Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19961125Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Mayor Pro Tem Richards called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Waggaman, Marolt and Paulson present. PROCLAMATION - The Loving Tree The Aspen City Council proclaimed December 3, 1996, Community Hospice of the Roaring Fork Valley Loving Tree day and invited everyone to join the lighting ceremony in front of the Little Nell for the 8th annual ceremony. Council presented the proclamation to Lu Cunningham of the community hospice program. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Scott Smith, Gibson and Reno, presented Council with an award from the Rocky Mountain Masonry group in Denver for the city shop. The Rocky Mountain Masonry said they appreciated the way the building was handled on site as a compound and they like the economic and creative use of the building materials. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to move Resolution #68, Silver Lining annexation, and Resolution #69, Hallam Lake annexation, to the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilman Paulson moved to read Ordinance #43, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #43 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2.12.010, 2.12.020, 2.12.030, 2.12.040,M 2.12.050(b), 2.12.050(d), 2.12.050(g), 8.12.370, 8.20.020(k), 8.36.020(d), 8.44.020(c), 24.08.020, 26.04.060, 26.04.070, 26.04.080 AND 25.08.090(d) TO INCREASE LAND USE APPLICATION FEES, HISTORIC PRESERVATION APPLICATION FEES, BUILDING PERMIT FEES, PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES, UTILITY HOOKUP FEES, ZONING PROCESSING AND ENFORCEMENT FEES, ASPEN MUNICIPAL GOLF 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 COURSE USER FEES, ASPEN ICE GARDEN USER FEES, JAMES E. MOORE POOL USER FEES, MISCELLANEOUS LEISURE AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT USER FEES, ANNUAL ALARM AND FALSE ALARM FEES, MISCELLANEOUS DOG LICENSING FEES AND TOWING FEES was read by the city clerk Councilman Marolt said he would like to take Resolution #67, 1996, Contract to Purchase Burlingame Ranch off the consent calendar. Council agreed to place it on the agenda right after the consent calendar. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt the consent calendar as amended; seconded by Councilman Paulson. The consent calendar is: Approval of 1997 Housing Budget Ordinance #43, 1996 - 1997 Fees Resolution #65, 1996 - Duroux Ditch Operating Agreement Resolution #66, 1996 - Adopting Water Conservation Element Resolution #68, 1996 - Stillwater Ranch (Silver Lining) Annexation Resolution #69, 1996 - Hallam Lake Annexation Request for Funds - Kids First Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to add an executive session to the end of the Council meeting to discuss potential litigation; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #67, 1996 - Contract to Purchase Burlingame Ranch Councilman Marolt said he opposes purchasing this property without the water rights as it would render the property useless. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the city is getting a right of first refusal on the water rights as part of this contract. Alan Schwartz, representing the Paepcke estate, said the estate would love to sell the 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 water rights to the city. The city is continuing to do due diligence and if the city concludes they would like to purchase the water rights, the estate will sell them. This right of first refusal is at the suggestion of the city attorney. Phil Overeynder, water department, said the city wants additional time to assess the value of the water rights, their historical use and how they will fit into the city’s portfolio of water rights. Overeynder said this can be accomplished by the end of 1996. Overeynder said the question is the value of the rights and Council was interested in taking early action on this property. Councilman Paulson moved to adopt Resolution #67, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Marolt. motion carried. INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE #1 HOUSING REPLACEMENT Stan Clauson, community development department, submitted Council minutes pertaining to the original passage of this ordinance. These minutes are from 1989 and 1990. Clauson said there have been issues raised regarding the intent of the text amendment on housing replacement. Clauson said he would like a Council decision on how this text should be interpreted. Clauson said in the original discussions, a lot of attention was paid to multi-family versus single family and duplex replacement and whether requirements should apply to both. There was discussion about the definition of demolition and whether it should include remodeling. There is little discussion of the word “construct” and there is nothing to support either side of this particular issue. Clauson quoted from the minutes of February 21, 1990, “Tom Baker, planning office, said there has only been one change regarding multi-family structures, which is the percent of the replacement of affordable housing units required to be above grade. Baker pointed out in the past, above and below grade was not distinguished. Baker said that if the multi-family structure is demolished, the owner must replace 50 percent of the existing floor area and 50 percent of the existing bedrooms as affordable housing rebuilt on site”. Clauson said at the October 15, 1996, Council meeting, staff presented their interpretation of code provisions for the affordable housing replacement ordinance and more specifically for the Day project. The applicants are appealing this interpretation as incorrect and it contradicts staff representations made during informal pre-application meetings. A letter from Leslie Lamont was presented 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 indicating she had a number of informal meetings with this applicant. Ms Lamont states, “It appears that Day could comply with the housing mitigation requirements of Ordinance #1 by deed restricting existing units on the property”. Clauson told Council the applicant states he had reliance on Ms. Lamont’s interpretation. Clauson said the planning office interpretation should be decided on the merits itself. An incorrect staff interpretation does not mandate the applicant be permitted to go forward with the project. An incorrect interpretation should be corrected. The liability that accrues to the city is only that actual expenditure or loss incurred by virtue of that interpretation. The city attorney has suggested the issue of reliance be separated from that of text interpretation. Clauson said he believes that the text is clear in the use of the word “construct”, which is when multi-family housing is demolished, 50 percent of the bedrooms must be constructed. Clauson said there is only one project relating to the interpretation of this ordinance, which is at Durant and Aspen streets. An 8 unit building was demolished and 4 new affordable housing units were incorporated into the new structure. There were no interpretation issues in this project. Clauson said staff’s interpretation is consistent with the goals of the AACP; to control demolition and to provide preservation of affordable housing in Aspen. Clauson said the housing office supports this interpretation. Staff recommends Council require construction of affordable units to replace 50 percent of all residential multi-family housing bedrooms which may be demolished in this project. Clauson said if Council believes the applicant’s case is correct and the requirement to actually construct is excessive or unfair, Council should ask staff to draft a code amendment stating, “to construct or otherwise deed restrict” to convey that intent. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, said at the last Council meeting they went into detail over their interpretation and why it was intended when Ordinance #1 was adopted. Kaufman said letters from Tom Baker and Dave Myler were provided supporting their position. Kaufman said he thought this meeting was to address specific questions on the applicant’s reliance. Kaufman noted that the city attorney listed 4 elements necessary for a citizen to establish equitable estoppel. There is no question that representations were made by city staff about Ordinance #1. This has been confirmed by Leslie Lamont in a meeting with the city attorney. 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 The second element is that the applicant relied on these representations. This is clear. The third element is that money was expended and damage done to the applicant. The last element, which the city attorney feels may not be present in this case, is reasonable reliance on the part of the applicant. Kaufman said in March 1995, the architect and Glenn Horn met with Leslie Lamont. The proposed project was discussed in detail. The threshold question for the applicant at this meeting was how Ordinance #1 applied to this site. In this meeting, Ms. Lamont agreed that the project, as proposed, complied with Ordinance #1. The unit mix, which staff agreed conformed to Ordinance #1, has not changed from March 1995 to present. After that was resolved, staff and the applicant went over Ordinance #30, the design review guidelines, and stream margin review. After that meeting, there were on- going conversations between the applicant’s architect and staff to bring the project into compliance with Ordinance #30 and stream margin review. In August 1995 a meeting took place between the applicant, Ms. Lamont and Dave Michaelson of the planning office to review plans developed based on the March meeting and subsequent conversations with Ms. Lamont. Kaufman told Council a set of detailed design plans were given to staff. August 9 a letter was received by the applicant from Michaelson stating staff reviewed the submittal for compliance with design standards. Kaufman said this letter is an indication of the on-going relationship and formal process with the applicant and planning staff. Kaufman said this was not an informal process on which the applicant had no ability to rely. Michaelson went through the application in detail telling the applicant changes that had to be made in order to comply with the design review. Kaufman said there were no additional discussions on Ordinance #1 because that had been decided previously. Kaufman said the applicant’s understanding of that decision on the unit count is what allowed the project and future meetings to go forward. Kaufman told Council another submittal was made to staff on October 10 for their review. This submittal was referenced as “pre-application conference”. After that, the applicant reviewed a letter from the planning staff stating the submittal had been reviewed and staff had concerns about compliance with the newly adopted stream margin review requirements. Michaelson told the applicant these new amendments required a change to the applicant’s plans. Kaufman told Council the applicant made changes requested from staff and complied with the new stream margin review requirements. Kaufman said these changes were made based on the thought that Ordinance #1 had been complied with. 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Kaufman said after these plan revisions, there was another pre-application meeting with Michaelson February 6, 1996. The pre-application sheet outline the project plan, remodeling of the existing apartment building and deed restricting 12 existing remodeled units to meet Ordinance #1 requirements. Kaufman told Council at this conference, the Ordinance #1 approach was noted by staff with no challenge. Kaufman said the finally revised plans were submitted in May 1996. After over 1 year of meeting with staff and making all required changes, it is difficult to say this was an informal process. Kaufman told Council the applicant spent $80,000 on the reliance on this approach taken with staff. Kaufman quoted from Court cases on equitable estoppel. One is, “men naturally trust their government and they ought not to suffer for it”. Another is, “to say to a citizen the joke’s on you, you shouldn’t have trusted us, is hardly worthy of good government”. Kaufman said the city has an interest in reliability in land use issues. Kaufman said trust is sustained by the city’s ability to interpret and apply code to its citizens with the utmost honor and integrity. Kaufman said if the city wants a system where there is no reliance until a project has been approved by P & Z, they need to change their system. Applicants should not have to spend money just to be able to be reviewed for Ordinance #30. Kaufman said when someone works with city staff for over one year and makes all the requested changes and submits an application, the city ought to be bound by representations of its staff. Frank Day, applicant, told Council he wanted to follow a precise path, not be careless or presumptive of what he could or could not do in order to avoid this type of situation. Day said he thought if he worked closely with staff the would get their interpretations on ordinances. Clauson agreed the city’s land use code is complex. One reason is that over the years, code provisions to deal with many issues have been developed. The multi- family housing replacement ordinance talks about executing an agreement for housing replacement. The description of this indicates the housing designee must receive a statement certifying the number of residential multi-family units and bedrooms which are being demolished and what the plan is for replacement. This must be acceptable to the housing designee, which is the Housing Office. Clauson said this was not done before the design took place. This can be done prior to the issuance of a building permit. If this agreement had been done, these issues might have not arisen before design work for the site. 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Dave Tolen, housing office, told Council they met with the applicants on-site to look at the existing buildings. Tolen said at that time, they were considering preserving existing units as a method of satisfying the housing mitigation. Tolen said this is not really specific in the housing replacement ordinance but said he could recommend that existing units satisfy the housing mitigation. The second issue is the number of units required, whether they are new units or converted deed restricted. Tolen said this current application does not satisfy the requirements of Ordinance #1, even if existing units are considered. Tolen questioned how a project providing 6 units less than required is not acceptable. The applicant has 36 existing units; they will demolish 24 and deed restrict 12 existing units. Technically the applicant should replace 6 more units. Kaufman said the housing office went on site and even though the code says “construct”, they did not have a problem with the concept of renovating existing units on site and no problems with the project as described. Councilman Paulson said if they applicants are demolishing 24 units, they have to replace 12 as deed restricted units whether there are another 12 on the property or not. Kaufman said at the last Council meeting, the applicants presented arguments for their interpretation and the applicants proceeded based on Ms. Lamont’s interpretation. John Worcester, city attorney, said there are two issues; one is the interpretation of Ordinance #1. Ms. Lamont’s interpretation can be found within the language of the code and is consistent with other sections of the city code. The other issue is whether the applicant can make a case for equitable estoppel. This is a question of fairness and whether Council thinks it is fair to change the rules of the game as the applicants understood the rules going into the project. Worcester said one of his concerns is not to set a precedent based upon discussions held during the preliminary phase of a development project. Worcester said his understanding is that the discussions with planning staff were in the preliminary stages. Worcester said if Council were to base their decision on reliance on preliminary discussions, it would make it difficult for developers and staff in the future to sit and discuss projects. Kaufman reiterated the applicants feel these discussions were not preliminary and there was 1 year of discussions and changes made to the plans based on these discussions. Kaufman said this was not just one meeting; there was communication with the planning office. Kaufman said they had two meetings they believed were 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 pre-application conferences and felt these were more formal than just one meeting with Ms. Lamont. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she sits on the housing board for the Council. When this project came to the housing office last summer, the number of units was raised and at that time the Board was told this issue was still being worked on. The housing office has said that 50 percent is the correct number. The difference is 6 units. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said Council should keep separate the two issues; the correct code interpretation and fairness and equitable estoppel. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she supports the code interpretation of the planning director; 50 percent is 50 percent. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she feels uncomfortable with staff’s dealing with the application and that the applicant did have reliance with the treatment of this project. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said Council should make a finding to make the applicant whole again somewhere between letting the project go forward with 6 less units than the code calls for based on reliance to covering the hard dollar costs. Councilman Marolt agreed with the interpretation of the staff on Ordinance #1. However, the applicant is out $80,000 and has had many discussions with staff on this projects and has had different renderings on this project. Councilman Marolt said the applicant, in good faith, followed the direction he got from the city. Councilman Marolt agreed the city has to make the applicant whole in this situation. Councilman Paulson supports staff on the code interpretation; however, the city should admit their mistake and go forward. Councilman Paulson said the bottom line for him is to keep as many employees in Aspen as possible. Councilwoman Waggaman said everyone has operated in this with integrity. The applicant made all the changes requested of them as a result of a lot of meetings with staff. Councilwoman Waggaman said pre-formal meetings with staff are invaluable to save time and to get a project started out on the right foot. Councilwoman Waggaman said it seems to make more sense to keep and renovate a building rather than requiring it be torn down. Councilwoman Waggaman said she supports Clauson’s interpretation and also supports Ms. Lamont’s direction to the applicant as it sounds like there were ample opportunities in all the communications to clarify this. Councilman Marolt said he is willing to resolve the applicant’s problem and let him go on with this project. Worcester said his sense of Council is that they want to sustain the planning director’s interpretation. Council could then provide the 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 applicant with some equitable relief because they lost on the appeal of the interpretation. Councilman Marolt said the applicants went through numerous situations which reaffirmed their project and the applicant was mislead with replacement and with Ordinance #1. Worcester said Council can grant relief and revisit the code interpretation at a different time. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she is not clear on what is the appropriate relief; somewhere between $80,000 and 6 units. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said she is not sure what would create fairness. Councilwoman Waggaman said Council has made clear to staff their philosophy of the code interpretation and their position on Ordinance #1 is to support the planning director. Council can then address the applicant’s particular situation. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would allow them to construct what they are in the process of designing and planning with the request that if there is any way to get more affordable housing, the applicants look at that. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said there are extremes to what fairness might be and it might be more appropriate for staff to negotiate a settlement. Councilman Marolt said he feels there were times in the process that the city could have rectified this mistake and nothing was done. Councilman Marolt said the city cannot hold up this applicant. Councilman Marolt said under a different agenda, Council should address the code interpretation and/or amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Richards said the stream margin changes were done by ordinance before the applicants had a formal application submitted. Kaufman told Council the applicants were in a formal Ordinance 30 review process. The reason the applicants could not get Ordinance 30 approval was the adoption of the stream margin amendments. Clauson said staff is very mindful of fairness to applicants. Clauson said there is a change that needs to be made to the portion of the replacement ordinance that talks about execution of an agreement. This agreement would have saved everyone time and effort. Clauson said there seems to be a negotiable compliance that can be reached and he would like to be able to work with the applicant to see what can be negotiated. Clauson said staff will work with the applicant to try and get some additional bedrooms between 1 and 6. Councilwoman Waggaman said if Council is standing by Ms. Lamont’s interpretation, the applicant can build what they propose. 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Councilman Paulson moved to support Clauson’s reading of the test and table until the next meeting the rest of the request to see what staff and the applicant can come back with; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Kaufman asked that the two not be bifurcated because if Council uphold Clauson interpretation and not decide on the second part, the applicant wants to make an entire presentation to argue why Clauson’s interpretation is not correct. Worcester said the applicants are entitled to a decision and if they are asking that that decision be postponed, he would concur. Councilman Paulson moved to continue interpretation of Ordinance #1 Housing replacement; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #70, 1996 - Adoption of 1997 Budget Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing on Resolutions #70 and 71. Rob Umbreit, budget director, noted the big changes are this is a proposed two year budget and 1998 is included in the resolution. This is not binding until the public hearings in 1997 for the 1998 budget. The Charter requires that Council hold annual public hearings on the budget. Umbreit said all departments were limited to a 4 percent base budget increase. The city revenue budget is $33.7 million, which is a 6 percent increase over the 1996 budget. The expense side of the budget is operating, capital and debt. The 1997 expense budget totals $34.5 million The operating budget includes some transportation projects, which caused the budget to go up more than 4 percent. The capital budget at $7.9 million is a decline of 7 percent. The debt budget is $7.2 million, which is a 2 percent decline. Umbreit reminded Council that sales tax is the largest single component of the revenue budget and makes up 32 percent. Umbreit said the 1996 sales tax revenues are up 6 percent year to date. The projected increase for 1997 is 4 percent. The enterprise funds are $12.7 million and are 38 percent of the city’s budget. This is only a 2 percent increase. Total other revenues are $10.1 million and constitute 30 percent of the city’s budget. Umbreit noted staff is projecting the transfer taxes at a more realistic rate; in the past the collections have been way over. 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 The increase in transportation part of the operating budget is caused by an increase in service; bus purchases, entrance to Aspen related expenses and an expanded dial- a-ride program. Umbreit said without the transportation related expenses, the operating budget is a 5 percent increase. The reason for this 5 percent increase is recreation costs, which will be funded by revenue, city share of a long range planner, a risk manager position to be funded for two years out of revenues, and the county dump fees for spring clean up. The base budget has been adjusted for annexation costs and revenues. Umbreit noted the general fund will produce a surplus of $313,000 and should stay in that area for the next 3 to 4 years. This is an improvement over the surplus of $96,000 in 1996. Umbreit told Council staff is also looking at new ways of funding projects, like the geographic information systems products are being funded by user fees. Umbreit said in 1996 and 1997, expenses have exceeded revenues because of very high capital spending. The asset management plan is budgeted at $7.9 million in 1997 and $8.5 million in 1998. The city is spending cash that has been accumulating in various funds in order to do capital repairs. Councilman Marolt asked when the city can spend cash over reserves. Umbreit said technically, the required amount of reserves is 2 months operation or 70 percent of the annual debt, whichever is less. Some of the capital programs planned for 1997 are $3 million in parks fund for park and open space acquisition, trails development and a new maintenance facility. In the general fund, the city will increase road maintenance and pedestrian related construction of $600,000. The water fund will spend $1 million for their continuing capital improvement plan. Umbreit pointed out the debt budget shows a pattern of decline. There will be substantial drop off in 1998 when the water debts are paid off. This trend continues in the future because the city has avoided taking on a lot of new debt. Umbreit said the mill levy will remain the same for 1997 at 5.401 mills. The majority of this is dedicated to the general fund capital plan. Umbreit told Council the assessed valuation for the city will be about the same. Umbreit reminded Council that amendment 1 limits property tax collection and staff expects collection to be over that limit by $120,000 in 1996. The city has several options for this money, one is a pro rata refund, another would be an election to ask citizens to allow that money to be spent on some specific project. 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Umbreit said the budget and the mill levy will be adopted at the December 9 Council meeting ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 1996 - Maroon Creek Rezoning Mary Lackner, community development department, told Council this zones the newly annexed areas. Ms. Lackner said this zoning is comparable to what was approved in the county. There are no issues with the applicant. The golf course was zoned agricultural/recreational in the county and will be zoned park in the city. There is an PUD overlay over the entire subdivision, which maintains the PUD approvals of the county character and nature. There is an SPA overlay over the clubhouse facility. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #40, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendments/Land Use Clarifications Mary Lackner told Council the first 5 amendments were inadvertently taken out of the code during recodification. One is a GMQS exemption for commercial square footage of less than 250 can be a planning director sign off. When the GMQS section was revised in 1994, this was left off. The second is an accessory dwelling unit in R-30. This was dropped out in recodification. All zone districts allow ADUs. Ms. Lackner told Council Ordinance 30, 1995, amended parking regulations. The requirement used to be one parking space per bedroom and was revised to 2 spaces per dwelling unit. Only one section of the code was amended and this provision amends all districts. The stream margin review redone in 1995 allows planning director sign off for repair to existing structures or of stream banks. This was dropped in recodification 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 and this ordinance puts in back in. Councilman Paulson said he has problems with the city putting in trails along streams without going through stream margin review. Stan Clauson, community development director, said stream margin review is required for any development. The city’s trails go through this review. The stream margin is to prohibit building too close to the river both for safety and for preservation of the environment. Clauson noted that trail impacts are much less and different; they produce a public benefit rather than a private house. Ms. Lackner said the last correction is that off street parking for multi-family dwelling units the code allows stacking in multi-family units that have a garage and an apron. This was dropped accidentally and this ordinance puts it back in the code. Mayor Pro Tem Richards asked if staff could look at ways of making sure the spaces are being used for parking and people are not putting 3 and 4 cars on the street. If this starts to be an issue, staff should re-address this. The proposed code amendment regards accessory dwelling units and is an actual change to the code. Currently the ADU program requires these units be deed restricted but not rented. There is a 250 square foot bonus to the house if the ADU is above ground. The housing office has done a survey and finds that about 30 percent of the ADUs are rented. P & Z spent considerable amount of time considering alternatives for the ADU program and looking for solutions. The recommendation is that the square foot bonus only apply to units that are fully deed restricted. Other than that the program remains exactly the same. The owner has the option to pick to whom the unit is rented. Sara Garton, P & Z Chair, told Council they have been very discouraged with the ADU program. The 30 percent occupied rate came out before 1996 and in 1996, P & Z approved 22 more ADUs and in about 50 percent of those the applicant received a FAR bonus. Ms. Garton said P & Z feels they are giving something to the applicants with a FAR bonus and the community should be getting something in return. If an applicant does not want a FAR bonus, the ADU program remains exactly the same. Applicants can pay cash-in-lieu, which may be a better solution to getting usable housing. Mayor Pro Tem Richards opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Richards closed the public hearing. Councilman Paulson moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 1996, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call vote; Councilmembers 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Pro Tem Richards, yes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to go into executive session to discuss potential litigation; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Council went into executive session at 8:00 p.m. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 14 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting November 25, 1996 PROCLAMATION - The Loving Tree ................................ ................................ .... 1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ................................ ................................ ................... 1 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ....... 1 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 1 Approval of 1997 Housing Budget ................................ ................................ ....... 2 Ordinance #43, 1996 - 1997 Fees ................................ ................................ ........ 2 Resolution #65, 1996 - Duroux Ditch Operating Agreement ................................ 2 Resolution #66, 1996 - Adopting Water Conservation Element ............................ 2 Resolution #68, 1996 - Stillwater Ranch (Silver Lining) Annexation .................... 2 Resolution #69, 1996 - Hallam Lake Annexation ................................ ................. 2 Request for Funds - Kids First ................................ ................................ ............. 2 RESOLUTION #67, 1996 - Contract to Purchase Burlingame Ranch ...................... 2 INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE #1 HOUSING REPLACEMENT ............. 3 RESOLUTION #70, 1996 - Adoption of 1997 Budget ................................ .......... 10 ORDINANCE #40, SERIES OF 1996 - Maroon Creek Rezoning ......................... 12 ORDINANCE #38, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendments/Land Use Clarifications 12 15