Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-16 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 16, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg Eric Affeldt Michael Cacioppo Mery Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989, second reading, an ordinance requesting a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family Zone District to Commercial Service Center, with a special development district, to allow for additional parking, loading, and an expansion of the Vail National Bank Building. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Rick Pylman reviewed the changes made since first reading: 1. VNB Parcel, used in the title and in the third paragraph of the ordinance was changed to VNB Building. 2. Under Section 4, 2., the landscape plan drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc., was revised May 12, 1989. 3. The entire paragraph under Section 8 was deleted and replaced with "Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code." Rick then discussed the revised landscape plan. Sidney Schultz, representing the Vail National Bank, explained the request and the problems which would be incurred if the Council denied the ordinance. Mayor Rose gave additional information for Tom Steinberg, who was absent at first reading. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal noted she voted against the ordinance at first reading and explained why, but she respected the situation tonight and did not want to stop the project. She felt the project inherited the problem and did not create it, so she would vote for the ordinance. There was then some discussion on alternatives. John Slevin made a motion to •approve the ordinance on second reading with the changes noted, and Gail Wahrlich- Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. The second item was Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989, creating the Town of Vail Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee. Stan Berryman stated the staff was bringing this resolution to Council at Council's request. He gave brief background information on the Task Force's activities since 1984, and commented the resolution would formally create an Advisory Committee. He then listed some of the names of those presently on the Task Force (other than the Mayor and Town employees): Two Council members - Mery Lapin, John Slevin Two Planning and Environmental Commission members Donovan One person from Vail Associates, Inc. - Joe Macy One person from the Forest Service - Bill Wood One person from the Department of Highways - Rich One person from Eagle County - Jim Fritze Five citizens from the Town of Vail - George Knox, Lee Hollis, Dave Rimel - Sidney Schultz, Diana Perske Dave Gorsuch, Rob Levine, He then asked that they be ratified as the Advisory Committee members. There was some discussion regarding the citizens, and it was decided to delete the words "from the Town of Vail" for any future changes in members. A motion to approve the resolution with the wording change in H. was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. The next agenda item was the Robert Gunn request for a front setback variance and modification of the 100-year Mill Creek floodplain (342 Mill Creek Circle). Mike Mollica explained the applicant's two requests, then reviewed the criteria used in these requests. He stated staff recommended approval of the variance request because it would create a hardship on the applicant if it was not granted. As far as the floodplain modification, staff recommended approval with three conditions: That a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, either and Individual or a Nationwide Permit, be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. That approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency be secured prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. That a groundwater analysis be completed, as an addendum to the EIR, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the property. Said analysis shall conclude that there will be no adverse affect on adjacent properties regarding the issue of groundwater. He then noted the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended unanimous approval of the stream modification and the front setback variance. Mike then stated the 250 square foot request was tabled until the next PEC meeting at the applicant's request. The PEC was opposed to the applicant's 250 request and was about to motion for denial of the 250 request when the applicant requested tabling; the PEC voted unanimously for tabling. He then read a letter from Mr. Higbie opposing the stream modification and noted he had received letters earlier from two others in favor of the stream modification. Mayor Rose commented the Council called this issue up to discuss and understand it more. Jim Morter of Morter Architects, representing the applicant, felt the 250 square foot request could be put to rest because nothing could be done until the applicant went through the Design Review Board. He stated the applicant would be within the allowed GRFA without requesting the additional 250 square feet, but they did want the ability to go through the DRB. Council had some discussion on the 250 GRFA. Tom Steinberg stated he would only agree to approval if the applicant agreed not to apply for the additional 250 square feet before the five year limit. Jim Morter stated the applicant did not need the 250 square feet and was within the GRFA allowed. Larry Eskwith explained what the 250 ordinance would allow; there was more discussion. Jim Morter reviewed the problems of building on the lot and how it came about. He remarked why it was a hardship and showed how they would change the stream flow; he then reviewed the relocated creek and how it would be improved. Bill Ruzzo discussed the technical aspects of moving the creek. He stated they had turned in the report and analysis to Mike Mollica this evening for the first and third conditions required by staff. Regarding the second condition, FEMA approval, they were in the process of making application at this time. They had met with the Region Director in Denver and had submitted the required forms. Technically, the applicant was not encroaching into the 100-year floodplain, but they will proceed for the map line revision due to the •creek relocation. He asked Council to change the condition so as not to depend on approval for a building permit. Mike Mollica agreed; they would change to an occupancy permit instead of a building permit. There was some discussion of a sediment problem during construction, to which Mike Ruzzo responded. Jim Morter commented Mrs. Gunn wanted it in the record that any trees damaged for a period of up to three years after the construction (as a result of the construction) will be replaced. A motion was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal to approve the request for a front setback variance and modification of the 100-year floodplain because of staff's findings that this will not grant a special privilege and will not injure the public's health; also, the variance is warranted because the strict interpretation of the guidelines would produce a hardship for the applicant; also, that approval be granted in accordance with the staff recommendations in their memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 24, 1989, except to modify condition no. 2 to change the wording from a building permit to an occupancy permit. The motion was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. Tom Steinberg asked staff to bring back the 250 ordinance for evaluation. After some discussion, it was decided to review general GRFA items at the next Council Work Session. Gail suggested Council needed to do site visits to identify what's right and wrong, and do it when all seven Council members were here. Staff agreed this would be addressed sometime in June. •The fourth order of business was the Fritzlen and Pierce appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny a side setback variance request (2998 -2- k South Frontage Road West). Mike Mollica reviewed the chronological events up to now: 1. A variance request was approved by the PEC on January 23, 1989, to allow this property to be considered for rezoning by the Town Council. The approved variance was for a 6,620 square foot shortage in the minimum lot size of the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. 2. The Town Council approved a rezoning request, from RC to P/S on March 7, 1989. This rezoning has allowed for the addition of a secondary, rental unit on the lot. 3. The PEC, on March 27, 1989, unanimously voted (7-0) to deny the applicant's side setback variance request. The PEC found that the request would be a grant of special privilege and that the applicant's stated hardship was self-imposed. Mike then reviewed the criteria and findings staff used in consideration of this request. Staff and the PEC had a problem determining the physical hardship and felt approving the request would be a grant of special privilege. Staff recommended denial, and the PEC voted unanimously 7-0 for denial. He then presented photographs of the residence to Council. William Pierce, the owner and applicant, explained exactly where the stair would be located and its uses; he also discussed why the other alternatives would not be as acceptable. There was some discussion on the alternatives and why staff felt there was no physical hardship. John Slevin felt this was a special situation not normally shared with others and therefore could be approved on this basis. After some discussion, Mike Mollica stated no other areas were really affected, but the PEC very clearly felt there were other options. He discussed what options the PEC felt were available, but the Council generally did not agree with the PEC's decision. John Slevin made a motion to overturn the PEC's denial decision regarding the side setback variance request with findings in Section 4 of the Community Development report, and more specifically, the exceptions/special conditions that apply to this applicant. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. The next item was a Landmark Condominium sign variance request. Betsy Rosolack remarked the Landmark was requesting a third sign (two are permitted) for a total of 24 square feet of signage (20 square feet are permitted). She stated they wanted the third sign for the east side; they have two already, and this third sign would result in a total of four extra square feet. She reviewed the criteria and findings used by staff in studying this request, and noted staff supported the request for the third sign and the 4.3 addition square feet. Betsy also commented the Design Review Board recommended unanimous approval 5-0 for the variance request. After a short discussion by Council, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motion to approve the sign variance request in accordance with the findings of the staff memorandum dated May 16, 1989. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0. There was no Citizen Participation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: C`� Pamela �randmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes' -take n by Brenda Chesman Respectfully submitted, �en ` R. Rose, ayor -3-