Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19820208Commissioner Klanderud called the joint meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Michael and Mayor Edel present and Commissioners Kinsley, Child and Madsen present. 1. Planning Office contract. Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded the Boards this was being returned to the joint meeting. The county approve the contract; the Council did not have a quorum. The Council later raised some concerns about the contract. This has been discussed with both city and county manager. Vann passed out the latest revised contract. Vann told the Boards the problem Council had dealt with the director of planning and the powers in the contract. The contract originally made the planning office directly responsible to the BOCC and Council and removed the planning office from the authority of the city and county manager. This has been revised at the request of Council. The planning office will service at the pleasure of Council and the commissioner However, this contract provides supervisory authority of the planning director and department under the city and county managers. The only other change is to spell out how the new direct billing concept will be utilized. Councilwoman Michael moved to approved the revised planning office agreement among the planning office, City of Aspen and Pitkin County; seconded by Commissioner Child. Commissioner Kinsley asked Council why they wanted the contract different from the way it was in the past. Councilwoman Michael said this change came from no sense of negativism. Councilwoman Michael said she felt this was a reflection of how well the communication does occur from Council to manager to departments. Council appreciates the value of that managerial function. Councilwoman Michael said she wanted to retain the value of a joint planning department for land use policies and coordination of those policies. Mayor Edel agreed he like the process of flow of work from department to manager to Council. Vann pointed out this precludes the necessity of entering into a personal contra~t for the director. City Manager Chapman told the Boards he did not think there would be substantial differenc~ from before. Chapman said he, Vann, and county manager Curt Stewart have always felt if they were going to fulfill their responsibilities from a professional standpoint, they would have to talk things out and have always done so. Chapman said this way, he felt he would have to make himself more accessible to the planning director. Stewart said he felt this contract is relatively unimportant. What is important is the work program. Vann said this represents a departure from ~he concept that was based on personalities. This ~s an annual agreement. Vann said he was comfortable working under this arrangement. Ail in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Edel called the Council meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Collins, Knecht, Michael and Parry present. MINUTES Councilman Collins made a correction in a vote on the Corkscrew duplex special review from January 11, 1982. Councilman Parry moved to approve the minutes of December 28, 1981; January 11, 2, 1982; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Knecht moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was none. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Michael asked about the parking of the pclice cars. The police cars had moved to the north side of Hopkins. Assistant City Manager Mitchell told Council at that time it was temporary measure due to the roof being worked on. Councilwoman Michael asked for an update on the plan. City Manager Chapman told Council the plan is to keep the police cars on the north side for the winter. The number of accidents involving police cars has decreased keeping on the north side of the street. Given the expense of repairing Saabs versus the expense of reparlng other cars,,it is much cheaper. Mayor Edel pointed out the police are still taking both sides of the street. Chapman said there is one parking place on the south side of the street for patrol cars. Mayor Edel said last week there were cars on both sides of the street; they cannot have it both ways. City engineer McArthur told Council the police cars can park anywhere in town; they are like anyone else. Terry Quirk, police department, told Council he would direct the officers to use the designated slots only. Quirk said there is a real problem with city hall roof. 2. Councilwoman Michael requested a status report on the improper uses of the garages at the Continental and Woodstone Inns. City Manager Chapman told Council the parking garages underneath the Continental and Woodstone were being used for storage. The building inspector met with the applicant. The situation has been ccrrected. The garages are empty and available for parking. Chapman told Council HBC Investments plans to submit plans to have the garage underneath the Continental used for storage. 3. Councilwoman Michael said the Council will be setting a meeting with the Smuggler Trailer park people. 4. Councilman Knecht said there is trash all over the highway coming into town. Council~ man Knecht said he requested the people at the dump to police the covered truck law more strongly. Councilman Knecht said he would like one of the parks department trucks to clean up the highway. Tun Dunlop, environmental health, said either he or the sanitation department would do it. 5. Mayor Edel stated last summer the Council empanelled a group for the Institute lands. This group worked very hard and came up with a program; the Council has not heard from the applicant. City Manager Chapman said he did have communications from the owner of the Institute lands who was supposed to follow up with a precise plan. Chapman suggested Council have the group who helped prepare the plan request a status report from the owner. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there have been a couple 6f requests for pre-applications but nothing has followed through. Council agreed the Board should contact the owner and asked Chapman to follow through. 6. Mayor Edel announced that Monroe Summers was goang to have a public hearing on the Rio Grande property on Wednesday, February 24, at 6 p.m. This is an attempt to gave everyone one more chance to make their public input on the Rio Grande property before it moves into the SPA. Councilman Collins asked if the SPA plan had been developed. Summer~ told Council this is still one last public hearing on the master plan for the property. The development of the SPA is the next stage. The staff is tryang ~o assimilate public information, then move into a contract for the next phase. The master plan is the one that has already been presented to Council. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Jon Busch told Council over the years he has been looking for an appropriate organ for the Wheeler Opera House. Through a friend who is a professional organist, Busch found an exceptional buy in a pipe organ. Busch told Council this as a theatrical organ it is two manual, 7 rank kimble proposed to be brought up ro a 10 rank instrument, made proper and installed for $10,000. Busch that is absolutely half price. Busch said he has talked to the city engineer, who sees no problem locating the organ in the attic and to use the abandoned projection room to install pipes in. The console would be portable so it can be moved wherever it is needed. The music school has indicated such an instru- ment would be useful to their activities. Busch said this organ would be perfect to finish off the Wheeler. Mayor Edel said the big kick of an organ is filling a room with sound. Unless the source of sound is spread, it will not get it. Busch said considering the size of the room, 10 ranks of pipes will fill the room. City engineer McArthur told Council there will be some costs associated with putting the organ is such as redesign, mechanical and duct work. McArthur said he had no idea how much this would cost. Councilwoman Michael said she thought this was a great idea; Councilman Parry agree. Councilman Collins suggested coming back to Council with the estimates. Councilman Knecht asked how this would be paid for. Nick DeWolfe told Council they have formed a team to try to get the organ for the Wheeler. DeWolfe said they felt they would raise money outside the Wheeler budget. The best arrangement would be for the community to split the costs. DeWolfe said he has not researched where they will raise their half of the money. DeWolfe said he would do his best to raise $5,000 if the city will put up the other S5.C00. Councilwoman Michael moved to place the organ issue on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to authorize City Manager Chapman and City enganeer McArthur to pursue the purchase of this organ on a 50/50 split; seconded by Councilman Parry. DeWolfe said the $10,00~ includes the installation but does not include the work to prepare the Wheeler for the organ. McArthur said the architect, mechanical, electrical will have to look at it to make sure the Wheeler can handle this. Councilwoman Michael said she trusted the staff will look at ~hese costs. All in favor, motion carried. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE BOARD Mayor Edel said the Council has come up with the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors. Mayor Edel thanked all those who applied; there was a good turn out with many interested people. The Board is; one year term Eve Homeyer (at-large) and Don Swales (film); two year terms Gerry Hewey (at-large) and Dorothea Farris (dance); three year terms are King Woodward (at-large), Bill Shorr (theatre) and Pete Stone (music). A meeting will be set up for next week. COUNCIL RETREAT City Manager Chapman said the Council and some staff spent almost a full day together. It was a good chance to discuss specifics about programs and projects; philosophy, direction and fairly broad issues were also discussed. One of the most important things from a procedural point of view, was Council developed a legislative agenda ~o look at the next year and a half and pick out the major issues the Council wants to focus on and schedule them. The public will be informed well ahead of time what these issues are. Hopefully, this will give the public more chance to impact the system. Issues early on the time table are Rubey park - transportation center, Rio Grande property and the status of Castle Ridge. Marketing and the role of arts in Aspen ~as also discussed. DECISION ON TROLLEY CARS Monroe Summers told Council the city is at the turning point in the history of trolley cars. Summers has had communications with a lot of people about the trolleys. The city has received the papers of conveyance for the last three cars. Summers said his last instructions a year ago were to actively seek the sale of the trolleys. These trolleys should have a base value of $18,600; because the city has six trolleys, $20,000 might be considered as a base price. Summers suggested all six cars are put up for bid at $20,000. Mayor Edel asked what happens if this is too high a price? Mayor Edel said he would rather have this be a negotiated figure and then staff come back to Council to see if the price is right. Summers said he had gotten responses from all over the country. Summers assumption is that these trolleys are worth $20,000. There is a limited supply of trolley: It was never intended that the trolley would become a permanent feature in Rubey park. Councilman Collins asked about the plans for trolleys from the Little Annie group. Summers said it appears that Dave Farney is looking for direction from the city. P & Z said that the current type of diesel buses would be unacceptable for transporting skiers to Little Annie. Councilman Knecht said it is crazy to sell them; the city got them for nothing. Councilwoman Michael said she made a decision with other priorities in town, she was not interested in pursuing the trolley car idea. Councilwoman Michael said she has never received any phone calls saying this is a good idea. Councilwoman Michael said the combination of how she feels generally and what she sees as a lack o~support, she will stand by the previous opinion. Mayor Edel said the vision of Farney being solinterested in using the trolleys for Little Annie is just not true. Mayor Edel said he had received a number of calls people saying having trolley cars in Aspen with wires, tracks etc. is the dumbest thing they can think of. Phoebe Ryearson said Little Annie cannot commit too much because they have had a long time and changed costs to their venture. Ms. Ryearson said the Council is not addressing the fact that Aspen is not that choice to everybody now. Aspen is in a tough position. Ms. Ryearson said people of all ages would be charmed to ride the trolleys. It is inconceivable that the Council would sell the trolleys. Ms. Ryearson asked if $120,000 meant so much to the budget that the Council cannot hang on to the old world. Councilman Parry pointed out these trolley are much cleaner than the diesel buses. The buses would put a lot of pollution into the Little Annie corner of town. Councilman Parry said he would like to keep the options open, Councilman Parry said he felt it is prematur~ to sell the trolleys; they are a very clean method of transportation. Steve Wright, Skier's Chalet, said he thinks the trolleys are a neat idea and would be good transporta- tion for the town. Since~the city got the trolleys for free, they ought to hold on to them and think about it for awhile. City Manager Chapman said Council referred the issue of the trolleys to staff to work on what it would take to have the trolleys operational. One of the biggest problems is worry about the streets. There is a concern about snow melting without a good inlay and ruining the streets. There would be greater water penetration into the road and there would be fairly heavy maintenance. Chapman recommended is that the city grant a franchise to a group that would want to run the trolleys. Du~ne Fengel, transportation director, pointed out when Little Annie came up with using the trolleys, this was the most feasible area for street cars. It makes the most sense because it is a straight shot. Fengel said what people are missing is that this system will not go throughout the town. The costs of maintenance trying to keep trolleys running all over town is extremely high. Fengel said the staff should investigate all aspects, the costs to get the trolleys back in shape how they would be maintained, the costs to install the systems, etc. Chapman told Council the original feasibility report looked at the costs for installation and figured a charge per ride of $1. Even with that charge, the system would probably run at a loss. There was no economic incentive for the original group to get into the system. The staff looked at the feasibility report, the standards of installation were below what staff would recommend to Council. Jon Busch told Council several years ago the Chamber of Commerce polled its membership about this and they were pretty evenly split. Busch said the scenic railroad people in Chalma had indicated interest in running the system as a commercial venture. Busch suggested the Council put this into the market place to see if anyone is interested in taking the trolley system on. Councilwoman Michael said this is a more complicated decision than are trolley cars fund to ride. There are unbelieveable hidden costs to this decision. There are implications about how the Council wants the town to look in this decision. Mayor Edel said keeping them or not is not the point. This would be a most fiscally irresponsible decision to run a trolley system. Mayor Edel said this would be throwing a lot of money into this at a time when the Council is not adequately qualified to do so. Roger Hunt told Council to look farther into the future. The diesel buses are not without their impact. The costs of operating diesel buses will become higher and higher and higher. For Little Annie, the criteria Council adopted is that diesel buses are not good for Little Annie~ Secondly, the Rio Grande property will be coming on line and there will be a tremendous load demand center at Rio Grande. Also there is a tremendous load in the L-1 and L-2 districts; these two spots should be tied together with a transportation. Hunt said the Rio Grande cannot be satisfactorily serviced by diesel buses. The buses stink and are dirty; trolleys are neater to operate. A1 Blomquist told Council he had just looked at the work program for the planning office and the revision of physical plans of the city is a component. Blomquist suggested the sale of the trolleys be put off until that planning period. Blomquist suggested Council ask P & Z to take a look at inter-modal transportation. This will take 6 to 8 months and the trolley will probably appreciate in value during that time. Blomquist said there are alternative ways to use the trolleys that ought to be considered. Councilman Collins said if there are people who want to come forth with a plan, ~they should be given that opportunity. Councilman Collins said he is concerned that the city might get stuck with an albatross as far as economics are cohcerned. He would like time to seek out people to make a proposal. Councilman Parry moved that the city does not consider selling the trolley cars at this time and review this in 12 months; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Councilmembers Knecht, Collins and Parry in favor; Councilwoman Michael and Mayor Edet opposed. Motion carried. Summers told Council that Hernstadt has said he would protect the trolley. Councilwoman Michael said the sense of the mo~ion is that Council would like the staff to do something about the trolleys and trolley system. ORDINANCE ~7, SERIES OF 1982 - Historic Structures Designation Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is the first reading of an ordinance designating structures for which the owners oppose historic designation. Ms. Penne sent letters to the owners telling them of this reading and of the public hearing on March 8. There was a joint public hearing between the HPC and P & Z, and their recommendation was ~o pursue designation. Bil Dunaway pointed out this is the first time the Council is being asked to approve something that the owners do not approve. It is a big departure from previous Councils; it is a philosophical step Council has not taken. Mayor Edel said he is concerned about taking away rights from people. Mayor Edel asked what the consequences of this ordinance would be. Ms. Penne said these properties would have historic designation attached to their zoning. If the owners wanted to move, demolish, or alter their structure, they would be reviewed by HPC. Ms. Penne pointed out if Council felt they would never designate property over questions of the owners, they would not have set up a provision for that to happen. There is a process in the Code to do they. Councilman Collins asked if these structure qualified for investment credits. Ms. Penne told Council only structures on the National historic register or par5 of a historic district qualify. Councilman Knecht moved to read Ordinance ~7, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilwoman Michael said she had no problems where owners agree to historic designation. However, Councilwoman Michael has a big problem with making decisions where people do not respond or object. There has to be a balance of desirR with historic designation of some of Aspen's beuatiful buildings and the property owner saying I am not interested. Ms. Penne said before she pursued this, she asked Council how they felt about designation of the exceptional and excellent structures on the inventory. Council directed staff to pursue lt. Mayor Edel agreed Council had given that direction. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~7 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE ACCORDING TO SECTION 24-9.7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO was read by the city clerk Councilman Knecht moved to adop5 Ordinance ~7, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconde~ by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Michael, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Mayor Edel requested staff make an extended effort for second reading to have representa- tives of these houses present. ORDINANCE ~4, SERIES OF 1982 Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~4, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESIDENTIAL AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this discussion is to inform Council of the status of area and bulk. This particular idea has been considered off and on since 1976 and recently surfaced as a result of the R/MF moratoriums which was results of concerns of neighborhood residents to tbs massive scale of duplexes occuring. The planning office reviewed these concerns and came to the conclusions this was not just a problem of bulk in the R/MF zone but all the city's residential zone district. Vann said it is terribly complex to address the problems of area and bulk and to review all the work that has been completed since the late '60s. Only one specific aspect of the problem will be discussed tonight. The area and bulk reaulrements has been broken down into three areas; (1) technique or approach to regulate the issue of area and bulk; (2) the specific number of that technique; (3) variety of peripheral issues, such as implementation, clarification of definitions of implementation. Covering all three areas in one meeting would be excessive. Vann is going to present to approach, which the planning office and P & Z is recommending to Council to deal with the issue of area and bulk. Vann said after this session, there will be a tour of the city to view residences that the planning office has statistics on and then discuss the specifics of numbers and how they are implemented. Vann said the planning office has thoroughly researched all the work that has been done on this subject since 1976 and discussed this extensively with P & Z. Originally the planning office came up with a simple fixed area ratio such as .75:1 and were developed for each residenti 1 zone district within the city. This approach had~nothing to do with lot size. The biggest problem with a fixed FAR, it does not deal with the essential ingredient, lot size itself. P & Z suggested an overlay district with a special review for residences The planning office felt this was arbitrary and cumbersome; this approach was dismissed. A volume/metric approach came but; it proved to be cumbersome and did not address the issue of floor area. Another approach in 1979 which depended upon lot size was brought up but it had some inherent problems. Finally a sliding scale approach with a standard increase of allowed floor area as a function of each 100 square foot of lot size was initiated. Vann told Council this is a simple formula and once the standards are adopted can be converted to a simple graph. Vann told Council two scales were proposed, one for single family residences in all residential area and a scale for duplexes, because duplexes are a slightly more inten- sive use and should be allowed additional square footage. Vann said the planning office also looked at a simple open space requirement; however, this does not deal with the problem of area and bulk because it only looks at the footprint. Various methods were gone through and rejected for any number of reasons from inequitability to cumbersomeness of administrative procedures. Vann told Council the sliding scale approach is the one the P & Z and the planning office have come to see as the only realistic way to deal with the problems. It is the most equitable and is relatively easy to administer. This scale defines the amount of build- able square footage and deals with the wide variety of lot sizes that are found in all the zone districts. This assumes that the allowable building square footage is a function of the actual lot size. The permissiveness or restrictiveness of this scale will be determined by Council's evaluation of the community and what they feel the appropriate area and bulk should be. Once the numbers are established, it treats every- one the same with the same ratios across the community. Vann said this scale reflects an inventory of existing structures and provides an opportunity for Council to determine what they feel is excessive and that which is appropriate. Vann told Council this approach is easy to explain and easy to administer. Vann demon- strated how this formula works an a memorandum. The formula was a result of a survey of existing structures in the community, both those appropriate and those which the community had identified as problem houses. The multipliers for square footage were developed as a result of a survey of existing buildings in town. The curve came out of P & Z determining which structures were appropriate and which were not. Vann said once the technique is set, the Council may make the numbers as permissive or restrictive as they wish. There is a separate set of numbers of duplexes under the assumption this use should be more intensive. This approach was presented to P & Z, at which time they felt the numbers were too restrictive. P & Z asked staff to increase the numbers approximately 20 per cent, which staff did. A site inspection was scheduled; upon viewing the effect of the more permiss- ive numbers in'the field, P & Z changed their mind and went back to the original numbers of the planning office. Vann told Council the P & Z voted 4 to 3, with the exception of one member who felt that duplexes should not be given preferential treatment. The members in favor agreed to combine the numbers so that single family and duplex dwellings would have the same numbers so that the resolution would pass and the moratorium could continue,~ . - An outstanding issue is whether Council wants to give duplexes a slight edge over single family construction. A concern of one member of P & Z is that nothing will be built but duplexes. Vann told Council the approach presented effectively dealt with the area and bulk problem in the R-6 through R-30 zones; it does not address all the problems in the R/MF zone. Vann said a single family or duplex constructed in the R/MF zone would use the numbers presented tonight, not the 1:1 FAR. The P & Z and planning office feel that the 1:1 FAR for multi,family construction in the R/MF zone is appropriate. P & Z was concerned about the maximum heighth in the R/MF zone and the discrepancy between that and the other residential zone district. The maximum heighth an residential zones is 25 feet and it is 28 feet in R/MF to allow for a more dense construction. Vann said the planning office recommended to promote development of a multi-family structure, that the 28 feet should be left until some problem surfaced. P & Z disagreed and felt that a uniform heighth restriction regardless of the intensity of the use should be applicable across all the residential zone districts and the heighth in R/MF should be lowered to 25 feet. Planning office and P & Z concurred that the 1:1 FAR is appropriate. There is one issue unique to the R/MF zone, which is the ability to build setback to set- back. The nature of the maximum building square footages in the other residential zones is such that at a minimum of 40 per cent open space on a site is guaranteed. In the R/MF zone, with a 1:1 FAR it is possible to maximumize the square footage and build lot line to lot line. The planning office recommended in the R/MF zone an open space requirement to insure an applicant does not build lot line to lot line, this is recommended at 35 per cent. Vann told Council he needed a consensus that the approach is the simplest one to date, and whether Council wants to give duplexes preferential treatment as a more intense Gideon Kaufman, representing the Board of Realtors, pointed out several years FARs were not adopted. The Board of Realtors was not convinced the FARs were necessary. The Board has come to the conclusion they no longer oppose the adoption of FARs; they are opposing the numbers. Building from lot line to lot line ought to be eliminated, but the city should not adopt an ordinance that will make 25 per cent or more of the homes in Aspen non-conforming structures. Jack Walls presented a list of structures that should be included in the tour and said if these were included, the percentage of non-conforming structures would be 50 per cent. Vann pointed out to Council this is a value judgement on their behalf of what is the appropriate bulk. Kaufman told Council they have to look at what has been acceptable in the conununity. Kaufman said he felt it is important to have two separate guidelines for duplex and single family; otherwise this is a downzoning. People have had expectations on the zoning Mayor Edel said a building is a building ~n the v~ews it cuts off and the bulk it presents Kaufman pointed out the purpose of the R/MF zone is to allow high density units. When the height is reduced from 28 feet to 25 feet, it is difficult to get a three-level build- ing. People need the ability to go to 28 feet to get higher density. Kaufman brought up the inconsistency in the open space requirements; all zones have a 25 per cent require- ment, the R/MF will have to have a 35 per cent open space. Spencer Schiffer pointed out there is a mistake in the draft resolution. Vann said he has to take this back to P & Z for clarification. Schiffer said this is adding another layer onto layers of regulations that already exist. Schiffer suggested a study session with the P & Z and invited developers, architects and planners to come ~n and address the practical ramifications of these recommendations. City Manager Chapman told Council the long range effect of this will probably be on the value of the land, either slowing down the increase in the value or putting a cap on this Council will have to decide whether this is good or bad. Chapman asked if this was considered with caretaker units in mind. Vann said the caretaker units were blown out of the water. Robin Molny recollected the exclusion of single family and duplexes from growth management plan was to encourage such uses. Molny said the restrictions as set forth are going to encourage people to stop looking at their lots as single family and duplexes and look at them as multi-family development. Vann said the zoning does identify areas appropriate for multi-family development. These regulations would have the effect of making it less attractive to build single family and duplexes exemp~ from GMP and taking advantage of multi-family area and bulk requirements. Individuals may find it more attractive to compete under GMP for multi-family projects. This is consistent with the land use policie that were adopted for these areas. Olof Hedstrom, P & Z member, told Council the P & Z made a tour and found that the recom- mendation the P & Z came up with addresses and strikes at the undesirable visual impact of what has happened. The P & Z feels this resolution will alleviate this. The periphera issues need to be addressed separately. Council set Wednesday, February 17, at 4:00 for a bus tour and discussion of this issue. GLENWOOD CANYON RESOLUTION Mark Skrotzki presented a resolution to Council and told Council the U. S. Corps of Engineers is circulating a draf~ supplemental environmental impact statement for the Glenwood canyon project whether to permit a 404 dredge and fill in the river. Skrotzki told Council he feels this document ~s very inadequate. Skrotzki told Council the public will receive less than $.25 in benefits for each dollar it spends. The roads in the U.S. are deteriorating and there is insufficient funds to maintain the roads. Mayor Edel said the Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County have come out with very strong statements on Glenwood Canyon. Mayor Edel said the highway department does not have sufficient funds to complete what the city wants them to do for safety improvements. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution ~4, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried. RESOLUTION ~4 (Series of 1982) WHEREAS, the Corps of Engineers is circulating a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for review and comment and is making a determina- tion of the Public Interest accruing on the Glenwood Canyon 1-70 project, and WHEREAS, the Glenwood Canyon 1-70 project is enormously expensive and will disrupt traffic through Western Colorado for many years, and WHEREAS, the public will receive less than S.2~ in benefits for each dollar it spends on the Glenwood Canyon highway, and WHEREAS, roads throughout the state are deteriorating in an accelerating manner, due in large part of insufficinet funds to properly maintain them, and WHEREAS, the State has the policy making authority to transfer funds from any budget category, including interstate construction, to highway maintenance, and WHEREAS, Congress has the authority to end the interstate construction pro- gram thereby making available over $3 billion per year for other Federal programs, including highway maintenance and other highway construction programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE Aspen City Council that: 1. The City of Aspen opposes the currently proposed design of the Glenwood Canyon Highway and urges the Highway Commission and the Highway Department to transfer funds budgeted for that highway to more worthwhile programs, and 2. The City of Aspen urges the United States Corps of Engineers to make a finding of no public interest in completing the Glenwood Canyon highway as proposed in the DSEIS and to thereby refuse the request for a Section 404 Fill Permit. Councilman Parry said he is opposed to opposing Glenwood Canyon because of all the residents and visitors have to drive through that highway. It is a very dangerous section of highway. Councilman Parry said he would support anything to improve that section of the highway and would support four-laning the highway. Mayor Edel said he agreed that highway should be made safer but what is happening now is highly inappropriate. Skrotzki agreed that the road has to be improved. He feels they should take the money and do a better alternative for improved maximum traffic flow with passing lanes and tunnels. They should look at the alternative that is the quickest to build with the least environ- mental impact. Councilman Collins asked how much delay this would mean; Glenwood Canyon has been analysed. re-analysed and redesigned. Skrotzki told Council this will not delay anything at all. The constructrion schedule is to come from both ends into the center, that will be 18 to 2~ months. Councilmembers Knecht, Michael and Mayor Edel in favor; Councilmembers Collins and Parry opposed. Motion carried. CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND EXEMPTION FROM GMP - Tom Thumb Building Colette Penne, planning office, told Council this is a request for subdivision exception to condominiumize the Tom Thumb building and for exemption from the GMP for three employee units. Ms. Penne pointed out that six month minimum leases should be imposed. The three employee units are two one-bedrooms and a studio sizes 539 square feet, 636 square feet and 399 square feet. The applicant requested the middle income category and listed construction costs of $240 per square foot as justification. The county housing office recommended income categories which the P & Z adopted, which are low income for the two smaller units and moderate income category for the larger unit. Ms. Penne told Council the planning office recommends approval with rental at low for units 1 and 2 and moderate for unit 3 with six month minimum leases and the engineering conditions. Tam Scott, representing the applicant, told Council the city's income guidelines compute out that 25 per cent of annual income is a fair amount to attribute to rentals. The middle sized apartment would fit the low income by only $40; the cut off for moderate is an annual income of $12,200. If one uses the 25 per cent criteria, an employee would need to earn $12,160 going by square foot for rental rates. Scott said with this and the quality of the pr.oject and the location of the units, it would not be out of line to request the moderate bracket. Mayor Edel asked if these units were designated when the development application came to the city. Ms. Penne said these were not; P & Z is aware this should be changed as the developer needs to know going into the project what income category the units will be. Alan Richman said in the commercial GMP competition, points are not given for specific income level categories. Councilman Parry said if an employee in the building wanted to rent a unit here and they earned too much money, they could not rent it. Alan Richman told Council the city has not activated the occupancy guidelines except for the units that specifically go through the housing office. Richman said when there is a city housing office, they may be able to activate the income/occupancy guidelines for all projects; at this point, the city does not have a mechanism to qualify renters or purchasers. Council went through the calcula- tions for each apartment for each category. Scott asked if law is ever found to be illegal or is repealed, then will the deed restric- tions automatically be terminated. City Attorney Taddune said he would not recommend this as this is a concession under protest. Chapman pointed out the applicant is asking for a departure of city policy. The city has asked people to voluntarily deed restrict units in exchange for things. Taddune said if the city is giving someone development rights based on certain GMP exemptions, there should be no equivocation. Scott said these units were not built as low income units to the developers mind. Mayor Edel said the Council has been trying to get as many low income units into the market as they can. Councilman Collins moved that all three units be classified as moderate income category; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman Collins said he felt they should be moderate because of the size of the units, the location of the units, where they are situated in the building they should be moderate units. Councilmembers Collins, Michael and Parry in favor, Councilman Knecht and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to approve the subdivision exception for the purposes of condo- miniumization and GMP exemption for the three employee units outlined with the rental and sale prices set at moderate income level; conditioned upon (1) six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year; (2) the five engineering conditions for plat amendment outlined in the engineering department memo; (3) deed restrictions documents be submitted to the city attorney with 50 year restrictions for rental and sale prices set at moderate; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht and Mayor Edel. Motion carried. GMP EXEMPTION FOR EMPLOYEE UNIT - Snow Queen Lodge Colette Penne explained this is a request to expand an existing 250 square foot employee unit by combining it with an existing free market room for a total of 420 square feet and to reconstruct a new rental lodge unit of not more than 420 square feet. Councilman Parry questioned the condition which said this unit shall be rented to employees of this lodge. Ms. Penne said this is typical of lodge and is required in the ordinance. Council pointed out if this is required, it does not need by a condition. Councilman Parry moved to approve GMP exemption for the construction of an employee unit of 420 square feet at the Snow Queen Lodge (by combining an existing Lodge room with an existing employee ~pace of inadequate size), and replacement of that same square footage in the form of a new lodge rental room with the following conditions; (1) deed restrictioni to low income employee rental guidelines and against commercial rental or sale for a period of 50 years as set forth in Section 24-11.4(b) (3); (2) in the event that the lodge is condominiumized, the deed restricted unit must be retained as a portion of the common elements of the lodge; (3) health, safety and fire inspection and compliance prior to approval; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION ~2, SERIES OF 1982 - 1982 Lodge GMP Allocation Councilman Collins moved to read Resolution ~2, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried. Alan Richman explained this resolution takes the direction from Council at their last meeting. RESOLUTION ~2 (Series of 1932) WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-11.6Ia) of the Municmpal Code, September 1st of each year is established as a deadline for submission of applica- tions for lodge development allocations in the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this provision, two applications for lodge projects were submitted to the planning office for evaluation involving a total of 127 lodge units and 4 employee units, the latter of which are exempt from the available quota, and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was conducted on October 6, 1981, by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, to evaluate and score these lodge applications in conformance with the criteria established in Section 24-11.6(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code{ .and WHEREAS, the ~I~nn~i~ Commission did rank and score the two projects submitted in the following order: Project Units requested Score 1. Aspen Inn 96 lodge rooms 51.8 points 2. The Lodge at Aspen 31 lodge rooms and 49.2 points 4 employee units and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did forward their ranking and scoring of the lodge applications to City Council and recommend that the City Council award development allotments to both pro3ects since, pursuant to Section 24-11.6(c) of the Code, only 35 points are needed to be eligible for a growth management lodge allotment, and WHEREAS, subsequent to the scoring of the applications by the Planning Commission, both applicants did file with the planning office appeals of the points awarded to their respective proDects, and WHEREAS, on November 19, 1981, the City Council did hold a special meeting to consider the issues of the available quota for lodge allocations mn 1982, the appeals by the applicants of the scoring of the lodge competitions by the Planning Commission and the award of quota to the successful applicants, and WHEREAS, City Council did determine at its November 19 meeting that a total of 78 units is available for allocation in 1982, based on previously awarded allocation which have expired and based on previously unallocated lodge units, and WHEREAS, City Council did tableafrom the November 19 meeting to its regular meeting of November 23 the issues of the appeals of the socring and the award of quota for the 1982 lodge competition, and did then table these issues from the November 23 meeting to a date uncertain, and WHEREAS, according to Section 24-11.6(e) of the Code, the City Council shall allocate the lodge development allotments among the eligible applicants mn the order of priority established by their rank prior to December 1st of each year, and WHEREAS, both applicant did indicate to the planning office that they did agree to allow the December 1st deadline to pass without the award of a quota, pending the resolution of certain issues which had arisen regarding the 1978 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP development as they relate to the 1982 competition, and WHEREAS, on December 28, 1981, at a regular meeting, City Council did consider the amendments to the 1978 Aspen Inn GMP application and did not approve the deviations which have occurred from the original application, and WHEREAS, as the Aspen Inn is a phased application, a fundamental component of the 1982 Aspen Inn application is the 1978 applicant, which is the basic building block upon which all subsequent requests must be evaluated, and WHEREAS, as a result of the substantial deviations now existent from the 1978 application and thei~ currahtly unapproved status, the planning office did determine that the 1982 Aspen Inn application fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, as required by Section 24-11.3(c) (3), the planning office must reject any applications which fails to comply with the requirements of Chapter 24, Zoning, of the Code, or any other applicable land use or building regulations of - the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, mn a letter from the planning director to the representatives of the Aspen Inn application dated January 20, 1982, the planning office did reject the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application, and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1982, at a regular meeting, City Council did concur with the determination by the planning director that the 1982 Aspen Inn Lodge GMP application should be rejected and did therefore unanimously direct the planning office to prepare a resolution awarding a development allocation of 31 lodge units to The Lodge at Aspen, and authorizing the applicant to proceed further with additional approvals required from the City prior to obtaining a building permit, and WHEREAS, the applicant for The Lodge at Aspen has agreed to withdraw his appeal at such time as he should be awarded an allocation while the appeal by the Aspen Inn has become moot since it has been found to be an ineligible application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESCLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: 1. A lodge development allotment of 31 units is hereby awarded to The Lodge at Aspen. 2. The Lodge at Aspen is hereby authorized to proceed further with additional approvals needed from the City before a building permit is secured. was read by the city clerk Councilman Collins moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #3, SERIES OF 1982 - Loma Alta Annexation City Attorney Taddune submitted a memorandum regarding the annexation law. The city clerk refers the petition to Council and Council shall take steps to determine if the petition is in compliance. Taddune said he has found that the petition is in compliance with the technical requirements for annexation. The second step is for Council to determine whethen or not there should be the necessity of a hearing and for additional terms and conditions to be imposed on the annexation. Taddune said there is a concern on staff as to whether additional ~erms and conditions should be imposed. The city has a policy of acquiring water rights for the city through annexation. Taddune told Council the petition for annexation is signed by 100 per cent of the property owners asking to be annexed. Council can determine because of this to annex by ordinance rather than the necessity of a hearing or an election. If the applicant voluntarily compli~with dedicating the water r~ghts and meeting the conditions of the engineering department, this can be done by ordinance. Taddune said the staff and Council agrees that in light of the water rights problem, if the city has to serve someone within the water service district, the city ought to make a strong effort to consolidate all the water rights. Mayor Edel asked if it were feasible for the city to take the water rights and allow certain uses for it by the current owner. Jon Seigle, representing the applicant, said he understood the applicant would give the city the water rights. The applicant will then lease back whatever they currently have on that property for irrigation uses. Taddune told Council there are three additional proposed condition recommended by the engineering department. City engineer McArthur said the staff would like quick claim deeded to the city the county right-of-way known as Chipeta avenue. If the city does not quick claim this, it could go back to the owner. Seigle told Council he had discussed this with the county attorney who told Seigle to draft a deed for the County Commissioners to the city. McArthur told Council the second recommendation is to extend the covenants that exist now in the county to the city. Seigle said this regards an employee housing unit and the guidelines, and he has not problem with this condition. Alan Richman, planning office, told Council he was asked three questions by the engineering department; (1) what would be the appropriate zone district; (2) how would that zone differ from the county zoning, (3) what about the proposed city FAR for the county FAR for the property. Richman told Council the property is zoned R-15 in the county; the most comparable zone in the city would be R-15 and R-15A. In the county R-15 it requires 15,000 square feet to build a dwelling; in the city R-15 it requires only 10,000 square feet. The four lots on this property total 68,000 square feet. In the county there is a right to four units; if this were zoned R-15 in the city, there could be a right to six units. There is a potential upzoning if it is R-15 in the city. The planning office suggests R-15A would be more likely zone because if a duplex is built, one of the units has to be employee housing. Regarding the FAR~, three of the lots are equal in size, about 15,000 square feet. The county would allow about 2400 square feet of buildable building at an FAR of .16:1. In the city, should this proposal be adopted, there would be almost twice the allowable square footage at 4420 square feet. In bringing this property into the city, if no restrictions are placed on the buildings, they could almost double in s~ze. On the fourth lot, almost 5,000 square feet would be allowed. McArthur told Council the applicant has agreed not to build six possible units but keep the four existing units. The applicant wants to be able to extend the existing square footage of the existing buildings. McArthur said staff did not feel it is a benefit to the city to be annexed to be able to enlarge building almost twice the s~ze. Councilwoman Michael asked the applicant why he wanted to be annexed to the city. The applicant told Council he had a vested interest in property in the downtown mall. One of the houses is his and he would like to take an active part in the city and wants city services. The applicant told Council he as not changing any of the building ideas; three lots are already developed. The fourth lot would be kept for a single family dwelling. Jon Seigle, representing the applicant, told Council he had discussed this with the engineering department and they agreed not to put any additional dwelling units and whatever the zoning is is what they will live by. Seigle said they did not want to agree to an FAR, today, that is distinct from the zone that will be placed on the property. This property is surrounded on three sides by city property and they would like to be subject to the same rules as this property. Councilwoman Michael moved to instruct the city attorney to draw up a resolution for the Loma Alta annexation; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Richman told Council the staff's recommendation for zoning will be R-15A. ORDINANCES 1, 2, and 3, SERIES OF 1982 Aspen Mountain Park/Pitkin Reserve Alan Richman told Council these ordinances should be tabled to a work session to resolve those issues left unresolved. City Manager Chapman addressed the park dedication issue; the applicant is asking that the land dedication be used in lieu of a fee. Calculating the park dedication fees in the normal way and the applicant uses this for tax purposes. Mayor Edel said he fel't this was double use of the same piece of land. The applicant is dedicating to the county 18 acres for open space. The applicant then says they do not want to pay a park dedication fee because of the 18 acres; Mayor Edel said he felt that was using the same piece of land for different purposes. Chapman said at the last meeting~ Council said they would accept the land in lieu of payment of the fee. The Council consensus was to go along with land in lieu of park dedication fees. Richman told Council the units will fall within the guidelines; the 17 units will be within the guidelines. The 87 units will be restricted in terms of a special mechanism for converting existing housing to employee housing as provided in the 85/15 ordinance. All aspects of employee housing will be tied up appropriately. Mayor Edel questioned the last sentence which states that any units sold in the middle income category is subject to park dedication fees. Mayor Edel asked if this was going against the same 18 acres. Richman told Council the only thing that will not be counted against the 18 acres are the seven free market units yet to be located. Bob Hughes said Council and the applicant has agreed if the 17 new trailers are marketed at moderate income level, the park dedication fee would be waived. If these are marketed at middle income level, there is. no mechanism for Council to exempt them from park dedication fees. Because there is excess valuation left over in the 18 acres, Council agreed to accept that land in lieu of park dedication fees. Mayor Edel asked if the applicant had to pay a park dedication fee for middle income, would it not benefit the applicant to market the trailers at moderate. The applicant answered it depends on how the fee is calculated. Mayor Edel asked Council if they would accept the land for these 17 units or wanted the park dedication fees paid. Council's straw vote three to two want the park dedication fees paid in the 17 units. The third point is looping the water system. Richman said there are some alternatives for this and the water department recommends looping the system. Chapman said the city is attempting to get out of the situation where the city is negotiating for improvements on the water system on a developer by developer basis. The policy will be to have the water system built to the city's standards and the people who benefit are the people who are going to pay for it. It is the intent to loop the system. Chapman said the city has come up with an alternative looping system that will work. When the city constructs it, anybody who benefits from it will pay for the improvement through a capital charge on their water bill. The applicant has no problem with this. The fourth point is undergrounding electricity. Richman said the undergrounding for the trailers to the pedestal is provided for by the developer. This point is undergrounding the mains; Holy Cross. bid this at $100,000. Richman encouraged Council to have this undergrounded for aesthetic reasons and that the city has a policy regarding undergroundin and to encourage undergrounding. John Hawkins pointed out this is an existing use; the new trailers will have underground electricty. To put the burden of undergrounding electric on the tenants and the developer when this is not a health and safety issue does not make any sense. Hughes pointed out throughout the process, the improvements that have been requested are to fix it up from a health and safety standpoint. The overriding concern of P & Z was aesthetics not undergrounding. Undergrounding was not discussed in the initial stages of this process. Councilwoman Michael said she did not feel this request was consistent with city policy for upgrading existing development. Councils consensus was not to require undergrounding. Richman said the staff understood that the roads within the trailer park would be asphalte The preliminary plat does not indicate the roads will be paved but that there will be a 40 foot right-of-way. Richman said the residents have indicated a concern about this. The final plat does not show paving and the schedule does not indicate the cost of paving Richman said due to the existing deficiences in the drainage system, it makes no sense to pave now. However, when the Smuggler drainage are connected into a major system, it was the expectation of the staff there would be paved roads. Chapman said the issue of drainage came up about 5 months ago when the owners hired Jim Flood look at the system fei drainage. Flood evaluated several different systems and found the ones planned were no~ appropriate. A surface drainage system needs to be engineered. Chapman said any improve- ments spent on paving the road before the drainage is fixed would result in the roads lasting two years and then being destroyed. The recommendation was not to do an expensive road treatment until the drainage problem is solved. The city has to participate in the drainage system for the whole Smuggler area. Brooke Peterson told Council the tenants were faced with the situation because of the agreement to share in certain costs and because of increased costs, the developer deter- mined if the cost when any higher, he would have to back out of the deal. Peterson said · n return for increased participation and probably financial arrangements, the Board of the trailer park determined to relieve the developer of the obligation to build the roads. This will be an obligation of ~enan~s in the park. Alex Lipkin said the applicant has met with the local banks and have sa~d they would guarantee the loan. Lipkin said the savings through this financing mechanism will save the tenants the contribution to the road. McArthur said there should be some treatment to the roads; this should be on the plat and should be committed to. Councilwoman Michael suggested Council meet on this late in the week and finalize the points gone over tonight. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing and continued it to February 22, 1982. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - St. Mary's Catholic Church Councilman Parry moved to approve the special event permit for St. Mary's Catholic Church for March 17, 1982; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Knecht moved to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 22, 198 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Knecht, Collins, Michael and yarry present. MINUTES Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the minutes of November 11, 19 and December 24, 1982 seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.