Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19790212 Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. with Commissioners Child, Edwards, Kinsley, Councilmembers Anderson, Behrendt, Isaac, Parry, Wishart and Van Ness present. Also present were City Attorney Stock, County Attorney Stuller, City Manager Mahoney and County Manager Ochs. ~Planning Off. 1. Plan~ing Office Contract. Kar~n Smith, planning director, told Council this contract Contract allows the planning office to operate as a joint agency of the two jurisdictions and spells out the responsibilities of the department. Commissioner Kinsley moved to approve the contract; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Little Annie Site 2. Little Annie Site Specific Agreement. Mayor Standley left Council table. Ms. Smith told the Boards this agreement is a product of a great deal of staff time and work. The Specific Agree- issues the Boards want studied during the process are incorporated into this agreement. ment The Forest Service had redrafted it in the form of their EIS procedures. The questions that have not been resolved are the waiver and the funding of certain items. Ron Garfield had drafted alternatives for the funding question. County Attorney Stuller noted that some things had been dropped and need to be pointed out. City Attorney Stock reminded the Boards that the County had decided to keep the waiver paragraph in. The Council decided to modify the paragraph so that it would only relate to delay of the process. Stock said he had drafted the necessary language, although it is not in this draft. After the meeting, Pat Halligan had told Stock that the County wanted to drop entirely the waiver clause, and Stock recommended to the City that it be dropped for the City also. The site specific agreement sets out a time line, and the process should be made in the 18 month time line. Ms. Stuller told the Boards that the introductory paragraph should recognized that the application submitted previously constitutes the application to be submitted at step 8 as the conceptual application. This presents no problems. On page 8, there is a recital of the relationship between the consultant and the lead agency, and this language was inserted, "The lead agency and proponent shall jointly establish the outline of study or any amendments in terms of contracts with any consultants agreed upon, in addition to the extent necessary the elements and scope of any study may be changed by the lead agency provided that such changes must fall within the outline of study approved by the proponent and be reasonably related to the Little Annie proposal and the purposes of this agreement. In the even~ the lead agency wishes to change this study in a manner inconsistent with the outline, the proponent must approve such change." Ms. Stuller noted the last section is designed so that the agencies are not spending the proponent's money outside of the agree- ment. Halligan told the Boards this was an unintentional omission. Ms. Stuller told the Boards that appendix B is a new document, which attempts to outline the issues of the site specific study or the ES in its entirety. This appendix does not result from local discussion or drafting. Ms. Stuller said she felt the issues on this document were rather limited. In appendix C, page 20, the Forest Service attempted to identify those issues to which the $15,000 is supposed to be applied. The questions that are omitted here are question 1 on page 12 and questions 4 through 9 on page 13. Halligan explained he had added in parenthesis City/County contribution applies after these questions. Ms. Stuller recommended the change in the language about the County's ability to formulate the outline and the addition stating the application before the Boards constitute a con- ceptual application under step 8. Ms. Stuller pointed out page 7, site specific agreement, the City and County out to be added ~o the State and Forest Service of no further commitments. Ms. Stuller said at a meeting with the Forest Service, they requested the Forest Service to reinsert the six questions previously itemized. These have to to with Forest Service policy in terms of pricing, and tools determining the use and capacity. These will be studied as part of the ES. In this draft, it states the $15,000 may be applied to in-house studies. The proponent questioned this and had understood this to be for outside consultants. The Boards agreed to strike the phrase "in-house". Joe Wells noted page 7 of the agreement speaks to the proponents being responsible for providing information about the proposal; however, it has been agreed input will be made by a consultant acting as an independent consultant. Wells suggested the language should read all parties to the agreement will provide information about the proposal necessary to properly evaluate it. This is to assure that it will be neutral information. Page 6, Article 6, A(2) the "for locating housing" should be changed to "to locating housing". Wells also changed the language on page 1, appendix C, to the information will be supplied by all parties. Ma. Stuller noted that appendix B is a new document, the local governments were not involved in formulating. The City and County not only identified the issues they wanted studied but also the questions. The Forest Service went to the County initiative for a statement of the issues to be addressed in the ES. It might be a good opportunity for the City and County to expand on these if they have issues they want handled at this time. Ms. Stuller said she felt the statement of the over-broad issues is very limiting. Ms. Stuller told the Boards in order to expendite the process, they should call with any statements of the issues that are pertinent and should be recited in the appendix B. Ron Garfield had submitted a memorandum regarding the alternatives of financing the study of questions. It was a consensus at the last meeting that the questions of this discussion are questions that are not site specific, but are general policy questions of City and County wide impact. The proponent has agreed to pay all consultant costs with respect to the other areas of the agreement. In questions indirectly related to the application, the proponent is asking for help. The total cost to restudy the generalized questions is unknown. If the proponent could commit to a matching figure with the City and County, the City and County would be cautious as to how the dollars would be spent. The second alternative is to ask the governments to try to find the money. If it cannot be found, then the proponent is responsible for all the costs. The proponent prefers alternative 1, which they feel give some kind of assurance. Commissioner Kinsley asked the planning office if they could identify the line between costs incurred by the proponent and those that are more generalized. Ms. Smith said she did not feel it was clear cut and some of the questions would also be raised by Burnt Mountain.. The questions that should be shared by the proponent and the City/County are in appendix C, p. 12, number 1 and questions 4 through 9, also 3 questions on page 20 and 3 questions on page 21. Ms. Stuller asked how the requirement that Burnt Mountain participate in funding be enforced. Garfield said he would accept "to the extentpossible' ". Ms. Stuller told the Boards that the Forest Service told-her that the alternative discussion called for in this agreement with respect to Burnt Mountain will consist of the ES for Burnt Mountain. Based on that assumption, they requested the period for the Little Annie ES be extended from 18 to 24 months so that they could be sure that both are completely simultaneously. Halligan said he had been given instructions that Burnt Mountain will essentially be an ES in one docu- ment as an alternative as is outlined here. Ms. Stuller asked if Halligan would be will- ing to commit that it will be done simultaneously so that the results can be looked at the same time as Little Annie ES. Halligan answered yes. The Boards decided to go for alternative 1 in financing, with the qualifier about "to the extent possible". Joe Wells added two changes from the Division of Wildlife. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the agreement plus Appendices A and C with the changes discussed at this meeting; seconded by Councilman Parry. Ms. Stuller told the Boards that if they wanted to elaborate on the issues in appendix B to let her know by Thursday. Commissioner Child said he felt that the decision makers need to sit down and go through the entirely document very carefully before approving it. This has been done at the staff level but never analyzed by the Boards. Councilman Isaac said he felt this has been gone over and over. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Anderson, nay; Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Commissioner Child, nay; Edwards, aye; Kinsley, aye. Motion carried. 3. Acquisition of Hunter Creek Waters. Mayor Standley said this item is regarding the need to get moving on the $250,000 ~rom the State and Federal government for Hunter Creek. Acquisition of Alan Schwartz, water attorney, told the Boards there are provisions for securing Hunter Creek additional wate~ rights to insure that there is a minimum stream flow all the way down Waters. Hunter Creek to its confluence with the Roaring Fork. The legislature has appropriated $250,000 to the Division of Wildlife to be spent for minimum stream flow purchases. There has been little effort by those who have the money to make any acquisitions. Schwartz said the Division of Wildlife was to make a proposal; they have told Schwartz to go ahead and start something. Schwartz told the Boards that he had spoken with Tom Evans, Forest Service, who would like to conclude an exchange of their water rights on Hunter Creek for properties owned by the Division of Wildlife in C~lorado. Schwartz has contacted Harry Sherman and Felix Sparks and they suggested Schwartz make the proposal to the state and Forest Service. Schwartz has isolated out the Forest Service water rights and the water rights available for purchase on Hunter Creek. The legislature is watching to make sure that this money is spent responsibly. Schwartz said he is negotiating with Fritz Benedict for acquisition of some Red Mountain ditch rights. Even if the County gets some Forest Service water rights, they are insuf- ficient when the Red Mountain ditch is in priority. The bulk of the water which will be used is Forest Service water. The Forest Service has 20 cfs absolute and 10 cfs conditional on Hunter Creek senior to the FryingPan/Arkansas project. The Forest Service is willing to enter into an exchange with the DOW. Schwartz has agreed with the Forest Service is write them a letter indicating which water rights on Hunter Creek the City and County would like to have dedicated to minimum stream flow purposes, and in the letter include the properties the DOW would be willing to exchange for these rights. In addition, they would like to conclude purchase for private rights needed to acquire from the Red Mount- ain ditch owners. Schwartz told the Boards he would forward them copies of those letters, Schwartz told the Boards there is a group of investors who have filed applications with the water courts throughout the state. The first group, Blue Pond Investors, has filed for over 200,000 acre feet of underground water storage rights, including 5,000 acre/feet at the confluence of Hunter Creek and Roaring fork, 5,000 underneath the Airport and some at the Continental Divide. Schwartz said he felt it would be in the best interests of Pitkin County to oppose these applications, In the legislature, there are a number of bills introduced to try to prevent this from happening again. There are efforts from sone water lawyers to consolidate all of these cases and have them tried simultaneously. There is anOther group, Nedlock Technology, who have filed for 20 million acre feet of non-tributary water from underground wells. They intend to pump in practically every county in the state. Their project contemplates the building of another half-dozen inter- mountain water diversion projects. Schwartz said Pitkin COunty should file an opposition statement to this as well. Schwartz said he felt this is for speculative purposes, and a motive could be to have something for sale down the road. Schwartz told the Boards there are no engineering plans from Blue Pond; not too much is known about either project at this time. City.~Attorney Stock recommended the City vigorously oppose both of these. Councilman Behrendt moved to jointly oppose these water rights applications; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Housing Memorandum - Transferrable Density Rights. Mayor Standley had submitted a Housing memorandum outlining this plan to see if there was interest on the part of the Boards. Memorandum- ~-~ Mayor Standtey said if there was, he would take it through the planning office and the Transferrable P & Z'S. This may not work in the County as there are few lodges. The thought is to take Density Rights the lodges that are no longer competitive, located in the downtown area and can be useable for employee housing, and convert them into permanent resident housing. Since you cannot take $600,000 lodges and convert them and afford it, one would come up with a differential price between the market value and depreciated reproduction cost. Mayor Standley had included some examples in his memorandum. The City and County could create a transferrable density right, which is the difference between the market value and the depreciated reproduction cost. The private sector could buy the lodges at the depreciated reproduction price, renovate the lodges and come up with employee housing, which would be controlled through the PMH program. The owners of the out-of-date lodging would be given a number of transferrable density units. To get this number, take the market value, divide it by the total number of units, and get a figure for TDRs. Then you take the difference in the values, which essentially represents land costs, and come up with the number of TDRs. This decreases the tourists accommodations and relocates them in areas that the City wants them, and increases employee units. In order to make this work, the TDRs are exempted from the growth management plan, this is actually exempting the lodge conversion to employee housing. Mayor Standley pointed out in the City all lodges located on Main street west of Monarch and south of Main, west of Monarch, are essentially non-conforming. These would be con- verted into employee units and take some number of units and transfer them to areas that are zoned L-l, L-2 and C/L. The net impact would be to end up with fewer tourist units of a higher quality and affordable employee housing in the downtown. Councilman Behrendt said his concern is the kind of housing that would convert would be unsatisfactory housing~ Councilman Behrendt said those properties inevitably revert over anyway. Mayor Standley told the Board he had talked with the largest lodge owner in town, who is very enthusiastic about this. He has also discussed this with appraisers who feel this meets the return on investments. This requires the City and County making this happen. As far as getting the quality conversions, this can be part of the design. It can go through City and County, or the private sector, or the housing office. Councilwoman Anderson said she felt this is an intriguing idea as long as this goes through the City's zoning laws. Mayor Standley noted the City would use their zoning laws and the GMP to make this happen. Commissioner Kinsley said this is a terrific idea and it ought to be moved along. Council, man Isaac questioned the bonus units. Mayor Standley said the formulation of the bonus formula would come from the planning office and P & Z, they need to figure out what will work. Commissioner Edwards said the County had gotten away from TDRs in 1973 when HB 1041 was passed. The ability to give Counties TDR plans was specifically removed from the Bill. Counties do not have the authority to do TDRs; Pitkin County felt they could not proceed with TDRs. Edwards noted some problems; how would an appraiser appraise a TDR right, how would the IRS deal with it; it is very complex. MaYor Standley said if no one is real opposed, he will continue to develop this. 5. A-95 Reviews. (a) Senior Nutrition Project. Mayor Standley said everyone is in favor A-95 Reviews of having the program continue on and expanded. Senior Nutritli ion Project ii Commissioner Kinsley moved to recommend favorable comment; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. (b) Pitkin County Low Income Housing Development Project. Mark Danielsen told the Boards Pitkin County Lo~ this application is for $375,000, for which to buy land. This is a 100 per cent grant. Income Housing ~ Danielsen told the Boards he has a couple of sites in mind, and through the application Development Proj~ process this can be changed. This will be used for employee housing project with a density of 40 to 50 units. This does not address a specific site. Councilman Parry moved to forward with favorable comment; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. 6. Herron Park - Ute Avenue Trail. John Young reminded Council they had discussed the Herron Park- Gordon subdivision with a trail easement. He has conceptually drawn up a trail alignment Ute Ave. Trail for approval. They wOuld like to add this to the trails master plan. Young would also like City and County approval of granting of easements for this trail and for the City to provide the County aerial maps. Fourth, they would like the City and County to enter into a joint condemnation agreement ~or acquisition of easements. Ms. Stuller said there is a joint agreement for condemnation. Young presented a map showing the existing Ute Avenue Trail and the beginning of the Herron park/Rio Grande Trail; they are trying to link these two up. Young illustrated lands publicly owned and easements already ~n had. The use of City lands would be a dedicated alley and the Freddy Fisher park. There is an easement from the Riverview condominiums. Young said there will be some major.~engineering decisions to be made for constructing this trail; however, it is worthy to go after this trail. The Parks Association is spear- heading this, and they will begin to approach other landowners. Mayor Standley noted that on the Riverside easement, during high water the river is six inches from the building. Young said his thrust now is to go after easements for this conceptual trail. Young said they would have to go to City P & Z for the flood plain area. Councilman Van Ness said he had a lot of reservations about the trail, there are steep banks, this goes through people's backyards and out over the river. Councilman Isaac moved to give conceptual approval, to approve by the City and County the granting of easements, and that the City will provide survey and aerial maps; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING Councilman Isaac moved to approve the minutes of January 8, and 22, 1979; seconded by Approval of Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. minutes- Jan.8 & 22,1979 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 12, 1979 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Councilman Isaac moved to approve accounts payable; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in Accts. Pay. favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There were no comments. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Van Ness said at the January 8 Council meeting they had discussed towhat Resolution ~2 extent they should commit to abide by the results of the mall election. Councilman Van placed on,May Ness said this resolution has not been done. Council pointed out Resolution ~2 would ballot put this question on the May ballot. 2. Councilman Van Ness brought up the breakfast meeting last week and said he would like clarified how they can hold a meeting of the entire Council. Another point is when and under what circumstances, if any, Councilmembers can have ex parte contact with people that have business before the Council. Mayor Standley told Council then-City Attorney Stuller had made an interpretation of the state Sunshine law, which does not apply to the City Council. Councilman Van Ness said perhaps the Council should set policy on citizens individually lobbying members of the COuncil. City Attorney Stock said there are two types of actions; legislative and quasi-judicial. When someone comesP~'~'~0re Council for consideration of a specific proposal, GMP, subdivi- sion exemption, etc., if Council is acting as a quasi-judicial body they should consider only those items before Council. If Council is legislating - defining a problem and trying to solve it - it is appropriate to consider facts known in their own background or things acquired through independent review. Councilman Van Ness said he was talking about a member of the public individually lobbying an individual member of the Council. Councilman Wishart recalled the consensus of Council is that they only meet with people as a group. Councilman Van Ness pointed out the meeting location had been changed and not every Councilmember was notified. Council had budgeted money for a Council secretary who should be doing these things and calling the Councilmembers and this is not being done. Councilwoman Anderson agreed the policies on meetings and ex parte contacts should be clarified. 3. CoUncilwoman Anderson thanked the Chamber of Commerce for the host and hostess program at the airport. It seems to be working well. 4. Councilwoman Anderson told Council she had attended the regular meeting of the fire department and passed along a compliment that the police are doing an excellent job in Police doing cooperating with the fire department, excellent job with Fire Dept. 5. Councilman Isaac brought up a memorandum from Phillip Yenawine regarding the Public Arts Commission and said it was to be on the agenda. Mayor Standley said this would be Public Arts Comm, on the next joint agenda. 6. Councilman Van Ness said it was his understanding that the Council would abide by the May mall election and the resolution passed did not touch on that point. Resolution ~2 Resolution ~2 was just to put the question on the ballot. Councilman Behrendt agreed it was stated clearly the Council woUld not go ahead. Councilman Van Ness asked if it was the under- standing of Council that they are committed to what the voters would decide one way or another. Council concurred. 7. Mayor Standley pointed out the M.A.A will start their fund drive February 27; he is going to proclaim that M.A.A. day. M.A,A. fund drive LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL - Casey's of Aspen Liquor License Tom Dunlop told Council the building, fire and health departments recommend approval. Renewal- Casey's Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the renewal for Casey's; seconded by Councilmah of Aspen Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT - Visual Arts Center Special Event Mayor Standley told Council this permit is for March 10 at Paepcke. Councilman Behrendt Permit- Visual moved to approve the special event permit; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, Arts Center motion carried. ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY - Aspen Centennial Designation Aspen Historical Councilman Behrendt moved to endorse 1980 as Aspen's centennial year; seconded by Council- Society- Aspen man Parry. Centennial Design ation Chuck Brandt said they had also asked ro Council to endorse a contest to submit a logo and theme. Councilman Behrendt included this in the motion; secOnded by Councilman Parry. Jeri Fox, Chamber of Commerce, said the contest is for a $500 prize sponsored by the ~ City. Mayor Standley said this should have been a donation request last fall. All in favor, motion carried. City Manager Mahoney pointed out to Council there has been some difficulty in identifyang City vehicles and he would like to sign the mall again. Mahoney said he would be willing to request this as part of an administration task. If the logo is appropriate for city vehicles, it could be used. Chuck Brandt said the letter has asked that the City sponsor the contest for people to submit a logo and tagline for the centennial. The judging committee would include members from the Historical Society, the Chamber, Visual Arts Center and Foundation for the Arts; this would be a community-wide endeavor. Councilwoman Anderson said she felt this was a good idea and would generate interest. Councilwoman Anderson moved the City budget $500 for the award to the artist who can come up with the winning submission for a logo and tagline for the 1980 centennial; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Councilwoman Anderson noted the logo would become the property of the City. Councilman Isaac said it would be appropriate for the City to give a portion of the prize and the other entities could contribute. Finance Director Butterbaugh told Council the City does not have any unappropriated funds in the .General Fund. Councilmembers Wishart, Parry, Anderson, Van Ness an favor, Councilmembers Behrendt, Isaac and Mayor Standley opposed. Motion carried. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE LEASE - Women's Resource Center Wheeler Opera House Lease- Councilman Parry moved to approve the least agreement for the Women's Resource Center; Women's Resource seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Center FINAL SUBDIVISION - Arrowhead Final Subdivisi~nplanning Director Karen Smith presented a final plat of the condominiums. Ms. Smith Arrowhead reminded Council this project is the reconstruction of two duplexes by Glory Hole park into a fourplex. At conceptual stage there was considerable discussion about meeting the employee housing requirements. Council approved the plat with the condition that one of the units be reserved as low income housing under the 1978 housing price guidelines. At P & Z, they used the per square foot cost which is the 1979 housing price guidelines. Ms. Smith told Council the project is 3 two-bedroom units and 1 three-bedroom unit. The smallest apartment is 1,615 square feet and is the employee unit to be rented at $581.40. Ms. Smith pointed out under the current guidelines there is a square footage limitation; when this was approved it was under the 1978 guidelines, which do not have a limitation. The declaration of covenants ties the unit to housing price guidelines and keeps it in place for five years with no inflation. The other three units will have a six month minimum lease restriction. The engineering department is satisfied with the plat, declara- tions and other agreements. The P & Z conditions are that attention be paid to the service line depth, and that maintenance and clearance on the north side of the building be maintained for fire access to east through the alley, and the rental price. Councilwoman Anderson pointed out that the planning office had recommended to P & Z October 17th that the unit should be limited to a maximum of 1,000 square feet in accordance with the housing price guidelines adopted by Council on October 9th. Councilwoman Anderson asked if the applicant had shown any spirit of cooperation. Councilman Van Ness noted with an apartment this size, it would hold two employees rather than one. Mayor Standley said this as set up for conversion in five years to a free market unit. Councilman Behrendt asked if this project fell within the bulking concept for the neigh- borhood. Ms. Smith told the Council that there were no FAR restrictions proposed for the R/MF zone, only for single family and duplex residential zones. Councilwoman Anderson asked if a no vote would be illegal. City Attorney Stock answered it would not be illegal if Council has justifiable reasons for doing so under the ordinances at the time of the application. This application was made prior to the adoption of Ordinance 39, 1978, and Council cannot adopt a law which reverts back in time. Stock said this structure ~s being created under exemptions the City granted within their own ordinance code. One of the exemptions is reconstruction; this application is not ancreasing the number of dwelling units. They are asking for condominiumization approval, and the City never created in an ordinance very appropriate guidelines on which to determine whether or not they can reject projects. , Albie Kern, representing the applicant, told Council originally this was approved by P & Z with no employee housing. The City Council had a 3 to 3 vote; then had a re-hearing and approved the condominiumization with one low rental housing unit. Since there were no set guidelines, the planning office, city attorney and Kern worked out this price of $581 for 1600 square foot unit. Ms. Smith pointed out this rent on a per square foot basis is lower than the 1978 guidelines, but the difference with the new guidelines is that there is a maximum square footage. One of the trade-offs is this unit is tied to a five-year flat fee with no inflation, then it goes on the free market. Councilman Van Ness pointed out that some employees need more than 1,000 square feet. Councilwoman Anderson said that people can have over 1,000 square feet but they cannot charge any more than as if it were. Councilman Van Ness said the Council is going to have to go by the rules that were in effect when the applicataon came through. Councilman Isaac asked where the five-year period came through. Ms. Smith said that at that time there was no written policy and it was verbal policy that the units be controlled for five years. That's when Council initiated actions to amend that. Stock told Council it subsequently adopted Ordinance 39 which speaks directly to five years as the time : period. Stock stated the basis to legally justify Ordinance 39 is that condominium conversion besides displacing tenants should not be a windfall profit to the converter. The City may delay those profits, although the cannot prvent them, and the staff felt five years would be a legally Dustifiable time. Councilman Van Ness said these people played by the rules, and now the Council is changing the rules. ~egu±ar meeting Aspen city council FeDruary 12, 1979 Mayor Standley asked if Council could make the employee unit separate from the rest and have the other units hold the employee unit as tenants-in-common so that in five years, not just another free market unit has been created. Mayor Standley said he felt this project was inconsistent with zoning; it is changing the use from all permanent residents to one employee unit. The employee unit is being set up for conversion to an expensive and absentee unit in five years. The project was almost denied the first time and is inconsistent.with the goals and objectives of the Council and with the R/MF zone. Kern said he did not feel there was any basis to deny this project after Council and the planning office told the applicant what they wanted and that is what they got. The applicant is providing what Council required when approved at conceptual. Councilman Isaac asked if it were possible to get an increase in the length of time the unit is employee housing. Kern answered he had not discussed this with the owners. Kern pointed out this time limit was discussed at conceptual approval. Councilman Isaac said he would like to have an emplOyee unit not just for five years and then developed into a high price u~it. Mayor Standley said he would recommend this unit be brought into the City's price and size guidelines. Councilman Van Ness stated everyone is entitled to know exactly what the law is and to base their actions on the law. Councilman Van Ness said it was his opinion to deny the application at this point. The applicant has done more than comply with the rules; nothing required them to contribute one-fourth of their project to employee housing. Mayor Standley pointed out this project is in a residential multi-family zone designed specifically for permanent residents. Councilwoman Anderson pointed out the ordinance under consideration is for controls for 50 years and perhaps they could compromise on the time limits. The type of thing that was happening in Arrowhead was the impetus for Ordinance 39. Kern said he felt they had compromised with the one employee unit. Stock told Council that Ordinance 39, which is applicable to condominium conversion has a five year limitation. Under Ordinance 39, the rent price can increase over the five years period; this project has a five year flat fee. Mayor Standley asked if the property had been vacated. Kern told Council when his client bought the property everyone was out of it. Stock told Council he could not find a reason to deny this project. Mayor Standley said he would like to deny this and negotiate the position of a longer commitment to employee housing, bringing the rent in line with the guidelines, and bringing the size into compliance. Councilman Behrendt said this is a product of the City'S law and he feels the City has gone as far as possible to stop it. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the application subject to the conditions 1 through 4, plus Ellis's, including the price limitation of $581.40; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilwoman Anderson said she would like to deny it because of the way the employees were removed before it was brought up, but the Council is obliged to be legal about it. Councilman Wishart said he disliked the way the whole project was done. Councilman Van Ness said people have certain legal rights which are spelled out by the laws and if they exercise those rights, they should not be puniShed for it. Councilmembers Behrendt, Parry, Van Ness, Anderson, Wishart in favor; Councilman Isaac and! Mayor Standley opposed. Motion carried. >~UBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Bekkendahl ilSubdivision Exemp Jim Reents, planning office, told Council this application is for the purpose of condo- tion-Bekkendahl miniumization of an existing and yet-to-be built unit on lot 6, Snowbunny subdivision. There is no legal or technical reason to deny the application since the application is aimed at solving the housing problems and increases the amount of low and moderate income housing within the community. Reents reco~ended approval of the subdivision exemption. Councilman Parry moved to approve the subdivision exemption; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. WHEELER OPERA HOUSE REPORT Mayor Standley included a memorandum to be part of the record. Jeffrey Sachs and Richie Wheeler Opera Cohen of the Roaring Fork Foundation for the Performing Arts were present to report to House Report Council. Jeffrey Sachs told Council the group is a broad representation of the community; Mayor Standley and John Stanford on behalf of the City, the AVIA, Bob Child for the County, Aspen Foundation for the Arts, Colorado Mountain Theatre, Ballet West, Chamber, Pilgrim Theatre and the public, at-large. This group considered and evaluated three proposals for the Wheeler and performing arts center as a possible two-building performing arts complex. Three groups have submitted proposals to do use and feasibility study. The RFFPA chose Arts Development Associates of Minneapolis and hope the study will be accomplished and ending mid-summer 1979. It is expected there will be no cost to the City. Sachs told Council there is a $12,000 grant available and hopes that the City will save the money to fund architectural and technical studies if the City wanted to implement recommendations from the study. Sachs said the group will be a board of 21 trustees, 9 appointed by civic, charitable and political groups and 12 will be public-at-large so that the general control of the founda- tion would be in the public. Sachs told the Council they were progressing as rapidly as possible. This group represents a broad cross-section of the community. Sachs told the Council that the M.A.A. missing, they are making some important decisions and do not want to be involved in the process. TheM.A.A. had been active up to a point and may come back and ask to be represented. Sachs said the first 12 public trustees would be appointed by the representative trustees. Thereafter, every two years half of the public trustees will be elected, after having been nominated by a public trustee. EMPLOYEE HOUSING AT WATER PLANT ~Employee Housing at Water Plant Councilman Behrendt gave Council notes on the last work session on this project and Reso- lution ~3, Series of 1979, which lays out the ground rules and gets the project started in terms Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 12, 19'/9 terms of siting, etc. Mayor Standley said the next step is to wait for the return and tabulation of the employees questionnaire. Councilwoman Anderson asked City Attorney Stock to comment on point 2, the priority being given to public sector employees. Stock said he did not know of any cases which made this illegal, but he would research this. Under the equal protection clause of the U. S. and Colorado Constitutions, decisions have been made that as long as divisions are not suspect, ~.e. sex, race or religion, you can do so if you have a rational basis. Stock said he felt the Council could have a rational basis. Councilman Van Ness said he had heard of a line of cases making this illegal. Councilwoman Anderson asked if there was further clarification of rental, the security in how long one could stay, and knowing what expenses would be. Mayor Standley said this decision would be made by Council as the housing board, after the management plan had been developed. Mayor Standley suggested some other members of Council work on getting the program approved to start developing a management plan. Councilman Van Ness said he is very much opposed to the concept of giving priority to City employees. The City will be using all the taxpayers money to build this, and every person in town should have an equal shot at it. Councilman Van Ness said he felt this would give the City an unfair edge in recruiting employees. Mayor Standley said technically this is not uslng City funds; the City is making the land available. The City is competing with the private sector for employees, and the City has to set an example.. Also, if the City can come up with a housing project, this will be a benefit to employees and will save salaries and this is a direct benefit to the tax base of the community. This could save $3,000 or $4,000 per employee, which is a taxable savings to the community. This is a reason of making the priorities of taking care of the public sector employees first. Councilman Van Ness said every employer faces the problem of losing employees because they cannot get housing. Councilman Behrendt said the committee left t~e priorities and number of certain employees open. Mayor Standley suggested pulling number 2 from the resolution and putting it under the development or management program. Mayor Standley said the Council should deal with the items they can get consensus on to keep the project going. Councilman Isaac said he felt it was important the City set an examples for other employers in town. The City is charged with taking care of city services, such as snowplowing, and if they City can't find housing for snowplow drivers, the City will be in a real mess. There are four votes to pass the resolution the way it was written, with the priorities in. Housing Officer Mark Danielsen said Council is making a bad mistake by leaving this priority clause in because it will greatly limit the financial options later on. Danielsen said bond companies object to any priority being given on the basis of employment. Mayor Standley said if they come up to that problem, they can modify the program. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution 93, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION ~3 (Series of 1979) WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for employee housing for city employees, and Resolution a3 WHEREAS, it has been the intent of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Employee Housing Colorado, to develop housing for its employees, and WHEREAS, preliminary evaluation has been accomplished for the City's Water Plant site, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, that conceptual approval of an employee housing project should be pursued under the following parameters: 1. The project will be rental rather than sale. 2. Priority will be given first to City Employees, second to County, School District and Hospital Employees and third to the public at large. 3. Development to take place on sites 2 and 3 as identified in the Design Workshop Inc. study. 4. City will obtain conceptual approval of the project. 5. Builder-developer will build and manage the project. 6. City will participate in financing the project (industrial revenue bonds) 7. Project managers will be Stacy Standley and Michael Behrendt. 8. City Council will have final decision in all phases, was read by the city clerk. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution ~3, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley asked Councilwoman Anderson to start developing the management plan for Council's consideration. Mayor Standley reminded Council that on December 11, Council had made a motion to hire Design Workshop for an upset figure of ~4500. It is the feeling that that is all the money needed to get this through conceptual approval. Annexation Report ANNEXATION REPORT Mayor Standley said he had this placed on the agenda as an update item and to make it clear that it is not the administration pounding annexation on the Council. Councilman Van Ness said that because of the problems that have developed, he is not sure he is in favor. Ms. Smith told Council the planning office had met with P & Z and had made a proposal for a process in anticipation of annexation. This is not to look at parcels of land on a piece meal basis and case by case zoning, but follow the traditional master planning process and develop policy recommendations and physical designations for land use. This will be used to guide any decision for zoning and lands come up for annexation. Ms. Smith told ~egu±ar ~ee~lng Aspen City Council February 12, 1979 the City has never adopted a plan for the areas outside the City, except for the Butter- milk and east areas. Ms. Smith showed Council an ownership map and indicated areas that might be considered for annexation. This does not include all of the water service area. This covers the developed part of Red Mountain, the base of Smuggler Mountain, Knollwood, Aspen Grove, Mountain Valley areas, goes out to the water plant and to the base of Aspen Highlands area. The master plans that have been adopted by the County P & Z extend from Castle creek bridge through the airport; the eastern boundary of the City to Difficult. Ms. Smith suggested that the City P & Z ought to adopt a master plan for these areas; this process was started last week. The process should be cooperative with the County P & Z. There is a legal technicality which requires the BOCC to given permission for another jurisdiction planning within their jurisdiction. There is an absolute need to update the two master plans that do exist; they are outdated. P & Z did ask the question, what is the land use basis for annexation. Ms. Smith said that annexation is not being proposed on a land use basis but rather that people who depend on City services ought to be able to have a say in City services. It is a matter of political and economic representation. P & Z earlier had listed three general principals. (1) The City should be looking only at those areas which are urbanized, served by City services, are subdivided and developed. (2) The City should avoid complicated solutions to problems; the difficulty of trans- lating the City's codes by the incorporation of some of the criteria that are in the County codes. The County codes have much more emphasis on rural development problems and environmental impact. (3) In view of the GMP adopted by both City and COunty, when a decision is made concerning what regulations to adopt, that the stricter of the two juris- dictions regulations should apply. The P & Z suggested that to extend out in a linear fashion is probably a good urban design solution. The P & Z agreed that the two master plans adopted by the County are out of date, and the P & Z is willing to participate in the amendment process. There is a public hearing on the adoption of the master plan for Marchl 6. Mayor Standley asked if the Council decided they wanted to go ahead with annexation of Meadowood, Red Mountain, Mountain Valley, Silverkind and Smuggler - the urbanized areas, what would the process be and could they be annexed in time for the May election. Stock told Council there are two areas that are 2/3's surrounded and can be annexed bY the adoption of an enclave not requiring the consent of the property owners. The rest of the property, this requires 1/6th contiguity and put petitions in. If there is sufficient percentage of propertY owners in favor, this goes to an election. If there is 100 per cent the annexation can be done by ordinance. Mayor Standley said if there is support on the Council, he would like a motion to have the City Attorney to work on those annexations that can be affected right now and establishinglI enclaves annexations. Councilman Van Ness said it was difficult for him to make a decision without knowing what it is going to cost. Councilman Van Ness said he felt people are entitled to know what this will cost. Mayor Standley said Council has talked about this for six years and have always tried to put a figure to it. These are incremental costs, additional miles of street, police protection. Mayor Standley said he felt this was a sociological approach; these people should be in the city and receiving city services, should have the right to vote. Mayor Standley noted that 2/3 of the land in the City is owned by people who don't live here. Councilman Behrendt asked the administration to copy the CoUncil on all the annexation memos. Councilman Behrendt said he would like to proceed with annexation; Council can stop or change if the figures are too high, Councilman Behrendt moved to request Ron Stock and the city engineer prepare the documents to bring to Council to show the initial phase of annexation; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. INTERNATIONAL WILDERNESS CENTER iInternational iWilderness Ctr. Mayor Standley said this is a request to issue a permit for a gathering in the mall on February 19th and to provide a bus to get these people from Ashcroft. This group is protesting the Amax development over at Crested Butte. Councilman Parry said he had no want to get involved for these people to come over here and agitate the tourists. Council- man Behrendt said that Amax has designs on Grizzly and closer to Aspen. Councilman Behrendt said it might be appropriate to provide the bus service and charge this group whatever it costs the City. Councilwoman Anderson asked if this would be setting a precedent. Mayor Standley said these requests are reviewed one on one. City Attorney Stock said there is no permit system to congregate, people who are exercising their rights to do this as long as they don't Dbs~ruct traffic, etc. Councilman Behrendt moved to respond to Mr. Roy~Smith's request from the International Wilderness Group that the City would be willing to provide the buses to them at the City's direct costs; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, with the exception of CouncilmanParry. Motion carried APPOINTMENT OF A MALL EXPANSION/DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION SUBCOMMITTEE iAppt, of Mall anslon/Downtow~ Jim Reents, planning office, told Council they are looking for recognition of a group to Beautification act as liason to their individual groups and to act as a steering committee to work with the consultants on this program. In the eight week time frame, the consulants do not have time to report back to every group and keep them all updated. The best vehicle would be to appoint a sub-committee to~.~ork with the consultants. Reents requested formal recog- nition of the subcommittee and appoint one or two members of Council to the subcommittee. Reents asked that Phillip Uenawine be substitute for Bill Jamison as a citizen-at-large. Regular Meeting Aspen Clty Council February 12, Mayor Standley commented that out of the 15 members, only 3 represent the downtown business community. This program talks about a downtown beautification program, and the subcommittee should be much more represented. Mayor Standley said he did not feel it was necessary for the Pitkin County Parks Association and the Open Space Advisory Board to each have one representative. There is only one person that represents the off of the mall group. Mayor Standley said he did not see this group as being politically sensitive to the real issue, consensus building for the adoption of an expanded mall and downtown beautification. Mayor Standley recommended that the group be made much more responsive to the group that is being impacted. Reents told Council there are meetings set up with the off and on mall merchants and the consultants. Mayor Standley suggested scratching citizens-at,large and having business people-at-large. Mayor Standley recommended the board be restructured to only 1 person from HPC, scratch the citizens, get only one person from OSAB and PCPA; this give four spots for business people. This will be a much more responsive board. Ms. Smith said she would like to retain one citizen-at-large and still add four business people. Mayor Standley agreed as long as there are impacted people on the subcommittee. Councilman Behrendt moved to endorse the appointment of a subcommittee for Mall Expansion~~ Dowtown Beautification as named in the memorandum identifying only 1 person from PCPA/ OSAB and 1 person from HPC and substituting for the citizens-at-large two business-persons at large plus two additional businesspeople at large, creating four of them, and retaining 1 citizen-at-large; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilmembers Parry and Wishart were selected to serve the subcommittee from the Council. Exempting Employe~ ORDINANCE #3, SERIES OF 1979 Exempting Employee Housing from the GMP Eousing from the Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Ashley Anderson addressed the section on how GMP the build out on the previously subdivided lots are subtracted. At present, it is the next year which results in no free market quota. This effectively stops the building of employee units also. Anderson noted it is important to be able to subsidize the employee projects with free market units. If there is not quota to compete for, this stifles employee housing projects. This amendment deals with this by the banking of points, and says they are subtracted in suc~eding years. Anderson proposed taking the approximately 200 subdivided lots, divide by 14 years left, come up with 15 units, subtract from 39 and then you will know there are 20 to 25 units each year. This will let the developer know what he can compete for ~n the next year; it will make the banking of points more meaningful and will hopefully stimulate the building of projects. Ms. Smith told Council the County took this approach in the Aspen metro area, they reserved 17 out of a quota of 27 for new subdivision and left 10 units as an average for the build out. The first year they had a build out of 35. There is concern that if this is allowed to happen out front, they are banking that it will level off in future years and there is no guarantee this will occur. The County has proposed eliminated this. Mayor Standley supported the planning office position as under the TDR program he had proposed at the joint meeting, it would take of the problem. Secondly, there is the onus of the Aspen Institute with 150 units, and if this is approved and exempted from the GMP, the City would be maximizing all systems and would be at the limits. Anderson said if the Council wants to stimulate employee housing, it is important to know when people can compete. Stock told Council one of the approaches in saying succeeding years was to allow flexibility so that if Council wanted to leave an allocation each year that could be done. Council has said that unless employee housing ~s subsidized with free ~arket housing, the City will not get employee housing. Developers need time to prepare an application and need to know what the allocation is likely to be. Council could commit itself to guaranteeing 10 or 13 allocations far enough in advance so that developers can put in allocations. Mayor Standley said he could not support guaranteeing that the allocations would be available. Stock said if Council decided to subtract the entire amount of build out, there would be no allocations available. Gideon Kaufman pointed out the only people that could really bank are the big developers. Kaufman stated he felt the GMP favors the big developers, and banking further favors the big developers. Mayor Standley said the big developer is the one who can provide housing. The City does allow aggregation of land for purposes of GMP submittals. There is no way of coming up with total equity; the Council is trying to maximize their goals and get housing. Jeffrey Sachs told Council he foresaw a legal problem is people are allowed to bank points and then two years use those points under a growth management plan differing from this plan. Sachs stated this could be a possible violation of the equal protection rights. Mayor Standley agreed this may put the City in a legally vulnerable place. Ms. Smith pointed out this ordinance totally exempts employee housing from the GMP. Stock said he felt Sachs' arguement was purely hypothetical; he did not see changes taking place to the ordinance. Stock reminded Council the banking was put in since there was not likely to be residential allocations in the next couple of years and the employee housing will probably need to be subsidized by open market house. Ms. Smith told Council they could create a PMH zone district, which allows some density increase and let that be the incentive for employee housing. Mayor Standley and Councilman Van Ness said they liked the PMH idea. Stock told Council he was going to P & Z with a PMH proposal February 20 and will return to Council with a recommendation. Stock said he wanted to create a bonus in each and every district so that employee housing may be built. Stock said this had to be made so that it is not rezoning. Mayor Standley suggested 5he banking portion of this ordinance be scratched and go with PMH exemption. Mayor Standley said he did not feel the banking was a strong enough inducement the City can get. Mayor Standley said he would rather look at the PMH bonus program. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Van Ness moved to read Ordinance ~3, Series of 1979, amending it to delete Section 5; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ReguLar Meetlng Aspen City Council February 12, 1979 ORDINANCE ~3 (Series of 1979) Growth Man- AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 24, ARTICLE X OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM BY AMENDING SECTIONS agement Quota 24-10.2, 24-10 4(b)(3), 24-10.4(b)(4), 24-10.4[e) and 24-10.10, AND BY System 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, as amended; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councitmembers Behrendt, aye; Anderson, aye; Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried· ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 1979 Repealing Independent Commission Repealing Indep- Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed endent Commission~ the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance ~6, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #6 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 24-10.12 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION ACTING IN LIEU OF THE PLANNING AND Repealing Section ZONING COMMISSION IN THE REVIEW OF ALLOTMENT APPLICATIONS was read by the 24-10.12 city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt .Ordinance 96, Series of 1979 on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Anderson, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~7, SERIES OF 1979 - Animal Fees and Fines Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed Animal Fees & Finl the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~7 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 5-68(c) (4) OF THE ASPEN Repealing & MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR SEPARATE FEES FOR A FIRST OFFENSE OF RUNNING Reenacting AT LARGE FOR ALTERED AND UNALTERED DOGS was read by the city clerk Section 5-68 (c) (4) Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 1979, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Anderson, aye; Behrendt, aye; Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~8, SERIES OF 1979 - Vehicle Leases Vehicle Leases Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance ~8, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A VEHICLE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND IFG LEASING COMPanY WHICH LEASE IS FOR A TERM Vehicle Lease OF 36 MONTHS AND PROVIDES FOR AN ANNUAL RENTAL PAYMENTS OF $3,704.29 was Agreement read by the city clerk. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1979, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Anderson, aye; Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 1979 Fractional Fee Interests Fractional Fee Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Sachs told Council he was in favor of Interests this ordinance but feels it is only the first step. Sachs said he felt the fractional fee concept is a disaster for this community, and is a critical problem. It will kill the cultural heritage of this community· Sachs read ads from the newspaper for sale in Snow- mass for fractional fee interests. This fractionating allows outsiders to buy into the community; no resident would buy a fractional fee interest. Each house or condominium sold under this eliminates forever residential housing in this community. This fractional fee interests influences other homeowners in a particular project or neighborhood to put their houses on the market at the same price. Sachs pointed out that Aspen was a community before it was a ski resort. Sachs said this subdivision control is a first step, but fractional fee interests must be eliminated entirely. Sachs said the City should hire the best lawyer possible to beat this thing totally. The profit in this is so high, people will try to subdivide anyway. ~egu±ar ~ee~lng Aspen City Council February 12, 1979 Mayor Standley told Council real estate people had been calling him and telling him that fractional fee interests is the most disastrous thing happening to this community. Gideon Kaufman pointed out not many locals live in the L-1 and L-2 districts. Kaufman said there are so many problems connected with fractional fee interest selling it will kill itself. Kaufman said he felt this ordinance was effective at getting at the problemil. Stock recommended two changes to the ordinance; under Burden of Proof strike (b) and re- letter (c). The wording would lead people to believe if they bought tenants-in-common or joint tenants, they would have to come in for an exemption, this is misleading and not intended. Stock stated this ordinance only requires subdivision approval before anyone can split fee interests. Stock pointed out that by adopting this ordinance, the problem is not solved. If Council requires this to go through subdivision approval, Stock still has to find a way to deny. One approach might be to allow this in L-1 and L-2. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #9, Series of 1979, as amended; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CAPTER 20 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY REQUIRING Requiring Sub- SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE CONVERSION OF DWELLING UNITS WHICH ARE division Approval!! DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE SEPARATE INTERESTS THROUGH DIVISION OF THE FEE for the Conversio TITLE THERETO was read by the city clerk of Dwelling Units Councilman Isaac moved to adopt ordinance #9, series of 1979, as amended on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. Councilman Isaac said he would like to have City Attorney Stock find a way to deny this through the subdivision process. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Anderson, aye; Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. CITY MANAGER 1. Proposal for City Hall Inspection (Roof and Basement). City Manager Mahoney said he Proposal for City! needed a motion to allow administration to hire Chic COllins for $960 to do an engineeringi Hall Inspection report for the basement. This is recommended by the engineering department. Mahoney (Roof & Basement)ii reminded Council that Collins is the only structural engineer around. City Engineer Ellis said this would appropriate because Collins did the original consulting work. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the expenditure of $960 for engineering; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Performance 2. Performance Report. Mahoney reminded Council this is a program to do evaluations on ~.~iReport employees. The staff is working to Ted Tedesco; he will be Thursday and Friday. The staff should have a program by the next Council meeting for ratification. Loader Lease/ 3. Loader Lease/Purchase. Mahoney had the snow removal costs through January, which do Purchase not include depreciation on equipment. Mahoney said he felt this was doing all right; there is $'1300 in overtime and $3800 in comp time, which they will work off in the spring.li Mahoney asked the loader/lease purchase be taken off because he is not ready. Ratifying Easemen~ ORDINANCE ~10, SERIES OF 1979 - Ratifying Easement with the Ski Corp witk the Ski Corpii Mayor Standley pointed out this is an easement on the property the City just acquired. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #t0, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~10 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION PROVIDING AN EASEMENT FOR USE BY THE ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION OF CERTAIN CITY OF ASPEN PROPERTY was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt ordinance 910, SerieS of 1979, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote'; Councilmembers Anderson; aye; Behrendt, aye; !! Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. Payment for..ii ORDINANCE ~11, SERIES OF 1979 - Providing for Payment for Electrical Charges Electrical Chargei~ Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #11, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Behrendt. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #11 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23-22 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF CHARGES FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND THE REMEDIES FOR NONPAYMENT THEREOF was read by the city clerk. Councilman Wishart moved to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1979, on ~first reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council this ordinance is basically what is already in the water section. Councilman Van Ness pointed out the problem of someone renting out their unit and the lessee leaves and the landlord has to pick up the utility charges. Councilman Van Ness suggested charging two months utility at the beginning of service. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 12, 1979 Mahoney pointed out many landlords get first, last and security deposit and are very well covered. Ms. Butterbaugh noted that the deposit for electric service is only $20. The finance department is trying to get owner's names on all accounts. When a tenant is 60 ~ days over, a copy Of the bill goes to the owner. Mayor Standley said he felt 120 days is too long for cut off; it should either be 60 days or raise the amount of the deposit. Ms. ~ Butterbaugh noted that as an owner, one should know within ~wo weeks if the tenant is gone. ~ Mayor Standley pointed out that the City should not be stuck with the bad bills. ~v~ Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Isaac, aye; Anderson, aye; Behrendt, nay; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE 912, SERIES OF 1979 Posting Notices for a Variance Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance ~12, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Posting Notices Parry. All in favor, mo~ion carried, for a Variance ORDINANCE ~12 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-22Ic) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE PROVIDING FOR THEPOSTING OF PUBLIC NOTICE ON THE PREMISES FOR WHICH APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR A VARIANCE was read by the city clerk Posting of Public Notice on premise~ Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~12, Series of 1979, on first reading; seconded for which Applic-. by Councilwoman Anderson. Stock noted that the Board of Adjustment had requested this ation for a ordinance. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Anderson, aye; Isaac, aye; Variance has been Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried, made ORDINANCE ~13, SERIES OF 1979 - Repealing Section 13-25 Lewd and Lascivious Repealing Section Councilman Van Ness moved to read Ordinance ~13, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilwoman 13-25, Lewd & Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Lascivious ORDINANCE ~13 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 13-25 WHICH PROHIBITS LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS SPEECH OR BEHAVIOUR IN PUBLIC was read by the city clerk. Repealing of Section 13-25 Councilwoman Anderson moved to adopt Ordinance ~13, Series of 1979, on first reading; -- seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Stock told Council the City's current ordinance was found unconstitutionally vague, and when he tried to write a new one, he figured the City did not need one. There are other sections to cover this. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Anderson, aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 1979 Repealing Section 13-33, Expectorating on Sidewalks Councilwoman Anderson moved to read Ordinance #14, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Repealing Secions Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. 13-33 ORDINANCE ~14 (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 13-33 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH PROHIBITS EXPECTORATING ON SIDEWALKS OR IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Anderson moved to adopt Ordinance ~14, Series of 1979, on,first reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Wishart, aye; Anderson, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried~ ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 1979 Providing for a Tow Fee Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance ~15, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman Van Providing for Ness. All in favor, motion carried, a Tow Fee ORDINANCE ~15 (Series of 1979)~ AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A $4.00 STORAGE FEE AND A $15..00 TOWING FEE FOR ANY VEHICLE IMPOUNDED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 22-20 OF THE MODEL TRAFFIC CODE FOR COLORADO MUNICIPALITIES AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~15, Series of 1979, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll calt vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; Anderson, aye~ Behrendt, aye; Isaac, aye; Van Ness, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Parry moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. ' Kathryn~. Koch, City Clerk