Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

AGENDA by liuhongmei

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 30

									                                                 MINUTES
                                        CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS
                                      REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
                                                JUNE 6, 2002


PRESENT AT ROLL CALL:                        Mayor Don Vanderhoof

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:                     Dan Richardson, David Merritt, Jean Martensen, Larry Emery, Don
                                             Gillespie and Rick Davis.

ALSO PRESENT:                                Mike Copp, City Manager; Teresa Williams, City Attorney; Robin
                                             Clemons, City Clerk; Mike Piper, Fire Chief; Dan Rodgerson, Director
                                             Parks and Recreation; Mike Harmon, Director of Finance; Terry
                                             Wilson, Police Chief; Bruce Munroe, Information Systems Director;
                                             Larry Thompson, City Engineer; Steve Vanderleest, Assistant City
                                             Engineer; Sandi Vallario, Purchasing Agent; Karl Hanlon, Assistant
                                             City Attorney; Mike Pelletier, Planner; Russell Grance, Building
                                             Official; and Patti Haefeli, Planner.

ITEM NO.2.        Citizens Appearing Before Council

Joan Baldwin, 2626 Woodberry Drive, Glenwood Springs, said she was a member of the Housing for Tomorrow
Commission, which is the affordable housing component citizens can join to help with the goals of affordable
housing. She was present to encourage people to sign up to serve on the Housing for Tomorrow Commission. She
would like to see members who are interested in housing, the financial communities, building and development of
community, real estate, and any other organizations that support low-income residents of the community. She is very
proud of the work that the commission has done in the past. The Commission has endorsed two ordinances, one was
for affordable housing for new development, and the other was for an additional dwelling unit that the citizens of the
City have enjoyed. They are looking forward to making strides with affordable housing money. She would like to
have people join her with these efforts.

Dave Mooney, 25 Vista Drive, wished to talk about a problem with the developers of the adjacent property. He
understands that Patrick Murphy, Building Inspector, was terminated while defending his property, in his opinion.
Rocky Mountain Infrastructure is working on the development below the golf course, and has flooded his property
by breaking water lines on three separate occasions. This time it was 164 feet long, and 54 feet onto his property.
Before this, a boulder rolled down the hill and took out the bench located on his property. His wife would have had
major injuries if she was in the area of the boulder. He said he is upset about the building inspector being fired, who
came to protect his rights. He was upset with the contractor because they were being very dangerous. He is also very
angry hearing about Rocky Mountain Infrastructure possibly suing the City over Mr. Murphy’s behavior. If that
happens, he will consider suing the City for not protecting him. The contractor has walked over him numerous
times. After the building inspector shut down the project, the next day they pulled up a big pine tree that was located
in the easement. They did not ask him if they needed to take the tree down. He feels they have a vendetta against
him because he sued them for $1000. They could have moved the pipe over 3 feet very easily and connected to the
city water system. In the past year, they have controlled the dust only twice. He said most of them are walking all
over him.

Don Kaufman, 725 Bennett, Glenwood Springs, said City Council is going to be considering the Tramway project.
He said, as a voter and as a citizen, he would strongly encourage City Council to carefully consider the tram and
vote in favor of approving the project.

Councilor Richardson asked how they should address Mr. Mooney’s concerns and comments.

Ms. Williams said that the personnel issues are going to be dealt with by Human Resources and the employee.
Concerning the actual contractor, she said that Russell Grance, Building Official could address these issues.
                                                           1
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Russell Grance stated that the job was for relocating underground utilities for the City Electric Department. He
would defer any questions specifically related to this to Robin Millyard.

Councilor Richardson asked Mr. Mooney if he has spoken to staff about the contractor.

Mr. Mooney said he did speak to someone this evening and he was under the impression that before the contractor
could resume work there would need to be actions taken to protect his property. He understands they have not yet
fixed the golf course water line that they broke. After this, the contractor continued to backfill and did not put the silt
fence back up on the adjacent property, which was destroyed during the original flood. He was not aware that
Patrick Murphy was fired until he returned home. This made him mad because he was trying to protect him.

Councilor Richardson said they could not address the personnel issues.

Mr. Moone,y asked, if the contractor is going to continue to work in this area, that City Council make them take
some precautions and not wipe his land out for the third time.

Councilor Davis said he has worked with Russell, and he knows he looks out for the community to be sure things
are done correctly.

ITEM NO. 3.       Consent Agenda:

         A.       Receipt Of Minutes Of The Regular City Council Meeting Of May 16, 2002.

         B.       Consideration of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2002; An Ordinance Of The City Of Glenwood
                  Springs, Colorado, Authorizing And Directing Service Power Participation By The City In The
                  Electrical Resources Pooling Agreement, Supplemental Agreement For Firm Power Interchange
                  Pursuant To Service Schedule “J” With The Municipal Energy Agency Of Nebraska (MEAN);
                  And Providing An Effective Date. (SECOND READING)

         C.       Payment Of Bills.

         Councilor Gillespie moved, seconded by Councilor Martensen, to approve the consent agenda.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 4.       Council Reports On Board, Committee And Commission Meetings.

Councilor Davis said he met the RTA sub-committee, and there were several items presented. One item they
discussed was the sidecar involvement that the Rail Museum representatives presented. Another item that was
discussed was the potential for a dinner car from Glenwood to Carbondale that included a ten-mile, 2-½ hour trip.
This private venture is still in the preliminary stages. They would also be responsible for any rail improvements that
would be needed. He also discussed the issues of weed control. When chemicals are sprayed for weed control, there
has been resistance from the residents that live in the area. They voiced their concerns with not wanting the
chemicals sprayed. There is currently not a mechanical way to mitigate this, but it is being worked on. Along 13th
Street, there was a concern of railroad ties stacked between the rail and some private property. This sidecar rail was
disturbed when the fiber optics was installed. These railroad ties will be removed.

Councilor Gillespie said the Liquor Board held a special meeting on May 20, 2002 for the benefit of an applicant
that was unable to make the regular meeting. He attended the Parking Committee meeting on May 22 and toured the
landfill on May 23. On June 4, he attended a transportation meeting where he received an update on the TDM work
that is in progress, as well as an update on Ride Glenwood. They have come up with a schedule that will meet the
30-minute route. This will begin sometime after Strawberry Days. They have done a good job on working this
schedule out. He said he received the results from the parking study meeting held on May 22. During the next
meeting, they are hoping to develop a master plan when they talk about the relocation of Highway 82.The
                                                            2
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
transportation Commission would like to meet with the County Commissioners on July 9, 2002 to present some of
their needs. On June 5 he attended a River Commission meeting and they received a report from the committee that
is studying the kayak parks. They seem to be coming up with some good ideas.

Councilor Emery said he attended the special workshop on May 30, regarding the redesign of 8 th Street, the fire
station relocation, trails, budget, sales tax, ad-hoc airport committee, and the DDA. He said the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals would welcome any new members. They are at a minimum number for a quorum. He thanked the City
for the great job on the trail in Oasis Creek. The work done is great and is a vast improvement over what was there.

Councilor Richardson said he attended the parking meeting and received feedback from the community on the
parking management plan. He also attended a meeting in Estees Park that included Garfield County. They are now
calling the committee The Watershed Initiative. They are looking for outside funding to fund a cost of services
study. The meeting was to increase the group size. This is a way for the City to get a lot of work for not a lot of
money. He attended the TDM meeting held today, and he feels they are moving forward. He was informed that they
were ahead of schedule from the original TDM plan. He feels a priority is to come up with a TDM strategy for
addressing parking with development permits. This is so that there is something in writing for trading parking spaces
to utilize alternative transportation. The computer-recycling event turned out to be a huge success. He thanked
everyone involved that helped with the efforts.

Councilor Merritt said he attended the parking meeting held at the community center. He has strong consensus that
they need additional parking located in the downtown core area. They need to deal with this issue and hope that they
could move forward. On March 23, he attended a Ruedi Water Operations meeting. He said that Ruedi reservoir
would only partially fill up this year. The entire contract will be met out of Ruedi, but there will be constraints on
recreation in this area this year. The Deer Hammer boat ramp and the Aspen Yacht boat ramp will not have water
this year. This is an extremely dry year with the Roaring Fork river basin at 30% of average. At the May 21, 2002,
Planning and Zoning Commission worksession, they toured the city and viewed approved projects, and discussed
what could be done better in the future. He said that at the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
May 28, they approved the application filing for the RFTA and MOC site. They also reviewed the application from
Wal-Mart regarding outside storage.

Councilor Martensen said on May 17, 2002, she attended the regional workshop held by CML in Glenwood Springs
on land use. On May 21 – 23, she said she was in Greeley with two other members of the DDA for a Colorado
Community Revitalization Association, (CCRA) conference. They discussed the points of revitalization,
organization phase, forming consensus, collaboration, and confidence with the community located with the district.
They discussed the promotional aspects, and the economic aspect. She said on May 28, the DDA Executive met the
Sebrina Hoffmeister about the regulations for hiring a new director. At the May 29 DDA meeting, they met the
current director for the last time. They discussed the parking issues being facilitated with the parking committee. She
received a report from the retail and restaurant committee, and they decided to start a new sub-committee rather than
wait. This is the Economic Development Committee. At the meeting held on May 31, participants in attendance at
this initial meeting included, Marianne Virgili, Ken Melby, and Mike Pelletier. They will be meeting again next
week to ask people from within the district to serve on the committee. The Historic Preservation met, and they will
be pleased to hear that the consultant has identified 50 homes within the historic district for a structure of merit list.
There will be a report compiled that will include pictures of these homes identifying the type of style they represent.

Mayor Vanderhoof said he would like to remind everyone that on Friday, June 7, there will be a broadband meeting
held at the Community Center at 5:00 p.m.

ITEM NO. 5.       Ongoing Business:

         A.       Repairs to 10th Street Heating Pads.

Mike Copp reported that it has not changed. We are still waiting for the equipment. If this does not happen, it will be
turned over to the City Attorney.

         B.       Punch List and Warranty Work at Community Center.
                                                            3
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mike Copp said the drainage has been completed. They also installed gables to protect the lighting at the ice rink. At
the next City Council meeting, they will receive a punch list of all the completions.

Councilor Davis asked about any specifics regarding the gymnasium floor. Mr. Copp said he does not know. The
floor has been added to the punch list. He asked Mr. Rodgerson where they stood with the issues on the gym floor.
He heard they had value engineered a cheap floor. If a poor floor is an excuse, than it is not an acceptable.

Dan Rodgerson said the architects have stated that this could not be further from the truth. This spec floor is of high
quality. They should not have dead spots or separation issues. He was given information on how to determine if the
areas are true dead spots, as opposed to hitting risers located in the floor. They need to have an independent third
party to inform them that they received what they paid for. They did not purchase a cheap floor, and should not have
to sacrifice anything.

         C.       Use of Jail.

Teresa Williams said she would try to have the contract ready for the next meeting.

Terry Wilson said he thinks the proposed IGA is 30 days after signature of the Commissioners and the Municipality.

         D.       Cleaning of Downtown (Bridge and Pedestrian Areas)

Mike Copp said we are still cleaning the bridge and pedestrian areas, and are still on schedule. The recreation
department crew is getting the flowerpots ready as well.

         E.       Cemetery.

Councilor Emery stated that the Western Valley Mayors talked about a regional cemetery and they seemed
interested, with the exception of one. The next step of action was to develop a survey to send out to different entities
to see what facilities are provided, the current room for expansion, and zoning. He would hope to have results
available at the next Mayoral meeting and available to City Council in July.

         F.       Community Center Bikepath.

Mike Copp said they received the go ahead for the design build on the bike path at the last worksession.. This will
create a safer access for pedestrians that cross Midland Avenue from the downtown 8 th Street areas.

         G.       City Hall Update.

Mike Copp said they tried to respond to all the comments raised by the council members. The carpet still seemed to
be an issue that was raised. They will continue to keep an eye on this before moving. If there are any damages, they
will develop a punch list.

Councilor Davis said he tries to shy away from micromanaging the city staff. They received a letter that stated it
would not affect the warranty. Carpet life in commercial construction, the warranty can be from 7 – 10 years. With
the amount of dust on the glue and carpet, they have shortened the lifetime of the warranty. They do not object to
putting the carpet down to stay on task but the lack of protection is pathetic. He is upset with the way this has been
dealt with on the contractor level. If the architect is going to be working with this type of situation, he cannot
support this. There has to be a better job of monitoring this in the future.

Mike Copp said, regarding the Four Mile interchange, they are still working with the school to obtain easements.
They are working with the intersection and are hoping to complete this project sometime this year. This will include
a roundabout in this area for pedestrian safety.



                                                           4
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Councilor Martensen asked when the bus would start going to the Community Center. Councilor Gillespie said it
would start after Strawberry Days.

Councilor Merritt said he is still concerned about the lack of good handicap accessible parking in front of the new
city hall building. The response was that the space would be located in front of the courthouse.

Mike Copp said it would be located at the garden level near the elevators.

Councilor Merritt said the only public parking and the only use of the garden level is for the police department,
police vehicles, and handicap parking, and noted that it would not include employee parking.

Mike Copp said they are going to keep the handicap space in the area. Councilor Gillespie said if the employee were
handicapped, they would park in the accessible space. Mr. Copp agreed. Councilor Gillespie said he is disappointed
that they do not have accessible parking in front of the building. They need to push harder on this issue.

Mayor Vanderhoof said the handicapped parking on the west end by the police department is located close to the
elevator. This makes access to the building easier rather than entering on the east side where they would to use the
ramp to enter the building. Mr. Copp said they would take another look at this.

Councilor Gillespie said he would like the FF&E funds for the Community Center separated. He said that nothing
included as an operating expense should be placed into the FF&E.

ITEM NO. 6.       Appointment to the River and Historic Preservation Commissions. (City Clerk)

Robin Clemons brought Council’s attention to the packet in which contains the applications for both the River and
Historic Preservation Commissions. There is one vacancy on the Historic Preservation Commission, and one
applicant. There is a regular seat open on the River Commission, and the alternate seat. They received two
applications for the River Commission openings.

         Councilor Martensen moved, seconded by Councilor Merritt, to appoint Andrew Taylor to the Historic
         Preservation Commission with a term to expire February 2003.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

For the River Commission appointment, Council registered their votes on paper ballots. The results were:

         Jill McConaughy:Merritt, Davis, Martensen and Richardson
         Bruce Christensen:       Vanderhoof, Gillespie, and Emery

Jill McConaughy was appointed as the regular member of the River Commission with a term to expire February
2004 and Bruce Christensen was appointed the Alternate with a term to expire February 2003.

ITEM NO. 7.       Discussion of Makeup/Membership and Appointment to Downtown Development Authority
                  Board.

Councilor Richardson said the request of the board was to have eleven members on the committee. He feels it is
appropriate to appoint one more full member, and one alternate member.

Councilor Davis said he would like clarification on the termination of the positions.

Councilor Martensen said there are three board members that leave the end of June. They thought this was going to
be addressed on May 2; therefore, they did not go much further. She asked David Osborne to address Council.

David Osborne said, they addressed this issue at the last meeting, and all but one member of the board thought that
eleven members was a workable group. As they look forward to their accomplishments, for them to be involved
                                                          5
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
with the sub-committees responsible to the DDA, they feel that eleven members that are willing to work together as
a team will be the right number. He said if there ends up only being eight or nine members, they would accept
applications until they receive one they feel comfortable recommending to City Council to get the eleven members
they would want. They are looking for someone that is responsible and cares for the downtown of Glenwood
Springs.

Councilor Davis suggested waiting the next 24 days when the terms end, and then solicit more interest, and before
June 30 appoint a member for the full term. There is no need to hurry and appoint two members for the next three
weeks. Mayor Vanderhoof said they should make the decision to have nine members or eleven members on the
committee. Councilor Davis said he would support the decision of the DDA.

Councilor Emery said he agrees, and if the DDA wants eleven members, he is not going to argue. He does not see
appointing members now and then go through the same process again in several weeks.

Councilor Merritt said he would agree holding off until the end of the term in June to appoint new members. He
would ask that if they do receive new applications that they be legible.

Councilor Richardson said they could appoint the board members for four years, which would enable Council to
appoint them now. There are people who are willing to dedicate their time to the City. If they have to go through this
process again in five weeks, so be it. They owe it to the applicants to put them in place now and give them three
weeks to be involved.

Councilor Martensen asked what the legalities were, and if they could now appoint the members for the full term,
and include the three weeks remaining. Ms. Williams said there is no problem with doing that.

Councilor Emery said, out of respect to the applicants, having them go through this process now, and again in three
weeks he does not understand.

Councilor Davis said if everything could be presented, they would address the applications at the June 20 meeting
and make appointments to the board.

         Councilor Richardson moved, seconded by Councilor Davis, to allow the board to stay at eleven
         members.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The results were:

         AYES:           Davis, Emery, Vanderhoof, Martensen, Merritt, and Richardson
         NAYS: Gillespie

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed.

At 7:29 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof called for a break.
At 7:38 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof reconvened the meeting.

ITEM NO. 8.       Consideration of a Lease Agreement with the Salvation Army for a Day Center on City Property.
                  (Assistant City Attorney)

Karl Hanlon said two meetings ago Carolyn Spencer of the Salvation Army had a brief discussion about the
possibility of using the police station building for a day center for the Salvation Army. City Council directed staff to
come back with a proposed lease, or a form of lease. There was also discussion of using two other locations besides
the police department. These locations included the old city hall building, and the vacant gas station building located
at the Rose property. The question now is if City Council wants to move forward with the leasing of any of the
properties to the Salvation Army.



                                                           6
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mayor Vanderhoof said they should discuss whether or not they would want to lease any city property and then go
from there.

Councilor Davis said he would like that they consider leasing the property. Councilor Richardson said he agrees
with Councilor Davis. Councilor Martensen said she also agrees to lease the property.

Carolyn Spencer said the most important thing, is that they are meeting a community need and they need a home,
which does not belong in a residential neighborhood. Their preference would be the vacant gas station located on the
Rose property. They feel this space would meet their needs, as well as be out of everybody’s way.

Mayor Vanderhoof said they have applied for a grant to build a new building sometime in the future. Ms. Spencer
said they were planning to place a long-term shelter on the Glenwood Meadows property located below the RFTA
building. They have not actually at this point applied for a grant, because they are currently in the middle of their
capital campaign. Not every grant major will consider their request until they see what they receive from the
community.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked what their anticipated time frame was for the construction of the shelter. Ms. Spencer
said, to be realistic, it would take approximately 2 years to build the shelter. The shelter is the final goal. A number
of them are developing a continual care for low income housing throughout the valley. The sleep center would be
the cornerstone of the entire continual planning. The applicants will stay there until they can get into HUD housing,
or a low income housing unit that is available now, or in the near future. The day center is a way of keeping people
alive and serviced until the building is built.

Councilor Merritt asked what they would be doing with the vacant gas station building. Ms. Spencer said the only
items they would need to put in would be to install showers, and a washer and dryer hookup. This service could be
hooked up easily because of the good electrical connections. They are ready to do this.

Councilor Merritt asked what the anticipated occupancy number would be. Ms. Spencer it has been low with
approximately 5-8 people per day with some working part time. During the winter, they usually had approximately
10-12 people per day.

Councilor Richardson said they were looking at the Rose property site for a recycling drop off center. He is not sure
they will be able to co-exist. Robin Millyard said he thinks they can co-exist. Councilor Richardson asked if the
building was heated. Mr. Millyard replied, yest. He has not received a response from RRR, and he is not sure exactly
what the vision is, nor what the City’s vision is. He thinks there is some room to talk and possibly a good deal for
both parties. Ms. Spencer said this sounds great. She is looking for ways for people to work. They are very eager to
help and want to do something for the community.

Mr. Millyard said that RRR would be forwarding the proposal soon. As soon as they receive the proposal, and find
out what the space and water improvements will be externally, they can meet with Ms. Spencer to see how
everything fits into her needs.

Russell Grance said, given the past use of the structure, and it previously being a service station with service bays
and a metal building, just installing showers he would feels would not meet their needs. It would need to be brought
up to current codes with accessibility, heating, and insulation. There would be a considerable amount of money
needed to bring the building up to the current codes. At the time the building was constructed it was made of metal,
and not intended for the type of occupancy use intended.

Mike Copp asked Mr. Grance to schedule an inspection with Ms. Spencer.

Councilor Richardson asked Ms. Spencer if she was fine with some expenditure, or is she at a point where she
cannot spend any money. Ms. Spencer said the estimate previously received was approximately $3,000. She has
been saving towards this amount. She is willing to make due in whatever way they can if it is within code.
Councilor Richardson recommended looking at Habitat for Humanity for possible resources, and salvaged materials.
Ms. Spencer said this would also depend on the walk through.
                                                            7
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mr. Copp said that if it works for both groups they would do their best to make it work.

Councilor Gillespie said this corner is very visible. He is not in favor of placing the recycling system on the corner
because of it being permanent. The Salvation Army, with enough restrictions, can keep the area picked up and try to
avoid loitering taking place. He would prefer the recycling be placed somewhere else. He does not want to make this
corner where they are spending millions of dollars to beautify this area to be used as a permanent recycling center,
and then fence off the area.

Mayor Vanderhoof said they have long range plans for the recycling center. He does not view this area as a
permanent recycling center. They should schedule a walk through to see what would make it work for the Salvation
Army. He asked if anyone in the audience wished to address Council on this item, and received no reply.

ITEM NO. 9.       Consideration Of A Request By Mike Alsdorf To Waive Claims To A Prescriptive Easement
                  Located In South Glenwood. (Assistant City Attorney)

Karl Hanlon said this is a request for a waiver for a prescriptive easement located in South Glenwood. Mike Alsdorf
is present, as well as his attorney Jim Neu. This is somewhat of a complicated road system. They are trying to square
up the intersection to improve the neighborhood. The applicant would like to reclaim some of his property that he is
losing, or could potentially lose. In exchange, they are trying to square of an intersection to make it better for the
residents. He will let the applicant’s attorney address any further details.

Jim Neu, Esq. representing the applicant Mike Alsdorf, stated that the property is adjacent to Cardiff Glen on
County Road 116. This was platted in 1923, and at the time, across the street was dedicated on the plat; however, the
section line that he showed on the overhead transparency, was not dedicated anywhere below the section line. The
part they are looking at is located on the City’s jurisdiction. The reason he was saying there was not a dedication
was because, if there were, they would be submitting a vacation request. The public has been utilizing this area since
it was a county road. The City annexed the road in 1988. Several properties have been using the road. Mr. Alsdorf is
asking that the City release any claims of the prescriptive easement. In return, the applicant will dedicate the area he
indicated on the overhead to the City, and make improvements. When future improvements are made to Midland
Avenue, they could go straight to the intersection. The applicant is trying to make improvements for the current
uses, as well as give the City the necessary property to “T” off the intersection. He showed on the overhead the
property that is currently owned by Mr. Alsdorf. The other issue is the front street, which they will go to the county
to ask them to vacate. All the discussion with Garfield County has been very positive. There is no real public use as
long as it is replaced. They have also spoken with the Public Works Director and he is fine with the request. Mr.
Alsdorf will dedicate the piece to the City and convey it by deed. He will then grade the property, remove the
vegetation, and put down road base. This would work to move it out of a burdensome location into a better place.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked if anyone from the public would care to discuss this matter. Seeing none, he returned the
item to Council for action.

Mr. Hanlon said, if the motion would happen to be favorable, what they are looking for is what the best instrument
is. He would like the motion to include the authority for the Mayor to execute for recordation of the public records.

         Councilor Gillespie moved, seconded by Councilor Martensen, to approve the waiver of the descriptive
         easement per staff recommendation.

         Councilor Gillespie amended his motion to include the authority for the Mayor to execute the documents
         to accomplish the recordation of the public records.

         Councilor Martensen amended her second.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.



                                                           8
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
ITEM NO. 10.      Public Hearing – Annexation of Rights-of-Way of the Remainder of County Road 116 and the
                  Platted Streets in the Old Cardiff Townsite in Garfield County, Colorado.

         A. Consideration of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2002; An Ordinance of the City of Glenwood Springs,
            Colorado, Providing for the Annexation to the City of Rights-of-Way of the Remainder of County
            Road 116 and the Platted Streets in the Old Cardiff Townsite in Garfield County, Colorado. (FIRST
            READING)

Ms. Williams indicated that this was the annexation for the remainder of Midland Avenue around the airport, and all
of the old Cardiff town site platted roads. They previously received a petition from the County, which is the second
portion of the annexation. The City has agreed that this particular portion is for an exchange of their sharing of costs
for the design of the bridge located at the south end of town. By the Intergovernmental Agreement, this needs to be
completed by June 30, or we lose the funds. Council previously found that the petition was in substantial compliance
with the statutes, and that it met the requirement of the statutes in every case. This is to allow the public to make
comments with regard to the requirements for annexation.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked if anyone in the audience wished to address Council on this item, and received no reply.

         Councilor Merritt moved, seconded by Councilor Emery, to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2002.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

At 8:05 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof called for a break.
At 8:12 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof reconvened the meeting.


ITEM NO. 11.      Planning Items: (Community Development Director)

         A.       #36-02 – Consideration Of An Appeal Of The Planning And Zoning Commission’s Approval Of
                  A Special Use Permit For An Aerial Tramway In The C/1 Limited Commercial And Hillside
                  Preservation Overlay Zones, And An Appeal Of A Recommendation To Approve A Major
                  Development Permit For A Tramway Base Station, Hotel And Commercial Building; Along With
                  Zoning Variances For Building Heights In The C/1 Limited Commercial And Hillside
                  Preservation Overlay Zones.

                  Appellant:         City Of Glenwood Springs
                  Applicant:         Charles Peterson For Glenwood Caverns, Inc.; Glenwood Tramway LLC; And
                                     Marthom Inc.
                  Owner:             RDS Riverview LLC
                  Location:          Lots 1, 2 And 3 Two Rivers Park Plaza Subdivision
                  Zone:              C/1 Limited Commercial And Hillside Preservation Overlay (HPOZ)

Karl Hanlon said they would present a staff report and then continue with the appeal items. They will present an
initial presentation so that everyone will become familiar with the entire project.

Mike Copp said City Council would be hearing an appeal from the Planning and Zoning Commission, for an
approval of variances for the parking, and for the Hillside Preservation Overlay Zone. Staff has not been against the
tramway in the caves project. They worked diligently with the applicants to try to find different ways to build a
tramway to access the ferry caves. He has met numerous times with the applicant and has tried to come up with a
solution. The caves, they believe are a treasured asset to the community. They applaud Steve and Jeannie Beckley
for the job they have done. The tramway will only enhance Glenwood Springs. Staff recommended approval of
other variances that were not being appealed. Included in these variances were the two towers that exceeded the
building height allowed within the C/1 zone district. They also approved variances for towers within the HPOZ
district, as well as height variances for the hotel itself. One of the other things they approved was the design
variances for the sidewalk widths, and reduced the width from the required 8 ft. He said they worked close with the
                                                           9
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
developers. There are two major issues for the appeal. The two things that City Council has held near and dear to
their hearts over the past several years are parking and Hillside Preservation. The decision of the Planning
Commission could also be construed as policy making, and that by granting the variances, they believe it could be
opened up to future parking considerations, as well as future Hillside Preservation. He said City Council would need
to make the decisions. The Planning Commission is a recommending body, and without the appeals, it would not be
a part of the review. The Council would only vote on the major development. Regarding the issues with parking, it
was determined that more parking is needed. They looked at a location for the fire department that was the best use,
and where it would not affect major parking within the downtown. As they look at the tramway development, he
asked them to understand that it is not just the tramway, but there is also retail, hotel and a restaurant that is included
in the project. What the applicant is asking for is 40% reduction, or 77 spaces, in what the city staff calculated as
required parking. As they look at major increases in the downtown, he said lets not create problems in other areas of
the City. A part of the variance process that was reviewed to decrease the parking spaces by 77 spaces, it was
discussed about the location being in a bus line, and in an area of mixed uses. Eventually, other developments will
be located along the bus line. He suggests that they remain consistent. As done with previous development projects,
there are ways that they can work with the parking issues. Things are taking place in the downtown businesses to
control parking to customers only. Parking is becoming a premium. They are not asking that Council add more
restrictions, but they are asking that they follow the codes. The second issue for discussion is regarding Hillside
Preservation. They are asking that the applicants stay within the guidelines of the Hillside Preservation zone.
Although the property is located outside the city limits, the city still has control through the major development
review process. There are things as a Council that can be done to mitigate this. Since the approval of the Hillside
Preservation ordinance, they have received seven applications. These included six single-family, and one
subdivision that was certain lots located in Park East. Some of the items they have done with the single-family
applications to be sure they stay within the HPOZ guidelines are, engineering designs for grading, drainage, and
erosion, additional landscaping, relocating some of the residences to better fit the sites, redesign the residences to
better blend into the site, incorporated retaining walls into the residential structures, and limited building heights.
They have also chosen materials that are more fire resistant, and far more expensive. These conditions added
anywhere from $3,000 - $5,000 per project. They want to do the best that they can to protect the hillsides. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial on one application. The Planning Commission
recommended the application to City Council, and by a vote of 7-0, upheld this decision. They are looking towards
the future with the hillsides. Within the City limits, there are many hillside preservation overlay zone areas. City
Council without an appeal would only have the ability to either accept, or reject the major development. If they
agree with staff’s recommendations, and Council believes the variances should not be approved, and that the
applicant needs to provide the parking, as well as the requirements for the HPOZ, they would have to reject the
entire process. If City Council agrees with staff’s appeal they can pass the major development, but with the
requirements regarding the parking and the HPOZ. They agree with the project, but we do need to protect the
hillsides and parking. They are not asking the applicant to be more restrictive than anyone else.

Patti Haefeli wished to reiterate what Mr. Copp said. In both her presentations, she was in support of the project. She
said she has visited the caverns and hillsides, and feels the Beckley’s have done a great job. Nevertheless, with any
development, especially one of this complexity that will always have issues and concerns. Staff has two major
issues of concern. This is essentially a commercial project. The project will include a hotel, restaurant, and retail at
the bay station, special event area, and retail included above the hillside at the top. They are trying to make the
project a better project. Staff has not focused on the 61 ft. building height of the motel. They feel this works for the
particular site. The tram will be visible, but the applicant has taken steps to mitigate this. They are not going to
clear-cut, and will be using earth tone materials. The tram will be visible, but they think the applicant has worked on
some issues, but some they have chosen to take a different approach.

Ms. Haefeli presented a Power Point presentation explaining what is included in the project. She said the
commercial development is for construction of a parking lot, and a tram station in phase one. There will be a gravel
parking lot for approximately one year that will eventually become asphalt. The second phase will consist of a
commercial development, one level, and will include retail and a small restaurant. The final phase would include a
68-room hotel placed on top of the first level. Included in the council packet is a construction-phasing schedule. The
hotel will not occur for approximately 2- 3 years from the initial start of the project. One of staff’s concerns is
regarding the hillside preservation overlay zone. The HPOZ designates areas that the City has determined are
sensitive and needs protected. In the development process is also required a special review. The uses are not
                                                            10
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
considered a use by right, but they are uses that need to be looked at in a special way. It is the ability of the City, to
exact something beyond the code to help the mitigation of the development. The criterion is to minimize the impacts
both on-site and off-site. There are additional costs to these single-family residences. There have been no exactions
asked of this project. One that staff feels strongly about is moving the building so that it’s not built right on the
ridge. In this zone district there is an allowed 35 ft. building height. The hotel will be 61 ft., and includes several
towers in the C/1 zone district that will exceed this height. One of which will be 78 ft. Within the HPOZ there is an
allowed 27 ft. building height. There will be two towers with one being 34 ft. Staff states they feel comfortable with
the variances.

Regarding the bay station, the applicant is proposing 118 spaces. If they would calculate the base commercial
individually, it would require 133 spaces. They are at a deficit of 15 spaces. In addition, within some of the parking
spaces the applicant is proposing to put in storm water detention, which would lessen some of the availability of the
spaces during a seasonal storm. The applicant has requested a variance for the design width, and staff is willing to
concur on this.

The proposal in the county and on the hillside is proposing a 40 ft. tall building that is 50 ft. by 80 ft. in length. The
building will not be small and will be visible. Included in the staff report is the HPOZ criteria, and how staff
believes that it does not conform.

Staff feels strongly that this application could set a standard for future hillside development. This is the reason they
need to look at what they are approving and not approving because it will set a precedent. The cavern and the
tramway can exist without the visitor’s center. They are the unique portions of the project. The visitors’ center is a
commercial operation, as is the development below. She feels they have jurisdiction over this because within the
Land Use Plan there is a comprehensive planning area. This defines limits outside the City, because they will affect
the City, as this project will.

Staff believes that this is an asset to regional visitors center of Glenwood Springs. However, the project will set a
standard upon the review of future projects. These standards are the hillside and parking. Staff discussed the two
major issues, the visual impacts of the tramway and visitor center on Iron Mountain, as well as the parking. She
presented a power point presentation showing what the proposed project would look like. She showed the location
of trees and the views from 8th Street, the Community Center, Grand Avenue, and Traver Trail. She showed how the
applicant could move the structure to help mitigate some of the ridge lining and sky lining, the structure will have.
It is important to remember the mass of the building, which will be 40 ft. tall, and 50 ft. by 80 ft. The second area
that staff has concerns with is how they will justify not giving a reduction in parking. Again, the tram and the
caverns are unique, but this is a commercial project be proposed. She presented the surrounding area and what
development would be in the planning process soon. She referenced the city zoning map and the commercial and
industrial uses in the areas located in the bus line. She would need to have justification on reducing the parking.

Karl Hanlon said he wanted to talk about the procedures of where they are tonight. There are two major public
hearings tonight. One hearing is for the appeal on the special use permits and variances, and the other is a review of
a recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding a major development permit. He said he would first
address the appeals, variances and special use permits.

Mr. Hanlon said in the letter of appeal of May 5, 2002, which he asked City Council to reference, he said there were
five items regarding the appeal. He said he would review these items. One item was for the special use permit for an
outdoor commercial recreation facility in the C/1 zone district. This speaks specifically to the use of the lot in Two
Rivers for the tramway operation itself. This has nothing to do with the hotel or the height. There is a variance for a
tram tower over 35 ft. in height in the C/1 zone district. There is another variance request for the building height
over 35 ft. in the C/1 zone district. Staff does not have an issue with granting the variances, but did have issues with
the fact that this opens up without any type of mitigation on the parking issues. The building height as been doubled
in the C/1 zone district to
68ft. Typically, on a variance this takes along with it some responsibility to account for the increase in commercial
space in terms of the parking and other potential mitigation. The other item is regarding special use permit for the
outdoor recreation use in the hillside preservation overlay zone district and the variance for the tram tower over 27
ft., and the HPOZ. The tram tower height is not a big issue, but on a variance and a special use, we typically request
                                                            11
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
some specific mitigation to justify the uses. In this particular instance on the HPOZ items, are integrally related to
what is going on at the top of the mountain and the bottom in a couple different ways. It is within the planning zone
that is a statutory mandate, and that it is reviewed. It is also reliant on what goes on along the hillsides below the
development. More importantly, 9,500 sq. ft. of commercial development at the top of the mountain is reliant on the
City to provide a place for the cars that support the development at the top. Obviously, there is a great deal of
discussion as to whether or not there is or is not sufficient parking. In many respects, this is a policy decision for
City Council tonight. The ordinance does provide that parking can be reduced on mixed-use developments. They
have precedence in the City on one other occasion when this has been done. The issue before City Council with
regard to the parking reduction is, what is going to the be appropriate number, and under what conditions is it
appropriate to reduce parking exceeding 40%.

Mr. Hanlon presented the background of the nature of the appeal from Mike Copp’s letter dated May 5, 2002. Five
of the current City Council members took part in the HPOZ process, and have a working knowledge of the process.
He read the guidelines and requirements of the HPOZ district relative to structures. With this scale of development
and this prominent of a place, they need to take a serious look at what it was that they were trying to accomplish
with the HPOZ, and if this has been applied in a uniform and consistent manner. The policy question is where do
they want to take the HPOZ from here. Do they need to relax what they have been doing, or do they need to take it
to another level with the application and enforcement. From a staff standpoint, this is of critical importance. The
policy decision that is made tonight gives staff the guidance as to how to proceed. What is decided on this
application will in fact set precedence on how they deal with commercial development. The question is how do they
deal with commercial development in and around the hillsides of Glenwood Springs, and how to address to best
mitigate the impacts when moving forward.

Staff generally would like to see transit aggressively persuade to use alternate transit modes. They would like to
push applicants towards contributions to Ride Glenwood, exacting buses, operating expenses, and encouraging mass
transit. The numbers contained in the code does not forever bind them, but they also need to recognize what is
reasonable, and what they can defend in the future, with regard to commercial developments, as they occur on bus
lines. As a result, when looking at the 40% reduction in parking, and not yet knowing how the numbers are going to
work out with tram riders, they could wait and see what happens. They predicted that 120,000 people a year would
ride the tram, which will be 120 additional spaces. By not counting this use, they are down 77 spaces underneath the
code. They are looking to City Council for direction and policy on this particular matter. They also need to
recognize that they can justify the tram use as something unique and different. There is a significant component that
is retail, commercial and a hotel that will continue to occur in the jurisdiction of Glenwood Springs on a regular
basis as we continue to grow. What will be the policy and what exactions do they expect. The question before them
tonight is two very large policy questions. What do they expect with regards to the direction that the HPOZ is going,
and what do they expect in general of commercial development. They also need to look at the codes allowance for
reductions in parking for mixed use. They need to recognize the importance of the policy implications. Staff feels
that this project is going to be so successful they are concerned if they will get a parking space to go to the top.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked if there were any questions of staff.

Councilor Gillespie asked if they have broken the mold for the Jazz concerts since there is not enough parking on
Wednesday evenings. Should they limit the number of people that go the jazz concerts? Mr. Hanlon said if he is
asking if this is a unique thing, than yes he would say it is unique. This operates under a special use permit, with
regard to the negotiations for the use of the park. This is a separate permitting process through the Parks and
Recreation Department. He would respectfully submit that there is a significant difference between a Wednesday
evening jazz concert, and a commercial operation.

Councilor Davis said he was hoping to hear more about the whole development. He asked about moving the
building back on the top because of the size. He asked if staff had a rendition showing what the building would look
like pushed back, and what the implications would be.

Ms. Haefeli said she had discussed this. This is something that staff wants looked at, and would pursue it. Part of the
reason they received an abbreviated version is because of so many people present in the public that wants to speak.
They were trying to expedite the process since and since council already had the staff reports a lot of the issues and
                                                          12
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
concerns were addressed in the reports, and were either mitigated by the applicant. The two remaining major issues
that they have not come to terms with are the visual impacts and the parking.

Councilor Davis said regarding the storm water detention and the parking areas it was stated, not only is the parking
lot undersized, but during a storm, it would lose more parking spaces because of utilizing it for storm water
detention. Ms. Haefeli said that is correct. Councilor Davis asked if there was a storm and the parking lot filled with
water, because of the detention, that this would be an operation or, should they assume it would not be operational
because there is a storm.

Ms. Haefeli said the applicant has stated that they can do mitigation on the onsite storm detention. Staff has not seen
this mitigation. The applicant feels they can engineer this, which staff will need to review.

Councilor Davis asked if there was private land in the C/4 zone located on Iron Mountain. Ms. Haefeli said she
would need to refer this question to the City Attorney.

Karl Hanlon said that Pitkin Iron Corporation is the owner of a tract of land that is currently zoned C/4 in this area.

Councilor Davis said that the C/4 zone district existed before the HPOZ district. Mr. Hanlon said that the C/4 zone
district did exist before the HPOZ district. Obviously, any development that would occur in the area is complicated
because of significant scarring in this location. This area would still be subject to the HPOZ guidelines.

Councilor Davis said his specific question would be, the C/4 and the HPOZ as an overlay, by applying the HPOZ to
the C/4 would they be held as a down zoning or upheld in court that they are to the letter of the law?

Mr. Hanlon said this is a tough question. The C/4 zone adopted a HPOZ district of general applicability to all zone
districts, which gives the authority to do by both statute and case law. He does not think they would have any
problems applying the HPOZ in this zone district. He is sure that the owner of the property would disagree with him.
He is relatively comfortable that they would win the outcome of that discussion.

Councilor Davis said noted in the summary dated May 5, 2002, he gives Council two actions as far as
recommendations on the appeal. The actions are to deny the special review and variances, and to modify the
decision of the Planning Commission and apply conditions that adequately demonstrate compliance. He asked if
they had a third option which is some form of modification to make suggestions to make the proposal palatable. He
asked if they would uphold the appeal and then modify it in the second phase.

Mr. Hanlon said yes they do. On the appeal for the special uses and the variances, they have the ability to select the
conditions they want to pass or not pass on, in terms of approving the decision of the Planning Commission, or not
approving. If the Council chooses to approve the recommendation they have the authority to add conditions they feel
necessary to make the appropriate approval. He said the exactions and expectations they can reach for on the major
development permit are different than with the special use permit. They are looking at the major development
permit with strictly code compliance, which obviously sufficient parking would be one of the elements. With the
special use permits, they tend to look at things that are uses that are recognized as a right, but as a request.
Therefore, this would give them more flexibility. He would suggest they have greater authority to be creative with
the applicant in the special review uses, than with the major development permit.

Councilor Emery said, regarding the upper building shown during the presentation. It appeared that the building was
right on top of the peak of the ridgeline. Was there any effort to mitigate this in any way to bring it off the ridgeline,
or is it peaked at the highest point.

Ms. Haefeli said she discussed this with the applicant, because this was one concern of staff. They talked about
potentially breaking up the mass of the building, and making it smaller so that it fits on the site better, and moving
the building back. One of the constraints that the applicant has is that the easements for the tramway are fixed. There
is a 20 ft. wide easement going up the mountain. Staff is at the opinion that either design mitigation of a smaller, as
well as groupings of buildings would work, moving the building back. On the lower site, the hotel is not attached to

                                                            13
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
the tramway and is completely removed. Therefore, there is no reason why the visitor’s center could not be
removed and pushed into a less visual portion of the site.

Councilor Emery said currently it is located on the very peak of the ridge where it is located now. Ms. Haefeli said
yes.

Mr. Hanlon said the applicant has an interest in maintaining the location for the operation of their business from new
quarters at the top of the mountain looking down. The applicant is going to explain why they chose this particular
site in their presentation.

Councilor Merritt said asked how the storm water detention handled for the parking lot approval at the new MOC
building site.

Mr. Hanlon said it is handled on site. This parking lot had an abundant amount of spaces for the use of the building.
Using onsite mitigation was done in past applications, but it also did not include reduction in parking.

Councilor Merritt said for the public’s benefit, the reason they set a certain number of parking spaces for various
use, is not to protect the business so that they have sufficient parking for the employees and customers, or is it a
public protection standpoint. He asked if this was to protect the adjacent users.

Mr. Hanlon said the answer is in good planning, and it revolves around making good choices to ensure the
businesses are successful, which is a major component. Another reason would be to protect the neighbors property.

Councilor Merritt said the applicant should be providing sufficient parking. He asked if the building site for the
upper building is located in the HPOZ district, or deferred into an HPOZ district if it were in the City jurisdiction.

Mr. Hanlon said it would be in the HPOZ district if it were within the city limits recognizing the City supports it
entirely.

Councilor Merritt said regarding the ridgeline for the building, he asked if the topography stair steps back from the
building again. Ms. Haefeli said that is correct. Councilor Merritt said it really is not located on an upper ridgeline.
Ms. Haefeli said the opinion of staff is if the building were located back towards the second ridge, it would not
skyline. It also would not be as intrusive because it would blend more into the hillside. It is brought forward on the
flat pad and on the ridgeline, because where the existing structure is it drops off rapidly.

Councilor Richardson said he would like to ask a question addressing the parking. He asked out of the 190 spaces
that staff feels is required, have they determined how many would be employee parking spaces.

Mr. Hanlon said the code states the number of spaces needed per square footage that takes into account average
employee and usage numbers. They have not separated the employee parking from the total number of spaces. He
said he is not really sure how they would accomplish this and have it be an effective number.

Ms. Haefeli said within other jurisdictions, which have an excellent TDM process the numbers required are not far
off. Within her research, 20% was the absolute maximum that other jurisdictions gave to a joint use on a mass transit
line.

Councilor Richardson said in regards to the drainage, he read condition four, which was added by the Planning
Commission states, the applicant should revise the drainage parking plan to accommodate…
He asked if the City Engineer has signed off on this. Ms. Haefeli said that at this point nothing has really happened.
The project has been at a stand still. The applicant has assured staff that they can mitigate the City Engineer’s
concerns with regard to the detention located on site.

Councilor Richardson asked how staff feels about the 4 ft. sidewalk. Ms. Haefeli said they eventually decided on a 6
ft. sidewalk and a 3 ft. planting strip. This would be located on the Two Rivers Road.

                                                           14
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mr. Hanlon said that the Planning Commission recommended 18 conditions.

Councilor Richardson read condition six from the staff report which states, prior to the issuance of a building permit
the developer will comply with the Fire Department Emergency Plan. On most projects, he would say this a no-
brainer. He would like to receive more reassurance and information on how the applicant will meet the plan of the
water issue, and the winter access.

Ms. Haefeli said she believes that the applicant has met with the Fired Department. She said that the applicant would
be able to address the question. Before issuance of the development permit staff would require something in writing
so they would have written assurance of what the plan is.

Mr. Hanlon said a portion of the request that will be presented at another meeting is a pre-annexation agreement for
water service outside the city limits. A line is run along the tram towers to facilitate water at the top. This will be
City water to provide sufficient storage and fire protection.

Councilor Richardson asked where they were the utilities and the probable need for city water. He asked if the
applicant would be able to address the emergency plan. The two biggest concerns are regarding enough water, and
winter access.

Mike Piper said as far as the emergency access is concerned, the fire department would need to go up now. They do
not do this on an annual basis because the business closes during the winter. They have spoken with the applicant
about maintaining the road for emergency equipment. They would prepare to deliver service as any other area that
would require emergency services. Regarding the water, the amount of water necessary for a 9,000 sq. ft.
sprinklered building is doable with the right design criteria. As long as the waters delivered to site and on the
premises, and to have the ability to continually provide the water they can provide the fire protection.

Councilor Richardson said the plan is to run a water line on top of the tram. Mr. Piper said yes they understood that
it was a line run from the bottom to the top.

Councilor Richardson asked Mr. Millyard if this would be a problem. Mr. Millyard said the last representation was
that the applicant would take water at the site down below and run a pipeline on the towers to a tank at the site. This
would also be for their domestic use. Councilor Richardson asked if the applicant would be responsible for the line.
Mr. Millyard said yes.

Mr. Peterson said the line is un-insulated. The reason for this is that they will have to store 32,000 at the top that
allows them to pump on an intermediate basis. In the winter time when there is very little demand they will then
vacate the line and bring it back into the storm system on a system that will assure the line will not freeze. The
water level will be monitored to assure it reaches the required minimum level. The line will not be full during the
winter.

Councilor Martensen asked how much parking is planned at the top.

Ms. Haefeli said the only parking that is planned will be for service vehicles and vans that are used for emergency.
The access on the road is primarily for handicap accessibility, and emergency and service vehicles.

Councilor Martensen asked why the staff and supplies be taken up to the top by gondola.

Mr. Hanlon said the applicant is trying very hard utilizing the tram for almost everything.

Councilor Martensen asked if the applicant has buses now that they would be using. Ms. Haefeli said yes.
She asked if the buses were a part of the plan.

Mr. Hanlon said no they were not a part of the plan as proposed.



                                                           15
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Councilor Martensen said she is concerned with the design of the top building, even though it will be pushed back.
They are creating something that is very special, and she would like it to be attractive. She noted that there were no
site elevations included. She asked if there were permanent awnings coming out over the side windows.

Ms. Haefeli said yes.

Councilor Martensen said she did not see identified how the customers would reach the tram from the base station.

Ms. Haefeli said the applicant would be able to answer this question. She said there may a couple steps, a platform,
and then the tram.

Councilor Martensen said the project including the top building is larger than what was presented during the
conceptual review. Ms. Haefeli said she believes it is the same. During the conceptual review, the applicants gave
base station information. At that time they did not discuss the hilltop development.

Councilor Martensen said this is a significant landmark.

Mr. Hanlon said there is a land marking designation process. Landmarks are referenced in the land use plan. The
code does not provide for any special consideration. This is a way to get around how this would be applied in other
areas. This is not a particularly effective way of trying to discern this from something else. He feels that the tram
use is particularly unique. His concern from a legal standpoint is the implications of the rest are simply a
commercial development. Landmark status does not exempt an applicant from the other requirements of the code.

Councilor Emery said the visitor’s center proposed at the top may not be truly on the crown. It will be stepped
somewhat back one ridge.

Ms. Haefeli said no. Where the development is being placed is at the edge of the pad along the ridgeline, as opposed
to pushing it back more into the hillside, which they have required in the past to mitigate the visual impacts. If the
building were pushed further away there would not be a sky lining issue.

Councilor Gillespie said he does not see that they would run into problems with setting a precedence because the
other areas not yet developed would not be building a tram. He said legally where do they stand.

Mr. Hanlon said with regard to the uses, and the parking associated with the tram and cavern users, it is so unique
there is no comparison. The concern he has from a legal standpoint is that it is commercial, retail and hotel. They are
related to the tramway, but the tramway does not rely on the commercial retail business, nor do they rely on the
tramway. These uses can stand alone. They are granting the special use permit for the tramway itself. They did not
include the numbers for the tramway use in the parking figures. These hotel, retail, and commercial uses cannot be
distinguished from other similar businesses in the city.

Councilor Merritt said regarding the storm water detention, and parking for the MOC sites.

Mr. Millyard said it is not a detention plan per say. They are treating the run off and running it through a mechanical
device. They are going to use the existing drywells that were on the old site.

Mayor Vanderhoof said the building at the top is not in the city, but it is in the County. Mr. Hanlon said yes it is in
the County. He asked if the quarry was located in the City or the County. Mr. Hanlon said it is in the City and is
zoned C/4.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked what the discussion with the applicant and staff was regarding the earth tones on the
building.

Ms. Haefeli said the applicant is providing earth tones. The roof and awnings will be green to blend in with the trees,
and the color of the building will be beige. Staff believes that the applicant has worked on the color aspect of the
structure. Staff has concerns about the large mass of the structure.
                                                           16
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mayor Vanderhoof said regarding the parking. He asked if they have discussed a applying for a variance on the
amount of landscaping so that they can obtain a few more parking spaces.

Ms. Haefeli said this has not been discussed, because the applicant is not requesting a variance for the parking.
Because this is a mixed-use with combined different uses occurring on the site, they have not requested a variance of
redemption in the requirement. They said they don’t need the code requirements because of the mixed use, the
proximity to the hotel, pedestrians, and being located on the bus line. Therefore, because of this staff is not granting
a variance, but this could be something that could be looked at.

Councilor Davis said, because this is located downtown in the GID, then parking is not required. Mr. Hanlon agreed.

Councilor Martensen asked if there has been any discussion about splitting the two developments into two
applications, and not making it a major development.

Ms. Haefeli said, because staff does have concerns, the applicant has proposed that this is a phased project. Phase
One will include the tramway construction, Phase Two will be the commercial development, and Phase Three will
be the construction of the hotel. Staff wanted to add a condition that says the applicant could complete the tram and
commercial parts of the project, and then they must go back and revisit the hotel project. The applicant feels that this
is not an option. She informed Council that she would have the applicant address this.

At 9:30 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof called for a break.
At 9:40 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof reconvened the meeting.

John Schenk, Esq., said he is present to represent the applicant, Caverns Plaza, LLC for a major development permit
for an aerial tramway extending from Lot 1 in Two Rivers Plaza, to a location located at the top of Iron Mountain.
The applicant is also requesting the commercial complex as a part of the major development permit located in Lot 1.
He appreciates staff’s comments, as well as their straightforwardness about supporting the project, and their
concerns with two elements. They think it is important that Council sees the entire project during their presentation.
He said due to the unique location of the ferry caves and it is entrance at the top of Iron Mountain, as well as the
close proximity to the city limits, this project presents a unique set of circumstances. This project will also offers
remarkable opportunities, and almost everyone recognizes the value of enhances the transportation system located at
the top of the ferry caves.

Mr. Schenk said three different sensitive individuals head the three components of the project. He will ask each of
these individuals to speak separately pertaining to their particular portion of the project. He said that Steve and April
Carver would be personally involved with the base commercial project. They have operated the Hotel Denver and
the Brew Pub for many years. They have recently replaced the Rex Hotel with the Denver Center Building. Mr.
Carver is part of the ownership group that is restoring the NCB building located at 8 th Street and Grand Avenue to
its prior façade. Chuck Peterson is the designer and Engineer for the tramway. Mr. Peterson is a structural engineer,
and has been a ski lift inspector in Colorado for the past 19 years. He is the senior inspector for the State, and has
been so for the last 8 years. He is a member of the American National Standards Institute, which is a committee that
writes the standards for the National Tramway Codes. He is also the only ski lift designer for Vail and Associates
since 1986. Steve and Jeanie Beckley in the past few years have re-opened the ferry caves, acquired the property,
and have received numerous recognitions for their efforts. The principal architect for the project is Ken Hunt. Mr.
Hunt is present and will speak about the principal architectural features of the project, and how it was developed. In
response to the concerns of the planning staff, and after the Planning Commission had rendered their decision, they
wanted to re-examine in further detail what the parking plan looked like. They wanted to come up with an analysis
from someone outside this environment, and not in the community. The developer’s and applicants employed
Walker Parking Consultants that developed a parking analysis report, which the Council received in the packet. In
the statutes and code provisions, he read that it states, where an owner or developer can document that two separate
uses do not require parking during the same hours, and that adequate provisions are met to ensure that these uses
will not require parking during the same hours. Such owner and developer may petition the Planning Commission,
or have permission to allow parking spaces which otherwise comply with the provisions of the article to fulfill a
requirement for both uses. City Council has the ability to consider the parking situation, as well as the flexibility.
                                                           17
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
This is an opportunity to look at a unique project, and find a solution that will not create a precedent for other
projects. The uses with the HPOZ district and the concern staff has clearly stated the issues of the HPOZ district.
These concerns are actually outside the City limits. The building permit for this project would be issued by Garfield
County. The ultimate decision process is located in Garfield County. This does not mean that the developer wanted
to dismiss the interest of the City. They are interested in receiving as much feedback and cooperation, and otherwise
participation during the process. The particular impacts in the HPOZ district as zoned, to the top of the mountain,
involves pads that are 6 ft. by 6 ft. in concrete. These will be hand dug and hand placed, and the towers to be placed
by helicopters. The total impacts of all the towers on the surface of the HPOZ will be smaller than any residence
approved in the hillside preservation zone. He asked Steve Carver to talk about the placement of the hotel.

Steve Carver said that he and April have lived in Glenwood Springs for twenty-two years. They are excited about
being associated with the Beckley’s, the Petersons, and the caverns on this project. They have owned the Hotel
Denver since 1991, and have contributed significantly towards the redevelopment of 7th Street, and filled in a corner
of 7th Street and Blake Avenue. They paved their own parking lots and put in sidewalk lighting, as well as
purchasing additional parking. He reviewed the rest of the numerous projects they have completed in the City of
Glenwood Springs in the past. He said they are proud of all of the projects, as well as this project. He is concerned
about the misinformation regarding the parking. He does not see it as a reduction, but as a calculation as to the use.
It is not a cumulative use calculation, but it is a shared use calculation. They need to keep in mind that people are not
in restaurants throughout the City at midnight that is located in hotels and motels.

Steve Beckley, Owner of Glenwood Caverns, said he would like to discuss the building located at the top of the
mountain. They need to have the ability to take people to the top of the mountain to get them out of the inclement
weather. It is imperative that they have a building located at the top. For emergency access vehicles there needs to
be the capability to turn around to go back down the hill. He said the flat spot is the only turn-around they have. If
the building was moved back to the flat spot, they would lose the emergency access. Where the building is located,
the area is already disturbed by the previous operation in the 1800’s. He said they provide a school program to
children at cost to come to see the caves. This is not a benefit if they cannot access the caves due to inclement
weather. The tramway will alleviate all the problems that occur due to inclement weather.

Chuck Peterson said he is an Engineer with Enartech, Glenwood Springs, said this particular tramway that is
proposed for this site is not like any other than has ever been proposed. This particular lift after some analysis they
decided it was impossible to use a used piece of equipment. They decided they would go first rate. This machine is a
fixed grip machine where the carrier is attached to a rope while the tram circulates. The tram is going to be on a
pulse system with eight carriers that carries six passengers that are placed in groups of two. As the lift is going up
the hill at 1,000 ft. per minute, the tram will enter the terminal and slow down to 160 ft. per minute. The doors will
open automatically so that the people can exit and more can enter. There will be four groups, and as the groups slow
down at the terminals, there will be two groups on the line that will slow down as well. As the groups at the end
enters the doors will close and the lift will speed up. The total trip time will be about 7-½ minutes. This tram will be
a design build project that will be designed and manufactured in Grand Junction. The machine they are proposing to
install is unique, except that the challenge for their goal is to make the lift handicap accessible. They want to be able
to place a wheelchair into the carrier without having assistance to be lifted into the carrier. The floor level will be the
same exact level as the cabin. This was a challenge for them, because as the terminal moves back and forth, the floor
needs to move back and forth. The doors of the carrier will open for 45 seconds. During this time, wheelchairs can
make a 180 turn in and out of the tram three times before it starts down the hill. One benefit for the location of the
terminal is that it is handicap accessible so that the exit off the tram is directly at the restaurant level. There will also
be handicap accessibilities to the upper viewing area. This tram will be the second built in the United States with a
moving platform. Fiber optic capabilities will be used for the controls.

Mr. Peterson said regarding the visual impacts, they are making a great effort in minimizing the visual impacts. The
towers will be acid washed galvanized, which is a dark color that is washed and appears black. The forest service
requires this standard for ski areas. They have done everything possible to avoid having to cut any trees. They will
attempt to move the towers in locations to not disturb trees. They are going to take measures to not create scarring
that can be seen from other areas when entering town, such as what happened with the previous owners of the
property. Carries will be spaced out equally so that they will not all be seen at the same time.

                                                             18
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mr. Peterson said there would be minimal construction with this project. The project bid was hand-digging every
tower, unless there is a road next to it. There is a section at the top with access to another property and there is an
existing road parallel to the tram. In that case, a machine will dig the towers. They are going to minimize the
impacts on everything they do with the project. There is a lot of concern with the project regarding the HPOZ
district, and setting precedence. He said if they look at the precedence, they are setting, assuming it is located in the
HPOZ district, and the vast majority is not, the precedence would be to meet the stringent standards.

Kent Hunt, Architect, said he works in Grand Junction for a diversified practice. He also worked with the Carver’s
on the design and completion of the Denver Center Hotel. As an architect, they are challenged to balance a fine line
between all the elements of design. With this project, they tried to take the site planning, lighting, materials, parking,
and access to bring them to a point so that they blend in a successful project. This submittal represents a sincere
effort to synthesize all of those issues. He has been very impressed with his client’s team, and their commitment to
make this successful for a commercial adventure, as well as for the community. This will be a landmark that fits into
the future of the community, as well as a wholesome part of the economic development. He indicated on the
overhead presentation the elevations. He said that topography and drainage plays a big part of the design element of
this project. They tried to break up the mass of the building by bringing the facades up to tie into the existing
topography. The design they are proposing does that rather than just building a two story flat building. They tried to
step the building back so that it was presented from Devereux Road, and Two Rivers Plaza Road as a three-story
project. The building was stepped so that they could take advantage of the topography. There are some serious
concerns about how they developed the building, and why they are requesting a height variance to accomplish their
goals. The square footage did not play a part in the variance. Scaling down on the size of the building is not the
intent or the integrity of the project. The building impact needs to reflect its use as a hotel, tram, and the function
with what happens at the top of the hill, and the commercial use. The need to try to respect all the existing issues that
fit within the neighborhood as seen from the street. They also want to come into the design with materials that are
indicative and conducive to the neighborhood. The building will be maintenance free, and play within the character
of Glenwood Springs. This was the intent of the design. He showed on the overhead presentation where the tram
will run along the hill, and how it will step back on the hillside. He showed the location of the hotel, tram, and
commercial retail unit, as well as the location as it relates to Devereux Road, and Two Rivers Plaza. The first thing
they will deal with is the parking, landscaping, drainage, and all of the physical elements of the site. The biggest
element is to provide a project for the client that includes adequate parking, landscaping according to the code, and
landscaping that makes a good project. They have taken advantage of some of the existing topography and
landscaping on the site to try to mitigate the amount of vegetation removed. Regarding the parking issues, they
could do a lineal additive approach, which would be used on a strip mall or box mall, where each presents a parking
requirement. If there are no common elements of the development, and if there is not, then the lineal issue holds
true. If there were other components included in the project, for example, a theatre and other mixed uses that would
allow them to mitigate the parking. This would not be as a petition for reduction, but as a mixed-use element of the
parking requirement of the city code. The 68 rooms proposed, the 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and the 4,000
sq. ft. of restaurant, they reviewed who would be the users of these facilities. Previous experience would tell them
that the majority of these spaces are not inhabited by community-oriented type of users. Users of these facilities will
be hotel and tram oriented visitors. Therefore, they could provide a reduction based on some assumptions, and these
assumptions are based on experience with providing parking requirements, and parking design on other projects.
They took the best assumptions based on prior experience, and completed a parking study based on hotel use, tram
use, restaurant use, and commercial use. They then put the impact of the parking requirements, the time of day of the
uses, and the time of year on all the uses, and from this they came up with the highest demand for parking. Then
from this they apply the assumptions in terms of the combination of shared use parking requirements. The
independent evaluation of the lower facility based on the City code is 123 spaces, independent of the upper facility
oriented tram use. Because there is a component of a combined use, and if they assume a 25% reduction, they would
then have 87 spaces for just the lower facility. If they look at another lineal approach to the upper facility and break
down the 9,500 sq. ft. into its intended use, of which 2,900 sq. ft. is support, which does not demand parking, that
requirement would be 35 parking spaces. This would be a 40-space reduction for 118 cars. If they program the
parking based on what the tram can produce in traffic, they can negate the square footage at the top. If they provide
parking for the top, the tram would have to provide for the use at the top. The issue is how to evaluate what the
impacts of the tram will be on the upper spaces. All of the issues will be considered with the approach of evaluating
the mixed use on this unique combination of commercial, restaurant, and hotel space.

                                                            19
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Mr. Hunt said he wanted to review the questions raised regarding the parking lot design, and the drainage. They
have talked with staff and found that there are ways to mitigate the collection of water in the parking lot. They can
use sub-terrainian piping systems so that they do not have to develop potholes to hold the water. There are ways to
not affect parking, but still ways to mitigate the design and drainage aspects. They feel comfortable that they can
work with City staff, and solve this issue. Mr. Hunt presented overheads of what the project will look like, including
the elevations, the proposed format for the location of the mixed uses, and views of the tram from the different
surrounding areas. He also reviewed the materials to be used, as well as the colors. He said he would let the parking
consultant talk about the approach to a mixed-use project, and how it incorporates into the city parking regulations.

Richard Raskin, Walker Parking Consultants, said he was asked to present the facts to be considered with the
project. He said that Walker Parking Consultants have been around for approximately 40 years. They have 14
offices in the United States, and 1 office in Europe. They provide support on equipment, building, or restoring a
parking structure, developing a parking operation, and providing details as to what a community can expect from
additional change to a present configuration. The company was asked by the architects to determine the mixed-use
figures for the proposed project. Using details about the current program and what the proposed project will include,
they were able to develop a parking model. The model was based on 40 years of the company’s experience looking
at similar projects, and knowing what the community will expect. His presence tonight is not to refute the city code,
or to ask for an amendment to the code. Their philosophy is to make sure that when parking is created it is exactly
what is needed for the area. It serves no purpose to have too small of a parking area for a use, which creates more
problems. In a project such as this one, they would not propose creating too much parking. They took the numbers
presented to them regarding the project, size of restaurant and number of hotel rooms, number of visitors to the
caverns, and from that created a parking model. They took in account that the proposed project is located on a bus
line, and another 500 adjacent hotel rooms located in the area, that will provide a good source of the demand for the
caverns. They wanted to provide the city and the applicant with a number that is real, but will not be real all of the
time. They looked at 90% of peak demand and lowered it by 10%. They created a design day and came up with a
number of 115 spaces. This is the maximum number of spaces that would be used 90% of the time. In this particular
instance, and because of the components of the project, a hotel that will have guests gone during the day will
provide an empty parking lot that is available for the cavern visitors. The largest component of a hotel staff is the
housekeeping staff, which will go home in the evening to free up parking spaces for guests. The need for more than
115 parking spaces won’t be needed. He said he would be glad to answer any questions.

Kent Hunt said the tram cars will not be lit.

Erin Humphrey, said he is the Senior Lighting Designer for Rising Sun Enterprises located in Basalt. He said they
are know throughout the valley for environmentally friendly, and low impact lighting systems. They are careful
about light trespass and pollution. They worked on the lighting for the new RFTA building located in Glenwood
Springs. They will concentrate on keeping the lighting levels low, and shielding all the light sources. The city
lighting code only addresses outdoor lighting, and only addresses for the most part parking lots. The building that
will be located at the top of the hill will not include any parking. They will be providing a minimal amount of
lighting. The interior lighting could possibly be where the biggest impacts occur from down in the valley while
looking up at the building. However, by using deep-shielded sources, and directly the lighting away from ceiling
planes they will be able to keep the impacts to a minimum. They cannot make the building totally disappear, but
they can keep the lighting to a point where the building itself is not a huge impact. As the building shuts down at
night, it will become very dark, without any glitter on the horizon.

At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof called for a break.
At 10:44 p.m., Mayor Vanderhoof reconvened the meeting.

         Councilor Merritt moved, seconded by Councilor Emery, to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. to
         cover items 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

Marc Adler, 525 W. 12th Street, said he is here tonight to speak in favor of the tram. He said one of the city goals
have been to have a light, non-polluting industry. He said this is one of those projects. It appears from the tone of
                                                           20
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Council that everyone is in favor of the project. The project was actually started back in the 1800’s, and in 1886 is
when it was commercialized. The Beckley’s have now reopened the business better than before. He said regarding
the parking, he hopes that Council will look at the idea of mixed-use parking. This project does not impact
residential areas. The people that will be most impacted if the parking is incorrect are the hotel, the tram, restaurant,
and the caves. They would be hurting themselves if they felt they could not make it work with the number of allotted
parking spaces. He hopes that Council will look at this, and make sure that the mixed use does work. He feels that
logic says that if more parking is needed, somehow the business will find a way to increase the parking. He said he
thinks that the mixed-uses will take care of themselves.

Bob Kopper, Instructor at CMC, said he is concerned that the tram could provide access to using the telescope that
he uses for his winter classes. He said the issues raised regarding the skyline view; he thinks they need to take a flip
view of this. Instead of seeing a little bump on the hillside, they need to be viewing the area from a visitors view.
Glenwood Springs has received numerous national recognitions, and for them to do something to jeopardize a
project this valuable is sad. Standing on a brilliant spot for the proposed project, and looking down at the beauty of
the valley is something that is immeasurable. For a handicapped individual riding the tram that has handicap
accessibility to the top of the project, and not have a view it would be very sad. The only thing they would
experience is the tram ride up the mountain and back down. One of the ideas of this project is to be able to reach the
top and have a wonderful view of the valley. They need to look at this from a standpoint of standing on top and
looking down and appreciating the beautiful valley that they live in.

Shiela Markowitz, 824 Blake, said she is overwhelmed by what is being proposed, and what an important turning
point this could be for the future of Glenwood Springs. She has not personally met the Beckley’s, and she is sure
they are nice people, however, their need to expand their business, and what they are offering, as well as their
income, should not be on the backs of the citizens of Glenwood Springs. Too many years of meetings have finally
resulted in the Hillside Preservation Overlay Zone ordinance. This Ordinance should not be thrown away because
someone states they will bring in more tourists and tax dollars. This is a sell out to the community. They know that
all of this expansion never gives more tax dollars to the community, but ends up costing the residence forever
increasing problems, and infrastructure caused by the expansion. If expansion were the answer, look at all the
growth that has happened over the past 10 years. Why there is now some now saying, they cannot possibly deny this
development because the town needs the dollars. She said this does not make any sense. It is obvious to her that how
they spend the tax dollars is much more important than finding ways to get more money. Once, again, she is here to
state that this beautiful area is being sold to those with money to afford the ramped development. The hillside still
vacant at the top and at the top Iron Mountain should not be built upon. She looks at the beauty of Iron Mountain
everyday and at the sun as it sets in the west. It would be a travesty to allow this type of development suggested here
to take place. If this development were allowed, it would be opening a Pandora’s box that they will not be able to
close. The Beckley’s will still have their business and their income if this project was denied. If they cannot afford
to keep the tram going, then they have the option to sell out just as everyone does when they own a business. She
does not think this will happen, however, the caves will continue to be here. They do not have a commitment to keep
them in business, especially at the cost of the hillsides, which will be gobbled up if they set this type of precedence,
and at the cost of the residents of Glenwood Springs who say, enough is enough. Where do they think they are going
if the hillside development is approved? Don’t diminish the work done by those who supported Hillside
Preservation, and the long hours they put into creating the ordinance. She personally feels that preservation, or
surrounding hillsides, is one of the most important issues facing the area.

Rachael Goetz, 17 Comchurch Hill, New Castle, said she has been asked to read a letter from Bill Knight, American
Leadership Sworn Senior Fellow, who was out of town and was not able to attend the meeting. She read the letter
that stated, “Dear City Council members; Steve and Jeanie Beckley have made a long-term commitment to the
community. Their creativity and hard work have produced a unique project. Yes, this is precedence setting. No other
tram proposal that I know of has ever been proposed for our community in almost 20 years that I have lived here.
They have my support and respects in helping them make their dream come true, we enrich the economic viability
of our town. Steve and Jeanie deserve a creative unique and precedent setting response from Council. This means
hard work. He is asking that they work hard with the Beckley’s, and seek common ground from which the project
may proceed without delay”.



                                                           21
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Michelle Lyons, said she resides in Rifle. She said that Glenwood Caverns is not only a tourist attraction, but also a
site for research. This project is a good thing to look at for the community along with the opportunities that
Glenwood Caverns has given to research in the past. The tramway would only embellish the opportunities presented
to students who are working on different research projects.

Anthony Durrett, 109 3rd Street, said he has the ultimate confidence that the applicant will produce a first class
project. He does share the same concerns that the City Manager has raised, with regard to the integrity of the code.
The modest complaint relates to very serious matters that will have a long-range impact on the decision with future
projects. He fears, contrary to what Mr. Adler stated, that based upon the lack of parking that the city anticipates that
the overflow will come into north Glenwood where he resides. This area is already severally impacted. The right-of-
ways are very small and tight, and people struggle trying to park their cars. If the overflow does not span to the north
it will go west across the interstate to Two Rivers Park, or on the Union Pacific property. This presents a new set of
separate problems. If the City’s calculations on the parking will be 77 less spaces, then people will be parking along
Devereux Road that is an accident waiting to happen. He is surprised that no one has been killed in this area because
there are no sidewalks, and no place for pedestrians to walk. He noted that Mr. Hanlon said it was Council’s
decision to relax, enforce, or repeal the code, with regard to the HPOZ district. He said there is not any question
about this. They do not want to relax the code. The code has been created for a reason. He said Mr. Hanlon also
noted that it gives them the guidelines that will help evaluate the visual disturbances. What Mr. Copp is proposing is
very reasonable with regarding to all the issues that have been raised. It sounds like the City has been over
backwards to give the applicants what they want.

Joel Livingston, Squaw Business Development Center, Colorado Mountain College, said that Steve Beckley
contacted his office in September, and asked him to work with him on developing a financial package for
developing his finances on the tramway system. In doing this the looked at the impacts on Glenwood Springs, and
found that Glenwood Springs would see within the first year of operation, of the tramway only, approximately
$280,000 in sales tax revenue. This figures comes from three sources. One source is from increased expenditures to
the people already in town, the second is the increase in the length of stay of the guests who visit the town, and the
third source is an increase in the shoulder-seasoned tourism. This is an important point for Glenwood Springs. He
thanked City Council for considering it.

Jim Nelson, 804 23rd Street, said he is an accountant, and an amateur historian. He has reviewed the proposed
project from a couple of different viewpoints. He said regarding the parking issue, there was approximately 30,000
to 40,000 visitors annually to the caves. These visitors are parking in the Hotel Colorado parking lot, the Hot
Springs Pool lot, and the residential areas. He would think that the residents in the north Glenwood area, especially
the Hotel Colorado area, would be turning cartwheels at the thought of having new parking spaces created to handle
the visitors. This problem is on its way to being solved. It may take a variance on the part of the City to allow the
parking as proposed, but he would recommend they approve the variance. He said regarding the visual impacts,
historically this town was built on visions. It was a vision of Walter Devereux who created the pool, the Hotel
Colorado, and the vapor caves. It was the vision of twenty local businessmen in the 1950’s, who bought the pool to
keep it open to the public. It is now the vision of Steve and Jeanie Beckley that have acquired the old ferry caves,
and improved it. Their vision is not going to allow them to construct something ugly on the top of the hill.

Jim Hawkins, 6471 County Road 117, said he owns a small bed and breakfast located on Four Mile Road. He thinks
that most everyone agrees that financially for the city, and the whole area, that this is a good deal. One of the
emotional issues for him is the skyline issue. It is a danger to look at slides of the massive building they keep
hearing about. They are not talking about the mass of the building, but what is actually going to be visible from the
ridge. He said from his point of view, it is a minor part of the mass. It is not on the hillside, but it is on the hilltop.
There’s approximately 12 city blocks that will see the building from the skyline. If the image which is shown is
anywhere near accurate, it is a miniscule amount of the mass of the building. He said there seems to be an obsessive
fear of setting precedence. If he understands the system correctly, the variances have been approved, and it
Council’s job as a collective group for the good of the City to sometimes make arbitrated decisions for the good of
the City. This project leans more towards an approval, as opposed to disapproval.

Ginger Watts, 0135 135 Road, said as a small business owner of an insurance agency in the community, she has a
business that does not directly receive revenues from the tourist industry. Although, her business appoints
                                                            22
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
employees that live and work in the community, through the trickle down effect, all the small business owners
understand it is their ability to grow and succeed in business directly related to the local industry, without being
tourism. The tourism market can be enhanced by all businesses in Glenwood Springs. From personal experience, she
visited a town in Switzerland that provided a tram ride to the top of a mountain. Her mother who walks with a cane,
and is unable to hike, was able to take the tram to a lodge at the top of a mountain, was a truly enriching experience
that they will remember.

Erin Rey, 2702 Midland, said she is a tour guide and Glenwood Caverns, and a student at CMC. She said this has
been a real personal experience for her, because she has been involved with this project in many ways. Beyond the
skyline and parking, and other issues, one issue that has not been addressed is the opportunity to take a bike up the
trail. With all the buses and traffic, this is hard to access. By building the tramway it will return the opportunity for
the recreational use of Transfer Trail back to four-wheelers, ATV users, bicyclist, and motorcyclist. This will
become a safer place where others can go and enjoy on their own time.

Marianne Virgili, 1107 Parkwood Lane, Glenwood Springs, said that as a member of the TDM Committee, they
talked today about the parking issues, and the necessity not to provide big parking areas. The way to get people to
use alternative transportation, and to get them out their cars, is to not provide parking. This is a goal of the TDM
committee, which is a City Committee. It is very difficult for developers to understand which way to go according to
the codes, land use plan, and HPOZ requirements. Overlying all of this is the City’s great need for economic
development, and the sense of urgency regarding this. For her the bottom line is, what if. The question tonight is
what if the project is denied, or approved with conditions that the developer can’t meet. When the Beckley’s state
that if this project is not approved they will lose the contracts, and the land, and then cannot go forward, she has to
believe that. She would urge City Council to approve the project.

Vicky Shropshrier, 3021 Sopris Avenue, said she is very active in Colorado’s tourism industry. Recently she was
asked to serve on a panel at the University of Colorado in Boulder in the tourism management program. She
reviewed some presentations on sustainable practices in tourism. This course is offered at the university. When she
spoke, the example she used as a role model for sustainable development was the Glenwood Caverns. In fact, one of
the students had based their research on how the caverns were restored, and how successful the project is. She feels
that the Beckley’s have demonstrated their commitment to sustainable development, and their concern for the
natural environment, as well as the community. They are very well respected within the tourism industry. Last year
the Beckley’s were honored with the Outstanding Community initiative award by the Governors Colorado Tourism
conference. We all should be very proud that they are a part of our community. She feels they will have the same
philosophy through all the phases of the project. She would ask for everyone’s support.

Rolf Harmenson, 1329 Pitkin, said is relatively new to the town and is not involved with the tourism industry. He
moved here because he likes to hike, and loves the beauty of the mountains. He does not like to see the mountains
scarred. To be able to overlook the entire town at night on the mountain all year round would be a great experience.
The educational experiences available for the schools would be a positive impact to the community. This project as a
whole would have a positive impact on the town for the lifetime of Colorado.

Gary Grillarm, 1021 Grand Avenue, said he owns the Glenwood Springs Hostile. He said that many of his guests
have enjoyed the Glenwood Caverns. He said most of the guests do walk and take the bus. He urges City Council to
go forward and approve the project.

Peter Belleau, 702 Traver Trail, said he lives on the far eastern edge of Oasis Creek Subdivision adjacent to the
proposed project. He would urge City Council to approve the tramway, because he thinks it is vastly superior to the
buses, in terms of transportation to the caves. There is less impact on the site and to the town of Glenwood Springs
in general, as far as traffic congestion. He supports the Planning Commission concerning the parking lots. The
tramway system is a transportation system that is unique. This is an out of the box situation and he would hope that
Council would approve the project.

Raymond Lyons, 1075 Hickory, Rifle, said regarding the parking issues, it is a matter of time before Glenwood
Springs gets publicity over busing people up and down the steep road. If someone is ever injured on the road to the
caves that will be the name made for the caves. The proposed building will be about twice the size of the homes
                                                            23
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
built in the valley today. This is not going to be a big building. The Beckley’s have done an excellent job on the
designing, and they are working very hard with the City.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked if there was anyone else present from the public that would care to speak. Seeing none, he
closed the public hearing.

Councilor Davis said he had a question regarding the building on top. He understands that it is located in the
County, but it all ties together into one big picture. He does not understand how the building is going to truly look,
and how it will blend into the mountaintop.

Mr. Schenk said he would like to explain why the building has to be in that particular location, and why. The current
building design and location has been approved by Garfield County. The size of the building is approximately 9,500
sq. ft. The footprint is approximately 4,000 sq. ft. The upper level that would be visible to the town is 3,000 sq. ft. It
will set at a bias so that a point of a corner will be visible, with the rest fading back. The conditions stated, the
applicant shall submit samples and details of all materials, and colors used for the entire project for the Community
Development Director’s approval. This will be approved, as it states in Condition 7. They will have to work with the
color palette for the color scheme of the outside, and the materials used to satisfy City staff. The intention will be to
break up the line from all different approaches. They want the impression to be that the applicant has not been
unwilling to commit to the design issues, as far as mitigating the appearance of the project. There is no interest in
making the project visible at the top, but in having a view from the City from the top of the mountain. The building
will be modest on the upper level.

Councilor Davis said regarding the times of operation with the hotel and the tram, there is a much broader overlap of
times in the mixed-use project. How do they get the benefits of the mixed use when they are operating
simultaneously time wise?

Mr. Schenk said the high usage points would be in the summer time. The analysis is valid; they can look at the
blends, and the fact that this site will not infiltrate other sites. The people that are interested in the project, and are
located at the bottom of the project have every interest in making sure that they have the spaces available for their
hotel and restaurant use. The applicant’s also want to make sure there are spaces available to get up the hill. If they
do not have enough parking spaces, they will have to deal with it to accommodate more parking in the area.

Councilor Gillespie asked what conditions they were to reference.

Mr. Schenk said they 18 conditions that were included in the packet are the conditions that have been approved by
the Planning Commission. The appeal is to reject or accept the project.

Councilor Emery asked what the proposed hours of operation are for the tram.

Mr. Schenk said they asked that hours not be imposed because there would be activities pertaining to astronomy.
There were not specific hours indicated, but they think that the use of the tram in the evening will be low. The active
use in the cave in the evening will stop around 5:00 p.m.

Richard Raskin said that the peak time for the tram use and the hotel would be during the summer. The model took
into account the number of rooms and the number of people that will be using the tram and the hotel. They
deliberately left out that during the summer families come to the resort that will take up two rooms in a hotel, and
have one car. The tram use in the evening will be for the people located in the hotel or in walking distance from the
hotel. It will not attract people from a considerable distance. If it does, there will still be space in the parking lot for
the vehicles. The peak for the tram activity will be during the mid afternoon time. It will then taper off in the
evening with approximately 10 cars for a family of four. This is where they kept the area of shared use.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked how they would expect to get 50% of the restaurant retail demand to people walking.

Mr. Raskin said that 50% are not necessarily walking. They are predicting that 30% of the tram users will walk from
the immediate area. He said that 50% of the retail and restaurant, which will be located in the same property as the
                                                             24
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
hotel, would already be hotel users. This is not getting people out of their cars, but that there will not be two cars for
every person. They would be using both the hotel and restaurant businesses.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked how many employees there would be working at the hotel, retail, and tramway, and where
are the provisions for where they would park.

Mr. Raskin said the numbers provided include the employees. Traditionally for every hotel room, depending on a
weekend or weekday, there are .18 and .23 employees per occupied hotel room. The biggest staff of any hotel is the
housekeeping staff. There is one housekeeper to every 8 to 13 rooms, depending on certain factors. The amount
would be approximately ¼ person per room.

Councilor Gillespie asked if there would be 12 employees.

Mr. Raskin said they recommended that the tram employees and the people located in the visitors center park off
site.

Mr. Beckley said they track the visitors now. There are 561 from the Ramada Inn to one block away. From the
Chamber’s study, they get 15% of all hotel users that visit the caves. Approximately 40% to 50% of the existing
users are in the one block radius.

Councilor Martensen said she likes the idea of separating the base station, tram, and the hotel complex for an
approval.

Mr. Schenk said this would be an expensive project, so all of the components need to be in place to make it
economically appropriate for the site. It is anticipated the entire project is to be completed around this time next
year. They have a commitment from the developer to complete the project by a certain date.

Councilor Richardson said condition 15 states; the applicant will work with staff to install the sidewalk on Devereux
Road.

Mr. Schenk said this was condition 11, which was included in the old list of conditions.

Councilor Richardson asked if they were asking the developer to provide a sidewalk across the I-70 Bridge.

Mr. Schenk said no. The idea was that the sidewalk was going to be built along the site per the plans, with no offsite
improvements. The problem with how to cross Devereux Road to get to the park is a big deal. They will work with
staff to solve this on long-range bases to what the plans may be, but not to exceed beyond this.

         Councilor Merritt moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, in the matter of Planning Item#36-02,
         including the 18 recommended conditions, consideration of an appeal for the Planning Commissions
         approval, for a Special Use Permit for an aerial tramway in the C/1 Limited Commercial, and Hillside
         Preservation Overlay Zones, and an appeal of recommendation of proof of a Major Development for a
         tramway based station, hotel and commercial building, along with the appropriate zoning variances for a
         building height in the C/1 limited commercial and hillside preservation, to deny the appeal. The
         applicant has demonstrated that the parking is adequate for the intended use, and that the area of
         concern is outside the City’s Hillside Preservation Overlay Zone, and that they are in compliance with
         the intent of preserving the hillsides, while providing for uses in the area.

Councilor Gillespie said it is to the advantage of the hotel owners being partners, to work out the parking problems.
He feels the project has adequate parking, and he does not have a problem with the variance requests.

Councilor Emery said this is a great project. He supports the use of a tram to transport people, as opposed to driving
a bus along Transfer Trail. It will also improve the safety issues on Transfer Trail. If they deny the appeal, they will
not have any chance of putting any mitigation in place. There needs to be some type of mitigation included in the
project.
                                                            25
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
Councilor Davis reviewed the list of conditions that were previously eliminated, and which conditions will remain.
He asked Mr. Hanlon to define conditions 14, 18 and the last part of 24.

Mr. Hanlon said that conditions 14 and 18 were carried over. They state that the City has a series of utility
requirements that will be unique to the project, in terms of how the facilities get up and down the mountain. They
need to recognize the policies in various departments that will be involved. Condition 24 deals with the number of
visitors they anticipate. The critical part of this is addressing the overlapping in the hours of operation, and lighting
concerns that relate to this. They are trying to ensure that the parking will work, and to find other ways to
compensate if it did not.

Ms. Haefeli said that condition 24 is concurrent with the condition imposed by the County.

Councilor Davis said he does not like to impose conditions that are not enforceable will not serve them any purpose.

Ms. Haefeli said the numbers were generated from the applicant’s septic use, and that the septic system cannot
handle a higher usage. The 200 people per day were the amount of people that could be handled at the visitors’
center, as well as at the caverns at the same time.

Councilor Davis said it appears that the only condition that is different is condition 7 states; the issuance of a
development permit should be submitted, samples of details, colors to the Community Development Director. This
does not give City Council an opportunity to look at the building, even thought it is located in the County. This takes
the chance away from them to modify the conditions when going along with Councilor Merritt’s motion. It also does
not give them the opportunity to talk about the means to deal with the special use, and the parking issues.

Councilor Merritt said they have given the Community Development Director the opportunity to look at the color
palette. As a Planning Commission member, they never went into the issue of the detailed colors. It is not
appropriate for them to get into these types of issues. Regarding the parking, he is not sure what more they should be
doing. This project is located on the bus line, and the applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient parking. If
they continue to pave areas, they will have trouble getting people out of their cars. The parking that they have he
feels is appropriate, and they need to proceed at this point.

Councilor Richardson said if they deny the appeal it, takes away some of his level of comfort. If they support the
motion, they are just saving 15 minutes. If they approve the project, and people have problems with the conditions,
he fears it could jeopardize the approval of the whole project. He feels if they support the appeal it does nothing but
give them a little more flexibility. This project speaks to the need for them to develop a TDM ordinance. They have
an opportunity to somewhat tweak the transportation mitigation.

Councilor Davis would ask that a condition be included that states, City Council has an opportunity to review the
architecture of the building on the top of the mountain. This does not include the colors of the building. He would
also suggest in language that shuttles between the tram, and other areas within the business to the hotels. He would
like to see the opportunity for off site parking that the owners could provide in other areas for overflow.

Councilor Merritt said during the Planning and Zoning meeting they discussed that they did not want to be putting
more vehicles on street in the interest of saving traffic. There will be buses going past this area on a frequent basis.
They do not need to be running more shuttles that will take people 50 ft. closer. They are wrestling with parking
because each business in the downtown is not required to provide for their own parking. They do not need to be
having review and approval authority at the City Council level for buildings that are located in the County.

Mayor Vanderhoof said he does not have any problem with the building located on top of the mountain. He would
have more of a concern with the building being located in the HPOZ district if it was located in the City, and not the
County. The parking issue worries him somewhat, and thinks it is short. He would like to review the possibility of
eliminating eight trees to accommodate eight more parking spaces. He would like to address the possibility of
busing the employees to the business, if it appears that the parking was inadequate. They could also discuss the
option of eliminating some of the bus parking spaces to make room for more vehicles. If he were involved with the
                                                            26
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
business plan, he would be trying to find ways to come up with more parking. If the parking proves inadequate, it
will be the responsibility of the tramway and the restaurant, not the City. The Planning Commission approved the
proposal, with the applicant appealing the recommended conditions. He does not think they should be adding
additional conditions. He said a yes vote would deny the appeal, and accept the 18 recommended conditions as
approved by the Planning Commission.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The results were:

         AYES: Davis, Gillespie, Vanderhoof, Martensen, Merritt
         NAYS: Emery and Richardson

The motion passed.

         B.       #09-02 – Consideration Of A Recommendation To Approve A Major Development Permit For An
                  Aerial Tramway In The C/1 Limited Commercial And Hillside Preservation Overlay Zones As
                  Well As A Major Development Permit For A Tramway Base Station, Hotel And Commercial
                  Building.

                  Applicant:         Charles Peterson For Glenwood Caverns, Inc.; Glenwood Tramway LLC; And
                                     Marthom Inc.
                  Owner:             RDS Riverview LLC
                  Location:          Lots 1, 2 And 3 Two Rivers Park Plaza Subdivision
                  Zone:              C/1 Limited Commercial And Hillside Preservation Overlay (HPOZ)

         Councilor Merritt moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, to accept the recommendation of Planning
         and Zoning Commission with the 18 recommended conditions.

Mayor Vanderhoof asked if there was anyone present from the public that would care to address Council.

Chuck Peterson, applicant, said their goal is to work with City staff to resolve the colors and shapes of the
projections. They will add what is necessary to break up the false skyline.

Councilor Davis said the City has an opportunity for something that they have never had before along with the
opportunity of funding that can be generated. They could dedicate initial funds to the parking structure, and commit
to helping with the parking problems in town. They would be able to dedicate the funds to the big picture of the
community. He would like to encourage passing this on when they move forward, and not to the developers.

Councilor Emery hopes that the applicant follows through to mitigate the appearance of the skyline.

Councilor Richardson said that even though he would have like to tweak the conditions, it in no way prevents him
from supporting the project. In his opinion, this is a blessing in disguise. He also has no doubt that the lighting
expert will do a good job. He thanked staff and Mike Copp for their job well done.

Councilor Gillespie said there comes a time when Council needs to put their faith in the citizens. With this particular
group, he feels they will not fail.

Mayor Vanderhoof said there being not further comments, he called for the question. He said a yes vote would
approve the project.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

At 12:24 a.m., Mayor Vanderhoof called for a break.
At 12:30 a.m., Mayor Vanderhoof reconvened the meeting.

ITEM NO. 12.      Award Of Bid: (Purchasing Agent)
                                                          27
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
         A.       South Glenwood Design/Build Firestation.

Mike Copp stated that the design/build went through the District Board’s review for approval. The Board approved
it unanimously for the Rural Fire Station District located in South Glenwood. He said at the June 20, 2002 City
Council meeting they will present the design and construction schedule for the project.

         Councilor Richardson moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, to approve the bid for South Glenwood
         Design/Build Fire station #3.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

         B.       #2002-26 New City Hall Parking Lot

Mike Copp noted that there was only one bid received from Gould Construction. With the tight schedule, they
discussed with Mark Gould about an add-on to the 8th Street project they are currently working on. They also
discussed ways to keep the costs down with some things taken care of in-house. The cost of the project is $320,000.
If this is not an add onto the 8th Street project, and only receiving one bid, they would have to go out for a re-bid
which could take several weeks. The City feels they negotiated a fair price based on what they feel the bid would
have been.

Councilor Davis asked what the budget amount is.

Mr. Copp said the budget is not at $320,000. Part of the overall plan for FF&E and the City Hall parking lot was
selling of the police building. This was put on hold so they have to come up with money from another source. The
parking lot is obviously an essential part of the new city hall project that needs to be taken care of. They will come
back later with the funding plan when they get closer to the end of the City Hall project. If Council agrees, there are
others that are looking at the police department building.

Councilor Merritt said he is concerned awarding a bid and directing staff to negotiate without having a funding plan
in place. He is also very concerned about selling off property for construction costs. He would be very much against
the perception that they are selling off the police building to buy a few desks.

Mr. Copp said, as they went through the bonding process and putting money together, it was part of the funding
package so that they could complete the remainder of the projects. It was not something that was tacked on later.

         Councilor Davis moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, to approve having staff negotiate with Gould
         Construction for bid #2002-26, new City Hall parking lot.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The results were:

         AYES: Davis, Gillespie, Emery, Vanderhoof, Martensen and Merritt
         NAYS: Richardson

The motion passed.

         C.       #2002-27 Slip In Tank – Fire Department

Mr. Copp said they received only one bid for the slip-in tank project for the fire department. They will reopen the
bid for the project.

         D.       #2002-24 Sayre Park Playground Equipment

Mr. Copp said, because the information was not presented to Council, the bid item will be presented at the June 20,
2002 City Council meeting.
                                                          28
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
         E.       Rejection of Proposals for the Management of the Fiber Optics System.

Mr. Copp suggested Council reject the proposals for the management of the fiber optics system. Staff believes they
have a good chance to work the State MNT system. They will submit a proposal on this and will inform Council on
how they will go about putting the figures together. Although, it will not be the cure-all, it will keep the expenses
down.

         Councilor Davis moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, to reject the proposal for the management of
         the fiber optics system.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 13.      Discussion of Proposed Annexation Agreement with Glenwood Meadows, LLC. (City Attorney)

Mayor Vanderhoof said that agenda Item No. 13 would be pulled from the agenda.

ITEM NO. 14.      Consideration Of Resolution No. 2002-10; A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of
                  Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Finding A Petition For Annexation Of A 4.19 Acres Parcel Of Land
                  Located At 2550 Highway 82 In Garfield County, In Substantial Compliance With Applicable
                  Statutes; Initiating Annexation Proceedings For The Parcel; And Setting A Public Hearing.
                  (Hicks)

Karl Hanlon said staff has reviewed the application and has found the application to be in substantial compliance.
They are recommending that City Council adopt Resolution No.2002-10, and set the public hearing for the first City
Council meeting in August.

         Councilor Emery moved, seconded by Councilor Martensen, to adopt Resolution No. 2002-10.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 15.      Consideration of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2002; Amending Municipal Code Provisions
                  Related to the Bidding and Purchasing of Equipment and Construction Services. (FIRST
                  READING)

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

ITEM NO. 16.      Discussion of Noise Abatement Ordinance. (City Attorney)

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

ITEM NO. 17.      Preparations for Drought. (Director of Public Works)

Mr. Millyard said that the Roaring Fork is not a direct reflection of what the water supply is for the City. They do
not have a good predicted point for the sources. They are monitoring flow in No Name three times per week. The
golf course has a water supply that comes out of Mitchell Creek, as well as using some of the City’s water rights.
They could exercise some control and make recommendations over this area for usage. He feels that the golf course
is aware of the water shortage, and is actively working to make sure things are split evenly to not use too much
water.

Councilor Richardson asked if this was restricted to the City limits, or those residents that use city water.

Mr. Millyard said this would have to be customer wide.



                                                           29
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002
        Councilor Davis moved, seconded by Councilor Merritt, to recommend moderate drought as our target
        and we implement that.

Councilor Merritt said they should utilize, with a moderate drought a threshold, and choose a forecast for the
Roaring Fork River and Glenwood Springs. This represents the base. There are two issues, one issue is how dry is
the area that we live in now. The second issue is, when the City goes into the severe drought restrictions would be
how bad is the direct supply. Going into a moderate drought is a reflection that is more important to have water in
the streams. He would recommend they use a June 1 forecast of the Roaring Fork River, of less than 50% of normal
runoff. They will be recommending that conservation is important because of the dry situations we are in now.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 18.     Consideration of Request for Funding American Leadership Forum. (Councilor Merritt)

        Councilor Davis moved, seconded by Councilor Gillespie, to approve the funding of the American
        Leadership Forum.

Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously with Councilor
Merritt abstaining.

ITEM NO. 19.     Citizens Appearing Before Council.

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

ITEM NO. 20.     Report From City Administration:

        A.       City Manager.

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

        B.       City Attorney.

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

ITEM NO. 21.     Comments From Council.

This item was postponed due to the lateness of the hour.

ITEM NO. 22.     Adjournment.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:56 p.m.




                                                           30
City of Glenwood Springs
City Council Minutes
June 6, 2002

								
To top