Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-11-07 Town Council MinutesAGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7 NOVEMBER 1978 7:30 P.M. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1978, second reading, amending Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to Special Development District 3, Pitkin Creek Park. 2. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, second reading, amending Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to Special Development District 5, Vail Run. 3. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1978, second reading, adopting by reference the Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construc- tion and Renovation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. 4. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1978, second reading, amending Title 9 of the Vail Municipal Code to prohibit overnight camping within the Town of Vail. 5. Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1978, first reading, adopting by reference the Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition. 6. Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1978, first reading, adopting by reference the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado Municipal- ities", 1977 Edition. 7. Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1978, first reading, enabling the Town Council to borrow up to $300,000 for working capital. 8. Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1978, first reading, limiting the maximum duration of continuous parking in the Vail Transportation Center. 9. Ordinance No. 40, Series of 1978, first reading, making a supplemental appropriation from the Open Space/Capital Improvements Fund for the purchase of the Gondola I Plaza. 10. Resolution No. 27, Series of 1978, adopting Town of Vail Employee Housing Policy. PRESENTATIONS tt? . 11. Sunbird Lodge - appeal of Planning Commission denial of request for variances from allowable units per acre and parking provisions - continued from October 17 meeting. 12. Christiania - appeal of Planning Commission approval of setback and distance between buildings variances for Leeward residence - continued from October 17 meeting. 13_ Public discussion regarding capital improvements program. 14. U.S. Forest Service - discussion regarding aspen trees in development areas. 0 TOWN MANAGER REPORTS 4 TOWN ATTORNEY REPORTS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION /A MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 7, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slifer OTHERS: Terry Minger, Town Manager Scott Hopman Larry Rider, Town Attorney Paula Palmateer Bob Ruder Tom Steinberg Bill Wi.lio Mayor Rod Slifer called the meeting to order'.�*ith the.first item on the agenda being Ordinance No, 32, Series of 1978, second reading. Slifer gave a brief description of this ordinance noting that it was approved on first reading. Allen Gerstenberger pointed out that the change Council requested regarding review by both Planning Commission and Council of final plans had been made in the ordinance that they were to review and vote on tonight. Bill Wilto voiced his concerns about the inclusion and amount of commercial space within the project. Palmateer moved for approval and seconded by Scott Hopman. The motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, second reading. Jim Rubin pointed out that when the original Special Development District 5 was approved, the maximum number of units permitted would be 139 with 10 units to be designated for employee housing and in the ordinance that was adopted, it was not specifically adopted in that manner but the 139 units was the intent of the Council. (129 units with 10 employee units). There was some discussion ­.as to the type of employee units, whether they were to be accommodation or dwelling units as well as the size of the employee units. Ruder made a motion to approve the ordinance with an amendment that there be a maximum of 125 units for time-sharing with the 10;•employee:units as outlined in the special provisions. Steinberg seconded with an amendment that the employee units not have fireplaces. The vote was 3 to 3 and the motion failed. Bill Wilto made a motion for approval for. the 125 time-sharing units with the 10 employee units defined as accommodation units that may be combined with other units (common kitchens or 13;ying room). Wlth no fireplaces,; seconded by Hopman: After a lengthy discussion a vote was taken and the motion failed 4 to 2. Steinberg then made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 33 as it stands before the Council with 129 time-sharing units and 10 employee units; seconded by Palmateer with the amendment that there be no fireplaces in the employee units. The amendment also stated that the minimum size of each employee dwelling unit be 850 square feet with a maximum size of 1,000 square feet per unit. The motion passed 4 to 2 (Ruder and Slifer against). Ordinance No. 34, second reading. Larry Rider asked that.this matter be tabled until the December 5th meeting as there had been only one public notification and two are required. Ruder made a motion for tabling until December 5th; seconded by Hopman. A unanimous vote was recorded. Ordinance No. 35, second reading. Slifer gave a brief description of this ordinance. It was noted from a member in the audience that the KOA campground could not take any overflow campers during the holiday seasons. A brief discussion odcurred relating to -where campers could park during the peak seasons. Wilto made a motion for approval; seconded by Hopman. A unanimous vote was recorded. Vail Town Council November 7, 1978 Page Two Ordinance No. 36 and 37, first reading. Larry Rider pointed out that those ordinances were "bookkeeping" ordinances that Council had previously approved as Ordinance. Nos. 7 and 27. The requirement for two public notices had not been fulfilled at that time and he asked that the Council reapprove them as Ordinance Nos. 36 and 37. Steinberg made a motion to approve; seconded by Palmateer. A unanimous vote was recorded. Ordinance No. 38, first reading. Stan Bernstein gave the Council a brief update of the Town's borrowing capabilities and what they had done in the past. Ruder made a motion to approve with the amendment that under Section 1 the rate not exceed 8%; seconded by Palmateer. A unanimous vote was recorded. Ordinance No. 39, first reading. There was some discussion from the Council as to how the 14 day time limit was arrived at. Jon Eberly felt that any longer time could become a revenue problem and explained 40 his reasoning. He stated that he was not opposed to people staying longer than that but he wanted them to pay up every 14 days. Wilto made a motion for approval; seconded by Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded. Ordinance No. 40, first reading. Stan Bernstein gave a brief summary as to why this ordinance was necessary and what costs the Town would have to incur. Motion for approval made by Steinberg; seconded by Palmateer. A unanimous vote was recorded. Resolution No. 27. Slifer gave a brief outline of this resolution and stated that he felt that this resolution was a step in the right direction in attempting to solve the employee housing problem. It is an outline of what the Council feels are appropriate policies.to follow in the years 1978 and 1979. Chuck Ogilby raised some questions about the density increases and tradeoffs in the residential cluster and multi -family zones and why single family and duplex zones could not also be included within this framework. Discussion of thisquestion followed resulting in Palmateer making a motion for approval of the resolution as it stands; second by Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded. Emily Bloomfield from Design Review Board introduced two representatives from the Forest Service who gave a presentation as to how to make builders responsible for damage and for preventing damage to the aspen trees during development. Tom Hines delivered a summary of the aspen trees' growth and how they are damaged. John Lock stated some ways to prevent damage and some of the programs that the Forest Service has initiated in various communities. Minger mentioned that he would like to get some people together to work on this problem. Bloomfield said that the members of the Design Review Board would like to see some follow up on this presentation to make the preservation of aspen trees and other vegetation part of the Design Review Board's approval process. Slifer stated that the Council would follow up on it immediately as it is a problem that everyone is concerned with, Sunbird Lodge's appeal of Planning Commission's denial of a request for variances from allowable units per acre and parking provisions. This was continued from the October 17th meeting. Jim Rubin gave a brief summary of what the issues of concern were. Sunbird Lodge wants to convert five accommodation units into five dwelling units by adding efficiency refrigerators, sinks and double burner stoves. This convexstbn would put them over the maximum allowable density in the Commercial II zone district. It was pointed out that they are presently over that allowable density. When this came before the Planning Commission, the Commission felt that according to the definitions within the zoning ordinance approval of this request would be allowing an increase in density and that was contrary to t Vail Town Council November 7, 1978 . Page Three growth management plan adopted a year ago and contrary to the general feeling within the community. The question before the Council was whether conversion of accommodation units into dwelling units really does change the use of the units and whether it is something that the Council would like to encourage or discourage. John Blish, attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant's position. A lengthy presentation in support of the request, which included a description of the Sunbird Lodge's operation, was given by Ed Wimberly, the applicant. Palmateer made a motion to approve the action taken by the Planning Commission denying the Sunbird's request; second by Hopman. A unanimous vote was recorded upholding the Planning Commission's action. Christiania appeal of Planning Commission's approval. Jim Rubin stated that there has been a change from the original request and that the applicant is now requesting a front setback variance of 4 feet and a distance between buildings variance of 11i feet. The original request included three variances with one being required on the western side of a 2 foot setback; the front setback was six feet and now is four feet and the distance between buildings was originally 15 feet and is now 112 feet. This is to add a garage. It was noted that the Planning Commission approved the revised request 4 to 1 and felt that it was upgrading the neighborhood by lessening the amount of outdoor parking and since this house is in a public accommodation zone where 75% of the parking is to be covered, construction of a garage would be bringing this property into conformity with the zone district. Charles Calvin, attorney for the applicant, was present as well as Jim Morter, architect representing the applicant. Jim Morter explained that the applicant wished to.build a two car garage. If a single car garage was to be built, variances would still be needed for setbacks. Dick Hart, attorney for the appellant (the Chateau Christian Owner's Association), presented the case for opposition which was based primarily upon view obstruction. Paul Johnston, representing the Chateau Christian, submitted photographs showing the impact that the present open parking has and how Chateau Christian's views would be obstructed if the garage as presently proposed would be obstructed. Questions as to redesign of the garage were raised and Jim Morter.addressed them. Comments and questions from Council and members of the audience were then entertained. Wilto made a motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on the distance between buildings variance; second by Hopman. The motion failed due to a 3 to 3 vote. Wilto made a motion to reverse the decision of the Manning Commission on the setback variance of 4 feet; second by Ruder, Wilto felt that there was no significant hardship to grant the Variance and that further design of the proposed garage could eliminate the need fox this particular variance, The motion to overturn Planning Commissign''s approval passed unanimously. Discussion regarding capital improvements program in regard to improving the facilities of the soccer field at Ford Park was not heard as the applicants decided to send a formal letter to be discussed at the time when the complete capital improvements budget is reviewed. Slifer noted that the Dobson Ice Arena would be`.in working order by the 15th of December, barring any unforeseen casualties. Chuck Ogilby had some questions and concerns about the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District's need to have to go into the stream bed to repair and replace major pipe lines. Under,'.Co.unty zoning a special use permit is needed. The UEVSD feels that since they are a special district they are exempt from this provision. His objection is that developers have to follow all the rules and regulations and that private utility 0 Vail Town Council November 7, 1978 Page Four companies don't. He would like to get the Council's reaction to this situation since the Town of Vail will be affected due to pipe replacement in the Bighorn area. Council said they would look into it more closely and address it at their next regular meeting. As there was no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST; own C1 erk TuNIN Of VAIL STATE OF -GI —OR DO S5 COUNTY OF LEAGI L TIDE FGftcGqI `G tS A FULL TRUE AMD CCr'iREICT �'ORY qc 1i.l!_ S Nq 9y„� v ....i J •171� J��lt�tl✓ s`�-�3'C"iRa Ur'; N T} w: IiI i ; GAS f= NlY O ICE. I+ Mayor