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-