four unit development is not out of character in the area. Burstein told Council staff and referral agencies do not have problems with the application. Burstein recommended changing condition #6 that soils sample analysis be submitted if mine dump or tailing is uncovered during excavation phase of the project. Burstein noted condition #7 should be changed that the allocation of GMP units by Council shall be granted subject t o f final plat approval of the project so the approvals are simultaneous. Burstein told Council staff's position regarding the exemption for the GMP units is that these are speculative, new development which does cause growth and development impacts. The purpose of the GMP is to address impacts. Burstein reminded Council when they adopted the new lot split provisions allowing a GMP exemption on undeveloped parcels, it was to allow single family development as a pressure relief valve and for minor development. Burstein said this application does not qualify f or the same intent of that provision. Burstein said this request is an attempt to get out from requirements to mitigate the impacts of the project, the employee housing. Burstein said staf f f eel s thi s i s more than a technical clarification of the GMP application and would amend the GMP application. Burstein pointed out this project already received an exemption for one duplex, getting a building permit prior to filing a GMP application. Burstein said this project is different f rom the Wesson project . The Wesson project was one dwelling unit within a commercial project, which did address the impacts as an entirety. Burstein said the Wesson project did not set a precedent. It was not a subdivision, nor a lot split situation. Burstein said this application would be a lot split after the subdivision has already been reviewed. Vann told Council the subdivision application before them for approval meets all the criteria of the lot split exemption. Vann said there is no prohibition in the lot split provision to preclude f urther development. Vann said one unit is exempted, and they would have to compete for the other unit. Vann said the applicant could have amended his application, and the only change would be the amount of money or how many units being deed restricted for employee housing. Vann told Council when the applicant met with staff and told them they would like an 13 Ree~l~r Mee-tinq _ Aspen Citv Co-unci-i - - - February 23 . 1987 additional duplex, staf f told them unless the f i r st duplex i s built, they would have to compete for 4 units. Vann said the applicant had to take advantage of the first exemption to make sure they did not have to compete for 4 units. Vann told Council the entire project was reviewed by the P & Z, and the impacts have been mitigated for all 4 units, with the exception of how much employee housing is required. Vann told Council the Wesson project does not involve a lot split but does involve maximum development on a single parcel. Vann said conceptually this project is no different from the Wesson project. Alan Richman, planning director, told Council a lot split exemption must be applied for according to the Code. Richman pointed out the applicant has not applied for a lot split, and the third unit is a discretionary review procedure. Vann said the subdivision criteria is the same as the lot split and would have the same result. Vann said the applicant would have applied for the lot split provision but it would have confused the issue surrounding P & Z review of the application. Vann said the applicant chose to raise the issue as one of interpretation before Council. Vann said there is nothing in the Code that would preclude using the exemptions together. Vann said the applicant could use one exemption at a time, 6 months apart, and the end result would be the same. Richman told Council the intent of the GMP is to deal with the entire development impacts. The intent of the lot split exemption and the previously subdivided lot exemption is to keep people from having to go through full subdivision and GMP competition reviews when they want to do less development. This applicant is trying to take advantage of all the exemptions as well as competing through the system. Councilman Isaac asked if the applicant wanted to withdraw their application. Vann said it is not in the applicant's best interest, if they are gong to be allocated two units, to do another application to achieve the same result. Councilman Isaac moved to grant conceptual subdivision approval for the creation of 2 lots on Block 104, Aspen Townsite for the 700 East Hyman project, subject to conditions 1 through 8, as amended, in the planning office memorandum February 19, 1987; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Stirling moved to adhere to the interpretation as presented by planning department to require two duplexes are in the process of being created and to proceed on that basis; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Vann said the difference in the two methods is the cost. Vann asked why force an applicant to do something they can legally do in steps when the end result is the same. Vann stated he does not feel this is an appropriate way to get additional monies for 14 Reutx~a-r'--Me-eJt_rna Aspen City Council February 23. 1987 employee housing. Every impact caused by 4 units is mitigated. Mayor Stirling said this is new development and does generate growth effects. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to accept the housing authority's recommendation stated in the December 10, 1986, memorandum; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. RE-SOi,UT-ifjN- # 4 , SERIES OF - 19 87 Councilman Isaac moved to approve Resolution #4, Series of 1987, granting residential allotments f rom the 1986 residential GMP quota of 2 units to 700 East Hyman project and 16 units to the 1010 Ute Avenue project; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, motion carried. i~ES6i;~I6~N -#7, S~RIE-S QF 1g87 - Electric Underground District Assistant City Manager Mitchell said this resolution of intent is to form a district, which staff feels is the best way to get the secondary connections to houses before the poles and lines can be taken down. Mayor Stirling said he thought when the original undergrounding bond was approved, these costs were going to be absorbed through the city. Mitchell said staff did not indicate the $3,000,000 would cover secondary connections. It was anticipated this would be done voluntarily or have an underground district. Mayor Stirling asked about giving a deadline and letting people install their own connection to minimize the amount of bonds. Mitchell said that is the process staff envisioned. Councilman Collins said the meters could cost up to $3,000 to be installed, which would be doubled if the amount were financed. This money could double a person's electric rates per month. Councilman Collins said when the underground project was started, there was little information provided for extending the service to a house. Councilman Collins said in the past, the city would run the secondary lines up and down the alley as well as drop the service loop from the alley to the meter to the house. Now the city is saying the undergrounding to the house is the responsibility of the homeowner. Councilman Coll ins said the city should go ahead and complete the project. Mayor Stirling suggested the city set a 9 or 12 month period and urge citizens to comply and get the undergrounding done. City Attorney Taddune said this resolution starts the process because the city has to involve the other utilities that would be 15 Re-c~u-iar -Me-etina Aspen City Council -February 2-3. 1987 impacted. Following the passage of this resolution, there are ordinances that would provide required notice in the newspaper and written notices to the property owners. There will be a lot of discussion prior to the time each property owner has to choose the option to be out of the district. Mitchell said the city is not planning on having the district formed before late summer, which will give staff time to get information to the property owners. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Resolution #7, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. RRS~LITTION -#3. SERI-ES OF- 198-7 - Annexation of Aspen Grove Assistant City Manager Mitchell told Council this is an applicable annexation area, according to state statues, there are sufficient signatures, and all requirements are met. Mitchell said staff will prepare an annexation ordinance and ask Council not to adopt this ordinance on second reading until the zoning issues are settled. Mitchell told Council Aspen Grove is concerned about zoning in their area because they do not want duplexes. Mitchell told Council staff has assured Aspen Grove residents the city will not move ahead with annexation until the zoning question is approved to their satisfaction. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Resolution #3, Series of 1987, with the public hearing date April 13, 1987; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac asked if staff has estimated how much it will cost to give services to this area. Mitchell said when staf f looked at all the proposed areas to be annexed, the expenses were about 5200,000. Councilman Isaac asked if the cost could be broken for this area. Mitchell said when staff looked at this area, Smuggler and Mountain Valley, they determined it was an incremental item depending on how much is annexed. All in favor, motion carried. ~RD~i~AN~E #4, SERIES -flF 198 - 7.5 penny Sales Tax Councilwoman Fallin moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #4 ( Series of 1987) 16 Regular Meetin4 Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23. 1987 AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF PERCENT SALES TAX IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THEREBY INCREASING THE SALES TAX TO 1-1/2~ (ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT) UPON THE SELLING OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND RETAIL AND UPON EVERY RETAIL AND FURNISHING OF SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, OPERATIVE AND EFFECTIVE ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1987, PROVIDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE RECEIVED BY SAID INCREASE MAY BE EXPENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR RECREATION PURPOSES IN CONNECT ION WITH MULTI-USE RECREATION FACILITIES AND/OR NORDIC TRAILS SYSTEM, INCLUDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, LAND ACQUISITION, GENERAL OPERATING PURPOSES, INCLUDING RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS, PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, RESERVES AND FOR THE EXPENDITURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT ANY SUCH PROPERTY AGAINST LOSS OR DAMAG E OR DESTRUCTION, PROVIDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE SAID ORDINANCE EXCEPT AS TO THE PERCENTAGE OF TAX AND MAY REPEAL SAID ORDINANCE IF ALL INDEBTEDNESS INCURRED HEREBY IS PAID OR PROVIDED FOR AND PROVIDING THE DETAILS IN RELATIONS TO THE FOREGOING was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. Councilman Isaac asked about sales tax on food, if this half penny sales tax would generate enough money not to have sales tax on f ood and not to have the f ood tax rebate . City Attorney Taddune told Council this ordinance contains many provisions required by state statute . Taddune told Council in order to delete sales tax on food, this has to be specifically set forth in the ordinance. The exemption for food is not in the ordinance; however, it can be amended by Council. City Manager Bob Anderson said the ordinance contains no specific allocation for construction, operation, etc. Councilman Isaac said the city has a number of projects that need to be funded. Councilman Isaac urged Council to consider taking a full eighth penny sales tax to the voters as well as looking at not taxing f ood. Taddune said the sixth penny taxes f ood, and the rebate system is tied to the sixth penny. The ordinance for the sixth penny would have to be amended. Mayor Stirling said the issue is whether an increase sales tax is fair or appropriate for any projects in Aspen. Mayor Stirling said what the city needs to do is demonstrate they are using the citizens' money efficiently and effectively. Mayor Stirling said the sales tax ha s grown almost 60 percent since 1979. Mayor Stirling said a sales tax is a regressive tax as well as another cost of coming to Aspen. 17 Reg-ular- Meeting Aspen Citv Council Februarv 23,_ 1987 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Walls, yes; Collins, no; Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. Taddune said the resolution with the ballot questions will contain the one-half penny sales tax as well as the bond issue for the recreation facility. Councilwoman Walls said if it is possible, the questions should be combined so that voters are voting on the additional sales tax as well as bonds f or a recreation facility. Councilwoman Fallin brought up the sale of the present ice rink and the proceeds going to the recreation facility, and should this question be on the ballot. Taddune said he would draft some language for this issue. Mayor Stirling moved to continue the meeting to February 24, 1987, at 4:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. ORDINANCE-#6, SERIES OF 1987 - Rezoning Moses Property Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #6, Series of 1987; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #6 ( Series of 1987) AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE ASPEN ALPS CONDOMINIUM, EAST OF THE SILVER QUEEN GONDOLA, AS THE BASE OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, FROM C, CONSERVATION TO R-15/PUD RESIDENTIAL was read by the city clerk Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 1987, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Gideon Kaufman, representing Gaard Moses, told Council this was rezoned in the early 1970' s and it was probably not realized there were existing structures. The zoning makes it non- conforming because there are a number of units in the conservation zone. Kaufman said the zoning next to this is R-15. The applicant would also l ike a l of split, in order to make this conforming. P & Z and the planning office recommend approval. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, yes; Isaac, yes; Isaac, yes; Fallin, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting continued at 9:05 p.m. Cr,~,>