HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19760223that had not been addressed yet. Councilman Parry reported that the City and County
were working on a lawsuit about the m~nibuses. They want to eliminate and get rid of
them. The drivers suggested that it would be much better to try to go with marked stops
This will keep the schedule running better. The City and County would like to hire a
project manager, maybe even someone presently employed by the City and County, for a
short time to get all these problems resolved.
Councilwoman Johnston urged the Council and Mall Commission to start putting forth effor
to develop a maintenance program for the mall to respond to criticisms of the present
mall.
Councilwoman Johnston said the City should start thinking about establishing an energy Energy con-
conservation task force that would include both elected officials and citizens, servation
Councilwoman Johnston suggested the City start thinking in terms of the metric system Metric system
as it is going to be in effect some time in the future.
Mayor Standley annouced that Jack Jenkins had resigned from the Planning & Zoning Jenkins resigned
Commission and directed the City Clerk to advertise the opening, from P & Z
Mayor Standley said there was a COG meeting Thrusday night and the City had an applicati, n
for a solid waster disposal treatment plant.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to a~d the A-95 review to the Agenda; seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley said this would be put under
City Manger.
UMTA REPORT: Councilman Parry reported at the Citizens Caucus, Commissioner Dwight Shell~.an
had discussed the letter of no prejudice. Councilman Wishart said he had met with Larry
Simmons and had discussed his ideas on establishing the goals and objectives. Councilma UMTA
Wishart stated more citizens were needed to be involved in the goals task force, report
PRIDE OF ASPEN MINING~CLAIM - Purchase by City and County PRIDE OF ASPEN
mining claim
Mayor Standley said the old Council had been involved with this for a couple of years.
The problem of buying this claim kept coming up, but the trade offs to make the deal
work were untenable to the City. The City now has the opportunity to pick up the Pride
of Aspen with no strings attached. Councilwoman Pedersen's comments on what is going ox
on Gramiger's land as indicative we could end up with a denuded Shadow Mountain.
The idea of purchase was presented to the Pitkin County Parks Association; the Parks
Association passed a motion to the effect that it would endorse an acquisition of the
of the Pride of Aspen for $27..000 by the City and County and the Parks Trust Limited
would accept the land and be the stewards. This would eliminate any potential conflict
that might arase between the City and County. The Commissioners indicated they are an
favor and would be willing to accept 50 per cent funding with the City.
Councilman Behrendt moved that City Manager Mahoney, County Manager Blomquist, Planner
Bill Kane, City Attorney Stuller proceed with the pruchase of the Pride Of Aspen;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Mayor Standley said the source of funding would be out of the sixth penny. City Attorne
Stuller is looking into the appropriateness of the City deeding this land to the Parks
Trust.
All in favor, motaon carried.
CITY HALL RENOVATION: City Manager Mahoney told Council the presentation tonight was
City Hall
the result of the Council budgetting $15,000 in 1976 to do engineering and architectural renovation
work on City Hall. Greg Cole and Chick Collins' work represents part of the $15,000.
Mahoney siad he liked the presentation very much, not only for the design of the buildin
but because it can be done in small bits.
Chick Collins told Council that for many years the third floor was not used because of
structural deficiencies. In the past year, construction went under the building and
put in a new foundation and steel supports so that the roof and third floor would be
sound. This year the City is looking at stage two, which is bringing the third floor up
to be finished an a satisfactory manner so that it can be utilized. Collins told Counci
he had a conceptual master plan for City Hall. There are certain design elements in the
third floor, such as location of elevators, stairwells, that will commit the design of
the whole building. Collins said he was seeking approval by Council of the long range
plan, which would be over five to ten years. Collins siad they had tried to develop a
plan that is very flexible yet it goes toward some goal to maximize facilities without
having to do any backtracking or changing.
Greg Cole showed Council the master plan for City Hall. Cole stated there are four majo
design elements in the concept. (1) An Atrium lobby, 30 foot square space, ceiling
open up to the full three stories (2) basically an open plan; the interiors are much mor
open than they are at present (3) the plan tries to pick up additional usable office
space on the lower floor by dropping a level and opening windows up (4 instead of
walling offices up, each department is received at a reception desk.
Cole was asking Council for approval of the location of the entrance, stairs, antrium,
elecators. The rest of the conceptual plan as very flexible and can change as City
Hall changes. Cole pointed out the design used exactly the same windows. Cole showed
Council conceptual plans for the ground floor, first, second and third floors and a
sectional.
Mahoney said it was his understanding that phase two would provide fire protection for
City Hall. The sprinkler system installed in phase two will only sprinkle the third
floor. Mahoney pointed out he was not asking Council for any funding, he was only
asking if this concept is one that Council wants to pursue. Mahoney said in terms of
Master Plan timing, City Hall is considered crowded. City Hall is economical in terms of people, but
cond.third not in floor terms for of space. $20 a square City Hall foot. does need more space. Mahoney said he was estimating thel.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if by doing the electrical and plumbing now for the third floor
is the City putting in some basics that will be used on other floors. Mahoney answered yes
Councilwoman Johnston asked if the figures quoted were just for construction. Greg Cole
answered they were for everything except carpets, lights, etc.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the basic master plan for four floors of City Hall to
include stairs, elevators, atrium, etc., and also to set aside $1,000 for available doors
immediately; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Communications JOINT AGREEMENT/COMMUNICATIONS: Chief of Police Marty Hershey submitted a memorandum to
Police/City/ Council outlining this agreement. Hershey expalined that in order for Aspen/Pitkin County
County to pursue any form of grant money, they had to have a study done. The study was done with
respect to a six county study on communications. Each county will t~en be presenting a
grant application if they so desire service. A board must be formed, this board will consl~
of the Pitkin County Manager, City Manager, Chief of Police, Undersheiff of Pitkin County
and Lieutenant from the State Patrol in Eagle. A joint council must also be formed to incl~e
any group using emergency communications, such as Ski Corp, Aspen Valley Hospital, Forest
Service, etc. Hershey told Council he would like to implement this as soon as possible
because if there is to be a grant, it will be first in, first OU~o Hershey said he was not
asking Council for any money, just for permission to go ahead with the two boards and to
follow the study.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read the Resolution; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in
favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION
JOINT
RESOLUTION With the City Council of the City of Aspen and the Board of Commissioners
of Pitkin County
WHEREAS there exists the need for improvement of communications services
within joint jurisdictions and
WHEREAS those parties involved in said communications system are also
the parties who provide emergency services to both jurisdictions and
WHEREAS there is a need to improve emergency services in the two
jurisdictions
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
(1) There is hereby created a Joint Communications and Emergency Services
Board comprising the City Manager of the City of Aspen, the County Manager of
Pitkin County, the Police Chief of the City of Aspen, the Undersheriff of
Pitkin County, and the Lieutenant in charge of the Eagle Division of the Colorado
State Patrol and
(2) There is hereby created a Joint Communications and Emergency Services Council
comprising one representative from and designated by each of the following:
City-County Transportation, County Highway, Mountain Rescue, Aspen Valley Hospital
Ambulance, State Patrol Sheriff's Office, Aspen Police Department, Ski Corporation,
Aspen and Snowmass Fire Departments, City governmental operations, e.g. City Shops,
Water, Engineering, Planning and Zoning, and any other representative of that
organization
(3) Responsibility and authority for decisions concerning the joint communication
center and joint emergency services plans shall be vested in the Joint Communicationls
and Emergency Services Board.
(4) The responsibility of the Joint Communications and Services Council shall be
that they meet at least quarterly to review operational experiences with the
communications service and the effectiveness of emergency services plans and
programs and to recommend proposed improvements to the Joint Communications and
Emergency Services Board for action.
(5) It is intended by the signatory parties hereto that the above Board and
Council structure will, in the first instance, conduct the necessary studies and
recommend specific positive actions and that communications and emergency services
plans will be prepared and submitted to the signatory parties within 90 days of the
adoption of this resolution and at which time the signatory parties will cause
to be adopted significant improvements to the existing communlcaitons and
emergency services situations.
was read by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt the resolution; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt the joint services agreement; seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
TRUEMAN
PROPERTY TRUEMAN PROPERTY: Bill Kane, City/County Planner, rem~nded Council at the last meeting the ]
staff had recommended a maximum size of 45,000 square feet building. In connection with
this, Trueman had changed the 10,000 square feet of office space to 10,000 square feet in th~
basement to include a health club and neighborhood retail. In Kane's memorandum submitted t~
Council, he had agreed this was a good change. The Trueman property had been identified
for certain s/c/i uses, and the planning office feels that office space in the town has been
overbuilt. Kane pointed out he wanted to see more definitive controls on the neighborhood
etails later on ~n the process. Tonight curb cuts on Mill street, street right-of-way, post
office lot, size of the building will be addressed.
Kane told Council the planning office was in agreement with a 45,000 square foot building
with the understanding of more definitive controls. The uses seem to be consistent with
s/c/i zone as outlined in a letter from architect Larry Yaw. Kane stated they had tried to
eliminate any blatant conflict with the commercial core district.
In terms of curb cuts on Mill street, Kane stated they had a real problem with multiple cuts
that they would be close together conflicting traffic movememt. It is generally not TRUEMAN
appealing to have two cuts on Mill Stre~et. There was concern for location of a place for PROPERTY
public transit facility off of Mill Street. The solution may be to have a turn around
off Mill street for public transportation and deliveries.
Kane said the post office indicated th ould go with a building of less than 20,000 squar~
The school district has indicated their acquiring a small piece of land off Hallam street,
not for development but for expansion of the School. City Manager Mahoney told Council
that Dick Lee had talked to the school board, and they were definitely interested.
Kane told Council that under this scheme there would be four lots; the post office,
commercial building, school district, and the panhandle. Kane stated the development
of the panhandle on the Rio Grande property is something of a problem. The City and Count~
in the future, may be interested in acquiring all or part of this land for future right-of-
way. Kane recommended at this point against development of that right-of-way. City
Engineer Ellis stated the code requires 60 feet for local streets. Regardless of whether
or not this street is a connector road for Red' mountain, the street should not be approved
at 40 feet. Mayor Standley asked if it was still Ellis' intention to raise up the level
of Mill street towards the river. Ellis answered yesthat is the plan. Mayor Standley
asked if the fill on Mill street occured, is the property behind the building forced into
the position of having a street cut when the City said they did not want a street cut.
Ellis said it would not be any more land locked than it is presently. Ellis said he had
not considered access through Trueman property to those lots.
Mayor Standley asked if the alignment shown on the plat, as it lined up between Aspen Tire
and Aspen Motors was consistent in terms of the master planning for the Rio Grande Property
and the elimination of Spring street. Kane said an offset might be desirable. A squared
up intersection might create too much traffic. Kane said he had a firm belief that Spring
street shouldn't happen; this is based on many considerations. Kane stated this alignment
did make sense. Mayor Standley asked about the rail right-of-way coming into this propert~
Kane answered this alignment would not do for the rail transit; there is nothing in this
plan that would prohibit a rail alignment. Ellis said he was satisfied with the alignment
as shown, based on not having a through street from the bus depot to Mill street.
Jim Trueman told Council he had tried to resolve various things he felt were of concern.
Trueman went over the PUD program, and told Council this was a totally planned site. When
Trueman came to Council with P & Z approval, he was told the Council could not handle this
development right now, the language was in question. City Attorney Stuller said the four
lot subdivision was in question. Ms. Stuller and Trueman's attorney had worked out some
wording for the plat both could agree on. MS. Stuller told Council this language was not
the language she agreed upon. Ms. Stuller said this language leaves the Council with the
presumptiOn that Trueman will enjoy further development.
Kane told Council that there is a consistent misunderstanding of the purpose of a speciall
planned area. Kane stated there is no FAR density in this zone; the SPA has no FAR en-
titlement. The idea is that the planning process would be engaged in by the P & Z and
Council to determine the appropriate uses and mass for the land. Kane stated the objecti~
is to provide the base level of service the town needs right now and gives Trueman an
economic return on that land. Ms. Stuller pointed out that a change in policy or in
community needs could be impetus for changel The market is not a concern in land use reg-
ulations. Trueman said he was not asking for promises in the future; he was just asking
if the door would be open for future development.
Mayor Standley brought up the size of the grocery store. At last Council meeting Pamela
Gassman had addressed the grocery store and asked Council to reconsider a size of 15,000
square feet. Mayor Standley said he concurred with her arguments, as well as others in
the past; Mayor Standley said he would much prefer to go back to a 15,000 square foot stor
Councilman Wishart said her arguements were convincing, but there had been a chance to
come forward with them before Council made their decision. Councilwoman Johnston said
Council should keep in mind the concept of three areas as Jim Adams proposed, both for
solving transportation problems and in getting neighborhood centers.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the initial phase of the conceptual plan on the
Trueman property except (a) incorporate CitY Attorney Stuller's comments on phasing in
paragraph 3 in the notes (b) deleting parking for lot 2 and building size at this time but
approving general location for post office (c) approving concept of separate lot for schoo
district in rough plan as lot 4 but for no other use at this time (d) denying lot 3 deve-
lopment at this time and showing it as future right-of-way under PUD and requesting some
kind of timing on that so as not to tie the land up (e) require access road to the north
of the property against lot 1 to be 60 feet in width (f) deleting 5,000 square feet from
grocery store and adding 5,000 square feet to service retail anywhere in the buiiding.
Seconded by Councilwoman Johnston.
Councilman Parry pointed out that by deleting 5,000 square feet from the grocery store;
it could create a problem with Trueman in getting the grocery store here. Kane stated
that 20,000 square feet of grocery store would allow items to be sold that would be in
conflict with merchandising in the downtown. Trueman stated he could not get a responsibl.
grocery in Aspen for 15,000 square feet.
Councilman Behrendt moved to table the conceptual subdivision approval; seconded by Counci -
woman Johnston.
Councilman Behrendt withdrew his motion to table.
Councilman Wishart moved to amend Councilman Behrendt's motion to delete condition (f)
which puts the grocery store back to 20,000 square feet; seconded by Councilman Parry.
Councilman Wishart said he felt the Council was showing bad faith by reconsidering a
question which had already gone through the public process.
Councilmembers Wishart, Pedersen, Parry for the amendment; Councilmembers Johnston,
Behrendt, and Mayor Standley against the amendment. Amendment NOT carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved ~o table the conceptual approval; seconded by Councilwoman
Johnston. Councilmembers Parry and Wishart opposed; Councilmembers Behrendt, Johnston,
Pedersen, and Mayor Standley in favor. Motion carried.
RED MOUNTAIN/SALVATION DITCH - Augmentation Plan
John Musick, water attorney of Vranesh & Musick, told Council he had investigated some
problems resulting from the Salvation Ditch last September. Musick had discussed these
Salvation problems with Scott Balcolm, attorney for the Salvation Ditch. The result of these
Ditch - discussions is a conceptual plan for solving the problem. Musick present a photograph
Augmenta- overlay of the area showing the Roaring Fork, Hunter Creek, Salvation Ditch, and the
tion plan areas irrigated under the Salvation and other ditches. Musick attempted to show why the
Pipelinin¢ river was dry. Part of the reason is that there was not enough water in the river to meet
Ditch the ~rrigation needs. The Ditch company has to carry water some six miles to the head
gate. Along the way it seeps into people's basements and along county roads and keeps
trees gorw~ng, but does not provide water to meet the irrigation requirements.
Musick told Council a common approach to solve this proble ~s to line the ditch or put in
a pipeline. This will reduce the net diversions from the r~ver. The Salvation Ditch
has 97.6 second feet decreed to it; they have probably never diverted more than 57 second
feet. Approximately half of that quantity of water is lost as it goes along the six
miles. The proposals worked out between Musick, their attorneys and engineers on both
s ides is the pipelining of the Salvation Ditch from the point of diversion to a point
south of Woody Creek. The ne~ water savings to the river would be in the area of 30 to
40 second feet of water. This muck water savings would have made a lot of difference
1 ast October when the river was dry.
Musick explained that the Ditch company has a fluctuating need, within the season and
from year to year. The proposed plan is to increase the size of the pipe at Hunter
Creek and across from the Aspen Metro plant. The purposes for the increase in pipe size
are (1) to carry additional quantities of water when they need it from Hunter Creek
should Hunter Creek flow at a greater volume that necessary (2) second enlargement
opposite the Aspen Metro plant is to conduct the secondary affluent which is now going
ntoithe river, to be used for irrigation purposes on the ground.
The second phase of the conceputal plan is known as land treatment. Musick said this is
an accepted practise which he has been working on. Musick said they were anticipating a
capacity of 15 to 20 second feet in the initial pipe line. Water would be picked up at
the Hunter Creek site and lower on the Roaring Fork where it has waters from the Castle
Creek. This was they upper Roaring Fork would not suffer; this would be a managed
system. Musick also pointed out that this is a water scarce area. If the forecasters
are accurate, next year could be a very low water year.
Musick said with regard to land treatment plan, it is not something that will kill cattle.
It is something that is in the water right now. The nutrient value of the sewage is
sufficient for private industry to go out and try to capture it. It can reach as high
as $100 per acre of deferred fertilizer cost. This plan will do two things; provide
more water down there at the point where it runs through the City, and clean up the
river. It will bring the sanitation works into compliance with Public Law 92500.
Musick said they were attempting to solve several problems at a time; the water level in
the Roaring Fork, Salvation ditches needs, secondary effluent, and storm run off. The
City is going to be faced with a serious problem on how to conduct its storm run off. There
is a significant amount of water that comes off the hillside and under the Castle' Creek
drainage and is collected by the Aspen Sanitation District. Musick said they hoped to
be able to detain that temporarily and then put it down the pipeline from the sanitiation
over to the Metro plant. The City will have to meet the requirements of the clean water
act by 1983; that means no discharge. The only solution Musick can find to that right now
is land treatment. Musick said the two sanitation plants right now are seriously over-
1 oaded; they are presently involved in 201 study for plan development.
Musick told Council that one attractive feature for the City of Aspen is, if Musick has
his way, the City of Aspen will end up with the ownership of this water right. Musick
proposes that the water would be used for the purpose of minimum stream flow~ Musick
stated that the City does have a problem in terms of water supply; the City does not have
storage. The consequence is that the City has to have a physical supply from every stream
· n the area. Musick said this plan would buy the City water rights, but would cos~ money.
Musick proposes to use the existing ditch bank to install the pipe in the ditch itself;
cover it over and it will become part of the County trail system. The cost of the pipe-
lining and installation is projected to run about S12 a foot; that is low. In round
numbers, the total cost would run up to one million dollars. There is Federal money
available for this. The problem with this ~s that it takes time to obtain Federal money.
Musick said he would like to see the engineerlng study done to see the exact cost; that
study would cost about $3,000. The County Commissioners indicated they would be intereste~
in jointly funding the study.
Mayor Standley asked what this project would do in terms of the Eastern Slope raiding the
Salvation Ditch, does it strengthen the City's position/ Musick answered if it were done
properly it would. Musick said he proposed to increase the draw from the stream, and to
be able to use the additional quantity of water as muscle water. Councilwoman Johnston
asked why Musick proposed that the City would own the water. Musick answered that none
of, the other entities are in the business of water supply. Musick also stated that the
Salvation Ditch company had initiated the talks on this project. There are four entities
to share in the cost of the project. This project will cost $50,000 per second feet,
wh~'ch is below market value.
Councilman Wishart moved that the City agree to help fund the $3,000 to $4,000 engineer-
lng study; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
CALLAHAN SUBDIVISION - Final Subdivision Approval
Planner Kane told Council the outstanding item in this subdivision was the size of the Callahan I
recreation building. There are 34 dwelling units, and expanded clubhouse and the Subdivision
recreation facility. The building had been staked out for an on-site inspection, final sub-
division
Hal Clark told COuncil the proposed recreation building was 46,000 square feet; the approval
recommendation of the planning office is 36,000 square feet with two indoor tennis
courts. Clark outlined the comments of the planning office. City Engineer Ellis is
recommending approval of the subdivision. The planning office asked that the transpor-
tation agreement be part of the subdivision agreement. The planning office asked for
a revised landscaping plan; it has been submitted, and the planning office agrees to it.
The sewer line easement will go through Ute Park; Ted A~mstrong is concerned about the
possibility of a Wide excavation from a safety factor. The basic disagreement boils
down to two indoor courts or three indoor courts. The planning office has tried to
relate that to the impact of additiOnal use of the building.
Councilman Behrendt asked if the other proposed uses for the recreational building would
be underneath the tennis courts. Paul Kutik answered that the tennis courts would be
the lowest level.
Councilwoman Johnston asked that Housing Officer Brian Goodheim address the employee
housing. Goodheim had submitted a memorandum to Council suggested that the five acres
under the applicant's control at the end of Ute Avenue be considered for employee hous-
ing. Goodheim suggested that the densit~ be worked out by the planning office and
whatever density is recommended be utilized to meet emPloyee housing for the impact of
the development. Kane told Counil he had not worked out a site analysis. Based on
existing zoning, slope reduction, and avalanche control, the density will not be very
great. Mayor Standley pointed out the City did not have any regulations that required
developers to include housing. Councilman Wishart stated in going through subdivision,
it was maintained that Ute Avenue should remain low impact and not create traffic out
there; employee housing would.
Kane explained to touncil there had been a gradual change and expansion of the facilities.
The origianl idea had been for a medium range tennis facilities. The addition of the
third court would add on more automObile ~raffic, use of the facility and congestion
that was not part of the conceptual subdivision. Kutik told Council that they would
take care of this problem by providing transportation, pick up station, etc. This will
be included in the subdivision agreement.
Councilman Wishart asked if the Council left out the third covered tennis court, could
they set up a mechanism so that the developer could come back later for a third court.
Clark answered they could go for an amended PUD. After the building is in existence and
operation for some time, the City can better assess the impacts.
Councilman Behrendt said between the health club and clubhouse, Kutik is proposing that
90 to 250 people would be on the site at anytime. Councilman Behrendt asked if Kutik
had parking provisions to address that. Kutik noted that a lot of people using the
facilities would also be living there. Councilwoman Pedersen asked Kutik if any trees
or graves would be destroyed by the sewer line going through Ute Cemetery and Ute Park.
Kutik answered he had studied the easement carefully and had agreed to replace any trees
that are destroyed. City Attorney Stuller remarked she had no problems with the
subdivision.
Councilman Wishart moved to accept and record the subdivision plat; to authorize Mayor
Standley to execute the subdivision agreement on behalf of the City, and to authorize
Mayor Standley to execute the easement agreement; and to include the reservations of
the planning office and to incorporate exploring employee housing; seconded by Council-
woman Pedersen. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, nay; Johnston, aye; Parry,
aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
Paul Kutik told Council that Callahan's FHA loan application was being withdrawn.
700 WEST HOPKINS - Request for exemption from the definition of subdivision
Bruce Kistler, representing 700 West Hopkins, had submitted a letter to Council outlinin
the petition for exemption from the definition of subdivision and the reasons Kistler
believe the exemption to be applicable. Kistler stated basically there are two reasons 700 West
why the 700 Hopkins project should be exempt, other than the fact that to impose sub- Hopkins -
division obligations on the conversion of apartments to condominiums accomplishes no Request for
valid purpose under the subdivison regulations. Kistler said the law is very clear, exemption from
There are two standards. The fee must be specifically and uniquely attributable to subdivision
the subdivision, and there must be some nexus between the subdivision itself and the
reason for extracting the fee.
Kistler said the new subdivision ordinance fees in lie~ of land dedication will be used
for acquisition of land or open space. Kistler asked if the 700 Hopkins subdivision
attr. acted a need that may exist in the community for more open space. Kistler stated
with conversion, there is no such need demonstrated. For that reason, Kistler stated,
the ordinance as written is illegal and. unconstitutional. Kistler wanted the City to
recognize that the ordinance is unconstitutional. It is up to the City to take further
steps to rectify this or to operate under an uncOnstitutional ordinance.
Kistler asked for the money back that 700 West Hopkins paid pursuant to this subdivisiOr
agreement. Kistler said the facts are not there to sustain that a condominium conver-
sion establishes either nexus or specifically and uniquely attributable need.
City Attorney Stuller entered the following documents into the record: Comprehensive
Development Plan, Parks and Recreation Department, City of Aspen; Ordinance ~94, S~ries
of 1975; Minutes of the meeting January 27, 1976, P & Z; Subdivision Improvement Agree-
ment with 700 West Hopkins; Brian Goodheim's analysis and evaluation for fee; Subdivision
plat, which plat has been accepted and recorded.
700 West City Attorney Stuller stated the purposes of subdivision review. These are technical and
Hopkins represent the historical and traditionally accepted rationales; encourage well-planned
subdivision by setting standards for design and improvement, establishing standards for
cont.
surveys and plans, to insure that adequate utilities and access are supplied, to safe-
guard the interests of the public. Later on the impact of a development became the
subject of review. These objectives are; to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated
development, to insure proper distribution of the population, to coordinate the need
for public services with governmental improvement program; to acquire desirable public
areas.
The definition of subdiviszon has expanded to show concern for the impacts. Subdivision
initially covered only parcelling of land into individual lots for purposes of develop-
ment. Then condominiumization was included, implying that ownership of units results
in different demands on the community. Finally apartments were included in the definition
of subdivision because of the impacts of multi-family structures.
Ms. St3uller told Council that if 700 Hopkins had not condominiumized, they would have
en3oyed a non-conforming status. By condominiumizing there was a presumed change from
rental to ownership status and an assumption uhat residents require more governmental
services, including parks. 700 Hopkins lost the non-conforming status of the apartment
house and to enjoy the benefits of subdivison approval, they were asked to contribute
to the park fund.
Ms. Stuller noted that the theory of loosing the immunity of a non-conforming status on
the owner's election to improve his property or enjoy a privilege afforded by the law
in not new. For example, those who wish to alter or repalr an old building at a cost
exceeding 50 per cent of the value of the building must bring the entire structure into
conformance with the building code as if new. Structures which are non-conforming
according to the zoning code, must be brought into conformance with the zoning if they
are abandoned for a year or more or are substantially damaged or totally destroyed and
not rebuilt within two year.
Ms. Stuller stated there is no caselaw directly addressing itself to the question of
whether subdivision dedication requirements are properly zmposed on the condominiumlza-
tion of existing buildings. However, none of the state or local regulations specifically
exclude conversions. It has been historically the proactice to impose subdivision
dedication requirements.
Kistler aruged that the Courts will not support the imposition of this fee because
cases have said either (1) that a subdivider can be assessed only costs specifically
attributable to his subdivision activity or (2) at a maximum, he must be asked to assume
~ly the costs to a community created by the introduction of new residents into the area.
Ms. Stuller summarized for Council Court action on the validity of dedication requirements.
Oregon and Connecticut have taken the position that a cash dedication requiremenu is
invalid because the land purchased with those fees was not earmarked for the direct and
exclusive benefit of the subdivision residents. California, Kansas, Montana, New York,
Rhode Island and Wisconsin have generally approved the cash, an lieu of land, and do
not require that the park areas purchased with dedication fees be used exclusively by
the subdivision residents.
Ms. Stuller told Council there are no Colorado cases on the subject. The closest case
to a discussion as to whether dedication fees are illegal or not because applied ~oa
conversion of a existing occupied building is a 1971 California Supreme Court case of
Associated Home Builder v. Walnut Creek. The Court discussed the validity of a subdivi-
sion dedication requirement like Aspen's, and said it is not necessary in order to impose
the requirement to show that the particular subdivision creates the need for an
additional park. T e Court said that the dedication requirements can be justified on
the basis of a general public need for recreational facilities.
Kistler argued that the assessment of the fee, without corresponding direct cost to the
City by reason of conversion is potentially unfair or illegal. Kistler cited no authorityi
for this. Ms. Stuller said she did not think it unfair; it is a cost of their develop-
ment business. Kistler cited the Stroud case for the proposition that any fees imposed
must directly benefit those assessed. Ms. Stuller disagreed and stated that in 1961 in
Western Heights v. City of Fort Collins, The Supreme Court upheld a PIF fee (used for
general maintenance, upgrading and enlargement of the City's water plant) even though the
fee was not assessed to cover costs directly attributable to new service supplied.
Ms. Stuller told Council that Aspen Municipal Code Sec 20-19(b) permits Council to review
and determine, when there is a question, whethsr the proposed activity is within the
definition o~ a subdivision. This provision was designed to deal with those land related
activities that are so minor as not to be within the scope of the definition of a sub-
division of land. Condominiumization is specifically defined as a subdivision in
Section 20-3 of the Municipal Code. It would be difficult to exclude this activity by
interpretation. Ms. Stuller reminded Council that 700 Hopkins had gone through full
subdivion revzew; recorded a plat and executed an a~reement. If they had wanted to
challenge the application of the definition of subdivison to their proposed condominiumi-
zation, they should have applied under Section 20-19Ib) two years ago. Ms. Stuller stated
that their subdivision agreement addressed itself to other areas of concern (sidewalk
and street improvements) other than merely the payment of a dedication fee.
Ms. Stuller brought up an element of contract law. As part of the subdivision agree-
ment and in consideration of approval, 700 Hopkins agreed to pay the City the fee it
has paid. Since that time, the plat has been recorded, one-half the units sold, and
the landowner and subdivider have enjoyed the financial benefits of subdivision
approval and condominium sales. It is very likely that the City can reverse these
effects. Prior to final approval the sbudivider knew the exact amount of the fee and 700 West
knew that payment of the fee would be required. Ms. Stuller stated that basic contract Hopkins - cont.
law principles says that a landowner cannot challenge the subdivision fee requirements
after he has received the benefit of his bargain.
Ms. Stuller said she could understand that the challenge will have to be defended by
the City. Mr. Kistler wants the Council to determine this point. Ms. Stuller told
Council if they refund Kistler's money, she would suggest that they refund all others.
Mayor Standley pointed out to .Council that this issued was discussed at length over
several Council meetings; they discussed Goodheim's appraisals, and discussed various
ways of working around it based on Goodheim's programs. Mayor Standley said he was
under the impression that when this subdivision was finished they had extracted con-
currence of what to do and the fact that it wouldn't be challenged by the subdivider.
Mayor Standley said he felt they had reached a decision agreeable to both parties, and
the City is now being challenged after the fact on a good faith contract. Mayor Standl~
said it is the City's obligation at ~his time to defend their position and to instruct
City Attorney Stuller to defend the City's position of their right to impose a dedica-
tion fee.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to deny the request for exemption of the definition of
subdivision under Section 20-19(b); seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor,
motion carried.
CITY MANAGER
1. Park Maintenance Building. City Manager Mahoney told Council that the City had Park Main-
budgetted Sl0,000 for this building. The P & Z had approved this building and had
imposed three conditions. With two of these conditions, Mahoney has no problems. Thes~ tenance
are to locate the automobiles within the included area, and a landscaping plan. The building
third condition is that in the event Open Door would cease to occupy the gray house,
the City would move the gray house. Mahoney told Council they were bringing this plan
to Council for informational purposes, and for Council to make a policy decision on
the little gray house. Armstrong pointed out that the P & Z also wanted the garage
moved. Mayor Standley asked if Armstrong had any objections to removing the garage
when the park maintenance building Ks complete. Armstrong said no. Mayor Standley
pointed out that the P & Z had already approved this project. Council was only to
discuss moving the buildings and funding.
Mahoney reminded Council that the City had budgetted $10,000 for this project out of
the sixth penny. Councilwoman Johnston said she did not like the location of this
building. Councilwoman Johnston asked why not have a maintenance building in town for
the parks. Councilman Parry pointed out that Council had gone over and over this and
decided this was the best location. Armstrong stated the Councilwoman Johnston made a
good point. When and if the City constructs an eighteen-hole golf course, the City
would need more maintenance buildings. However, in the interim, the City needs this
maintenance building.
Councilwoman Pedersen asked how much the building would cost. Mahoney answered they
planned to do it for $10,000 worth of material and use in-kind labor. As soon as
approval is given, Mahoney plans to start laying the foundation. Mayor Standley asked
w hat the conflict with spring park maintenance was. Mahoney stated there would be a
conflict. They want to get the trees and landscape in. In order to save money, they
plan to use the trees out of the mall and plant them in the berm. Armstrong told
Council they would work from now until the parks open up. The parks maintenance crew
is priority, including benches, fences, sprinkling, etc. Armstrong agreed that park
maintenance had been neglected because the City had taken monies budgeted for mainten-
ance and had gone into capital expenditure projects.
Councilman Behrendt pointed out that this building will be more expen.sive than $10,000
and asked where the difference would come from. Mahoney said he is trying to bring the
building cost in at $18-20,000. The City will adjust the time element, not put in the
slab under the shed area but just under the greenhouse, and use planter boxes from the
mall to make back support for the berm. City~ Manager Mahoney showed plans and explaine(
the design and structure of the parks maintenance building to Council. Councilman
Parry noted in arguing the design and structure, Council was getting into an architect-
ural problem. CouncilmaD Parry said as far as he was concerned, the building was very
nice and Mahoney had done a good job.
Mahoney asked Council to discuss the little gray house, one of the P & Z conditions
for approval. Council said they were not concerned with the little gray house at the
moment, and would discuss it if and when Open Door moved out.
Councilman Parry moved to accept the conditions of the P & Z; seccnded by Councilman
Wishart. These are (1) adopt the landscaping plan, (2) when Open Door pro3ect becomes
inoperative, relocate the building (3) any vehicles used would be stored inside parking
area. Councilmembers Parry, Pedersen, Wishart, and Mayor Standley in favor; Council-
members Johnston and Behrendt against. Motion carried.
2. Forest Service Appeal. City Manager Mahoney told Council he had received a letter
from Washington D.C. in regard to the appeal process. Mahoney told Council the letter
stated, in short, that the Forest Service had decided they will go through a review
process in the future and, therefore, they are not going to consider the City's appeal.
City Attorney Stuller recommended the City write them a letter stating that is fine,
Forest but that the Forest Service had thirty days to start the process. City Attorney Stuller
Service told Council that Senate Bill 2125 is being redrafted this week, and that heavy reliance
Appeal is being made on the City's addition. Ms. Stuller stated that if the Forest Service
doesn't produce, the City should insist on a decision.
3. Bond Proposal for undergrounding and malls. Finance Director Butterbaugh told Council
there were two p~oposals from Kirchner/Moor to be considered; one for undergrounding, one
Bond for malls. Ms. Butterbaugh told Council that Gary Crabtree, Bosworth & Sullivan, wanted
Proposals - to address Council. Crabtree told Council that he was a member of the municipal bond
Kirchner/ department for Bosworth/Sullivan. Bosworth has maintained an office in Aspen, and are
Moore - a major force in Colorado in underwriting. Crabtree told Council his major purpose
underground was to express Bosworth's interest and continued interest in working the the City in terms
lng & mall of underwriting and/or financial consulting Crabtree expressed interest and asked not
to be precluded by any action taken by Council this evening.
City Manager Mahoney told Council he was not prepared to discuss Bosworth/Sullivan's
~roposal. Mahoney pointed out that an electric revenue bond was very easy to place.
Mahoney told Council that Kirchner/Moore had been helping the City for years. Don
Diones had discovered the Bank of Aspen was in error on one of the City's bonds, and
Diones had been owrking on a weekly basis as a consultant for the City. Kirchner/Moore
had taken the tough bonds to sell; they ought to be entitled to the easy ones. Ms.
Butterbaugh pointed out that Bosworth/Sullivan may have an office here, but the bond
people were in Denver. Councilman Behrendt indicated he felt that Bosworth/Sullivan
should be consulted from time to time.
Mayor Standley said he objected to items being put on the agenda with no notice and with
no prefacory information. Mayor Standley pointed out this proposal from Bosworth/
Sullivan came two days before the bond issue, and the Council would not discuss this
without more notice and more information.
Don Diones of Kirchner/Moore was present to explain their bond proposals. Mayor Standley
explained to Diones that the City was putting the mall extension to a vote, and asked
if the City could bond mall improvements whether or not the mall extension gets voter
approval. Diones said they could bond the whole amount and make the bonds attributable
to the vote. Funds not need, if there was not voter approval, would be collectible
immediately.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to accept Kirchner/Moore proposals on electric undergrounding
and mall construction (with the recommendation to fund the entire project, then to collect
the bonds that are appropriated to the mall extension if the vote should fail); seconded
by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
4. A-95 Review, EPA funds, COG.
Councilman Wishart moved to give facorable recommendation to COG on this application;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Mayor Standley pointed out the City had to come up with $3,867, and this would require
an appropriation ordinance.
Councilman Wishart amended his motion that the City be co-applicants; this is a condition
for endorsement of the application; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor,
motion carried.
All in favor of the main motion, motion carried.
5. City Manager's Contract.
City
Manager's Councilman Wishart moved to renew the City Manager's Contract; seconded by Councilwoman
contract Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved to table Ordinance ~94, Series of 1975; Ordinance #5, #7, #9,
#10, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 1976
Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #6, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman
Ord.6, 1976 Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
Employee
Wages & ORDINANCE ~6
Benefits (Series of 1976)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING
WAGES AND VACATION BENEFITS OF CITY EMPLOYEES, SPECIFICALLY; AMENDING SECTION
2-76 EXTENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE THREE (3) ADDITIONAL STEPS, PRO-
VIDING FOR HALF-STEP INCREASES, AND ELIMINATING LONGEVITY INCREASES ONE (1)
YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING SECTIONS 2-79 AND 2-81
TO PERMIT DISPATCHERS TO ENJOY ADDITIONAL VACATION TIME IN LIEU OF HOLIDAYS;
AMENDING SECTION 2-80 TO INCREASE PAID VACATION TO EIGHT ~8) HOURS PER MONTH
FOR EMPLOYEES OF LESS THAN FIVE (5) YEARS, AND TWELVE (12) HOURS PER MONTH
FOR THOSE WITH FIVE (5) OR MORE YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT; AMENDING SECTION 2-81 TO
GIVE THOSE WITH TEN (10) YEARS OF SERVICE, IN LIEU OF ADDITIONAL VACATION TIME,
A 2% INCREASE IN THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR PENSION FUND; AMENDING
'p~!~o uo~o~ '~OA~ UT II~
'~qsya u~iyounoD Xq papuoo~s i'~'d ~:6 ~ u~no~pw o2 paAo~ ~am~apa~ u~mo~IyounoD
'~OA~ uy II~ '~qsya u~I!ounoD Aq p~puoo~s ~II~ aq~ no 6uypuoq ~q~abo~ ~nd
snqyuy~ u~o X~yD ~q~ ~q~ os ~s~I ~ pspu~x~ 'snqyu~ ~q~ uo ~u~ I~UO~N ~say~ sq~ ~%y~ i!:
Buy
~s 'UOT~pTsuoo s,IiounoD ~o; sou~uIpxo u~ g~q~56~ ~nd o~ ~slIn~S
uo~d~x~ Sou s~m ~u~o!Idd~ ~q~ ~ouys p~go~a u~q s~q u!$~ '~ 'M Xq uosyA~pqns go uo~u~p
uy~ sq~ ~oxg uoy~d~x~ ~q~ '~pu~B~ sq~ uo ms%y ~s~I ~q~ $~q~ p~ounouu~
=~A~ '~qsyM s~q~s~IIOUno$ ~%oA II~o IIOH 'uousuqo£ u~momIyounoD Aq p~puoo~s
f6uIp~ %s~yg uo '9£6I ~o ssI=~S 'II~ ~ou~uyp~O ~dop~ o~ psAom ~pu~aq~S u~miyounoD
(9£6I ~o IT~
-lymunoD Kq p~puom~s ~9£6I ~o s~JxsS 'IT~ ~ou~ujp~o p~g ol p~Ao~ lpus~q~s U~TJounoD
~%uTod K~uoq~ '~ioD Bs~Duo pspu~dx~ spun~ Xu~ uoy~pysuoo o~uy '009'£I~ ~o I~O% ~ io~ '~us~doi~gsp uD!s~p uo 009'~IS pup
uBys~p KsIpUp~S ~oX~ 'II~ ~q~ ~o~ 000'S9I'I~ ~o ~soo ~ snSg~A 000'0~8~
II~m ~O~ K~D sq~ qBnoq~I~ '~nss7 puoq sq~ ~pun ~n~ypu~dx~ s~do~dd~ u~ s7 ~I 'PsPnImUy
9L6I'II'P~O 's~ '~nss~ puoq ii~m aq~ ~o ~d s~ ~6 ~suB~M 6uTppos~ BuT~dTay~u~ osI~
aqA '6uypuoq II~m ~q~ ~o ~no ~oo IIy~ uoy~ygdo~dd~ 000'0~s aq~ p~s Xaipu~$s
ub~s~G II~N ~o~ uoy~w~do~dd~ - 9L6I ~O S~I~S 'II~ ~DN~NIGEO
suyI P~Yq~ '0I uoy~o~S '0I sB~a ~p~pp~ sw~ 'Buyo%ids siqwD puw ~su~ do~p
~q~'~ox~ p~$sI~p ussq swq (o) s~y%u~ sq~ (o) i~uoy~o~S 'I
'qounI ~ ~AO SUOB s~uyod ~q~ ~q~ s~pniouY s~q~ ~no p~$u~od ~sliu$S
'$~qsyM u~mIysunoD Xq p~puoD~s
~buyp~ ~s~y~ uo '9£6I ~o s~xsS '85 ~DU~U~P~O %dop~ O~ p~Ao~ u~s~p~ uwmo~iymunoD
'ANRI4NDISS~ OA ~D~SHE HIIM SNOISIAO~8 SMO~N~%q~DSI~ DNINI~NOD
~%OI~ON SMANON (9) XIS H~IM 5%~NI~% GN~ ~S& 5AINIg~GNI N~ ~Og
DNI~Asq ~H~ ~0~ SNOISIA0~6 ~D~ANOD X~O~GN~ DNIGIAO~
%~QIAI~NI DNI~IAINI ~0~ S~E~Q~$O~ DNIHSI%~AS~ ~S~SOD X~OSIA
'SASOD SAI ~RSS~ OA XAID ~HA DNI~I~0Z~ ~SNOIS~ANOD HD~S ~0~ SNOS~5 ~H~ DNIAIO~ ~X~I$ 5HA NIH~IM
(9A6I to
8~ ~DNYNI~O
u~ITouno$ ~q p~puoo~s ~9L6I ~O s~T~S '8~ ~Du~uTpzo p~ o~ psAo~
6uTpuno~spuQ - 9L6I ~0 SSI~S '89
~X~ '~pus~q~ s~q~s~i!munoD ~S$oA II~m IIO~ 'uo~suqo~ u~o~iymuno$ Xq p~puoo~s
OMA 5~Q~DNI O~ I6-E NOISe,S DNI~N~ ~X~ ~D~N~ XAI~
NO X%NO SHDN~S~ X$IS ~O NOIA~DI~I~HA H~I~0H~ OA S~ OS 88-E NOIAD~S