HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19751117 Special Meeting ~spen City Council November 17, 1975
Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt,
De Gregorio, Johnston, Par~y, Pedersen, City Manager Mahoney and City Attorney
Stuller present
USE OF RUBEY PARK PARKING LOT BY SKI CORPORATIONS
City Manager told Council he was basically in agreement with the joint facilities
agreement as presented with two exceptions. (1) the depreciation schedule and (2) the
Use of Rubey length of notice required. According to the contract, a 30 day notification is required.
park by ski Mahoney told Council the Ski Corp wants a straight line depreciation over a five year
corps, period. Mahoney siad he objected but felt that with the clause allowing the city to
give notice if the use on Rubey Park was changed, it would be all right. Mahoney said
that an accelerated depreciation makes more sense.
Mahoney told Council he had no objections to the City using the Little Nell parking
lot and having it policed; nor any objections to the Ski Corp using the Rubey Park
parking lot thirty days before the commencement of the season. City Attorney Stuller
pointed out that only the alley would have to be maintained.
Transportation Director Yank Mojo pointed out on Page 2, Section A he wanted it clarified
that the Ski Corporations would have to pull within the lot lines of the.parking lot
not to block the alley in case some vehicle had to get through. Mojo also noted under
Section B that the use of the parking lot should be contained to the parking lot,not
the park area. Mojo also asked that on Page 3, Section 4, the time the City could use
the parking lot for their buses be changed to 5:30 p.m. for the flexibility. Mojo
said he did not anticipate needing before 6 p.m, but would like the time changed.
Jim Adams, Aspen Skiing Corporation, stated that would cause problems only on peak days,
when one bus will have to wait for another to get out of the parking lot.
Adams explained to Council that the depreciation schedule used by the Ski Corp was a'
straight five year 20 per cent per year. Mayor Standley said they would be billing
the City at straight line and double declining this for tax purposes. Mayor Standley
suggested that if Pitkin County gets mass rail transit, the depreciation portion, rather
than being paid, becomes a contribution to the mass transit. Mahoney pointed out in the
agreement that anytime the City changes the use, we have to pay the Ski Corp. Mayor
Standley asked if the City was tied into the Little Nell parking lot for five years;
Adams answered yes.
Councilman De Gregorio asked when the Ski Corp planned to pave Rubey Park parking lot.
Adams answered as soon as it can be done in the spring. Mayor Standley asied if the
parking in Little Nell goes into effect coincidental with Rubey Park. City Attorney
Stuller said the ski Corp would maintain, clear and repair the Little Nell lot; the
City will police, sign and enforce it.
Adams told Council he had just one problem about not using any pa~ of the Park. Adams
said he had the Snowmass maze for loading coming through the break in the wall crossing
the alwn and loading. He woudl not be using the park for anything else. Adams also
stated that they will not be using the ~ley at all.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the contract with straight line 'depreciation and
the other amendments suggested by Council; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in
favor, motion carried.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Resolution #40, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION NO. 40
(Series of 1975)
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has been presented with
Res.40,1975 a JOINT FACILITIES AGREEMENT providing for the use by the
Joint facili- Aspen Skiing Corporation and Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation
of Rubey Park for the transport of skiers to their respective
ties agree-
ment with ski ski area facilities (a copy of which agreemen~ is attached), and
~orps. for
Rubey Park WHEREAS, Sect'ion 13.5 of the Home Rule Charter, while authorizing
such agreements, requires that the same be approved by resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
That it does hereby ratify and approve the JOINT FACILITIES
AGREEMENT attached hereto and incorporated by this reference,
and does authroize Stacy Standley, III, Mayor, to execute the
smae on behalf of the City of Aspen.
1890
Special Meeting AsPen city Council November 17, 1975
Resolution No. 40 was read by the city clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve Resolution No. 40, Series of 1975; seconded
by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ASPEN ONE PROPERTY LAND TRADE
Planner Bill Kane presented a sketch to Council to expalin the possibilities of
this land trade. Parcel A, owned by Aspen One, is approximately 58,000 square feet of
residentially zoned land by the river. Parcel B is in litigation where title clari- Aspen One
fication is required. The County is claiming Parcel B entirely. Kane told Council Land trade
the planhing office had investigated the maximum site areas feasible in exchange for
that parcel with typical S/C/I uses, easy access, and well screened to not interefere
with other intended functions on the Rio Grand property.
Kane showed on the sketch the feasible site areas. The planning office had asked B~ian
Gooddheim to assist'~in establishing relative values for a trade like this. Goodheim's
opinion for land zoned S/C/I based on comparable sales was $5 to $6 per square foot.
Goodheim estimated $5.75 per square foot for the site indicated. At almost 30,000 squar
feet the site would generate $185,000 in value. Parcel A is 58,150 square feet. Parcel
A is zoned R-6, but has recently been considered by the planning office to be zoned R-15.
At R-6 the value is $3.99 per square foot; at $-15 the value is $2.41 per square foot.
Parcel A would be worth $225,000 if zoned R-6; $140,000 if zoned $-15. These values
put the proposed site exchange somewhere in between. Kane told Council that Don Piper'
had rejected the proposal.
Don Piper told the Council that the value was the first problem. The proposed site of ~
29,000 square feet hand an 18,000 square foot footprint with a floor area ration that
would allow a development of 29-30,000 square foot building. Piper stated that S/C/I
uses by right very few lend themselves well to second floor uses. Piper stated he was
effectively looking at a 18,000 square foot space. Piper reminded Council that in May
1975, he made a proposal to trade parcels A and B for proposed post office site at
$8.50 a square foot. Preceeding Council's instructions were to appraise both pieces of
land under the existing zoning, which was C-2. Piper stated he was now looking at
proposals to trade for something in the area of $2.75 to $3.99. Piper said he felt this
was an unreasonable value structure. Piper stated that he was convinced that the City
wanted that piece of land, but they had i made it very difficult for anyone to develop
on an economic basis.
Councilman Behrendt pointed out with this particular site, the building would have acces~
on both floors. Mayor Standley asked Piper if he was still interested and pursuing a
trade of some type. Piper answered only in a realistic posture. Mayor Standley asked
if the general site location posed any problems. Piper answered the single greatest
problem is the topography of the site as shown.
Mayor Standley asked if Council was amendable to having Kane and Mahoney try to negotiate
an agreeable posture that meets both parties. Kane told Council that as staff, his
office was unwilling to draw any more pictures. Kane stated that this site exchange
represents the top line of what the planning office feels would be a fair trade of City
property. Kane said he didn't want to go any farther with the trade negotiations. Mayor
Standley asked if there was any other land owned by the City that could be worked into
a trade. City Attorney Stuller pointed out that land presently in the public use had to
be submitted to the voter to be sold or traded.
Mayor Standley stated the planning office had presented what they felt was their top
line figures. Mayor Standley asked Council's attitude toward considering something in
excess of the figures presented at this meeting. Kane stated there was a magnitude
difference that separates what the planning office is showing and what Piper wants.
Council decided to let Piper and the City negotiate a deal they feel is best, and Counci2
will look at it at that point.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to let the administration negotiate with an~ approach that
would include land and cash or land only; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to adjourn the special meeting at 6:15 p.m.; seconded by
Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Kathryr~S. H~.uter