HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-05 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 5, 1989
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 5, 1989,
at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT
The first order of business
Patten. Ron Phillips gave
Town of Vail, and this was
• Macy of Vail Associates.
Kent Rose, Mayor
John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Michael Cacioppo
Mery Lapin
Tom Steinberg
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
was a Ten Year Employment Anniversary Award to Peter
a brief description of Peter's work background with the
followed by comments from Peter Patten, as well as Joe
The second item of business on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the
August 1 and 15, 1989, meetings. Tom Steinberg moved to accept the minutes as
presented, with a second from John Slevin. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
The third item was a public hearing on the proposed Village Parking Structure
expansion and renovation. Stan Berryman provided an overview of the process
involved in setting forth this proposal and offered justifications for this
expansion. He stated this is a portion of the parking solution problem, and also
pointed out that the Parking Advisory Committee had been influential in helping
along this process. Berryman stated a report from the Vail Transportation and
Parking Advisory Committee would be presented to Council at their September 19,
1989, work session. Stan introduced Michael Barber from Michael Barber
Architecture, who proceeded with a presentation of the proposed concept design for
the Village Parking Structure (VTRC) expansion and renovation. The Vail
Transportation and Parking Advisory Committee had unanimously recommended, and the
Town Council at a work session had agreed to proceed with "Scheme Two." Mr. Barber
presented conceptual designs and a global view for this project. Through a parking
matrix, he described incremental steps that could be taken to fit into this overall
•picture. Through "Scheme Two," the expansion of the parking supply would be the
number one priority, with the addition of 400 parking spaces and would require the
structure being converted wholly to a one-way system. It would deal with immediate
maintenance problems, improving the ventilation, and myriad other parking structure
renovation needs. "Scheme Two" would enhance the pedestrian access to the parking
structure as well as along side the exterior; would reconfigure traffic patterns
both on the top of and around the parking structure; and would deal with recommended
improvements to the interior. The cost of this project is estimated at $8 million.
Don Monahan was introduced to discuss the current condition and the ongoing
maintenance issues. Charlie Wick discussed the financing scenario that will be
finalized within a two -week period of time and presented to Council. Currently, the
Council is looking at putting $2.5 million in cash toward the parking structure, and
then utilizing either G.O. or Revenue Bonds along with existing revenues, i.e.,
sales tax revenues, for a term of 10 to 13 years.
Questions from the audience were raised by Johannes Faessler, Will Miller, Robert
Schiller, Michael Chapman, and Larry Lichliter. Following discussion, all were
willing to support this structure. The construction plan calls for complete
closedown of the VTRC starting in mid -April of 1990 for one month to renovate, the
the new addition being completed by the 1990-91 ski season. The improvements, as
well as the new addition, will require continued high-grade maintenance. A motion
•was made to approve "Scheme Two" by Mery Lapin, with a second coming from Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 5-1, with Mike Cacioppo voting
against this motion because he felt Vail Associates was not paying their fair
share. The staff was directed to study the following concerns:
1. Financing consideration for an expansion of the Tourist Information Center,
as well as VRA and the Vail Chamber of Commerce, on the top of the parking structure
or at another location, this totalling approximately 2,000 square feet.
2. Size of expansion. Is this parking structure large enough? Should we be
adding the two extra floors now, and/or studying carefully any steps so that they
are to be considered incremental steps, and additions can be made at a later time.
3. Developers within the Town of Vail must no longer have spaces sold to them,
or if spaces are sold, we must ask an approximate amount of what the spaces are
costing the Town of Vail to construct. Mike Cacioppo stated that hotels are
required to provide parking when they expand, or to pay into a parking fund, and he
felt Vail Associates should also be required to do that with their mountain
expansion. Mike Cacioppo stated Vail Associates was not paying its fair share
toward this parking structure, and this was responded to by Larry Lichliter, stating
that Vail Associates is the largest taxpayer in the Valley, with all people in the
Valley receiving the benefit thereof. Vail Associates was asked to consider an
eventual request from the Town of Vail to condominiumize these spaces or to pay for
the 535 additional spaces.
4. The specific requirements of what it will take, both with financing and
construction, to add the additional 535 spaces and the two floors now.
Item four was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance vacating
a portion of Meadow Road (also known as Grouse Lane), a public roadway within the
Town of Vail (5122 Grouse Lane), adjacent to Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek
Subdivision. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve the
ordinance on first reading. Tom Steinberg seconded his motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Item five was Resolution No. 57, Series of 1989, updating the Town of Vail personnel
rules and regulations. Mayor Rose read the full title. Mery Lapin requested that
Charlie Wick present brief information regarding the content of these personnel
changes. Mery then moved to approve this resolution, and was seconded by Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Note: At this point in the meeting (9:10 p.m.), Kent Rose excused himself to attend
a function of the Loth Mountain Division as a representative for the Town of Vail.
Item six was Resolution No. 58, Series of 1989, supporting local regulation of cable
television. Mayor Pro Tem Slevin read the title in full. Larry Eskwith stated the
National League of Cities had recommended this strongly -worded resolution be sent to
Congress. Eric Affeldt had numerous objections to the subjective language used,
specifically as it would affect Heritage Cablevision and our franchise. Following
discussion, it was decided that Larry Eskwith will return to the Council at their
evening meeting on the 19th of September with a revised resolution. Larry will
concentrate on the paragraph that relates to the Town of Vail not currently being
able to receive over -the -air signals, and will attempt to expand on the uniqueness
of the Town of Vail's situation.
Item seven was an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision denying a requested
color change by the Camelot Townhouse Association (2801 Bassingdale Blvd.). Mike
Mollica stated that on August 2, 1989, the Design Review Board, by a vote of 3-1-1,
had denied the Camelot Townhouse Association's request for a color change. The DRB
made the following findings in their motion for denial: "That the proposed colors
would not be compatible with the neighborhood and that the proposed colors would
attract undue attention to the building." Mike Chapman, who serves as Manager/
President of this Association, stated his case before the Council. He asked how
aesthetically this color could be detrimental to the community? Additionally, he
pointed out in the DRB Guidelines (18.54.050) that although earth tones are called
for, in fact, there are numerous examples of homes, condominiums, etc., within the
Vail Valley that are not in compliance with this requirement. Eric Affeldt
suggested to the staff that they, along with the DRB, look at this language in
paragraph 3, on page 154C of the Vail Municipal Code. Mike Cacioppo made a motion
to overturn the DRB decision. This motion was seconded by Mery Lapin. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Tom Steinberg voting in opposition.
0 Item eight was the appeal of the Design Review Board's approval of the Katz
residence on Lot 6, Vail Village loth Filing (950 Fairway Drive). Kristan Pritz
-2-
provided the following background rationale. The DRB had approved this project
3-2. Jay Peterson, representing Mr. Katz, the applicant, stated that this was a DRB
question only, and presented background. Gene Dwyer, an attorney representing Mrs.
Walters, stated he had called within the 10-day time frame to state he would be
calling up the matter on her behalf, but was told the Town Council had already done
so. He also suggested the single reason the structure was built so high on the
hillside was to get superlative views, and that it was up to the architect to use
the freedom to design within the guidelines that are presented in the Design
Guideline section of the Municipal Code. Mike Cacioppo questioned the use in
Section 18.54.050 of the Design Guidelines regarding primary/secondary structures.
It was stated this was inapplicable, based on the fact this is a single-family
dwelling with garage and is not a duplex or primary/secondary development. The
following neighbors spoke against the DRB recommendation: Dr. Messenbaugh, John
Mueller, Vern Anderson, Nancy Rondo on behalf of herself and her husband Paul Rondo,
Bill and Alice Cartwright. Robert Schilling supported the "neighborhood" comments.
Ned Gwathmey, a member of the DRB, stated that at the time this was presented to
DRB, three items were to be considered:
1. The variance allowing the location of the house on the hill had already
been granted. Therefore, as a PEC decision that had been appealed to the Town
Council and upheld by the Town Council, that matter was settled.
2. The avalanche question had been left to expert opinion, i.e., Art Mears,
and this had been resolved.
3. A review of the design as presented was the only item to be considered by
the DRB. Gwathmey felt the DRB had made the correct decision, and this home was
indeed highly compatible with the neighborhood.
Mike Cacioppo moved to overturn the DRB decision, and Eric Affeldt seconded that
motion. Cacioppo based this motion on 18.54.050, Section A, paragraph 1, that
construction should be compatible and an objective of the design guidelines is to
fit buildings to the site. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-3. Those in
opposition were Mery Lapin, John Slevin, and Tom Steinberg. Tom Steinberg then made
a motion to uphold the DRB decision, with a second from Mery Lapin. A vote was
taken and this motion passed 3-2, with Mike Cacioppo and Eric Affeldt voting in
opposition. Following this vote, Tom Steinberg requested staff and Larry Eskwith to
work out wording to disallow the call up procedure for PEC and DRB decisions to be
allowed without consensus. Also, the staff was instructed to look at the question
of a clarification for separated structures and to focus on this issue of single-
family, duplex, and primary/secondary homes in respect to Section 18.54.050. The
issue is whether or not 18.54.050 was intended to be applicable to lots zoned
primary/secondary, or just primary/secondary construction.
Item nine was the Finishing Touch sign variance request. This has been tabled to
the September 19, 1989, evening meeting.
There was no Citizen Participation.
• There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
• .
pa .a-A.� rmeyer, own Clerk
Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer
40
Respectfully submitted,
Kent o�ayor
-3-