Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-03 Support Documentation Town Council Regular SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1988 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes from April 5 and 19, 1988 Meetings. 2. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988, second reading, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 8.32 Smoking in Public Places to Title 8; and providing definitions, setting out regulations, designating certain required signs and informational devices, defining and describing unlawful acts, providing for enforcement of the regulations hereunder and providing for penalties upon conviction of a violation of those regulations; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 3 Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance repealing Section 18.12.090 and Section 18.13.180, and enacting Section 18.54.050 H of the Municipal Code in order to clarify design guidelines for duplex and primary/secondary developments and setting forth details in regard hereto. 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1988, first reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, and the Debt Service Fund of the 1988 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein. 5. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1988, a resolution adopting the recreational trails master plan. 6. Marriott's Mark Sign Variance Request. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7. .Town Manager's Report 8. Adjournment MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 19, 1988, 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 Eric Affeldt Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg Merv Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, second reading, rezoning a part of Lot N and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing from Heavy Service to Special Development District with Commercial Core I underlying zone district (Vail Gateway-Amoco Station). Mayor Rose read the titl-e in full. Rick Pylman explained the changes in the ordinance since first reading: 1) Section 6 adding a sentence clarifying the permitted uses; 2) Section 7 adding the four conditions of approval; and 3) Section 9 was stricken from the ordinance (it was the same as condition 3 of Section 7). Peter Jamar, representing Palmer Development Company, wanted to discuss some of the conditions. He discussed the problem of acquiring a construction performance bond and suggested the applicant come back before Council at a Work Session showing proof of funds before receiving a building permit. Larry Eskwith explained why this should be acceptable. After some discussion, Council requested a time limit to have the approval on the landscape improvements for the Standard station; Peter Jamar preferred by the receipt of a certificate of occupancy, to which Council agreed. There was no discussion by the public. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve the ordinance with the changes made, which Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. At this time, Rick Pylman stated the sidewalk design would match the other portions of sidewalk connecting to it. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988, first reading, regarding. no smoking in Town of Vail buildings policies. Mayor Rose read the full title. Larry Eskwith explained the ordinance would prohibit smoking in any Town of Vail building, and the Council could expand on this to other buildings at any time in the future. Mayor Rose stated he would like to expand this later to include restrooms and other buildings. He noted that the citizen surveys returned showed about 89% who responded did not smoke. Tom Steinberg commented he wanted to include Town of Vail vehicles and also sales of cigarettes on any Town of Vail premises. Larry said the language would be added for second reading. Ron Phillips noted that lessors of Town of Vail property could continue to do what they are presently doing until the end of their leases. Larry felt Council could not stop the installation of cigarette vending machines in leased space. Susan Scanlan commented she had not compiled the citizen surveys yet, but it looked about 50/50 split on restaurants but that grocery stores would be in favor; she will compile the data and report back to Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance with the addition of non-selling of tobacco products on Town of Vail property and the prohibition of use of tobacco products in any Town of Vail vehicles. Eric Affeldt seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The third order of business was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1988, authorizing the purchase of the Holy Cross parcel for the new I-70 Interchange. Mayor Rose stated the sale was conditional on several things: 1) Town Council approval; 2) Holy Cross Association approval; 3) a supplemental appropriation to cover the down payment; and 4) a promissory note and deed of trust to be approved by both parties. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal was concerned about the easements. Eric Affeldt stated the monies for the purchase have not been designated from any particular fund source as yet. Mayor Rose agreed, and commented the Highway Department was taking the approach that if Council approved the purchase tonight, the Highway Department intended to proceed with the project. Stan Berryman gave an update on the project and stated the ramps location had been preliminarily designed and explained the importance of turning lanes on the South Frontage Road. Peggy Osterfoss questioned where the money was coming from, to which Mayor Rose responded. Peggy then questioned why the Town had to purchase the land, why not the Highway Department. Mayor Rose said it was a Highway Department policy. Ron Phillips then gave a little history on the interchange construction. Lou Meskiman questioned the cost of the the total project; Stan Berryman responded $1.8 million, plus the cost of the land. Lou stated he was concerned over additional traffic lights other than what's planned. Ken Wilson felt the Highway Department should build the interchange, and he was also concerned over using real estate transfer tax funds for the purchase. He felt the Council should let the public know where the money would be coming from. Ron Phillips gave additional information regarding the parcel. Ken Wilson questioned how the figures were developed, to which Ron responded. Bill Wilto was concerned about alignment and over using real estate transfer tax funds; Ron responded. Eric Affeldt and Mayor Rose answered questions from the audience. Diana Donovan stated her concerns and read a letter from Ed Drager opposing stop lights; she then explained why she was against traffic lights. Mike Sansbury, representing Cascade Village, fully supported the resolution and plan; there is development in the community and he believed this was appropriate. Mike Robinson, stated without the changes, traffic would back up onto I-70 and we would lose guests not wanting to come back; we need to be prepared. Robert Levine agreed. Lou Meskiman questioned the location, and Mayor Rose responded. Dan Mulrooney felt the changes were inevitable, so let's get on with it. Jo Brown, of the Vail Board of Realtors, stated she was not against the interchange, but against using real estate transfer tax funds for anything but green space. Robert Levine felt the new interchange was needed for more and more traffic, not just for the World Championships. Jan Strauch aired his feelings against the interchange. After more discussion by the public and Council, a motion to approve the resolution was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal. The motion was seconded by Gordon Pierce. Gordon Pierce encouraged developers to work on landscaping. Eric Affeldt stated he was opposed to purchasing the entire parcel, he only wanted the part which is needed. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Tom Steinberg opposing. The next item was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1988, urging Governor Romer to oppose construction of any transmountain diversion project until a statewide. water program is adopted. Ron Phillips stated Council at that afternoon's Work Session wished to take a position against Two Forks water diversion; the resolution was done and before them.. Diana Donovan suggested adding "and Army Corps of Engineers" after Romer in the resolution's title. Mayor Rose noted that Diana had helped write the resolution. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the resolution with the added wording in the title, which Eric Affeldt seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The fifth item of business was the Vail Resort Association request for marketing dollars. Rob Levine, Chairman of the VRA Board, briefly explained what has happened to the VRA recently and their request for a more broad based mix of sources for funding. David Kanally of David Kanally and Associates, representing the Vail Resort Association, commented on the proposed program for marketing. He reviewed all aspects of the program and answered questions from Council. Mike Sansbury stated the plan was the same basic scaled down plan as the Marketing Committee's RFP's. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal suggested the Marketing Committee review this plan and meet with the Vail Resort Association for funds. Eric Affeldt, as the Council representative on the VRA Board, was not comfortable with a donation of $80,000 from the Town, but would agree to spend something. He said he was glad to see summer marketing, but wanted to see some business community interest, otherwise he would be against any additional funding later. Mayor Rose agreed and stated he wanted a proposal for funding from the business community for a long range marketing plan. Mike Sansbury stated the funding so far was solely form the lodging community. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal commented she was leaning toward the $40-60,000 range with the World Championships being covered. David Kanally clarified where the money would be spent in response to a question from John Slevin. Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve a contract for marketing services with the Vail Resort Association for $40,000 for 1988 with the caution and concern that this would not be an ongoing process; the business community must come back with some long range plan before asking for more money. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. -2- The sixth order of business was an appeal by the Town Council of a Design Review Board approval concerning the site plan for the Skaal Hus. Betsy Rosolack gave brief background information on the site plan. Mayor Rose had called the item up because there was no sidewalk planned. Tom Steinberg, Gordon Pierce and John Slevin explained their concerns and discussed their suggestions. John Perkins commented on the problems he saw with the Council's suggestions, but did say he would try to work on some of them. Eric Affeldt stated he appreciated the landscaping, but the general consensus was that there needed to be a sidewalk. Peter Patten suggested Council let the construction go forward and let Community Development issue a building permit with the condition changes are made. Staff would review the changes, or Council could if they wanted, and have the Design Review Board review. The applicant agreed a sidewalk was needed, but really wanted the project to proceed. Mayor Rose suggested a foundation permit be issued so the project could proceed and have the Design Review Board approve the new plan for the sidewalk and landscaping; if approved prior to the end of the foundation, the construction could continue. Eric Affeldt preferred that staff review and approve the changes, not the Design Review Board, so it would proceed faster. Gordon Pierce made a motion to issue a foundation permit, work with staff to move the parking spaces for a sidewalk, with staff to make the final approval, and review the feasibility of moving the bus stop west of the driveway. John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Under Citizen Participation, Lou Meskiman asked Mayor Rose about six month visa's for Europeans to help the labor force during the winter months. Mayor Rose stated he had asked for input at the last Colorado Association of Ski Towns meeting and there had not been much interest. There was no Town Manager's Report. Tom Steinberg commented at this time that the Vail Community Theater was putting on a play at 6:30 p.m. at the Cascade Theater, playing through Saturday, April 23. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- ORDINANCE N0. 11 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 8.32 SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES TO TITLE 8; AND PROVIDING DEFINITIONS, SETTING OUT REGULATIONS, DESIGNATING CERTAIN REQUIRED SIGNS AND INFORMATIONAL DEVICES, DEFINING AND DESCRIBING UNLAWFUL ACTS, PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS HEREUNDER AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES UPON CONVICTION OF A VIOLATION OF THOSE REGULATIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Surgeon General have stated there is solid scientific information which links the adverse effects of passive smoking on the non-smoker; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare that smoking be limited in the Town of Vail, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Chapter 8.32 Smoking in Public Places 8.32.010 Legislative Intent Because the smoking of tobacco or any other weed or plant is a danger to health and is a cause of material annoyance and discomfort to those who are present in confined areas, the Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares it is necessary and beneficial to the protection of the public health, safety and welfare to regulate smoking in certain public places. 8.32.020 Definitions A. Public Place Any enclosed, indoor areas used by the general public including but not limited to restaurants, retail stores, other commercial establishments, governmental offices, waiting rooms of health care professionals, public conveyances, airports, bus stations, educational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, child care centers, auditoriums, arenas, assembly and meeting rooms, and restrooms. B. Smoking Smoking means the lighting of any cigarette, cigar or pipe, or the possession of any lighted cigarette, cigar or pipe, regardless its composition. 8.32.030 Smoking Prohibited in Certain Public Places No person shall smoke in any of the following locations: In any building or motor vehicle owned or operated by the Town of Vail, Colorado. In addition, no cigarette vending machines or cigarette sales shall be allowed in buildings owned by the Town of Vail. 8.32.040 Signs To advise persons of the existence of no smoking in public places and the availability of smoking designated areas, if any, signs shall be posted as follows: A. In proper places where the owner, proprietor or person in charge prohibits smoking in the entire public place a sign using the words "No smoking" or the international no smoking symbol, or both, shall be conspicuously posted either on all public entrances or in a position clearly visible on an entry into the public place. B. In public places where certain areas are designated as smoking areas pursuant to this Chapter, the statement "No smoking except in designated areas" shall be conspicuously posted on all public entrances or in a position clearly visible on entering into the public place. C. In public places where smoking is permitted in the entire building or area assigned using the words "This area is a smoking area" in its entirety shall be conspicuously posted either on all public entrances or in a position clearly visible on entering into the area or building. 8.32.050 Prohibited Smoking Areas Smoking shall not be permitted and smoking areas shall not be designated in those areas where smoking is prohibited by the Fire Chief, State statute, ordinances, fire code regulations, or other regulations of the Town of Vail, Colorado. 8.32.060 Penalty The penalty for violation of any provision of this Chapter is a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100). 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. -2- 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April , 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 19th day of April 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this 19th day of April 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of . 1988. Kent ~. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -3- VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1988 7:30 p.m. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 1. Approval of Minutes from April 5 and 19, 1988 Meetings 7:35 2. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988, second reading, regarding Ron Phillips no smoking in Town of Vail buildings and vehicles Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988, on second reading. Background Rationale: Council has directed staff to draw up an ordinance to prohibit smoking in all municipally owned buildings. Changes requested at first reading have been included in the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1988, on second reading. 7:40 3. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1988, first reading, amending Tom Braun Section 18.54 of the Municipal Code (primary/secondary connections) Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: Much discussion has taken place concerning the present wording of the design guidelines pertaining to primary/secondary design (connections). This ordinance has been developed with input from both. the DRB and PEC. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1988, on first reading. 7:50 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1988, first reading, making Charlie Wick supplemental appropriations Ron Phillips Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1988, on first reading. Background Rationale: This supplemental appropriation is necessary in order to approve expenditures for project roll-forwards from 1987, new expenditure items approved by Council and technical accounting changes. The supplemental appropriations will be from the general fund, capital projects fund, real estate transfer tax fund, heavy equipment fund, special parking assessment fund and debt service fund. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1988, on first reading. 8:50 5. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1988, adopting a recreational Rick Pylman trails plan Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution No. 9, Series of 1988. Background Rationale: The draft of the recreational trails plan was presented to Council 3/22. Some revisions and changes have been incorporated and the staff feels the plan is complete and ready for adoption. The trails plan will be delivered to you Monday. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 9, Series of 1988. 9:15 6. Marriott's Mark Sign Variance Request Kristan Pritz Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the sign variance request. Background Rationale: The request is for a sign variance to allow one additional sign and 22 sq. ft. of signage above what is allowed under the sign code. Staff Recommendation: Approve the request. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 9:30 7. Town Manager's Report 9:35 8. Adjournment -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 5, 1988 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Affeldt Merv Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Gordon Pierce Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was ten year anniversary awards to Jacque Lovato and Corey Schmidt. Ron introduced first Jacque, then Corey, and commented on their years of service. Charlie Wick and Ken Hughey each congratulated Jacque and Corey on jobs well done. The next item was the approval of the minutes from the March 1 and 15, 1988 meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. John Slevin made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The third item was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1988, first reading, rezoning a part of Lot N and a portion of Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing from Heavy Service to Special Development District with Commercial Core I underlying zone district (Vail Gateway-Amoco Station). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Rick Pylman explained what the ordinance was for. Peter Jamar gave background information briefly, then answered questions of Council. After much discussion by Council, it was decided that before the building permit would be granted, a construction performance bond would be provided to the Town. Lou Meskiman questioned shadows and ice buildup. There was discussion about making the parking user friendly with easy access to shops. Rick Pylman stated. staff recommended denial earlier and explained their reasons; the view corridor issue had not been resolved, so the staff still recommended denial. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance with three conditions: 1) to include a landscaping plan on the Standard gas station property; 2) a construction bond required; and 3) zoning would be contingent upon construction beginning no later than July 1, 1990, and building enclosed by November 15 of any year it is started. Eric Affeldt seconded the motion. Mike Cacioppo questioned the fairness of the landscaping condition. Peter Jamar agreed, stating they would try, but he did not think the project should be held up if it did not happen. Rick Pylman stated sidewalk wording was not in the ordinance presently, but would be added for second reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The fourth order of business was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1988, second reading, increasing sales tax by .3% for marketing. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained what the ordinance would do and how and that there had been no changes made since first reading. Lou Meskiman questioned what other communities would Vail be comparable with if the tax was raised. Eric Affeldt responded only with Beaver Creek. Mayor Rose aired his feelings on why he was against the increase. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal commented she would. rather table the ordinance and pursue a marketing plan aggressively. Ken Wilson requested it be put on a ballot for public decision, to which Eric responded. John Slevin agreed with Ken. Lou Meskiman explained why he was against the increase. Neal Donaldson agreed with Lou. Pepi Langegger stated he did not think residents were ready to spend money for anything and suggested Council wait. Bud Benedict explained why he was against the tax increase but very much in favor of marketing. Al Weiss explained why he was against the ordinance. After some discussion by Council, Ken Wilson requested if the Council voted down the ordinance to go on record that the Town of Vail was not in the marketing business, so the residents would know where the responsibility lies; Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal responded. Gail then made a motion to table the ordinance for 90 days, and after a Chamber of Commerce Board was created, Council would meet with them to formulate a plan. Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5, with Mayor Rose, Eric Affeldt, Tom Steinberg, John Slevin and Gordon Pierce opposing. At this time, Eric Affeldt made a motion to deny the ordinance, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5- 2, with Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal and John Slevin opposing. Gordon Pierce stated he felt it was appropriate for the Town to support the funding of marketing, but to let the business community take the lead. John Slevin, Mayor Rose and Eric Affeldt agreed. The next item was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1988, second reading, amending Chapter 3.40 of the Town Municipal Code relating to sales tax collections. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Steve Barwick explained this was only a housekeeping ordinance which would redefine some of the terms. Merv Lapin requested a change in wording in Section 3 from "exempt number is furnished" to "exempt numbers are furnished". There was no other discussion by Council or the public. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance, which was seconded by Gordon Pierce. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. The next order of business was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny the Rose subdivision request. Tom Braun notified Council the request to table the item had been withdrawn. He then explained what the request was for, gave lengthy background information on the request and then reasons why staff recommended approval. Jim Stovall, representing the applicants, asked Tom questions as to what the Roses could have asked for and what they did ask for and stated they had complied with the zoning and subdivision regulations. Jim Lamont, a planning consultant, answered questions from Stovall regarding the application and its applicability to the area; Mr. Lamont agreed with the staff's position. Larry Levin, representing several neighbors, asked questions of Jim Lamont and Tom Braun regarding density and then explained why the neighbors were against the subdivision request. They felt the technical requirements had not been met, GRFA would be increased, and by having two separate dwelling units there would be possible environmental impacts, it would violate the protective covenants and would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Terrill Knight, a planner, commented on the land as it exists and the history behind it, explained his technical review of the subdivision, and commented on the covenants problems that would be incurred; Mr. Stovall responded to Mr. Tyler's remarks. Steve Scott, a surveyor, explained how he came about locating areas on the lot with a 40°1° plus slope and how much land could be used for building. Peter Patten explained why two survey drawings differed. Bill Post, representing two owners, commented on the density increase and zoning change because two units were being increased to four units and recommended Council deny the request. Warren Miller stated he felt the philosophical objective of the neighborhood was important. Gunther Hoffler felt the applicant would be making four illegal units into four legal units. Ken Wilson, representing one owner, requested Council to deny. Nancy Edwards, an owner and representing two other owners, gave reasons why they were against the subdivision request. Len Grubbs, an owner, felt the request was not harmonious with the neighborhood and was very much opposed. Bob Owen, an owner in the neighborhood, opposed the request vehemently. Jim Schmidt, owner of property adjacent to the Rose property, was strongly against the request. Ron Byrne, representing several property owners, was opposed to the request and felt values of lands would be decreased, and traffic would be increased which would be bad for emergency vehicles. Nancy Byers, a property owner in the neighborhood, was against the subdivision and felt property owners had a responsibility to other property owners. Arthur Abplanalp, representing a property owner, talked about the dissimilarity of other subdivisions and this one, explained he felt property values would lower, discussed the amount of buildable land had not been figured correctly and the parcels would not be large enough and requested Council to deny the subdivision. Peggy Osterfoss, a member of the Planning Commission, stated the PEC's thoughts at the time were that the lot size was not quite big enough and incompatible with the neighborhood. They were also impressed with strong opposition of the neighborhood, and felt they would be asked for variances to make it work. Tom Steinberg asked Mrs. Rose why they wanted to subdivide, to which she responded they did not think it would affect the neighbors much. Merv Lapin made a motion to uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission decision that the subdivision would not be compatible with the neighborhood as per Section 17.04.0106 of the Purpose Section regarding integrated development; the -2- subdivision of the property would be in conflict with .any development on adjacent land as per Section 17.04.O1OC3; the subdivision would be in conflict by less square footage of the lots surrounding the subdivision and would not be harmonious with the area as per Section 17.04.O1OC4. John. Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. Under the Town Manager's Report, Ron Phillips noted three Firefighters had been certified at a hazardous material training class in Denver. The Town received notice from the Insurance Services Office that its fire classification had improved from a class 6 to a class 5; the Town missed a class 4 rating by .44 of a point. He stated the Town is inquiring about it. Merv Lapin suggested the Town do a press release that this rating was the best in the valley and residents can notify their insurance companies for cost reductions. Ron stated real estate transfer tax for March was $11,000 under budget, but was $31,000 over budget for the year; sales tax collected was $85,000 over budget for February and $142,000 over budget for the year. He read to the Council for approval a drafted letter to Bill James regarding the TU translator engineering design. Merv Lapin stated if he was gone when they start meeting, Eric would attend in his place. Merv stated he was interested in being a member of an Ice Arena Task Force, if possible. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal said she would attend Chamber of Commerce meetings. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman -3- TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 3, 1988 RE: Amendments to the Design Guidelines concerning primary/secondary and duplex development. The staff has met on a number of occasions with the Planning Commission and Design Review Board since the joint session this past spring. The result of,these meetings are proposed amendments to the Design Guidelines concerning the separation with duplex and primary/secondary structures. As was discussed at the joint session, the basic concept has remained unchanged. What this ordinance revision does is to further clarify a number of key points. These include: 1. Defining a single structure and a unified site development 2. Defining a physical site constraint 3. Establishing parameters for separated structures The proposed ordinance also addresses procedure by requiring applicants to approach the Design Review Board before detailed design work is done in order for the Board to determine whether or not a lot has physical site constraints. If a determination is that a lot does not have physical site constraints, the design is to be done in a way that accommodates the units and garages within one structure. By the same token, if it is determined by the Design Review Board that a lot is affected by physical site constraints, the design may be done in way that separates the units and garages, but only if the separation enhances and preserves the natural features of the site. In reviewing the proposed ordinance, it is apparent that there are a number of areas where discretions may have to be made by the Design Review Board. It should be recognized, however, that design guidelines cannot be created without this element of discretion. We feel that this ordinance needed clarification and, as proposed, will help expedite the review process for both the Design Review Board and the applicant. It will not eliminate appeals to the Council concerning DRB decisions, nor is it intended to eliminate all appeals. That is a natural process inherent in Design Review. The staff would recommend that the Council approve this ordinance on first reading. The Planning Commission, in their review of this proposal, recommended unanimously to approve the ordinance as is presented to the Council. One aspect recommended by the PEC is for the staff to provide a recommendation to the Design Review Board at the initial review of the application. With the exception of sign variance requests, the staff does not provide formal recommendations to the DRB. This would constitute a significant change in policy, and the staff would appreciate input from the Council before this provision is incorporated into the ordinance. x ORDINANCE NO. 12 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 18.54.050 C.13, AMENDING SECTION 18.12.090 AND SECTION 18.13.1$0, AND ENACTING SECTION 18.54.050 H OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR DUPLEX AND PRIMARY/SECONDARY DEVELOPMENTS AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that further clarification of design guidelines concerning duplex and primary/secondary development would expedite the review process for both the Design Review Board and applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended such amendment to the Vail Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 18.54.050 C. 13. is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 18.54.050 H. is hereby enacted to read as follows: 18.54.050 H. Duplex and Primary/Secondary Development 18.54.050 H.l. The purpose of this section is to ensure that duplex and primary/ development be designed in a manner that creates a unified site development. Unified site development shall mean that dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure with the use of similar and compatible architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall require common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space at points substantially above grade between the dwelling units and garages. Similar architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of similar and compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. ~. 18.54.050 H.2. Under certain circumstances, the presence of physical site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the Design Review Board and site constraints shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings and other natural features that affect the site planning and development of a lot. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the Design Review Board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot (to include information as outlined in Section 18.54.040 C.l.a.) and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure. The duplex and primary/secondary development may be designed to accommodate the development of the dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the Design Review Board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot and also that the physical separation of structures will preserve and enhance the existing natural features of the lot. The use of similar and compatible architectural and landscape design as outlined in Section 18.54.050 H.1. shall be required for the development. In addition, the Design Review Board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create a unified site development. Section 3. Section 18.12.090.A. is hereby repealed and re-enacted with amendments to read as follows: Section 18.12.090.A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units ~i~-~-e•i~~gle-~t=a~tu-x~e-- shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. No two-family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling. Section 4. Section 18.13.080.A. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read as follows: Section 18.13.080.A. Not more than a total of two dwelling units ~--a-si~gle~~cture- shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand square feet, and not more than twenty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than ten square feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand square feet, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. No two-family residential lot except those totally in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the floodplain, or those of less than fifteen thousand square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a two-family dwelling. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS ordinance on the day of day of 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED 1988. ATTEST: this day of Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ORDINANCE N0. 13 Series of 1988 AN ORDINANCE MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL GENERAL FUND, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX FUND, HEAVY EQUIPMENT FUND, SPECIAL PARKING ASSESSMENT FUND, AND THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF THE 1988 BUDGET AND FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURES OF SAID APPROPRIATIONS AS SET FORTH HEREIN. WHEREAS, conting ncies have arisen during the fiscal year 1988 which could not have been reasonably foreseen or anticipated by the Town Council at the time it enacted Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1987, adopting the 1988 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the Town has received certain revenues not budgeted for previously; and, WHEREAS, The Town Manager has certified to the Town Council that sufficient funds are available to discharge the appropriations referred to herein, not otherwise reflected in the Budget, in accordance with Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail; and, WHEREAS, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the Town Council finds that it should make certain supplemental appropriations as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, that: Pursuant to Section 9.10(a) of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado, the Town Council hereby makes the following supplemental appropriations for the 1988 Budget and Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado, and authorizes the expenditure of said appropriations as follows: FUND AMOUNT General Fund $ 661,000 Capital Projects Fund 1,563,100 Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund 163,170 Heavy Equipment Fund 55,200 Special Parking Assessment Fund 9,000 Debt Service Fund 448,300 TOTAL $2,899,770 INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1988, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail Colorado. -1- Ordered published in full this day of 1988• Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- RESOLUTION NO. 9 Series of 1988 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it a priority to develop a Recreational Trails Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that the plan has a general purpose to guide the coordinated development of recreational trail construction in accordance with effective design and cultural needs of the community; and WHEREAS, the Recreational Trails Master Plan provides for recreational and cultural uses, access, and enjoyment of the community by citizens and guests of Vail; and WHEREAS, it is important to the success of the community to make every effort to maximize the use of the Town of Vail's recreational opportunities and resources; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to develop a Recreational Trails Master Plan to allow for the orderly and efficient development of the Town of Vail's recreational trail system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Vail Town Council hereby adopts the Recreational Trails Master Plan. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS day of , 1988. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 3, 1988 SUBJECT: Marriott's Mark Sign Variance Request The Marriott's Mark Resort is requesting a sign variance for the number of signs and total sign square footage. The applicant is proposing one additional sign and 22 square feet of signage above what is allowed under the sign code. On April 20, 1988, the Design Review Board recommended approval of this request unanimously. The Board's opinion was that the request was very reasonable considering the size of the Marriott's Mark building. They also felt that each sign is situated on the building so that you can only see one sign at a time. Please see the attached memo for the staff review of this request. • i TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 20, 1988 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request for the Marriott's Mark Resort Applicant: Marriott's Mark Resort: Mr. Michael Robinson I. THE RE UEST The Marriott's Mark Resort is requesting a sign variance for the number of signs and total sign square footage. The sections of the code which relate to the variance request are listed below: 16.20.050 Signs, Single Business Use B. Size. One square foot for each five front lineal feet of building with a maximum area of 20 square feet, with a horizontal dimension no greater than 10 feet....combined maximum area for more than one sign shall not exceed 20 square feet. D. Number. One sign per vehicular street or major pedestrian way which the business abuts as determined by the administrator, with a maximum of two signs, subject to review by the Design Review Board. According to the sign code, the Marriott's Mark is allowed a maximum of two signs having a combined total square footge of 20 square feet. The development's existing signage includes: One 19 square foot wall sign on the east elevation One 12 square foot free standing sign at the entry Total square footage existing: 31 square feet. * A variance was granted in 1987 to allow for the additional 11 square feet above the allowed total square footage of 20 square feet. The a licant is re estin one additional si n and 22 square feet of signage above what is allowed under the sign code. The proposal includes: One new 20 square foot wall sign on the west elevation. One new three square foot freestanding sign at the entry that is built into the existing freestanding sign. The existing sign square footage is merely decreased from 12 square feet to 3 square feet. * Please note that the existing 12 square foot sign at the entrance to the Mark would be removed and that the existing 19 square foot sign on the east elevation remains. II. Total square footage, 42 square feet. Please see the attached drawings for descriptions and specific locations of the signage, as well as the applicant's rationale for the variance. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the Land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response The Marriott's Mark does have an identification problem due to the largeness of the building and the fact that for the entire project, they are allowed only two signs having a combined area of 20 square feet. Similar large hotel projects such as the Raintree Inn, Holiday Inn, and Doubletree have also received sign variances due to the size of their projects. Staff feels that the Marriott has similar special circumstances that warrant an increase in the combined square footage and number of signs. The existing sign at the entry way (12 square feet) will be removed and a three foot sign added. Staff believes that the three square foot sign is reasonable and necessary to indicate that this is the entry for the project. 2 B. That special circumstances. were not created by the applicant or anyone in rivy to the ap licant. Staff Response• Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the pur ose of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response: Staff feels that the proposed signage is in harmony with the purposes of the sign code which states that the "sign location, configuration, design, materials and colors should be harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and the alpine village scale of the town." Section 16.16.010. The proposed sign will be back lit so that the silhouette of the letters is visible on the west elevation. The lighting effect will be similar to the Holiday Inn wall sign in that light will not shine through the letters. The small sign at the entryway is subtle in its design and is also compatible with the sign code's general purpose. The scale of both signs is appropriate for their purpose and location within the project. D. The variance ap lied for does not de art from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the ap licant's business or use. Staff Res onse• The applicant is requesting an additional 22 square feet beyond the allowable 20 square feet. The Town Council approved a variance for the Marriott Mark which created an additional 11 square feet beyond the allowable square footage. Staff believes that one 19 square foot sign and one 20 square foot sign are not unreasonable square footages to request for a building of this size. In addition, the three square foot sign at the entry is necessary to identify the entry point for guests. The applicant is not requesting a departure from the provisions of the sign code any more than is truly required to identify the business. 3 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff supports the variance request for one 20 square foot sign and one three square foot sign. Staff believes that the sign is harmonious with the sign code's requirement that signage not call undue attention to itself. The square footage request also does not depart drastically from the allowed signage. We recommend approval and feel that the applicant has made a strong attempt to work with the staff to develop an acceptable sign variance request. Due to the recent increased number of submittals for sign variance requests for large lodges, the staff feels it will be appropriate to adjust the sign code to allow for some additional signage for these types of projects. In reviewing these variance requests, staff has tried to maintain continuity in our decision making and recommendations to the Design Review Board and Council. However, in the long term, we feel that the best solution is to adjust the sign code so that it is in tune with the needs of these types of developments. This approach will avoid a series of individual reviews of sign variances which are time consuming for the applicant, Design Review Board and Town Council. 4 March 2, 1988 Kristen Pritze c/o Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Rcad Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Sign Variance Request: Marriott's Mark Resort 755 Lionshead Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristen, Please accept this submittal for review during the March 30th Design Review Board Session. Our client is requesting a variance to allow him the rights to install an additional 20 square foot back-lit sign to be located on the west face of the Phase II addition directly across from the Marriott parking structure. (See enclosed documentation.) This request for variance stems from our client's desire to gain visibility from both the east-bound frontage road and the proposed Lionshead off-ramp. The Mark is a large property stretching along west Lions- head Circle. Its frontage road visibility is largely obsc- ured by the Vail Spa Condominiums. Existing signage lends identification from Lionshead Place only. As illustrated with the enclosed photographs, the proposed sign would be the only one visible from the west, imposing no more than the Town's prescribed 20 square foot sign lim- itation from any one vantage point. It is expected that the proposed interchange will be a major access point into Vail and this new signage would limit confusion to visitors' seeing the hotel and hopefully limit traffic congestion at peak periods. ~ Sincerely, ~/ -~ . 1~Iichael" H~'z'a MORTER CH ECTS MH/lmh Enclosures ,,, ,, .: i I v ~ _ - ~_~ ,_ _ ..~= s ~ -- _ _ _ =1 ~. ' / ~ .. Y/ ~T ~ _ ~ \ i ~ ~ ! I~~ 1 ~ `~` ~ `\\ III III .. .. -- ROPOSED SIGNAGE,, ,p ~( -- - ._ \`~ i. ~ -- ' ~~; _ 'i ~~ ., - - -- ~ ~ - _ _. _ __ ~-. -- -- - --- =---- --- - - ---------------- '- - Y. - ------- _ .. ~~_~ ~ - - _ -- - - ~• - .. _.. ~„ .. ,.., .- _ _ ~~ ,~ \` .. ` _ _. - _ ~5. ~...cP ..i -~_ ~___ '~ __ ~- R i ° I~ ..._. __ .__`___ _`... _ .. I - ...:. _..~fi11~G 19 s.-~. ~ \ S~~ r -. _ ~ , ~ ^~~ ! / ,;,~ITE PLAN ., .~, ..~,.,.. ,.. r.,, .~n,l.y: ,, . ..~.. ,. .. ~~.,,, .. ~ ~ ~. ~fyi 1 . 11i,.,,'r,Ir I (u.~a~-MI1M Y11` ., I I . ~:N~'r.~ ~~ ,~,o ~ _ ~~~`'`1'1UU~ull~ ~-- _-- I.-~l.--~ ~'J~GY~O I~J~I~~ ~~~ * '~ ~ ~----~~W~~ll~~l~b=1111 Il~--..__ :: -NEt,-~ '~ G~c~. ~, ylc~~tPCV~.~ ` y _- y ~ + ~~_ ; - ~ -.., ~\\ , i - \` \` \,` - _. .. ; ~; ~~ -~ ~ - - ~ - ~;,p y y _-----__-----_ .__ _ .. ____~_. __, I I w ~ S` n 1~ i_~. l i ,-,~ I,Q~~~C- ~ -~- ~ - ~ Q ~~~~~~~~~~0~~ ~~~~; i~ I~21~~ I~"~I~ ~, , - -- - - ELEVATION ~~ \ ~`, i ., - Aluminium letters Building wall V~~ ~~' ~~~ ~'~ \ !! ~; ~ . ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ _ . - - - - - - N • , ~ O , ~\ , ~~~~ SIDE VIEW ~~ ~ Custom Fabricated welded aluminium backlit letters -White finish a~S :~- PROPOSED SIGIVAGE ~ - p.g r.ir .nn.i++r .x i• ~.. ~. „ .~,,.,pur,b... Malr•4~~X•1/. i ..~r.,.,..r r~orl~-. ,. -mss ~ II , ~~~~ \~i~ST E~~~~~TIC%N ,~~.;,`~ .~ I • ~ f ! -~ ~i .. '~~ ~ -~ r~~ ~~ FIF=TH ~ ~~ I ; I ~' ~ i ~ ~ R~~ - ~~-.,~ I .~ ;I;i s-Q~.2~~.1. SECOND. ';~ 'I .i i I10' - ~ r8 , . ~~ ~~ ~ Pnax~rnunr~ C~ ~~- a :~_ ~ LOEBY i ~9'- 4 i~CCO .~.QQ~ - ' f • .. - f ~-~ ,: .: : - ~. ~ { ! • .... ., r "' v