Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Minutes May 2 1978 - Webster House - reducedTRANSCRIPT , , TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF MaY 2, 1978 Agenda item No. 7 - Webster Residence - request for GRFA and setback variances for Lot 35, Block 7, YaiL Village First Filing. Slifer: The next item is the lfebster Residence a request for GRTA and Setback Variances for Lot 35, Block 7 Vail Village 1st Filing. A. Gerstenberger: I{ebster has applications for two variances GRFA and Setback Variance for Lot 35,, Block 7 vil village first Filing. I won't go into the numbers that are involved because BiIl I believe has the latest update of what numbers are appticable. Bill why don't you go ahead and explain the proposal and then I will (not able to hear) Bill Ruoff: Thanks Allen, I feel that a little bit of background is necessary to understand what Allen is referring to' In view of the report that you have that was prepared a couple of weeks ago by the staff, is a 1itt1e mislead,ing, w€ feel the figures in it - - we don't feel they change, but we've reconciled the difference in opinion. It was based on the faot that there is a strip 'of land next door to the lot which George has always owned that has been unoccupied, he did not own j-t, we determined that if he did own it it would help the area that are necessary in running zoning checks. without going into a long story I am sure that some of you know a little background on this. It was determined that that is one of the o1d livestock runs by which ranchers in this area used to cross other rancher's territory to get their livestock onto the mountains to graze. It turns out that this is one that got tost somewhere, came out that v.A. owned it, much to their surprise. I believe the Town was surprised to when we started looking into it. These things take a 1itt1e time they were pursued diligencewith as much ooo00€ as we could, anyway, George Webster, felt the sensible thing to do would be to acquire the land from v.A. George has been out of town for the past three weeks. At the time that the report was made, technically George did not own the land. We had asked the Planning Commission to consider it as though George owned it because he was in the process of acquiring it. However, they chose to take the position. Is Ed Drager here? He had said he would be here tonight to explain this. Slifer:He was at our work session this afternoon. TRANSCRIPT - COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 2, Yfebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance for Lot 35, Block 7, VV lst Bill Ruoff: Oh, all right, all right. Unknown: But we didn't talk about thls.at the work session. Slifer: So you explain their position and why they did not consider the additional land because it was their feeling it was not owned at the time they were reviewing it, it was under negotiation. Bill Ruoff: That's right it was, George has gotten back j-n town. As you can see has received the paper, we have it here, and would like to give you copies if anyone doubts that it is now George's. Therefore, we would tike you to consider the figures that we have used from the beginning that we feel are the right ones. And I am sorry that they it would have been much simpler had they agreedthe to have faith that George would be back and finish up D0 purchase of the 1and. A11 right, they had an agenda that went seven hours last week and they didn't want to get into this, lets be frank about it. They knew it had to come to you and they . . . to you, and here we are. There are two varj-ances that are required for George's property. I would like to speak first briefly about what we consider probably the simpler one because there is much precedent for it and they have been routinely granted under similar circumstances and in fact encouraged by Planning Commission, DRB is even gotten into the act and Council. It is as we know of course on tr'orest Road where the present Zoning Ordinance doesn't fit. Forest Road was built long before it and there are conditions, the road is narrow, and steep and there isn't enough parking and so forth. The present house would be replaced by George's proposed new house as we can show if any of you can see from back there, the new house will be almost exactly, by that I mean, within fi-fteen inches, dependant upon a final survey that is bei.ng made now, of the setback that the existing house has. There will in effect, be no change on setback' The present one does not meet current setback requirements, if it did, it would be pushed out into the air and the usual thing of the steep hill- side site, the very thing that you have addressed in the steep slopes area of tlne Hazard Ordinance that you had at first reading tonight. This is the perfect example of it, of why it makes sense on these lots to make a variance. The second point is that technically we coutd go back and meet it, we could tear down a young forest, a young TRANSCRIPT - COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78page 3 lvebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback variance Ruoff continued: no a very o1d forest of mature 62 ft. Spruce trees. We don't think this is the route to take. Secondly it will eliminate all parking on Forest Road, which we feel is a very strong plus. It is directly across the street from the Hobart (sp?) house at a narrow steep part, and if you have every had to travel, j-n winter especially, and Pete Burnett probabty more than anyone else knows the problems. We propose to eliminate a big chunk of that by turning the new project arognd and entering it from the other road since it also fases on vail Road. ltle will show you that in a minute. so the setback variance is a request to place the south face of the proposed house the same place where the old house is but elimlnate all parking on that side, there won't even be an entrance into the house on that side. A11 right, that basically brings us to the other one. I{hich is, request for a variance on GRFA under the brand new approximate, in this case it is about a 4o7o reduction from what formerly was allowed, until last Thanksgiving time. on the rider to the down-zoning bill that was passed at that time which now, as I am sure some of you rea]-ize, has placed a de facto limit of approximately 5,25O ft. on GRTA for al1 three classes of residences in the Town of Vail. A11 right. lfe are requesting a vari.ance under the provisions in the zoning ordj.nance which were put there according to the preamble of the ordinance to take care of those situations which have special features, are unique, or are different from the norm. We feel that there are a couple of features that are quite different and I would like to spend a tittle time discussing them because we think they are the most important. Things that make the situation of George and Lisa lfebster's 1ot and their new house, or proposed house quite different from most residential lots in the Town of Vail and things we feel are important to an understanding of what they wish to do' I believe that even you 8i11, and Bob back there the farthest away' can probably make out this chart, this map of a section of the Town, this is vail Road, follow my pointer, we go past the Lodge, check-Point- Charlie, Bank, Chapel, Kiandra, ok. This is George and Lisa Websterrs 1and. This is the location of their present house, the location of the proposed new house. To understand the two points that we belleve TRANSCBIPT Page 4 o . TOWN COT]NCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Webster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Ruoff continued: are very key to this, consider a line along Beaver Dam Road and Vail Road, right through here, everything on this side of it is residential , aI1 the way to the end of the Town. Everything on this side of it is either Public Accommodation, High Density Multi-tr'amily, CC1 all right, the point that we feel is important is that the design of George's house, the individual project that we are talking about now, which we think is displayed in a number of pictures over here, its a hillside house. Probably from way back there you can at least see differences in these drawings. This you dontt see very much house, this is the south side, it faces the residential area, this is the west side, which also faces - the residential area, in other words, we feel that the impact upon, or the interface with, the neighboring communities,the actual neighbors then of who surround a given site or what it should be judged under, and in this case there arenrt many doubts about the future because every single lot in this entire area has already been developed, so there is no wondering what if someone puts one here, and here, and here - can't happen. The die is cast, this part of town is set. A11 right, on the residential side, the impact of the house is the dast. On the downhill side, and this is true of any steep hillside house, the view from below, or down the hill, Vou always see much more of the house than you do from the top of the hilI. The large parts of the house which naturally face downhill, as you can see in this picture, face the town. I believe that even again from the end you can see this is what they face, the largest, densest buildings in Vail. We feel that this is a very important point because it is again - what is the impact upon the community? Is the larger side of this house going to overwhelm its neighborhood? ![e feel no, that one house isolated over here facing this 8 story building at the Lodge, Biva North, the Wil1ows, the Eidelweiss, Talisman, Kiandra on down to the Holiday House; this is a I20 degree sweep of pictures, its everything you see, the pictures were taken from the Webster's present living room window, same view as they will have. These the most massive and densest buildings in Vail are the immediately adjacent neighbors of the larger side, the downhill side of the proposed Webster residence. TRANSCRIPT - TOIYN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 5 IYebster Residence request for GRtr'A and Setback Variance Ruoff continued: Therefore, while it is something, again, that is its very point of uniqueDess' we feel . The . I don't know of any other lot in town, a residential 1ot, where this would app1y. ITe do feel it applies here. Stepping back to the other side, the residential side of the line, another unusual feature, different from all but a very few residential neighborhoods in town, and we ask you to consider those that aren't built up yet as they soon will be because shortly there won't be any lots 1eft. The distances, the closest neighbor is perhaps an average distance between houses in Vail, its the Hobart (sp?) house, directly above the Websters. In these pictures you can see it rather plainly above the house on the high side of the road. It is enough higher than the house, both the present house and the proposed new one, that neither the existing house nor the new one impede their view. We have purposely made the ridge line the highest point of the new house exactly the same height as the ridgeline of the existing house. In addition, we are cleari-ng out the parking iumble between the two houses so that the impact on the close neighbor, the one directly aeross the street up the hill, the Hobart (sp?) house, we feel is a positive one a good one. visuatlv, we are not changing, or impacting them at a1t they see over it the same as they always have for the past seventeen y.ears since both houses were bui1t. Oh to be technically correct, I should say this ridge does come out fifteen ft' farther toward the east, no higher, we plotted it on this map to see what it did and it means from the bedroom end of the Hobarts (sp?) it will block their view of the garbage cans and kitchen at the Kiandra, we don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, its the only impact on their view. A11 right, after that this house at the bottom of the hi1l, the closest neighbor on the lfebster side, is 165 ft. away. Thatts almost three times the average distance, under the ordinance, 30 is the minimum between adjoining houses, they can be that c1ose. In many of the more successful neighborhoods of the town, like some of the areas around the golf sourse, and some others, average distances are often as short as 5O to 60 feet, and in many cases they are close as 40. Here we have the closest neighbor at 150 feet, in addition to which it is on Beaver Dam Road at the bottom of the hill and separated by a dense forest of 50 to 60 foot mature Spruces and Pines, in TRANSCRIPT Page 6. SLIEER: RUOFF: Ruoff Continued:other words they can't see each other. So we consj-der 0 impact there, if you cantt see each other then there is no visual impact. The Merchison (sp?) house up here is the second closest one. Its all the way up on Rock Ledge Road again separated by the natural forest and it is 250 feet away. The nearest neighbor on tr'orest Road is 310 feet away even deeper in the woods. Ok, we feel that there is virtually no i-mpact upon the residential side of the lot, and we don't know how any single house can overwhelm, or adversely impact this aray of the most urban, the most dense, highest buildings in Vail; and they are the immediate neighbors on that side. A11 right, those are the highlights of what we feel are the most important points, there are many others concerning this, there are alot of statistics and so forth, I would rather pause and ask you members of the Council what other points you would like us to address. HEIMBACH: How large is the variance you are requesting now with the condition of the new lot? RUOFF:943 sq. ft. HEIMBACH: I'm sorry, I didn't see that chart there. RUOtr'F:For comparison, i-ts so new that those of us who have to understanding work with it find that we are 9gE999eAAgAg it pretty well, we are finding many people in town who don't and we get asked often, what's the change? So we put down the new and the o1d here, cause I know that some of you are familiar with what the ground rules have been in Vail for many years, until you changed them a few weeks ago- It was 1394 around 14OO feet under the allowance until Thanksgiving, it is now 943 over on GRFA count. Yes Rod? TOWN COUNCTL 5-2-78 IYebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Varian6e I{hat's the ?609 is 257o of the square footage, correct? That's right. SLIIER: lYhat's the reduction down to 5272, is that slope? RUOFF: No, no, no, that is the new amendment that was passed - r .[\tffiffiiN: we set a GRFA up to rb,000 sq. rt., and then from 15,000 sq. ft. up on the 1ot we get a l%, so we calculate up now instead of down. BUOFF: In effect at 3o,ooo ft. which just happens to be almost exactly the area of Georgets, from there on you get almost no credit, you get 1000 ft. to get 50, that's why we have worked these things in town just in the back of our heads, now we say de facto 5200 ft. ceiling. TRANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 7.Webster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Ruoff continued:Beyond which it is now required that a variance be requested and the Planning Commission and the Council take a Iook at a1t projectsShat want to be bigger than that. Paula? PALMATEER: Bill, Vou subtracted out the 1327 pool deck to get the 62L5, right? RUOFF: Yes, and I apologize, I skipped it and its important. PALMATEER: The Planning Department does not as I understand it or did not. is that correct A11en? RUOFF:No, they do it both ways; and therefore, we are asking that we be considered the way favorable to George, because we feel that he is giving some things in return which are more valuab1e. Let me explain that. The proposed Webster house w111 include a swirnning poo1. The Websters would prefer to have the swimming pool buried under the house so it doesn't stick out and have a great big building around it. We feel this is good architecturally because it minimizes the amount of construction that needs to be put on the 1and, it makes it much more compact. Unfortunately, under the way that it has been interpreted, and this is an interpretation, the zoning ordinance is silent on this matter, therefore, when the first one came up the decision had to be made if the swimming pool is in the house is it or is it not GRFA. WeIL I guess there are three possibilities, it i-s or it isn't or we find a way to split it. So, on the three or four previous to this that have come up in the Town where they are inside, can't remember where they all are, they said ok, we'l1 split it, wer11 take the deck area and walkways around' and say they are GRFA, we will say that the water area is not if you put it in the house or connect it to the house. If you separate it from the house so that you have to walk outdoors, even though it may be only three or four feet through the snow or sun depending on the time of year, go back in a door, then we don't count any of it. There is room on the Webster's land for us to do that, we eould slide the house over into the trees, take them down, and then there is plenty of room to build a swimmi.ng pool in its own building out here on the point, and where we would rea1ly like to preserve the nature of the land that is there, we are not touching it at all now. I{e think that it is strongly against or counter to the spirit of the zoning ordi-nance and what we want to accomplish by it in vail TRANSCRIPT - TQWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 8. lfebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Varianbe Ruoff continued:to go that route. If I may momentarily switch hats, if a project like this came before Design Review Board and there was an option each way, we would make a very strong protest against j-t on aesthetic grounds. Therefore, we are asking that in this case the Websters not be penalized for doing what we feel is a better approach, bury the thing, even though it is more expensive. Put it under the house, make it compact instead of putting it outside in a new building. The impact on the Town of putting another building there, I think would be totally unwarranted. So, as part of the variance request we are asking that the entire pool area not be included in the GRFA, the same as though it were set outside in a new building. Our feeling reatly is that probably it has never made much difference before and therefore was never questioned, but when you really look at it, we don't think that its in the best interest, or necessarily within the spirit or intent of our zoning ordinance. That is what that second line says, less pool deck. Which we are asklng not be counted in the GRFA. We real1y feel that in any case like this it probably shouldn't be if it is being included in the building- The usual objection is that, oh my heavens what if it turns into a crash pad, how many sleeping bags can you put around. Come on nobody is going to sleep around the edge, somebody might, but you can't get any rent from it. And some of us really think that the way to control the abuses in town is to chastise the abuser, not go change the rule that he just broke. ok, I think that I have belabored too much the swimming pool thing, what other points.Bobby. RIJDER:8i11, I have a couple of questions in that, is the house a duplex? RUOFI': Yes technically it is. The zone is two-family residential vd, I have been usir€ the term because again all of us have worked with thi-s regularly, the regulations for all three classes of houses are almost essentially the same, but this one is a duplex as most are in Vail. The design for the Webster's house is basically a three bedroom house plus 628 sq. ft. one bedroom, small caretakers-type apartment. George and Lisa are away from town a good deal of the time and they probably would like to have the use of this little one bed- room apartment as, we all know what they'll do, dozens of houses in town have ..(can't hear) The house itself is essentially a TRANSCRIPT - TOYfN COUNTIL MEETING 5-2_78 Page 9.Webster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Buoff Continued: three bedroom house. The reason it is bigger than alot of three bedroom houses, I think, is simply because like alot of people, me included, I know some of you come from other parts of the country where we lived in older houses that were built years ago, they were bigger. They had what has come to be sort of a rarity in our living space today, space itself. Little things like stairways where two people can pass each other without doing this, which is the usual Vail experj-ence going downstairs and you meet somebody in a residential situation. That, the swimming poo1, alot of sma11 amenities that eat up space. You know the fact that it is a very , steep hillside, does some things that are j-nteresting, it was touched on in the discussion on the b.azatd area earlier. A well designed house on a steep hilt doesn't need as much land coverage, the reduction that you've included there, both of us architects and others in town who are interested in these things, feel it is very reasonable. Proper hillside designed house need never occupy as much land. This one doesn't. However, a corallary is, that to make it work on the steep hi1lside, sometimes it is necessary to include a 1itt1e more space insi.de of it, simply because it is farther from top to bottom and you have to eat up space with vertical things to get up and dowu. That does increase GRFA even though it may not increase the normal living space, number of rooms or their function at all. It adds to the expense of it to the owner, but I don't think that j-s a concern, if someone loves a hillside house and wants to spend more money to get all the neat dramatic views available from it, that should be his perogative. L. RIDER: Mr. Ruoff. what's the nature of the interest i-n the stock drive?(Mr. Websterrs attorney?)UNKOWN: Its an option only and if you were to grant the variance I would suggest that you make it contingent upon acquisition and title' L. RIDER: So he has not bought the property yet? TJNKNOIfN:No. (Webster's attorney?) L. RIDER: What are the conditions in the option? I]NKNOWN:Its all on one page. (IYebster's attorney?) L. RIDEB: A couple of things that perhaps Mr. Williams can confirm. Looking at the plat for VaiI Village First Filing it appears that this stock dri.ve is an extension of Vail Road. and if it is an extension TBANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2_78page 10. lfebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Rider Continued: of Vail Road then Vail Associates can't grant you an option. ITNKNOWN: I think that could be true, however, You've looked at that closer than I, could you make a response to that? IJNKNOWN: Larry, as I discussed with you outside, on the original plat the stock drlve lies on the section line between the first two sheets of the first fj,ling. tsetween these tots is undesignated as to anything, its left as a gap, because V.A. at that time could not convey ( can't hear) . to a cattle dr|ve. Therefore at that time they retained 20 feet on the edge of each p1at, subse- quently, about '68, that V.A. conveyed the roads to the Town of Vai1, it was done by the name of the road and VaiI road as existed at that time and as it is set on the plat clearly turns to the left immediately prior to the bridge, goes across the bridge and moves back toward the 1odge. L.;IRIDER: Where the Vail Road begins to the north, it runs almost to the section line isn't that correct? North and South along the section Iine? RUOFF: Yes. L. RIDER: And the stock drive continued right along, the supposed stock drive runs right along that section line does it not? UNKNOWN: Its not a supposed stock drive L. RIDER: Is there anything on the plat designating it as a stock dri.ve? IJNKNOWN: No there is not. L. RIDER: Is there anything on the plat designating it as an ease- ment? UNKNOIIN: No, there is there is reservation of previously granted easements of drives and rights-of-way (can't hear) There is no specific granting of any extensions for ancillary parts of Vail Road to the Town of Vail. L. RIDER: Is there any condition in the opti.on that Vail Assocj-ates cleared up title. see my concern My concern is that if the Town of Vail owns it what you're buying from Vail Associates can . sould be consj-dered the Brooklyn Bridge. And that you shouLd be deallng wi.th the Town and not with vail Associates. And looking at the plat it appears that Vail Road that this that TRANSCRIPT - TQIIN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 11.Webster Resid.ence request for GRFA and Setback Variance, Rider continued: has been ca11ed a stock drive easement is a logical extension to Vail Road whether it was ever built or not built. I am just concerned with rvhat in fact is being bought and what in fact is being consi.dered part of the land area in determining GBI'A' UNKNOWN (IVebster's Attorney?) 11e11, I don't know Mr. Rider, I am not schooled enough in the precise history of that title, nor have I examined the plats well enough, and I sure don't want to get into a question of whether the Town should own that 40 feet, or Vail Associates, all I know is that they felt they owned it and they granted an option and therefore, they agreed in that option, I think quote, to give good and perfect titIe. And consequen'tly it was on that we were relying and then wait for the title insurance company to tel1 us. L. RIDER: Two concerns, the first concern being that apparently Vail Assoclates, from what lt{r, Ruoff says, was surprised to learn they had any interest, and the second concern being that if the Town Council is going to consider that as part of the land by which to grant the GRFA, there seems to me to be a number of questions that need to be answered. They, of course, fr&V not agree but that was the only reason I was asking the question, to make sure that you are getting what you are buying and the Town was getting what it was buying a1so. UNKNOWN:Larry, the option negotiation with V.A. is based on that they convey good title to that and their position is based on my examination (can't hear) And although we do have some disagreement on exactly who owns what ;. that if they cannot convey good title (unclear . . we don't have to pay for it.) L. RIDER: l{e don't have to grant the option I mean grant the variance. Second question Mr. Ruoff, the ordinance requires proof of unnecessary physical hardship, what is the unnecessary physical hardship for the granting of this GRFA variance? RUOFF:Where are you looking Mr. Rider? L. RIDER: This is Section 18.62 under "Purpose". It says, "in order to prevent or lessen such practical difficulties unnecessary physical hardship variances may be granted." I was wondering what the unnecessary physical hardship is for the GRtr'A variance? I understand the Setback, I think that is approprlate. But I am wond.ering what it would be under the GRFA. TRANSCRIPT - TOWN CO Page 12.Webster UNKNOI,IN: o uNc Re IL MEETING 5-2-78 sidence request for GRFA and Setback Variande B0ao99goQ99aeca9 RUOFF: I was looking under Section 19.6 where it says what Findings would have to be made before a variance would be granted. L. RIDER: Look at that first secti-on in that called "Purpose". for the granting of variances. In that it spells out what the purpose is of granting variances. Look at the first, the first section in the chapter of the part dealing with variances, ca1led rrPurposesr'. And it is number a. under that. And if you look at the section that you were reading under ca11ed "Criteria and Findings", it says there must be a finding that there was a practical hardship. My question 1s what is the practical hardship? Neeessary for this GRFA. UNKNOWN:Irm not reading the same thing you are. BREAK UNKNOM: You think it is absolutely necessary that they find arr ,rrlrrn€c€Ssary physical hardship? 1{e11 then I don't think the ordinance should say define one of three things. BREAK I canrt conceive rea11y of what physical hardship is when you won't permit a building to be built in a certain fashion. And, therefore I don't know what the physical hardship is. I was relying on Section 19.6 rvhere it says that before granting a varlance you must define certain thlngs, and under sub 3 it says under that section you have to find one or more of the following reasons. Physical hardship j.s mentioned in one of them. Another alternative is that there are exceptional or extraordinary cireumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance, and that was wbat Mr. Ruoff was addressing. L. RIDER: Ok, the question that I was rephrasing, what is it, what is the particular peculiar characteristic of the site that would d.ictate to the Council that they approve a GRFA variance that would a1low for a bigger house than what other people in the area couLd build? RUOFF: Well ah ha. Not that other people have built, only und.er a new and drastic reduction. Other people for a long time have built big houses, there are alot of big houses in vai1. This isn't the first one, this is only the first one to come up since this recent reduction in the GRFA figures. (TAPE CHANGE) TRANSCRIPT - TOI{N COUNCIL }METING 5-2-78 Page 13. IVebster Residence request for GRtr'A and Setback Variance (AFTER TAPE CHANGE) a9DBB999 99 999EC9Qee9990e9oe9 Ruoff Continued: Question? To control some abuses or what was it for? We have been told many things.. L. RIDER: The question was, what is the peculiar Mr. Mayor I'm sorry .understandSLItr'ER: No, I what you are saying. L. RIDER: What was the peculiar thing in the property that would justify the approval of a GRFA variance that would a1low this applicant to build a house larger than other people could build under the ordinance. I am not talking about what hhppened under an old ordi.nance that was BUOI'F: But under it, as we understand it Larry, under the ordinance j-f someone else had a situation where he felt that the impact was not bad, he could ask, and you can build under the ordinance with variance because, as we understand it, variances are part of the ordinance. L. RIDER: That is correct. But the purpose of the variance is a recognition of the fact that when you try to apply a strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance to unusual and oddly shaped located, whatever pieces of property, you are going to have problems. So i-n order to get a variance, in order for you to show that the strict interpretation of the ordj-nance should not be applled, you're going to have to show that there is something peculiar about the piece of property- That (can't hear) UNKNOWN: (IYebster's Attorney?) That's rea1ly what he had been addressing the whole time he was talking. I thought he was talking about the fact that the north and east face of this property is abutting the cormercial , or it may not be what you call commercial in your ordinanse, but the commercial area. And that the unique tbing about the lot is that you can build on it without having any impact on the residentia1- area which is south across Forest Road and west along Forest Road I think that would be extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are applicable here, if they were applieable to another lot, which I don't know where that would be, and I think you should consider a variance there. RUOFF: The same circumstances would never apply to another ]ot, it would be a whole different ballgame. They might or might not TRANSCBIPT _ TQIVTI COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Pg. L4 T{ebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance, Ruoff Continued: warrant it. RUDER: I have a couple comments, I look at the new zoni-ng regulation and I was a part of drafting and adopting it and I think it is a good one, and I think the reasons that came about are good reasons. And it all started, as I think about it, down-zoning, and down-zoning is people in Vail Valley. And the reason that we got into primary/secondary and that we got into single-family duplex is besause \{/e were starting to get enormously large duplexes that were huge GRFA's and have the capacity to sleep 20 people and we didn't in my mind, I didn't feel that that was appropriate and at the same time we would down-zone the other zones. But we leave the variance process because I don't think we should draw lines and say that people shouldn't be allowed to come in get a varj-ance because they like a bigger house, but we did say that when thats going to happen we urould like to be abte to take a look at it. It just can't get rubber-stamped as many of the large, mostly duplexes have happened in the past. I remember the discussions of down-zoning single-family duplex and primary/secondary, and the new zoned primary/secondary which also was talking about people, forcing people out of houses and out of zones, trying to cut down our population. So I think that if we talk about physical hardships, maybe that is pulling something out of the ordinance and I don't think that necessarily because a person cares to live in a big house that we are forcing something on them, in my mind. In my mind, I - saw the ordinance as a down-zone and the down-zone was to reduce thousandpeople. If George's house of however many/square feet had 10 bedrooms, I would look pretty unfavora.bly upon it, if George's house was a same amount of square footage and was two large duplexes I would also look unfavorably upon it. But I think in this case I think we are picking on somebody because they like to live in a big house. And I think 1n this case and I have iust seen this thing recently, that Bill Ruoffhas done quite a nice iob of trying to put the house on the 1ot, trying to hide things like swimming pools, rather than put them out in separate bulldings on the Iot which would impact our town even more, And I also think, looking at that colored elevation on the far left si.de, that you could take that exact exterior she1l and by stepping the house down the hill, you could come up with any mind of square footage in that shell that you wanted to. TRANSCRIPT . TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 15.Y{ebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Varj.ance Ruder Continued:In their case, they went back and theyrve got to have some enormous cuts inside the house and it caused some more square footage. But you could generate that exact interior or exterior and do 1t over 4O0O sq. ft. I think we are plcking on that a little bit because they didn't want to. The stock drive- way is a brand new thlng, to me its like asking George Webster to join the club and pay a fee to buy the property next door so he can have his house. I would rather that we as a town, and the stock driveway by the way goes on by Murchison's until it hits the tr'orest Service line; f would rather say that we I hate to use the word force, but I will use the word force George to put together what is ever necessary with Vail Associates, or whoever ovms it, to see that the Town ends up with clear title to the stock driveway all the way from the bridge or wherever its at to the Forest Service line, and we take the doubt out of it and we put it in the town. But, that we don't penalize him and ask him to see how many dollars he can spring for it, coming up with the abutting property to see if he can make his house work. I think it is the wrong reason that we down-zone single-family duplex and primary/secondary, we did it for population, not because somebody shouldn't have a big house and we did say that we would like to look at them, and we think it is important that the guy goes about it in the right way and hires an architect, a competent architect to try to design a nice situation for that particular thing. And our big duplexes that we have in this town were designed in New York, they were designed in California, they weren't desi-gned in Vail Colorado by a local architect. I don't have any problem with it. And I am convinced as a builder that you could take that exact she11 and put 4000 sq. ft. under it, the way we calculate GRFA. And all we would do by doing that is cut his bedroom in half, take hi-s swimming pool out, and I don't think it is fair. I think we are looking at the ordinance in the wrong way, it is not why I down- zoned single-family andprimary/secondary. UNKNOWN: (Webster?) I just wanted to add the statement that as you remember we bought the house in '69, it had bunks in it, and it had sleeping accommodations for 10. You people handled TRANSCRIPT - TOI{N COUNCIL MEETING 5-2_74pg. 16 webster Residence request Jor GRFA and Setback variance webster? continued: the rental 0f it and Marvel Barnes had to kick a party of 25 out of it? Who had rented it, they had sleeplng bags. The present plans are for a maximum of 8 be<is plus one crib.. . no,grandchildren. UNKNOWN:And Bob, addressing your point, we would like to see the town end up with this property, we would phrase in the alternative that either the Town have the property dedicated to them, or George acquires it. That would be highly suitable because v.A. has accepted the idea of dedicating what they own of the property to the town.. In many ways they would prefer to do that. Any other connnents? Bobby, I don't understand your reasoning for wanting acquire the stock drive waY, I If we take, we iust as well own it, its a nothing its not something we have to take care of because it 1s just covered with trees and there is another one, the one that continues above it. Lets take it out I don't know wbether it has legal problems or whether or not we should have already owned it or whatever. And so, I just say we just as well solve those things right now and lets just put in public ownership' There is no reason to ask George Webster to pay the taxes on it for the rest ofhislife,thelifeoftheproperty,whenitisjustastripup a mountain hillside with mature Spruce on it ' SLIFER:If I were George and I owned that 1ot, I think I would rather own it myself than have the public own it. I think youwouldhavemoreinsuranceofpeaceandquiet.Andlthink that if he wants to buy it, I would rather have it go that way' Idon'tthinktheTownoughttoownit.IthinktheTownshould own lands that can be utitized and it can't be utilized' RUDER: I think that they should if they're paying money for them, I don't think the Town should be out buying land that they can't use, or that their people can't use' I don't think Vail Associ-ates is going to give it to us' Then I think that George should give it to us' SLIFER: Sli fer? UNKNOWN: the Town to RI]DER: SLIFER: RUDER: TRANSCRIPT - TOIVN COUNCIL !,IEETING 5-2-78pg. 17 Webster Residence - request for GRFA and Setback Yariance SLIFER:Any other questions? SANDY MILLS: Rod, I arrived a little late, so I am not quite certain how much you have talked about relative to the discussions as far as this additional land goes. But in Planning Commission the things that we considered, and I think you have copies of the memo; were one, excess GRFA that would constitute a grant of special privilege to the Websters in this particular zotre. Another thought that we had, and I disagree with Bob in this' Bill is saying that is a three bedroom house now, but we have to look to the future to some extent and if the rooms are very large maybe the next person would come along and increase the sleeping capacity and thereforethe body count in the house, and that was one of our concerns in terms of down-zoning and terms of growth management in the valley, I think the concern of over-population and also the granting of a special privilege in this particular zone was what we based our thinking on. RUDER:So it is your thinking at this time, Sandy, that if someone decides they would like to have 1O0O sq. ft. in their living room because they entertain alot, they shouldn't be given that privilege. Because of the possibility of taking the looo sq. ft. and turning it into a two bedroom, two bath apartment within a house. And that we should not a1low our permanent residents of vail to enjoy that pleasure if that is what they would lj-ke to do. I donrt agree with that at all. S. MILLS: RUDER: It is because the request for excess GRFA was too excessive. Where do you draw the line, what's too excessive 945 sq. ft.? Is that the number you were looking at? or are you looking at the other number? S. MILLS:No, we were considering only the house without the additional (can't hear) because that . you know RIJDER: And the pool deck was that straightened at the time? IYas the pool deck considered GR!'A? IYas the swimming pool deck con- si.dered GRFA? BUOFF: The Planning Commission there was no presentation to the Planning Commission. RUDER: You never gave the Planning Commission a presentation? o TRAI{SCRIPT . TOIW COI]NCIL MEETING 5-2-78Pg. 18 lfebster Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance RUOFF: No. We were there we didnrt even (interruptions) for Planning Commission SLIFER: Can you 1et me ansrver his questions, Bil1. The Planning Commission did add in the pool deck area to their GRFA. calculation. S. MILLS: Yes, vye didn't look at the p1ans, but Bill did give us a presentation and we considered . . we took out the actual square surfacefootage of the water,/but the deck area of I think, 13OO sq. ft. was considered. And the 600 sq, ft. work room was considered, So, we looked at the total project which I think came to 2950 sq. ft. in excess of the GBFA. RUOI"F: And that is the GRFA figure without the strip of land that we were diseussing previously. RUDER: Ifhat is the 600 sq. ft, workroom? RUOFF: That was not included, its talked about in the report, I don't know why the report dwealt on it so long becauee it is not included it has always been excluded from GRI'A. SLIFER: I think his question is what is the purpose of it' RUDER: Ya, well that is why I was asking. RUOFI': George's wood worklng shop that is up at the ranch now in Lake Creek, and he would like to move down here and bury it under the hill where he can get at it and do things in the winter which he can't do now RUDER: I was asking Rod, because a shop area to me j-s no different than storage and storage has never been GRFA. RUOFF: Nor have garages and this is the same . RUDER: Nor have garages used as shops RUOFF: We were discussing itl:with Diana a month before she could remember or something whether it should or shouldntt and I said good Lord, you put a gara,ge door on it and its a garage and there'sor us no question. The rest/included, you and me and some others I know have our tools in our garages. WEBSIER: In response to Sandy's objections, Lisa and I are willing to covenant that the house will never be broken down in any reasonable period of time., into any extra bedrooms or anything of the sort. TRANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78Pg. 19 Webster Residence - Bequest for GRIA and Webster Continued: IVe have never rented and we never 8eA999gtsee9flC9gee-e99COCgpgets99flg?4C49994CC99999 . and an estate problem it becomes an estate problem. Setback Vari'ance , intend to if it becomes RUOFF:I would like to add one litt1e thing on that. I think that all of you, we all in Vail are somewhat familiar with land values and what real estate goes for, there is only one possible motive for anyone ever doing these bad things that happen which is buy a house, cut it up and turn it into a crash pad; its because he wants to make money. I don't think any of us have ever seen it done for fun, kicks or for a persons glory, it is always done for money. If we can accept that, and if we look at George's proposed house, the si-ze and so forth. I don't know what its market value will be after its done, but I think each of you can run it through his own head and come with a pretty darn good guess. The point is that the market value of that house will be so high that the most that anyone who wanted to buy it and chop it up into a little illegal lodge could ever hope to realize on it is maybe, if he was real lucky, his real estate tax. You cannot, it just doesn't work out. YIhat happens about 100 years from now I donrt know, but in the foreseeable future it is economically impossible. The existing house on the other hand is a better example, more bedrooms, more economical , the whole thing. We just think it could never happen. PALMATEER: I talked to Allen about the pool area and I have a real problem in the way apparently we have been looking at the pool deck- I don't really consider them to be a hazard to GR!'A. Bodies sleeping a long pool side as far as that goes, 9a98gC9999E99099A9a8C9ECA9CA, etA999nAge999€eA9pOOp9C999CepgEg90A the Westwind garage is enclosed and heated and I have found people sleeping there many times. That might be something that you should look at so that it is clearer, Allen, the ordinance does outline garages and that kind of thing perhaps pools should be more clearly defined. I had asked you that if he built the pool outside, you know, in a separate building, would you count it as GBFA and there is some question as to whether you would or woudntt, I think that should be very clear because apparently more and more homes will be including them in some shape or form. so I have a problem with counting the 1327 in the total GRFA even though apparently it has been done previously in some other homes. TRANSCRIPT - TOT{N COUNCIL MEETING 5_2-78 Pg. 20 ![ebster Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance Palmateer Continued: Is that correct? That is an interpretation and its not in the ordinance? SLIFER: No. I would agree with your I don't think it should be counted toward residential floor area, I agree with Paula. Any other comments? A, GERI'ISTENBERGER: Could I read the Planning Commission report? Just for the record, according to the Ordinance 18.62.060, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings: First 9999Ee999BA99gg9g99e99O9geAB€ is that the granting of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified into the same district. On that the Planning Commission found that they thought that this would result in a grant of special privilege because the GRFA would exceed that which is allowed. You know whether the numbers.. they go anywhere from 18% up to 64%, I don't think we should get into that argument. The second issue that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, etc., they found no problem with that. The third one is that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. ) That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties. The Planning Commission felt that tbe variance does not warrant it and would not deprive the applicant of privileges that other people in the same district have. So their vote on the GRFA was unanimously opposed to it. On the Setback, they agreed, I believe the vote was 5 to I in favor of the Setback Variance, that that was a legitimate thing to consider whether or not the GRFA variance was granted, PALI{ATEER: Allen, if this was a single-fami-Iy residence as it now, that is correct, it is single-family? Ifhat would be the allowable GRI'A. lfould that be the same - - exactly the same. RUOFF: Yes, the limits for all three classes of residenee, single-famity, two-family and primary/secondary are essentially the same. PALMATEER: Ok, looking at it in that 1ight, the 943 extra sq. ft. if you eonsider 685 as being the second residence, and to me this is providing the very thing we wanted to establish with primary/secondary which is a housing unit, and also r think it wirl prevent the kind of TBANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5^2-78pg. 21 Webster Residence - Request for GRIA and Setback Variance Palmateer Continued: thing from happening that we are a little bit afraid of, and that is crash pad kind of thing. GEBSTENBERGER: I think the Planning Commission's position was that he could do the primary/secondary unit either way and just is the matter of how the numbers work out and that they felt that based on the ordinance that there wasn't sufficient grounds for the variance. SLIFER:Bill Heimbach has a couple comments. HEIMBACH: tr'irst of all, I don't think the process was good here' I don't think the Town Council should be looking at different criteria than the Pl,annlng Commission looked at. I think it is a bad thing to do regardless of who's involved here. ltle should a1l be looking at the same thing. Secondly, I think the real nut to crack here is will the granting of the variance constitute a grant of special privilege. That is rea11y the nut that we need to crack and that I think needs to be addressed. To do that I think we need some perspective. Has there for instance, has there ever been a 945 foot GRFA variance granted ? If so, how many? If we want to do it by percentage, whatever the percentage, we don't have that information. At least I havenrt heard that yet tonight. RUOFF:I might be able to I don't have the records available. I have discussed this with Diana who is more familiar with these things than anyone e1se, and I have been around working with these things in the town myself for a long time. I don't think there ever has been because until this rather large, it was a big cut- back in the limit of the size of a. house that was passed last November; until then it has never come up. Now, I think the more valid question, everis, has anyone/buil-t big houses in the town before, and what is the reason for the need for this drastic reduction in limlts? 999949Ok (can't understand) .I like your like your point.that eveyybody ought to be in the same track, and if I may editorialize for a minute, I think the thing has come up and not everyone is, there are different understandings apparently for the purpose of this in different parts of the town. The Planning commission, the council and the staff. I{e have had an awful time trylng to find out what the intent really was. HEIMBACH : Well, to continue , you know, what I was going to say' I just thlnk it would be , again regardless of whose involved tonight' TRANSCRIPT - TOWN CQUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78Pe. 22 l{ebster Besj,dence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance Heimbach Continued: a bad precedent for us to start considering cases on different criteria than what the Planning Commission has looked at. And I for one, would like this to go back to the Planning Commission.before we make a decision on it. The Plannlng Commission is basing its decision on a 3O0O sq. ft. variance, and now we are asked to base a decision on a 943 ft., sq. ft. variance. I think that if the same thing happened in Design Review Board on a sign for instance, you would want us to be back in Design Review Board, if you had your other hat on. RUOFF: Ya, h€y, I am with you all the way Bi1l, its a good analogy. You the Council sometimes need to spread the word to we your servant boards about what you rea1ly intend when you pass some of these ordinances and how you want us to administer it. Cause occasionally in the rush of business, oh I don't know, I guess we are all human, we overlook some of these things. But it happens and it can cause quite a bit of consternation. hasn't rea11y been fotlowed and we are considering different things than the Planning Corrmission has, and it might seem like over- forrnality, but I think it should be sent back to the Planning Commission. SLIFER: ( would assume that there are two variances being requested, one is the Setback Variance, and the Planning Commission did recommend approval of that, so I would assume you could consider that, or you could send the entire matter back and then consider both variances again at a later point in time. You could do it either way. SLIFER: UNKNOl[N RTJDEB: WEBSTER: RIIDER: Are there any other conments from the Council? I kind of agree with Bill Heimbach, that the process I{hat is that going to do to your building schedule? It will terminate it for another year. The only reason I ask is that I am not sure who is at fault here. IYhether the applicant is at fault, or we're at fault because our staff or whoever didn't put the thing together right or that there was a 1itt1e bit of I don't know who's iudgment it was as to whether or not to pul1 the deck count, or workshop count. Somebody made an arbitrary decision that said when it went to the Planning Commj.ssion pull decks count and work shop count, and now rre are getting one that says that they don't count. lfhat I am saying o TRANSCRIPT - Town Council Meeting 5^2^78pg. 23 Webster Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance Ruder Continued: I don't know whether werre being fair to the applicant under the whole if it is going to take the house and kick it back SLIFER: WEBSTER: I would assume that we could hear it in two weeks. Well Rod, this is lined up, (can't hear) . subs they are ready on schedule and I assume that this will throw the schedule into a cocked hat. Possibly, maybe not, but, I couldn't be I had to be in New York for another meeting for the Planning Commission but, the Planning Commission didn't give us much courtesy or consideration or anything e1se. Simply threw it to the Council. Now we are trying to present everything possible, every piece of i-nformati.on we can. lfe've gone into great detail. I agree with Bi11, it is really not Council's business, it should have been done before this. We're trying, werre on a schedule and there we go, I don't know. SLIFER: Pam. PAM GARTON: I wanted to respond to a couple of things, for one thing it would be quite a delay if you sent it back to us, we do not have a quorum in town next week for Planning Commission, it has been announsed for three weeks that Planning Commission would not meet again until the 23rd of May. So it would be your first June meeting before you could hear it again if you sent it back to us. As far as the information, Bob, to respond to your conrments at our meeting. I don't think it was, I don't think the decisions were very arbitrary, Diana treated the pool situation as she has every other pool, she whole discussed this with us. Indoor pools maybe the/question of how it has been treated has been valid, but she was trying to be consistent. Indoor pools have been treated exactly the same way the deck area has been counted as part of GRf'A if it is enclosed within the residential structure. The pool surface has not. If the pool is in a separate building you can read that section in the primary/secondary zone, then it is considered a separate recreational amenity and its not counted as in Fj-tz's pool. The shop, that, whereas garages and storage is spelled out, there is no specific thing as to a shop, that was a matter of interpreta.tion and it was agreed upon that it should not be counted, that it was in the same category as garage or storage. So I feel that those were consistent .t, TRANSCRIPT - Town Council Meeting 5-2-78 Pg. 24 lfebster Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance Garton Continued: 8999€t9999999A9 interpretations and without either of those items being specifically spelled out in the ordinance. And as far as us making a decision at the time, we can't make a conditional sort of vote, at that time the status of thj-s other strip of land was still quite in 1imbo, and if we were going to take a vote, we had to take a vote on how it existed at that point 1n time a week ago. And, we couldn't . . . we canlt make these condltional votes and there seemed to be, at that point, a grea"t question of the ownership and the outcome on this extra strip of 1and. lfe had to take our vote on that basj-s or put it off for four weeks RUDER: I have a question as to why you can't make it conditional upon something kind of vote, we do it all the time and we do it to force some things that have to happen. And we make condition upon kinds of votes all the time and they are part of a public record and I donrt understand why the Planning Commission can't make a recommendatj-on of for or against, conditional upon such and such. Its probably never come up before. PAM GARTON: \,Ye've done some thi.ngs that the final things have been conditional on the applicant agreeing to some conditions upon something, or stipulations, frankly, Dj-ana felt and her comment to us wasn I twas, that at that point in time, and I am sorry I OAOO0 here earli-er, to hear what the status is on this 1and, I had to be elsewhere, but, there seemed to be a great question as to whether V.A. realIy owned this land or whether it went back to a Forest Service Deed, or whatever, she didn't feel there was going to be a very rapid resolution of it, and so she was very hesitant to have us do something conditional on that piece of land where she felt it would be a long time before it was resolved. And she felt it was better for us to go ahead and vote on a situation that was firm. SLIFER: Any other comments before we call .. GARTON: Rod, I'm sorry, one other thing too, as far as I'm sorry that George wasn't there and that he feels he didnrt get sufficient courtesy or consideration from the Planning Commission. TRANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 5-2^78Pg. 25 IVebster Residence - Request for GR"FA and Setback variance Garton continued: Ife were waiting to be shown a hardship which is our basis, our technical basis for granting a variance, and much as r might personally believe a person should be able to build. the size house that they desire, we have had to treat people by the same rules, and within the last nine months r think we have turned down oh probably, three or four GR3A variances of just a couple hund.red sq. ft., or less because we did not have a technical basis for granting that, and it would apparently be a grant of special privilege. That is why we did not go into great length over floor p1ans. RUOFF:Pam look . very early on in the meeting last week, and Gerry lfhite made the Motion, remember? rt was. And he stated r don't have the record, but r remember very c1ear1y, that in view of the faet, that George did not own the land, that on that basishis reason foradn he made it clear that that was the personal point of/making the Motion, that it should not be considered because the figures were too far out of line, and r can't quote him any farther. r talked on for quite awhile without exactly being invited, until r reallzed that others were . . oh come on because we are in a hurry to get out. You did not want to hear the rest of my presentation. r was not invited you were the only one who even asked to look at that drawing. The others were . . come on lets sweep it on up, some of the remarks that were made at the meeting that are on the record, point in this direction, the fact that the sp1it, Votr're right, the polnts that r have made to council tonight which we feel are impor- tant to show under the conditlons of the zoning ordinance, why this is a unique situation, r did not go into. r sensed strong lack of interest in hearing it. You wanted to get on with the rest of your agenda and sweep this one up to Council, I'm sorry thats And, r have had an apology personally from three members on the thing afterwards for doing it. I[ho've agreed that i-f we need them, they would be willing to say so public1y. There is a definite split in Planning Commission on what we've heard tonight and what I have heard from other members on it and what I have witnessed mysetf. GART0N: Iltell, r am sorry j.t carne across that way at the meeting, it certainly wasnrt the intent. And r think we were, r at teast as r s&Y, although personally r understand George's position, we have as you know, we have had a number of similar, tllffilr TBANSCRIPT . TQW CQUNCIL MEETING 5-2.?8 .Pg. 26 T{ebster Residence - Request for GRI,A and getback Variance, Garton continued: not si.ruilar, but a number of requests for GRIA variance in the last six to 12 months, and it becomes crifficult to find the fine line under d.ifferentiations. RUOFF:I know, and thats probably why some of the discussion tonight has veered into this very thing, about whether or not some of the Boards' your planning commissioo, oy DBB and others, arways get some of the direction that wourd help us very much in interpreting Council's intent on these things. SLIFEB: I think we have had enough discussion, at the risk of cutting it off, but, r think that we should ca1r. the issue and in thi-nki.ng about i.t, r thlnk that we should address, rets separate them, and lets the setback and then lets address the GRFA. r thlnk that coutd we have a Motion in regard to the request for the setback Variance as requested by the Websters? ITILTO )i:f move that we grant the Setback Variance as requested by the Websters.. HEIMBACH: SLIFER: Second. BillOk, Motion by/Wilto, seconded by Bill Heimbach. No further discussi.on. Al1 in favor vote by saying aye. Ok, the next request for variance is for the GBFA, the square footage increase is either 943 sq. ft., aecordj-ng to the car_curations in the presentation, or somewhat higher in accordance with the planning commission memorandum, depending on what froor area ure count ancl r think everybody understand.s that. RIJDER:I move that we approve the GRFA variance for the Ifebster residence as outlined by Mr. Buoff. SLTFER: we have a Motion that it be approved, do we have a second? lfrlTo: r second that based on the reasoning that the pool deck be excl-uded from the GRFA and would ask that maybe in your llotion Bob, you night include something in the order of a Deed restriction on the usage of the house for future RUDER: How could we do that Larry? I would also like to add to the Motion that the necessary work be done to get the . weill, r don't know, about the center stock driveway, but r think that it should be discussed. r'm not sure of the best way, whether r don't thlnk we should be spending town monies for 1t, but r think I o TRANSCRIPT-TOWN COIJNCIL I'TEETING 5-2.78 Pe. 27 Webstel Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance SLIFER: As I understand your Motion, you would not RIJDER: IlIy Motion was just for the GRFA, but . SLIFER: IYhether or not they acquire the land next to them or not, you are saying they don't need to acquire it, is that correct? RIIDER: I am saying In my one mind I am really saying that I don't think they need to because I really think that it is tike forcing somebody to gobble up a little piece of land around their house so that they can build something. If it makes the thing more palatable, then I think we should have it conditional upon their purchasing the property next door.. address SLIFER: I{e11, I think you should COOOOB it one way or another in the trlotion so its clear, I think you should say' you should say it should be added or it should not be added, and then the conditi-on that Bill mentioned. RIIDER: Ok, then because we are basing the GRFA on the 945 sq. ft., that we SLIFER: Could you iust restate the Motion? RIJDER: Yes, I move that we approve the GRFA variance for the Webster residence contingent upon the transfer of clear title to the stock driveway adjoining the property and that a (what would you call thls thing?) Deed restriction be put on the house so that any structure erected under the authority granted by this variance shall be used only as a single-family residence with care- taker facilities, unless or until such limitations as modified or removed by subsequent action of the Town Council under proeedures provided for granting a variance under the town ordinance then in force and effect. SLIFER: Do you sti11 second that Motion Mr. Wilto. VfILTO: Yes, I still second it. SLIFER: Ok, we have a Motion and a second, do you understand the Motion and the second. Any further discussion? I{ILTO: Just, that if wedid delay it after hearing what Pam just said, it would create an undue hardship. SLIFER: I do think its co::rect to address the issues this evening sj-nce it would delay it a month. If it were two weeks I would say we should kick it back to planning Commission. TRANSCRIPT - TOIYN COUNCIL MEETING 5^2^78Pg. 28 Webster Residence - Request for GRFA and Setback Variance Slifer Continued: But I think a month is an undue hardship. Ok, if there is no further discussion,all in favor of the Motion vote by saying aye. So the vote is 4 to 1. PALMATEER: May I make a comment, I can see the confusion here and I know that the Planning Commission must be perplexed because of all these things you have seen Pam, and I have sat out there and watched them be turned down. This is a new ordinance, this is the first time that the change in the ordinance has been addressed, so therefore we are all sort of unclear as to how we may look at it, and I think pints made by Bob are valid. And the second thing is that I personally. don't have a problem with the kind of GRFA on a single-family duplex, or, primary/secondary, and we may look at them a different way and I think it is unfair not to talk to DEO the Planning Commission about that. SLIFER: Yes? UNKNOM: I eertainly very much approve of the action you have taken. But it seems to me that it points up that maybe the ordinance ought to be reviewed. I was very interested in what Bob Ruder had to say concerning the philosophy in back of the ordinance and so long as Bob is here to explain that, thats fine, and I think it enables Council to make these individual decisions, but, if Bob someday isn't on the Council to give that philosophy, I think the ordinance itself ls too restrictive with respect to that IO% in the last whatever - square foot, and I would like to suggest that the Council try to modify that oridnance to stitl accomplish the philosophy that Bob expressed without restrlcting so much the size of primary/secondary houses.on good size 1ots, because in fact I think it is too restrictive. So long as it doesn't come into a ten bedroom house thats suddenly divided up with separate entrances. SLIFER: Good. L. RIDER: Mr. Mayor, I think that I would iust iump into the conversation and state that I think the ordinance is clear in what can be done and what can't be done and the purposes of Variances, adn I think what we may need to do, maybe at the next study session, would be to discuss it, and if the Council wishes to proceed with these kinds of actions, that what they'l] have to do is provide a Section in the zoning ordinance called "Exceptions", because this kind of , I +' ,+ 'j TRANSCRIPT - T{}IYN COT'NCIL UEETING 5-'2:78 Ps, 29 Werst6i R.estdenc€ - Request fqr GBFA and Sethack Yarfance. Rider Continued: OtBSrti&Bfg action was reaL1y not a varlance, Its an exception, and if that is what the CouncLl wants to do tbats great, we can do it, but I think that it needs to be, maybe some of the nisunderstandlngs between PLanning.Comlsslon and Councll , could be wrapped up with a general discusslon ln a rork session. I would think that night be appropriate as soon as poseible. StIFtsR: Any further discusslon? END THIS SEGMENT.