HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-02-17 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1981
7:30 P.M. `
The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 P.M.
on Tuesday, February 17, 1981, in the Vail Council Chambers of the
Vail Municipal Building.
The following Council members and Mayor Rodney Slifer were present:
Bill Wilto
Bud Benedict
Paul Johnston
Dr. Tom Steinberg
Ron Todd
Bob Ruder
Also present were: Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, and Richard
Caplan, Town Manager.
First item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #3,
Series of 1981, an ordinance regarding parking on private property.
Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance
from the first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the
ordinance and Bud Benedict seconded it. A vote was taken and was
unanimous and the ordinance was ordered by title only.
Second item on the agenda was the Watershed Ordinance, #2, Series
of 1981, Richard Caplan stated that this ordinance had been discussed
in the work session that afternoon and it was felt by the Council
that copies of it should be sent to the five water boards for their
input before being voted on by the Vail Town Council. After the
first review of the revised ordinance, the Forest Service did state
that it was more suitable to them.. Bill Wilto made a motion to
table the ordinance and Ron Todd seconded the motion. All voted
in favor and the motion was passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was Ordinance #10, rerios of 1981,
first reading, an ordinance amending.the annual business license
from $25 to $100. Much discussion.followed the reading on the
ordinance. Linda Kaiser voiced her objection to taxing the
businesses more and asked where the money went that was now
being paid for licenses. Mr. Caplan stated that the money
was mostly used for administrative record keeping on the
licenses. Paula Palmateer, VRA, stated she had done a
preliminary poll of local businesses and did not think that they
were opposed to the increase in the fee. They would be doing a
formal poll this week and she woul&,, report back to the Council
when this was completed. Coleen Kline stated that a physical
inventory was done twice a year to make sure no business was
operating without a license. Bud Benedict stated that the Council
was trying to do the best thing they could for what the citizens
stated they wanted and the money had to come from somewhere. He
said he also felt that the liquor establishments were the contributors
for the majority of the police problems and felt they contribute the
major portion of the funds needed for the protection. Dr. Steinberg
stated that he felt an increase in the business license should be
incorporated with a tax on the liquor establishments to cover rising
costs of police protection. Rich Caplan stated that the Town had
already made a $300,000 cut in the budget and would be making
additional cuts after the sales tax figures for January were in.
Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the Ordinance and Bob Ruder
seconded it. A vote was taken and the motion passed - 5 to 2 -
Bud Benedict and Tom Steinberg opposing.
Vail Town Council
February 17, 1981
Page 2
Next item on the agenda was Resolution#6, Series of 1981, first
reading, anResolution regarding industrial development bond financing
for snowmaking equipment for Vail Associates. Mr. Caplan stated that
this was a resolution only and no monies would be committed at this
time. There would be ordinances brought to .the Council at a later
date as the program progressed. Bob Parker of Vail Associates gave
a presentation on how and where the new snowmaking equipment would
be operated. Bob Ruder stated he felt the resolution should be
changed from 8 miles to 3 miles relating to the area where the
equipment will be located. Bud Benedict stated all resort
organizations including VA should generate an education program
to get the word out on how much Vail had and will be putting into
the mountain for snowmaking equipment. Paul Johnston made a motion
to approve the resolution and Tom Steinberg seconded it. A vote
was taken and it was approved unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was Resolution #7, Series of 1981, a
resolution supporting the public acquisition of the Reudi Reservoir.
Mr. Caplan stated that this was in support of the City of Aspen and
several other cities in expressing an interest in obtaining the
Reudi Reservoir. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the
resolution and Ron Todd seconded it.. All voted in favor and
the motion passed.
Mayor Slifer introduced Ernie Chavez,'Vail Postmaster, who gave a
report on the new zip code which had been assigned to Vail. Mr.
Chavez stated that this additional zip code would save the post
office hours of sorting time each day. He suggested everyone
go ahead and exhaust their supplies of printed stationery before
ording new with the new zip code on it. All box holders will
change their zip code to 81658 - the home delivery will remain
at 81657.
Mayor Slifer stated that he would like to review the street cut
permit granted to the Tyrolian Inn two weeks ago. Jay Peterson
stated that he and Pete Burnett were in constant contact with
each other as the work progressed and felt that it was unfortunate
that the sewer line turned out to be a problem, but it was unforseen
by Mountain Mechanical and they had done the best they could to
correct the problem. The Council stated that according to the
Police Department report, the project had not been done according
to the rules outlined by the Council and had caused a problem with
traffic direction. The council felt that from this point on, a
fee should be charged to individuals requesting an emergency street
cut permit and an ordinance to that effect should be written.
During Citizen Participation discussion, Bob Parker representing
The Valley presented the Council with a petition regarding filling
the speed dip on Buffer Creek Road. Some discussion followed
regarding the problem with the dip. Mr. Parker said the dip
had been installed by Eagle County and stop signs had also been
put up at a later time. He felt that the stop signs were sufficient
and the dip was more of a hinderance than a help. Mr.. Parker felt
that the area should be patrolled and ticketed more heavily. It
was decided to have the Police Department take a.closer look at
the area and publicize further discussion at another Council meeting,
to get public opinion on the dip.
The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Casolar Zoning
Request by the Planning and Environmental Commission. It was
requested that the minutes be reported verbatim during this
portion of the meeting.
Vail Town Council
February 17, 1981
Page 3
• SLIFER: The next item on the agenda is
read into the record an appeal
"Gentlemen:
Casolar appeal. And let me
letter that,r*e received today.
The following telephone conversation between Roger Tomash
attorney for Mr. Dean Knox and Larry Rider, Attorney for
the Town of Vail, Dean Knox is requesting thatproceedings
on his petition for variance on Lot 12, Phase 2, Casolar
Del Norte be returned for action at the Planning Commission
level. The basis of this request is that Mr. Knox wishes to
submit a significantly changed proposal to reduce the GRFA
and the number of units in the subdivision which are now
requested."
I would assume that would require a motion on our part to
send the matter back to the Planning Commission as requested
by the applicant or by the appellant.
RIDER: Mr. Mayor, I would say that what occurred in this .case was that
I got a call yesterday afternoon from Roger.Tomash.representing
. Dean Knox. He indicated that he had discussed with his client
the matter of this variance and said that what they were going.
to do , or informed me that what they were going to do tonight
was to propose to cut the duplex proposal in half and make it
a single-family residence and drop the GRFA requirement request
by 600 or 700 square feet and I told him at that time that
the Council would not hear the proposals without Planning
Commission input. I felt that was a significant change and
he said, well, they had no objection to Planning Commission
hearing. Then I got a. call from them that they were
going to be here. Then I got a call at noon today indicating
that he was having some difficulty in getting out and at that
time I informed him after discussing the matter with Rich that
there should be a written application to have it sent .back to
US. Since that appeared to be appropriate that the Council
would consider that tonight. The issue being the significant
change and it appears to be a very significant change.
SLIFER: Any commments? Would: someone like to, ----- Mr. Ruder?
RUDER: Yea, I'd like to just .....We got in our packet this many, many
page, many, many year document relating to this project and I
think that our zoning laws in the area are pretty clear as to
what is allowed on that particular piece of property and, "
I think that as I read all of these many, many documents that
the owner of the property was advised at that time and that he
just, he didn't take good care, and caution in planning and
when it got down to the last.lot he had some problems and now
he's trying to find a way out and I would be, . I think we
should act and uphold the Planning Commission's ruling.
Otherwise I think we're kind of passing the buck if the
applicant wants to come back and .reapply to the Planning
Commission,...that's part of the democratic process and he
can do that.
RIDER: Well, I would state that I told Mr. Tomash exactly what ,
Bob has indicated, but,. if the Council turned it down he can
come back and he could do that immediately on the March 9th agenda
with the proper advertising. The only benefit in turning it down
which they indicated they would do, it would be to get another
application filed because they would come back with the same
• thing. I guess my feeling and the reason I advised them it
would probably go back was that that was going to happen anyway
and they might as well get it done.
Vail Town Council meeting
February 17, 1981
Page 4
WILTO: I don't have any problem sending it back to the Planning
Commission.
RUDER: The reason, I guess, that it bothers me is that we have two
ways in this town of allowing densities and they're pretty
clearly explained in all zones and that we're really
opening up Pandora's Box when we allow an increase in gross
residential floor area in one of the zones and that's what
this application would do and as I understand it, reduction
of 600 or 700 feet or the changing in units that was going
to be the new proposal would still be an up -zoning of the
property in respect to .Gross residential floor area and I
think that we have to treat up -zoning gross residential
.floor area in this valley very carefL.11y and, I am one
person who would be very in favor of doing that and I think
that this would be a way of us telling this applicant that,'.
you know, the rules have been very clear throiugh all of these
proceedings
WILTO: We can't act on what he's proposing now, all we could act on
• would be the Planning Commission
RUDER: That's right.
WILTO:
It has to go back to them anyway.
RUDER:
That's right. But what we're telling the Planning Commission
by upholding them that we, you know, we agree with the way they're
treating these kinds of situations when something is brought
in, front o.f . them :wP agree 177ith the way they treated that. As
soon as we send back to them without, you know, without good
explanation they may sit there and say, "Well, you know, maybe
the Council does want us to consider giving additional gross
residential floor area variances, I guess it would be, Iand
in isolated special cases." I don't know how they would read
us sending it back and I think it's a very touchy situation
because it's one of our two guidelines in all of our zones to
zoning.
TODD:
I have a question. As far as what was said to the representatives
of the people who were appealing to us, because it would seem to
•
me that if we were to proceed and consider .. the review as
it was originally scheduled, that that requires that both the
Town and the applicant would make a presentation tonight because
we'd need to see what was presented to the Planning Commission
and if the applicant was led to believe that this would be a
mere formality and therefore is not here which I assume the
applicant isn't here, , and he was led to believe that this
was a normal thing, it would go back to Planning Commission
without the applicant being here and for that reason I would
prefer to send it back -to Planning Commission which is really
an option it seems to me that's open to him anyway and that he
would be withdrawing his appeal and just going back with a
his revised plans.
SLIFER:
Could you make that a motion?
TODD:
I so make that a motion.
WILTO:
Would you like to add any instructions from the Council to the
Planning Commission?
• TODD:
I think that the minutes of this meeting should be included so
that Bob's concern are voiced at the Planning Commission and
that any other concern that councilmembers would like to
express along those lines.
i
Vail Town
Council meeting
February
17, 1981
Page 5
• WILTO:
I would like it to be expressly said somehow that, wb
do approve their decision - prior decision.
..§TEINBERG:Why don't we just table it for tonight.and have the lawyer here
next time and make their presentation so we can vote it down?
TODD:
That would be good too, as long as they're fairly represented
and haven.'t been misled thinking they can
STEINBERG:I feel with Bob that - I feel strongly that we should concur
with the Planning Commission in their turning it down and I
think if they want to come.and plead their case, that's fine,
they ought to have their day in court, but I think my mind is
made up pretty well
,SLIFER:
Larry, could we send it back to the Planning Commission with,
with the understanding that we did support their decision?
and
RIDER:
I don't think, I don't think that this case/as Bob has
eluded you've got.this whole packet of things - this Casolar I
and II is a proverbial bucket of worms, I mean it's a, it's a
very screwy situation and I don't know whether Dean Knox got
himself into it or we helped him get himself into it or what
it is. I don't think the Planning Commission in any way feels
in jeopardy because of Council's consideration of this, I
think they feel pretty confortable in their decision on the
GRFA..`We have received various comments in the packet,
you're not in any way questioning their decision in sending
it back, and,. you know, I don't know what you, I guess
maybe I stepped outside of my prerogative in telling them that
you'd probably send it..back if you came in with a proposal,
but at the same time what have you gained by putting it over
for two weeks and turning it down and they just turn right
around and reply. Probably what they would do if you
table it for two weeks if they would withdraw their application
and their appeal would be fine. You don't gain anything with
the Planning Commission by playing that game.
WILTO:
Ron made a motion and I'll second it.
SLIFER:
Do you want to restate the motion?
• TODD:
The motion was to return it to the Planning Commission, but
with the minutes of the concerns and comments of the various
Councilmembers as they have spoken tonight - Bob, Tom and
anyone else that has addressed it.
SLIFER:
Okay, a motion by Ron Todd and .second by Bill Wilto. All
understand that? If there's no other discussion, all in
favor of the motion vote by saying aye. Those oppose.
Two oppose - Steinberg and Ruder.
RIDER:
Just for clarification. You want the transcript verbatim
of the comments enclosed?
SLIFER:
Of that portion of the minutes.
•
Vail Town Council Meeting
February 17, 1981
Page 6
The next item on the agenda was the discussion of the appropriation of.
•the remainder of the 1981 community contributions fund. Mr. Caplan
stated that in early January when the decision was made on the vail
Resort Association donation, the Council left a remaining unappropriated
$8,000 in the fund with the discussion of three community groups in
particular that they would like to give some resources to. Because
of this, the Town did not go out and publicly solicit all organization
because of the limit on the funds available. The three groups - Vail
Mountain Rescue Group, Sopris Mental Health, and the Eagle Valley Arts
Council have submitted letters requesting consideration for this
unappropriated fund. Mr. Caplan stated that Sopris Mental Health
was waiting on this decision before making firm plans for this year.
Tim Cochran from the Vail Mountain Rescue Group gave a presentation
on what their organization had been doing and what they planned to
use their donation for. Dr. Steinberg asked Mr. Cochran if his
group had made similar requests to the Towns of Avon, Eagle and
Minturn. Mr. Cochran stated that they had not. After some discussion
the Council decided to award a portion of the money tonight and ask
that the remaining groups be postponed until after the March 10 date
when January sales tax figures were available. The next Council meeting
after that date would be March 17, 1981. Bill Wilto made a motion
to give Sopris Mental Health Clinic $3,000 and not to give any additional
funds at this time. Bud Benedict seconded the motion. All voted in
favor of the motion. Mr. Cochran was asked to resubmit his request
to the March 17th meeting and to contact some of the other surrounding
towns in the meantime.
As there was no other business on the agenda, Mayor Slifer reported
that he had attended a Club 20 Meeting as President.of CAST. The
meeting was held in Grand Junction. His object in attending the
meeting was to defend the Town's and CAST's position on Glenwood
Canyon. The rumor is that the Canyon may cost as much as $650,000
before completion. Mr. Slifer thought that the Town of Vail should
consider joining Club 20 to defend these issues. He stated that the
fee schedule is a voluntary contribution and the average of municipalities
is $250.00. The range is from $30 $5000 in contributions.
During Town Manager's Report, Rich- Caplan his concern with several
of the state's highway projects. being cancelled or put off due to
the expense of the Glenwood Canyon project.
Mr. Caplan asked that a representative from the Council be designaded
as the official staff person and an alternate for Club 20. Rod Slifer
was appointed the representative and Bill Wilto the alternate.
Mr. Caplan stated that the County Commissioners were asking for support
of House Bill 1202 which is a proposal to allow for local elections
regarding sales tax elections to be held on an annual basis. Those
elections could include going above the state 7% limit with the
approval of the voters.in the county. He stated that he has talked
with Paula Palmateer, VRA, to see if she had any comments from the
VRA standpoint on the bill and would like some Council direction on
the matter. Paula stated that she would bring it up at their board
meeting on Friday. . Mr. Caplan stated it had been approved by the
committee and would go to the floor of the House sometime soon. There
was a feeling among the commissioners that this..bill has a very slim
chance of passing. Mr. Caplan suggested drafting a'letter and waiting
until after the VRA board meeting on Friday to send it off. Rod Slifer
asked Paula to get back to Rich after her meeting on Friday. It was
decided that the Council would support it if VRA was not opposed to it.
Mr. Slifer stated that hewas sure one of the County Commissioners would
be happy to give a talk at the VRA board meeting if Paula wanted to invite
them.
•
Vail Town Council Meeting
February 17, 1981
Page 7
Air. Caplan then brought up for discussion the matter of Senate Bill
11 and 188 regarding imposition of a 7% property tax limitation on
home rule municipalities. if was felt that there should not be this
imposition on home rule municipalities and we have been asked by the
Aurora Town Council to support their position on this. Mr. Caplan
said he felt it was a first "in road" on.imposition by the state
on home rule municipalities and an insult to the concept and .
tradition of home rule government and recommend that the Council
take a position as requested by the Municipal Leage and City of
Aurora in oppostion to the 7% proposal in the State legislature.
A motion was made by Dr. Steinberg and seconded by Bill Wilto
directing Rich Caplan to send a letter from the Mayor to the
Senate Finance Committee and the House Finance Committee as
well as the City of Aurora expressing our position and opposition
to that Bill. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
The last item Mr. Caplan had was in reiation.to the Ding Arthur's
Court property. The Council did approve a resolution in January
on the acquisition to be acquired no later than February 1, 1981.
He did receive a request at the end of January from the property
owners to delay the matter a few weeks to complete some additional
paperwork and some other financial reasons. He felt there was no
problem in honoring their request and close on February 26, 1981.
So he wanted to report that .contrary to the resolution we did not
close prior to February 1, but it is the Town's intention to close
on February 26 - 28 and everything technically and legally is in
order in terms of the financial resources and the legal documentation
to close on the property. Ron Todd inquired as.to the delay resulting
in any additional costs to the Town. Mr. Caplan stated that there was
not.
No Town Attorney report.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
0 ATTEST:
Town Clerk
0
Res ctf y b�X�
M or