Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19811228Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht and Michael present. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Knecht requested that at least one side of the Castle Creek bridge be shoveled so that people can walk on the bridge. 2. Mayor Edel said there has to be a special meeting on January 6, 1982, to discuss t~e Wheeler Opera house rebidding and budget. There will also be three ordinances related ~ to the Aspen Mountain park SPA, disconnecting a tract of land from the city, and rezoni~.g the Pitkin Reserve annexed property. Council scheduled this for 5:00 p.m. 3. Mayor Edel said that Dan Levinson had come to him again about t~e park dedication fees. He came to Council eight months ago. and COuncil requested a report from staff. Nothing has happened and it is unfair not to have an answer. M~yor Edel implored staff to get a report on this. 4. Mayor Edel said regarding the open space program, he has heard concerns from citizens saying they understand this Council's dedication to open space but what about future Councils. What if open space bought by this Council is turned into something else in the future. There are provisions to go to the voters in certain instances. Mayor Edel said he Would like a Charter amendment saying any open space that is purchased with open space funds, it is not the prerogative of Council to change the use but they have to go to the voters. Mayor Edel said he felt the citizens deserved this kind of assurance that future Councils will not arbitrarily make that kind of decision. Francis Whitaker said he was on the City Council when the open space tax was initiated and when the golf course was purchased. Whitaker had suggested that the golf course be deed restricted but Council then felt no one would ever touch that land. Whitaker pointed out there have been a number of attempts to rezone that land for various uses. Whitaker said he felt a Charter amendment would be in the spirit of what the Charter intended. Whitaker said an amendment that open space funds for open space could not be turned into any other use with submitting it to the voters would be a good move. Whitaker said he has looked into the figures for the land fund. The proposal is 77 per cent open space and 23 per cent Wheeler; the citizens will not quarrel with that. Councilwoman Michael moved to put the open space question on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in faVor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Francis Whitaker said every year he brings to the attention of Council and the city manager that there is an ordinance on the books which requires people to remove snow from their sidewalks within 24 hours after a storm. Whitaker said this is not being done. Mayor Edel said every fall the traffic control officers go out with information to all the shope owners to inform them of this ordinance. Mayor Edel said he will ask the police officer to go out and enforce this ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 5. Mayor Edel said this is the last meeting of the year, and he would like Council to thank and commend the staff for the work they do all year long and for the pressure they have. Mayor Edel said he would write a letter. CounCilman Collins moved to have the Mayor draw up a letter to the staff; seconded by Councilwoman Michael, All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to place Ballet West special event permit on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favOr, motion carried. 6. Councilwoman Michael asked about the police parking on Hopkins and exactly which side of the street was to be used for police cars. Assistant City Manager Ron Mitchell explained the police will change to the south side of the street for two reasons; people have been backing out of parking spaces and backing into police cars; also the snow falls from the roof and it is expensive to replace the light bars. 7. Councilwoman Michael said she had a call from Steve Sanderfer; they are apply to the Aspen Foundation for $20,000 for an energy grant and are requesting a letter of recommenda~ tion from Council for the grant. Council said okay. OPEN SPACE CHARTER AMENDMENT Mayor Edel asked that staff draft a Charter amendment to bring to Council resolving that no open space purchased with open space funds be used for anything else unless submitted to a vote of the people. Councilwoman Michael moved to instruct staff to draft a Charter amendment requiring that any change of uses of open space lands be submitted to the voters; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - Ballet West Councilwoman Michael moved that the special event permit for Ballet West for February 1'3, 1982, be approved; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. PARK DEDICATION FEES Dan Levinson told Council he had a building permit ready but cannot pick it up because of the park dedication fees. Levinson said he had discussed with staff that there is a double fee being charged. This discussion started in April; Levinson was promised there would be something considered and this would be reviewed. Mayor Edel suggested that Levinson pay the fee; if Council changes their approach to park dedication fees, Council will make a notation since Levinson paid ~he fee and the approach is changed, the money will be refunded. There is an onus on Council because they have sat on this for some t~me. Lev~nson said philosophically he does not auestion whether there should be a park dedica- tion fee, but f~ere is a question because the percentage charqed is based on property rates. Nothing has been done to keep that percentage in line with what ~s going on in the property market. (Councilman Parry came to Chambers). Levinson said another question is if residential property is being overburdened by this. Perhaps commercial property should take up some~.of this. The third point pertains to duplexes; Levinson stated there is no doubt there is%a doubling of the fee because of the formula. Levinson said he feels park dedication fees are necessary but there should be a review . Levinson asked Council to waive the promissory note; Levlnson said he would like to proceed with the c/o. Nothing has happened in 7 or 8 months. Councilwoman Michael said that waiving a fee would set a precedent. Levinson said the interest accruing on that note is 2 over prime. Mayor Edel said the Council wants a response from staff by the next meeting; this has been dragged out. Councilwoman Michael suggested Levinson pay the park dedication fee and the Council will commit to resolving this. Ron Mitchell said the city attorney should be consulted before any waivers or agreements are made. Levinson said he would like a rebate if Council does change the formula. Councilwoman Michael agreed she would like a legal opinion before any decision on that is made. Council agreed to put park dedication fees on the January 11, 1982, agenda. APPLICATION FOR A THREE WAY LIQUOR LICENSE - Bici Comis Councilwoman Michael left Council chambers. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. City Clerk Koch reported the posting and publication were in order. Tony Mazza, representing the applicant, told Council this is an application for a three-way hotel and restaurant liquor license to be located where the Aspen Bar & Grill was. There has been a liquor license on the premise for six years. Mayor Edel asked for opponents. Councilman Parry said he understood the building was going to be torn down. Mazza said it may be torn down the spring of 1982 or it might be 1983. Mazza introduced one of the owners, Steve Zarlenga, who published Aspen 100 Years. Mazza said that Bici Comis will be in the old building and they also desire to be in the new building. Tom Dunlop, environmental health, told Council he has been working with applicant; however, has not received a set of plans. Dunlop said he would like the plans so they can start working on the food license. Mazza said he would comply with the list of item from Dunlop. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved that based on the evidence present'at a public hearing held this date relating to an application of Bici Comis for a three-way liquor license, the City Council finds that the needs of the community have not been met and the license as applied for is hereby granted; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN INN GMP AMENDMENT Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council they had dealt with this issue in May to consider the amendments which have been made to the 1978 GMP allocation. At that time Council was informed that 36 tourist units and 24 employee units were awarded; however, 71 lodge units were being built. This brought up a regulation in effect at that time, which has subsequently been amended, it is the responsibility of the planning office to bring changes in GMP applications to Council to determine the appropriateness, which is whether the changes would affect the scoring of the application at its original hearing. In May, the planning office indicated that the changes in the application should not have affected the allocation of units to the Aspen Inn. An application needs 35 points to receive an allocation; in 1978 the Aspen Inn received 50 points. The planning office could not see 15 points being in jeopardy. At that time, there were only two applicants and changing the score would not be to the detriment of anyone else. There were larger issues which the Council requested the staff to study and bring back to Council. These are (1) demolition and reconstruction units outside of the GMP and the types of reviews that should occur for such an action; (2) questions of the floor area of the revised application, whether this is in excess of what was originally applied for; (3) concerns that the conditions and features of the original application would be provided. Richman started with the issue of 'demolition and reconstruction; this is a well establishe principle in the Code. There is a GMP exception in the Code regarding demolition and reconstruction. The key criteria here is that there is no commercial floor area created nor any additional dwelling units created. There is a letter in the file from the then- city attorney and the then-applicant's attorney interpreting that section; the Code is complicated that'at times applicants need letters of interpretation. The then-city attorney interpreted the section to say that once the building department has verified that a unit exists, the owner can receive a credit to demolish that unit and to rebuild that unit upon its demolition. The then-city attorney also stated the unit could be rebuilt in any zone in which it was a permitted use. In this application, the interpre- tation has been taken further and needs to be clarified. The applicant is asking to move the units from the Blue Spruce to the Aspen Inn, which is 11 somewhat of a transfer between parcels although there is some contiguity among the parcels. From that standpoint, this does seem to fit within criteria. Mayor Edel asked if the applicant was going to tear the units at the Blue Spruce down and transfer them to the Aspen Inn site; what will happen on the Blue Spurce site. Richman told Council this is a contiguous site; on a contiguous site an applicant has a certain amount of area and bulk per use. By transferring those units on the same site, they are not creating any new area and bulk on the site. They do not have any rights on the Aspen Inn site that could i{~ be rebuilt on the Blue Spruce site. Spencer Schiffer, representing the applicant, told Council that once this is demolished, nothing will be built there. Schiffer pointed out in context of the entire site, the area and bulk and density will not be ~ncrease. This as taking 35 units at the Blue Spurce and moving them to another building. Richman stated this will use up the underlying area and bulk. Schiffer said in order to do anything else, they would have to come back to the city and apply for it. Richman said they have to increase the parcels co come up with more area and bulk. Richman told Council any buildingI would have to part of a PUD application for a larger site. Councilwoman Michae~ said if this project is ever built, it will be the gross number of units plus 35. Schiffer explained the entire site is considered, figure out what the maximum density Is; the building cannot be any bigger than that. Schiffer told Council, hypothetically, if a site is 100,000 square feet and you could build 100 units, that is all that can be built. The 35 units fits into that math; it is not in addition to it. Richman said the site where the Aspen Inn exists has the right to increase its units by ~1 some amount, either by GMP application or GMP exemption. Schiffer said the site can only I~ hold a certain number of units; what they are asking is for exemption from the GMP of the 35 units. Bil Dunaway asked what would have if the land under the Blue Spruce were sold to a different owner. Schiffer said this would have to go through subdivision. Richman pointed out it would create a non-conforming structure. The Aspen Inn site does not have sufficient land areas to justify what is on it; therefore, a subdivision could no~ be done. Schiffer illustrated that for purposes of FAR calculations certain sites were not used; they are transferring the units. The planning office has interpreted the FAR requirements, which would require that certain lands be included £n the site. The applicant has conceded to that. Schiffer said the applicant has accommodated concerns of the planning department so that this project can get accomplished. Richman told Council the issues he brought UP about demolition and reconstruction is that the applicant has not followed any of the guidelines, such as asking for verification before a transfer was made; there was no demolition of the units before rebuilding of them. Riehman said he could find a lot of reasons to support a rebuilding at the Aspen Inn in terms of improving the quality of the units. Richman said there has been confusion here; the planning office and building department ~ev~',, had a formal policy of bringing these types of issues before P & Z and Council up until this application came through. This is the first time that something of this complexity had occurred where it was clear that both P & Z and City Council would be interested in that type of issue. Richman reminded Council this fall the Pitkin County Bank came to Council voluntarily for the eventual demolition of Pitkin Center and asked this to be put on the public record. Richman said any pro3ect in the lodge or commercial zones that want to demolish and reconstruct, these issues are sensitive enough they should go through subdivision exception process for P & Z and Council to review. Richman said he did not feel s~ngle family and duplex should have that level of review. Richman suggested to Council four guidelines to be followed in any demolition and recon~ truction. (1) If the project is multi-family, commercial or lodge, a GMP exception should be applied for so it is of record (2) the square footage should be demolished before they are rebuilt. (3) The buildings demolished before GMP should not be allowed to be rebuilt; jus~ current buildings. (4) When a project ~s ready to reconstruct, plans should be brought forward to verify what was approved. Any additional development approvals will be outlined at that time. Richman said the second issue is the FAR question which comes from an understanding at a previous meeting in May that the building being proposed was essentially the same building in terms of floor area as the one approved in 1978. The question arose that this might not be the case, and Council tabled the application and instructed staff to come up with a clear determination of what the underlying FAR was. This has taken the staff months to come up; there have been numerous iterations of the site plan, evaluated by the building and planning office. Richman told Council the 1978 application suggests 40,000 square feet to be built; the building department calculations show 50,000 square feet. The staff requested the applicant to come back with technical clarifications regarding the site. Richman told Council the lobby, which was part of the 1978 application, has been constructe~ but there is a design plan for it. The staff is using what is on the site as well as what was part of the application as well as what is being withheld for approval of this amendment. Schiffer stated the plans have been approved; there are 18 units ~n the new structure whic~ need to be deed restrictions. These have been given to the city attorney. Schiffer told Council about 37,000 square feet are under construction and the lobby and the 18 units amount to about another 13,000 square feet. Richman said the staff gave the applicant the chance to do technical clarifications, which ~s permitted under the GMP. Richman told Council the staff feels that since the 1978 spplication, the applicant had made purchases which added to the underlying ability to build on the site in terms of FAR. The applicant was given the opportunity to come back with a site plans which corresponded to the entire ownership, which was quite a bit more than what was owned in 1978 as a method of justifying~ what is being built. Richman told Council the FAR is based on a .67:1 FAR ratio for rentable space. Doing the calculations and using all of the site area, the applicant can barely justify what is being built right now. This site is approximately 100,000 square feet. Schiffer outlined for Council what is under construction, the lobby and the 18 units and the existing lodge, and the entire site. Richman said this makes no assumption about requests for additional units; this just suggests that under the existing square footage- either under construction or under design-that they have the site area to do this. This does not meet the request Council made specifically; Council requested is this an expan- sion over the 1978 application. Richman answered yes it is; there is more floor area being built or being designed than under 1978. Richman told Council the staff has said there is an ability to do that and the applicant does not compete for square footage; the applicant competes for units. The units the applicant competed for are either the 36, which the applicant was given an allocation for, or the 35 units, for which the applicant is requesting an exception from G~ to demolish and reconstruct. Richman told Council on both ways the applicant fits within the zoning code. The applicant clearly has amended his application. Mayor Edel asked how many employee units there are. Richman answered 24 which was the number proposed in 1978. Mayor Edel asked if there were still 24 even though there are more units. Schiffer told Council the number of employee units are based on square footage; the total square footage required for this site is 6,000 square feet. The 24 employee units the applicant is dedicating is 9600 square feet, which far exceeds what is required. Richman told Council the applicant represents this will house a certain percentage of the total employee at the Aspen Inn. There is no method in the Code to question yes or no that those 24 units can, in fact, accommodate the needs of the Aspen Inn. Councilwoman Michael asked how many pillows this would be. Schiffer said there would be 48 pillows for 71 lodge rooms. Schiffer told Council according to his informa- tion, this ~s a sufficient number of employees for a 600 room lodge. Schiffer told Council this was done in the context of a master plan first proposed in 1978; this was to house 44 employees. Forty-four employees would be required for 200 rooms. Richman told Council the last area of concern is the conditions related to the original application making sure everything is tied up, making sure each one was a condition and suggeste~ when these should be completed. These conditions are outlined in Richman's memo and regard parking; ski-in trail easement; utilities undergrounded; energy conserva- tion features; public benches and bike racks; conference facility; public areas to includ~ restaurant, n~ght club, health facility and lobby. The application stated they would provide 5 limosines based on a formula, which is one limosine for every 25 guests. Since units are being added, the planning office suggests 3 more limos~nes be provided. The staff has suggested if the applicant wants to provide additional parking instead of the additional limosines, that would be acceptable. Schiffer told Council the applicant has no problem with this; one of the conditions ~mposed at the last meeting in May was that the applicant provide the parking. The applicant asked to provide a combination of llmosines and parking and Council agreed with a preference for llmoslnes. Mayor Edel askE how these eight conditions would be controlled. Richman said the recommendation is all subject to c/o; every conditions states "prior to the issuance of a c/o". Councilman Collins asked if this site was about 100,000 square feet. Richman told Council the only thing they are not seeing in terms of site is the four lots that include the Blue Spruce located on Durant and Aspen; this is not included in the ability to justify what is being built. The 35 units being transferred are both north and south of Dean street. Richman told Council there are conditions relating to a letter between Ron Stock and Ashley Anderson on time table when the major features will be seen as part of the Aspen Inn complex; regarding the building permit must be obtained on the health facility prior to the issuance of a c/o on the new lodge units; that the health club must be built in a year or the c/o can be revoked. Mayor Edel asked if the applicants have not done this, that they will be thrown out; that is absurd. Schiffer said the c/o could be revoked at a certain time. Schiffer said if the applicant agrees to this, it ls enforceable. Mayor Edel said he did not think it is enforceable. Richman told Council another condition is that the 24 employee units be deed restricted and operational before the c/o is issued. Schiffer ~old Council Richman was alludfng to an understanding to with the previous city attorney. Schiffer said for the record, there has never been an agreement with the city. Schiffer stated the city has bent over backwards to make sure that Cantrup toes the line. Schiffer said the applicant had an interpretation of the section of the Code and wanted it verified by Ron Stock, who simply verified that provision in the Code which allows one to demolish a unit and reconstruct it. Schiffer stated there was no procedure provided il the Code; Stock outlined the procedure. There was no agreement made with Stock to tear down and rebuild the units. Schiffer said for the recommendation for the procedure for demolition and reconstruction of units, he agreed there should be a definite process and procedure. Schiffer disagreed with the concept of P & Z and Council reviewing this at every step. Schiffer suggested what Stock suggested originally is more appropriate; have the building department verify ~he exitense of a unit, look at that unit and say what it is without any reliance on the part of the applicant as to what he can or cannot do with it. Let the building department make an inventory. Schiffer said when it is time to reconstruct, then this can come to P & Z. Schiffer brought up the FAR analys~s and told Council the applicants disagrees with the planning department calculations; the applicant disagrees methodologically. There are certain areas where, based on how the Code is interpreted, different things could be said. Schiffer told Council four years after the 1978 application, the applicant is finding out the calculations were possibly erroneous from the point of view of the planning department. In the 1982 application, ~he calculations were based on the same methodology and the applicant is told this is not correct. Schiffer said the applicant disagrees and would like the opportunity to come to Council with this 1982 application and present their point of v~ew. For purposes of this, the applicant is willing to include ~he Blue Spruce site so that the city can determine that the FAR is adequate. Schiffer wanted this included in the record for when the applicant returns with the 1982 application. Schiffer stated when Richman tells Council that the 50,000 square foot building just makes it under the wire, Schiffer ~s telling Council he feels that is not even close. However, for purposes of getting this project accomplish ed, Schiffer is agreeing with staff. Mayor Edel said he is bothered by this, because in January the applicant will come back to Council and tell them the land that was included in this project is now included in another project. Schiffer said he is not going to do this. Richman said the applicant indicates that that land will justify more units. Schiffer said that the land there supports more building than the planning office says it supports. Schiffer explained to Council he outlined that for a specific reason; this application discusses tearing down the two chalets and the Blue Spruce. At Council's study session, the concept was proposed to leave the Blue Spruce standing, temporarily, for employee housing. Council liked that concept; Schiffer said he hoped Council would confirm this tonight. Richman has suggested this be torn down now as a condition to issuance of a c/o~ Schiffer stated he felt this was not appropriate, if there is a concern about the FAR, the applicant can verify there is sufficient FAR for it. Schiffer said it is not an appropriate time to tear down a building, particularly where this building sits. This building is housing employees right now, so why tear it down as a condition to the c/o. Another condition is to tear down the two chalets. Schiffer told Council this has come up in the context of the new discussion where the applicant disagrees with the c of the planning department. Schiffer said they would not like to tear these buildings down right now; the applicant would like an additional time to demolish the buildings. The applicant intends to demolish these buildings; however, this ~s not an appropriate time frame. Schiffer told Council the conditions that were agreed to in the original application and · n the letter to Ron Stock, the applicant still stands by them. The applicant will do everything they said they would. Schiffer said some of the two conditions do not make sense now, like the two a~orementioned. Schiffer stated the applicant will obtain a building permit for the health facility before a c/o is issued; thevapplicant will designate and deed restrict the 24 employee units; the applicant will obtain a permit for the conference before February 1983. Schiffer brought up the parking question, there is a requirement to provide 50 underground parking spaces. This has just come up now as a condition for a c/o; it was not discussed in May, the option was to provide parking or limosines. The applicant is asking for that option; Council preferred the l~mos~nes to parking. Schiffer told Council in the context of the entire project, that underground parking will be provided. Schiffer said the dedicated trail easement should be as part of the PUD; it is not appropriate to dedicate it now. The trail easement has to fit in with the entire design of the hotel complex, which was presented in the 1978 application as part of the master plan. Schiffer said the solar collectors are not appropriate from an engineering point. The configuration of the building is not suitable for solar collectors; however, it would be suitable to put solar collectors on another portion of the building. This requirement will be met, but not as a condition to the issuance of a c/o. Schiffer brought up the conditions for benches and bike racks on Dean street; it does not make sense to put benches and bike racks on Dean street. Councilman Collins asked if these things were all agreed on. Ri~h~an answered these are what was promised in the original application. Schiffer said three things were agreed upon as a condition to issuance of a c/o; those will be complied with. Councilman Collins stated in the original GMP application, these were conditions as part of the agreement. Schiffer said yes, this was the first applica- tion under the GMP. At that time, these were not required as criteria for judging the project. These were items that were included. It was said as part of the master plan, these~items will be provided. Schiffer said in certain circumstances, it was not said these are part of the master plan; however, it was meant to say that. It was understood at the time; perhaps that was a misunderstanding. The applicant ~s clarifying this now as they go through the GMP process. Schiffer said it is unfair to characterize this as something that was promised as part of this discreet project. Richman stated all of these were items upon which points were based. Richman told Council there are points relating~ to parking, to recreation, to utilities, solar, etc. Schiffer said the applicant is going to provide all of these; but, in this particular building it does not make sense to provide all of them. There would be a mechanism to provides these items. This is one phase in a much larger project. Richman suggested that building would not have been competitive if it did not promise all those things. Richman said an application is only judged by what is being promised under that discreet application. Councilwoman Michael said this is a situation where Mr. Cantrup is planning a project unlike any the Council has seen in this town. This project cannot fit easily within the context of the growth management plan. The Council is stuck with that tension; the Council is also stuck with the political tension that they cannot suspend the GMP because Cantrup has come up with this idea. Councilwoman Michael asked how the Council would be justified in special dispensation to Cantrup because he is bigger. Schiffer stated this is not a dispensation. Councilwoman Michael said every time Council turns around, there is exempting and suspending and so forth. Schiffer said he is trying to clarify this m~sconception; agreements have not been made. Cantrup does not get concessions from Council. Schiffer said the applicant is trying to find a way to get this project accomplished. The town needs first rate tourist lodging; Cantrup is willing to do this. Councilwoman Michael said the burden of proof is on this client; it is not up to the Council to make flex work. Schiffer questioned the five month delay; this application was scheduled for Council's next agenda, and they would have approved it. There was an approval on the tabled conditioned on the FAR question. Over a period of three or four months, Cantrup put together every bit of ownership and all the plans. The applicant aceded to the staff's request for delays. Schiffer said the applicant is trying to work with the city. They are saddled with the GMP and are trying to work within it. Bil Dunaway said the items were in the original application in 1978; Cantrup did not have to put these items in the application. Schiffer said these items will be done, but they should not be a condition to issuing the c/o being told about the conditions a month before it is appropriate to get the c/o. Dunaway said the application was submitted in 1978. Schiffer pointed out that the applicant did not own the Blue Spruce in 1978 when the application was made, the two chalets were not owned by the applicant. Mayor Edel said this issue is to amend the GMP application. Schiffer reiterated that in concept the Council agreed the transfer was appropriate. There was a delay for a period of time to do the FAR calculations. The applicant has satisfied the requirements on the FAR calculations. There is another issue, which is whether or not to allow the Blue Spruce to remain for an interim period for employee housing, which Council also agreed upon. Schiffer would like this agreement confirmed. As to the conditions which Richman required for issuance of a c/o, the applicant is saying some are appropriate and some are not. The applicant would like a time frame in which to tear down the Blue Spruce and the two chalets. The final issue is the 24 employee housing units. In the original applica- tion, it stated 24 units would be provided. Some of these units were located in buildings destined to be torn down; this was known at the time and was part of the application. The applicant is saying when the project is built and is permanent, there will be permanent employee housing. In the interim, the applicant needs to find a way to accommo, date the needs of the employees. The applicant would like to dedicate six units that are in existence right now and deed restrict these immediately. The applicant would build 18 units in connection with the lobby structure and deed restrict them. These 18 units at some point would become free market units, only when there is a GMP allocation for them and when other deed restricted units replace the 18 units. Richman told Council this proposal has been heard by the city attorney and planner; the attorney is comfortable wit~ this. However, both the city attorney and the planner are uncomfortable about the idea of reconstruction without demolition. The city attorney advised Richman to go for the condition; it is appropriate and is the way the Code has been interpreted. Richman answered the Mayor's concern about doubling the density or creating new units by allowing the 35 stand, yes. It is the same land justifying the same number of units. Councilman Parry pointed out the Council has bent over backwards to build employee units. This would have 35 stay in tourist units and 35 turn into employee units. Richman said the project is not in conformance with any of the zoning requirements to do that; the applicar has no ability to build those 35 units without a GMP exception, nor does he have the right to build that number of units on the total site, as he far exceeds his existing area and bulk. Richman told Council the planner, attorney, and building inspector have spent quite a bit of time coming up with the area and bulk interpretation. This will be brought forward in January for Council relating to the new units, not the existing units. Richman stated there is no question in staff's mind that the applicant is right at the border. If the chalets and the Blue Spruce are not demolished, this is out of synch. There is no~ way the building department can make any calculation to allow those units to be occupied. Richman said the staff feels very comfortable in their calculations. Councilman Parry suggested changing the zoning so this can happen. Schiffer said the larger site is 250,000 square feet; there is plenty of site. There does not need to be concern about this. To accommodate those concerns, Schiffer suggested leave it standing as employee housing, at least temporarily. The applicant would like to leave these until new employee housing is built; if Council finds this inappropriate, at least wait until the summer, after the season. Mayor Edel asked about some of the conditions, revoking the c/o. Richman said the staff requires applicants coming in for GMP application and wants a c/o, the staff requires everything to be there when it gets occupied. Richman told Council there was some acknowledgement by staff and in the applicant itself some of these facilities were more rightfully a part of a larger application. Mayor Edel said if this is so, why weren't they put in the larger application. They were put into this application. Richman agreed and the Code gives the city the ability to expect everyone of those as a part of this application. Councilwoman Michael asked which conditions the application is challenging. Schiffer went through the list of conditions in the planning office memorandum of December 22, 1981. In #1, the 35 units of the Blue Spruce to be demolished prior to the issuance of the c/o, the applicant would like to leave as employee housing. #2 the two chalets existing on the site shall be demolish, the applicant agrees to remove and demolish them they wou~d like to do this in the context of the 1982 application and the PUD. The applicant cannot realistically tear these down now; it will be ready to be occupied in 30 days. Schiffer said he would tear these down next Summer as the construct proceeds as part of the new application. If the new application is not approved, there is a PUD coming before Council. Many items that seem to be open-ended now will be part of a subdivision agreement and explicity set forth. The applicant agrees to remove the two chalets before the next winter season. In ~3, the underground parking cannot be constructed in 30 days as part of this. In May there was a discussion of the parking and there was an option for parking or limo- sine~ serviceo Councilwoman Michael asked whether or not the Council required underground parking; and if they did, why was the building built without underground parking. Schiffer said as part of the larger project, there will be underground parking. Council- man Collins said the structure was originally conceived with underground parking. Richma~ told Council that is what the plans show. Schiffer told Council if they wanted, the applicant can dedicate a ski-in trail easement; it would be more appropriate to dedicate this as part of the larger project. Energy conservation features - they are having a problem with the solar collectors because the building is not situated in a way that's conducive to putting on solar panels. The applicant will agree to do this and possibly to go on the new structure or to be engineered to fit on the '82 part of this. The whole heating system is integrated and it will be supplemented by solar heat. Mayor Edel suggested waiting and doing the entire project. Councilwoman Michael sa~d the Council has to resolve the question of how to do a project like this, piece meal through the GMP. Councilwoman Michael said she does not want a repeat of this; it destroys the applicant"s credibility. The Council has a political problem of citizens thinking the Council keeps giving in. The process is not working. Schiffer told Council that is why the applicant wants to do a PUD; they are proceeding on it~ Councilwoman Michael said the City does not have the apparatus to make it be fair- to other people and to the sense about the political process for treating people in an even-handed way. Councilwoman Michael said the applicant will be continually put in the position of saying "can't we put that off", which makes a sham of any conditions that anyone comes in with on a subdivision or PUD. Mayor Edel said in May 1981 he imPlored~Council and the appli- cant tha~ this cannot be done piece meal; the'CoUncil has to look at the entire project. At that meeting, Mayor Edel said he was not against the entire project. It is apparent that piece mealing this destroys everything. Schiffer agreed with the Mayor's statements; however, the applicant did not ask for this process but they are in this position. They did not ask for this kind of dilemma. When Council asked for the entire plan in May 1981, the applicant went to the planning department and showed them everything. Then there was a study session with the Council. The applicant has gone to P & Z; they are moving as fast as possible on a project of this size. Councilman Collins said he recalled the application two years ago; to look at what is up there now against that application, there is no comparison not only in terms of what has been buil~, but what has not been built. Councilman Collins said this is another chapter in a scenario that has been going on for over a dozen years. That mountain and what Hans has been doing for many years, a constant change, broken promises, misdirection, changed direction, the whole thing. Councilman Collins said he knows what the application is trying to do, but this has been "cry wolf, cry wolf, cry wolf" for so many years now and outside of one project that has been finiShed, what the Council is trying to do here is quality for the town; that is the worst thing that could happen. Councilman Collins asked when the city is going to see something come on line that fits in with Aspen and quality and high prices; the city has not seen this. This is jUst one more request for another exception; .the whole road behind this is just littered with these kinds of arrangements, a lot have been forgotten. This is just one more of the same, and that is not what Aspen needs. Councilman Collins said if everybody in town built the way the bottom of Aspen mountain has been turned up and tossed around, the town would not be recongnizable. Schiffer said this has not been all the choice of the applicant. The applicant is stuck with the process. The applicant tried to start this in 1972; Ordinance 19 would not let it happen. Councilwoman Michael said the applicant knew exactly what he was getting into. The land use issue here is paramount; it has been paramount for 12 years. Political tensions regarding develoPment exist in Aspen. Councilwoman Michael said if there were a referendum on the growth management plan tomorrow, it would be ratified. Councilwoman Michael agreed with Collins, the Council is looking for quality units. Councilwoman Michael said she felt the lodging situation needs a boost. Councilwoman Michael said everyone recognizes the dilemma; the Council cannot go on piece mealing in the sense that applicants have to come back and change the plans. Schiffer said the applicant is trying to clean house; they have one more issue to take care of and they will move into the PUD. Councilman Knecht agreed that quality lodging is a number one priority~ Councilman Knecht said this should be done with a PUD and suggested CounCil should go on with the amendment for the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP and the conditions should be incorporated into a PUD situation and brought back. Councilman Knecht said that is the only way to get the project going. Schiffer told Council the PUD is being worked on currently and may be submitted within 60 days. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the amendment to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP amendment and to exempt from GMP the reconstruction of the 35 units from the Blue Spruce at the Aspen Inn, subject to the following conditons be implemented in the new PUD; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Edel asked what happens if the PUD is not approved. Councilman Knecht said he did not think that is where this is going; however, he is willing to take a gamble. Council- man Parry said the Council is caught up in this because they have done it. The CounCil has made ordinances that can build many little 18-room lodges in this town. This applicant wants to build a 500 room lodge. This has got to get to the PUD. Councilman Parry said this has to get going to keep it moving or there will be a give up and another hole. Councilwoman Michael said she is going to vote no. Councilwoman Michael said She does not want to stop Cantrup's process, but she has a serious sense that until the question of the large project being done within the context of this GMP and a study session soon is resolved, Councilwoman Michael stated she was remaining faithful to a situation in which the city has a GMP that applies conditions and promises. Councilwoman Michael said she could go no farther, as supportive as she is of the concept, until that question is resolved. Councilmembers Knecht and Parry in favor; Councilmembers MiChael, Collins and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Knecht asked to give the applicant some direction. CouncilWoman Michael said she wants a study session. Schiffer asked what to do about the 35 units and the 71 units; it seems the only point this is stuck on are the conditions and how to impose these Schiffer said the Council has already had a study session on this issue. Mayor Edel said there is a PUD coming up shortly; in the sense of that'pUD, bring all this together. Mayor Edel said this has got to be studied as a PUD. Mayor Edel sai!d the city did not tell Mr. Cantrup to go ahead and build this thing. On a positive sense, taking this entire area, this will be reshaping all of Aspen. Mayor Edel said he would endorse coming forth with an entire PUD. Schiffer said what needs to be resolved now is the issue of the transfer of the 35 units; can this be resolved tonight sO the project can move forward. Councilman Parry said the town needs the 71 units at the Aspen Inn to open this winter. Councilwoman Michael said how this was propOsed to Council tonight in a form that was unacceptable. Councilwoman Michael said this does not mean she does not support the 35 to 71 jaunt; however, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Council recessed for ten minutes. Councilwoman Michael moved to ask for a study session on T~ursday January 7, 1982, on the Aspen Inn GMP amendment; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #79, SERIES OF 1981 - Housing Price Guidelines Mayor Edel opened the public hearing, Alice Davis, planning office, reminded Council this ordinance was tabled at a December 9 special meeting to make revisions. The staff changed Section 4 to address those projects which have received approval prior to the adoption of this ordinance. These projects will be allowed a price increase annually consistent with guidelines the Council adopts annually. Council agreed this addressed their concerns. Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #79, Series of 1981, on second reading as amended; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; C0uncilmember Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #82, SERIES OF 1981 - Land Use Fees Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Alan Richman, planning office, told Council this is in the same form as first reading and adopts new fees for the land use processes. Richm~n told Council the planning staff will come back to Council in six months to check to see that small projects are not being overcharged. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #82, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #83, SERIES OF 1981 - Election precinct City Clerk Koch explained the City's Charter outlines certain precincts unless changed by Council by ordinance. This ordinance establishes one ordinance for the special election in January. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #83, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #84, SERIES OF 1981 - Self-insurance pool Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Larry Thoreson told Council the city has opted Ito join a self-insurance pool as insurance premiums have risen considerably. This poOl will decrease the city's costs This plan complies with the state insurance commissioner Councilman Collins asked what the premiums were expected to be. Thoreson said they were schedule at between $71,000 to $100,000 and that is about what they will be. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #84, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCES 89 through 92, SERIES OF 1981 - Appropriations Mayor Edel opened the public hearing on ordinances #89 through #92, Series of 1981. Ther~ were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #89, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilembmers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #90, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconde~ by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. CounCilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #91, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; COllins, aye; Knecht aye;~ Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion Carried. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #92, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconde by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Parry, aye; Collins, nay; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #60, SERIES OF 1981 - 1982 Budget Assistant City Manager Ron Mitchell suggested Council adopt the budget and put the revenue sharing public hearing on the next agenda and Council reaffirm their vote. The public notice for revenue sharing was not published in time. Bil Dunaway asked if this included the arts. MaYor Edel said this is not in here; there is no money to the arts. This will be re-evaluated after the season is over. Councilwoman Michael thanked the finance staff for a good budget process. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #60, SEries of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #60 (Series of 1981) WHEREAS, the City Manager, designated by Charter to prepare the budget, has prepared and submitted to the Mayor and City Council the Annual Budget for the City of Aspen, Colorado, for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1982, and ending December 31, 1982; and WHEREAS, the budget as submitted set forth the following estimated fiscal data including anticipated revenues and expenditures for the year 1982: NET TRANSFERS INCREASE (DECREASE) REVENUES EXPENDITURES IN (OUT) FUND BALANCE General Fund; Operations & Debt service $3,551,204 s(4,127,338) $ 1,043,730 $467,596 Land Fund: 1,417,260 (144,160) (819,660) Debt Service (12,812) 440,628 Transportation Fund: 1,306,000 (60,000) (1,471,851) (225,851) Debt Service Wheeler Transfer Tax Fund 347,750 (319,120) (28,630) -0- 1979 Street I~provement Fund Debt Service (131,980) 131,980 -0- 1978 Sales Tax Rsfunding: Debt Service (686,485) 686,485 -0- Water Fund: 1,448,940 (567,858) (149~800) Debt Service (722,192) 9,090 Electric Fund: 2,277,000 (1,697,490) (69,550) Debt Service (104,500) 405,560 Transit Fund: 765,650 (1,462,686) 1,010,036 Debt Service (310,000) Castle Ridge Fund: 491,000 (82,100) Debt Service (363,700) 45,200 C~lf Course Fund: 210,400 (188,358) 82,750 Debt Service (82,750) 22,042 Ice Garden Fund: 182,050 (182,050) -0- Debt Service Police Pension Fund: 78,000 (78,000) (330,000) (330,000) Employee Pmtirement Fund 179,000 (74,000) 105,900 ~venue Sharing Fund 85,490 (85,490) -0- S12,337.644 $11,397,479 -0- 940,165 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the budget for the City of Aspen as submitted is hereby adopted, which adoption shall constitute appropriations of the amounts specified therein as expenditures from the funds indicated; and that the estimated budget revenue requirements of $12,337,644 is declared to be the amount of revenue necessary to be raised by the tax levy and income from all other sources, including fund balance at the beginning of the year, to pay the expenses and certain indebtedness, and to provide a reasonble fund balance at the close of the fiscal year beginning January 1, 1982, and ending December 31, 1982. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Resolution #60, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. PLANNING OFFICE CONTRACT Councilwoman Michael moved to table the planning office contract; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~88, SERIES OF 1981 Retirement Ordinance Assistant City Manager Mitchell reminded Council this had been tabled at the last meeting to answer some question. Mitchel said he had met with the city's consultants who advise on these things and they consider this to be a standard retirement plan. Mayor Edel said he felt the vesting schedule is a mistake. Mitcsael told Council he would have the city attorney review the language before.nsecond reading; Councilman Collins moved to read Ordinance #88, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #88 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-101, 2-200, 2-202, 2-300, 2-302, AND 2-600 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO MODIFY THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN AND TRUST AND TO ALLOW ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN was read by the city clerk Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance #88, SEries of 1981, on first reading; seconde~ by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 961, SERIES OF 1981 - Lease Purchase Renewals Finance Director Sheree Sonfield told Council they have previously reviewed these which are extension of lease/purchase agreements for large capital items. Councilman Parry moved to read ResolUtion ~61, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #61 (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL AND CONTINUATION OF EXISTING LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Aspen desire to renew and continue the lease purchase agreements described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein for one year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to renew and continue the lease purchase agreement described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein for one year renewal terms. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Resolution ~61, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. PROVISION OF AN ELECTRIC SERVICE EASEMENT AT THE WATER PLANT Assistant City Manager Ron Mitchell told Council this has the conditions attached that were worked out in a study session. They are paying $700 in advance of an appraisal. An agreement was prepared by the city attorney with conditions that were recommended by the engineering department. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Holy Cross electric Assoication, Inc. right-of- way easement with the attached memorandum of agreement from Gary Jacobs to the city; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Mayor Edel said he feels the city is making a mistake by not requiring people to underground. All in favor, motion carried. 1981 AUDIT ENGAGEMENT Ron Mitchell said the Council must approve an audit firm for 1981. Councilman Knecht asked why the fees would be lower for 1981 than those for 1980. Mitchell explained this year there were new requirements for the audit from AICP and it took a lot more based based upon the new format. Councilman Collins asked how many years Schneider & Schuster have been doing the City's audit. Finance Director Sheree Sonfield told Council this will be the fifth year. Ms. Sonfield told Council that timely distribution of the audit is important and that receiving it by June 30th is a high priority. Councilman Knecht moved to approve the engagement letter from Schneider & Schuster, CPAs, revied to include "Due to the improtantce of timely distribution of the audit report, we will prioritize this audit report for a June 30th distribution date; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #62, SERIES OF 1981 - Police Retirement Plan Finance Director Sheree Sonfield told Council this is the next step in the process of dissolving the city police pension fund. The Council has adopted an ordinance allowing the remaining four members to request withdrawl from the plans. The other members have submitted a waiver. This resolution allows the Council to publish the intent to dissolve the fund. COuncilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #62, SEries of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. ~ (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A SIXTY-DAY NOTICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-30-313 C.R.S. 1973, AS ~IENDED, FINDING THAT NO PERSON NAMED IN TITLE 31, ARTICLE 30, PART 3, C.R.S., IS, AND NO SUCH PERSON CAN, BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF A BENEFIT FROM THE ASPEN POLICE RETIREMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING MONEY IN THE FUND WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE CITY OF ASPEN TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-30-313(2)(a) C.R.S. 1973, AS AMENDED WHER ~ EAS, Section 31-30-313(2)(a), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, ~ovides as follows: "(2)(a) If the governing body of a municipality, by resolu- tion, finds that no person named in this part 3 is, and no such person can become, eligible for the pay- meDt of a benefit from the municipality's police- men's pension established pursuant to this part 3, it may authorize use of the money iD the fund to make contributions to the fire and police members' benefit fudd pursuant to section 31-30-1013(2) or to make contributions udder the Federal social security laws if the municipality's police officers are covered by the social security laws. In addition, any money iD the fudd which is attributable to COD- tributions by the municipality and to interest on such contributions may be used for any police- related purpose and, if no such police-related Deed exists, then for any purpose as decided by the governing body of the municipality." %d, WHEREAS, Section 31-30-313(2)(b), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, ~ovides as follow: "(2)(D) At least sixty days before adoption of the resolu- tion, tne governing body of the municipality shall publish one notice in a newspaper having general circulation within the municipality and shall pro- vide ~ ~opy of sucn~ .pub~ish~~ notice to the Board of Directors of the ~S.~ate Fire add Police Pension Association established pursuant to part 10 of this article. The notice s'hall state the intent of the governing body to use the money in the policemen's pension fund for the purposes permitted iD this section (2). The notice shall state that persons wno believe t~ey are or may be entitled to benefit payments from the fudd shall have fifty days from the date of the notice in which to file an objec- tion, iD writing, with the governing body regarding its proposed use of the fudd. If any such written objection is received, the governing body shall hold a public hearing before adoption of any reso- lution udder this SuDsectioD (2) with prior pub- lished notice of the time add place of the hearing as well as written notice of such hearing mailed, by certified mail, to each person filing a written objection." WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Aspen Police Retirement [an nas advised the City Council that, to the best of its know- ~oge, no person named in Title 31, Article 30, Part'3 is, and DO ~cn person can become, eligible for payment of a benefit from the ~peD Police Retirement Plan, and the City Council therefore ~sires to adopt a resolution pursuant to the requirements of ~cti6n 31-30-313, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, and use the monies of le plan as authorized therein; add WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with Section [-30-313(2)(b), C.R.S. 1973, as amended, to direct the City Clerk ) publish the necessary notice and provide a copy of such pub- ished notice ~o the Board of Director of the State Fire and )lice Pension Association established pursuant to Title 31, ~ticle 30, Part 10, C.R.S. 1973, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE [TY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The City Clerk be and she hereby is directed to publish the Dllowing notice iD The Aspen Times, a newspaper having general irculation within the City of Aspen, and to provide a copy of ~cb published notice to the Board of Directors of the State Fire ~d Police Pension Association, pursuant to the requirements of ~ction 31-30- 313(2)(b), C.R.S. 1973, as amended: "A NOTICE CONCERNING THE USE OF MONEY IN THE ASPEN POLICE RETIREMENT PLAN DTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 31-30-313(2), .R.S. 1973, as amended, the City COUncil of the City of Aspen, Dlorado, intends to adopt a uesolution dissolving the Aspen Dlice Retirement Plan add authorizing the use of funds from the plan for the purposes specified, and that any money in the plan~ which is attributable to contributions Dy the City of Aspen may be used for a police-related purpose and, if no such need is found to exist, then for any purpose as decided Dy the City Council. All persons wno believe that they are or may De entitled to beDe-- fit payments from tne plan shall have fifty (50) days from the date of this notice in which to file an objection, in writing, to the City Council of the City of Aspen concerning its proposed use of monies in the Aspen Police Retirement Plan. Unless aD objec- tion is received, it is the intent of the City COUncil to adop~ a resolution DOt less than sixty (60) days from the date of the pub- lication of this notice, finding that no person named in Title 31, Article 30~ Part 3, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, is, and no such per- son can become, eligible for pa~eDt of a benefit from the Aspen Police Retirement Plan and to thereupon authorize the use of monies as provided Dy Section 31-30-313(2)(a), C.R.S. 1973, as amended. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Resolution ~62, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilm~ Parry. All in favor, motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Councilman Parry moved to adop~ the consent agenda; These items were (1) appointment of election judges; (2) liquor license renewals; the Arya; Tom's Market; Clark's Market. seconded by Councilman COllins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Collins moved to adjourn at 7:40 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Koch, City Clerk