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