Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19810223Regular Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, 1981 Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt, Isaac, Michael, Collins and Van Ness present. MINUTES There were none ACCOUNTS PAYABLE ~ Councilman Isaac moved to approve the accounts payable for January; seconded by Council- il woman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ~ CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Marge Riley told Council she is protesting the removal of the Victorian house at the corner of Cooper and Aspen streets and read a letter to Council. Ms. Riley said the plans by an absentee owner are to replace it with an 11 unit apartment building. The Victorian house has been a landmark for years and is on the historical homes tour. The density is this area is extremely high; parking is at a premium. Ms. Riley said she hoped the Council would re-evaluate bulk controls. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this project has been reviewed by P & Z; deficiencies were pointed out and it has been tabled. Gus Hallum, adjacent neighbor, said this 11 Unit building will be on a 65 foot lot. They are removing a 90 year old single family dwelling. Hallum said the density is already toG high in the area. People in town are opposed to Ordinance #16, Series of 1980, doubling the density. Vann told Council the applicant wishes to move the Victorian and use it as his residence. Vann said this project will have deed restricted units and is going ii under the 70/30 ordinance. Councilman Isaac said three years ago, he brought up a i! proposal to make anyone moving a Victorian in the city to go to HPC and Council. He would still like to see that done. Vann told Council the planning office is on the verge of completing the historic inventory of the city. Councilwoman Michael said this issue goes beyond the Victorian house; the residents are beginning to understand the implications of the residential bonus overlay. Vann said the bonus overlay is not by right; it is a very specific review process under guidelines. Bernie Utchenik, manager of the Little Red Ski Haus, told Council that the character of the neighborhood will be greatly changed. This will be an area that is mostly condos. Norma Dolle, Snow Queen lodge, said the whole south side of Cooper will be one apartment building. The parking is already bad; the impact does not make sense. 2. Brian Goodheim, representing the Aspen Board of Realtor accompanied by Phil Weir, Bill Stirling and. BobGeorge, was present to make a statement regarding employee housing and the growth management plan. Their appearance is precipitated by P & Z's approval of the Marolt project, which they feel is a significant deviation from city policy. Some of their concerns with this project are neighborhood impact, open space, policy this project will set for future annexations, preemption of smaller disbursed employee housing projects throughout the community. Goodheim stated the Board of Realtors would like to reserve the opportunity to oppose the Marolt project at a later time; they are currently studying the project with the developer. The Board of Realtors would like to work with City COuncil, County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village in reviewing the issue of growth management vis a vis the community goal of employee housing. They feel the two are inter-related; the balance between employee housing and growth management has to be carefully arrived at. Regular Meeting Aspen ~l~y ~ounc±m Goodheim said their organization would like to present a policy statement to Council on these issues. Councilman Isaac said it seems like the Council has created too many exemptions to get employee housing, and there is a lot of growth going on without controls Councilwoman Michael said the employee housing master plan is a result of a lot of citizel participation; this plan backs up the policies the Council is talking about. The Council is elected to balance interests. Some neighborhoods say they are tightly impacted already; open space people do not want any open space touched. This is a true dilemma. Councilman Collins asked the Realtors to look at how effective the 70/30 split is in reducing the need for employee housing; if 100 units are built, does the community really gain 70 employee units. Also, what is the impact on the demand for housing in terms of growth in commercial area. Mayor Edel applauded the efforts of the Board of Realtors and asked they schedule a study session when they have further work. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Isaac said he wanted to discuss the water plant housing project; there are decisions Council needs to make. Council set a study session for Monday, March 2 at noon. 2. Councilman Isaac said CAST is opposing the four-laning of Glenwood Canyon. He would like City Council to pass a resolution opposing this also. Mayor Edel said this four- laning would cost between $650,000,000 and a billion dollars and did not think Colorado will be spending that kind of money for a 12 mile stretch of highway. Councilman Behrendt moved to put this on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried. 3. Councilman Isaac said he would like ~he city to call the Aspen Sk~ing Corporation and offer any assistance in moving snow, etc., to prepare for the Wor&d Cup. Councilman Behrendt moved to ask the City Manager to call the Ski Corp to see what the city can do; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Councilman Behrendt generally praised what the city has done to clean the downtown. Councilman Behrendt asked to see what could be done about sweeping the garbage around the corners. 5. Councilman Behrendt said the exteriors of the buSes are looking worse than ever and is there any hope for clean buSes this season. City Manager Chapman said the county has completed the facility; the bus washer has been found but has not been installed. Council man Behrendt asked that the windows just be washed with a brush. Chapman said he would ask that the buses be taken to the airport business center and washed during the day. The bus washer will be installed as soon as possible. 6. Councilwoman Michael said April 20th is the centennial of Aspen being incorporated as a town and suggested the city spend some Council budget money to have some kind of recognition of the date. Councilwoman Michael said she would like the city to make an effort' to find former Council people and Mayor's and invite them to celebrate the centenntial. 7. Councilman Collins asked if there is any problem in making the equipment available to the Ski Corp with insurance. Chapman said he did not think there is a liability problem; however, the city could get a release from the Ski Corp for any potential damage to their property. 8. Councilman Van Ness asked about the across the board budget cuts. Chapman said he would have a report to Council this week, and he will set a work session on this report. 9. Mayor Edel told Council it was suggested to him that the city rename Fisherman's park, near the Slaughterhouse bridge, Henry Stein park. Mayor Edel said he felt this was a positive way of showing what was thought of Henry Stein. Council directed the staff to return to Council with a resolution for this. 10. Mayor Edel said he would like a report from the City Manager about his trip to Detroit. Chapman said he would do this at the end of the meeting. RIO GRANDE TASK FORCE REPORT Joe Wells included in the packet the recommendations of the Rio Grande Task Force and also the recommendations of the P & Z. The P & Z concurred with the site planning consid- erations of the Task Force report; they favored intensive use of site 1, which is the site behind the Courthouse and surrounds Cap's Auto. P & Z was concerned about all the uses that were identified for that site and requested careful prioritizing of the uses be done so the site could accommodate all uses decided upon. P & Z favored transportatior uses and a modified law enforcement facility for site 1. They felt there might be an alternative site for a performing arts facility in the community. P & Z concurred with the conclusion that sites 2 and 4 should be kept as open space. ThE did feel there may be some encroachment on site 2 for transportation related uses in the event that should be necessary. Site 3, which is over near Obermeyer, the Task Force felt this would be an appropriate site for the library if a new library should be con- structed. P & Z expressed concern over the possibility so close to the river and suggest~ the open space of the greenway along the river should be expanded into site 3. However, if Council feels a new library is necessary, site 3 would be a good site for that use. The Task Force had supported an expansion of uses on the Andrews-McFarlin site, which is site 6, to include a restaurant use along the river. P & Z reacted mixedly to that proposal, some feeling it would be an erosion of the S/C/I zone to open it up to restaura] t uses. ~egu£ar Meetlng Aspen City Council February 23, 1981 Generally, P & Z did not favor use of the Rio Grande land for employee housing, consisten~ with the recommendations in the Task Force report. P & Z had several areas of concern, which they feel need examination prior to institution of development of an SPA plan. One of these is the matter of financial feasibility. Some P & Z members felt a consensus had not been reached on the number of uses allowed on the Rio Grande site or the amount of square footage acceptable. Also, there should be an overview of the needs for confer- ences, art groups, and transportation; each issue has been looked at separately. P & Z felt that, because the charge of the Task Force was limited to examination of the site, the city needs to look at alternate sites throughout the city for some of the uses before developing a plan for the Rio Grande itself. The Task Force recommended that consultants be retained the draft a conceptual SPA; monies not used in the first phase be used to pay for consultant work, and that Fritz Benedict be retained to do the work. Councilwoman Michael, representative to the Task Force, said she felt it worked very well. Councilman ~ani~Hess pointed!out~.'the~city.~has no money t~ build'any of t~e uSes~ COun¢il- man~Van Ness opposedi.~putting money into ~lanning for something the city cannot afford to build. Councilman Van Ness said he would rather build something that can be built than plan something the city cannot afford to build. Mayor Edel said that private groups will be~coming forward with money for things like the performing arts center. Councilman Collins asked if the city would be making this land available for a performing arts cente~i. Mayor Edel said that is a decision the Council will have to make. Bill Kane told Council the Task Force's purpose and involvement was to develop a set of ideas for the Rio Grande property, not a definitive plan, Kane said the felt the substance of the work of the Task Force was to provide a schedule of uses that make sense for the property. The City would be the steward of the land and identify the highest and best uses for the generalized parcels. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Rio Grande Task Force report; seconded by Counc~ll- man Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt asked that the city manager get this report to the county so that the~ are aware of what is going on. Mayor Edel said he would like to get on to the next step of the greenway, is there money, what does it cost. Chapman said the Council had asked staff to work on the cost of doing this plan, this will be included as part of a five- year capital improvement plan. The staff has to prioritize the items on the capital improvement plan. Wells pointed out there were two elements of the Task Force recommendagi tion; one the greenway plan, the other the development of a conceptual SPA. The Task Force recommended Fritz Benedict be retained to work on. Councilwoman Michael moved that Chapman move on both counts of an architect for the SPA plan and on the greenway; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Van Ness and Collins. Motion carried. ORDINANCE~i#ll, SERIES OF 1981 - Purchasing Electricity from Co-generation and Small Power Producers Sheree Sonfield told Council there is a federal act which requires all ultility companies including municipally owned ones to amke rules and regulation for the purchase and sale of electric energy to qualifying co-generatorS and small power producers within the utili~ service area. Ms. Sonfield drafted the appropriate ordinance to do this. Ms. Sonfield pointed out, considering Aspen's small service area, it is doubtful anyone would want to do this. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance 911, Series of 1981; seconded by CouncilWoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #11 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE PURCHSE OF ELECTRIC POWER FROM AND SALE OF ELECTRIC POWER TO QUALIFYING CO-GENERATION AND SMALL POWER PRODUCTION.FACILITIES PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION was read by the city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance ~11, Series of 1981, on first reading; secon~edl by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; IsaaQi, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #8, SERIES OF 1981 - Ruedi REservoir Water Authority Intergovernmental Agreeme Lois Butterbaugh told Council she and the city manager have been meeting with the valley cOmmunities in an attempt to put together a group interested in participating in the negotiation for the Ruedi purchase or establishment of an electrical facility. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #8, Series o~ 1981; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #8 (Series of 1981) WHEREAS, the health and welfare of the citizens of the City of Aspen, Colorado, will be served by the consummation of the attached intergovernmental agreement providing for the creation and operation of the Ruedi Reservoir Water Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the Mayor is hereby authorized to: A. Execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen, Colorado B. Appoint to the Board of Directors of the Ruedi Reservoir Water Authority was read by the city clerk Regular Meeting Aspen ~l~y ~ouncl± ~u~3 ~, ~J~ Councilman Behrendt moved %0 approve Resolution #8, Series of 1981; seconded by Council- man Isaac. Chapman told Council most other communities have already signed this agreement. Council- man Isaac said he did not think it appropriate for Council to appoint people for four year terms; this could be beyond their term as a Councilmember. John Musick pointed out the board member must be an elected official rather than a staff person. This has been raised by other jurisdictions and will be addressed at the first meeting of the Ruedi Reservoir Water Authority. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to appoint Councilwoman Michael as the Board member; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor,~motion carried. 1981 RESIDENTIAL GMP ALLOCATIONS Alan Richman, planning office, told Council there were five applications submitted this year and identified them by name with a brief summary of the development program. Mayor Edel said people have commented to him that the city has given past allocations and these have not been built. How can the city go back to the same person and give alloca- tions to the same person when he has things that have not been built. Richman said this was brought up in P & Z and was also a concern of the planning office; however, this is nothing in the Code regarding an applicant's past performance on points they have receive~ Andy Hecht said his client has not done anything that will disqualify him under the Code. Hecht said it seems that the rules Council make should predate the final score; they are complying with those rules. Councilman Van Ness agreed they have performed within the present set of rules. If Council does not like the rules, they cannot come back and bust somebody. They should change the rules. Councilwoman Michael said the Council should go through the GMP to sort out the problems. Richman told Council there are 18 units left over from 1980, which at Council's discretioI they may carry over to 1981. There are 21 units in 1981. Both these numbers are based on build out, which is removed from the quota. If Council desires, they can give a maximum of 8 units bonus. For 1981 quota, the maximum units available is 47; the minimum is 21. Richman told Council P & Z scored the units on February 3. Richman pointed out that any project which does not receive a minimum of 45 points in categories A,B, and C will be considered denied and ineligible for allotment. Richman submitted the points in the first three categories and said if a project did not get 45 points in those categorie~ they could not get points for bonus or unique financing. Based on the scoring, P & Z recommended Council carry over the 18 units from 1980 for a total quota of 39 units. This would give one unit to 1015 East Hyman Avenue and 36 units to Gilbert and South Aspen. Richman told Council they could consider any challenges to the scoring by the P & Z, provided the challenges are on basis not previously heard by the P & Z. The Council is here to decide whether an applicant has been denied due proces~ or the P & Z has been arbitrary in its scoring. Richman said following the P & Z meeting, it became clear there might be a basis for an appeal. Richman told Council that three out of seven P & Z members, in voting, were not clear regarding the 45 points - they did not realize the bonus points they were giving to projects which total less than 45 points would not count towards getting the application over the threshold. These members felt they were giving an application enough points to receive an allocation, which, in fact, they were not. Richman told Council the acting city attorney feels this lack of information on the members part, may have been a denial of due process because they were not fully informed. Richman has since discussed this with P & Z and got general agreement there was a basis for appeal, and the P & Z supported the recommendation of the planning office of appeal and this appeal would be justified. The planning office recommends the bonus points awarded to the projects which did not receive 45 points by the three members of the commission who felt those points were legitmately included in the scoring, should be given by Council. The four members who understood their bonus points should not count, their bonus points were not applied in the revised scoring. The points for all five projects change somewhat; the net effect of that change is that the third application, Ute City Place which originally scored 44.3, in the revised scoring get 46.1. The rationale of the planning office in approving three applications is getting 52 employee units in exchange for 45 free market units. The Ute City Place application is 14 employe units and 8 free market, which speaks in its favor. Richman told Council they are only approving the free market units, not the employee units as they are exempted from the growth management plan. Councilman Behrendt asked if there was anything the City could do to assure the units are built in a timely manner. Vann said there are only submission requirements within two years. The planning office has identified a number of problems with the growth managemen~ plan, including the net balance and past performance. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve a 1981 residential GMP quota of 45 units to consist of 18 units carried over from 1980, 21 units available from 1981 and a bonus of 6 units for 1981. The 45 units are to be allocated as GMP development allotments to the follow- lng projects: Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main 36 units; 1015 East Hyman Avenue - 1 units; and Ute City Place - 8 units; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - Parker Quillen Sunny vann, planning director, told Council this is an application for conceptual approva2 on behald of Parker and Joan Quillen to relocate a property line in the Red Butte subdiv- ision. The applicants originally submitted this via the subdivision exception process which the P & Z turned down. The applicants then submitted a request for conceptual ~eguiar aeening Aspen City Council February 23, 1981 subdivision, which P & Z turned down. Should this application be approved at Council level, it will return to P & Z for preliminary plat and come back to Council for final pla~ The request is to relocate an existing property line between two lots; the two lots are zoned R-30. One lot is 41,400 square feet, the other 52,300 square feet; the applicants wiSh to relocate the lines so that one lot is redcued to 30,000 square feet and the other increased to 63,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-30 zone is 30,000 square feet. If the applicants do obtain approval to relocate the line, the could come back in a separate request to create a third lot, which would have a growth management exemption for a single family residence. Vann told CounciD the basic issue is whether something can be done in two discreet steps that could not be done in one. Vann said there is no growth management exemption for a single family house on a lot created from two lots only from a lot created from one pre-existing lot. Vann told Council when this application was submitted through the exception process, the pianning office argued that the application was an attempt to creat~ in two discreet steps that which ordinarily would not be allowed, and therefore, represented a circumvention of the intent of the growth management plan. Relocation of lot lines had historically been used to adjust boundary disputes, correct survey errors, etc. It had no~ been anticipated an applicant could move a lot line, then come back later to create a new lot and create a developable lot. Vann told Council the planning office and P & Z relied upon the general intent of the subdiviSion regulations. The P & Z resolution sites that since no exemption from growth management exists for construction of a single family dwelling on a lot created from two lots, that this particular application by finding a loophole in the Code could be requlate¢' under the intent of the subdivision regulations, which was to safeguard the interest~ of the public and otherwise promote the health, safety and general welfare. They relied upon the historic precedent for relocation of a lot line, which had been to reconcile platting errors o~ to address hardships. Vann said he did not feel this could be demon- strated as an economic hardship. The creation of a free market lot, which had the appli- cant applied in one step, wOuld have required him to go through growth management proce- dures. Also, it states in the Code that one must disclose the full intention of what is intended with the full property in question. Councilwoman Michael asked what the size of the lots are envisioned to be if everything occurs that is asked for. Vann answered there would be three lots of 30,000 square feet each. Councilman Behrendt asked if this would start a pattern throughout the community. Vann said there are some other instances where this could occur. Vann noted there is currently litigation, the P & Z, City of Aspen, Sunny Vann, Ron Stock and the city engineel are being sued. Acting city attorney told Council, from the deposition, it appears the applicant or his representative~came in, went over the property, and the then-city attorne~ came up with this idea. Vann explained to Council what he had told the applicant; howeverJl they did not have an application at the time. Vann made no indication of ~hat the policy was, and told the applicant when they had an application to come back to work out the process. Vann said the staff reveiwed this and felt it was a circumvention and was something that had never been envisioned, and there was rationale why it should not be approved. Vann told Council when the applicants later contacted him with an application, they went through the process and told the applicant that while it was conceivable it could be accomplished under the Code, however, the planning office coUld not support it. The applicant indicated he would take his chance and file an application. He did not indicate the property had already been purchased since the original discussions with the city. When the P & Z turned this down, litigation was filed on the basis of misrepresentation on behalf of Ron Stock and Vann. Seigle read from the desposition Stock's answer. Seigle told Council his client went to Stock and aSked if they acquired the adjacent piece of property, could they get a third lot out of it. Stock recommended the process. They then purchased the lot and came to the city with an application, Uann told Council the applicar came directly to his office from Stock's office and aSked for a clarification of the process, which Vann did without discussing policy at all. The applicant subsequently purchased the parcel prior to filing an application. When an application was received, it was referred to the referral agencies. Councilwoman Michael asked if what the applicant was attempting to do is illegal. Acting city attorney Bob Edmundson told Council it is not illegal; each body, P & Z and Council, have two duties legislative and administrative. Edmundson told Council when people come in with applications, they are acting as judges. The applicants have found a loophole in the Code; they have abided by'the Code. However, the code is not comprehensive enough. Courts have said if a code is not comPrehensive enough, it is the city's problem and not the applicants. Councilman Isaac said the Council has approved lot line changes before. Here, it seems they are asking to move the lot line so it may conform better with the zone it is in. Vann said there are a number of processes in which the Council has discretionary review power. The issue is what is the impact of what they wish to accomplish and whether it should be approved on that basis. Vann stated based on the end result, the planning office feels there is sufficient ability within;~the intent of the subdivision regulations to turn i this down. Councilwoman Michael said she could not suuport, even though what someone is asking is legal, that the Council does not like the implications of that. Vann stated Council sets criteria by which they review whether an application can be processed through a legal process or not. The issue here is that specific language does not exist in the Code to make a finding. Councilwoman Michael asked if this should be turned around and approved, would the applicant drop~the lawsuit. Seigle stated the only thing his client wants is what he thought he was going to get when he started the process. If he gets his lot, that's all he cares about. Seigle stated all throughl this process, they have been asking for a reason if there is denial. There are cases stating one cannot deny things on policy. Seigle said this might undermine the growth management plan. At this time, the applicant can put two duplexes on these lots as they were subdivided before growth management. All they are asking is to put three units on this; the density will be one less than they are entitled to. Regular Mee~ ..................... Aspen.CitY Council February 23, 1981 Councilman Behrendt asked if the then-city attorney did not give other alternatives to this process. Seigle answered he did not give any other scenarios; this lot could not compete under growth management. They would have to give the lot to employee housing; they would not have gone through the process; they would not have bought the neighboring house. Vann summarized the planning office would be remiss on the argument of the lawsuit to imply that what was being accomplished was consistent with the policies and regulations adopted by the Code~ They fall back on the intent of the subdivision regulations since they could not anticipate every situation that comes up. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the conceptual subdivision application on behalf of Parker and Joan Quillen to relocate an existing property line between lots 11 and 12, block 1, Red Butte subdivision; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Mayor Edel asked if a proviso regardint the lawsuit shOuld be added. Chapman suggested directing the attorney's office to negotiate a settlement with the applicant and come back to Council. Councilwoman Michael moved to direct the city attorney's office to negotiate a settlement with the attorneys for Parker and Joan Quillen with the intent that the Council approves the conceptual subdivision application on behalf of the Quillens to relocate an existing property line between lots 11 and 12, block 1, Red Butte subdivision; seconded by Council- man Isaac. Councilman Collins asked if this then becomes three duplex lots. Vann answered no, as then all lot lines would have been changed after growth management was established. It would be three single family lots. Vann explained the way the process is set up, this goes back to P & Z for preliminary plat. If they do not approve it, it does not come back to Council. Councilman Behrendt said CounCil is not in a position to deny P & Z whatever they have a right to do. Ail in favor, motion carried. DECISION FOR DEVELOPER OF PLUM TREE INN Monroe Summers told Council this is an up-date on the negotiations taking place between the city and the two selected offers, Red Roof Inns and Aspen Park. On February 3, staff brought to Council a list of items to negotiate with the individuals involved. Both Partie~ were brought in and discussed the items. Aspen Park indicated a willinginess to work with the city on all items. Subsequent to the discussions, Summers was invormed that Red Roof Inn they were pulling out of the negotiations. Summers told Council he was asking per- mission to continue negotiations with the remaining offeror. City Manager Chapman pointed out the situation has changed; there were negotiations betweel two people and Council could have a choice. It is probably best for Council to sit down with staff, spend some time, look at all of the options, based on the new information of only one party interested. Council has to look at the status of this in regards to the one remaining applicant and decide what they want to do, seek more applicants, go back to the original applicants. One of the things Council has to consider is the process this will have to go through, given the applicant that is left. Staff needs to get Council a memorandum on the options, negotiations strategy and other issues. Council set a meeting with staff for Wednesday, February 25 at 9 a.m. RESOLUTION %9, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Management Plan Assistant City Manager Lois Butterbaugh reminded Council from their last study session they gave approval to go ahead with (1) planning and engineering studies, (2) develop and recommend a temporary rate increase schedule to provide funding, (3) to begin to develop the water billing and connect rate computer program. Mayor Edel said he would like an item added which outlines in detail how the city is going to explain this and to extend the input to the public. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution %9, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Ail in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION %9 (Series of 1981) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM FOR THE PROPOSED ASPEN COMPREHENSIVE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City of ASpen, Colorado, (hereafter "City") faces periodic shortages of water, and WHEREAS, the City desire that existing and future customers of its water utility receive adequate water service in terms of reliability of flow and quality, WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need for comprehensive water management planning, in order to provide for the needs of its customers, in the most efficient and cost effective manner, consistent with the minimization of adverse environmental impacts;and WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Plan and desire the implementation of a water management plan consistent with the goals therein adopted; and WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary to establish a comprehensive water rate and connect charge system to adequately and fairly provide for the construction, operati ~n ~-~ and maintenance of the Aspen Water Utility and to equitably apportion these costs among the customers according to the base water usage and potential impact upon the Aspen water utility's peaking capacity; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: ReguLar Meeting Aspen City Council February 23, LgSL Section 11~ In anticipation of the adoption of the proposed Aspen Comprehensive Water Management Plan, the City Council hereby deems it to be in the best interests of th~ City of Aspen to develop a utility billing system for the proposed Aspen Compre- hensive Water Management Plan. Section 2 The City Manager be and he hereby is authorized and directed to develop such a utility billing system, utilizing the following guidelines: (a) The utility billing system should be generally compatible with the draft of the Comprehensive Water Management Plan of the City of Aspen presented to the City Council on July 7, 1980 (b) Study session shall be scheduled at convenient intervals for the benefit of the City Council and the public to assure full understanding of the proposed legislation (c) A specific plan should be developed for the wide dissemination of information and customer education, so that water customers can adequately express and evalute their personal and community concern. Councilman Collins questioned the temporary rate increase. Ms. Butterbaugh said the bond counselor, Don Diones, is working on several different schedules of monies needed to get into construction. If the city issues investment of unused monies, costs would be in the neighborhoos of $200,000 this year. Ms. Butterbaugh said she was not ready to make a recommendation of what the rate increase will be. Councilman Collins moved to adopt Resolution #9, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #9, SERIES OF 1981 - Restaurant in C-1 Zone Councilman Isaac moved to table until the next Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1981 - 70/30 Small projects exemption Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #8 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EXCEPTION PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, MORE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 24-10.2(i) was read by the city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Van Ness, aye; Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1981 - H, Historic Designation of W. J. Venture Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #10 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AS AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SITE THE LOCATION OF THE W. J. VENTURE RESIDENCE CONSISTING OF LOT 17, BLOCK 103, HALLAM ADDITION was read by the city clerk Gideon Kaufman told Council this was required because of the WPW subdivision, the Council required that the structures had to be individually designated. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Collins, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #66, SERIES OF 1980 - Lease with Elder, Quinn and McGill Lois Butterbaugh told Council this ordinance is to correct an oversight on a bus contract; six additional buses were purchased in 1979. The contract has been signed and the buses are here, but there was no ordinance. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #66, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #66 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING A CERTAIN LEASE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ELDER/QUINN & McGILL, INC. PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLMENT PURCHASE BY THE CITY OF ASPEN OF SIX BLUE BIRD BUSES OVER A PERIOD OF SIXTY (60) MONTHS WITH QUARTERLY PAYMENTS OF $20,700 EACH, ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN was read by the city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Van Ness, aye; Behrendt, aye; Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION ~7, SERIES OF 1981 ICMA Retirement Corporation Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #7, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION ~7 (Serious 1981) A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING KEY EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN OF THE INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION WHEREAS, Section 2-101(k) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen requires the City Council to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the following employees are hereby determined to be key employees entitled to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan: Director of Environmental Health Recreation Director Parks Director Director of Data Processing Assistant City Manager Mayor Edel questioned if these withdrawals are seriously weakening the plan the rest of the city employees belong to. Councilman Van Ness asked where the line-is drawn as to who are key employees are who are net. Ms. Butterbaugh said presently the key employees are department heads. Councilwoman Michael moved to 'adopt Resolution ~7, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the special event permits for the Aspen Foundation for the Arts; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCES ~5 and 7, SERIES OF 1981 - Aspen Sanitation Rezoning and SPA for Aspen SAN Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this rezon~ng of the Sanitation District's property is to take advantage of the residential bonus overlay to enable the construction of four deed restricted employee housing units. This necessitates the second ordinance because of development in the public zone must be in accordance with an SPA plan. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinances 5 and 7, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Michael, aye; Van Ness, aye; Isaac, aye; Behrendt, aye~ Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 910, SERIES OF 1981 - Opposition to four-laning Glenwood Canyon Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution ~10, Series of 1981, by title; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION ~10 (Series of 1981) A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY OF ASPEN'S OPPOSITION TO FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 70 THROUGH GLEN-WOOD CANYON was read by the city clerk Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution ~10, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. City Manager Chapman reported to Council he, city engineer Dan McArthur and Howie Mallory went to Detroit and met with the architects for the Wheeler Opera House to review the works and the various plans. Councilman Van Ness moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. ~ch, Cify Clerk Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 9, 1981 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel cal,led the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. with Commissioners Chid, Madsen, Klanderud and Kinsley and Councilmembers Michael, Collins, Isaac, Parry, Behrendt present. 1. Aspen/Pitkin County Building Department Fee Increases. Brian Stafford told the Boards the first element of this request are the fee increases. This would generate about $56,000 in revenues in 1981. The second element is to increase the modifier used to value the property being constructed. Presently the modifier reflects the average cost of construct in the state rather than in Pitkin County. Stafford talked to 10 people in the various businesses involved, they came up with a reasonable modifier to evaluate housing.