Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19820412 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council__ April 12, 1982 Commissioner Klanderud oall~d the joint meeting together at 4:00 p.m. with Commissioners Child, Blake, Kinsley and Madsen and CoUncilmembers Michael, Parry and Mayor Edel present.! 1. Ruedi Reservoir Hydropower Study. City Manager Chapman told the Boards.the Bureau of Reclamation wishes to establish procedures for conducting the feasibility study. They are asking the city and county to agree to those procedures. The principle points are recognition of the Bureau's unprograrm~d COsts. for theparticipation in the hydropower feasibilii~y study; also, the access to the site and what the obligations are and limitations. Chapman said the most notable issue is financial, whiCh is the city and county would agree to reimburse the BOR for their unprogrammed costs. The engineers estimate this is in the area of $2,000. Thses would come from the BOR reacting to requests for informa- tion they would not normally give out. Commissioner Klanderud asked what this would cover. Chapman said this $2,000 would cover copying costs, employees' time for preparing information the city requires, Commissioner Child asked bout item 4 on page 6, that the Bureau is in the process of marketing water from Reud~i for municipal, domestic, and industrial purposes and asked the agricultural purposes be added to the list. Chapman said he did not think there would be a problem. Ms. Klanderud asked if this cost had been anticipated. Chapman said no; it is the city's position that the BOR should not be charging anything. The city's engineers negotiated with the BOR and felt it was more important to get the study going than to hold out for $2,000. Basically, the city will carry the costs. j-IIII r ~ q T I111 [liN[ Ill I I Mayor Edel said he was surprised the city was handling the costs. Chapman said when the Board of County Commissmoners and the City Council asked the managers to fast track this program, the best source of financing the feasibility study was the city's electric fund. The electric fund will be the first repayee out of any receipts. Councilwoman moved to direct the city and county managers to enter into an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation establishing procedures for the Ruedi Reservoir Hydropower Feasibility study with the amendment of adding the word agricultural on page 6, sectaon 4 after the word industrial; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Short term accommodations in Metro area. The planning office submitted to the Boards a draft report dealing with short term accommodations in the community. The purpose of this on the agenda is to explain what the report as. why the planning office did it, how to use it. The purpose of the report was to assemble in one place everything the plannin~ office knows about the short term accommodations mn the communtiy. The report addresses. the existing inventory, the location and physical characteristics of curren~ lodges, and the relationship between ski capacity and the lodge base. Vann said this report contains a number of assumptions based primarily on approved reports to date. This report devel- ops a model to use to talk about ski capacity in relationship to lodge base. Vann told the Boards that through the work session process, the planning office would lik~ to develop consensus of opinions on the conclusions drawn by the planning office. From that point, the planning office would begin specific recommendations either regula- tory, policy plan amendments, growth management issues. Vann said regarding non-conform- ing lodges, one conclusion is that smaller lodges have a very viable place in the commun- ity. There are certain problems associated with them remaining as a viable influence. There are recommendations that could improve their position in the community. Mayor Edel said mos~ of the conclusions in the report are general in nature except one on page 40, first paragraph regarding ski area expansion. Vann said this is a conclusion based on the adopted policies already an effect. Richman said one of the reasons for this conclusion is it leads along to the next conclusion regarding the need for moderate amount of lodging expansion and the location of this expansion. Richman told the Boards this will be presented to both P & Z's the next night. 3. Resolution Supporting New Clean Air Act Bill. Tom Dunlop asked the Boards support the Clean Air Act; it as in jeopardy of being destroyed. There are currently two bills in the House of Representatives. Without the support of communities, there is a chance the less wanted bill will pass. Dunlop pointed out that Aspen and Pitkin County are dependent on the environment, and the environmental health department feels it is necessai to give formal requests to congress to support HR 5555 and to oppose HR 5252. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution ~11, Series of 1982; seconded by CommissionEr Child. Commissioner Child requested that in the third whereas that "and life itself" be added at the end of the whereas. Amendment accepted. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION ~11 (Series of 1982) A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR HR 5555, BY CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN, AND OPPOSING HR 5252, BY JOHN DINGELL AND THOMAS LUKEN WHEREAS, the United States Congress has enacted the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, to control air pollution nationwide and to protect the clear air an parts of the country where it is relatively clean; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen and the County Commissioners of Pitkin County deem that aar pollution is a problem of the utmost and gravest concern to the citizens of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, inasmuch as it contributes to severe health problems, has a devastating impact on the environment, fish and wildlife, results mn the creation of acide rain, impairs visibility, has a detrimental effect on the environmental quality which our tourist economy depends, and may even be altering the earth's climate, and WHEREAS, the City Council and County Commissioners recognize that clean air for the citizens of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the State and the nation is essential to assuring and maintaining a high quality of life, and life itself, and WHEREAS, oil shale development on the Colorado Western Slope has the potential to create additional pollution problems which may jeopa~dize the City of Aspen and Pitkin County as an environmentally attractive resort area, and WHEREAS, the City Council and County Commissioners are aware that the Clean Air Act is slated for reauthorization by the United States Congress and that the Dingell-Luken Bill, HR 5252, which has been introduced, would double carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide emissions from automobiles, and that automobiles cause 76% of the CO in Aspen, and that Aspen has exceeded federal health standards for CO, and that automobiles cause 86% of the NOx in Aspen, and WHEREAS, HR 5252 eliminates Class II protection, including elimination of mandatory Class II areas, and the City of Aspen and Pitkin County are Class II areas and this protection is necessary for maintenance of the quality of life desired by residents of the area and required for our WHEREAS, HR 5252 lacks a fine particulate standard necessary in mountain areas with large concentrations of wood burning units, relaxes controls on new sources, lacks acid rain control, and has no controls on toxic pollutants, and WHEREAS, the Waxman Bill, HR 5555, retains current controls on automobile emissions and cleaner standards for high altitude cars, diesels, and trucks, retains Class II protection which will protect the air in Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, keeps current requirements for controls on new sources, sets a fine particulate standard necessary for mountain communities, controls acid rain and gives EPA authority to regulate hazardous pollutants, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen, on behalf of the citizens of the City and the County Commissioners of Pitkin County, on behalf of the citizens of Pitkin County, desire to express their support for a strong Clean Air Act which will assure and guarantee that the people of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the State and the nation en3oy clean air, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO: 1. On behalf of the citizens of the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the residents of Pitkin County in Colorado, the City Council and County Commissioners hereby express their suppor~ for the Waxman bill, HR 5555, which they deem essential to avoid pollution and the problems caused thereby, and their strong opposition to the Dingell-Luken Bill, HR 5252, which they feel would have a devastating effect on the health and quality of life of the citizens of Aspen, Pitkin County, the State, and the Nation, and on the environment and climate; 2. The City Council and County Commissioners hereby request that each member of the Colorado delegation to the United States Congress advocate and vote for the Waxman Bill, HR 5555, and oppose and vote against the Dingell-Luken Bill, HR 5252, and any amendments to either bill which would have the effect of weakening the protections that the current Clean Air Act affords the citizens~ of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. 3. The Mayor of the City of Aspen and the Chairwoman Of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County are hereby authorized and directed to express the City Council's and County Commissioners' concern and support for a strong federal Clean Air Act as embodied in HR 5555 and oppose then to the weakening of the Clearn Air Act as effected by HR 5252 and to forward a copy of this resolution to each member of the ' ' Colorado delegation to the United States Congress and such other State and Federal officials as they deem appropriateL was read by deputy city clerk Beall Commissioner Kinsley moved to approve Resolution ~11, Series of 1982; seconded by Council- woman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Petition for and Agreement on Jail property. County Attorney Stuller presented an agreement regarding the jail property. The county payments out to date on the Oden property are $98,553. Ms. Stuller said in the event the Oden property reverts, the city should be compensated for any payments made while the city holds the property. Ms. Stulle asked that the county approve any terms the city may renegotiate during the time the city holds the Oden note. Ms. Stuller told the Boards it is undecided whether or not an election will be necessary to convey the property on the Rio Grande. Ms. Stuller suggested if the Oden property reverts back to the county, perhaps the city should be released from the obligation to give the county office space on the Rio Grande. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the agreement between the City of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners on a land exchange, pending the City Attorney's approval and with the proposed amendments; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Commissioner Kinsley moved for petition for vacation and acceptance of the agreement; seconded by Commissioner Child. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. David White said he had listened to many conversations about transportation and several years ago people said they wanted a light rail system. Now the Council is dis- cussing putting a bridge across Castle Creek for cars. White said he would like to see something done about light rail. Mayor Edel said the subject of light rail was subject of much controversy. White said he did not feel the transporation issue had been adequately addressed for the 1980's. Councilman Parry said there is a transportation committee which is listing the problems and trying to come up with some solutions. Councilwoman Michael said the governments are looking at valley-wide transporation system. 2. Jack Frye told Council there are a lot of citizens present to talk about the golf course. Don Horton said the golf association would like to see the greens fees and season pass laid out so they know what is happening. City Manager Chapman said the staff has talked with the officers of both golf associations and explained what the greens fees will be. Chapman said the season pass will be $120, up $20 from 1981 with the provision that the $20 out of every pass will go directly into a capital ~mprovement fund for the golf course. Chapman said the capital improvement program will start this year and concentrate on putting in trees and benches with some other improvements. For the first time, the city is going to try is a person buys a limited local's pass and buys three of them, after using up the third pass, the person can play for free. This is, in effect, a seasons pass for S360. Chapman said the staff does not know what the impact of this will be. If this takes the golf course in the wrong direction, financially, the city will discontinue this. Curt Baar pointed out the golf association had many meetings with the staff at the end of last season, mainly concerned with the fee structure, which made it impossible for some people to play the end of the season because they had already spent $300. Baar said he felt the golfers were being treated very poorly. A citizen suggested rather than trees and benches, the golfers want bathrooms. Chapman said that the Plum Tree facility will be open for this golf season; it will be a first class facility and will have rest- rooms. Anne Ferguson asked Council why the tourist prices did not go up the same percentage as those of the locals. Mayor Edel pOinted out the tOurist prices went up 22 per cent and th locals went up 20 per cent. Ray Lucchini said the tourist prices are raised way out of line from what people can play at other resorts for less money, resorts that are better and courses that are better. The price of $22 will chase peoPle to other courses. Lucchi i said he would like to see the city make money on the golf course so they can make it a first class facility. Don Horton presented a list of golf courses with season passes; Eagle-Vail and Vail have the highest season pass at $250; other courses go as low as $131 Mayor Edel pointed out that courses that were built years ago have lower operating and debt service costs. Bill Martin agreed that the city should be careful not to price the course out of the business. Chapman said the city is not sure that $22 is the right price; it could be too high. The city is working on package plans for the golf course. The objective is to get tourists to play one more round at the golf course. Chapman pointed out that trade off is that Aspen's course is at 65 per cent capacity; it is easier for locals to get a tee-time. A citizen asked why city employees get to play golf free. Mayor Edel said it is a consideration given to employees that is done in whatever business the employees are in, such as a discount at a clothes store; meals free in a restaurant. Mayor Edel suggeSted the golf association set up a meeting with city staff to go over all the suggestions. This meeting was set up for Wednesday morning at 10:00 a.m. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Michael said that Steve Standiford of the local enegery group called and requested a representative for a group to do an inventory of energy needs. Mayor Edel said he would cover thiS. 2. Mayor Edel asked when the Plum Tree starts paying the city. City Manager Chapman sai~ the city got their first payment of $50,000 on March 17th. 3. Councilwoman Michael moved to put Harry Truscott and the Housing Authority on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Mayor Edel told Council he and Chapman had met with the new owners of the Aspen Skiin¢ Company to discuss working relationship and each other's problems. Mayor Edel said one of the city's problem was the lack of money for the Wheeler Opera House. The Skiing Company has come back with a proposal for the Wheeler. Mayor Edel requested a special meeting to discuss this offer. Council scheduled a special meeting for Thursday, April 15th at noon. 5. Mayor Edel said he is still confused about the Cap's issue and where it sits. ~ Chapma] said this issue is still unresolved. Council said they would discuss this at their next meeting. HOUSING OFFICE TASK FORCE Harry Truscott, chairman of the task force on housing office consolidation, told Council the task force recommended that the three governments take the step towards combination of the three housing authorities into a single housing authority. The second recommenda- tion was to appoint five citizens to be the commissioners of the final authority when it was set up. These people would be given the responsibility to prepare the operating procedures for the Authority in relation to the governments. Truscott said this group would put together the budget required for the operation, and prepare the legal documents to bring about the transfer of authorities to the single housing authority. Truscott told Council the general reasons for recommending a general authority is that this will lead to efficiency improvements in the operation of housing authorities. This will reduce costs be combining the functions of the three authorities into a single authority. The task force felt that a single authority would look at the total needs of employee housing with a better chance to determine the overall needs. Truscott said they felt there would be a better chance of obtaining overall county-wide partnership relationship with the private sector in the area of employee housing. The task force concluded it would be best if the authority were composed of citizens rather than elected officials. Councilwoman Michael moved to start on a combined housing authority; seconded by Council- man Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~11, SERIES OF 1982 Floor Area Limitation Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance 911, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #11 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 24-3 and 24-13 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF BASEMENT, SUBGRADE AND THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION FOR MEASURING FLOOR AREA AND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS; AND FURTHER AMENDING AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE MAXIMUM ALLLOWABLE FLOOR AREAS FOR SINGLE- FAMILY AND DUPLEX STRUCTURES IN THE R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40 AND R/MF ZONE DISTRICTS was read by deputy city clerk Beall Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded Council this ordinance was tabled to include new recommendations for area and bulk and secondly, to give staff a chance to redraft some of the language. Councilman Parry asked what happens to peaked roofs in reducing the height from 28 feet to 25 fest. Vann said this was left exactly the .way it was, with the additional five feet for peaked roofs. Vann presented a graph to illustrate finished grade of projects for basements, sub-grade and sub-basements. These definitions are alrea y in the Code. In section 1, the definition of basement was changed to provide for a primary use in a residential zone district. Sub-grade space has been exempted because it will have no additional visual impact. Vann told Council that section 2 provides primary use in subgrade space and allows primary use in residential zone districts. Section 3 provides more flexibility in response to criticisms received from the development community. The Code previously required a continuous aspect for open space; all open space had to be contiguous, which precluded the ability to build separate patios on the back of a building. Vann said section 4 contains the most work. In tracing the evolution of measurement of floor areas, a number of errors have shown up in the Code. The staff has tried to explain in a simpler manner how to calculate floor area. Subsection (1) is bascially the same and changed that floor area calculations will include above grade decks, stairways, balconies and any area under horizontal project~on of a roof or balcony, even though they are not surrounded by exterior walls when such areas are necessary for the function of the building. Vann told Council that P & Z recommended these features be excluded in a building which principle use is residential; provided, however, those decks and balconies are less than or equal to 15 per cent of the maximum allowable floor area. In paragraph 3, there is a recommendation from P & Z to include garages in the calculations when they exceed a certain basic size; up to a maximum of 600 square feet, garages are excluded. Councilman Parry asked if this were per dwelling unit. Vann said he would check the P & Z discussion as it is not clear in the paragraph. Section 4 deals with calculations in all zone districts and how to measure it regardless of what the floor area limitation is. Vann explained a language change in this section to clarify that basement, sub-grade and sub-basement areas meeting the minimum require- ments for natural light, ventilation and emergency exit for the applicable occupancy group shall be included. Vann said all sub-grade space ~n residential zone districts will be excluded from calculations on the assumption it ~has no visual impacts as the space is below ground. There is no physical impact because there will not be additional dwelling units. In other zone districts this will continue to be counted as it could be used as lodge rooms, employee rooms. This is the same approach that has been used in the past and is being clarified here. Spencer Schiffer asked about a purely residential use in L-2. Vann said since this is a district rather than R-6 through R/MF, sub-grade space would be counted if it met the minimum light, access standards. Schiffer pointed out the FAR for R/MF and L-2 are the same for multi-family; why make this distinction. Mayor Edel asked that the staff address this point before second reading. Schiffer said ih L-l, L-2 and C/L he did not see the reason for precluding employee housing by having to count space below grade. Vann said the staff's position is that employee housing is a function of the commercial space; the employee housing is provided to compete under GMP and the total square footage Ks impact related. There is a break on space with no occupancy; storage, parking, laundry room. Vann told Council Section 5 is the same: mechanical spaces in buildings are not counted in floor area calculations. Section 6 is a new provision to take into account residential PUDs now floor area limitations are proposed for residential zone districts. This section proposes to take all land under PUD and divide by existing and proposed dwelling units to come up with an average lot s~ze per dwelling unit. With the table, an applicant can then come up with an average size for an individual residential structure. There is a new section which reduces the height from 28 feet to 25 feet; P & Z recommended a unified height limitation in all residential zones. Gideon Kaufman pointed out that R/MF zone is the only residential zone that allows multi-family structures; reducing the height would make it difficult to build what was intended, a multi-family structure. Kaufman said there is a need to keep the 28 feet for multi-family. Vann said the planning office was concerned about this. The P & Z wanted a uniform height restriction. The 25 foot limitation would require a developer to go sub-grade with one floor. This could be occupied in a residential zone district exempt from the calculations. A1 Blomquist, P & Z member, told Council they were concerned mainly about bulk above grade, and secondly, about preserving the views. Vann told Council the next section 7, deals with Council's decision at the last meeting, which is to adopt a second line for duplex structures, a 7 to 10 per cent increase in the size of duplexes. Blomquist urged Council not to include a larger line for duplexes as this may have a serious impact on tearing down smaller Victorians and building duplexes. Section 8 deals with the concern about being able to expand a non-conforming structure which has been individually historically designated. Council discussed sections 8 and 9 and asked staff to re-address this before second reading. Robin Molny pointed out that by excluding sub-grade in the R/MF, this is g~ving a density bonus from 1:1 to 1-1/2:1 and could be an upzoning. Vann said Council and P & Z have made the determination that area below ground does not affect the bulk; however, the planning office could support the request that sub-grade in R/MF be counted. Councilman Parry said he would like ~o keep the height restriction in R/MF at 28 feet. Mayor Edel said he was for the change to 25 feet; Councilwoman Michael said she would look at this between now and second reading. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Edel, aye; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Parry, aye. Motion carried. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE LOTS Councilwoman Michael moved to table this item and to continue the meeting to Thursday, April 15, 1982, at noon; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~15, SERIES OF 1982 1981 Budget Corrections Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance 915, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #15 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91, SERIES OF 1981, BY ADDING AN APPROPRIATION FOR A TRANSFER TO THE CASTLE RIDGE FUND ($45,000), EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND EXPENDITURE AND REVENUES ($27,000 EACH), ICE GARDEN FUND EXPENDITURES ($9,000), WATER FUND DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FROM CURRENT YEAR FUND BALANCE ($140,000) WHICH APPROPRIATIONS WERE INADVERTENTLY DELETED FROM SAID ORDINANCE was read by the deputy city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance ~15, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by C~uncilman Parry. Roll call vote; Mayor Ede, aye; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Motion carried. FINAL PLAT - 700 South Galena Alice Davis, planning office, presented the subdivision agreement and the planning office' review. The conditions of the preliminary plat are ~ncluded in the subdivision agreement. The subdivision agreement ties together all the conditions and improvements the applicant will be required to make. In the subdivision agreement, numbers 3 and 4 deal with the improvements guarantee. The city is requiring a guarantee of no less than 100 per cent of the entire estimated cost of the improvements computed by the city engineer. This can be done by cash and escrow with the city or with a bank; an irrevocable site draft; a letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender. The planning office recommends that this guarantee be done in cash escrow. Mark Danielsen, representing the applicant, objecte to this. The applicant is willing to go along with a performance bond; a cash form of escrow is a severe hardship for any developer. Danielsen said any of the methods lead to the same end; Danielsen said they would be glad to get a letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender. Mayor Edel asked what happened if this project or applicant went bankrupt. City Attorney Taddune told Council the Code provides for an irrevocable letter of commitment, which means if the projects goes bankrupt there will be funds available in order to complete the improvements. For a cash escrow, the Code provides as the improvements are made, the City Engineer can authorize release of a certain percentage of the funds. Taddune said the Code gives the subdivider the option of how to take care of the improvements. Taddune said at the P & Z meeting, the applicant indicated they would be willing to abide by the equivalenc of a performance bond. Spencer Schiffer said one of the problems is that the applicant does not know how much the ~mprovements are goin~ to be, and it could be an exhorbitant amount of money to put up front. Taddune told Council that an ~rrevocable letter of commitment or a site draft gives the beneficiary of that instrument the obligation to draw on the proceeds. Taddune said he did not see the difference between a cash escrow and a letter of commitment. The applicant said they would give the city an irrevocable letter of commitment or a site draft. Mayor Edel said nothing will be done on this until the city has a specific figure in the contract and prior to the issuance of a building permit. Ms. Davis told Council that the performanc~ bond is a separate issue, which was required by P & Z, to cover the cost of restoring the project to its original condition. The number that will be reached will be a combination of the improvements and the performance bond. Ms. Davis went through the changes since Council has seen this, which have been worked out with the P & Z, planning office and applicant. The first is the roof top solar panels; there was a lot of neighborhood input into this, that they were blocking views and this is a bad site for solar use. The applicant has agreed to provide more insulation to provide as much energy efficiency. The second change is the addition of an another parking space to meet the requirement. There is a requirement to meet Code, which is 17, as well as an agreement from the past for 10. Ms. Davis told Council the third change is revision to the entry ramp on the recommendation from the engineering department. This is for an easier flow of traffic; the snow-melting system was in the original application. The fourth change is the location of the trash facility, which is also on the recommendation of the engineering department. The fifth change comes from much discussion at P & Z. The applicant had many studies done regarding a lot of site problems, slope, hydrological, geological problems. P & Z required these studies so the techniques would be available and the applicant would be held to the techniques. Ms. Davis said the city gets final approval; this is all prior to building )ermit issuance. Mayor Edel asked what happens if the applicant gives a set of plans but does not build to those specifics. Danielsen said that is why the city has a performance bond. City Attorne5 Taddune said this agreement gives the city a little more protection; this agreement is that the design has to be approved by the city. However, even though the city is in their right~ to halt a project which is not being built according to plan, the city could be sued. Danielsen said with a performance bond, this is two things. There is a performance bond to raze the project should the developer walk away from the project. There is another bond for the improvements for the site. City Manager Chapman said this is about the strongest agreement the city can come up with. Chapman said the only way to guarantee the building is as presented is to build it ourselves. Ms. Davis said the problems with the project encroaching on utility easements has been taker care of. Holy Cross has some overhead power lines which will be removed and placed under ground if the applicant provides the easements. MS. Davis said in the subdivision agreement are the requirements put on the GMP amendment and the obligations of the GMP application. The next decision is whether or not a perform- ance bond will be required. The other decision is what kind of format this should be in. Taddune said the performance bond would be in addition to the subdivision improvements agreement. Taddune told Council at the P & Z meeting he asked the applicant whether they would have any problems with a performance bond, and they indicated they would not. The idea is that if the applicant does not complete the project, the performance bond will return the site back to what it was. Mayor Edel asked the applicant if there was any problem with this type of performance bond; Danielsen answered no. J. D. Muller told Council the concern at P & Z by neighbors was that the construction schedule be adhered to. Muller asked what the applicant would agree to in terms of trigger- ing the default. Muller said something has to be in the bond as to when this will be invoked. Ms. Davis said the construction schedule is that outlined in the Code, which ~s 10 per cent has to be completed every 60 days. Taddune said it should be spelled out in the performance bond, if the work is not completed the city will have the money and the ability to return the project to its original state. A citizen said the agreement should have the specific amounts of work to be done for each 60 days and the amount should be determined by the city. Ms. Davis reiterated the changes made by Council. In section 4 it is added that this has to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. Also in section 4 needs to include that the final performance bond has to be approved by the city attorney, and some language regarding the applicant not meeting his obligation that the performance bond would provide the money for total restoration of the site. The amount will be determined by the city. Council directed staff to draft a carefully worded motion and table this motion until the end of the meeting. SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Andrews/McFarlin Colette Penne, planning office, told Council the applicants would like approval to condo- miniumize both buildings. Building A, ~he masonry building, does not have as many defi- ciencies as the metal building. Right now, only units in building A would be sold; the future of building B ~s not known with the Rio Grande plans; the building may or may not be there. If the building is there, they will have condominium approval. They will have to bring this building totally up to code before any units can be sold. Ms. Penne told Council the engineering department would like to have a fee title dedication for an 80 foot right-of-way on Mill street. This will take out of some the present parking. This wold necessmtate an entryway change and parking behind the buildings. There are letters working towards an agreement. Mayor Edel brought up the paragraph from the city attorney's office stating, "to preserve the city's right to coordinate the development in that area, perhaps the purchasers of these individual condominium units might be required in advance of purchase to agree to relocate if, for instance, a Cap's trade-type proposal is implemented". Ms. Penne explained the idea behind this is if the Rio Grande plans gets bogged down, the applicant would like to go ahead and condominiumize the metal building, building B. If these units are sold, the buyers will purchase them on contingency of moving to equal space in an equal building. Taddune said this condominiumization should be evaluated on its own merits independent on the city's plans or intentions. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the subdivision exception for the purposes of condo- mlniumization for the buildings located at 410, 412, 414 north Mill subjec~ to the follow- ing conditions; (1) that the conditions outlined by the P & Z and agreed to by the applicant are binding; (2) that the compensation issue associated with dedication of the Mill street right-of-way be settled by a cooperative effort of the city attorney's office the city engineering department, the planning office and the applicant in a timely manner; (3) that the condominiumization agreement indicate that the buildings will be brought up to Code separately and units cannot be sold ~n a building until that building has been brought up to Code requirements; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. STOPLIGHT AT GALENA AND MAIN Mayor Edel said he thought this ~ssue had already been decided and that the highway depart- ment was going to put this light in. Mayor Edel said he has been told the city has a choice. City engineer McArthur said last year Council decided to have installed two new lights on Main street. McArthur said if Council does not want the light at Galena and Main, now is the time to say so. Tom Dunlop, environmental health office, told Council they have checked with the highway department and have done some calculations to have an idea on any possible adverse impacts from a fourth street light. Dunlop told Council with the traffic flows, width of the streets, and local conditions, if cars were required to stop at an additional stoplight, approximately 60 kilograms per day of carbond monoxide would be added to the atmosphere. If another stoplight were added and cars were required to stop for one .cycle, this would add an additional 569 pounds of carbon monoxide, or relatively four times if the light is not installed. Dunlop said his department has noticed a disturbing pattern over this winter with the three lights with the fact that they are not synchronized. McArthur told Council the equipment has been purchased, is being tested and will be installed May 3rd. Dunlop said studies in Denver show that cars stopping and idling for one cycle can cause 600/1,000,000 carbon monoxide. Councilwoman Michael said unfortunately this is late information. The highway department has given Council the count and Galena and Mamn is the second busiest intersection. Mayor Edel said when Council first considered the stoplights on Main, they were not considered in context of everything that will happen to the Rio Grande. Mayor Edel questioned if now is the appropriate time to put in a light when major things are happening there. Chapman pointed out that the Galena and Main intersection was the intersection that precipitated the request to the highway department to do a traffic study in Aspen. There were a lot of people who complained to Council about the Galena and Main intersection and the need for a stoplight. Councilmembers Parry and Mickael supported the light at Galena. Councilwoman Michael said she would like to have a season to observe the stoplights when they are synchronized. ~ Mayor Edel said he was against the light. ORDINANCE ~9, SERIES OF 1982 Individual Designation of Historic Properties in already establishe~ Historic Overlay Zones Councilman Parry moved to.approve Ordinance ~9, Series of 1982, on second reading; second~ by Councilwoman Michael. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Colette Penne, planning cffice, presented a memo discussing parts of the ordinance that were discussed at first reading. These are histor- ic structures which are in historic districts; they can be individually designated as they have historic meri~ on their own. There are some concerns in the planning office regard- lng GMP; these buildings can convert space to commercial space without going through GMP competition. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~12, SERIES OF 1982 - Purchase of Street Sweeper Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~12, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1982 - Appropriations Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance ~13, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~14, SERIES OF ~982 Special Election City Attorney Taddune said Council had discussed limiting the special election to two ~ issues; the proposed Charter amendment, and the Rio Grande plan, Cap's land exchange versus a condemnation. Taddune left the ordinance to allow Council the right to submit further questions, should they feel the necessity to do so. Taddune has called a special e~ection by ordinance with a Charter amendment on the sale and use of open space. City Manager Chapman told Council by resolution at the May 10th meeting decide the wording of the Cap's issue and any other issue they may decide to submit. Taddune told Council the open space people wanted included in the Charter amendment the "change of use" of open space also. Mayor Edel said that section bothered him and that is no~ what Council agreed to. Taddune explained if Council purchased property for open space and then changed the use would be a circumvention of the original purpose. Council woman Michael said this section may interfere with practical matters, like an easement across a corner of land. Taddune said the open space people wanted this in the Charter so that future Council's would not change this. Taddune said there is no restriction'in the Charter concerning the change in use in open space lands. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Michael moved to adop~ Ordinance ~14, Series of 1982, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. USES IN S/C/I ZONE Councilman Parry told Council that Shades of Light wanted to move into town and contacted Mason and Morse for available space on North Mill. This was checked with planning and zoning to see if this was compatible and was told the business could and there could be i limited retail. Most of Shades of Light's business is wholesale, like the other business s. The business moved in and spent money to remodel. The building department checked on this and interpreted the law differently. Taddune told Council the S/C/I zone does not allow retail sales. Councilman Parry said there are five businesses there doing limited retail. Planning Director Sunny Vann told Council this is a service/commercial/industrial zone district intended to use land for the preservation of limited commercial purposes and industrial purposes with customary accessory uses which do not require or generate high customer traffic volume. In the permitted uses there is no mention of retail or whole- ~ sale. Vann read the list of permitted uses. Vann said no one on his staff had told Mason and Morse that a light shade shop could go in there. Vann told Council this problem in the S/C/I zone comes up continually. The applicant, Phoebe, told Council that 10 to 13 per cent of her business is in sales; the rest is supported by maintenance men and companies for replacement and repair. Phoebe tOld Council that although her shop loOked like a retail shop, there is not much customer traffic. Vann saidthe shop was represented to him as being retail; it this is a service/repair type agency, then there is not a big problem. Councilman Parry said there are five stores down there that are doing retailing to customers off the street. Vann said this is a fine line issue; the difference between a doughnut shop and a paint shop. The Code does say, "provided, however, that no permitted uses sell daily or frequent bought items to the general public". Councilwoman Miehael pointed out the reason for the S/C/I zone is for small service or small repair shops can exist in a zone protected from the high square footage rents in town. Vann said next on the planning office work program is to go through the use provisions of the Code and come back with recommendations to Council. Vann told Council the P & Z has the authority for a use determination hearing; if the applicant goes to P & Z and is turned down, they may appeal to Council. City Attorney Taddune said the staff is trying to accommodate the applicant until she can get a clear reading from P & Z. City Manager chapman suggested tolerating the use until the staff makes a final decision on the use provisions of the Code. Taddune said administratively the use is already being tolerated so Council does not need to take action. Chapman said the applicant may have to go through the P & Z after Council has their use review. MOTION 700 SOUTH GALENA Gary Esary, assistant city attorney, told Council the motion is in the form of a direction as there is no.way to completely wrap up the subdivision agreement. Until the engineers see the plans, they cannot tell What the form of the bond should be and how much it should be. Esary presented a motion for Council. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the final plat for the 700 South Galena street proje¢ including the conditions of the submitted Subdivision agreement therefore amended as follows; (1) paragraph 3 is amended to eliminate the cash escrow option of providing security thereunder and expressly providing the subdivision the options of securing the required improvements by irrevocable site draft or letter of commitment from a financially responsible lender; further Council directs that language be added to the paragraph that any guarantee given by the subdivider under paragraph 3 be in a form and amount approved by the city attorney and city engineer upon recommendations as to the amount necessary given by the applicant's consulting engineers; (2) that paragraph 4 shall be amended to provide that a performance bond be reqUired, that it be exe'cu~e'd prior to issuance of a building permit; that the language of the bond pro.vide for'a cash payment to the city sufficient to allow the city to contract to demolish any construction and return the property ~'~te to grade in its pre-construction condition if the applicant's building permit expires for. failure to comply With section 302(d) of the Uniform Building Code as amended and/or other conditions of the binding city approval and/or the violations of the conditions of the subdivision agreement. Paragraph 4 further provides that any perform- ance bond thereunder be in such amount and form as approved by the city attorney and city engineer based upon recommendations as to the amount necessary given by th'e apPlicant's consUlting engineers, architects and contractors; further Council authorizes the Mayor to execute the documents on behalf of the city; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to continue the meeting to Thursday, April 15, at noon; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Council left Chambers at 9:00 p.m. City Clerk Continued Meeting Aspen City-Council April 15, 1982 Mayor Edel called the continued meeting to order at 12:25 p.m. with Councilmembers Michael and Collins present. Councilwoman Michael moved to put LOma Alto annexation items on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motiOn carried. City Attorney Taddune told Council he is trying to accommodate the concerns of the staff and of the applicant. Taddune has broken this down into three ordinances; one for annexation, second approving the water rights lease. Taddune told Council as an inducemen to annexation, the applicant agreed to dedicate the water rights on the annexed property. In return, the applicant wanted a lease back in order to irrigate the parcel. Taddune said the city's water attorney is reviewing this ordinance. The third ordinance is ~ rezoning the land to R-15A. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance ~16, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~16 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, FERGUSON EXEMPTION PLAT, LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, WHICH ~NEXATION IS ACCOMPLISHED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965 was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #16, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; MayOr Edel, aye. Motion carried. · Continued Meeting Aspen City Council April 15, 1982 Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #17, Series of 1982; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #17 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A WATER RIGHTS LEASE WITH LOMA ALTO CO~ORATION CONCERNING WATER RIGHTS IN THE RIVERSIDE DITCH was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance ~17, Series of 1982, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. City Attorney Taddune said this should be subject to review by John Musick. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Collins moved to read Ordinance #18, Series of 1982, dropping the reference to PUD; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried ORDINANCE ~18 (Series of 1982) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-2.2 (ZONING DISTRICT MAP) BY REZONING A TRACT OF LAND KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, FERGUSION EXEMPTION PLAT, LOCATED IN PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, TO R-15A was read by the city clerk Colette Penne, planning office, told Council the recommendation from both the planning office and the P & Z is to zone the parcel R-15A. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance ~18, Series of 1982, on first reading dropping the reference to PUD; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Council- members Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to go into executive session in order to discuss the legal matters of the Wheeler Opera House; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. Council went into executive session at 12:35 p.m. Kathryn yKoch/City Clerk