Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19960624Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Marolt, Waggaman, Richards and Paulson present. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Terry Paulson introduced Leon Seal, from Hawaii . Seal is working towards Hawaii as a nation as opposed to Hawaii as a state as well as working on land reform issues. Seal will do a song on this topic. Seal said this song was written in 1857 and urged people to try and remember the wisdom of their elders. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Richards announced the Central Rockies Leadership program. Persons interested in regional leadership and regional problems can pick up applications in the city manager’s office. 2. Councilwoman Richards said alternative H is being reviewed by citizens because of it’s use of the 1/2 cent sales tax. Councilwoman Richards said there is a request for funding using the same tax for the Snowmass transit center. This should be reviewed by citizens also. Mayor Bennett agreed. The citizens groups is a joint city, county, Snowmass group specifically formed to help elected officials decide how to spend the 1/2 cent sales tax and what happens in this corridor with transportation. Council agreed. 3. Councilwoman Richards said she has been at the Colorado Municipal League meeting. One item of information from that conference is that the ISTEA legislation will be up for reenactment in the 1997 session. This will be a highway versus transit battle. The city has been counting on this funding to make alternative H happen. The city should be working with its legislators to make sure they are working on this. 4. Councilwoman Richards said she has been re-elected president of CAST; August 16th has been scheduled as a transportation summit for CAST. CAST is working to establish coalitions within the state on transportation issues. This meeting will be in Crested Butte. 5. Councilwoman Richards reported that Club 20 will be having a transportation summit July 25 and 26, the same time as Aspen’s transportation summit. 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 Councilwoman Richards suggested some citizens be asked to attend the Club 20 meeting. 6. Assistant City Manager Bill Efting requested a lunch meeting with Council and Kids First, July 17th at noon. 7. Assistant City Manager Efting requested an executive session on potential property acquisition. Council scheduled this for July 1st at 5 p.m. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to add an executive session to the end of this meeting to discuss potential property acquisition; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Waggaman moved to read Ordinance #21, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #21 Series of 1996 AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING GENERAL FUND REVENUE OF $136,211; APPROPRIATING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $1,147,127; TRANSFERRING $14,800 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE TRANSPORTATION/PARKING FUND; APPROPRIATING PARKS & OPEN SPACE FUND EXPENDITURES OF $1,962,813; APPROPRIATING TRANSPORTATION/MALL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $8,396; APPROPRIATING WHEELER FUND EXPENDITURES OF $5,243; APPROPRIATING PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE OF $32,232; RECOGNIZING HOUSING/DAYCARE FUND REVENUE OF $10,000; APPROPRIATING HOUSING/DAYCARE FUND EXPENDITURES OF $8,850; TRANSFERRING $104,800 FROM THE HOUSING/DAYCARE FUND TO THE TRUSCOTT PLACE FUND; TRANSFERRING $84,400 FROM THE HOUSING/DAYCARE FUND TO THE MAROLT RANCH FUND; APPROPRIATING CEMETERY LANE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT EXPENDITURES OF $95,766; APPROPRIATING RED BRICK SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND EXPENDITURES OF $81,127; APPROPRIATING WATER FUND EXPENSES OF $608,975; RECOGNIZING ELECTRIC FUND REVENUE OF $16,607; APPROPRIATING ELECTRIC FUND EXPENSES OF 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 $169,793; APPROPRIATING TRANSPORTATION/PARKING FUND EXPENSES OF $161,969; APPROPRIATING GOLF FUND EXPENSES OF $23,909 was read by the deputy city clerk Mayor Bennett removed Resolution #34, annexation element to action items. Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. The consent calendar is: · Ordinance #21, Series of 1996 - Appropriations · Resolution #35, Series of 1996 - Contract Approval Water Technology Master Planning/Moore Pool and Ice Garden Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes; Richards, yes; Paulson, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Resolution #34, 1996 - Annexation element to July 8; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. NORTH AND SOUTH MAROON CREEK ANNEXATION Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing on Resolutions #36 and #37. There were no comments. Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Resolution #36 and 37 to July 8, 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1996 - Trueman SPA Amendment Councilwoman Waggaman moved to continue this to August 12, 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #26, SERIES OF 1996 - Hines Water Agreement Stan Clauson, community development director, reminded Council at the last meeting, compliance with the AACP for the Hines/Highlands project was discussed. Council requested more information on transportation as well as clear indication that at the time of detailed submission, Hines would be in compliance with respect to transportation. Staff will have an opportunity to review this. Clauson noted condition #8 discusses the need for a transportation plan. Clauson said his staff will prepare information on transportation and the submittals that have already taken 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 place. Clauson said the county feels Hines has struck a balance with respect to transportation and this is consistent with the AACP. Tim Malloy, community development department, gave Council a brief summary on transportation with attachments; an excerpt from the applicants submission document and the general findings of the traffic report. This was reviewed by an outside consultant hired by the county. The findings were that the traffic impacts associated with this project could be mitigated. Malloy pointed out exhibit B included is the resolution of the county which includes a series of conditions relative to air quality and transportation. Malloy noted condition #21 requires the applicant to prepare an air quality report and to make a commitment to mitigate any negative air quality impacts. Malloy pointed out condition #26 which provides for a detailed transit plan to address a number of issues including level of service, vehicle storage and maintenance, routes to be served, promotional strategies, etc. Malloy said transportation and parking, and air quality were heavily debated during the county review portion of this process. Malloy said he feels these issues have been well addressed. John Worcester, city attorney, pointed out a condition in the resolution calls for a transit impact analysis. Worcester asked if this is part of the overall transportation plan. Malloy said he expects to see this as part of the detailed submission. Malloy said the condition as stated in the city’s resolution has already been met and is part of the traffic study done at general submission. Councilwoman Richards asked if the detailed plan will include the funding source for the improved transportation service. Malloy said when the applicants and staff identified the things that should be included, they discussed management and operation plan. The cost will be included, or the costs will be generated based on what is provided. Malloy said during detailed submission, staff will work with RFTA on analyzing what has been provided. Councilwoman Richards noted the governments have just gone through a fairly extensive transportation development plan to get RFTA on a sustainable system. There may be additional sales tax generated by the base development to help offset the costs; however, an applicant cannot just hand over a transit plan and feel they have mitigated their traffic generated. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know where the funding is coming from. Glenn Horn, representing Hines, told Council they plan to fund their equitable fair share of costs that can be attributable to the project. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 Councilwoman Richards said one concern is elimination of some parking at the base of Highlands. Councilwoman Richards asked if there has been resolution on where the parking will be moved. Malloy said condition #29 addresses this and requires the applicant to work with the Ski Company to prepare a detailed transit plan and to address parking and its relocation. Councilwoman Richards said this is the mitigation for Highland base village as opposed to the ski area master plan. Councilwoman Richards asked if the ski area will have its own transportation mitigations. Malloy said the master plan for the mountain is being reviewed by the forest service and there will be a separate analysis and a separate transportation plan. Councilwoman Richards said there is money from the Moore project and money to work on the Highway 82 intersection. Councilwoman Richards said this money seems to be adding up to make the road safer to accommodate more cars. Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about the parking location; there is an operational cost in moving skiers. Councilwoman Richards said this agreement includes the statement that should the city and county not agree, the city will not withhold the provision of a water service agreement, which seems the county has the full say on the transportation element. The city will be stuck with the cars from the base development and from the ski area. Bob Daniel, representing Hines, pointed out the $1.3 million is both the Hines and the Moore projects. Daniel told Council Hines project is giving $650,000 for improvements to the Highway 82 intersection as well as corridor improvements of a bike path to Highlands from Iselin park. This will not widen the Maroon Creek road but is for safety improvements, access to the park and the ski area. Daniel told Council there were extensive studies of the Highway 82 intersection. Some of the improvements will include lanes and turning lanes, and lights activated by traffic. Daniel said $350,000 is for that intersection to jump start the EIS. This money is to deal with transportation improvements for the Maroon Creek corridor. It is not to spend this money wastefully; if there are other ways to spend this money and further community goals, the applicants would be willing to do that. Daniel told Council there is $650,000 referenced in the resolution which is $300,000 from the Moore project and $350,000 from Hines/Highlands which is to jump start the EIS improvements. The $300,000 from Moore was offered prior to the Highlands project being approved. The resolution is saying not to spend the Moore money on the short term improvements but combine it with the Highlands to 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 get $650,000 to put towards EIS improvements. Mayor Bennett asked where the other $600,000 is. Daniel said Highlands is required, through their resolution of approval with Pitkin County, to go towards physical improvements at the Highway 82 intersection. Daniel reiterated there are two separate pots of money. This condition specifically states, as modified, “The Hines/Highlands partners along with the Moore interests shall participate in funding an amount equal to $650,000 in the planning and implementation of transportation solutions related to the Maroon/Castle Creek component of the Entrance to Aspen EIS”. Mayor Bennett quoted, “Upon final approval of the applicant’s plan, the applicant will contribute $650,000 (totally separate money) to be used to pay for the physical improvements identified in this section”. Daniel said these are the specific improvements that were a part of the Pitkin County review process like bike paths, RFTA bus stops. Councilwoman Richards asked if the $300,000 from Moore is their entire commitment to a transportation solution. Horn said the $300,000 from Moore is for physical improvements. On top of that they have a travel demand management program that addresses contribution to RFTA, dial-a-ride system, and other mass transit solutions. Mayor Bennett said for the resolution to be meaningful, the city has to play a role in the ultimate resolution of the issue. Mayor Bennett asked what happens to the money if the city and county are not in agreement. Worcester said at that point, the city and county will get together with Hines/Highlands and try to resolve this. Worcester said the concern is that Highlands does not want to get held up while the city is trying to decide about the entrance to Aspen. Daniel suggested eliminating reference to the Moore’s $300,000 so that the two numbers are not both $650,000. Daniel said concern was expressed by residents, by Pitkin County Commissioners and P & Z that if all the money were spent now and there would be no money to do the improvements suggested by the EIS. Worcester asked if there is a problem putting this into an escrow account. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, said they are willing to commit the $350,000 but he wants to avoid the issue of who gets ultimate control. Mayor Bennett said the city would like to have joint control. Kaufman said the county is the decision maker in the Highlands jurisdiction. Worcester pointed out this intersection is in the city of Aspen. Daniel said it is a multi-jurisdictional issue. 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 Mayor Bennett suggested stating the money shall only be disbursed jointly by agreement by the city and the county. Mayor Bennett said the city will rely on the county’s good faith. Worcester asked about splitting the escrow in half $175,000 each to the city and county in the event it cannot be agreed upon. Amy Margerum, city manager, said she cannot believe the county would deny a project this size because they had to share the decision making of an intersection with the city. Kaufman pointed out when this project goes to the next vote before the County, there will be 3 commissioners who were not part of the review and prior approvals. Councilwoman Richards said the city has not had direct communication with the county on this issue. The city should request the Commissioners sign off on joint decision making on the intersection and escrow monies. Clauson reminded the city that they worked successfully with the county on this intersection and were at the point of issuing a request for proposal when it was decided to wait for the EIS process. Daniel suggested they be treated in the same fashion as the Moore project. Daniel said the applicants tried to do a good dead and seem to be punished for it. Mayor Bennett said the city wants to maintain some control over an intersection that is inside the city limits, critical to the transportation future and very important to the citizens of Aspen. Mayor Bennett said Council is trying to protect their future decision making capability. Councilman Marolt said the county and the city have to decide how to build an intersection, which should be a joint agreement. After this decision, the applicants pay their share. Mayor Bennett pointed out the city is not seeking any control over the other $650,000 but only money to be spent on a key city intersection. Malloy said this money is not necessarily earmarked to a physical construction project but could be spent on development and planning. As long as this money is available to make improvements to mitigate the impacts (the $650,000), the Commissioners will be less concerned about the $350,000. Councilwoman Richards said there should be joint city/county agreement of what the transportation service plan is. Councilwoman Richards said she would also like to see something drafted that references the second $650,000, even though the city is not asking for control over that. Councilwoman Richards said she would also like to see that this $350,000 for the roadway and/or transportation improvements shall be used after joint city/county approval of the use of those monies. Clauson said deleting reference to the Moore’s contribution of $300,000 is all right. Also is there is consensus through the EIS process on a future plan to be 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 implemented, the money would go to that. Clauson said condition #8 can be amended to state, “The city shall review and approve this plan to insure consistency with the AACP” and delete the final sentence. Staff will then come to an arrangement with the county on how the money is to be spent. Daniel told Council the applicant needs to declare before detailed submission what type of water system a project will have. Daniel said the applicant plans to go to detailed submission in the next month and has to decide whether they will have a private water system or water supplied by Aspen. Ms. Margerum told Council the city needs to have control and to insure that future projects are consistent with the AACP. If this project is not consistent with the AACP, the condition should be added or Council should request a transit plan that they can review ahead of time. The city compromised with the county and said they would stay out of general submission and allow the county to approve the project. The city will give a water service agreement based on the county-approved project. However, some of the issues are not clear in the general submission and it is not clear exactly the conditions of approval, like who is going to pay for the transit plan, how much, etc. Mayor Bennett suggested both pots of money are referenced; that the city not seek any control over the $650,000 but that it be referenced. Another sentence can be added that Hines/Highlands commits to another $350,000 to be used by the community to initiated long term improvements to the entrance to Aspen, and that this money shall only be spent under the joint agreement of the city and county. Mayor Bennett said he will take this to the Commissioners and get their agreement. This backs up the county’s request for $650,000 and seeks joint control for money to be spent on a city intersection. Margerum suggested Council table this until a continued meeting July 1st. Malloy told Council the county conditions of approval are adequate for a project at general submission. The city requires the water agreement between general and detailed submission when some issues are not yet finally resolved. Ms. Margerum said the city has to find consistency with the AACP in order to extend water, and Council cannot do that in a vacuum. Council has just received this transportation plan. Phil Overeynder, water department, told Council this is an application by the Highlands Water & Sanitation district for water service. If the water service agreement is approved, it will benefit the Highlands partners. The water service agreement is necessary to provide information to Pitkin County as part of their process for detailed submission. Overeynder reminded Council there is a March 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 1995 agreement with Hines Interests which provides for both raw water and potable water delivery to the Hines project. The agreement states that until the city and Hines cannot reach agreement, that is the preferred option. In September 1995, Council reviewed water extension to the Moore parcel, adjacent to Hines property. The application reflects consolidation of two pump stations and two storage tanks to one each. Overeynder told Council the city’s water policy is designed to make sure when new customers are hooked up, service is not being taking away from existing customers. There are concerns with the plans submitted in this area and they are listed in the resolution to propose revisions to cover these concerns. One is provision of adequate connections from the existing District lines to ensure their customers are maintaining service throughout construction. Overeynder told Council he has been discussing this concern with the Highlands water district and with Hines. He would like a final set of plans to show how this will be connected to the system and that all customers will be served. There was an omission in the plans for the way the upper level tank site is tied into the middle zone and adequate connection is not shown. The third condition is which tank site, between Hines and Moore, will be the actual tank site and the actual pump station to be constructed. Overeynder recommended staff see the final location before final approval. Overeynder said another area of concern about conformance with the water policy is that of water availability. Overeynder said if this project is served by an independent water supply, what would be the impacts. Overeynder said the city’s hydrologist worked on this and feels the in-stream flow values would be better protected with the city providing water for raw water and potable service. The city’s water department is recommending that each project pay if proportionate share of water supply as there will be deficit if every possible project is built. Overeynder said fixing of leaks is a conservation measure, and this cost is being spread among the existing customers. Overeynder said when staff looked at water rates and tap fees for this utility billing area, #5, they found that the city is not sufficiently recovering 100 percent of the costs. Overeynder concluded rates for service area #5 will have to be revised regardless of the decision regarding this agreement. Overeynder said the option provided in this resolution is that the district could dissolve and the city would provide water directly. Overeynder said it is up to the Highlands Water District on 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 what they want to accept. The city can either continue wholesale water or expand the water service. In any case, the city needs to change the rate structure in order to full recover the costs. Overeynder brought up utilization of raw water. The option in the 1995 agreement was to provide both raw water and potable water. Overeynder recommended the city require acceptance of raw water service. Overeynder said it is economical to provide raw water to this area and is about 1/6 of the cost of potable water. Overeynder said hydrologically it helps the city in trying to protect in-stream flow value. Overeynder reminded Council raw water demands peak out in the winter due to snow making operations. Overeynder said raw water is better than direct delivery. Overeynder recommended adoption of this resolution with Council’s modifications. Councilman Marolt said he does not like the development of wells. Overeynder said when staff did the 1995 water update, they looked at all potential development and options that could be put in place to reduce the impacts of potential water shortages. Overeynder said the first thing the city should look at is conserving water to cut down demands. This is the most cost effective measure. Overeynder said other option is to expand water supplies are storage areas on Maroon Creek. Overeynder said wells are cheaper and of less impact than storage tanks. There is a question about impacts to stream levels and to other water rights on use of wells. Pursing conservation is the primary strategy until it is obvious that the city needs other water supplies. Clauson brought proposed changes to Council. In condition #6, reference to the Moore $300,000 has been deleted. Condition #7 identifies that contribution is $650,000 which is to be used in conjunction with transportation plan which plan is to be consistent with representations. Prior to execution of a water service agreement, the city will review the plan and provide comments to the county relative to the consistency of the plan. Mayor Bennett said the issue of joint control over spending of the money has not been addressed. Clauson said on the $350,000 for intersection improvements, the city clearly has joint control. With respect to the $650,000 the city will comment on the appropriateness of the expenditures relative to the AACP. The RFTA transit plan calls for a transit analysis of riders. This is part of the Felsberg report. That analysis has been provided. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to continue to make comments on the transit plan. 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting June 24, 1996 Worcester pointed out condition #7 was to identify the $650,000 separate from the $350,000, which it does. Condition #7 does not address who controls the decision on approving the transit plan for RFTA. Mayor Bennett said he would like to continue this to next week in order to be able to discuss the language with the county. Councilwoman Richards said she would like the two different “transportation plans” differentiated; one is RFTA. Clauson said the county is expecting a transportation plan before detailed submittal. This plan is to include suggestions on bus service, physical improvements on Maroon Creek, etc. Horn told Council at detailed submission, the applicant will be judged on whether they have satisfied the travel demand management by establishing an agreement for cost sharing, what obligations falls on the developer and demonstrating there will not be a public burden created by this project. Councilwoman Richards moved to continue Resolution #26, Series of 1996, Hines Water Service Agreement to Monday, July 1 at 5 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Richards moved to go into executive session for the purpose of real property acquisition; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Council went into executive session at 8:15 p.m. Councilwoman Richards moved to come out of executive session at 10 p.m. and to continue the meeting to Monday, July 1, 1996, at 5 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 11