HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19790108Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Anderson,
Behrendt, Wishart, Isaac, Parry, and Commissioners Child, Kinsley, and Edwards present.
Also present were City Attorney Stock, County Attorney Stuller, City Manager Mahoney and
County Manager Ochs.
1. Glenwood to Aspen Employee Bus. Curt Stewart told the Boards he had been contacted by
the Aspen Alps and Chateaus about putting on a service bringing maids and housekeepers up ~ployee Bus
valley. Stewart said he had looked into the existing County bus service, and it is opera- Glenwood to
ting a capacity right now. Stewart came up with the idea of entering into a subscription
service; they would buy all the seats on the bus for their sole use. Stewart looked into Aspen
four different leasing agencies, and buses available for short-term lease are prohibitive.
The other remaining alternative is to use one of the City vehicles for their use. The
City has a number of reserve vehicles which could be used. The people from the Alps and
Chateaus are willing to buy 44 seats for $100 per day per operation.
Stewart said it would be more logical for the County to run the service; the lack of
vehicles and lack of capacity is why he came up with the recommendation that the City pro-
vide the buses. The County has the authorization to run up valley. Stewart said he would
have the County contract with the Chateaus and Alps; then sub-contract with the City to
provide the buses. The City would receive all revenues and take care of all maintenance
and operation costs. H. J. Stalf said he felt the City could run it; the Ski Co~p lets
the buses start late, so it would not take an additional bus. Stalf pointed out a problem
in finding a secure place in Glenwood for the bus to park overnight. This program will
need two drivers to cover 7 days a week.
City Attorney Stock said the City's insurance covers this type of contract. Commissioner
Child said he thought it was a good idea. Councilman Wishart asked what happens if all
the seats are sold and someone else wants to ride it. Stalf said the bus will probably
depart some other place an Glenwood and will be labeled "special". Stalf told the Boards
that $100 was marginal costs, and he could run it for that because he is running every-
thing else. This bus will be a Ski Corp runs the remainder of the day.
Commissioner Kinsley moved to jointly approve the idea and to get the paperwork ready;
seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
2. McLaughlin Caboose on County Property. Karen Smith, planning director, told the Boards
this is on the joint agenda because she is asking Council to give input to P & Z on a
conditional use application to locate a caboose, formerly known as the McLaughlin Caboose McLaughlin
now located on Shadow Mountaan, on County-owned property on the Rio Grande just east of the Cab o ose on
Aspen One property. The proposed purpose of re-locating the caboose would be passive dis- County property
play and recreational use. Ms. Smith said the City Manager had some concerns about
locating the caboose there.
City Manager Mahoney stated he did not feel a caboose is suitable for that area. There are
glass Windows, the area as dark, it is unpoliced, the caboose would be vandalized. Mahoney
said people will be camping in the caboose, and there is the possibility of assault.
Commissioner Edwards told the Boards he had been contacted by Mrs. McLaughlin, who said she
would lend this caboose to the County at no charge in consideration for putting it some-
where where the public could use it. Edwards said the caboose is an interesting piece of
memorabilia, and the land the County was considering putting the caboose on is the old
Rio Grande railroad yard. Edwards said they had considered getting some things from the
historical society and displaying them in the~caboose. Edwards said the County would be
glad to work some other location out with the city; another possibility is the County-owned
land behind the First National Bank. Edwards said Mrs. McLaughlin would even pay the moving
charges, and there would be a disclaimer for vandalism.
Commissioner Child agreed with Mahoney's concern over the safety factory. The caboose
might be out of place in an area that was visualized as a natural park, greenway area.
Councilwoman Anderson suggested the caboose might be used in conjunction with visitors
coming in, perhaps at Rubey Park. Mayor Standley said he felt this was a great idea, if
the City and County can find a place to put it. Mayor Standley asked the planning office
to find a place for it, regardless of whose property - City or County - and bring it back
to the Boards.
3. Little Annie Site Specific Agreement. Mayor Standley stepped down from the table.
Ms. Smith noted the Boards have the third draft of the Site Specific Agreement, which comes
to them without final comment from the State of Colorado or the Forest Service. This is Little Annie
brought to the Boards because Ron Garfield, representing the applicant, wants to address Site Specific
two paragraphs before the balance of the agreement is discussed. Agreement
Ron Garfield referred to page 24, paragraph 5, with respect to how to get consultants
involved in the project that would have credibility and who would pay for them. The
applicant has resolved the credibility of the consultants by coming up with an independent
consultants and under the supervision of the planning office. The proponent, Little Annie,
has agreed to pay for all the consultants to study the auestion raised in the Site Specific
Agreement, there is no disagreement about that aspect. The proponent has agreed to pay
for the consultants to study or verify existing data with respect to those that are site
specific and secondary considerations. However, the planning office has submitted a
number of questions that go beyond the scope of anything either directly or secondarily
related. Garfield said he felt these questions are general public policy considerations
and that it is unfair to ask the proponent to pay for these also. These questions are
incorporated into paragraph 5, page 24, by reference. Garfield characterized the ~uestions
as a re-examination of certain assumptions made in the growth management plan, and an up-
date of the Gilmore study. Garfield said he had a concern as to whether it is appropriate
for the proponen~ to pay for these.
~egu±ar Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
Garfield told the Boards that the City/County planning office has $15,000 allocated and
~-~ . · have agreed to apply this money to try to answer these questions, which will include
I ~Little Annie developing a significant amount of primary data. The problem is the following sentence,
continued "the proponent shall pay any additional amount necessary to complete these studies and
answer these questions". The proponent has no idea what this would cost.
Garfield told the Boards that Little Annie has a terrific financial undertaking already,
and they have just learned the Division of Wildlife will not conduct the elk study.
Garfield acknowledged that the questions are appropriate to be addressed, and may lay to
rest a number of concerns that have been addressed. The issue is, in addition to every-
thing else, to lay the excess of that cost on the proponent they object to.
MS. Smith explained the $15,000 had been budgeted by the planning office for 1979's review.
This was asked for to address questions for either Little Annie or Burnt Mountain review.
Ms. Smith said many of the questions are questions of general applicability and will
affect both applications. These will re-examine the question is there a need for
additional skiing capacity in several ways, one of which is to review the Gilmore study,
and to question the assumptions made in light of the adopted growth management plan.
Joe Wells said the planning office felt it appropriate to examine the wildlife question
impacts on all the ski area expansion proposals, and the proposal by Kathleen McNamara
just for Little Annie was $50,000 with an additional $25~000 to examine all the alterna-
tives. There will be some sagnificant costs, and there are some costs the planning office
will argue should be borne by the applicant. Wells said perhaps policy questions, SUCh as
re-examination of certain policy issues under the growth management plan and Gilmore's
involvement is re-addressing some assues, the suggestions could be made this should fairly
be borne by City/County government
Ms. Smith said the planning office does not have an idea of how much these studies will
cost. They will have to negotiate with the potential contractors; this is a level of
detail the planning office has not gotten to yet. Commissioner Child said this is the
first time he had seen any draft, and there is a lot to assimilate. This paragraph is
taken out of context, and it is difficult to respond to this request. Garfield said he
brought this to the Boards because if it is the position of the City and County to pay
for the studies plus the additional costs, the applicant will have to take a hard look
at the application. Garfield said he felt the general questions should be answered whether
there is Little Annie or not; the questions have come back and back for years and years.
If there is a willingness to go on in a cooperative spirit and the public should get
involved and contribute dollars, Little Annie can go on from there.
Councilman Parry suggested that Little Annie could be responsible for a certain amount
over the $15~000 set at an agreed price. Garfield said the proponent will have a great
cost for the questions to be answered, and they feel the general questions should be
answered by the public. Kinsley said there is some validity to Garfield's point, but
his general view is that the developer pays the costs he generates. Kinsley said he did
not know how much he would be willing to put in, and the County may have no extra money
to put in. Garfield suggested leaving the question unresolved and attempt to get
comments from consultants on what the cost would be.
Garfield said he would accept a conceptual indicated that the City and County would want
to see those things studied and paid for but it will not be binding until the specific
contract is approved. If the particular contract is more than the governments want to
~ spend, the contractor would either have to reduce his price, or it would not get studied.
Edwards pointed out the County has the tightest budget they have had in years, there is
zero contingency. Councilman Isaac asked where Burnt Mountain is in the process. Ms.
~ Smith said they have submitted conceptual report; there are meetings scheduled, and a
public hearing on conceptual set for March 8. Councilman Isaac asked if by the time the
costs for studies were in, perhaps the costs could be split 4 ways. Kinsley pointed out
that is putting Little Annie off'until April, which is inconsistent with initiative.
Joe Wells stated it is the feeling of the planning office that these questions have been
the ones that recur repeatedly an regard to ski area expansion. If they do not get
addressed, Little Annie will not get approval. Harry Truscott suggested having three
agreement, as there will be a Burnt Mountain agreement, taking the general things to be
handled by each one of the organizations and other businesses that might be involved.
Ms. Smith noted with regard to the $15,000 she had in mind specific studies in case they
needed to go outside the staff level. The planning office does need this outside help.
Councilman Wishart said he as no~ willing to commit until he sees real specifics of costs.
Garfield said he would be willing to have this handled by another agreement outside of
the Site Specific Agreement, to frame the questions and get back estimates from consul-
tans will take two months. County Attorney Stuller pointed out if Burnt Mountain is denied
at conceptual, it will short their participation in funding.
Garfield said he understood the arguments for the two applications being processed together.
The proponent's point of view is that Little Annie came in a full year before Burnt Mt.,
and Little Annie does not want to wait for Burnt Mountain. Kinsley said conceptually there
is some validity in Garfield's arguement, they shouldn't pick up the entire cost minus
$15,000. Mayor Standley asked if it was possible that not all the costs would be incurred
in 1979. Ms. Smith said the four basic questions isolated in paragraph 5 are ones that
should be done early an the process and input them into the draft EIS the forest service
is preparlngo Mayor Standley suggested prioritizing these questions so that the ones
that may involve other areas, the contracts would be put off until such time as a
decision has been made on other areas. The agreements could be negotiated so that they
are split between other proponents and governments.
Councilman Isaac asked if the agreement could be amended with language that would allow
splitting up the costs an the future. Ms. Stuller noted the Forest Service likes uncon-
ditional agreements, and they may not enter into the Site Specific if there is any author-
ity for the County to withdraw. Kinsley suggested going with the agreement as is, and
indicating picking up the cost if at all possible. Rs. Stuller reiterated that the
proponent sagns the Agreement the way it is, and all participating parties know he had
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
to assume the obligations. Later on if the applicant wants to come back and argue for
renegotiation of the paragraph, based on circumstances at that ti~,, this. is authQr~zed.
Kinsley said in order for Little Annie to keep on track, they wou±a nave to accept tne Little Annie
draft the way it is written, with the City and County only committed to a limited amount, continued
Garfield reiterated there is an issue as to whether these questions are appropriate to
site specific agreement under the Colorado joint review process for studying these applica,
tion. More questions have come into the draft, and there is a question as to whether
these are appropriate. Ms. Stuller pointed out this may go back to the original joint
statement in which they agreed to undertake and answer the question, is there a need for
additional skiing capacity. Ms. Stuller said she felt the proponent had failed to do this!!
at conceptual stage, and that is why the questions still remain.
Garfield asked if there were a procedure that the proponent could be reimbursed for the
money if there was money in the next budget year. Kinsley said that may be appropriate
but he was not willing to sign something stating x amount of dollars is committed to any
purpose. Ms. Stuller agreed that is why the questions were segregated and the $15,000
applied to them first. The answers to these questions may not be to the exclusive benefitli
of Little Annie, but they are the first application and are precipitating the questions.
The questions have to be resolved before the governments can be content with the answer.
Ms.~ Stuller pointed out the joint review process entered into said the governmental agencii~s
will offer in-kind services, no out of pocket expenses. The situation is that a certain
amount of expertise is needed, and the planning staff cannot offer it, and somebody has
to pay for it. The Forest Service and the state have said the proponent has to pay for
it. Garfield said maybe these have to be dealt with by a separate agreement; that they
are not manageable within the Site'Specific Agreement. Garfield said it should be recog-
nized that the answers to those question is a part of the overall process but is not
appropriate to the site specific agreement. Ms. Stuller said the process is precipatating!
the questions.
Councilman Behrendt said until the governments have specific figures on the study, they
are not going to make a statement to joint fund. If the applicant wishes to proceed, it
appears they will have to stick their neck out. Garfield asked the Boards if they were
willing to enter into a separate agreement. City Attorney Stock said the problem with
that is if the applicant refuses to enter into a separate agreement after the Boards have
signed the Site Specific Agreement, they will have to go through with the Site Specific
with a blindfold on. Councilman Behrendt said the applicant is pushing the Boards to
come up with a resolution for the economics of this. The Boards have sympathy but a~e
not going to make any commitment.
Ms. Smith suggested a clause that if the parties do not agree then both agreements are
null and void. Stock said that could be stated in the contract, but the Boards will have
a hard time selling that to the Forest Service. Garfield noted some of these questions
had taken them by surprise. Joe Wells said most of these have been articulated in his
earlier memoranda. Councilman Parry said he would like to enter into this based on
the idea of agreeing not to agree. Ms. Stuller said she felt this was dangerous; estoppel!
is created, the Boards can be sued, disagreement on good faith negotiations, at what pointl
do the parties not agreed. Commissioner Edwards agreed this is the kind of document
that creates a lot of law suits. Stock agreed with the statements and pointed out that
the Boards can let them waive some of their claims, as seen in page 25.
Councilman Behrendt outlined that the applicant came in asking for some relief, and the
City has stated they hope to give some relief. That was the consensus of the Council.
Commissioner Kinsley stated that is not the consensus of the County. The County does
not wish to go any more than $15,000. Edwards agreed that $15,000 is all the County can
offer, and he does not want to lay in any implied promises. The Commissioners all agreed
all they could promise is split $15,000 - $7,500. Child said these two paragraphs are
just two of many questions that will be raised and they should be raised all at one time.
Garfield suggested waiting to see if they could come up with other alternatives that would
keep everyone comfortable and keep the process going. Garfield said he felt the questions~
relating to the update of the Gilmore study and the effects on growth management were
really questions of the public sector.
Garfield brought up the waiver of claims provision, and stated this means that the propo-
nent has absolutely no rights whatsoever in the process and any rights that have been
obtained to date are waived. The arguement that it belongs in the Site Specific Agreement
is that it originally appeared in the cooperative agreement. This agreement Little Annie
was not a party to, and they were given a period of time to accept or not to accept the
agreement. Farney must now go out for another round of pre-construction financing, and
they are questioning this waiver of claims clause. There is no requirement in the Land
Use Code or other precendent for a clause like this. Garfield noted this have never been
done to anybody and does not appear in the Burnt Mountain agreement. If the proponent
signed the agreement and the lead agency stopped the process, the applicant would have
absolutely no remedy.
Ms. Stuller admitted anyone making an application under the Land Use Code has a right to
have it processed and preserve all remedies in case of denial. However, this applicant
is different as the application was denied in 1976 by both the P & Z and Commissioners.
The applicant came back and asked for reconsideration and that they would defer to what-
every the County would do. It was ten agreed that (1) initiation of the procedure would
not constitute conceptual approval of the application, (2) the applicant would tolerate
continuances or postponements to give the County time to consider alternative sites or
to do any studies necessary or for the Forest Service to complete any studies they
thought they needed to do, and (3) the applicant would waive any rights to litigation in
the event of denial. These were discussed at the time the proposal was resubmitted to
the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Stuller said the County Commissioners may not
consider this clause fair or important at this point, but they have not instructed her
to drop it. This is not a fresh application; it is an application that has been denied
after a great deal of time and money was spent by the County.
~egu±ar ~eetlng Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
Garfield acknowledged the clause existed in the prior agreement; however, this is not
~ 1976 and they are further along the line in the joint review process. The applicant
needs some ability to attract investors; to say he has no r~ghts whatsoever makes it
impossible to attract capital. Garfield pointed out they had left some leeway in case
Little Annie of postponement, and extended the Site Specific to 24 months. Councilman Parry asked if
continued this same paragraph were in the Burnt Mountain agreement. Ms. Stuller answered no
because it is a fresh application and they had some approvals from the Forest Service
already. The paragraph has to do with the fact this Little Annie application is a recon-
sideration after denial.
Stock said it seemed fair that the applicant a~ least has a right to some final determina-
tion on the part of both the city and the county. The joint review process is new to
everyone, and there maybe delays that no one foresees. Stock said it is fair that as
the applicant has agreed to assume the risk of entering into the joint review process,
he should waive any claim he might have if the final determination in this application is
delayed because of that process. Stock said it is unfair to ask him to waive any claim
he might have if the Boards violate the rights in the process or simply do not give any
final determination at all. Ms. Stuller said this clause speaks to postponements and
denial of the application; it does not speak to abuses of the terms of the agreement.
Ms. Stuller reiterated that was part of the deal when Little Annie asked the Commissioners
to reconsider their application.
Stock understood this position, but stated the only fair thing from the City's point of
view to demand as a waiver ~s simply the one based on postponement or denial of the final
decision which includes the consideration, but not that of application if it's denied
entirely. Stock stated the waiver should not apply to denial; it should only apply to
postponement or delay in the issuance of the final determination. Garfield asked if
there was any outside time the Boards would give the applicant, or the effect of that
would be it could be postponed ten years. Garfield would like an affirmative covenant
in the apprlication that would agree to expedite the application. If circumstances beyond
the control of the Boards caused some delay or postponement, the application would be
obliged to accept that. Councilman Behrendt stated since the Boards are proceeding
expeditiously anyway, why raise the question.
Commissioner Child remembered the language from the 3oint review process that the applicant
agreed to abide the decision that came out of that process. Ms. Stuller said the agree-
ment said two things; it would not constitute conceptual, and postponement and denial.
Commissioner Edwards told the Boards that this was denied; the applicant came back and
said they felt the application had validity, that the County will find affirmatively and
they were willing to take tbs risk. If the County doesn't, the applicant will not hassel
the County with any lawsuits or litigation if you ultimately determine administratively
it is not an appropriate development. The applicant asked for the right to present their
case through the joint review process. If the County comes ou~ of that process with a
no, the applicant will go away quietly. Edwards said the applicants had told the County
they were willing to do all that in order to provide an incentive for reconsideration.
This reconsideration was something the County was not willing to do; and in order to
assure the County they would not be faced with huge lawsuits if they came up with denial,
the applicant promised to abide by whatever the decision finally was without exercising
the rights of review by the~courts. Edwards said it was in that context the County
agreed, and he has a problem with changing that agreement. Kinsley said he did not agree.
Child agreed with Edwards; there was a commitment made and each side will have to meet
their commitments all the way through. If the sides start to renege on them, there will
be an aura of distrust created.
Commissioner Kinsley told Garfield that they are definitely backing off the previous
agreement. Garfield said they were finished with that agreement, and are asking for this
agreement, which is later on in the process, to be written a different way. Councilwoman
Anderson agreed with Edwards that if this was a necessary part of the agreement, it should
not be changed. City Manager Mahoney pointed out that was a deal made between Little
Annie and the County. The precedent the City sets is important, and to deny any of the
applicants due process by requiring them ~o forego all their rights is not a good prece-
dent. Mahoney recommended the City go with Stock's suggestion. Ms. Stuller suggested
also the City could leave the paragraph the way it is and only apply to the City, and
the City could draft their own immunity provision. Stock's recommendation is to leave
in 11 but it will only apply to the County; and the agreement will be delay or postpone-
ment of the process but not the final answer.
Councilman Behrendt noted several Councilmembers had been and looked at the base area
proposals at Little Annie. Councilman Behrendt said he was not in agreement with the
type, kind and number of housing at that end of town. Councilman Behrendt asked at what
point the Council has a chance to comment on that. Ms. Smith told the Board that the
location of the units will be ~n the City, and according the this agreement, the City will
review any rezoning for employee units, conditional use application for the base facility,
and part way through the PUD process. All of this involves public hearings and public
~ input. The City will respond to rezon~ng, conditional use hearing, and at least conceptual
PUD before they make an input to the draft ES to be drafted by the Forest Service.
Councilman Isaac said he did not feel it was proper that the applicant asked several
members of Council to go over for a site inspection. If site inspections are to be done,
the whole Council should be there. Councilman Behrendt asked how the City and County
can make sure the public is getting the best deal and the governments are satisfied.
Garfield said the Boards have to get the whole program in front of them, look at the
maps exactly what is being done; at that time the Council or Commissioners can 3ust shake
their heads no. Ms. Smith said in drafting the agreement, they felt the only way the
Boards could properly respond is to go through their own review procedures.
The Joint meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Regular Meeting Aspen CitY Council January 8, 1979
MINUTES
Councilman Parry moved to approve the minutes of November 27, and December 11, 1978,
Council meetings; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Isaac moved to approve accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All
in favor, motion carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There were no comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
1. Councilman Isaac asked if the contract was signed with Don Westerlind to work on the
Visual Arts building. City Attorney Stock reported the language for the contract has ilVisual Arts
been wrapped up; the contract is being re-typed and may have been signed by Westerlind !ibuilding
but not by the City.
2. Councilman Isaac noted that 1979 is Aspen's centennial year and asked if the City was:
interested in doing anything. Mayor Standley said the Chamber is working on a program. !iAspen's
icentennial
3. Councilman Isaac said the Council should talk about the ski area sales tax issue at
some point and Write letters of support to their Representatives. Mayor Standley told lift
the Council there is a resolution of record, and he has been working on it and will send sales tax
letters of support. This ski area sales tax issue may require, when it gets to the floor
some lobbying.
4. Councilman Parry said in reviewing the December 11 minutes, Commissioner Kinsley said
the County is concerned about whether Pitkin Coun.ty needs any more housing units. A
meeting date with the County should be set to discuss this. Ms. Smith said this was part!Housing
of the outline for pursuing the under the bridge project. This information has been
complied and sent to the housing office. The planning office has received a preliminary
evaluation of what needs to be done. The second phase of the housing marketing study
is being done on a cooperative basis with the Chamber, housing director and Jolene
Vrchota of the planning office. The meeting will be set when the analysis is ready.
5. Councilman Wishart pointed out a lot of recreational vehicles are parked around and
people are living in them. Councilman Wishart said he would like to see the ordinances People sleeping
against this enforced. Mahoney noted the City has ordinances against people living in i in recreational
these vehicles, but not parking on the streets. Mahoney has instrcuted the police to ivehicles
check them all every hour.
6. Councilman Behrendt asked if there are any parking laws in the Ute Avenue area.
Mahoney answered there are no specific parking regulations except 72 hour parking.
Councilman Behrendt said the City had left that street narrow so that it would be quiet,
and it is really jammed. At least one side of the street should be no parking.
7. Councilman Behrendt asked for a review of the final plat on the Trueman property.
Council had specific intentions of the allocation of square footages for the various Truth,un
categories. Councilman Behrendt said he would like a repgrt back to Council. iproperty
8. Councilman Behrendt said he was 9onsidering remaking the movie he showed two years
ago on children's parks as they appear to be in much worse shape then ever. Councilman iParks inbad
Behrendt said that less than 1/3 of the 21 items he listed have been adequately taken
care of. Mahoney said he doesn't agree with that, the City has tried. Mayor Standley i sb~pe
told ~ahoney to get Holland's program to Councilman Behrendt. Mayor Standley pointed
that triangle park was never finished according to the master plan.
9. Mayor Standley reminded Council of the work session tomorrow at 5 p.m. with Gideon
Kaufman et. al. regarding rental restrictions.
10. Mayor Standley told Council for the snow removal program Captain Clean will hand
out letters to business people to get their help in cleaning sidewalks. The City has Snow removal
three snow removal vehicles for the mall and sidewalks.
11. Mayor Standley said there is no parking control on the Little Nell parking lot.
No cars are getting tagged and that is turn over parking.
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - Gordon
Mayor Standley reminded Council this had been tabled pending figuring out what to do
about a trail. John Young told Council there have been last minute changes. When he Conceputal
met with the applicant to discuss the trails, they were looking at a master plan calling Subdivision
for a trail, east to west, to link across and did not address a trail along the river. Gordon
There was concern about dissecting the property. Young recommended the trail follow
along the river. The parks associations has been working on that particular trail align-
ment, and it appears it Would be the easiest of the two to procur. If they continue on
with the east-west trail, they would have to go through eight property owners. This
trail would provide access for the City to get to the headgate for maintenance. Council-
man Van Ness came into the meeting.
Councilman Isaac moved to grant conceptual subdivision approval incorporating the four
conditions in the planning office memorandum of January 4, 1979, and modifying the trail
to reflect what John Young said; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion
carried.
~egu±ar Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
REPORT ON DOWNTOWN PLANNING PROGRAM
Ms. Smith told the Council the planning office had promised to come back to Council with
i Downtown a program for completing the four elements leading up to the May election including look-
iPlanning ~ ing at the problems of the existing mall, alternatives for design of mall expansion, down-
!Program town beautification, a program for total urban design approach - streets, trees, lighting,
sculpture - and tying this in with transportation work being doen by PBQ&D.
Ms. Smith included the notices sent out requesting bids for this work. The planning office
had budgeted $25,000 for this, and the cost will go over that. The Council had indicated
they would be interested in going for the full program but wanted an idea of what the
costs would be. The planning office has received proposals ranging from $25,000 to $60,000.
There is interest from Paul Fredburg to come for a full day and take public input on the
existing mall and the expansion. Ms. Smith said she would like input from Council whetherl
this captures everything and whether they are interested in going beyond the monies bud-
geted. ~s. Smith suggested when all proposals are in, there be a staff committee to
review the proposals and to make the recommendations to Council.
Ms. Smith told Council some of the proposals said the downtown beautification part would
be difficult to accomplish in 10 weeks. Ms. Smith said she felt this part of the program
will have value to the City beyond this spring's mall election. A program coUld be out-
lined to be on-going for a decade. Mayor Standley said he felt this proposal is right
on, his concern would be to consider spending as much as $60,000. Mayor Standley said
he had problems in terms of fiscal responsibility of spending up to $60,000 on a program
that is going to require voter approval prior to receiving that approval. Mayor Standley
said that would be a misuse of funds and would be predestining the project to failure.
Mayor Standley recommended that if, in fact, most proposals come in over $25,000, which is
budgeted, that the planning office give the consultants that have responded the opportunity
to respond again with a revised proposal reflecting a limit of $25,000 recognizing that
will mean some of the areas planning can take on or it. Mayor Standley also said he would
like to keep the Drogram moving.
Ms. Smith told Council that from the proposals she has in, the aspects dealing with just
the mall expansion come within the $25,000. ~ayor Standley said the consultants were miss-
ing what the Council was looking for. The Council was looking for a program to clean up
and beautify the other streets and give them some aesthetic value, and that should not take
$35,000. In work the session, the Council had discussed sidewalk paving improvements,
treatment of the strip between the Curb and the sidewalk, furniture if appropriate, not
a total urban design program. The Council agreed that $25,000 should be the topset figure,I
~ ~. Mayor Standley asked for an update on the parking study. Ms. Smith told Council they
surveyors had started and are working at various points. Curt Stewart will prepare s
schedule of reports to council. The program is on schedule.
ORDINANCE #45, SERIES OF 1978 Definition of Commercial Bakery
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Richard Grice, planning office, told Council they
Ord. 45, 1978 felt the amendment is premature and should be proceeded by a careful definition of the
Definition of S/C/I zone. Grice said he felt that "creeping commercialism" is occurring in the S/C/I
cc~aercial zone. The building inspector approves uses for that zone that are primarily service,
bakery commerical or industrial with retail sales being incidental or minor. Once a business
gets into the S/C/I zone, they change until the repair and service end of the business
becomes incidental. ~he boundary line between the two types of businesses is very nebulous.
Grice said he felt the ordinance as written for the S/C/I is unenforceable.
Grice told Council the rents in the S/C/I zone are currently $7.50 to contrast the down-
town commercial zone where they are $18 or $20 a square foot. Grice pointed out the growth
management plan sets out a goal of having a balance between new businesses, population,
housing, community facilities and skiing. This balance is being thrown out of kilter.
Grice stated if this amendment is passed, it will constitute commercial expansion which is
not covered under the GMP. Grice said the tendency of upgrading, or highest and best use,
would ultimately result in the elimination of the S/C/I zone.
Grice told Council the definition of commercial bakery resulted initially from a request
to locate a commercial bakery in the S/C/I, Which indicated it was 95 per cent wholesale
and 5 per cent retail. The code amendment went in with a total prohibition against retail
sales for bakeries because it was felt a bakery was a unique type business that could
easily result in high traffic, high numbers of trips to the shop. The issue is the
number of auto trips to the shops. Grice told Council another example was Matilda's Hot
Breads, who applied for the right to locate a retail' outlet for baked goods in the S/C/I
zone, and it was denied. Subsequently they went to the Brand building where they could
sell their breads over the counter. Another application reviewed by the P & Z was a
limited food service coffee shop in the S/C/I zone. This was turned down because it would
be difficult to control who goes to the coffee shop. ~
Grice pointed ou~ the S/C/I zone is very limited and has constantly been encroached upon.
The planning office feels this zone is the backbone of the community and should be pre-
served so that the residents can get to those services. A bakery will be located in the
Trueman Center so the public's demand for bakery good in the area will be satisfied.
Mayor Standley asked what the impact of changing the S/C/I - either by changing the defini-
tion of commercial bakery or by changing the zone, and if not something will have to be
done about some of the businesses down there, would be upon the annexation. Mayor Standley
asked if pressure was being put on to look for more S/C/I areas to accommodate the demand
and need for S/C/I uses. Grice said the City would have to rezone some additional land.
The zoning presently at the Airport Business Center is not compatible with the S/C/I.
Ms, Smith agreed there is pressure, a lumber business cannot find space in the S/C/I zone
in town because it is full. Ms. Smith said she is not ready to admit to opening up a whole
new area to industrial zoning.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January ~, 1979
Grice told Council he did not have the answer On how to draw the line between minor, inci-I
dental retail and wholesale service. Grice said he planned to research this; the planningil Definition
office agrees there needs to be some retail in the zone. City Attorney Stock noted the ii cc~mercial
present ordinance uses language like "primarily engaged in wholesale" or '~may engaqe in ii bakery
limited retail provided the retail sales are ancillary" and do not define the zone well.
The first alternative might be a percentage of floor area. The problem with this is that
it is in no way related to the retail that goes on. Each business is different from a
furniture/design to a bakery. Another alternative might be percentage of business with
x amount of sales related to retail. The problem with this is enforcement.
The question with S/C/I is that the intent has not been clearly defined; the City thinks
it says non-traffic generator. The question is how much retail becomes traffic generationi!
Stock said the entire zone should be looked at and the intent redefined. Stock said these!i
applicants have shown there are permitted uses which seem inconsistent with the intent;
permitted uses have to be looked over. If retail sales are going to be permitted, the
City needs to state how to control these so that they are limited. All this should be
done before the ordinance is adopted.
Councilman Parry pointed out since that area was zoned, there is a different thing going
on down there with the grocery store. This has become local shopping area. Councilman
Van Ness pointed out when someone needs a service, they are going to drive and there will
be a trip somewhere. Aspen is an expensive place to live, and if the bakery is baking and!i
selling on the premise, people won't have to go into a restaurant and pay the mark up.
Councilman Van Ness said he felt retail should be permitted in all the stores. Councilman
Van Ness asked how much S/C/I remains vacant. Ms. Smith there is a small portion of the
Trueman property, and Obermeyer's building will be vacant.
Ms. Smith reminded Council of the growth management factor, and that the Council had
heavily weighed the prospect of controlling the amount of commercial development going on
in the City. In the adopted GMP it states the community should limit commercial growth
to 24,000 square feet annually to be consistent with the overall growth rate. If Council
rezones the area or changes to CC or C-1 types of uses, they are allow commercial to expan~
in a zone not covered by the GMP. Councilman Behrendt said when the Council put the S/C/Iii
zone in, they felt there was a valuable set of low overhead businesses that had to have a
place to be. Councilwoman Anderson said in trying to define the S/C/I zone the key should
be in traffic generators; shoe repair and tires are not daily trips. A bakery will be a
2 or 3 times a week trip. Councilwoman Anderson agreed there are inconsistencies in the
S/C/I zone and she would like to see this redefined and worked out; she would not like to
see another stop gap by allowing one more exception which seems to be a violation of the
intent. Grice said he sees nothing wrong with this bakery occupying a zone that is
appropriate.
Herb Klein, representing Le Cuisinier, the proponents of the application had space out at
the Airport Business Center and were exclusively manufacturing baked goods They make
larger consumptive type items; people would not come in and buy an individual non-packaged!i
item and consume it on the site. They had to move out of their ABC space because they
needed more room, and the only place they could pursue their baking economically was in
the S/C/I zone. Klein stated that 90 per cent of the bakeries anywhere will have over theii
counter sales. Klein said all Le Cuisinier would like to do would be to serve on a limite~
basis, entire cakesl packaged goods. Right now their goods are only available through
restaurants.
Klein said he did not believe there is any erosion of the zone; what is in there now are
permitted uses. If the Council is talking about traffic generators, and the zone states
permitted uses are vehicle sales, gas station, car wash, lumber yard. Klein did a list
characterizing the uses, and of the 20 existing uses virtually all of them comply in some
interpretation of a permitted use. The Council is trying to grapple with the question of
what the S/C/I zone should become. Le Cuisinier is trying to point out an inconsistency
and an inequity of the current permitted uses which allow all kinds of retail sales except
if its a commercial bakery. It is unfair and unequitable to allow orange juice people to
sell by the quart and the paint store to sell by the quart, and Le Cuisinier cannot sell
a cake. This is unfair to the community and to Le Cuisinier.
Klein said Le Cuisinier is a very personal, manufacturing, shoPcraft-type industry and
they have to have the opportunity for a "factory outlet", and that is what they are asking
for. Klein said there is a auestion about the enforcability of the current zone. Klein
stated Le Cuisinier is a very unique business; it will not bring the growth management
plan down. They only want a six foot counter. !Klein said the language for the reouested
change is very compatible with the intent of the discussion. The retail sales will be
acceSsorty to the primary activity, and all goods sales will be those baked on the
premises, and are packaged to avoid on-site consumption. Klein said these are easy to
enforce and are not ambiguous. Klein submitted the growth generating demand is being
satisfied by the purely retail bakery across the street,
Dean Small said he felt that Le Cuisinier would not generate any excess traffic. The
road to the Trueman shopping center leads into Le Cuisinier's driveway. Councilman
Behrendt said the Trueman Center was designed for one-stop shopping rather than multiple
stop shopping in the neighborhood. Councilman Behrendt said if yes is said to applications
like this, the landlord will be able to command first-rate prices on the rent, and the
City will lose the kind of services they want to provide. Councilman Behrendt agreed there
is an enforcement problem in the S/C/I zone. Jon Siegle stated that 20 businesses are all!i
conforming in some aspect. Siegle pointed out the code does not say non-retail, this
definition is inconsistent with others in the code.
Councilman Behrendt said it is clear they are not aSking to be a wholesale bakery, which
means they are not dealing with a small number of people. This will be retail and will
have high traffic generation. Councilman Parry said all Le Cuisinier wants to do is fit
in with all the others business, and they should not be discriminated against. All the
other businesses down there have limited retail. Councilman Isaac said it is apparent
that it is up to Council on what they want to happen in that building. If Council decides
they want no retail, they have to be consistent and close down some of the other operations.
~egu±ar meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
Councilman Van Ness said he had a problem with changing the rules on the places that
are already there. Councilwoman Anderson pointed out the list of permitted uses states
Definition of dry Cleaning plant and laundry, not laundromat. If the paint store is s~lling pints of
! c~tu~rcial paint, that is not a building supply use. There is an interpretation and enforcement
bakery problems. Council ought to decid, e what they want and~lcontinue in that direction rather
than making one more exception.
Klein submitted a list of permitted uses and characterization of those, and a list of
existing uses and how they fit in. The conclusion is that every business down there is
a permitted use, and there is no enforcement problem. Ms. Smith disagreed with the
characterization of the uses. Stock recommended the best course is to table this to
allow the planning department to do its necessary work in redefining and going through
the permitted uses with an eye to modifying the entire zone so that it is consistent with
what Council wants. Stock said the result may be looking towards traffic generation and
limited commercial and make all businesses consistent with that. It may end up that some
of the existing businesses amy be non-conforming uses.
Klein said Council could go ahead and approve the request without prejudicing their
ability to change the S/C/I zone ih the future. Klein said this application has been
~ going on for 4 months, and this should not be such an agonizing decision. When Council
looks at the zone, they will probably find room for what Le CUisinier is asking.
Councilman Van Ness noted the Code does not speak directly to the question of whether
retail is permitted or not. The uses could be honestly interpreted as not prohibiting
retail aspects to the business. Councilman Van Ness said if the City bans all retail,
there will be a real problems. As all the uses listed as permitted, only commercial
bakery has a definition that excludes retail sales; Councilman Van Ness stated he felt
it was discriminatory to single out that one use.
Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilman Van Ness moved to read Ordinance #45, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman
.. Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Wishart and Behrendt. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #45
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE A}~ENDING SECTION 24-3.1 (bb) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE PROVIDING FOR A NEW DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL BAKERY" was
read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #45, Series of 1978 on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Isaac.
~ Councilman Isaac said reagardless of the outcome, he would like to clarify the definition
of the S/C/I zone. Councilman Wishart said he felt to pass this would shelve the re-
examintion, and. Council should table it. Councilman Parry said this should be passed
clarification
because it is the only exception to the rule. Mayor Standley stated if a commercial
of S/C/I zone bakery created this definition, there was a reason. Anyone has the opportunity to do
their baking in one space and retail in another. Mayor Standley said he felt the memo
from the planning office very consistent with his feelings with the zoning of that
area and concerning the erosion of the S/C/I toward retail. Mayor Standley noted in
addition to defeating this motion, it will be necessary to schedule a public hearing on
several of the businesses in this zone to show cause why their business licenses should
not be revoked. If the Council wants to talk about creating more retail space in town,
then that should be addressed, as an issue. Mayor standley said he constantly sees cars
double parked at the building not generating traffic.
Councilman Isaac said this definition is consistent with the other uses presently in the
building. Councilman Isaac said he would rather approve this now, then redefine the
district. Mayor Standley said that was erosion of the district. Councilman Van Ness
said he felt this is a poorly written statute.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Van Ness aye; Wishart, nay; Isaac, aye, Behrendt, nay;
Parry, aye; Anderson, nay; Mayor Standley,
naY. Motion NOT carried.
Mayor Standley said Council should schedule public hearings on Martin's Auto Store, Ye
Olde Wash House, which seems to be in violation of the intent of the zone. The other
buSinesses - Henry's, Pegasus, Heritage, should be looked at. Stock said after the
investigation, if Council determines there are inappropriate uses of modified, come back
for an order to show cause. Council haS the same type of procedure under the business
license as under liquor license hearings.
Councilman Van Ness moved to direct administration to look into the uses in the S/C/I
zone; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt
asked the planning office to articulate the reason behind the S/C/I so the administration
knows what it is looking for.
ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 1978 - U. S. P. O. SPA
!Ord. 46, 1978
USPO- SPA Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Ms. Smith requested this be tabled as the
tabled applicant has never conferred with the city engineer as they were requested to do.
Councilman Isaac moved to table this ordinance; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilman
Isaac said he would like to urge the post office to cut down on the number of boxes
because they have stressed home delivery. All in favor, motion carried.
~egu±ar Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
ORDINANCE ~47, SERIES OF 1978 - Repealing Sec. 13-74, Swimming Pool covers Ord. 47, 1978
Repealing 13-74
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed swura~ngpool
the public hearing, covers
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance ~47, Series of 1978; seconded by Counciwoman
Anderson. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE a47
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE REPLEAING SECTION 13-74 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH
PROVIDES FOR THE COVERING OF HEATED SWIM~ING POOLS was read by the city clerk.
Councilman Parry moved at adopt Ordinance #47, Series of 1978, on second reading; seconded
by Councilwoman Anderson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Anderson, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Isaac, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~48, SERIES OF 1978 - Vehicle Leases
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standtey closed Ord. 48, 1978
the public hearing. Vehicle leases
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance 948, Series of 1978, seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~48
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THREE VEHICLE LEASING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND DICK WHEELER, INC.; WHICH LEASES
PROVIDE FOR TERMS AND MONTHLY RENTAL PAYMENTS (IDENTIFIED BY VEHICLE NUMBER)
AS FOLLOWS: (1) T-309, S121.00 for 36 MONTHS; (2) T-330, S118.09 FOR 24
MONTHS; AND L-9189, $157.00 FOR 24 MONTHS was read by the city clerk
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 1978, on second readina:
seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Parry, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Anderson, aye; Wishart, nay; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE 949, SERIES OF 1978 - Amending Animal Fees
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
the public hearing. Ord. 49, 1978
Amending animal
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #49, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman IsaaC. fees
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~49
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN BY SETTING DOG LICENSE FEES AND PENALTY ASSESSMENTS FOR FAILURE
TO LICENSE DOGS AND BY REQUIRING THE POSTING AND ENCLOSURE OF AREAS
GUARDED BY WATCH DOGS was read by the city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~49, Series of 1978, on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye~
Anderson, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley. Motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
1. Housing Authority Manager. City Manager Mahoney said in the housing program to ~keep
it going, they had tried to delegate to certain groups in the City responsibilities but Housing Authority
they have to find a manager. The Council will have to delegate someone to make th~ manager
decisions and they will have to fund the program, and Mahoney suggested Council appoint
someone as the manager for the Housing Authority. Mahoney recommended Mayor Standley.
Don Ensign said the manager's primary concerns are the areas of project economics and
management; there are many decisions that have to be made in a balancing act fashion, such
as rent structure, occupancy rates, total number of units, cost range financial program.
Councilman Behrendt asked why the Housing Authority would not be making thse decisions.
Ensign told Council a project manager is essentially responsible for the dollar decisions.
The manager also needs to keep things on schedule. Councilman Behrendt stated the decisions
of number of units, rent structure, etc., is why the Council is the Housing Authority.
Councilman Van Ness agreed. Mayor Standley stated nothing can be done without the approval
of the Housing Authority. The manager and Design Workshop will put together a conceptual
plan for approval.
Mayor Standley said he wants to get an employee housing project done; he has experience in
this field and ~s willing to put the time in. Council pointed out that after May there
will be a new Mayor. Ms. Smith noted the heaviest part of the project is from now until
May. Councilman Van Ness said he did not want to delegate too much of the authority of
the Housing Authority. The Council should be involved at least once a week. Mayor Standley
said this will be a standard agenda item. Councilman Behrendt said he would be willing to
serve with Mayor Standley as project manager.
Councilman Wishart moved to form a sub-committee of the Housing Authority of Mayor Standley
and Councilman Behrendt to act in this management of this water plant housing project;
seconded by Councilman Isaac.
Mayor Standley told Council they would get reports every Council meeting from the housing
sub-committee so that they can have input. By the time this gets to conceptual, every
element of the plan has been approved prior to the package.
City Manager Mahoney said they will have to come back to Council for a budget. Councilma~
Van Ness re-emphasized that every major decision will be made by Council as the Housing
Authority,
All in favor, motion carried.
Mahoney told Council he had met with Zoline who has~a proposal for a land deal with the
City. Mahoney base'given it to the planning office for their comments. This is a key
to the an~~5~ to the Airport Business Center. It is still in the development
stage.
MAYOR'S DEED - Frost
Mayor's Deed
Frost Stock told Council he had asked for clarifications on this and now recommends approval.
Councilman Isaac moved to authorize the signatures; seconded by Councilman Parry. All
in favor, motion carried.
REPLACEMENT OF COUNCIL VACANCIES
Mayor Standley suggested a Charter change for the May election dealing with Council
Replacement of vacancies. There are two thoughts; whenever there is a vacancy, schedule a special
Council election or to make an appointment only until the next scheduled election. Mayor Standley
vacancies - said if Council had suggested Charter changes, they should get them to Stock so that he
on Mayballot could get them prepared for the ballot. Another suggestion for filling the vacancy is
to have an appointment until the next general City or County election. Councilman
Wishart suggested voting increase in Council salaries before the next election.
Councilman Behrendt said he liked the option to appoint someone until the next regular
election. Councilman Wishart said he would prefer an election on .every vacancy.
Councilman Van Ness said he would like to have the appointment until the next election
whether its City or County. Council approved this idea and asked the City Attorney to
draft an ordinance for this Charter change.
Councilman Behrendt said if Council was going to change their salaries, he would prefer
to have this go to a vote also. Mayor Standley pointed out if people don't know what
they are going to be making, they may not run~ Also this would become an election issue, i
Mayor Standley asked Councilman Wishart to work with the City Attorney on an ordinance
for Council salaries for consideration.
Council brought the idea of changing to five Councilmembers. Mayor Standley said he
felt this was a great idea. Stock told Council there is a way to stagger this so that
it wouldn't happen all at once. Mahoney said he felt that seven was a better number.
Mayor Standley said if an ordinance was drawn up to make this Charter change, he would
sponsor it.
RESOLUTION #1, SERIES OF 1979 - Intent to Create a Mall
City Attorney Stock explained to Council that the title company could not get the names
Res.l, 197~ and addressed of the abutting property owners in time. This resolution was read at the
Intent to Create last Council meeting with a February 26 public hearing date. Resolution #1 changes the
aM all public hearing date to March 26 so that all statutory requirements can be met.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #1, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Parry. Mayor Standley noted this has to be published three times so it does not have to
be read. Councilman Isaac moved to reoonsider the motion to read; seconded by Council-
man Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution ~1, Series of 1979, by title; seconded by
Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley read Resolution #1,
Series of 1979, by title.
Councilman Behrendt said that the 'Council had voiced a commitment that the question of
expanding the mall would be put to the voters. Mayor Standley pointed out if there is
not opposition by 51 per cent of the property owners, the question does not have to go
to election. Councilman Behrendt said the Council made the commitment to go to an
election no matter what. Councilman Van Ness said he is in favor of going to election
in any event. Councilman Wishart agreed.
Councilman Wishart moved to adopt ResOlution ~1, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Isaac.
Councilman Van Ness said he would vote no on adopting this unless the commitment is made
to take the question to the voters.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried.
Councilman Van Ness moved that the question of whether the mall is expanded is brought
to the voters this may in any event; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Mayor Standley
said this could be done by resolution.
Councilman Van Ness made a substitute motion to instruct City Attorney Stock to develop
a resolution for consideration at the next Council meeting; seconded by Councilman
Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 1979 - Amending Section 7-143 Park Dedication Fees
Ord. 1, 1979 City Attorney Stock told Council this is merely making the code consistent with a
Amending Sec.
7-143 Park previous change. This section did not get changed when Ordinance #13 was adopted.
Dedicatic~ fees
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance ~1, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Wishar~.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7-143 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING
FOR LAND DEDICATION OR CASH PAYMENTS IN LIEU THEREOF was read by the
city clerk
Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance ~1, Series of 1979, on ~rst reading; seconded
by Councilwoman Anderson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Isaac, aye;
Parry, aye; Anderson, aye; Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1979 - Authorizing Issuace of Notes for Improvements to Visual
Arts Center
Ord. 2, 1979
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman !Notes for
Parry. All in favor, motion carried. !iImpr~ts
to VisualArts
ORDINANCE ~2 Center
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMPROVING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, KNOWN AS THE VISUAL ARTS CENTER;
PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF SAID NOTES; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
REVENUES OF THE TWO PER CENT MUNICIPAL SALES TAX AND FROM OTHER SALES
TAX REVENUES; PRESCRIBING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND
DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was
read by the city clerk.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1979, on f~rst reading; seconded
by Councilman Isaac.
Councilman Van Ness said this is a generous offer but he feels uneasy about borrowing
money from private people because the project cannot fit into the City's budget. This
may be a bad precedent to set.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Anderson, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye;
Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~3, SERIES OF 1~979 - Exempting Employee housing from the Growth Management Plan
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #3, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Ord. 3, 1979
Exempting
ORDINANCE ~3' E~ployee
(Series of 1979) Housing frc~
AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 24, ARTICLE X OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
PROVIDING FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM BY AMENDING SECTIONS
24-10.2, 24-10.4(b) (3), 24-10.4(b) (4), 24-10.4(e), and 24-10.10, and BY
THE ADDITION OF SECTION 24-10.4(b) (5) was read by the city clerk
Councilman Wishart moved to adopt Ordinance #3, Series of 1979, on first reading; secondedi
by Councilman Isaac.
Councilman Van Ness asked if there is any investigation as to whether the 50 year deed
reStriction will totally discourage construction of low cost housing. Mayor Standley sai~i
it is the only thing Council can do. Stock pointed out the deed restriction will
incorporate provisions in the housing price guidelines. The deed restrictions may be
removed or amended between the applicant and the Council. Stock told Council Section 3
gives up to 10 points if the developer will enter into unique financing, either 95 per
cent or 100 per cent developer financing. Gideon Kaufman told Council the financiers
are discussing a 40 year mortgage and suggested (cc) to 30 or more years. Council
accepted that change.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Isaac, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Anderson, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~4, SERIES OF 1979 - Amending Trueman Agreement
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance ~4, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman Ord. 4, 1979
AmendingTru~an
Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Agreement
ORDINANCE ~4
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF~ASPEN AND JAMES
R. TRUEMAN, PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR
THE TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT WHICH AGREEMENT WAS DATED
THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 1977, AND WHICH AFFECTED A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO was read by the city
clerk
Regu±ar Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~4, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman
Anderson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye;
i.Anderson, aye; Van Ness, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye; Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1979 Prohibiting Smoking in Certain Places
1979
Prohibited Councilwoman Anderson moved to table Ordinance ~5, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
tabled Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathry~S. Koch, City ~lerk
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 22,1979
Commissioner Edwards called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. with Councilmembers
Behrendt, Anderson, Wishart, Parry, Isaac, and Van Ness present; Commissioners Child and
Kinsley present. Also present City Attorney Stock, City Manager Mahoney, County Attorney
Stuller, and County Manager Ochs.
1. Question of Reply to Channel 7. City Manager Mahoney said he felt it was appropriate
to bring to the policy makers the issue of whether to reply to the charges from Channel
Reply to 7. Mahoney pointed out the police and sheriffs departments have been working on local
Channel 7 drug arrests; the sheriff, county manage and school boards have been working on a
allegations program through the school district. Last week the district attorney's office, sheriffs,
police, city and AVIA met with federal agents from DEA. In this meeting it was agreed
to cooperate with the DEA. The DEA recognizes they are not equipped to do local police
enforcement and Pitkin County is not equipped to take on national/international drug
problems.
Councilman Isaac asked if the DEA indicated the channel 7 reports were accurate. Mahoney
said he had the feeling they did not think much of channel 7's reporting or give much
credit to the strike force, the department channel 7 relied on for their information.
Commissioner Child said he felt the City and County should just consider the source of
the program and not even dignify it with a public response. The two law enforcment
agencies can continue to work together, and the City and County do not need to get in a
shouting match with channel 7. Commissioner Edwards said by making public statements,
. the City and COunty will just continue the lie in the public view. How many times can
channel 7 run the same story. If Aspen denies this, channel 7 has a whole new story and
we will be perpetuating the lies by resisting it. Edwards pointed out as soon as Aspen
makes its first big drug bust, channel 7 will be here again. Councilwoman Anderson said
she agreed. Councilman Behrendt said he did not perceive that Aspen had an unusual drug
problem; thel problem here is no different from any other place and the City and County
are applying at least as much effort as anyone. Councilman Behrendt said he felt a lot
of poor judgement has been shOwn.
2. Scattered Site Housing. Karen Smith, planning director, said this is a progress
report in the area of housing analysis, and the issue is scattered site housing versus
Scattered Site high density and what sites are available in solving the housing problem. Ms. Smith
Housing said these elements are necessary to consider before going on with any solution. The
planning office is proceeding to study alternative sites and will have a proposal for
a market study to bring the process forward.
Ms. Smith told the Boards that M.A.A is considering future options which~may mean a move
from Aspen. The M.A.A. has problems with both student and faculty housing and there are
problems with the music tent. Hans Cantrup has an option on the Koch lumber property
and has talked about providing M.A.A. student housing and in the winter using it as
seasonal housing. Ms. Smith said there is some urgency to move quickly and come back to
the Boards with sites and proposals. Jim. Reents, planning office, presented a map and
lists of possible sites for employee housing. Among the close-in sites are the water
plant proerty, hospital property adjacent to both new and old hospitals, Silverking
expansion site, base of Little Annie, Koch lumber property, Reents noted that a number
of sites listed were purchased with 6th penny money and there is a question if their use
for employee housing is feasible.
The County has acquired a lease to Smuggle Park area, which is 967 acres, and the planning
office is pursuing with BLM to see if it will be possible to do employee housing on that
site. The lease the County has is for recreation and open space. Some privately owned
sites are Paepcke, Zoline and Pfister properties; there is some undeveloped land at the
Airport Business Center and some land at the airport itself. Reents pointed out that
the City currently has no PMH zone and without that little employee housing development
can take place in the city. The County PMH zone does allow for variation in density and
this is built into the evaluation of the entire project. Reents suggested the staff
pursue an adoption of a similar zone in the City. Reents said the planning office feels
that single family or duplex is not a feasible way to try~to provide employee housing. ~
Reents told the Boards that within the County there are already tools to analyze projects,
but there is no base facts to hang one's hat on. The final analysis should not take
place until the planning office has the facts from the marketing study. Councilman Van
Ness asked what PMH zone would do in the City that Current zoning doesn't. Reents said
each project is evaluated on its own merits; there is no set density. The density would
vary in each application of the zone. Ms. Smith told the Boards that the planning office
works with the applicants to try to prepare the application. Ms. Smith said the marketingl
study will take 2,1/2 months. The planning office does not want to say yes or no to new ~
proposals until they know eactly what is needed in terms of seasonal or dormitory housing.ii
2553
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 8, 1979
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman
Anderson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye;
~ Anderson, aye; Van Ness, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye; Motion carried.
ORDINANCE ~5, SERIES OF 1979 - Prohibiting Smoking in Certain Places
Ord. 5, 1979
~Smoking Prohibited Councilwoman Anderson moved to table Ordinance ~5, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
tabled Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in
favor, motion carried.
Kathry~S. Koch, City ~lerk