HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19950522Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Council
members Reno, Waggaman, Richards and Paulson present.
PROCLAMATION - Public Works Week
Mayor Bennett and Council proclaimed the week of May 21 through
27 as Aspen Public Works week and invited all citizens to acquaint
themselves with the public works programs and to recognize the
contributions made by public works employees to the health, safety and
welfare of all citizens.
Mayor Bennett and Council commended the city shop remodel project
as the public works project of the year.
OUTSTANDING EMPLOYEE BONUS AWARD
Mayor Bennett and Council honored Suzanne Wolff, community
development department, with a plaque and check for outstanding
employee bonus award.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Mayor Bennett announced the first ever meeting on regional
growth policy occurred last Saturday in Carbondale. It was well-
attended and interesting.
2. Councilman Paulson said there were 140 participants in the
bicycle ride sponsored by the Independence Pass Foundation, which
was a very good turn out for the first year. This Foundation is raising
money to restore the top cut, which is eroding. Councilman Paulson
said there is a rumor the Highway Department wants to widen
Independence Pass in the narrows area. Councilman Paulson asked
staff to write a letter to the Highway Department to see if this is
happening. Council agreed.
1
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
3. Councilman Reno moved to add to the consent calendar a
computer software contract for the public safety department; seconded
by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
4. Ms. Margerum told Council the city has been unable to get the
contractors lined up to complete the work on the Puppy Smith street.
The work will be completed in the fall rather than having the street torn
up during the summer season.
5. Ms. Margerum reminded Council they requested a budget from
the Clean Air Board for the no smoking day. Jim Wolf, Clean Air
Board, told Council they requested $540 for advertising to promote a
smoke free day in Aspen. The Valley Partnership for the prevention of
drug abuse is matching the Commissioner’s grant and will offer $500
in-kind work. This no smoking day in Aspen is June 23. Wolf
requested $1000 for table tents and other promotional materials.
Council said they would still like to see how the $1000 will spent.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to allocate $500 from the Council’s
contingency to the Clean Air Advisory Board to use for the no
smoking/clean air day conditioned on staff in the environmental health
department’s approval of the expenses for this $500; seconded by
Councilman Paulson.
Councilman Reno said he wants to see a budget in writing. This is
what Council requested at their last meeting. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilman Reno. Motion carried.
6. City Manager Margerum asked Council when they would like to
meet on the stricter no smoking ordinance. Ms. Margerum suggested
this could be discussed at Council’s retreat June 3. Council agreed.
7. Councilwoman Richards moved to add an executive session to
the end of this meeting to discuss litigation; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Councilman Reno moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 1995;
seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #28
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING GENERAL FUND REVENUES
OF $221,410; APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES OF $1.707,740; TRANSFERRING $1,500 FROM
THE GENERAL FUND TO THE WHEELER FUND;
TRANSFERRING #39,890 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
RED BRICK SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND; REDUCING A
TRANSFER OF $410,430 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
COZY POINT DEBT SERVICE FUND; APPROPRIATING PARKS
AND OPEN SPACE FUND EXPENDITURES OF $758,090;
APPROPRIATING TRANSPORTATION/MALL FUND
EXPENDITURES OF $36,600; APPROPRIATING PARKING
IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES OF $8,291;
APPROPRIATING HOUSING/DAYCARE FUND EXPENDITURES
OF $10,000; APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENSES OF
$413,324; RECOGNIZING ELECTRIC FUND REVENUE OF
$8,000; APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND EXPANSES OF
$182,921; TRANSFERRING $32,000 FROM THE ELECTRIC
FUND TO THE WATER FUND; APPROPRIATING
TRANSPORTATION/PARKING FUND EXPENSES OF $270,525;
APPROPRIATING GOLF FUND EXPENSES OF $1,359;
APPROPRIATING RED BRICK SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
FUND EXPENSES OF $39,890 was read by the city clerk
Councilwoman Richards moved to approve the consent calendar as
amended; seconded by Councilman Paulson. The consent calendar is:
·
Ordinance #28, 1995 - Appropriations
·
Resolution #31, 1995 - Deputy Municipal Judge/James Boyd
·
Resolution #32, 1995 - Mall Leases
·
Proposed Revision to Pay Parking Signs
·
Resolution #33, 1995 - Computer Software Contract/Public Safety
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Waggaman, yes; Richards,
yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
3
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
ORDINANCE #21, 1995 - Code Amendments Historic Preservation
Amy Amidon, planning department, reminded Council this ordinance
contains clarifications to the code, approval of some applications to
staff rather than HPC, and an overall clarification of HPC intent and
goals in their review process.
One suggestion at first reading was to include clarifying examples.. In
the discussion of mechanical equipment not being visually intrusive,
this is covered in the design guidelines which are given to applicants as
a supplement. The code states that for minor development a site plan
or survey showing property boundaries and predominant site
characteristics is required. Ms. Amidon said there was concern about
something like an awning that should not require a site plan.
Language was added making this a community development director
determination.
In the section of review standards regarding partial demolition of a
historic resource, on the inventory not everything is designated historic
landmarks; those just on the inventory are only reviewed for relocation
or demolition. The review standards have been problematic because
they require HPC to judge whether impacts on the historic significance
of a structure have been mitigated. This is difficult without knowing
what new development may be proposed. The ordinance clarifies how
to mitigate the impacts and adds the language HPC would have to
review new development in terms of mass and scale.
Ms. Amidon said Council was concerned about review standards for
historic designation. Ms. Amidon proposed that 2 of 6 standards,
instead of 1, must be met in order for something to be historically
designated. Ms. Amidon added a statement of intent of adding
resources less than 50 years old to the historic inventory, discussing
unique and significant examples.
Mayor Bennett asked about Erection of Awning, Canopy E(2)(a) if the
possibility that an awning could be so insignificant it would be
exempted from HPC review by the community development director.
Mayor Bennett suggested if the request is very insignificant, it could be
4
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
a streamline review. Councilman Reno agreed. Councilwoman
Richards said she feels the full plan should be submitted to the
community development director. Council agreed and requested this
language be brought back for review.
Mayor Bennett brought up a report from a licensed architect or
engineer regarding the soundness of a structure and suitability for
rehabilitation. Mayor Bennett said in the case of partial demolition, it
seems to require someone replacing a relatively new garage or
structure to get a report. Ms. Amidon said she could amend this to
state for a non-contributing structure, this is not needed. Council
agreed.
Councilwoman Waggaman said she feels meeting two criteria to get
historically designated makes more sense. Councilwoman Waggaman
asked if staff has analyzed how many structures might not be
designation with this change to two criteria. Ms. Amidon said about
half the inventory are historic landmarks; people are encouraged to
landmark in order to be eligible for benefits. Councilwoman
Waggaman said she would like an idea of how many structures might
be lost if this is increased to two criteria. Mayor Bennett suggested 7-
702 begin, “It is the intent of the City of Aspen to preserve properties
that are unique or have some special value to the community. Any
structure or site that meets two or more of the following standards . . ”
Mayor Bennett said he feels (b) and (c) are the same standards, both
are called architectural importance. One is architectural style and one
is architectural type. Ms. Amidon said standard c refers to a building
type, like industrial or barn as opposed to the style of the building. Ms.
Amidon said these could be combined. Councilwoman Richards
supports combining these with some explanation of style and purpose.
Mayor Bennett asked if $2,000 is a high enough grant for historic
preservation. Ms. Amidon said she would like to discuss with Council
reducing the number of grants and eliminating HPC fees. This would
be an appropriate topic during budget time. Amy Margerum, city
manager, suggested taking the dollar amount out of the land use code
and setting this amount in the annual budget.
5
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Councilman Reno said there should be a definition of “archaeological”.
Council agreed. Councilman Reno asked if this rewrite simplifies the
code. Mayor Bennett said simplification is one of his top priorities.
Ms. Margerum noted some of the changes in this ordinance give more
to discretion to staff, which is a simplification.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Reno moved to table Ordinance #21, Series of 1995, to
June 12, to amend the sections as outlined above; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 1995 - Land Use Code Amendments
Kim Johnson, planning office, said these amendments are scattered
throughout the land use code. At first reading Council went through
this fairly thoroughly. In protection of significant natural features
through subdivision review additional language was included to further
define “important and unique” natural or scenic features and also added
examples of what this might be, i.e. mature trees, indigenous vegetation
like the sage meadows as Aspen meadows, bluffs, hillsides or similar
geologic features.
Ms. Johnson pointed out the “technical or engineering considerations”,
language that is in PUD or SPA amendments. The present code state
applicants have to define technical or engineering requirements that
need amendment to the PUD or SPA. Council brought up the idea of
looking at the percentage of changes already included in the code,
which is currently 3 percent. Ms. Johnson said staff is concerned
about changing the percentages without getting input from P & Z and
the level or reviews PUD or SPA goes through. Staff recommends
including this amendment separately. Councilwoman Richards said
there are usually neighbors impacted in a PUD and to have several 5
percentage changes approved by the staff might trigger some
neighborhood concerns.
Ms. Johnson pointed out she added a paragraph which specifies what
the ultimate build out on a lot split parcel can be. Councilwoman
6
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Waggaman asked if this should be tied into the HPC regulations for
historic buildings on lots splits. Ms. Johnson said that should be part
of staff review.
Ms. Johnson brought up sight protection at corners including
amendments to definition of fence. Council requested foliage should
be treated as a separate item which can create sight distance problems.
Ms. Johnson said she also addressed Council’s concern about where
sight distance is measured from. This should be to determine where
the paved or non-paved roadway is and take the measurements from
there.
The housing replacement tenancy priorities was removed from the
ordinance. The housing board will discuss this and will incorporate it
into their guidelines. Ms. Johnson pointed out she added an equation
for calculation of the housing impact fee. Councilman Paulson said he
feels the cash-in-lieu may be too low.
Ms. Johnson reminded Council the stream margin review was a place
that raised discussion about public information program. Staff is
working on the permit and community development process. Staff will
develop a GIS map with property owners indicated.
In satellite dish antennas, HPC review would be redundant just for
satellite dishes. Any structure landmarked or in the historic overlay
would have review for anything added onto the building. Section 5-
512 has been amended to state “receive building permits, if required ”
in case the UBC does not require permits for small dishes. Ms.
Johnson said satellite dishes are no longer conditional uses. Mayor
Bennett said 3 zone districts in the city will not allow satellite dishes
the way this is written, R-15B, wildlife and open space. Ms. Johnson
said she will restructure this so that R15B is the same as other districts.
Councilman Paulson asked if the city is breaking their own rules when
they put trails along the river. Ms. Johnson said these would be
required to go through stream margin review.
Councilwoman Richards asked if this ordinance should make it explicit
that native vegetation outside the building envelope shall remain
7
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
undisturbed throughout construction rather than just replanting outside
the envelope. Ms. Johnson said the ordinance states that any areas of
development need to be shown on the plats. Staff said this could be
reworked to prevent someone from devastating a site while building.
Ms. Johnson said the intent is to have a developer identify the envelope
and include any outdoor activities like a spa, porch, deck, etc.
Councilwoman Richards said she is getting at what can a neighbor rely
on will occur outside the building envelope itself.
Councilwoman Waggaman asked about making the section on
development outside the 15 foot setback from the top of slope more
clear. Ms. Johnson presented a schematic drawing showing the area
from the water line to 15 feet back from top of slope that is the most
critical, where the bank is most unstable. Once the top of slope point
is determined, the 15 feet is where vegetation and slope is not to be
altered. Mayor Bennett asked that “in other words” explanation be
added.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing .
Gideon Kaufman asked if this language applies to new building
envelopes or is it retroactively applied to building envelopes approved
in the past. City Attorney Worcester said it will depends on how the
language is adopted and what specific approvals Kaufman is talking
about, whether they have vested rights.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Reno moved to table Ordinance #22, Series of 1995;
seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1995 - Pitkin County Jail Expansion
& SPA Amendment
Mary Lackner, planning office, reminded Council at first reading there
were concerns about the location of the building in relationship to the
plaza and public use of the green space. Council asked the applicant to
consider design options, a second floor, to the north, etc.
8
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Temple Glassier, representing Pitkin County, told Council one reason
for the location of the addition is budget constraints. The building was
not structurally designed to have a second floor except above the
northeast corner. Also the ADA requirements would include an
elevator, which is expensive. Another suggestion was the north corner,
which strategically does not work for the communications center.
Ms. Glassier said Council was concerned about the loss of 1500 square
feet of open space as well as parking on the north side of the existing
facility. Ms. Glassier suggested through the land trades, the parking on
the back could be made into a green space. The parking requirements
for this building would then have to be waived as there is no other
space on the property for parking.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing.
Bob Braudis, sheriff, told Council the turn over in the communications
center is driven by working conditions. Braudis said the
communications center dispatches for all the local emergency services.
It is a high stress, low paying job. Braudis showed a schematic
illustrating how small this addition is. Braudis said there are few
alternatives for the location of this communications center.
Tom Stephenson, police chief, said the major concern here is the work
environment for the dispatchers. Mayor Bennett asked what will
happen to the current communications center space. Stephenson said
this will become the jail administrator’s space and internal master
control.
Councilwoman Richards asked if the entrance could be moved off the
circle so it looks like it fits within the circle. Representative said the
records area needs a separate entrance from the communication center.
Councilman Reno said he is concerned that the addition does not seem
to relate to the quadrangle park area. Councilman Reno said if this
building is not going to relate to the quadrangle, maybe the quadrangle
should change, which is one option. Councilwoman Waggaman said
this request does not mitigate employee housing nor does it replace
open space. The applicants have said this is what they can do because
of the budget. Council does not take that answer from other
9
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
developers. Council has to be concerned about aesthetics.
Councilwoman Waggaman said she cannot believe this is the only
location for this addition.
Braudis agreed government should do its best to protect the
environment; however, this project is limited by alot of factors.
Braudis pointed out this is a city/county records and communications
yet this project is being paid for entirely by the county. City Manager
Margerum suggested this go back to an earlier recommendation of
Council which is to redesign the quadrangle. Councilwoman Richards
agreed she would like to know how this addition relates to the existing
space.
Brent Finster, communications director, said they tried to design the
building without disrupting the sidewalks or the circle. Councilwoman
Waggaman said she would like the county to re-examine the whole
area. Mayor Bennett asked if the whole reason not to go to the second
floor is expense. Braudis said typically in public safety, if staff is
separated vertically, staff has to be added. Braudis said the jail was
built with vertical expandability only over the residential section, where
the inmates live. Mayor Bennett asked if there were any functional
reason not to have a second floor. Braudis said this could function on
two floors. Councilman Paulson asked if the building could be put
where the official parking is now at the southeast corner of the site.
Representative pointed out this would take out the exercise area and
would eliminate the sallyport entrance. Councilwoman Richards said
she cannot support any more parking on the north of this property. She
would like to see the facade of the addition pay more attention to the
quadrangle area.
Stan Clauson, community development director, agreed there are site
design issues that can be examined. Staff can work with the county
and with their architect to resolve these issues and come up with
successful alternatives.
Councilman Reno moved to table Ordinance #23, Series of 1995,
directing the applicant to look at relating the proposed design to the
existing quadrangle or to look at the proposed design with new
10
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
hardscape locations and to look at relocating the proposed addition to
the southeast corner; seconded by Councilman Paulson.
Braudis said the Southeast corner of the building is the maximum
security section of the jail and there are windows there that are the only
natural light for the inmates. Also the exercise corridor is a
requirement for the jail.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Richards. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1995 - Code amendments: Revisions
to FAR and Design Standards.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #30, Series of
1995; seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #30
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, ADOPTING RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS, REVISIONS TO FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN
MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the deputy city clerk
Mayor Bennett announced there will be a full work session on this
ordinance tomorrow, Tuesday at 5 p.m. Stan Clauson, community
development director, told Council this ordinance has been forwarded
by resolution from P & Z. Amy Amidon, planning office, reminded
Council this started with the adoption of Ordinance #35, 1994,
followed by the design symposium. In November, P & Z began
meeting weekly to work on a revision to the neighborhood character
guidelines, attempting to remove some of the subjectivity and other
objections. In January, staff presented the work and revised character
guidelines to Council. In February this information was presented to
the public, persons who had indicated they wanted to help with this
process.
11
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
In March, neighborhoods were photographed to start with a draft of
these guidelines. Neighborhood meetings were held; these were
advertised in the media. In April, the first draft of this work was
presented to the public Four architectural teams did case studies to test
the guidelines. Stan Clauson, community development director, told
Council some original consensus statements are to redefine present
requirements for floor area ratio. This ordinance contains a revised
garage FAR calculation, a revised volumetric FAR calculation, and
revised calculation for lot area and a concept for linked pavilions which
will encourage separate building elements.
The second recommendation was to maintain and define a loose
building envelope. Clauson noted the dimensional requirements have
not changed within the ordinance; setbacks are not being increased.
This will encourage porches and loggias and not calculate them in the
site coverage. This is a liberalization of the FAR calculations.
Clauson said a porch is a key element in breaking up buildings as well
as relating to the street scape. The ordinance calls for 2 parking spaces
per dwelling unit rather than 1 parking space per bedroom, which is
consistent with traffic demand management and development of public
transit.
Clauson said the symposium suggested incentives to support desired
outcomes in urban design. Some of these are that links between
buildings will not count in FAR, there would be a calculation of a
primary mass and restriction it can constitute only so much of the total
building mass, provisions to encourage garages to the side or rear or
offset from the front, bonus for garage has been changed. There is an
administrative checklist rather than mandatory design review. The
checklist is based on objective elements and can be reviewed. One can
be exempt from the checklist if there are site specific reasons one
cannot comply.
Clauson told Council staff’s work developed building front guide-lines
as part of these design standards. Staff will be working on an
education program. Clauson said staff will develop informational
pamphlets on all aspects of planning and zoning in the city. Clauson
said staff is also working on a neighborhood landscape plan for each
area.
12
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of
1995, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call
vote Reno, no; Waggaman, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor
Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1995 - L’Auberge Housing Mitigation
& Vested Rights
Councilman Reno stated he has a conflict of interest on this item and
the next.
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #29, Series of 1995;
seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #29
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE HOUSING
MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 LODGE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENT FOR THE L’AUBERGE LODGE,
435 W. MAIN STREET, LOTS A-I, BLOCK 38, TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN was read by the deputy city clerk
Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council this GMP
application for the 1994 lodge competition was the only application
received in this category. It is the first time there was a joint scoring
with city and county P & Zs, who forwarded this with a split vote of 4
to 4. This was based on an cash mitigation for housing. One issue
before Council is to accept cash-in-lieu or to accept a deed restricted
unit on-site. Staff recommends denial of all cash and approval of this
ordinance.
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council they are
willing to go with cash or with the on-site unit. In the past, both the
suitability of Main street for affordable housing and having long term
13
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
mixed in with short term have been raised. The applicant offered to
pay 100 percent cash-in-lieu rather than 60 percent as required.
Kaufman requested if this is limited to category 2, if there are
employees of the lodge, they would be charged for category 2 but
could qualify for category 3 in income guidelines. Kaufman pointed
out they would designate unit 7, which is off Main street and one of the
larger units, as the employee unit.
Councilman Richards asked if each cabin will have a parking space.
Kaufman said yes. Kaufman said this zone district allows 1:1 FAR;
this proposal is less than .4:1. Kaufman said this lodge is unique with
small little cabins, adjacent parking spaces. Dave Tolen, housing
director, told Council they support on-site housing proposal for this.
Council indicated they prefer the deed restricted unit on site and are
comfortable with category 2 rent and category 3 income for lodge
employees. Councilwoman Waggaman said Council can help small
lodge owners by offering them flexibility in however they want to
mitigate their employee housing. Kaufman said the manager’s unit is
on a separate lot and will remain a free market unit. Kaufman pointed
out as part of the GMP commitment, they are putting in two sidewalks.
John Worcester, city attorney, noted the ordinances states the cabin has
to be brought up to housing standards. Kaufman said the HPC requires
the cabin be left as they are. Kaufman said there will be no changes to
the unit. Worcester said this should be clarified before second reading.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #29, Series of
1995, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call
vote; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson,
yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #31, 1995 - Code Amendment Office Zone Conditional
Use - Lodges
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #31, Series of
1995; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion
carried.
14
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
ORDINANCE #31
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
LAND USE REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 24-5-213
TO ALLOW A LODGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE
OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT was read by the deputy city clerk
Stan Clauson, community development director, told this code
amendment will solve the technical problems of allowing a lodge in the
office zone district. Clauson said the LP zone has restrictions on the
internal floor area ratio and a certain portion of the floor area ratio must
be devoted to amenities. In the L’Auberge proposal each unit is 100
percent lodge rental. Clauson pointed out the Aspen Area Community
Plan recommends there be incentives provided to preserve and enhance
small lodges. L’Auberge is a unique situation and is one of the small
lodges seeking to expand.
The ordinance contains a space per bedroom parking requirement to be
consistent with other zoning requirements. Clauson said there were
issues with the siting of the front two cabins into the front yard setback.
There were also comments at P & Z regarding the auto dominance of
this proposal. The applicant has taken measures with landscaping and
de-emphasizing the cars. One curb cut will be eliminated. Sidewalks
will be added. Staff feels this code amendment is appropriate.
Mayor Bennett asked why internal FAR of a lodge is addressed in the
LP zone. Kaufman said the thought was in exchange for extra rooms,
the city wanted the lodge amenities enhanced, like meeting rooms,
health area. Mayor Bennett said this thinking may be not be applicable
anymore. Mayor Bennett brought up the kitchen issues. Kaufman said
the original units have small cooking facilities, which they think is a
positive feature and should be allowed in the expansion. This could be
addressed at conditional use hearing. Councilwoman Richards said the
fear was that the units may turn into long term rental with kitchens.
Kaufman said the distinction is “cook top” versus microwave.
Kaufman pointed out this is a lodge GMQS application and they would
15
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
have to apply for a change in use to be anything other than lodge
rooms.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of
1995, on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes; Waggaman,
yes; Paulson, yes. Motion carried.
COMPUTER NETWORK BUDGET
Steve Barwick, assistant city manager, told Council in 1992, staff was
looking into more computer equipment to make jobs easier. The city
hired Warner group to do a study of computer needs of the city. This
study was finished in November 1993. Staff hired an in-house network
coordinator to follow the outlines of the study recom-mendations.
Barwick said there are extensive cabling needs for new data processing
equipment and the networks. The network coordinator visited public
and private businesses to check out cabling systems and then tried to
design a future-proof cable system. This system should take the city
into 10 years.
Barwick said staff also designed a “network protocol”, a more open
network. Barwick said budget changes were made; community
development permitting, law enforcement and finance systems are in
various stages of development. The network cabinets are under
construction in city hall. Barwick told Council the initial estimate was
$1.25 million between the city and county. The current data
processing request is $714,000 which is only $24,000 more than in the
asset management plan budget. Barwick said this request is to
accelerate most of the DP plan funding to 1995 and 1996 rather than
over 5 years. This requires moving $274,000 into 1995 and $50,000
into 1996.
Barwick presented an updated asset management fund balance.
Barwick told Council the Blue Ribbon Committee endorsed the idea of
accelerating the funding. They were concerned with the price of PCs,
the price and number of printers, both of which are being re-examined.
The difference in funding is coming from the $1.1 million from the
1987 refunding. If Council prefers, staff will looks at other ways to
16
Aspen City Council Regular Meeting May 22, 1995
internally fund this. City Manager Amy Margerum pointed out funding
this in 1995 and 1996 frees up the money for projects in out years.
Councilwoman Richards said she did not realize the refunding money
would be put into the asset management plan fund. This money
originally came from sixth penny. Barwick pointed out the one legal
restriction on the refunding moneys is that it has to be spent for capital
assets.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to approve the computer network
budget; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion
carried.
ASPEN ALPS TRASH COMPACTOR
Pam Cunningham, Aspen Alps, told Council the Alps has followed the
correct procedures in an attempt to install something that will be a
benefit to the neighborhood. Ms. Cunningham requested Council to
look at the structure. Ms. Cunningham said the Alps feels this will
reduce traffic in the neighborhood. Ms. Cunningham told Council this
project has the support of the free market units and some employee
units at the Billings Place. Ms. Cunningham said when the Alps
acquired the Mitchell Bournefield property, one question asked at the
time was if a trash/dumpster on this site would be acceptable. Ms.
Cunningham said the Alps went through the process correctly and
spent a lot of money. Ms. Cunningham said the Alps representatives
met with the neighbors and tried to mitigate some of the problems.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to go into executive session for the
purpose of pending litigation; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Motion carried. Council went into executive session at 8:50 p.m.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
17