HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-06 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 6, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 6, 1993, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 9:30
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Bob Buckley
Jim Gibson
Rob LeVine
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Ralph Davis asked Council to
consider implementation of a mandatory or voluntary vehicle/truck weight restriction policy
to help keep large trucks from tearing up the roads. Greg Hall advised this was one of the
issues which would be addressed on Thursday, April 8,1993, at the Community Development
Department's "Summer Construction Kick-off' meeting in Council Chambers. He suggested
Mr. Davis attend that meeting.
Bob Baker, president and resident of The Falls at Vail, inquired again about issues he had
discussed with Council at the December 17, 1991, and April 7, 1992, evening meetings. He
felt the issues he had raised at those meetings, including concerns about road maintenance,
landscaping, and drainage problems at the I-70 180 East Vail exit had still not been
addressed. He recalled Ron Phillips had advised those undertakings had been scheduled for
completion during the spring of 1992. Greg Hall reported on the progress of efforts to
address these issues.
Item No. on the agenda 2 was approval of the minutes of the March 2, 1993, and March 16,
1993 evening meetings. Tom Steinberg moved to approve these minutes, with a second from
Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance making
supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, the
Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and 1992
Bond Proceed Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail,
Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and
setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve
Thompson briefly reviewed changes made to TOV's Schedule of 1992 Appropriations to be
Rolled into 1993 and Supplemental Appropriations since Council had last reviewed it at the
March 23, 1993 Work Session. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 4 was discussion regarding a Performance and Conference Center (P&CC) Demand
Analysis. Steve Barwick explained the P&CC Finance Committee's desire to hire a firm to
conduct an analysis of the likely usage and economic impact of the proposed Vail conference
facility. After brief discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve expenditure of up to $35,000
for the requested use analysis; $15,000 of that amount was to come from Council Contingency
funds. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6-0. After the vote, Cliff Gardner, P&CC Co -Chairman, discussed this issue
It from the viewpoint of being an item for election this fall. The P&CC Finance Committee
asked for and received approval from Council to attempt to raise funds from private sources
to prepare this issue for the ballot this fall.
Before discussion of Agenda Item No. 5, Larry Eskwith recommended Council adjourn for a
• brief Executive Session. Tom Steinberg moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session,
with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss noted that, due
to conflict of interest, Bob Buckley would not participate in this Executive Session discussion
or discussion of Agenda Item No. 5. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1; Bob
Buckley abstaining.
Council reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
Item No. 5 was an appeal of the Design Review Board's (DRB) March 17, 1993, decision
approving the primary unit at 784 Potato Patch/Lot 15/Vail Potato Patch. The applicant was
Loper Development. The appellants were Andy and Lucinda Daly and Mr. and Mrs. George
Wiegers, represented by Art Abplanalp, attorney with the law offices of Dunn, Abplanalp &
Christensen. Shelly Mello noted the DRB had unanimously approved the application for a
primary unit on March 17, 1993, with the condition that the application meet zoning. There
were also two recommendations to the applicant, the first being that the applicant amend the
landscaping plan to include adjacent properties; the second being that stone be added to the
lower level of the building. Shelly indicated there was an unusual situation with this appeal
in that the secondary unit on this property was approved in October, 1992, prior to approval
of the primary unit and was currently under construction. Mayor Osterfoss noted, in addition
to the Design Review considerations on appeal to Council, there were other appeals pending
that would be dealt with by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). Those
other appeals would not be subjects of discussion at this meeting. Larry Eskwith confirmed
that the only concerns to be considered by Council during this appeal were those items
related to the Design Review Guidelines. Larry referred specifically to Section 6 of Mr.
Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter of appeal. Section 6 of that letter referred specifically to
Design Review Guidelines 18.54.050.A.1, 18.54.050.A.2, 18.54.050.B.1, 18.54.050.B.2(a-e),
concerning compatibility with existing structures, building sites and unique land forms and
features, location and configuration of structures and access ways with regard to existing
topography, massing, terrain, proximity to adjacent properties, drainage, and general impact
of proposed projects upon adjoining properties.
Mr. Abplanalp's letter of March 23, 1993, indicated two adjacent property owners, Mr. and
Mrs. Wiegers and Mr. and Mrs. Daly, disagreed with the DRB's determination that the
proposal and plans for a primary residence to be located on the on Lot 15, Block 1, Vail
Potato Patch, conformed with requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In that
letter, Mr. Abplanalp referred to aspects he felt central to requirement for the disapproval
of the proposal and plans submitted by Loper Construction Services, Inc., including
uncertainty regarding GRFA and compliancy with other land use regulations, previous
representation and reliance upon location and size of building and building envelope,
violation of height limitation, absence of a model, ineffective staking and inspection, and
• violations of Design Review Guidelines. His letter concluded that premature consideration
of the Loper application without zoning review, the mass of the proposed structure, its
proximity to Potato Patch Drive, its configuration on the terrain, its height, and the GRFA
proposed to be constructed violated either the letter or the intent, or both, of the design
review regulations and the zoning code of the Town of Vail. Mr. Abplanalp reviewed the
chronology of this project, noting that between the time of the approval of the secondary unit
in October, 1992, and the primary unit, there had been a change of architects. Bill Pierce of
Fritzlen Pierce Briner was the new architect engaged to complete the project, and because
of the configuration of the lot and the plan as a whole, options for development of the primary
unit were limited. The developer decided to maximize the square footage, but in such a way
as it was not the same plan the applicants presented to the DRB in the fall of 1992, when
the secondary unit was approved. Mr. Abplanalp felt there were procedural errors related
to GRFA determinations and zoning. Mayor Osterfoss advised that that was one of the issues
being handled by the PEC. Larry Eskwith indicated the project, in fact, had been found to
be in compliance with zoning regulations. Secondly, Larry felt the record would show that
when the issue was originally raised at the March 17, 1993, DRB meeting, no one had
objected to proceeding with the project. Kristan Pritz confirmed that no one had objected.
Mr. Abplanalp felt this was one of the difficulties of having a de novo hearing. Mr.
Abplanalp's recollection was that when the question was raised, he illustrated a problem on
the plan relating to the GRFA determination. He submitted there was improper
consideration because the people who were there had no opportunity to review the
2
determinations. In retrospect, Mayor Osterfoss asked if a GRFA check was done on this
project. Shelly confirmed it had been, and the project was found to be under its allowable
GRFA. She added the space Mr. Abplanalp was speaking of had been addressed at the
Ahearing.
Mr. Abplanalp fully reviewed the history of the property. He felt this residence did not
comply with the Design Review Guidelines. There was a review of those guidelines. Mayor
Osterfoss asked Mr. Abplanalp to highlight the sections he felt were not in compliance. He
highlighted Sections 18.54.050.A.1, 18.54.050.A.2, 18.54.050.B.1, 18.54.050.B.2(a-e), and he
offered specifics to illustrate why he felt those were not in compliance. He distributed two
exhibits, a page of notes from a DRB meeting, and a list of thirteen proposed findings, any
one of which he felt warranted reversal of the approval of this project.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the landscaping on the site was adequate and
whether or not the adjacent property owners could work together on the landscaping issue.
Mr. Loper was willing to work with the neighbors on this point. Kristan believed that the
DRB felt the landscaping plan was adequate. George Lamb, DRB Chairman, confirmed that
the DRB felt that the landscaping plan was adequate, and added that the applicant was
willing to locate landscaping on neighbor's property to create a natural edge rather than a
straight line of trees. Shelly added the staff was concerned with how that was being handled.
If landscaping was to go onto the Cohen residence to the west and the Daly residence to the
east, then those residents needed to be co -applicants on a single application for the landscape
plan. Mr. Abplanalp felt, that although the landscaping was deemed adequate and was not
a condition, the affect of that was that one property would be permitted to be developed in
such a way that it could be maximized only by incorporating other property owned by
neighbors in the mitigation plan, making the plan dependant, not self-sufficient. Mr. Lamb
disagreed. He felt the applicant agreeing to a landscape flow showed sensitivity on the
applicant's part to the neighbors' concerns. He felt this was a way to create a more natural
streetscape.
George Wiegers, property owner to the south of the proposed Loper development, felt the
representations made in the October, 1992, hearings were not followed. His primary
objection was to the mass of the proposed building. His secondary objection was that the
mass of the buildings did not allow any room for drainage, which he said was a problem on
that road. He felt the project would diminish the value of his property.
There was discussion about allowable heights of retaining walls as stated in Section 18.58.
Shelly Mello said an issue that comes up quite often was the question of when something
become a retaining wall when it was part of the structure. In this case, staff determined that
this element was in fact part of the structure, it was not a retaining wall, and because of that
it had to be added to the setback. Shelly said the slope of the cut slope was less than 2:1,
which Mayor Osterfoss added was a key point related to the Design Review Guidelines.
• Betsy Wiegers asked why, after originally disapproving the project, the DRB then approved
it a month later. To try to clarify this for Mrs. Wiegers, Larry Eskwith and Mayor Osterfoss
explained height and site coverage issues were not part of the DRB's function. Larry Eskwith
felt that zoning gave individuals certain development rights related to height, site coverage,
and interior volume (GRFA). He felt the Design Review Guidelines allowed individuals to
utilize their development rights as set by the zoning code. He advised that the Design
Review Guidelines picked up where zoning ended. He explained that the Design Review
Guidelines came into play with regard to where a structure would be positioned on the site
to be most appropriate in terms of its compatibility with the neighborhood. But the DRB, nor
Council, had the right to determine the appropriate use of these items because those were
"by right" criteria, not conditional uses, or special use permit requirements.
Andy Daly, adjacent property owner to the east, said the results of the October 21, 1992,
meeting which approved the secondary unit now under construction and near completion
were based on a site plan and model showing a relationship of the secondary and primary
units and how the primary unit would sit on the lot. He said they had some objections to the
secondary unit, but, Mr. Daly said the Loper's responded to those objections. They were
sensitive to landscaping and to some subtleties in design. As a result, Mr. Daly no longer
objected to the secondary unit because the project on its own seemed to make sense. He said
it the DRB went through the whole process and began to see the relationships of the primary
and secondary unit. He said he specifically asked the architect at that meeting about the
building envelope, feeling it looked to small to accommodate a primary unit. The architect
reassured Mr. Daly that it was adequate to handle that. Mr. Daly was not challenging Mr.
Loper's ability or right to build the square footage proposed, but he now challenged the lack
of sensitivity and difference of the project from representations originally made. He thought
• those representations were the same as those made to the DRB. He pointed out that the
DRB had only one continuing member of that Board, so he felt there was an incongruity in
what had happened since four new members had been appointed to the Board. In addition,
he asked whether the DRB failed to consider the massiveness and compatibility of the
structure with the neighborhood. He felt the original plan considered that. He said he would
not have been supportive of the original plan if there had not been certain representations
he believed the previous DRB relied on. He distributed a computer generated photo based
on the drawings provided. He felt this photo showed the massiveness of the project relative
to the rest of the neighborhood. He noted other adjacent neighbors, Karen Josephson and
Phil Freedman were unable to attend this evening's meeting, but they had sent a letter
voicing their objections to Council. Dr. Cohen, another neighbor, also had signed a letter
expressing concern about what was originally represented and what was before them now.
He felt the DRB's mission was to see that structures met zoning requirements and to ensure
that what was planned was consistent with what was already being developed or had been
developed in the neighborhood while still allowing a new building to be designed in such a
way that the owner could maximize what was permitted on the site. He felt the DRB was
not protecting adjacent property owners. He acknowledged some of this was due to things
beyond anyone's control, such as turnover on the DRB and loss of the tape of comments
related to the representations that were originally made, and he hoped Council would realize
that and ask the Loper's to re-examine the original building design so the neighbors were not
46 faced with a footprint 70% larger than originally represented. Mr. Daly said there were
approximately 40 changes made on the secondary unit after it had been approved. He felt
it was important for Council to realize that the adjacent property owner's wanted protection
and felt that the process had broken down through a series of mechanisms, and as a result,
he felt the project should be required to be re -thought.
Lucinda Daly expressed concern about potential loss of the view corridor at Potato Patch if
the second phase of this project went ahead. She hoped the impact of the second phase could
be reduced so it could go back on the originally proposed footprint and still get the square
footage allowed. Mayor Osterfoss noted there were no provisions within the Design Review
Guidelines relating to impact from views on adjacent properties.
Mr. Abplanalp reviewed differences in the maps from what Council had seen during a site
visit earlier this date and repeated that the appellants major concerns were the mass and the
siting. Mr. Abplanalp said the original architect represented to the DRB and adjacent
property owners that this building could be constructed and effectively maximized within the
envelope originally represented to the DRB in October, 1992. He suggested without
enforcement of zoning codes, people would find loopholes in the zoning code and misuse the
process.
• Bill Pierce reviewed the history of the proposed construction of this project, responded to Mr.
Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter point by point, and compared the particulars of the
Wiegers' and Daly's residences to the proposed Loper residence. As everyone agreed, only the
secondary unit gained approval in the fall of 1992, and Mr. Pierce did not believe the location
of the primary unit was a specific of condition of approval for the secondary unit. On
February 3, 1993, there was a conceptual review of the primary unit. He said the DRB
required that both units be entirely compatible in architectural style and detail. He said he
altered the size, style, and percentage of openings. Council reviewed and questioned various
aspects of displayed blueprints of the project. There was a review of elevations of the project.
Tom Steinberg initiated discussion about changes made to the project without design review.
He felt this was happening far too often and should not be allowed. Mayor Osterfoss felt it
was important in this case to look at what was built and ascertain whether or not that was
compatible with the proposal for the primary unit. She said, according to the DRB, the
design was compatible at this point. Mr. Pierce felt it was important to note there was no
discussion at the February 3, 1993, meeting regarding any objection to the massing, siting,
or setback issues that came up at a later date.
After further review of the chronology of the history of this project, including some debate
Itabout technicalities cited in Mr. Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter, Bill Loper noted most
of the numerous change made on the initial submittal were made because the DRB felt they
4
would be more appropriate. He also noted he called the Daly's when he first purchased the
lot and indicated the Loper's wanted to share his road. That proved not to be possible for
legal reasons. He noted it was a difficult site to build on, and they have spent a great deal
of time trying to work out the lot. He said they always intended to develop a house as large
• as was permitted, and the original footprint did not indicate he was not going to try to build
approximately 3,700 feet. Mr. Loper explained the firing of his first architect and the
engagement of Mr. Pierce because it was felt he understood the property, the DRB, and what
the Loper's were trying to do. He said most of the things they have tried to do had been in
an effort to mitigate the impact his project would have. He felt the plans shown represented
a fair attempt at trying to do what would satisfy everyone.
After further discussion and review of several related sections of the Design Review
Guidelines, she noted by right, zoning on this site was not superseded by the Design Review
Guidelines. Larry Eskwith confirmed that was accurate. After individual Council member
input was heard, Rob LeVine moved to overturn the DRB decision approving the Loper
application based on non-compliance with the Design Review Guidelines, specifically Chapter
18.54.050, Section A, Section B(1) and B(2), and Section I. Tom Steinberg seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1-1, Jim Shearer opposed; Bob Buckley
abstaining.
Bob Buckley rejoined Council.
Item No. 6 was an appeal of a PEC approval to allow a Type II Employee Housing Unit to
be constructed on Lot 41/Glen Lyon/1210 Westhaven Lane. The appellant was Kristen
Blume. The applicant was Larry Grace, Andy Knudtsen noted that the applicant's request
for an EHU Type II required conditional use approval from the PEC. He reviewed the March
22, 1993, CDD memo to the PEC including a description of the request, a zoning analysis,
criteria and findings, and staff recommendations. Andy called attention to the EHU Criteria
and noted all of the criteria for this request were met without question. He said staff and
PEC believed that the request met the conditional use criteria. He emphasized No. 3
regarding the effect upon traffic. He noted the amount of traffic the proposed EHU would
generate in the neighborhood was the focus of discussion of this appeal from the view of two
neighbors at this meeting. Kristen Blume expressed concern about the density and traffic
flow throughout Glen Lyon. She did not feel the PEC had taken adequate consideration of
the problems that extra housing would cause in the area. Mr. Grace felt this was a good area
to accommodate employee housing, and explained his plans for having a caretaker on the site
as he was only a part-time resident. He stated he understood the street there now serving
one home was to be widened not only to permit access to his site, but other sites planned for
development. Howard Stone, a resident two sites to the west of the subject property, agreed
with Mr. Grace about the buildablilty of the site, and felt the requested EHU would be
compatible from an architectural standpoint. He did not believe, however, that anyone had
taken into consideration exactly where this site was. He did feel the Town had a need for
employee housing, that staff encouraged Mr. Grace to consider this, but he referred to a
• number of problems with Westhaven Drive, including that it was the only road to the subject
site. He, like Ms. Blume, was concerned about future requests from other homeowners in the
area should Council later observe problems with too many EHUs there.
After further discussion, Larry Eskwith confirmed that under Ordinance No. 1, Series of
1993, Westhaven Road would be dedicated to TOV and brought up to TOV standards. Andy
Knudtsen noted currently the private driveway leading from Westhaven Drive to four lots in
the subject area was substandard. He said Mr. Grace's development, with or without the
EHU, required upgrading the driveway to Win width plus 1' shoulders on either side. Greg
Hall said standards for a private road was 22' feet wide, however, the easement that was
dedicated in the plat which could not be changed at this point was 20'. Greg indicated the
easement had been fully utilized as based on the plat, and that was part of a prior agreement
with the Forest Service. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to uphold the PEC decision
to allow a Type II EHU to be constructed on Lot 41, Glen Lyon Subdivision/1212 Westhaven
Lane with findings per staffs memo. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 7 was a Vail Town Council appeal of a DRB decision regarding final design approval
of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, located to the northeast of the Main Vail I-70 interchange.
The applicants were SBC Development Corporation, represented by Emil Rothlisberger and
Jay Peterson. Mike Mollica reviewed his memo to the DRB dated March 17, 1993, detailing
the DRB's granting final design approval for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision on April 17,
1991. That approval was valid for a period of one year. This original approval did expire,
the ownership of the subdivision has changed, and subsequently the current owner had to
• come back through the DRB process to obtain DRB approval again. Mike stated the project
was presented to the DRB, exactly as it was in 1990 and 1991. He noted the DRB reviewed
four categories on March 17, 1993, regarding the subdivision landscape plans and retaining
walls; architectural site development and landscape guidelines - for residences; subdivision
lighting standards and lot monument lighting; and the subdivision entrance sign, directory
sign, and individual lot monument signs (residential name plates). Attorney Kevin Lindahl
represented TOV on this issue due to a conflict of interest for Vail Town Attorney; Larry
Eskwith. Mr. Lindahl advised Bob Buckley not to participate in the discussion or vote on this
issue due to a conflict of interest. Tom Steinberg expressed concern about the possibility of
this project being started and there being a possible bankruptcy. He wanted assurance that
there would be adequate collateral to finish the project. Mike felt there would be adequate
collateral to secure development of the project, and that the collateral issue would be further
discussed under Agenda Item No. 8. Tom Steinberg moved to uphold the DRB decision with
the same criteria for approval as used by the DRB. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and motion passed, 5-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining.
0
Item No. 8 was a Final Plat review of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, located to the
northeast of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. The applicants were SBC Development
Corporation represented by Emil Rothlisberger and Jay Peterson. Again Kevin Lindahl
represented TOV on this issue due to a conflict of interest for Vail Town Attorney, Larry
Eskwith, and Bob Buckley did not participate in discussion or vote on this issue. Mike
Mollica noted the Final Plat for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision was approved by the PEC
on February 11, 1991. The plat was never finalized and recorded because of outstanding
conditions. The 1991 PEC approval carried 26 conditions, all of which had now been met,
with the exception of the final language in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, which
Mike noted was currently being fine tuned, as well as some changes to the covenants for the
subdivision. Mike indicated he had communicated very closely with Mr. Lindahl about that.
Mike said staff recommended approval of the Final Plat and stated that the plat would not
be recorded until the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the covenants were in place.
Tom Steinberg asked what amount of collateral the developer would be required to post, to
guarantee completion of the project. Mike said there was a guarantee in the form of a letter
of credit at 100% ($4.7 million). Mr. Peterson agreed it was 100°% secured by the letter of
credit. The project was scheduled to start this spring. Jim Gibson moved for final plat
approval, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1,
Bob Buckley abstaining.
Bob Buckley rejoined Council.
Before adjournment, Pam Brandmeyer reviewed times and dates of various upcoming TOV
events.
There being no further business, Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting, with a second
by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The meeting
was adjourned at 12:36 A.M.
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Delo
CNINSAPR6.93
Respectfully submitted,
M g et A. Osterfoss, Mayor
11