Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19810511 Regular Meeting aspen ~y ~uunuz~ ~-~3 .... COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt called the joint meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with Couneilmembers Isaac, Michael, Parry, Collins and Co~missioners Kinsley, Child, Kanderud, Madsen and Blake present. 1. Purchase of the City/County Animal Shelter. Sheree Sonfield explained to the Boards the city has leased a portion of the Critter Corral for the animal Control program for $33,800 a year. This lease expires at the end of 1983. The city has talked about con- structing their own animal pound and estimates are from $150,000 to $200,000 without the land costs. Steve Shubert, the owner and lessor of the Critter Corral, has notified the city of his intent to lease the area in order to meet financial needs. The city has talked to Shubert about a possible purchase of the facility and has negotiated with him. Shubert has told the City he can sell the facility to the city for $300,000 cash to be closed by June 1. Ms. Sonfield told the Boards she has looked into financing the facility and costs of operation and presented a revenue and expenditure schedule. The revenues would be around $21,600 and the expenses at $20,500, this does not count any repayment of loans. The issue is comparing what the city is leasing this for now and what would have to be paid in principle and interest. The lease per year is $34,000; financing $300,000 would be pay out of $44,000 per year. Ms. Sonfield presented a lease versus purchase comparison for the next 14 years with an annual increase in the lease price. Over the 14 years, to purchase the shelter would save about $80,000. Councilman Behrendt asked about the apartment rent. Ms. Sonfietd said this was shown in the revenue figures. Councilman Behrendt asked if this proposal was to run an animal shelter commercialty.~ Ms. Sonfield said this would be leased to an independent operator. City Manager Chapman told the Boards the proposal is based on finding someone willing to lease the excess space from the city. Chapman said the staff is worried about who they would work with if the current operator goes out of business; the choice seems slim. Ms. Sonfield told the Boards she has been discussing some cost sharing from Snowmass but does not have a commitment. Chapman explained the current operator has indicated he does not want to work for the city and county at all and has indicated he is going out of business. The staff has looked for another operator of the kennels; not seeing any operator, they looked at the cost of building a city and county shelter. The cost to build a shelter is $250,000 and then land for the shelter would have to be found. Commissioner Child asked about the Codes for kennels, and pointed out a person would have to be provided to stay there seven days a week. Ms. Sonfield said the building was built in 1971 and seems to be in good shape. Councilman Parry pointed out if the city and county moved the animal shelter to the dump, this will add miles to the trips of the dog catchers every day. Councilman Behrendt asked if the staff figured in the costs of being a member of the Airport Business Center. Ms. Sonfield said they had taken the expenses from the current owner,s report. Commis~Qner~ Kin~sle~moved that the city and county indicate favorable inclination to make this purchase and get a clear potential of expansion of the facility as well as some assessment of the quality of the structure from someone who knows that type of thing and to determine the appropriate price; seconded by Councilman Parry. City Manager Chapman said when the staff gets to the point where they are negotiating a reasonable price, this will come back to the joint Boards. Commissioner Child requested an amendment to look at the operating expenses; Commissioner Kinsley agreed. Sheree Sonfield said that based upon previous appraisals and upon the square footagle and what it will take to replace the structure, it will be fairly difficult to get the price any lower. Ms. Sonfield pointed out this is the purchase of a quarter acre. Commissioner Blake suggested looking into alternates; this may be buying more than the city and county need. Chapman said the animal control officers have met with the city engineer to review the alternatives and building an animal shelter would be $200,000 without land. Councilman Isaac asked who would manage the operation. Lisa Russell told the Boards there are three officers and they have figured rather than night patrol they could cover it themselves. They would hire someone to clean the kennels everyday. All in favor, with the exception of Commissioner Madsen. COUNCIL MEETING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE There were none MINUTES There were none CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Debbie Aitken, representing Save the Victorians committee, said there was a moratorium passed on April 17 regarding Victorian. Ms. Aitken said she understood that when Council initiates procedure pending legislation - the demolition or removal of Victorian structures that it is illeg&l to issue a building permit. Ms. Aitken requested the Council revoke the demolition permit for those structures pending removal or demolition, especially the Snow Chase. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council a number of permits were issued after the first reading of the moratorium as the building department felt it was not effect ire until second reading. The staff~met~with~ the>building department; they were instructed to issue no further permits pending second reading of the moratorium. The structures for which the permits had been issued were of the lowest category on the recent historic inventory. Paul Taddune, city attorney, concluded the P & z had not passed a resolution regarding this issue so that the zoning section is not applicable. Vann said there is no code amendment pending; there is only a moratorium pending. Taddune said theoretically the moratorium is not in effect. Councilman Behrendt asked if there is anything the city can do to protect the Snow Chase in the intervening period. Taddune said he did not see any way; the permit was issued lawfully and there is no authority under which the city can revoke it. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked if it is the wish of Council to pursue saving the Snow Chase. Vann said the intent of the inventory is not to save every structure in town. The moratorium sets up the procedure whereby people cannot arbitrarily get a demolition permit but must have a review. Councilman Isaac said the Snow Chase should go through the procedure. Councilwoman Michael pointed out the Snow Chase has received a permit, and suggested Taddune and Chapman look into this Councilman Parry said he was not in favor of researching revoking the demolition permit because he did not see this as a Victorian structure. Councilman Collins said he was not familiar with the Snow Chase. Councilman Isaac agreed with having the attorney and manage looking into the problem. The majority of Council requested that Taddune look into the concept of going back and seeing if it is possible to revoke the demolition permit for the Snow Chase. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Isaac noted the city has received a promise from the state for $200,000 for settlement on Hunter Creek. If this money is not spent by the end of June, it will be gone. City Manager Chapman said the staff is trying to negotiate the purchase of ~ water rights at Hunter creek. The owners of these water rights have taken a position that the city and county object to, which is they are willing to sell but are interested in development rights for the water - not money. Chapman said the city and county are not willing to negotiate for trade. 2. Councilman Isaac asked when the negotiations on TR~edi are. Chapman told Council they are starting tomorrow. ~ 3. Councilwoman Michael asked about the status of the downtown commission. The city clerlk read the name of applicants. Council decided to interview the applicants at 3 p.m. Tuesday, May 26. 4. Councilwoman Michael asked for an update on the water plant housing. Jim Reents told Council there are certificates of occupancy for half the buildings. Occupancy on these is two on April 1 and two on May 1. The two buildings with occupancy for April 1st are almost 100 per cent full. The final completion should be aboutl June 1st. There will be lighting, sidewalks and landscaping left to do. There will be an irrigation ditch through the property. On a case by case basis, the contractor is going through to make sure all final details are taken care of. Reents told Council there has been problem with litter on Castle Creek road, and he is policing this on a daily basis. Chapman told Council the county has taken over the processing of applications for the water plant housing. The city has run into a work load problem and the county has some capacity to absorb this problem. Councilman Behrendt asked if there would be a bus shelter at the water plant housing. Chapman said no shelter but a bus turnaround. 5. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said he would be out of town next week and someone should be appointed Mayor Pro Tem. Councilwoman Michael moved to appoint Tom Isaac Mayor Pro Tem for the week of May 18; seconded by Councilman Parry. iAll in favor, motion carried. TRIANGLE PARK PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT i Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said this hearir~ had been published for as well as interested persons contacted. Jim Holland, parks director, told ~ouncit the intent of this hearing is to get the feeling of the neighborhood whether they!want the remaining equipment put in the park, or some of it or none of the equipment pug in the park. There are four. pieces left to put in the park. Holland said he would ilike to put the equipment up an another park if the neighborhood does not want it. Ho~land presented drawings of the equipment. Holland told Council he like the park the Nas it is - passive and would not like to see all four pieces in this park. I Roddy Burdine and other neighbors presented letters of !strong concern of even one piece of equipment in the park. The park is small and there/is equipment in the park now. Burdine presented a list of names of neighbors who wang the park to stay the way it is. Henry Pedersen told Council he feels the park is fine the way it is now with the existing equipment and would be against adding more equipment. Councilman Collins moved to follow Jim Holland's recommendation and leave the pa~k as it is and to make other arrangements for the equipment; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Isaac said he would like to see the equipment at Hereon park. All in favor, motion carried. LITTLE ANNIE (Ordinances 13, 18 and 19, Series of 1981) Sunny Vann, planning director, reminded Council at their last meeting they passed a resolution approving Little Annie. These are the actual ordinances rezoning the property at the base area; allowing for dormitories in a base area, and adding parking requirement: for dormitories. There is a change in determining the number of dormitory Pillows as it relates to permitted dwelling units under the RBO language and should be a factor of 12 pillows rather than 6. Vann went through the calculations used to determine the number of units and how to convert the number of units into the dormitory mix for Little Annie. There are three dormitory buildings with 9 bedrooms per dorm with two pillows per bedroom Councilman Isaac asked how the building would be constructed. Mike Peters said there will be one kitchen facility with double facilities, for nine bedrooms. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing on Ordinances 19, 18, and 13, Series of 1981. ~ave Farny told Council a neighbor had looked at the site and asked the architect to redesign a little. There are the same number of buildings but one building can be moved a little so that it will not be seen. Re~ular_~9~ ............ Aspen City Council May 11, 1981 Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt closed the public hearing. Vann told Council Ordinance ~18 establishes the parking requirement for dormitories, which is one parking space per bedroom, which is higher than the R/MF zone. · !~ Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinances 19, 18, and 13, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~19 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 24~10.4 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SO AS TO ALLOW SKI AREA DORMITORIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY DISTRICT WHEN THE DISTRICT IS SUPE KMPOSED OVER A SITE WITHIN THE R-6 ZONE DISTRICT, PROVIDING THE SKI AREA DORMITORY IS DEED RESTRICTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH RENTAL PRICE GUIDELINES AND LOCATED ON THE PREMISES OF THE SKI AREA TO BE SERVED; AND A~ENDING SECTION 24-10.5(6)(1) TO PROVIDE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PERMITTED DENSITY FOR A DORMITORY USE ORDINANCE ~18 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE REPLEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 24-5.2(c) OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING TWO PARKING SPACES PE~ THREE PILLOWS FOR DORMITORY USE IN THE R (RESIDENTIAL ZONE UPON APPLICATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BONUS OVERLAY ORDINANCE ~13 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SECTION 24-2.2 BY CF~NGING THE ZONING OF THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY THIS REFERENCE FROM R-6 TO R-6 PUD/RB was read by the city clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance ~13, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Collins, nay; Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. Cou~g~an Parry moved to adopt Ordinance 918, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman Michael; Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Michael, aye; Collins, nay; Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. Coun~if~an Micha~ moved to adopt Ordinance ~19, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Parry, aye;, Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye;. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA Councilwoma~ Michael requested Ordinance ~20, Series of 1981, Moratorium on Victorians, be removed. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing on Ordinance ~17, Building Fee Increases Ordinance R1 and 22, Vehicle leases; Ordinance #24, Amending Section 20-23, and Ordinance 25, Series of 1981, Amending Section 20-t4(e). There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt closed the public hearing~ Councilman parry moved to approve the consent agenda; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Isaac, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. CAMPAIGN REFORMS Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said in watching the last campaign, it became obvious there was some unclearness in the campaign laws. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt suggested changing the date of the election. Some choices are the first Tuesday in November to be coincidential with the county election; another is the first Tuesday in November of alternate years. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt also suggested the first Tuesday in June. Changing the date would be to a time when more people are in town. Councilmembers Isaac, Parry and Behrendt liked the firs~ Tuesday in November alternating years. Councilwoman Michael said she liked September or June; favoring September. C~ty Manager Chapman pointed out what does work well with the current system is the fiscal year of the city. When a Council takes office late in the year, they are dropped in the middle of a budget cycle. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt brought up the issue of residency. City Attorney Taddune told Council there is a Colorado Supreme Court case which holds that a person's residence would be wherever that person actually resides and intents to remain permanently. Taddune said Dick Knecht clearly qualifies under the classic definition of residency. Chapman pointed out the criteria to be used is the person's intent. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked how intent is determined. Chapman told Council on the statement the candidate signs. Taddune said he felt this is a question of fact in every instance - whether or not the person has a residence; whether the person has been a resident for a continuous period of twelve months; and whether the person intends to be a resident of one locale or another. Taddune told Council the Supreme Court of Colorado held in a case where a person has two residences, that person can choose which one he wants to use as his residence for the purpose of voting. As an elector, this person would be qualified as a candidate. The Supreme Court opted for the subjective, rather than objective, which is that a person can choose that place he wants to use as his residence for purpose of voting and running for office. ~egu±ar ~ee~ng aspen ul~y uouncl± May ±l, Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt brought up the campaign spending limitation and felt that a good campaign could not stay within the present limits. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said he and Mayor Edel felt a revision in the amount of expenditure was necessary. Councilman Isaac agreed it should go upward with inflation. Councilman Parry said the law ought to be removed all together. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said the best way to get at this is to tighten up on the campaign reporting. Councilman Collins said he would like to see a top figure set for committee spending. Councilman Behrendt requested staff to come up with legislation to rescind the spending limits. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt brought up the length of the campaign and said he felt that 30 daysi was too short. City Clerk Koch told Council this is from the state Municipal Election code and that petitions were taken out 50 to 30 days before the election. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said if this was state regulated, it will remain the way it is. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt suggested a candidate kit with all forms and instructions be given to the candidate on application for petition to run for office. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said that Mayor Edel requested the length of the Mayor's term be addressed. Mayor Edel thinks it should be four years. Majority of Council agreed it shou.d remain two years, the reason so that the voters may turn the majority of Council over every two years. Mayor Proli~Tem Behrendt asked the city clerk to look into getting all parallel governments to have their election at the same time. La fire district, school board, sanitation board,i~ etc. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt also requested that prior to election, monies donated to a candidate or issue be available to the public. The reporting date is 10 days before and some days after,- perhaps money should be in so that it Can meet a publication deadline. Council suggested that Pat Fallin and the League of Women Voters look into all the issues that were presented. CASTLEWOOD/HEADGATE (Marolt) - Final Subdivision Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council there are a number of reviews in this applica- tion; subdivision/PUD process, rezoning to RBO for a minor increase in density, exemption from growth management Under 70/30 provision for the free market portion of the project, and subdivision approval for condominiumization of the free market part. These approvals have been acted upon by P & Z at the preliminary plat stage. The City Council has final plat PUD approval, rezoning, exemption and condominiumization; only the rezoning action requires an Ordinance. The planning office recommends the remaining three approvals be at the second reading of the RBO ordinance. There is an extremely complica- ted PUD agreement which must be entered into, relating conditions attached, ownership agreement, schedules, etc. The planning office does have concerns with the PUD agreement however, these can be taken care of between now and the second reading of the RBO ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked about the six month minimum lease issue on this and in a general sense throughout town. Vann said as far as this project, the P & Z recommended a specific prohibition in the PUD agreement against short term use of the project. The overall question of six month minimum lease is a matter of Council priority. Vann told Council that the underlying property, after slope reduction and subtraction of easements and rights-of-way, given the R-15A zoning would have a density of 102 units. The applicant, throughout the process, has reduced the requested density from 125 to 104 units; therefore, the applicant needs the RBO to increase the allowable density by two units. The application of the RBO would allow a density up to approximately 1036 units; the agreement would preclude anything about 104 units. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked if the applicant could live without those two extra units. Jim Mulligan, representing the applicant, told Council this has been discussed; the issues that cause concern are the legal issue as this has been through conceptual and preliminary at 104 units and they must be consistent with preliminary approval. City Attorney Tadduen said he felt there would be a way to bring about a reduction of units without jeopardizing, if the Council and applicant are agreeable to this. Mulligan said he was not comfortable with this but was willing to work on it. Mulligan told Council cutting out two units would be cutting out two employee units. Vann said the number cut would depend upon the 70/30 formula. Vann told Council the applicant requested in their original approval for 125 units until such time as they could do more site planning. P & Z deferred a decision on density until preliminary plat; Council concurred with this decision. At preliminary plat, P & Z had a problem with the overall number, after which Council and P & Z had a work session. Theyi concurred if the density was reduced to around 100 units, the project could conceivably be approved if all other conditions were met. The applicant revised their proposal and got it to 104 units; this was taken back to Council for conceptual, and CounCil felt 104 units would be appropriate. The annexation agreement specifically provided for an ability to utilize the city's ordinances to increase the number of units, not to exceed 125 units. After Council's second conceptual review, this went back to P & Z in February. They also concurred with 104 units. Vann told Council there is a provision for exemption from growth management, if 70 per cent of the project is deed restricted, then 30 per cent is deed restricted. This would be 31 free market and the remainder ~mployee units. Vann said the request for exemption is based on the type of employee units. The applicant is providing 36 two-bedroom, two-bath unitS; 19 one-bedroom units and 18 studio units. Vann told Council it has been indicated theSe wguld be deed restricted to $.70 a square foot at time of occupancy. Vann explained the rentals rates would be $591/month for two-bedroom; $446/month one-bedroom; $338/month for a studio. Currently the $.70 per square foot falls between the middle and moderate figures; given the rate of escalation on the income guidelines and what has been used, in all probability that will be a moderate income figure at time of occupancy. ~egu±ar ~eetlng aspen ~l~y ~ouncl~ Mulligan reminded Council the employee units had been made smaller so that the prices would be lower at Council's request. Vann told Council the staff is working with the applicant on sale procedure for the units; to date, only rentals have been addressed. There will be a fifty year deed restriction on the units. Vann said the 70/30 ordinance also addresses the ratio of employee bedrooms to free market bedrooms as well as size. In this project the ratio of bedroom/unit average of 1.5, which is within the guidelines. The floor area ratio is a little off; the guidelines call for a 50 per cent FAR. In bring ing dOwn the size of the units to bring down the rents, the FAR falls below the criteria slightly. The housing office has no problem with this; the employee units meet the minimum size requirement. Also, the free market units are not overly large at 2400 squar~ feet. There is a request of condominiumize the free market portion of the project. Since there is no employee displacement, it is consistent with the guidelines. The applicant will be subject to current legislation regarding condominiumization that is on the books. Taddune told Council the city has been conditioning approvals upon compliance with city ordinances such as the six month minimum lease restriction. Councilwoman Michael moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 1981, rezoning to~RBO; seconded by Councilman Parry. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said he would like to move this project along but would prefer it be at 100 units, rather than 104. This would handle the RBO complaint. Taddune said he would like to hear the applicant's concerns about this and discuss this with the lawyer for the applicant. Taddune said he would also like to review the legislation to see whether changing from 104 units is a problem or not. Councilwoman Michael withdrew her motion. Councilman Isaac moved to table this until May 26, 1981; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ASPEN INN GMP AMENDMENTS Sunny Vann told Council the issue on this arises out of a prior GMP allocation in the lodge quota in 1978 for the Aspen Inn. The Aspen Inn received an allocation for 36 lodge units and 24 employee units. The applicant then submitted plan for 33 of the 36 lodge units; the employee units were consistent with the GMP application and a building permit was issued. Subsequently, there was an agreement between the city and the applicant to provide for additional three units, with conditions and representations attached. The building permit was then issued, and the applicant submitted plans, and construction begat During a building inspector, it was determined that the construction was not consistent with the approved plans. The applicant submitted revised plans but did not conform with the original approval. What had happened is that the 33 lodge units had been split in half so there was a total of 71 units, rather than 33 or 36. This redesign occurred within the existing confines of the building, internally. When this was discovered, a stop work order was issued. The City's code states that Should an applicant deviate in any essential way from the GMP allocation, it is the responsibility of the planning office to identify that deviation and bring it to Council. Council shall make a determination whether the original allocation is still valid. The applicant contends, due to a Code interpretation made in May of 1980, that the additional 35 are not covered in the GMP process due to demolition of units elsewhere on the site - if you tear down a unit, you have a credit with that unit. Vann said he is concerned with the implications this has for the GMP approval. Vann said the additional units are included inside the existing building and there is no physical external change. The planning office hals used as a criteria for deviation whether or not the change to the plans would change the score of the applicant to the benefit or detriment of another applicant. Vann told Council for this case, the planning office went back and reviewed all comments, the P & Z scoring of the applications, and the remainder of the project met all the minimum point requirements. The planning office feels that, had the applicant submitted originally for 71 units, based on the comments and scoring, in all probability the applicant still would have met the minimum point requirement and would not have jeopar- dized another applicant. Vann stated under the historical criteria, the additional units would not have affected the score and would have still received the allocation. There is no increase in the FAR of the building. The applicant is splitting existing rooms, as opposed to expanding; the planning office has no problem with the additional units as far as the GMP allocation. Vann recommended the applicant has not jeopardized his allocation because it was disclosed at time of the award. Vann said the Code did not anticipate this type of thing and the criteria is quite loose. Vann reminded Council the applicant applied prior to GMP and got a reduction in the number of parking spaces that would be provided. The conditions attached by the then- city attorney said the Aspen Inn would provide limosine service as part of the auto disincentive as well as 57 parking spaces. By some formula, they agreed to provide five limosines. If the number of units is increase, more llmoslnes may be needed; however, as that may not be practical, the applicant will provide additional parking on-site. Vann told Council that as far as the original approach for evaluating changes in the GMP allocations or application, the planning office finds the applicant has not endangered the original GMP allocation and that the request to amend the application to include 35 more units could be approved contingent upon conditions outlined in the memorandum. There is another issue in this, which is the transfer of density issue. Vann stated the idea of a credit and the ability to transfer at will without review, within a zone district does have problems. Vann said that a lodge structure would not have to go through subdivision and so would not have reviews within the city. Vann pointed out this is not necessarily relevant in this case as there is no physical change in the building. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt asked if these 35 units were illegally constructed. Vann answered they were constructed without a building permit and without GMP allocation. City Attorne Taddune told Council this was an issue in front of the Board of Appeals, who concluded that this was in the process of building without approved plans or specifications. Taddune explained it was brought up at that hearing that were was a lot of confusion in the building department and within the Cantrup organization. The contractor was found in violation and had his license suspended. Taddune said staff agrees that the original GMP application has not been jeopardized. The applicant felt he could replace the 33 or 35 units at the Blue Spruce. The staff requested the applicant present his intentions to Council. Spencer Schiffer, representing the applicant, told Council at the time of the GMP applica- tion the applicant did not own the Blue Spruce. The Blue Spruce was bought with the intention of demolishing it and replacing the units. The applicant was under the impressi¢ he would come and get an exemption of the GMP. The applicant was lead to believe, from the building department and building inspector, that he could do what he was doing. Schiffer told Council there was some confusion about what the applicant could do at that time and it had to do with the building department and their personnel. Vann told Council that whether he followed the plans or not, or coUld add more units are twO separate issues.ii Schiffer agreed the issue is whether Cantrup would be entitled to an exemption under a Code provision, to tear down 35 units and rebuild the 35 units. Councilwoman Michael asked what effect a letter written by Ashley Anderson and signed by the then-city attOrney has. Taddune explained that the City's code is so complex, people have a right to seek someone in city government to find out what the code means. Taddune said he felt the then-city attorney was trying to interpret the Code for the benefit of a citizen. Councilwoman Michael asked, specifically in this case, is the then-city attorney' signature on this letter a critical point. Schiffer said there was some reliance on the letter signed by Stock; the Code proVides specifically for credits in the case of demoli- tion of units. Vann explained to Council there are 35 units at the Blue Spruce; these may be torn down and rebuilt as long as this complies with other area and bulk requirements of the Code. Cantrup has a growth management allocation for 36 units - having nothing to do with the Blue Spruce. The Blue Spruce can be torn down and rebuilt. This applicant has erred in that he is building these 35 units inside the GMP application. The issue is not whether the applicant has the right to build the 35, but whether the representation of the GMP project has affected the detriment of another applicant in such a manner that he is no longer eligible for GMP allocation. Vann pointed out the applicant did not demolish the Blue Spruce before he added the 35 units to the GMP allocatiOn of 36 units at the Aspen Inn Schiffer stated the applicant is taking the number of units that existed and moving them over and putting them on the same piece of property~ which the applicant is entitled to do under the Code. The only question is whether the applicant jeopardized the GMP application Schiffer told Council the planning department said, no, the applicant did not. Cantrup told Council this is a conforming lodge zone and it is a public policy, it is an incentive for people to rebuild the lodge zone. Councilwoman Michael asked if the apPlicant had come in and explained what they intended to do. Cantrup told Council the original apPlication was for 33 units; the garage had been built the year before. Cantrup explained the units were designed to be very large. This is precisely the same building as there were only minor changes. Cantrup did not own the Blue Spruce at the time the GMP application was presented. Cantrup said the plans at the GMP application called for more than 36 units, but the GMP allocation was only for 36 units. Cantrup told Council the 35 units have not been torn down because they are rented out for the summer; they will be torn down after summer. Vann told Council the ability to transfer units is predicated on receipt of authorization of a credit from the building department. Cantrup said he has not asked for this yet. Cantrup said he only has 11 units completed on one floor; they have not been divided. Cantrup said the units will be 450 square feet each, Vann told Council at the time the Inn was inspected, the construction was not following the plans that were approved consis- tent with the GMP submission. The applicant drew up revised plans which showed the sub- division or the original units. This was forwarded to the planning office for review and at that time the additional units were picked up. These.were not all constructed at the time the stop work order was issued. The two issues are (1) whether or not the GMP allocation has been voided, and (2) the issue of the credit of 35 units. The fact that Cantrup did this without receiving approval to modify the GMP allocation has been discussed at staff level. Cantrup was under the impression that since he had the credit that he had to come back for approval. Vann pointed out the lodge units do not come under subdivision and there is no mechanism for review. City.A~ttorney Taddune told Council he and the planning staff have reviewed the legislation and the planning office feels this should not have any impact on the original GMP allot- ment. Taddune said a certificate of occupancy for the entire 66 units will not issue if the Blue Spruce is still in existence. Vann said the increase in the number of units at the Aspen Inn constitutes a change in the GMP application. The Code requires Council to find this does not jeopardize the application. The criteria for this is whether the change would have affected the original score; staff found the plans would not have changed the GMP score. Taddune told Council it is the opinion of the staff this represents a change in the origin.~l allotment allocation, it is necessary to bring this to Council for their review. Vann told Council the planning staff was recommending the request with conditions, that the application comply with all conditions in the original memorandum of understanding; that actual demolition of the Blue Spruce occur prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancyi for the Aspen Inn units; that the proposed plans to include the additional 35 units in the Aspen Inn be reviewed and certified by the building department that there is no increase in FAR over and above that which was approved in the GMP application. Vann told Council one of the conditions in the agreement with Ron Stock and the applicant, was that limosine service would be provided as an auto disincentive. As a result of the increase of units the staff is requiring additional limosince service; however, if the applicant wishes to bring parking into compliance with the zone, the staff would have no problem allowing parking in lieu of the limosine service. Councilwoman Michael asked what the original square footage for the original application was and the square footage with the increased units. Vann said the applicant cannot increase the square footage. Vann told Council the original application received points for proposing to build below the permitted FAR for this zone district. Herb Paddock, building inspector, told Council the revised submission calls for 4,000 to 5,000 square feet over the original submission. It does coincide with the FAR requirements. Paddock told Council the net change in square footage, taking away the Blue Spruce, would be a loss of 8,000 to 9,000 square feet of unbuilt area. Vann told Council the planning office~their recommendation that Cantrup has not substantia .ly altered the GMP application is predicated on the fact that the revised Aspen Inn is the same FAR as the original submission. This is the representation that was made to the staff. City Manager Chapman suggested tabling this and make a finding on the FAR to see whether the building is larger or the same, and then go over the implications of this with the applicant. The square footage was one of the relevant factors used in the GMP Councilwoman Michael moved to table the Aspen Inn item; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. SODERLING SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION (Woodstone Lodge) Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council they had tabled this application in March due to the fact Council wanted the attorney to review all the conditions and make sure the conditions would insure the city got what it wanted from the application. Richman told Council the city's attorney does not feel it appropriate for the city to be entering into agreements and suggests the applicant demonstrate in some manner that the promised parkingI spaces will be available. A lease from Cantrup to the applicant with the city as a third party for 20 years is the best way to make sure the parking spaces are available and that the city is not involved in any agreements. The leases Will be recorded.~ ~' ~ ~ Jeff Sachs told Council the arrangement that has been'wor~ed 'oUt ~i~h'the ci~Y~'a~t~0rney is' acceptable to his client and to the condominium association; it protects them for the parking for 20 years. If Cantrup wants to change the use of the property which is to be used for parking, he has to come to Council for approval. Taddune said the city will be specifically set forth as a third party beneficiaries. Taddune said this is to have the applicant demonstrate compliance with the parking condition in conjunction with the condominiumization~plication. Sachs said the condominium association will enforce these agreements. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the parking lot lease between Hans Cantrup, Ronald Soderling and the city of Aspen as a third party beneficiary, subject to the city attorney accepting it as to form; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Collins and Behrendt. Motion carried. Richman pointed out the second issue is employee housing, based on previous agreements, the applicant has to provide three units should be provided. Four units are being provided because of the square footage contained in the units. There are covenants designating unit 121 at the Woodstone and units 42, 43, and 44 which are to be deed restricted at the Alpina Haus. The city attorney wanted to make sure there is some perfor!~- ance and suggested a 20 years lease to be recorded with the covenants. Taddune told Council he suggested a lease because restrictive covenants do not give the city a right to enforce them. Taddune said 20 years is an arbitrary figure based on the useful life of the building. Sachs told Council the onsite housing belongs to the condominium associatiol Vann said the city inherited a number of agreements and the staff and P & Z have attempted through condominiumization to catch all loose ends and require compliance prior to approval. The units have to meet 1692 square footage in total. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the master lease of employee housing for the Woodstone conditioned upon the form being satisfactory to the city attorney; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilmembers Isaac and Parry in favor, Councilmembers Collins, Michael and Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opposed. Motion NOT carried. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt suggested that the proposed units in the woodstone be used for employee housing. Sachs said that would totally change the condominiumization of the Woodstone. This is changing an agreement made five years ago by the city. Councilwoman Michael moved to table the employee housing lease; seconded by Councilman Collins. Councilmembers Collins, Michael and Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt in favor; Councilmemb rs Isaac and Parry opposed. Motion carried. Richman told Council the third major issue was the temporary certificat of occupancy. There was a temporary floor which was to be removed by May 1st and it was removed. The building inspector said the applicant has complied with the letter of the law on the FAR. Richman said there are several encroachments into the public right-of-way and license to encroach should be entered into. These are minor encroachments. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve and direct the Mayor to sign three encroachment agreements to be drafted by staff concerning wood facia on concrete foundation wall, build ing canopy above alley, foundation wall below grade encroaching into Spring street and east Ute; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Richman outlined all the conditions for approval. These are the parking agreement, which Council has approved, the employee housing agreements, which have to be worked out. Another issue is to make sure the parking spaces in front of the Continental be used by the Woodstone lodge; the staff has requested a sign for the parking lot. The condominium plat needs one revision to show that the temporary floor has in fact been removed. The last condition are the encroachment licenses. Richman said the applicant in all other respects has met the intent of the lodge condominiumization regulations. Sachs told Council that Hans Cantrup agreed to change the lease on the employee units to a term of 50 years, rather than 20, at low income housing. Ron Soderling, the applicant, told Council this application has been pending for months. They need to get approvals so they can continue the remodeling. Sachs told Council that the Code does not require on-site eraployee housing, only an affidavit stating what the services has been previously and they would provide that level or better. Councilwoman Michael moved to reconsider the vote on the employee housing issue; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the master lease of the employee housing between Hans Cantrup and Ronald Soderling with the city of Aspen as a third party beneficiary subject to the approval of the city attorney; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the application by Ronald Soderling for subdivision exception for purposes of condominiumizing the Woodstone Lodge and Anchorage restaurant subject to the following conditions: (!) the applicant agreeing to provide 23 parking spaces for use Only by the Woodstone Lodge and Anchorage restaurant. The lease securing these spaces at the southwest corner of Durant and Galena shall be recorded at the time of condominiumization and shall run with the land for a period of not less than twenty year; (2) the applicant recording the attached covenants on unit 121 of the Woodstone Lodge and the covenant and lease on units 42, 43 and 44 of the Alpina Haus at the time of condominiumization to meet the employee housing requirements of the applicant for 50 years; (3) the applicant placing a sign in front of the parking area at the southwest corner of Durant and Galena to designate its use as the parking for the Woodstone Lodge and Anchorage restaurant; (4) the applicant revising the condominium plat to eliminate the temporary floor assembly which is presently shown but which has been removed from the building; and (5) the applicant executing and recording the three encroachment agreements drafted by the engineering department, and (6) meeting all requirements for the condomini- umization of existing lOdges and all. agreements be approved as to form by the city attorney; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councitmembers Isaac, Parry and Michael in favor, Councilman Collins and Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opposed. Motion carried. PLUM TREE TASK FORCE City Manager Chapman reminded Council that if the issue to sell the Plum Tree Inn passes, the Council~wanted to open the bid for sale once again. Chapman said if there is to be a task force to review offers and the different potential uses of the Plum Tree, it should be a small group with a fast timetable. The groups that have been vocal about what happens to the Plum Tree should be on the task force. Councilman Isaac said the list that is presented looks like most members would not live in the city and he would like the majority of members to live in the city. Councilman Collins suggested that one member of Council try to attend all the meetings. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the apointment of the task force on the Plum Tree as outlined in the city manager's report of May 5; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~27, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Service Rates to Water Districts City Manager Chapman told Council this is a follow up to the Highlands water and sanitatioi agreement. This establishes their water rate as this is the first district that the city has ever supplied water to. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance ~27, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 927 (Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "WATER SERVICE RATES FOR THE WHOLESALE SUPPLY MUNICIPAL WATER TO WATER DISTRICT", AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 23 ~OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY ADDING A NEW DIVISION THEREOF was read by the c~ty clerk Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1981, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Isaac, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. PARK PLACE GMP AMENDMENT Jack Johnson, planning office, told Council the Park place building was granted a 1981 commercial GMP allotment. The property is located on Cooper.~avenue between the Aspen Leaf building and Guido's building. Johnson told COuncil the total square footage is not being altered, the modification is to the footprint. The HPC has reviewed and approved the facade changes. There was some concern about continuous 900 foot facade of both buildings without any break; however, the large spruce tree was felt to be an adequate break. The planning office and HPC support the modifications and do not feel these would dis- qualify the applicant in its GMP allotment. This modification comes about because of the acquisition of the Aspen Leaf building and incorporates the two. Councilman Isaac moved to approve the modification of the Park Place building and reaffirm their allotment for 1981 GMP commercial; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. BELL MOUNTAIN SPORTS GMP AMENDMENT Nick McGrath told Council this is a GMP amendment for the Bell Mountain sports building adjacent to the Crystal Palace theatre and owned by the Crystal Palace. McGrath told Council they agree with the conditions in the planning office memorandum. The Crystal Palace feel the architectural changes are advantageous. Jack Walls presented and explained the changes. 309 ~e~ular Meeting Aspen City Council May 11, 1981 Walls said they have rearranged the building so there is open space in the building and moved the apartment back over the parking area. Councilman Parry moved to approve the modifications to Bell Mountain Sports building and the reaffirmation of the 1979 commercial GMP allotment subject to the following conditions (1) building material samples be submitted to and approved by the HPC prior to issuance of a building permit; (2) an easement, common use agreement or other instrument be acquire for the purposes of accessing the second floor via the Crystal Palace stairway prior to issuance of the building permit; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Council asked that the City Attorney be satisfed that the form of the easement agreement is sufficient. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac, Motion carried. ORDINANCE ~20, SERIES OF 1981 - Moratorium on Victorians Councilwoman Michael opened the public hearing, read the ordinance title and outlined the general intent of the ordinance. Paul Taddune reminded Council there had been some concern expressed regarding the Snow Chase lodge. Taddune said he feel the city would be hard pressed to revoke the demolition permit for the Snow Chase at this point. Councilwoman Michael closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance 920, Series of 1981, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Collins, aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye. Motion carried° Councilman Isaac moved to adjourn at 10:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.