Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19720124 1265 ~gular Me~ing ~pen ~City Council Ja~qu~ry .~4, ~72 . Meeting was called to order by Mayor Eve Homeyer at 4:00 p.m. with Councilmen Scott Nystrom, Ross Griffin, Ramona Markalunas, ~ack Walls, Francis Whitaker, City Attorney Albert Kern, City Manager Leon Wurl and Student R~pres~ntative M argo Dick. Water - Attorney Fitzhugh Scott III was present and presented to Council Eagle Piney material relating to the fight on the problem of the Eagle Piney Water and request support from Council financially and morally. Councilman William Comcowich arrived. Mr. Scott gave the background and further stated there are people working ~fulI time on water ~roblems of the western slope including initiation of legislation. One piece of legislation which they are working on is that the Statutes now say that anyone who wishes to divert Water cannot be denied. In time, will initiate environmental law. Councilman Walls moved to support and endorse the Eagle Piney Assoc- iation in the amount of $500.00. Seconded bY Councilman Comcowich. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried· Peddler's - Peddler's Liquor License - Councilman Comcowich stated Attorney Wendt Liquor License presented the idea of a restaurant being in existence for a year be- fore applying, plus one license was not renewed in 1971 so that would fit in with the pattern of needs. Councilman Comcowich moved that the Peddler's of America, Inc. having demonstrated the needs of the neighborhood might better be served with a beer,-wine and spirituous liquor license along with the op- eration and having been in business for 1-1/2 years, therefore, move to grant the application. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. City Attorney Kern stated the Council cannot make it a policy that a business has to be in operation for a year but'this can be considered. Roll call vote - Councilmen Whitaker nay; Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Walls aye; Markalunas aye' Griffin nay; Mayor Homeyer aye Motion carried. Michael's Michael's, Inc. - Attorney Art Daly request, Council concurred, to Liquor License table this application until~the first meeting in February. Mayor Homeyer reported the Council would be meeting with the State Liquor people on January 27th at 10:30 a. m. Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment Appointments Results of nominations and paper Appointments ballots were Kay Taylor - 4, Fred Smith -~6, and Bob Cline - ~. Second ballot showed Cline -4 and Ta~lor -3. Walls moved to appoint Bob Cline and Fred Smith for 2 year terms. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Legal Advertising Legal Advertising-Bids City Manager Wurl submitted the bid break- Bids down with the low bidder being Aspen Today. Councilman Walls moved to award the bid for legal advertising to Aspen Today. Seconded by Councilman Markalunas. Bid to run from February 1, 1972 to 1973. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Whitaker aye; Comcowich abstazn, Walls aye; Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Councilman Comcowich stated prior to the roll call he would have to abstain because of financial interest in the paper. Mountain Rescue Mountain Rescue Donation - Manager Wurl stated that the City every Donation year-in the past has donated to the Mountain Rescue. Donation started out at $500, last year donated $1,000. Councilman Griffin moved to donate $1,000 to the Mountain Rescue. Seconded by Councilman Markalunas. Roll call vote - Councilmen Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Comcowich aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Nystrom aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Manager Wurl to submit a list of donations that were standard in the past and those now committed. _266 Regula.{ Me~tin~' .... Aspen ~ity Council janua{y~24, ~972 Street Lights Central Electric - Manager Wurl stated they have asked the City to either pay for the shipping and restocking 9harges of $650.00 or to take the street lights ordered. Councilman Whitaker moved to resolve this by authorizing the payment of $650.00 for freight and restocking charge subject to their showing bills for the shipping costs. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye;. Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Mark- alunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Colorado Mountain Colorado Mountain.College Space - Representative ,presented material to College Space Council on what is planned. Would also like to add the cost of the outside door as this ~pe=tains to ventilation. Would like Council to explore the possibilities of ventilRtion ~system in their office and others in that area of the building. Request that the money that they pay be put back into rent. Councilman Walls-moved to .approve the improvements and Colorado Mount- ain College work out details ~on payment and ?s~bmit to Council. Seconded by Councilman Markalun-as. Roll ca. I1 vote - Councilmen Whitaker.aye; Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Walls aye; Markalunas aye; Griffin aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Ambulance Ambulance - Mr. Willara Clapper was,present.and presenter to Council the proposal of the Ambulance Committee with a budget of $9,000. Stated a large portion of the $9,000 is for fees paid to an extra jailer to be hired by the Sheriff's department so that there would always be someone on duty that would be an attendant to go with the driver. Approached ~he County and they gave tentative approval. The ambulance would be housed at the County shed, billing would be handled by the hospital. Fees would be charged with a minimum of $15.00. County agreed to look at a 50/50 proposition with the City. County has requested a full accounting over the first three months. Councilman Comcowich stated that he basically agreed with a 50/50 deal with the County but when the City pays for a full time jailer for the County, do not f.eel that is equitable. Councilman Whitaker moved that the City participate on a 50/50 cash basis for three months and during that time the proposal be reviewed to see if it is actually 50/50 as fa=~ as the C~ty and County are con- cerned. Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Roll ca~l vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Markalunas aye; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeye= aye. Motion carried. Mountain Valley Mountain Valley Water Agreement - They have requested a change in their Water Agreement original water agreement and t.he City concurs, reported Mr.. Wurl. Since the agreement was drafted a water line called for under Item 1 ~b) has not been installed by them but by anothe= development that has taken place along the highway. In addition, the City's over all water plan has been changed by Mr. Dale Rea to provide for the installation of a 12" transmission line that would intersect with the two lines. Asking for Council approval to prepare the amendment for consideration at the next meeting. Councilman Griffin moved to authorize preparation of the amendment for consideration. Seconded by Councilman Walls. Ail in favor, motion carried. Resolution #24, Series of 1971 - Councilman Walls moved to read Res- olution #24, Series of 1971. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin nay; Markalunas nay; Walls aye; Whitaker nay; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Councilman Whitaker stated Councilman Walls should have abstained from voting. City Attorney Kern stated it is permissible to get it before the Council if there is a financial interest. Resolution #24, Series of 1971 was read in full by the City Clerk. 1267 Regular Meeting ~ Aspen City C0qnc~l .... January, 24, _1972 t~ESOLUT-ION-NO. 24 Series of 1971 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen has accepted a petition for annexa~i~n:-of-a parcet of land described as follows: A pawcel of laud in Sections 2 and ll, Iown.,hl1, lO South, kanL~. 85 West of the 6th Principal Meridian~ Pithin County, Colorado, comprising parts of th~ Ez SU, being parts of Lots 14,15,17,21.22 23 and 27 all in said Section 2, and part of Lot 4 of said Section 11. The above parcel being more fu!ly de,trilled as fg]]ows: Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the' Original Aspen Towasite said point lying S07© 53'16" W 989.20 feet from the Aspen Townsite '"'.Corner No. 6. Said point also known as North Annexation Point No. 1; tf~enee along the present city limits N75~ 09' 11" W 627.10 feet and along the noztherly R.O.W. line of Colo{:ado Highway 82 to the North Annexation corner No. 3; thence 510.46 feet along said nqrth~rly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 1005.00 feet and w~ose chord bears S88© 55' 03" W 504.99 feet; thence S74© 22' W 272.30 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line; thence 1104.60 feet .along said norther- ly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve to the right with a radius of 1096.00 feet and whose chord bears N76© 45'38" W 1058.44 feet;thence N48~ 12'42" W 132.06 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line to a ColoracTo State Highway Monument found 'in place, said monument bears S89~51'20" W 202.44 feet from the ~ corner of Section 11 and 12, Township ].0 South, Range 85 West; then. ce N47~ 51' W 1702.30 feet along said northerly R.O.W. ' line; thence 661.39 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of 2915.00 feet and whose chord bears N54© 21~W 659.97 fa,t; thence N60~ 51' W 924.25 feet along said northerly R.O.W. line to intersect with a fence running northerly; thence N24© 13' E 50.43 feet along said fence; thence N05© 42'07" E 164.07 feet along said fence; thence N00~ 09" E 8Z:.56 feet along said fence; thence N00~ 26~ W 377.68 feet along said fence; thence N00~ 02' E 364.36 feet along said fence to a fence corner. Said fence corner bears N18~ 39' W 314.58 feet from the south quarter corner of Section 2 (as evidenced by a G.L.O. brass cap set in 1954); thence N88~.50' E 92.34 feet along a fence; thel~ce N89~ 49' E ].29.39 feet along said fence to a point; thence N26© 14.' E 1~5.38 feet; thence N10© 33' E 77.29 feet; thence N13© 15' E 112.67 feet, thence N05~ 21' E 267.36 feet to a point of ' ' ' with a fence, said fence running easterly and westerly; thence N06~53'43'' E 812.86 feet to a point of intersedtion with a fence running easterly and westerly on the southerly side of an existing road, said point of intersection bears Nl1~27'52'' E ].705.68 feet from the south quarter corner of said Section 2 (as evidenced by a G.L.O. brass cap set in 1954); thence .S88© 13' W 615.73 feat along said fence line to an angle point; th~-~88~'~%0'30'' W 1172.11 feet along said fence line to a fence corner; thence S00~ 20'40" W 1575.96 feet along a fence to a point on the northerly R.O.W. line of Colorado State Highway 82; thence S35© 25'01" W 100.00 feet to a point on the southerly R.O.W. line of said State Highway 82; thence 631.12 feet along said southerly R.O.W..line around the arc of a curve to the left with a radius of,~5780.00 feet and whose chord bears S57© 42'40" E 630.80 feet; thence S60~ 51' E 1838.25 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line to the beginning of a curve to the right; thence 638.70 feet along said curve with a radius of 2815.00 feet and whose chord bears S54° 21' E 637.33 feet; thence S47© 51'E 1702.30 feet along said south, erly R.O.W. line; thence S47 ].2' 42" E 132.06 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line to the beginning of a curve to' the left; thence 1205.38 feet ~long said southerly R.O.W. line around said curve to the left With a radius of 1196.00 feet and whose chord bears S76© &5'38" E 1155.01 feet3 thence N74© 22' E 272.30 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line; theuce 459.67 feet along said southerly R.O.W. line around the arc of a curve t:o the right with a~radius of 905.00 feet and. whose chord bears N88~ 55'03" E 45Z~.74 feet; thence S75© 09' 11" E 636.90 feet more or less along said southerly R.O.W. line to a point on the westerly line of the Original Aspen Townsite, said westerly linc being between Corners ' !o~.mszte theu..c N07~53'16'' E 100.74 feet a].ong No. 6 and No.7 of sazd '- ; said westerly l~.ne to ~ .... point of beginning. Contains 90.]3 acres more or less 12'68 Regular Meeting Aspen. City Council Ja~ ~g4, 1~ Zoline Annexation which was filed with the City Clerk on October 25th, 1971 and WHEREAS, the City CouNcil of the City of Aspen makes the followin finds of fact regarding s~id annexation; 1. There is at least one-sixth contiguity between the present ~ .City of Aspen and the area .se~kinglannexa~ion~. 2. A community of interests exists, between the territory to be annexed and the City, as evidenced by the following facts: c. It is physically practical to extend normal urban services to the area to be annexed, on the same terms and conditions as such services are available to residents of the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, said petitioners are the owners of one hundred percent (100%) of the land proposed to be annexed and WHEREAS, no election is required under said Act; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determines to impose the additional terms and conditions requested by-the petitioners upon certain parcel~ of the land proposed to be annexed; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City o Aspen hereby accepts the petition for annexat&on and that the followin additional terms and conditions as requested by the petitioners are hereby imposed. On the land described in the petition signed by Joseph T.-Zoline the following conditions is hereby imposed; 1. a) All of the property which is the subject of the petition for annexation shall have been zoned R-30 under Title XI, Chapter 1 of the ordinances of the City of Aspen; and b) A final Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development for all".of said property shall have been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Aspen pursuant to Title XI Chapter l, Section 11 of the ordinances of the C~y of Aspen. 2. Pursuant to an instrument which shall be in form and substanc~ approved by petitioner and the City of Aspen on or before the effect- iveness of said annexation petitioner shall grant to the City of Aspen (1) An irrevocable option to lease that portion of said property which will not be developed under the Final Development Plan but which shall be permanently dedicated as open space under said Plan, herein re- ferred to as the "Dpen Space". Said option shall provide, among other things, that the City of Aspen shall have the right to lease said ~. Open Space for a term of 20 years or for such shorter period as shall remain from the date the option is exercised to the 20th annive~ ary of the date of the option, for a rental of $1 per year, for use as a golf course; and (2) an irrevocable option to purchase sRid Open Space for use as a ~. golf course. Said option shall be exercisable at any time for a pe~dd of 20 years from its date. The option price shall be such as shall be agreed upon by petitioner and the City of Aspen and shall be expressed in said instrument. Said instrument shall contain such other terms, provisions and conditions as petitioner and the City of Aspen shall agree upon. Councilman Comcowich moved to adopt Resolution #24, Series of 1971. Seconded by Councilman Nystrom. Mr. Irv Harland reqmst to know how come this appears on Council agenda again since Mr. Zoline stated he would not be back. Councilman Whit- aker stated he felt this was a reconsideration under the rules of procedure. (The following is a verbatim of the proceedings) "Kern - I would like to go to intent and I have seen occur quite often before where Council has voted against the motion, has re-brought up months later and I don't think it's improper for Council to re-bring up a matter which you have discussed before, where the circumstances have changed. As t recall in that discussion of the voting of that motion, Council did want further time to meet with the County. ~ Comcowich - Can I speak to that, Albie? This is exactly the point I think,Francis, that perhaps you are absolutely correct technically. I am not a parlimentarian, I am sure someone else can make that de- cision, I have always liked to go with t~ spirit of things rather than the letter of things. I think the spirit of that is clearly that ~ we thought We could properly put it on the agenda at that time because it was misinterpretation &f the will of the Council. I think most of us thought at that time that we did not intend for it to come up at that meeting because we asked that it not come up until such time as we met with the County and joint Planning and Zoning Commissions. 1269 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 1972 Zoline Annexat on And, indeed this ~ the first meeting after we accomplished the meeting with the Commissioners and both Planning and Zoning Commissions. In ~'~ that spirit this is the first regular meeting after the conditions that we discussed at that time that it would be possible to discuss it. Margo Dick - As I remember you were also going to set some guidelines, the City said the first development right outside the City would be guidelines for the rest of the valley and did you set those~guidelines. Comcowich ~ We felt the~e would be precedent on thi~ annexation, yes. Dick - This is what I am saying, have you set those guidelines for that precedent? Comcowich - I don't think there is anything~specific about setting a policy of guidelines, rather we should consider this at great length because we felt it would have an affect. It was not my understanding we would come up with rules rather that we give it considerable consideration such that it would not be decided frivously. Whitaker In my opinion we did not resolve any questions we didn't have the time, we dis- cussed a lot. At this time I would like to request this typed statement be included in the record. I will not read it but I would like the privilege to refer to it at the appropriate time to particular specific points: "' Comments on Zoline Annexation - In considering this annexation, the Council should ex- amine carefully all the advantages and disadvantages. Some of the advantages mentioned: The open space provided will complement the existing golf course open space. True, but the cluster development is a great advantage to the developer, too. It cuts road, water line and sewer costs a great deal. Any good developer will use this method. The City will gain control is the land is annexed before it is developed. What little con- trol the City may gain will be nullified by approving the development plan simultaneously with annexation. Also a much higher density will be permitted than is now possible under the existing County zoning. The City will benefit by serving the area with electricity. This is only true when it is accomplished. Land annexed four years ago is still not being served by the City, so there is. no profit on electricity~yet. Some of the disadvantages: The City is spending over 3 million dollars to preserve open spade and prevent high density urdan development on the golf course. To encourage urban development beyond this green belt is questionable. Maroon Creek appears to be a good geographical boundary for the City. One more suggested advantage: This will be a step towards anDexing as far as the Airport Buainess Center, to get the sale tax revenue from the businesses there. There are no studies to show the cost to the City in annexing so far, nor the amount of revenue to be derived. This is not a valid argument for annexation. Further disadvantages: Immediately upon annexation, the water tap fees and the water user fees will be cut in half for the annexed land. This is a conpiderable loss to the City. We have just had to raise water rates, in part due to the decline in revenue from land annexed in the last few years. The City recently annexed one or two lots, the argument in favor being that the owner wanted to take advantage of the cut in rates before building. The City can suffer serious loss of revenue from this policy. The revenue from the annexed territory will be a small part of the cost of providing City services. Figures provided by City Hall show the ayerage cost per acre to provide basic services to be $1.879, This amounts to $150,320 for 80 acres, Tthe proposed annexa The average revenue from the main source of revenue from residential land, from the 1972. budget, is $54 per acre, or $4,320 per year for 80 acres. This is a tremendous loss to the City. In my opinion, we shoul look at this annexation and ask, "Can we afford it", just as we scrutinized each item in the 1972 budget~ The Council's first responsibility is to the taxpayers and residents of the present City limits. We should not accept such a burden now, when we cut most of our needed capital improvements for 1972. If outside land owners want to enjoy the benefits of coming into the City, they should be willing to pay their own way, otherwise the burden falls on the present residents and taxpayers. One important unanswered question is this: At what point in annexation will further cap- ital outlay be required, another snow plow or street sweeper, another truck or police car, as well as manpower to operate them? Who will pay for this need, all of us? I think it should be those who require the additional expense. 127'0 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council ~ January 24.~ 1972 The City should be extremely careful before it gives away so much in return for so little. Zoline Annexation This is the first time, in annexing land', that a zoning change is requested. With only one or two very monor exceptions, the zoning has always been the same as that existing in the County. This would open the door for a way of paying the City against the County to aeeewhere the best deal could be obtained. The County has so far refused to grant a zoning change. Should the City let the bars down? /s/.Francis Whitaker"' Dick - Another thing you were all going to consider was the County. If you did not accept this annexation how the County would react to it. Mayor Homeyer - We did that. Comcowich - If we ever get a ruling on whether this is a proper discussion. Kern - To that point, it is my impression that the intent of the resolution was for the purpose of re-bringing it WP. I think it is proper at this time. This again is only the reading of the resolution. The purpose, of course, of the rules of procedure is to stop a subject from continually being brought up. I think the Council intended to bring this up at a later date after meeting with the Planning and Zoning and or County Commissioners, with that intent. Whitaker - That certainly was not my intent in voting against the resolution. Kern ~ Against the reading of the resolution? Whitaker - Yes Comcowich - This has sure been a tough one and believe me if there were anyway. I felt we could keep this land from developing, I would be for that proposal. But I think that that is not a realistic possibility. I don't think we're going to keep that land out of de- velopment and keep at A & F. Conse'q~ently I am kind of addressing myself to what the alternatives are and try, if I may, come up with, in my judgement, the best alternative. I wanted to keep this from coming up before this body until we had met with the County Commissioners and Planning and Zoning. I think that I recognize the distinct feeling from the Commissioners in that meeting that the best that they would do, the best that they would propose for that land would be a PUD similar to the one reqmsted from the City. As a matter of fact, Sardy even dissented from that, he wasn't sure at all that he wanted the land PUD, he thought it maybe better as an R-30 development. In looking at this whole thing you kind of keep your juRgements' aimed, at not an arbitrary line between the City and County but what five years down the' line that square of land is going to look like. And I got the intention that specifically the question is what kind of development is that going to be, There is no doubt in the world that we can stop that development for awhile, we can vote no here and as you probably are aware Zoline has now requested that land be rezoned in the County. I would assume the request is to go from the A & F to an R-30 development so.I don~t think it is realistic to say we're gonna not have any de- velopment. Now we can vote against this and say we are going to wash ou= hands of what happens there, it is not in the City,.we're not going to have any part Of the development but then what really happens is it go~s to the County and I have the assurances from Dr. Barnard and others that they would hang pretty tough in there and probably not grant the R-30 if it were requested. Well, that is-neat, but then wha't happens when Zoline, I assume he wants, put yourself in his shoes, he wants to develop what then is he going to do. Probably going to go to court and if I felt we had a way of winning this in court then I would say stop it here and go Co the County Planning and Zoning oppose it, all these things happen but if I really felt down deep that there was a real good opportunity for him to win in court or wherever it goes or if the County Commissioners would grant that change in zoning, then what the hell have we gained. Turning down a PUD and instead ending up with an R-30 development. Now I would like you to consider what the possibilties are. If we do this as a PUD he gets approximately 180 units of~development and open space and speaking again, Margo, to your point, we did insist on an agreement there that its water in perpuity under a homeowners associatidn which would keep t'he area green similar to the kind of thing they have in Starwood. Now, that it goes to the City and the. City has to maintain the green area but rather there is a homeowners association that has teeth to keep that area green. So that is one possibility. If it goes to an R-30 de- velopment, I want you to understand what it is going to be. And I guess and I am only guessing if Zoline develops it at R-30 it will be developed at the maximum which will be 220 duplex units. Markalunas - Not duplex in the County. Comcowich - Excuse me 220 living units in a duplex style. But a density of 220 living units, with no open space. You may say that is okay, if you do that is fine but under- stand that that is a possiblity and I am not sure it will happen that Way but I certainly think it is a distinct possibility that it will, and if it does by 5 years down the road ~in~t-ea-d o-~h~avi~g-a-~.UD with less units and open space mmintained rather we have the 1271 ~~. Aspe_P_C!~Y CgunpiZ ........... Sanp~rY 24,,_1~Z~ .... whole thing subdivided, I ask is that what you wan~? That is one determination. I don't think that nmny of us want that, I don't. What are the other possibilities? It goes to the County, they can turn it down and I think, I hope, ~'am~glad;~Herbi~here, but I hope indeed this telephone conversation over here bugs me, (Grassroots on telephone) in discussing this with the County Planning and Zoning, Herb and others, what they say this can be turned down for is the timing. You can say that the timing isn't right to go from A & F to R-30 development. But if that is one of the few things we can turn it down on, what's going to happen five years hemee, its going to end up developed. And that is a thing that I am trying to balance off here in my mind and I would like to hear people speak to these points. Way down deep I think Zoline is going to go and ask if it is turned down not a PUD because he is a developer and he is intent upon developing the land, he will go the County and ask for R-30 and I ask you, can the County really~turm him down on R-30 when the Master Plan calls for it when he has been turned down a few times on different proposals what will happen then in court. Will he be turned down and will we keep this at less than an R-30-or because this hang-up will we get an R-30 development. If we had the answers to ail these things it would be very simple but I am trying to figure out what's going to happen, I would really rather see it a PUD with less density and nm in- tmined open space in at the City's expense than I would to see it totally developed at R-30 with a density of 220 units which.is a distinct possibility and I think Homeyer 220 units. Dunaway - Where does the 220 nome from? Seventy-six acres with 30,000 square feet per living unit. Barrel - In the County d~plexes are permitted by special review that means that the de- veloper does not have the right to do it automatically but he may on County approval. Comcowich - What's this automatic thing? I am amazed that this didn't come up sooner than this. What can he get without any appeal with R-307 Barrel - Single family residences with a density of 1.45 units per-acre. That is 106 units. Comcowich - Under what conditions then could he get duplexes? Barrel - Under PUD. Markalunas - Under PUD, the County does have a PUD provision in an R-30 zone. Barrel.- That is correct. It'is an option,-'it is not automatic. Comcowich - W~i~, then let me put you right on the spot. What do you think then, if you guys call hang tough and not grant him anything like that, if he got R-30 because that changes the total~complexion of it then in my mind. Markalunas If he had an R-30 PUD in the County, he would get it through special review and what would be the mmximum number of units he could have on this 76 acres? Barrel - Well, it would be a duplex on every 30,000 square feet which would-be exactly what we talked about, 220. Homeyer - That would be 220 living units not 220 duplexes. Comcowich - There is that possibility. We got this far without that coming up. Whitaker - Could I comment? This does change the picture f~r all.of us, I think. But one of the points % would like to mmke is that any good developer where he can with a large tract-of land'will use the cluster development with the open space because it is cheaper for him. It cuts his road costs as much as a third. It cuts his water costs, it cuts the sewer line costs. So whenever anyone has the opportunity they will do it that way. I think one of the reasons I am opposed to this annexation is financial. I have some, for instance if you annex before it's developed as soon as that land is annexed the water user fee is cut in half, The water tap fees~are cut in half. Now in this agreement on the Mountain Valley it says, "In order to defray capital costs of necessary construction persons wish- ing to use the water Service will be assessed according to the following tap fees". Okay, if we annex it and cut the tap fee in half waht happens to the City's revenue. We have just had to raise the City water rates and I believe in part its because we have annexed another 400 acres and if all those 400 acres the water user fees and tap fees have been cut in half. I have to look at this from a'business point Of view because when you say that something is good for the City you've got to consider every aspect whether its good for the City or not. I have some figures from the City Manager which say that from the 1971 ~budget the average cost'of rendering services that is general fund, police, engineer- ing,Finance and City Manager the average cost per acre is $1,879 for 80 acres that amounts ~s~$l.SD,000. Now, these are averages, you can't say it will cost that much, this is an 1272 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 1972 average over the 800 acres of the City. Also from the budget-I find that per acre average Zoline the mill levy which is our main source of revenue and practically our only source of Annexation revenue on residential property is $54.00 an acre. Now, even if we get the average rev-' enue, 80 acres of Zoline we will get $4320.00 a year back in mill levy, ~Now, I am sure if you subtract $4320 from $150,000 preety easily and I just don't think we can ~afford that type of annexation, Other cities have annexation fee which, go for capital outlay that would be one meth0d but I just can't see why we shoul~ give away half of our-tap fees, half of our water gates and take on the burden of furnishing services to this 80 acres for the little bit of money we get back, This is my main point. I think that the land is going to be developed but I don't think the County is going.to give Mr. Zoline any great free hand. I don't think he can develop it as much under County as some of us may have thought. Griffin - I just want to make a few co~mments regarding this. During our luncheon meeting with the County Commissioners, Dr. Baxter made two remarks. One is that the County saves money every time we annex some land and as a City Councilman, I don't think we should be trying to save money for the County. Second thingis, Dr, Baxter also stated quite frankly the reason Zoline was coming to the City is because the City was easier. It's just that simple and the developer will go where it's the easiest. The other comment that I was going to make is Dr. Barnard has been against development in this area and I don't really think it's particularly the time for the City to get involved with an~annexation.policy all the way to the airport for what I would consider dubious benefits of a 1% sales tax. Also, I recall, do think it is time that since we have not been able to do anything.with our capital improvements budget over the last couple of years, I think it is time we stopped annexing any further land to the City and re-group and start doing capital im- provements such as underground electric lines, finish UP certain street improvement things and concentrate on doing the long term capital improvements we have been putting off and I don't see the gain by incurring more expenses with less revenue. Comcowich - Ail those dollars, Francis, are certainly a consideration and you know believe that but that is not the only onel The thing that I would like you to focus attention on is if Zoline goes to the County and gets an R-30 which I am confident he will get and if then the County Planning and Zoning and Commissioners hang tight and don't give him any breaks for the duplexes that figure was 108 units, so the question then becomes is would you rather see that parcel of 80 acres developed in residential form 110 units total development of the area or would you rather see it developed with a densit of 180 units with a PUD with open space. I guess that is the question and I woUld love to hear some comments on that. I think you will agree those are the alternatives we~are looking at. Barnard - I think Dr. Comcowich is being presumptious in putting words into the mouths 'S of the County Planning and Zoning members. I rea~!!y don't think that ~ ~ fair,~Bill. I personally would hang in as tough as anybody would and I don't think it is unfair to say that Zoline will go the County and~get R-30. Comcowich - Let me visit with you a second about that because t am trying not to be unfair about it. I am trying to say what is Zoline going to do when you turn him down. Barnard - I don't know and I don't care, Bill. Comcowich - But I do care beeause if he can whip you Barnard - I don't think we have to predict what happens here tonight on whether the Planning and Zoning will or will not do because I don't know but I will hang in there tight. Comcowich - I appreciate that, and this has changed the complexion. I believe you will of all people hang in there. And if you won't grant him the duplex thing we are looking at totally different figures. We're looking at, I was using figures Of 210 versus 180 you know with the open space thing. I just want you to consider what down the line, what the possibilities are and I think you will.agree most of you that that is a distinct poss-' ibilit~fi~e'i~years/down~.theline~nd~t~at.~is~goingc~oi~be~developed at R-30. Master Plan calls for it, how the hell do you~turn them down and get away with it. Dean Billings - I would like to ques~ on Bill's statement. He's mentioned that if we give in so to speak to these tMerms and let him do this we will keep him from doing something that's slightly worse that he could ~queeze out of.the County. You!re saying that five years hence.down the line we're looking at things happening anyway because if we don't give in and the County does and he takes it tO court and he wins what you are saying is that we don't have a leg to stand on because the courts will allow it and I say if it's not Zoline in five years, we still have McBrides, there is going to be the same damn thing come up. You had better face it now rather than put it off.~ Comcowich - I understand that and that is exactly what I am trying to do, trying to face what the realities ~eally are. Billings - If we don't have a leg to stand on, let's admit it and tell him to go ahead. 1273 Zoline Comcowich - Those are the alternatives I am trying to look at. When we say you don't want Annexation it developed, the Master Plan as you well know calls for an~R-30 development, I am told that the only reason you can turn him down is you can say you can't do it now. But that is not saying you can't do it. Markalunas - I went back over my files today and I read the letter the Building Inspector to the Council in November and it's my understanding now that under the County zoning R-30 can't have a PUD provision but there is a statement in here that s~'ys it includes a possible bonus of 1/3 density if PUD procedure is followed. Now does this increase the number of units that could be put on that land and if so does cluster development enter into thi~ so open space is maintained. Bartel- The statement specifically says that this is a 33% increase over the normal density. Now my interpretation would be subj~ect to approval of County legal counsel, the normal density would be the straight R-30 or 1.45 units per acre. Markalunas But it could be increased if PUD were applied by 33%. Barrel - That is correct. Walls - Herb, where do you apply that 33%? In other words on an R-30, let's take in round numbers 80 acres resulting in 116 units. On an R-30 PUD that would be 2 units then act- ually double that for an individual living units would be 232. On a duplex situation. Now, where do you add the 33% before or after. If you add the 33% to that, that gives you another 77 which gives you 309'; Griffin - Didn't Herb say you add that to the initial figure of 1.45 units per acre which would be 33% of that. Barrel I would have to take the most restrictive interpretation. The duplexes being optional don't mean that the 33% bonus would apply automatically. You would go to the straight R-30 which is one unit per 30,000 square feet which would be 1.45. Whitaker - Herb, to clari~y this if you were allowed on your straight R-30 116 units and you get a 1/3 bonus for PUD in a cluster development that would bring it to 155 units which is considerable less than we are asked to grant Mr. Zoline. Is that correct? Bartel - That is correct. Benton - I would just like to know where Zoline's PUD would go, is it along the highway or right on the highway? (Development plan submitted) Dunaway - Shouldn't we clarify the number of acres? Graves Resolution stated, "containing 90.13 acres more or less.' Markalunas I think by Mr. Zoline's statement it is 76 plus acres in the contract. Whitaker - Wouldn't it make it more attractive for one to go PUD where the roads are a much smaller percentage of the property? Barrel - Certainly there are definite advantages for both the landowner and public agency. Whitaker - There are just two more points, questions I have not been able to get an ans- wer from on costs to the City. And, that is if we are going on with this aggressive annexation at any cost, when will be have to get another snow plow or'another street de- partment truck or another police car and personnel to mmn them. And who is going to pay for that. Are the people who make the additional capital outlay going to get a free ride or is there going to be someway whereby they can contribute to the cost of this capital outlay? And the other concerns me very much. I have been on the Planning and Zoning Commission'for a good many years here and this is the first time I recall with possible very small single lot exceptions and-I think there are only one or-tow of those, it:is the first time when somebody requested an annexation they requested a change in zoning. Up to this time the North Annexation, the South Annexation, all the major annexations and almost all the small ones have all gone right along with the existing County zoning and I don't think the City should be the one to open the door and from all the figures I have seen give somebody a free ride and give him more than he can get in the County. Comcowich - I want to fix these figures properly now. If it is our PUD is it right that Zoline would get about 180 dwelling*units, is that correct? Markalunas As applied, that is what we are considering. Comcowich - If under the County Planning and Zoning to be pessimistic the worst that could ~h-gpqyen gs R-30, is that 116 single dwelling units, but that means development of the whole thing. 7 12 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Jan~ry 24, 1972 - That is right. Comcowich - Or if you get PUD under the County, its 156 dwelling units, are those accurate figures? Barrel - Yes, based on 80 acres. I haven't worked out the arithmetic exactly. Comcowich - So the worst thing that could happen would be if we didn't take it, its devel- oped totally at 116 single family dwelling units. How does that grab everybody? The best thing that would happen in the County would be 156, it would be better from our density point of view to see that but that is not guaranteed. I am saying that is the best we can do,the worst we can do from density point of view is 116 units and the whol thing develop= ed. Harland I don't think that is true because you are predicting this on the fact that the County gives him R-30. Homeyer The master plan says Ro30. Harland It seems to me you can turn down an annexation on ~her things besides timing. Comcowich - That is why I am calling it the most pessimistic that is if everything goes wrong. Herb, can you address yourself to that. Harland Need, I believe. Comcowich Its awful hard to say there isn't a need. You get an attorney and count the cars coming up the highway from the trailer court, it would be awful tough to say we don't have a need. Bartel - One could argue very effectively that the plan itself is to consider the need is to consider the uses the most compatabile for the land itself. Where we have situations where the plan recommends a particular use and the lAndowner.makes an application for that use, that is pretty well eliminates alot of reasons for denial of the zoning. Timing then being one of the very, v~ry stroqg considerations ~or denial and that again is only temp- orary. Comcowich - Albie, since I am tr~ing to guess the legal aspects 6f this would you comment on what you think Zoline~s chances are. When the Master Plan calls for R-30, he has an application in now to zone it R-30, he has been turned down on a couple of other things, where would the County stand legally to turn him down? Kern - Well, I hate to make a definite comment on that. I don't want to take the place of the County Attorney. I think there are alot of its here, I don't know what has transpired or what was presented to the County Planning and Zoning when he applied for his rezoning. I agree with Herb that the Master Plan does indicate what was intended at least at the time the Plan was adopted to be the zoning for 'that area, but the Plan can be amended. Comcowich - Not after he has the application in. Kern - It can be amended as far as the recommended R-30 or zoning and this is another big if. If you can show that that area hasn't developed or won't, development in accordance with what was thought it would develop at the time the Master Plan was adopted. Its a question of timing again, it may not be granted. Now it may not be proper now to make it an R-30 zone. It might very well be in the future. Herb put in a nut shell with regard to this question of timing, If he has requested the R-30 there is indication some need and use as an R-30 zone. I think the County stands a good chan~e if he takes it to court of withstanding. Markalunas - If Zoline is allowed 116 units under R-30 tract housing and he could get 155 units under PUD cluster arrangement at $3q,000 or $40,000 a piece, don't you think he would take the other 30 some units that he would get under a PUD arrangement plus the fact that he would save money on roads, utilities~ etc. comcowich - I think it would depend on what he could get under R-30 per acre~ I don't know I am sure he has a pretty good idea. Walis I would like to say something. I have kept out of this conversation for a long tim~ because I have a conflict of interest here or had one in regard to being the planning consultant for Mr. Zoline. The two p~eces of paper other than the one that is colored right there, we have often talked about AF-1 and R-30. To gi~e you some sort of example, I had our office work this up so you would know what an AF-1 and R-30 subdivision would look like at the worst conditions. I didn't go into an R-30 PUD on this thing because ~omewhere along the line in interpretation of that ordinance we seem to have a little problem here.of trying to tie down the number of units. Anyway, granted in the situation th~T--~"~fi~ ourselves in to.day, the acerage haschanged basically in regard to the total amount of land obviously some of the units would be dropped down in regard. We have a 1275 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council _ J~n~ary__24,_!972 Zoline basic 80 some odd acres that we were figuring with originally when we went through the Annexation Planning and Zoning Commission. So that would change slightly in regard to this since ~'~ we have been jockeying around with this thing for so long. To answer some of Francis.' questions here, ot seems to me that the_basic 'premise of which we worked to get a PUD in the first place was really to try, we tried in the past in regard to strict zoning, and of course we were not getting anything of what we wanted in regard to development of the land. For the first time with enactment of the PUD it was an opportunity for the City or the County to work with the developer so that we could get something that was more viable more attractive for the area. 'Just because of the fact .that we have a so called natural boundary up Maroon Creek and that has been bandied around a bit but it seems rather academic from the standpoint of the fact that 'if development goes on outside this bound= ary which exists as a City boundary right now the. green space that we purchased for the City becomes for nought. Francis keeps maintaining this would be a buffer zone. There would be no such thing as a buffer zone~unless you denied development completely. It ends up with in many cases, you can't say to a person outside that you cannot absolutely develop the land unless we take the approach that Bill tried to take and is trying to tak, in regard to surface water rights and the right to develop land. To me as far as annex- ation and zoning going hand in hard, this is to me the most ideal mituation rather than being annexed and having to rezone it again. In regard to the water taps there is no development ther now, 1/~2 of nothing is nothing as far as I am concerned, so this doesn't make any sense. I am firmly convinced in my own mind, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten involved in this that the development as it stands or as its proposed is the best thing that we can possibly come by as far as the City, questioning a few units plus or minus with this damn thing.. We get open space that is contiguous in regard to the open space that we have already. We get a better deve~.opment than what we normally do and it all seems to boil down to one thing and this is where the fly is in the ointment because we end up with a change of Council and a change of policy in regard to annexation. The previous Council had a very aggressive annexation policy which we are pursuing. Mr. Zoline was asked to come into the City and annex to the City, not Mr. Zoline asking to annex. He was asked to come in in which this one step along in regard to an aggressive annexation policy and~now we get half way through-.in regard to Zoline~and-we have. a new Council in which that policy seems to_be up in~.the air for grabs~~ I am a little bit appatlaed at time because of the fact that we can't seem to take a straight line in regard to certain policies. So this t believe is the main crux or, the problem~ %t seems we can't get out~ of talking about the development itself, we can't separate annexation and development ~ they are synonymous. Barnard - I am faced to challenge Councilman. Walls for his conduct in this 'matter~'He has taken money from Zoline for his planning ~ut. there and he is trying to convince you that this annexation should go~through~ I take extremely dim view of~this, I..think-you, Madam Mayor, as Mayor should remove him from his position on. Council at this~time. He can't continue to do this. Walls - Madam Mayor, I have read the Charter. Dr, Barnard, in regard to conflict of interest, I have stated'my conflict of interest and that does not keep me from having my say in regard to it. Nowthe conflict of interest, if you want to read the Charter; I am sure that the City Clerk has a copy, but I have read this and I knowexactly where I stand. Now in order to cut this sort of situation off, I know exactly how things stack at the moment here or I knew awhile back, I would like to read a copy of a letter which was written to Mr. Zoline last week, as a matter of fact, January 21st. "Dear Mr. Zoline: I am sure that you are aware that the Resolution~and Ordinance hovering your proposed annexation of eighty '{80) acres west of Maroon Creek will again be discussed at the City Council meeting of January 24, 19'72. It appears that the main controversy centers around a change in Council policy regarding annexation, and its lack of ability to agree on a new policy. It distresses me no end that some of the members of the Council still cannot'see the benefit of annexing your property into the City, together with the endless delays to which you have been subjecte¢ With~the involvment of our firm in doing~the land planning for-this property, under, the newly established City PUD, I find a serious conflict of interest exists,,which I believe has not helped the-project. In past Council discussions I have eliminated myself so as not tocreate problems, but I feel that this has not been good enough. Therefore, I would like to withdraw our firm, and terminate our working agreement from the project so that I might eliminate this conflict of interest. I still feel-that this project~ together-with the'annexation into the City~ is of great benefit to the City and I will support same to my utmost ability. /s/ Jack M. Walls" Griffin I have a comment in that I do not recollect anywhere on record in previous Ce~cil meetings that could be used as an official invite to Mr. Zoline to come into the City. There is another question to which I have been thinking about. I do not appreciate 1276 Regular Meetin~ Aspen City Council . _ January 24, 19'72 Mr. Walls involvment by buying lunches essentially for Councilmen to talk about the Z~linE involvement when he is also head of the firm who is doing, the planning and City Council-' man. I can see this is a conflict of interest and I even consider as a case where he was ~ prostituting the public. I don't appreciate that. I feel essentially even this letter is of no great consequence whatsoever. And I do not think Mr. Walls should be allowed to vote on thi.s question in any shape or form. Y . Kern - Virtually, I think, I would like to read Counczl and the public the Charter con- cerning this question. "No member of the Council shall vote. on any question in which he has a substantial personal or financial interest, other than the common public interest, or on any question concerning his own conduct, and in said instances the member shall disclose this interest to the Council". My recollection is Jack had at previous Council meetings when this question was brought up expressed and stated to the Council that he had a conflict .of interest. That he also was not. going to vote on thls matter.. There is nothing in the Charter that says a person who has a conflict of interest after stating his conflict cannot discuss the question before the Council. I do feel Jack, that it would be improper for you to vote even though you have severed your ties with Zoline. There is enough of the background to show that you have a personal interest in this other than the common interest ref.erred to in the Charter. It would be unwise for you to vote on this ordinance or resolution.. Walls - Okay, Albie, I respect your opinion. Whitaker - I want to make just one more point. If I were going to develop those 80 acres I would want them annexed before I developed because of the cost of providing water would be cut in half and that is 50% of a lot of money. Homeyer - As Mayor and we were going to annex, I would want to annex it before it was developed so it would meet.city standards. Whitaker - So we can sum it up under R-30 if he gets it, he can get 116 units. Under R-30 PUD he can have 155 and we are proposing to give him 180. Comcowich - Eve, I can sure sympathize with the way you must have felt at the last meetin when you made your mind up and then some different facts came out. In this meeting to- night I didn't think anything new would come out and indeed some new. things came out. .~ This figure that I was talking about, no one corrected me of 210 duplex units that I just assumed he would get if he went R-30 are in error. That even if he gets R-30 the most he could get iS 116 which is substanially less then 210. What is am saying is that according to Ramona's point that what may just happen there and if I were Zoline and I could go 116 single units apply for County PUD is 156, I would probably go 156 to 180. We're all concerned about density and I think the alternatives are then our PUD at 180, _r~ .-~ ~ County PUD at 156 which would be better from density point of view for the valley or the old stickler and everybody better be prepared for it 116 single family units what there and I kind of feel that in light of that I will gamble that he will go PUD in the County which we save a density between 180 and 156 units. If it were the.other way around if we were talking about 210 units and 180, I would then take 180. Barnard - Aren't you going to say a few words about Councilman Walls? Whitaker I call the question. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich nay; Griffin nay; Markalunas nay; Walls abstain; Whitaker nay; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion not carried. Walls - May I make one commmt in regard to Dr. Barnard. In no way was there any malice in regard to the City or the people of the CiTy in regf~d to my involvment in this projeci . I thought it was a good deal, I still think its a good deal in regard to the City. Now there is no way that I had that much of a conflict of intemest that I would have thought myself before I would have thought of the City. Molny - I would like to make a statement. Lorraine, would you do this verbatim? It seems to me that through the whole Zoline process, Mr. Walls has been guilty of misconduct of office. My purpose in making this statement is to discredit him. When we first con- sidered the petition of Mr. Zoline, I cautioned him about being discreet because of the possibility of a conflict of interest. On October 15th I wrote this letter: "Dear Jack: It has come to my attention that upon at least one occasion, you have participated in ~ discussion relating to the Zoline Annexation petition with officials of the City of Aspen. Since your firm is doing Mr. Zoline's planning for the land in question, such participati~ - 1277 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 24, 1972 Zoline is a clear cut manifestation af conflict of interest on your part and I urge that you not Annexation repeat it untll after the matter has been disposed of by the other members Of the City Council." /s/ Robin Molny Chairman, Aspen P & Z CommisSion Mr. Walls did not reply to that letter, neither with ale tter, calling me or conversing with me. Homeyer Robin, This really isn't appropriate at this time. Whi~aker - I suggest that if you want a statement made a part of the record I believe that would be agreeable with the Council since the hour is late. I think the question has been resolved. Molny I don't think the question has been resolved. I think that the~e is a serious question of conduct that bears on the future. Comcowich - That is for executive session. Resolution #2 Resolution #2, Series of 1972 - Councilman Walls moved to read Resolution #2, Series of Refunding Wate~ 1972. (See Bond proceedings for resolution) Resolution #2 was read in full by the City Bonds Clerk. Councilman Walls moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 1972. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #1 Ordinance #1, Series of 1972 - Councilman Walls moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 1972. Refunding Water Seconded by Councilman Griffin. Ail in favor, motion carried. Bonds ORDINANCE # 1, SERIES OF 1972, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, OF ITS NEGOTIABLE COUPON BONDS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF Sl,540,000, TO, BE DESIGNATED "GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING WATER BONDS", FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING OUTSTANDING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF CITY; PRESCRIBING THE RRM OF SAID REFUNDING BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF AN ANNUAL TAX TO PAY SAID BONDS AND INTEREST; MAKING CERTAIN OTHER COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE REFUNDING OF INDEBTEDNESS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was read by title only by the City Clerk. Councilman Whitaker moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 1972. Seconded by ~Councilman Markalunas. Roll call vote - Councilmen Nystrom aye; Comcowich aye; Griffin aye; Mark- alunas a~e; Walls aye; Whitaker aye; Mayor Homeyer aye. Motion carried. Olympics Olympics - Mr. ~om Benton was present and requested to know what the Mayor has done about the Resolution #1 recently passed by Council. Mayor reported the resolution has gone to the DOC, lOC, Governor ~nd Congressmen. Also had written a letter about a transportation system. Councilman Comcowich moved to go into executive session on a personnel matter. Seconded by Councilman Whitaker. Ail in favor, motion carried. Councilman Whi~aker moved to reconvene into regular session, seconded by Councilman Com- cowich. Ail in favor, meeting resumed. Utility Finance Director Veeder request permission from Council to not impose a penalty on utility Penalties bills, but to at this time concentrate on 60, 90, and 120 day old accounts. Council stated their concern that the bills are coming out so late in the month. Mr. Veeder reported the penalties amount to about $2500 a month. Feel the work involved is mome than the worth. Council agreed on a trial period of no penalities and tightening up on disconnects ~ith discretion. Councilman Whitaker moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m., seconded by Councilman griffin. All in favor, meeting adjourned. Lorraine Graves, Czty clerk