Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-08-06 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1991 7:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 2. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of July 2 and 16 1991 evening meetings B. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991, second reading, (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; setting forth certain provisions to control air pollution within the Town; and providing details with regard thereto 3. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 5.32.030; providing for the issuance of temporary permits for the issuance of alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances; and providing details in regard thereto 4. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 26; on an unplatted parcel generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe Shapiro 5. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 15.02; opting by reference the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Codes for Uniform Building Code Standards, the Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Code; setting forth certain amendments to the Uniform -Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and the National Electric Code; and repealing Chapters 15.08 Building Permits -Review Procedure, 15.28 Water Closet Specifications, and 15.32 Model Energy Efficiency Construction Standards; and amending Section 15.36.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto 6. Resolution No. 15, Series of 1991, a resolution setting forth the intent of the Town of Vail, Colorado to issue bonds to finance various projects 7. Appeal of PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Duplex 8. Appeal of DRB decision regarding sign variance for Breeze Ski Rentals 9. Proclamation declaring Labor Day weekend as Physically-challenged Access to the Woods (aka P.A.W.) Weekend 10. Adjournment C;WGENDA.TC VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1991 7:30 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 p.m. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7:35 p.m. 2. Consent Agenda A. Approval of Minutes of July 2 and 16, 1991 evening meetings B. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991, second reading, (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990}, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; setting forth certain provisions to control air pollution within the Town; and providing details with regard thereto 7:45 p.m. 3. Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance Larry Eskwith amending Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Pam Brandmeyer Vail by the addition of Section 5.32.030; providing for the issuance of temporary permits for the issuance of alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances; and providing details in regard thereto Action Reauested of Council: Approve or deny Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, on first reading. Background Rationale: The State Legislature passed a law allowing municipalities to issue temporary permits to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages by the transference of a licensed premises, before the license is actually transferred. Staff Recommendation: Pass Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, on first reading. 8:00 p.m. 4. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance Mike Mollica establishing Special Development District No. 26; on an unplatted parcel generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe Shapiro Action Reauested of Council: Approve, deny, or modify Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1991, on first reading. Background Rationale: The PEC, at their 7/8/91 public hearing, unanimously recommended denial by a vote of 7-0) of the applicant's SDD request. The minutes of the PEC meeting are included in the Council packet. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of Mr. Shapiro's request for the establishment of SDD No. 26. (Please see the attached Staff memorandum.} 9:30 p.m. 5. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance Larry Eskwith repealing and reenacting Chapter 15.02; opting by reference the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Codes for Uniform Building Code Standards, the Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Code; setting forth certain amendments to the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and the National Electric Code; and repealing Chapters 15.08 Building Permits - Review Procedure, 15.28 Water Closet Specifications, and 15.32 Model Energy Efficiency Construction Standards; and amending Section 15.36.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto Action Reauested of Council: Adopt or deny Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: The new 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Codes have been published and the Building Department would like to utilize them by addition. The ordinance repeals sections of the code that have never been used. Staff Recommendation: Pass Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, on first reading. 9:45 p.m. 6. Resolution No. 15, Series of 1991, a resolution setting forth the Steve Barwick intent of the Town of Vail, Colorado to issue bonds to finance various projects Backaround Rationale: Due to new Federal regulations, municipalities must clearly indicate all expenses which might be included in future bond issues before such expenses are actually incurred. Therefore, the Town of Vail needs to formally indicate that it may include design costs for the Police Building on the bond issue. Passage of this resolution does not obligate the Town in any way. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 15, Series of 1991. 10:00 p.m. 7. Appeal of the PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Jill Kammerer Stanley Duplex, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a resubdivision of part of Sunburst Action Reauested of Council: Review appellant's appeal of PEC decision regarding whether or not the area under a deck counts toward the site coverage of a lot. Backaround Rationale: On 6/10/91, the PEC reviewed Jack Stanley's appeal of the CDD Staff's interpretation that the area under a deck is not considered a covered or roofed walkway, and therefore does not count as site coverage. (See enclosed 6/10/91 memorandum to the PEC.) The PEC upheld the Staff interpretation by a vote of 3-1. Voting to uphold the Staff interpretation were: Donovan, Shearer, Langenwalter. Connie Knight voted against the motion to uphold the PEC's interpretation on the basis the language was confusing. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the PEC's determination that the area under the deck in question does not count as site coverage. 10:15 p.m. 8. Sign variance for Breeze Ski Rentals (Montaneros Commercial Jill Kammerer Condominium, Unit 1001641 N. Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing} The sign variance request is to increase the number of allowable signs by one (1), and to increase the area of signage on the building in excess of the signage area allowed by 2.25 sq. ft. Action Reauested of Council: All sign variance requests are reviewed by Town Council following DRB review. The action requested of Council is to approve or deny the sign variance request. Background Rationale: On 1/16/91, the DRB determined the business faces onto one major pedestrian way. On 4/17/91, the DRB reviewed the applicant's sign variance request. Following discussion, the applicant's representative requested the variance request be tabled. On 6/19/91, the DRB again reviewed the pedestrian frontage issue and upheld their 1/16/91 decision that the business fronts onto one major pedestrian way. On 7/17/91, the DRB voted to deny the requested sign variance. The vote to deny was passed, 3-1. Voting in favor of the motion to deny were George Lamb, Ned Gwathmey, and Chuck Crist. Sherry Dorward voted against the motion for the following reasons: A) Signage needs in Lionshead are different than in the village, B) Signage can be an amenity and need not necessarily be considered a negative and therefore does not necessarily need to be minimized. Staff Recommendation: Uphold the DRB decision to deny requested sign variance. 10:45 p.m. 9. Proclamation declaring Labor Day weekend as Physically- challenged Access to the Woods (aka P.A.W.) Weekend Action Requested of Council: Mayor Rose's signature declaring Labor Day weekend as Physically-challenged Access to the Woods Weekend. Staff Recommendation: To sign the proclamation and encourage participation by working cooperatively. 11:00 p.m. 10. Adjournment C:WGENDA.TCE RBTT Revised: 8/ 1/1991 TOWN OE PAIL RBAL BSTATB TRANSFBR TA% Ristory and Budget 1991 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1991 BODGBT MONTR ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTOAL ACTOAL ACTUAL ACTOAL ACTUAL ACTUAL BODGBT ACTUAL VARIANCE January 63,999 98,089 106,981 119,972 78,053 80,733 101,374 131,914 96,119 309,233 162,954 ; 104,139 165,141 61,002 February 40,595 69,018 105,024 132,220 86,289 170,052 64,906 44,040 109,873 140,192 133,085 ; 94,373 71,413 ( 22,960} March 69,886 126,935 109,533 137,820 62,693 63,831 92,557 38,791 68,104 145,957 77,995 ; 86,341 183,698 97,357 April 76,855 94,653 65,900 103,526 173,321 90,396 182,743 95,554 179,671 151,069 152,027 ; 119,168 108,040 ( 11,128) Nay 42,738 84,324 54,663 90,599 96,006 228,673 98,651 120,984 99,736 220,299 167,972 ; 110,225 96,994 ( 13,231) June 62,239 125,433 54,488 140,638 76,467 49,513 79,915 73,509 101,364 122,466 136,364 ; 88,783 141,863 53,080 July 49,367 186,110 104,262 68,539 157,598 88,528 70,441 47,949 126,537 125,675 75,169 ; 92,391 132,042 39,645 Subtotal 405,679 784,562 600,851 793,314 730,427 771,726 690,587 552,743 781,404 1,214,891 905,566 ; 695,426 899,191 203,765 Augast 79,859 115,499 71,282 97,806 58,937 32,860 100,182 61,137 109,315 86,341 77,486 ; 79,193 Septeeber 59,800 113,992 49,332 96,746 64,611 48,516 108,167 78,819 116,557 143,306 75,745 ; 81,485 October 108,510 154,000 42,498 122,546 88,732 109,633 93,860 124,291 177,360 241,393 118,986 ; 117,125 November 102,623 107,768 81,698 91,385 105,109 .14,909 89,047 114,839 241,888 165,964 102,210 ; 102,481 Deceeber 142,662 133,867 110,911 56,533 81,890 333,139 106,695 95,495 192,947 192,737 107,880 ; 124,290 TOTAL 899,133 1,409,688 956,572 1,258,330 1,129,766 1,310,783 1,188,538 1,027,324 1,619,471 2,044,638 1,387,873 ; 1,200,000 899,191 203,765 ~~ ( MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 2, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Eleven-year-old Danielle D'Anci, resident of Vantage Point in Lionshead, explained the lemonade stand she had been operating with her brother on Sunday, June 30, 1991, was shut down by Town of Vail police, who advised they needed a vendor's license. Danielle asked that consideration be given to making it possible for them to sell lemonade one day each summer without their having to buy a license, as they could not afford the $100.00 vendor's fee. Mayor Rose told Ms. D'Anci he thought her request was legitimate, and that the Town of Vail could probably make an exception in such cases . Ron Phillips said staff would research the issue and advise. The second item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Susan Scanlan explained the ordinance had been renumbered. Susan read the changes made to clarify the language which had caused confusion at first reading. In response to the question of why some individuals/businesses are exempt from a $30.00 annual fee to cover the cost of TOV inspections to assure that conversions back to wood burning fireplaces did not occur after conversions to cleaner burning units had been made, Ron Phillips pointed out that some individuals/businesses have an existing or grandfathered right. And, even though some have chosen to convert to gas log fireplaces, they still do have the right to convert back if they should desire. Presently, anybody who wants to build a new unit does not have any right except to put in gas log units with "A" class vents, and they do not have a right to convert. After considerable additional discussion of many of the same complex issues involved with this ordinance that had been discussed on first reading, Rob Levine moved to table Ordinance No. 21, for additional clarification work by Community Development. The reworked ordinance is to be brought back to Council as quickly as possible. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. , Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, first reading, and ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to window signs. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Betsy Rosolack said that the ordinance proposed to correct a discrepancy in the TOV sign code, discovered when the Town was trying to enforce the sign code. This would be a "housekeeping" ordinance to match the definition and location of signs in the code. Merv moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance, No. 19, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Lynn Fritzlen excused herself from this issue since her husband is the architect on the project. Mike Mollica reviewed ` in full the memorandum dated 6/2/91 from the Community Development Department regarding this project, making particular note of criteria used in evaluation of the project including a description of the request from Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village Inn, for an amendment to SDD No. 6, background and history of the project, zoning considerations, SDD criteria, and Staff recommendations. Mike noted there is no phasing plan; applicant proposes to do the project all in one shot. He said that staff recommended approval. PEC had reviewed the plan at a Work Session and at a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval, 4-0. PEC agreed with staff conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 in CDD memorandum dated 6/2/91, but did not feel that conditions 3 and 4 were appropriate as conditions, recommending only that applicant take responsibility for. these items as a natural part of his project. Further, regarding CDD's condition 8, Mike reported that PEC felt that allowance for employee housing unit off-site would be acceptable. Following discussions primarily regarding maximizing the parking, the landscaping and sidewalk issues, and employee housing, applicant Josef Staufer and Council got involved in a review of the provision that the applicant was responsible for paying $75,000.00 to the Town of Vail for the expense of moving the ski museum. Discussion of a payment plan ensued. Mike Mollica had notes from a 3/12/91 meeting regarding this topic which he read aloud. The collective agreement at that time was that TOV would receive $27,000.00 initially to cover demolition of the ski museum building and the balance of the $75,000.00 would be paid at the final phase IV or in the year 2005, whichever came first; the matter of paying interest on this money had not been resolved at that meeting. At this point, Merv Lapin noted that Council consensus seemed to be that they wanted Joe to pay the $75,000.00; the matter being over what period of time and if interest would be involved. Merv Lapin then moved that Ordinance No. 19, be approved on first reading with the following changes to 6/24/91 memorandum to PEC from CDD; that item 3 be deleted, that item 4 be deleted, that an easement along Vail Road for an adequate sidewalk be integrated (motion giving CDD direction to come up with definition for "adequate"), that Council further direct CDD to maximize parking in the area which is presently the parking for the Food and Deli; that under Item G on page 14 the paragraph be changed to indicate that $75,000.00 be paid down now and the balance of the $75,000.00 be paid by 1/1/05 or at completion of Phase IV, whichever occurs first; that item 8 be deleted and replaced by an additional 500 square feet GRFA for a permanently restricted employee housing unit to be completed at the same time as Phase IV-A; and that a directive be issued to Larry Eskwith to review in detail Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, against Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, to make certain no issues are in conflict or unresolved. Peggy Osterfoss seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was consideration of the monitoring of the GHI bankruptcy proceedings. Larry Eskwith introduced Chuck Borgman from the law firm of Kuta-k Rock & Campbell. Staff had suggested that Council hire an attorney in Denver to monitor the GHI bankruptcy proceedings in order to keep the Town aware of anything that might detrimentally impact the Town. Mr. Borgman advised that, in order to fill this engagement, his firm would enter an appearance of record in the bankruptcy proceedings as counsel for TOV, which would allow his firm to automatically receive notice of all pleadings filed, motions, notices of hearings, etc. After contacting Larry and describing the nature of upcoming hearings and reasoning for any concern, it would ultimately be Larry's decision as to whether the TOV wanted to engage them to attend said hearings. Time , permitting, Larry would discuss with Council, otherwise he would have to make a judgement call. Price structure for Kutak based on a senior associate level lawyer experienced in bankruptcy proceedings following proceedings and highlighting for Borgman only areas of interest to TOV. Cost: $480.00 - $1,440.00 per month plus out-of-pocket expenses; Termination of Kutak's services at any time. Larry would be advised in advance of their actual required level of involvement. The source of funding would be from the Council Contingency fund. Merv Lapin moved to direct Larry Eskwith to enter into an agreement based on the 7/1/91 letter from Kutak Rock & Campbell to monitor the Gillett Holdings Bankruptcy Proceedings, at a cost not to exceed $1,440.00 per month unless approved by Council. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was a Mayor's Proclamation declaring July National Recreation and Parks Month and Anti-Boredom Month. Pam Brandmeyer noted that Rob Robinson had asked that the Town of Vail to participate by approving this proclamation to support the Recreational District's efforts promoting the wonderful facilities and programs in TOV. Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve the Mayor's Proclamation, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto ' MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was a presentation of the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award. Kent briefly recalled Chuck's service on the Town Council, love of the community, and how Chuck was one of those people who realized that there are some outstanding youth in this community whose potential he wanted to somehow recognize. Kent noted • there is a considerable amount of criteria seriously reviewed in the selection of the individual's recognized to receive this award; most importantly, that a recipient of this award be looked up to by his peers as well as have the earned respect and admiration of the older generation in Town, excellence in scholastics or the athletic field, and the candidates would also have had to receive recognition of some kind from outside of the community. Before awarding this year's two awards, Suzie, Jennifer, and Clark Anderson, took a moment to recall Chuck Anderson's wholehearted belief in the youth of the community and his desire to recognize them, knowing that the future of our whole community lies in such superb young people coming back to the community after letting everyone they meet outside the community know how wonderful this community is, and their being able to give back as much as they are able to take from the wonderful advantage they have of living in such a great area. Suzie then presented the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Awards to the outstanding recipients this year, Ryan Zastrow and John Johnston, II. Kent congratulated them, thanked them for their dedication, and wished them the best in their future years. Ryan and John's names will now be added to the permanent Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award's plaque in the Town of Vail. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. First, Steve Boyd, a Vail resident since 1963, asked for clarification of the business licensing procedure. Merv Lapin advised that Steve's question be reviewed for response by Larry Eskwith and placed on the Work Session agenda in the near future. Mr. Boyd is to be advised of date/time of said Work Session. Second to speak was Josef Staufer. His concern revolved around the pace and cost of the parking structure landscaping. Kent told him that a schedule of these issues had just been received at the Work Session earlier today indicating that work will be done this summer. Mr. Staufer also said he is receiving guest complaints about sirens wailing at very early morning hours. He suggested flashing lights on the emergency vehicles at such hours would be ample. It was unclear if the sirens were police, ambulance, or fire sirens. It was mentioned there may be state regulations with regard to use of sirens, particularly ambulance sirens . Ken Hughey said he would check this out, and asked Mr . Staufer to contact him with specific problems. The third citizen to speak was Renie Gorsuch, who expressed concern about the immediate front parking structure appearance. She felt it should be enhanced during summertime, not just when the winter rush arrives. Store owners/residents work to have the appearance of their properties ready for summer; Town and all need to have same priorities. Third on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of three items: (A) Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991 meetings (B) Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance r repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail ' Municipal Code relating to window signs (C) Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control; request to table until August 6, 1991. Jim Gibson moved to approve items A, B, and C on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, and ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.) Mayor Rose read the title in full. Lynn Fritzlen excused herself from this issue since her husband is the architect on the project. Mike Mollica reviewed in full the memorandum dated 7/16/91 from the Community Development Department to Town Council as well as the changes made to the ordinance since first reading. As per said memo, Josef Staufer had made some modifications to the floor plans of the proposed remodel since Town Council's initial review of the WI redevelopment proposal. These modifications included revisions to the accommodation units, employee dwelling units, parking, and landscaping. Mr. Staufer expressed some problems with Section 10 of the ordinance. After further discussion, Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 19 be approved on second reading, with the following conditions: (a) that direction be given to the Design Review Board regarding the west side of the property to maximize the amount of parking, but also to increase landscaping in such a way as to break up the asphalt between the WI and the Vail Gateway; (b) acknowledge that Section 10 #7 has already been done; (c) revise Section 10 #1 to read "Make available a minimum of 65 parking spaces that shall not be leased in the parking structure located in the Phase III building, for short-term parking use by the general public and hotel guests."; (d) that Larry Eskwith be directed to revise Section 10 #12 to indicate that pedestrian easement is temporary, and if a building permit is issued for Phase IV, the pedestrian access to the property will be reevaluated and maintained; (e) that direction be given to the Design Review Board regarding the north side of the property regarding additional low shrub landscaping to be added along the South Frongtage Road, adjacent to the VVI property. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Lynn Fritzlen abstaining). Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending the investment policy of the Town of Vail. Steve Thompson noted Town Council had received and approved the amendments with staff at the 7/9/91 Work Session. Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 22 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was a call up of the PEC's approval of the Sonnenalp Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20 Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Andy Knudtsen went over a detailed memo from the Community Development Department to Town Council dated 7/16/91 and one to the PEC dated 6/24/91 regarding the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of three variances from the zoning code needed for this expansion proposal, including a height variance, a common area variance, and a parking variance. The PEC had unanimously approved the three variances, 7-0. Richard Rosen, attorney representing Villa Cortina, expressed that he did not feel the rationale for the height variance, including the need to install an aesthetically pleasing, screened rooftop chilling unit, was valid enough to grant that variance. He further stated that not enough testimony regarding Sonnenalp's physical hardship had been presented. He concluded by saying that his client's concerns were limited to the height variance. Council supported the proposal as it was in line with the Vail Village Master Plan. Jay Peterson said the Sonnenalp was completely willing to work with Jim Wear, an attorney representing the Talisman, regarding their parking, fire lanes, and access agreements with the Town. After lengthy discussion between Jay and Jim about this, they agreed to agree to work together to arrive at a solution acceptable to the Talisman, The Sonnenalp, and The Town. The Sonnenalp plans to start construction in April, 1992. The Sonnenalp has proposed to give the Talisman an irrevocable license to ' allow access across the Sonnenalp parking lot. All parties agreed that nobody wants to see cars on Meadow Drive, and there was some concern expressed about pedestrianizing Willow Bridge Road. It was agreed to tie the Talisman fire access turn around solution to the issuance of the Sonnenalp building permit. Jim Gibson moved to uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision approving the height, common area, and parking variances required by the Sonnenalp proposal, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a resubdivision of part of Sunburst. Based on a request to continue from the applicant, Merv Lapin moved the issue be tabled until 8/6/91, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:\MINS716 { ORDINANCE NO. 21 ' Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8.28 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN PROVISIONS TO CONTROL AIR POLLUTION WITHIN THE TOWN; AND PROVIDING DETAILS WITH REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the setting of the Town of Vail in a valley between two mountains restricts air movement through the valley; WHEREAS, the movement of air through the Gore Valley is further restricted in cold times of the year thereby causing the increased buildup of pollutants in the air caused by solid fuel burning devices; WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pollution caused by solid fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude, topography, climate and meteorology of the Town of Vail; ' WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air pollution may be minimized by existing, practical and economical technologies; WHEREAS, the Town Council has determined that it is necessary to encourage environmentally beneficial technologies to prevent further degradation of the air quality of the Vail Valley; WHEREAS, the Town Council considers visually clean air to be an irreplaceable asset enjoyed by guests and residents of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT; Section 1 The Vail Municipal Code Chapter 8.28 "Air Pollution Control" be repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 8.28.010 Purpose and Aa~licability These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the residents and visitors in the Town of Vail. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1) To protect the air quality in the Town of Vail; 2) To reverse the continuing trend toward increased air degradation in the Town of Vail; t 3) To provide heat sources that are efficient and have a reduced polluting effect; 4) And to generally protect the air for the purpose of the public's overall health, safety and welfare. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all areas of the Town of Vail. 8.28.020 Definitions 1) Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean any fireplace, stove, firebox or device intended and/or used for the purpose of burning wood, pulp, paper or other non-liquid or non-gaseous fuel. 2) Certified Solid Fuel Burning Device: shall mean a solid fuel burning device which is certified by the Environmental Protection Agency and by the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health to produce 7.5 grams of particulates per hour or less. This shall include both catalytic and non-catalytic Phase II stoves as well as pellet burners and any other technology which can be shown to meet these emission criteria. 3) Wood Burning Firealace: shall mean an open hearth or fire chamber or similar prepared place in which a fire may be made and which is built in conjunction with a chimney. 4) Gas Angliance: shall mean a fully self-contained, Underwriter's Laboratories (U.L.) listed and American Gas Association (A.G.A.) "fireplace" unit which does not require venting through a chimney and which does not permit the use of solid fuel. 5) Gas Loa Firealace: shall mean a fireplace as previously defined equipped with an A.G.A. and U.L. listed artificial log unit which is approved for the burning of natural gas. 6) Dwelling unit: means any room or group of rooms in a single family, two-family or multiple-family dwelling with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. 2 7) Accommodation unit: means any room or group of rooms without ' kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. 8) Refuse: means all solid wastes, garbage and rubbish, whether combustible or noncombustible, including rubble. 9) Restricted Dwelling Unit: means: a. Any dwelling unit which is restricted by the Zoning Code to be leased or rented for a period of not less than thirty (30) consecutive days and which is required to be leased or rented to tenants who are full time employees of the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail, Avon, or the surrounding areas. For the purposes of this Section, afull-time employee shall be deemed to be one who works an average of not less than thirty (30) hours per week. b. Any dwelling unit which the Zoning Code prohibits from being subdivided or sold separately from another dwelling unit. 10) Common Area: means the lobby of any lodge (as that term is defined in Section 18.04 of the Zoning Code), the area of any condominium project available for the common use of all the unit owners and restaurants and bars. 8.28.030 Woodburnina Fireplaces/Solid Fuel Burning Devices Prohibited There shall be no woodburning fireplace and no solid fuel burning device, other than a certified solid fuel burning device, constructed or installed within any dwelling unit, accommodation unit, restricted dwelling unit or common area within the Town. 8.28.040 Permitted Devices Certified solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances, and gas log fireplaces shall be permitted to be installed or constructed in dwelling units, accommodation units, restricted dwelling units or common areas subject to the following provisions: A. Dweilina Units -Dwelling units shall contain not more than one certified solid fuel burning device and, in addition, not more than two gas appliances; or in the alternative, not more than two gas log fireplaces and, in addition, not more than two gas appliances. B. Restricted Dweilina Units -Restricted dwelling units shall contain not more than one gas log fireplace and, in addition, not more than one gas appliance. 3 C. Accommodation Units -Accommodation units shall contain one gas r fireplace or, in the alternative, one gas appliance. All gas fireplaces located in accommodation units shall be constructed in such a manner that access to the firebox is prohibited except for the purposes of repair and maintenance. A sign shall be placed on each fireplace unit reading: "Caution -Gas Fireplace Only." All gas log fireplaces and gas appliances in accommodation units shall be equipped with a timing device or a thermostat which shall cause an automatic shutoff of the fire for safety and conservation purposes. D. Common Area -Any common area shall contain not more than one certified solid fuel burning device, or in the alternative one gas log fireplace, or in the alternative one gas appliance. 8.28.050 Non-Conforming Devices. Fireplaces and Aobliances A. 1 J Non-conforming solid fuel burning devices, certified solid fuel burning devices, woodburning fireplaces, gas appliances and gas log fireplaces, lawfully constructed or installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance, may continue, subject to any limitations or restrictions contained in this Section 8.28.050. 2) Any certified solid fuel burning devices, gas appliances and gas log fireplaces lawfully designed and for which a completed Design Review Board application was received by the Community Development Department prior to August 15, 1991 may be installed or constructed subject to any limitations or restrictions contained in this Section 8.28.050. B. If one or more separate conforming or non-conforming dwelling units, restricted dwelling units or accommodation units are combined to form one larger dwelling, restricted dwelling or accommodation unit, the newly formed unit shall comply in all respects with the provisions of this Chapter 8.28. C. No existing woodburning fireplace shall be moved or structurally altered, unless it is modified in such a manner that it complies with all the provisions of this ordinance. D. Whenever any dwelling unit, accommodation unit, restricted dwelling unit or common area is substantially demolished or destroyed, whether by the intent of its owner or lessee, or by natural disaster, if such dwelling unit, accommodation unit, restricted dwelling unit or common area is restored or reconstructed, it shall meet all the provisions of this Chapter 8.28 4 8.28.060 Coal Usaae Prohibited The burning of coal within the Town of Vail is prohibited. 8.28.070 Refuse Burning Prohibited The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning device is prohibited within the Town of Vail. 8.28.080 Building Permits A building permit shall be required for the installation of any certified solid fuel burning device, gas appliance or gas log fireplace. However, to encourage the conversion of wood burning fireplaces and non-certified solid fuel burning devices to certified solid fuel burning devices, gas log fireplaces and gas appliances, all applicable building permit fees for such conversion shall be waived by the Town of Vail. 8.28.090 Penalties It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Any person performing any act prohibited or declared to be unlawful by this Chapter or failing to pertorm an act required by or otherwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than four hundred ninety-nine dollars ($499). Any such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which a violation of any provision of this Chapter is committed, continued, or permitted by such person and shall be punished accordingly. In addition to penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a public nuisance, and may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense. Section 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 effect 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. 5 Section 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. Section 4 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision 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 of 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 ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the day of , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 6 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 23, Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 5.32.030; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY PERMITS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the State Legislature enacted 12-46-106.5 C.R.S. and 12-47-106.5 C.R.S. which took effect on July 1, 1991, permitting a local licensing authority to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of a fermented malt beverage license or any class of liquor license issued by the State Licensing Authority, at the discretion of a local licensing authority; WHEREAS, the Town of Vail wishes to authorize the issuance of such permits in certain circumstances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended with the addition of Section 5.32.030 to read as follows: 5.32.030 -TEMPORARY PERMITS A. PURPOSE This Section is enacted in accordance with 12-46-106.5 and 12-47-106.5 C.R.S. which authorize a local licensing authority, at its discretion, to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of a fermented malt beverage license or a liquor license issued by the State Licensing Authority. B. TEMPORARY PERMIT The Local Licensing Authority of the Town of Vail is hereby authorized to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of a fermented malt beverage license or of any class of liquor license which shall authorize the transferee to continue selling such fermented malt beverages or alcoholic beverages as permitted under the permanent license during the period in which an application to transfer the ownership of the license is pending. C. CONDITIONS A temporary permit shall authorize the transferee to conduct business and sell either fermented malt beverages or alcoholic beverages, as the case may be, at retail in accordance with the license of the transferrer subject to compliance with all of the following cond'+tions: 1. The premises where such fermented malt beverages or alcoholic beverages are sold shall have been previously licensed by the State and Local Licensing Authority and such license shall have been valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the Town ~ of Vail Local Licensing Authority. 2. The applicant has filed with the Local Licensing Authority on forms provided by the Department of Revenue a completed application for the transfer of the fermented malt beverage license or the liquor license. 3. The application for a temporary permit shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application for transfer of ownership and shall be accompanied by a temporary permit fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00). D. PROCESS The temporary permit set forth in this Section may be granted by the Clerk of the Town of Vail with the verbal approval of the Chairman of the Town of Vail Local Licensing Authority and if the Chairman is not available such approval may be given by any member of the Local Licensing Authority. If so granted, the temporary permit shall be issued within three (3) working days after the receipt of the completed application. A temporary permit issued in accordance with this Section shall be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license to the applicant is granted or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever shall occur first; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted within the one hundred twenty (120) day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend, in its discretion, the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days. E. BANKRUPTCY A temporary permit may also be authorized in the event of a transfer of possession of the licensed premises by operation of law,~a petition in bankruptcy pursuant to Federal bankruptcy law, the appointment of a receiver, a foreclosure action by a secured party, or a court order dispossessing the prior licensee of all rights of possession pursuant to Article 40 of Title 13, C.R.S. F. CANCELLATION A temporary permit issued in accordance with this Section may be canceled, revoked, or summarily suspended if the Local or State Licensing Authority determines that there is probable cause to believe that the transferee has violated any provision of this Article or has violated any rule or regulation adopted by the Local or State Licensing Authority or has failed to truthfully disclose those matters required pursuant to the application forms required by the Department of Revenue. e INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1991, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk C:\ORD.23 a+ ORDINANCE N0. 24 Series of 1991 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 26; ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 26; IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH THE DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town legally described as the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 west, 6th Prime Meridian and generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive; and WHEREAS, there is an identified need for employee housing in the community; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has adopted formal policies to encourage the development of employee housing units; and WHEREAS, this Special Development District provides for creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of one employee housing unit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendation for denial to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: 1 r Y Section 1. ' The Town Council finds that all the procedures for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied. Section 2. Purpose. A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Section 3. The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No. 26 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the development plan for Special Development District No. 26 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Bachrach VIP Ltd, Erwin Bachrach, and consists of the following documents: 1. Topographic survey; dated 1/4/91, sheet 1 of 11. 2. Buildable area; dated 5/13/91, sheet lA of 11. 3. Site plan; dated 4/22/91, sheet 2 of 11. 4. Site plan/utility trench; dated 4/26/91, sheet 3 of 11. 5. Site plan/utility lines; dated 4/22/91, sheet 4 of 11. 6. Site plan/landscape; dated 4/22/91, sheet 5 of 11. 7. Land profiles; dated 4/19/91, sheet 6 of 11. 8. Main level plan; dated 4/9/91, sheet 7 of 11. 2 f 1 9. Lower level plan; dated 4/8/91, sheet 8 of 11. 10. Elevations; dated 4/8/91, sheet 9 of 11. 11. Sections; dated 4/26/91, sheet 10 of 11. 12. Barn and greenhouse; not dated, sheet 11 of 11. The development plan is also comprised of those plans submitted by RBD Engineering Consultants, and consists of the following: 1. Driveway plan and profile, driveway cross sections and driveway and retaining wall details; sheets 1-5, dated February 1991. Section 4. Development standards for Special Development District No. 26 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: A. SETBACKS AND SITE COVERAGE: Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. B. HEIGHT: Building height shall be as indicated on the elevation plan set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. C. DENSITY: Development in SDD No. 26 shall be limited to 1 single family dwelling and one permanently deed-restricted, employee dwelling unit for the 6.844 acre parcel, (1.395 buildable acres). Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within SDD No. 26 shall be as follows: 1. GRFA for the primary unit shall not exceed 3,425 square feet. 2. GRFA for the employee unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. D. LANDSCAPING: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. 3 ' ~ ~ E. PARKING: Parking in SDD No. 26 shall be met in accordance with the off-street parking requirements as specified in Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and as generally indicated in the site plan as set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. F. RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS AND CUTlFILL SLOPES: Retaining wall locations, heights, lengths and materials, and all cut and fill slopes shall be as indicated on the development plan set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. G. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT The employee housing unit indicated on the floor plans referenced in Section 3 of this ordinance, shall be permanently restricted for long term employee housing as set forth in Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, with the exception that the employee unit shall be so restricted in perpetuity. The applicant shall set forth such restrictions in covenants which shall be submitted to the Town of Vail and approved by the Town attorney and recorded on the land records of Eagle County prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction and furtherance of this Special Development District. The agreement shall run with the land and shall provide that it shall not be amended or terminated without the written consent of the Town of Vail, Colorado. The applicant or his successor in interest shall submit an annual report to the Town of Vail within 12 months of the date this Ordinance becomes effective, and on the anniversary date of such submittal for each year thereafter, and setting forth the individual to whom the unit is rented and providing sufficient information so that the Town of Vail is able to determine that the restrictions set forth in this Section G have been complied with by the applicant or his successor. 4 i. Section 5. ~l Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40.100 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail. 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 inhabitants thereof. Section 7. 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 by declared invalid. Section 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of 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. Section 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed. 5 x ~ INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published this day of _ 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District located on an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Prime Meridian, generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Applicant: Abe Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica I. INTRODUCTION Abe Shapiro, applicant and property owner, has filed a request for the establishment of a Special Development District for an unplatted parcel of land located in the northwest section of Lionsridge Filing No. 1. This 6.8 acre, unplatted parcel is located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Mr. Shapiro is requesting that an SDD overlay zoning be approved for his property. Such approval would allow him to expand the maximum allowable GRFA of 2,000 square feet, which is currently prescribed in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. The applicant is proposing that the maximum GRFA be increased to a total of 3,425 sq. ft. for the primary residence. Secondly, in addition to the allowable single family residence on the site, the applicant is proposing one restricted employee dwelling unit on this site. It is proposed that the employee unit would be integrated into the main structure and it would consist of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. of additional GRFA. The combined GRFA proposed, for the ' primary and the secondary (employee) unit, is 4,625 square feet. This does not include a 900 sq. ft. attached garage, which is considered a "credit," and is not included in the calculation of GRFA. The third variation from the underlying zoning is with regard to the maximum height of the proposed retaining walls and the maximum slope of cut and fill areas. Section 18.58.020(C) of the Vail Municipal Code stipulates that the maximum height of a retaining wall cannot ` exceed 6 feet, nor can it exceed 3 feet in any required front setback area. The applicant's proposal includes retaining wall heights of up to 9.5 feet. The Vail Municipal Code (Section 18.54.OSO,D,7) also requires that all cut or fill slopes not exceed a maximum of 2:1. The applicant is proposing to exceed this standard with cut and fill slopes of up to 1.25:1. 1 ' ~ II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On June 9, 1990, Mr. Abe Shapiro requested a variance from the minimum lot size to allow for the construction of a single family residence, with a secondary employee unit on this parcel. Subsequent to the review of the proposal, the Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 5-0, unanimously denied the applicant's request. At the request of Jack Reutzel, attorney for Abe Shapiro, the Town attorney reviewed ordinances relating to the density section of the Agriculture and Open Space zone district. The results of this review indicated that a codification error had occurred in 1979 and that the existing Town code, in the Agriculture and Open Space zone district, does allow one single family dwelling unit having 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA, provided that a parcel in this zone district contains a minimum of one acre of "buildable" land. This information was passed on to Mr. Reutzel in a letter dated July 27, 1990, by Larry Eskwith. III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a single family residence with an integrated, permanently restricted employee unit. Additional structures proposed on this site would include a 1,500 sq. ft. detached barn and a 162 sq. ft. detached greenhouse. Access to the site is proposed via a 1,650 foot long driveway, which would begin at the first switchback, adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek, at the bottom of Potato Patch Drive. The driveway is proposed to be 12 feet in width, and would consist of an asphalt surface, as well as an asphalt curb and gutter on the uphill side. A safety guard rail is also proposed for the entire length of the driveway, and the guard rail would be installed on the downhill side of the driveway. Due to the isolated location of the applicant's property, and the fact that the property is not immediately accessible to a public road, the parcel is considered to be "landlocked". However, Mr. Shapiro has applied for a Special Use Permit from the United States Forest Service to obtain a private road easement, across the adjoining White River National Forest lands to the east, thereby obtaining vehicular access to his site. This private driveway, if approved by the U.S. Forest Service, would cross approximately 700 lineal feet of Forest Service property. A significant amount of fill material would be required to be placed over the existing two culverts for Red Sandstone Creek. The reason for this additional fill material would be to elevate the initial section of the driveway so that a maximum grade of 10% can be achieved. The Forest Service review of the Special Use Permit, and the Town of Vail's review of this SDD establishment, are proceeding concurrently. A final decision from the Forest Service is not expected until late summer. The proposed private driveway would also cross a section of Town of Vail public right-of- way. This encroachment will require an approved easement from the Town, for the approximate 130 feet of driveway which is proposed to be located within the right-of-way. 2 T IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Mr. Shapiro's unplatted parcel is located in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. As such, the permitted uses in this zone district are as follows: A. Single-family residential dwellings. B. Plant and tree nurseries, and raising of field, row and tree crops. C. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. This zone district also allows for the following conditional uses, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. B. Public and private schools and colleges. C. Churches, rectories, and related structures. D. Private golf, tennis, swimmirig and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. E. Semipublic and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. F. Ski lifts and tows. G. Cemeteries. H. Low power subscription radio facilities. Additionally, the density section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District (Section 18.32.090) reads as follows: "Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty-five acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, the one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty-five acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand square feet of GRFA," (emphasis added by staff). 3 The following analysis compares the existing Agricultural and Open Space Zone District development standards with the applicant's requested Special Development District: Underlying Zoning Agriculture/Open Space Proposed SDD Site Area 6.844 acres 6.844 acres Buildable Area 1.395 acres 1.395 acres Setbacks Front 20 ft. 110 ft. Rear/Sides 15 ft. 115 ft. minimum Building Height 30 ft. -flat roof 29 foot maximum 33 ft. -sloping roof . Density 1 dwelling unit 2 dwelling units GRFA 2,000 sq. ft. 4,625 sq. ft. Site Coverage 14,906 sq. ft. or 5% Approx 7,000 sq. ft. or 2.3% Parking Per current development Per current development standards standards V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, . neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The architectural style of the applicant's proposed residence is "southwestern." The staff's concerns do not lie with the proposed architectural style or general character of the architecture, but with the mass and bulk of the structure, given the very high visibility of the site. We appreciate the applicant's efforts to design a low profile home for the property. However, we are very concerned with the applicant's request 4 . for additional GRFA on a r,~yerty that is located on such a prominent hillside, is very visible from many areas of the community and is currently zoned Agricultural and Open Space. It is the staff's opinion that the allowable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District clearly indicate the rural nature of the district. The purpose section of the zone district (Section 18.32.010) states that: "The Agricultural and Open Space district is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development, while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the district." The staff believes that, in order to fully meet the intent and purpose of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District, the mass and bulk of any residential dwelling proposed in the district should be kept to a minimum. We believe the provision for up to 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA to be very reasonable in this zone district, and that the applicant's request for more than twice the allowable GRFA is excessive and inappropriate. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed uses for the site, such as a single family residential dwelling, a detached greenhouse and a detached barn are compatible uses in the district. Additionally, we can appreciate the applicant's desire to assist in providing a restricted employee housing unit within the Town of Vail. However, we feel the additional mass and bulk required to construct the employee unit is not appropriate on this particular parcel. Again, the staff emphasis is on keeping the size of the building to a minimum, and thereby reducing the visual impacts from the Valley floor below. The staff would be able to support the employee housing concept on this site if the applicant was willing to take the GRFA for the employee unit from the 2,000 square feet which is currently allowed. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The applicant's proposal includes athree-car attached garage of approximately 900 sq. " ft. in area. This garage, in conjunction with the associated surface-parking area - immediately to the west of the garage, will provide more than adequate parking for the proposed development. 5 e D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, T~, policies and Urban Design Plans. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan shall be utilized as a guideline in any request for a Special Development District. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan as "Open Space." The open space designation reads as follows: "Passive recreation areas, such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainage ways are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas would also allow types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning." This SDD proposal was also analyzed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Goals and Policies. The staff has identified the following goals and policies we believe to be relevant to this proposal: Goal No. 1.6 - Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. Goal No. 1.12 - Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Goal No. 5.1 - Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal No. 5.3 - Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal No. 5.5 - The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the ` community. 6 The staff believes that, in order to comply with the Land Use Plan goals and policies, and the "Open Space" designation on the applicant's parcel, the extent of development on this particular parcel should be kept to the maximum allowable, under the existing Agricultural and Open Space Zone District. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. The southwest section of the applicant's property is located in a high severity rockfall zone, as well as a high hazard debris flow area. A hazard evaluation was completed by Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D., on August 15, 1990. Mr. Lampiris has identified certain mitigation measures which he believes would decrease the hazards on the site. Such mitigation measures include a 6-foot berm around the rear (north) of the home to deflect rocks or debris andJor extending and strengthening the foundation walls, above finished grade, on the north side of the structure (internal mitigation). It is the staff's position that, should this project be approved, and proceed to the building permit phase, the direct (internal) mitigation measures recommended in the study by Nicholas Lampiris be included in the overall final design of the residence. It is the staff s understanding that the applicant is willin; to do the internal mitigation. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. It is the staff's opinion that this is undoubtedly the most important criteria, of the nine which are used to review the merits of this proposed Special Development District. Because of the location of this property on asouth-facing hillside, above and to the northwest of the center of Vail, the development would be very visible from locations within the central areas of the Town of Vail, as well as from the ski slopes above. To quote from the environmental assessment, which was completed for this project on May 20, 1991, under the direction of William A. Wood and Tim Grantham, of the Holy Cross Ranger District (USFS): "The project will increase the viewer's perception of human influence which at present conveys a natural impression; at completion, the project will appear an extension of low density residential development adjacent to other developed areas, thus serving as a visual transition between the dense development of the Valley floor, and the natural vistas of the upper mountainsides. Retaining walls will be extensively used, but use of native rock materials, revegetation, ' and landscaping will serve to minimize visual impacts. Visual impacts will be minimal from the center of the Town of Vail, where the view of the project area is often obstructed by buildings; and from the I-70 corridor, where the 7 traffic velocity tends to shorten and obscure views of the project area. The area will be most visible from Vail Mountain, by skiers or those using the Vista Bahn lift." The Town staff is extremely concerned about the visual impacts that the road cut, and the associated development, would have upon the community as a whole. We acknowledge the fact the applicant does have the right to construct a single family residence, with a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA on this property. We are also cognizant of the fact that access to the site is extremely difficult, given the steep topography, rock outcrops and the proximity of the nearest public road. Staff believes that even with the utmost care in constructing the project, that revegetarion will be extremely difficult, and that permanent scarring of the hillside will be visible from the Valley floor below. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. • 1. Vehicular Access Providing vehicular access onto this property is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the development. The applicant is proposing to begin the private driveway at the lowest switchback of Potato Patch Drive. Within the first 200 feet, the driveway will cross over two existing culverts, in which Red Sandstone Creek is piped for approximately 150'. At this point, the applicant is proposing to add approximately 14 feet of additional fill over the creek, in order to elevate the driveway and to maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10%. The staff is very concerned about this additional fill material and the aesthetic impacts it will create. This "wall of fill" will be highly visible to all those in the area of Potato Patch Drive. Additionally, the potential impacts to an existing, nearby Forest Service trailhead are being addressed by the Forest Service, through their evaluation of applicant's requested Special Use Permit, for the driveway. The applicant has agreed to maintain access to the trailhead. 2. Retainine Walls The staff believes that the retaining wall issue is a key point in the evaluation of this Special Development District proposal. Considerable lengths of retaining walls will need to be constructed in order to maintain a maximum 10% slope on the driveway. As proposed, all the retaining walls would be constructed out of large boulders, which would be located both above (for the cut slope) and below (for the fill slope) the driveway. The heights of the exposed portions of the boulder retaining walls would vary from a minimum of 3.4 feet, to a maximum height of 9.5 feet. Excluding the first 250 feet of the driveway, where considerable amounts of fill would be placed, the boulder 8 retaining walls would be necessary for the remaining 1200 feet of the driveway. It should be noted that at this time, the proposed rock retaining walls have not been fully engineered. Extensive soils testing will be necessary to determine the exact heights of the walls. Please see the attached letter to Abe Shapiro, from Greg Hall (Town Engineer) dated June 27, 1991. The staff has analyzed the proposed retaining wall heights and lengths and the avnroximate dimensions are as follows: Lengths of "cut wall" between 0-6' in height: 440 lineal feet Lengths of "cut wall" over 6' in height: 1,030 lineal feet Lengths of "fill wall" between 0-6' in height: 890 lineal feet Lengths of "fill wall" over 6' in height: 130 lineal feet 3. Cut & Fill Slopes The cut and fill slopes, located both above and below the proposed driveway, are another issue which the staff would like to address. The Town's development standards state that the maximum allowable slope shall be 2:1. The applicant is proposing to use geo-textile fabrics, integrated into the slope, and is proposing that a maximum slope of 1.25:1 be approved. The staff acknowledges that the steeper the slope, the narrower the area of disturbance would be. However, we are very concerned with the proposed revegetation method of these steep slopes. The applicant is proposing to revegetate these slopes with a combination of transplanting existing vegetation and seeding. An excelsior erosion control net would also be used. For the specifics on the proposed revegetation plan please see the attached plan, submitted by Marty Jones of Colorado Alpines, Inc., dated June 26, 1991. The applicant is also proposing to install a temporary irrigation system, for one to two years, in order to help establish the vegetation. The Town staff, including the Town Landscape Architect, have some concerns about this method of revegetation. The staff believes that the riming of the transplanting is the critical element in the revegetation process. This period is from early April to mid or late May, and from early October to mid November (depending on the weather). Additionally, the Town's experience in revegetating steep slopes has been that slopes in excess of 2:1 become very difficult, if not impossible to establish vegetation on. The Town staff would like to see a fully , detailed irrigation system plan and would also like to see the use of trees and shrubs used extensively in the revegetation plans. 9 4. Summary In summary, the staff is very concerned about the applicant's proposed revegetation plan. The revegetation of such steep slopes has just not been proven in the Vail area. If the revegetation of the slopes does not succeed, the slopes would then need to be flattened, thereby increasing the area (width) of disturbance. This would involve rebuilding the driveway and increasing the height of all the retainine walls. The staff generally supports the revegetation concept as proposed, however, we feel that there is a strong possibility that the revegetation may not succeed on the 1.25:1 slopes. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The revegetation and landscaping of the proposed access driveway has been discussed above. The proposed landscaping plan, around a perimeter of the residence, is as indicated on the attached landscape plan. The following new plant materials are proposed to be installed around the residence: ' 1. 30 Aspen/2" caliper. 2. 4 Pinion Pine/6' tall. 3. 1 Rocky Mountain juniper/6' tall. 4. All disturbed areas are proposed to be revegetated with native grasses. No sod areas are proposed. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan, for the area around the perimeter of the residence, is positive. Holy Cross Electric has an overhead feeder line which traverses the entire length of the property. Ted Huskey, Engineering Service Supervisor for Holy Cross, has indicated that Holy Cross does not wish to have this "short" section of line placed underground as he believes it will create engineering problems for the Association. (Please see the attached letter from Holy Cross, dated June 21, 1991). All new utility lines for the project are proposed to be located underground. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. No phasing plan is proposed, as the applicant wishes to construct the project in one phase. 10 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . The staff recommendation on the applicant's proposed Special Development District is for denial. As discussed in this memorandum, it is the staff's opinion that the applicant's request to deviate from the existing underlying zoning of Agriculture and Open Space does not further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The purpose section of the Special Development District chapter of the Town of Vail's zoning code (Section 18.40.010) states the following: "The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan." The staff feels very strongly that the applicant's proposed Special Development District does not meet the purpose and intent as stated in the above paragraph or the SDD criteria. Quite simply, we believe that the highest and best use of this site, and the use which would actually further the goals of the community, would be to preserve as much of this property as open space. Again, the staff acknowledges that the applicant does have the right to construct a single family dwelling with a maximum GRFA of 2,000 square feet on the property. We are, however, opposed to the granting of any additional GRFA for the residence or the employee dwelling unit and overall we see no community benefit associated with this aspect of the Special Development District. The staff does believe that some flexibility from the strict interpretation of the zoning code may be warranted, specifically with regard to the retaining wall heights and the cut and fill slopes. The staff is willing to work with the applicant to ensure that the proposed site improvements and the area of disturbance are kept to a minimum. We feel that there may be some advantages to increasing the retaining wall heights above the 6' maximum and possibly exceeding the maximum 2:1 cut and fill slopes in certain areas. In order to justify any deviation from the zoning code, we feel that more information is needed. Such information would include the following: * A detailed revegetation/landscape plan for the fill area over Red Sandstone Creek. This plan should include the type, quantity and locations of plant materials. Again, the staff believes that trees and shrubs should be extensively used in the planting plan. * Amore detailed revegetation/landscape plan is needed for the disturbed areas along the access driveway. Standard cross sections should be included. A . detailed irrigation plan is also necessary. * An engineered drawing indicating the overall extent (i.e length) of the 1.25:1 slopes is necessary to determine the exact location and extent of the steep slopes. r.~pcc4ncmos~shapiro.708 11 J.! •~.'_.f .7~ ;aatri, ilri~:~L'~:, J^"'::':t•t:.."'~':'n1<~. a::~'~: ~i3f, I ~ i t fir` r r e • ~ ~ a_ ~ ,-:"}71 :i.. I f r.4SrW t'ewrre ~?n?.ti4..wrMt) I --,~.~.M:,, , ~rt(1:•rb,.b,~ ~'~''`4!HIiY`1~11!4~1`~~II't,~l`11' trw~pa w Ie+swt ~ I ~ ~ \ , i i i ` ` OfM DIA. ~ 'w ar ~ ~ _ ' /ice i GI d •7241 ~ ~ _;s~ i IR •RA6q• _ ~ I_,~r - _ D •IIW' _ Iv i.. _...n_~ (I. •1619/' iy4C.,. e1n5 fr~, T • E~.7{' i 0.6D5 ^~h'` - a ' ~ \ of a • Mbar x. R • OOlif ~ ~ ~ ti4 ~ _ I ~ ~ ~ R•®d " Qn i'j 7 •ia1P lo•~rr •"~~•TiTT+~ii~T11111 it - _ ~ „ z ~ ~ , . ~ ~ ~ . ~ `j ~ ~i I I _ _ • ~ _ _ ~ - . _ - / G 967 ..,,,,`r AQOd - ~ q ii , 1 ~i M 1 ~ . r~ r~ w~ • ~~SHAPlRO RESIDENCE`TITLE ~ ~ If1N'C RII1f,F PnR('F~ errs rtse o.ewn~ 5 r rr r •r ~ ~ .w.. r ~ r.~ ' ;.•n •~i,i. rw'n ~~k~1iv.~'-;<.,•_~~,:1,.~.?t;E!~~+':;.1;~e~T,~~~~ ~i~'i~~ •`,;,..'.r~~/,.w..~ ..i:~t%~~;v'~~~ rarwn, vim, m aa•~'~aa ....•wt-wa-e~a •~W.k~- .v, .~.r. r y _.t~'~ e!~ JJ - r. N. MaaPa• rY •:.wY / T r wvF. A 'C ~ ~ ` J~ ••Y • ..Y -aa ' }IiY{. - W.L.w'a'll•, ~a tra . ~ t.~lt'.aM1a w\"y t + / w H -Y. • , •r= ev .J.a•s•a• ma ~tsa Osra•t?t mrr •nw'"tY. - rt•.s:. ,e~..rJICa^~a.K -+s a.~t.,.:{^..$~~ w r - •..t..ti.: ~•ydu ti. : ../au t a,. ¦ a.. n.I.w'tr' Ills Y •a^r:• aw .ut . T ti • :i~"'G- v •n./.rr. v wu t .•'tY•Na'.w • .t ;..yy,• - - r ~ _ .gal-•t /w • ~ . t.. ~f.Li~l;~ [ O. Mrlr! . ala aw ~ _ 1 aw a/a . ~ v it : i , ~ • i ~ ~E~. ~ MM to . • ~ti. 7 ~ ~ . W Nw•w•w• >ra aw la'~'~t Y s1 t , ~ V Rw MMN•Y .1.1 1.D •rrr•w•1 Y Y r ~ ~ ~ ~ /.Y ~ ~ n/1 ..fw'! +Y as /lt'a•!t Y Ta ~ - nu s.aw r Y Y / t Y an ~ _ , • ...asu w+.r ~ ®w ~ t~ s.» /a . M KI~owYrM01. , aa.a.tlwlt ww'r•a AW ®4100a~ slw ..s ' _.r-/ -.1 /v art ~ ru .euw+• t. ~ • .arwir. ~ . ~ tnlra.mis,snr0 . Or t~ /M t.t ~ t./ ~ ..y-~ ~ rt.. ~'.wa r ' 1S3t .t!-:r ~yr.. /r0w~00 _ a 1~~IQii w •1 r a _ Mf 1.. / ~ ~ ' ' r rn.ntt . w.lwlra , r' ~i _ ~ ~ . i -~-•1~~ ` ' to , ~ 1/i r.w to Q g w. .e r.. ' /Yw1. ` • w.pa. it rr 1 s:i /f" - ~ yl~ ~ ~!!.w'24_ h ~ , 11 , t I ry .~~,ti y: =1At--.~ :_~'s__"".r - _ w eo:,n ulr tll ~ ~'1' 11 r/ r~ ~ ' rir r~%' ___~R_~ r o*s'r r..~i~. p,7`~ S :1 l f r ~ /J,rr/r ri ii~ii~ - 1'~'~~~- - . - 11 Q ri rUr'/ rri i ~%r _~r=-~~~_s~_ ~ /.s. f.. f.e a.^at 4 1 \ -s~~i ri ! r ~ ii ri~~ ~ r ~ , r _ ~ w r _ , u.w to N 1 I ` ' ' I r / r ~~r// rr~ 411 ~tflRwL ~ _ _ IIOw w^w r r ~r~r'' .~,.-_aR on. ~ ~ryn ° awwa 1 ~ oauoe+ t rri r~j./ - 1, ~ arm. 1 r r rr ~ - _tcu_ an. p..wta.ue 1j i:~r I ~ t'' % rr•,,,,~..own l = ~ . . ~ . nE q l a ; rr t ~ rr lLw ,.,....rw.. /r ro a. m +o. . m~riiw.•s'a ICI jul ` i rr 1 /rl % r ~ _ - m ~ou ~ m w•wani aw.w+rrw rirr r r i,.r irr r y ..i .-un.rr ' .~wo.~w y o I 1 ~ r ~ •N ~,jr~ tt ~ / : ri: s: / r/ S _ a.. m...w.. i t~-e~.w~ / 6~`" irr, / /~tt 1......ww .ini ~ I ..v, wow.wwi^r .wn rorww. r / tAitirpl ww.nww t 1 Pala 1 ' 1 tuu rwn . N /l•- ~ s..~.. ~ .n..r~ r r~- ' r_ ~/e - - - - - . = - -lnlo.. ~Ilo : - - to ~ - Y ' - ~ l . . ' ' . _ ' / Ca 0100 . J100 ~ ~ / 1 - i r • MSn.H10 OlWIt/ID . C10 w.^' - CIO t90 . 1 ~x 700K w 0 ' - i , ~ k I1 3 - ~ - ® eno - - - r-- - ~ ~ - - - - =610 i 1~ ~ +.1/' , i $ ~ - < ` j o a a E e a a~ t a a e a s a q e s e a a a a - 3 3 3 3 z ` ~ 3di~~z~ 9 3 9 ~ z z 3~ ^ o.ao i.a/ i.ee ---i.a I.oo am wa r•a /.a •'„e.c .-z lo.oo n.m ,i•ar ' I I ~ ""D ORMEWAY 1 I . a.•- olw'/- o-r.•c: I-l~/ E ~ ~GwlaAtawt SHARROPIiOPERTY ~0' t' "I YAR, COLORADO PLAN i PROFILE ~ . n. :.n.w d.... ~ ...•..1,. _ err (p¢¢. I: W MtM, MkYM V /Ki' i,'i', • ' ~ ~ ' . ~ , ~t..'• lU. ta. pilit ~ r.. , _ R).' - NA K.t~,r H. .p. MA 6.lO.t•rG ir~. •t., .t.:;,. ,.a. ..a •Y.~nw:-~ ~ ~ w' - 1 • 1: •.1100 ' i! .CLf1 ~W f1~rvy 1 ~••~M ;,ri.ai~ . r 2.!<.K •.c agile ur j; . ~ ~ ~ . ' 1 ' : ' t[i4nlc awt wa8 ~ r. to s ~ ~ ~ a _ . _ . . i I~• y Ma01i[1iw1 a+lws •0.1t•pa1K a. r.aa K. ~ ~ wwla+r 1•~ _ 600m OL tNd ~ ~ _ t Yat - aN . ~ ~ JI If. _ . . . _ u/a . ~ - S ~ i~lM~llll/l~fli L ~ ~ 1 ~ tea or ii: .e - ~i4r x'11 llh f •r fSUC :a.~ V. wr. ~ ~ mot. ^il _ ~~~i / A ra 1+ lw. MIH• • ~ I, . i . ' ' ;*^,-r,.,= =2r; 4 srawlm ~ ~ ~ ua w.e i - :rte-' = ' - - j` r ~~~r`'= c;; ~ r~~~ ~ u.oi f ~ ~ ' ;i`,' ' r'"-~.' ~ ~ ~ A.e taa _m ow.w'~ _ I. ~ ~ r~r r ~~i~ 5 ~ ~i i'~ \ ,OI' ~ O~ L !A4 aM10.r VV .t.. ~...w . I`•.. .j ~~,.~,f'y:%%%----~~ _ ~...~.~L~.. its - y •us.w« _ I 1 wi .r ~ '.:%'%s~~~'~i%: / ham, ~ ~ ~ `iwlrt MtD . ®lwte , ~ tlt NM.1 7R w wN Rtlrlafi • . . W L " 1' - /~"%%~~1AC~~ ~i ~ a oae ram all •ra• taw w. wwa ru Yn ~-~j%ii ~ _ _ ~r~ r.¢I.w © r Sri i/~~~ ~ /1/ ti`tN WO IDY9IWLOAM O®IOp! r• r / ~N%i% ~ -_I . 1~1! 1~11CR TIIM M01/O i%%~_= _ : _ _ ievviev arwi IxAna11, y i! Af ~ i .i ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ W tt151iJL L0010O. 4 ~ ~~o t•Nea • macr+c volt . t _ _ ~ ~ Imms u ruu S '"Y. - C- ~ _ ~ - ~ ~ _ m a. wr~s u sw I w'n'f't u - _ IL70 IDi LL ¦itrr wW, i _ i to a. nrn ru ru .r•Irrt .ww as . ~ m ?•w•r~s nr .rrnt rw nw _ : r1 • r't11• tY Yw •VYlrt 1•n wr __-..O _ 7_ _ _ - _ _ .7 _ ~ _ ~ _ = N 1 . 1 W w•~f mw 1l} .R11YI. UI.II M ~ I I ~ ~ j -T- u 0 I y O. ergs au aw Iw~•r• nw ua ' 1L I t , . ._S_'_ v.a Lr^ Li m a. Irrw• o Ins Inu•r. nu u _ _ d ••rvrr m nw alnl•rrt a.r wu _ - I-- ' i Mb1~3r0 _ _ v.w fe ..t m s. ra~w• mw aw .11•r.rt m ns . 1 _7 U.a f.. 1.1 Q+ O..rrt+.• >w wn •!rw'.rl ww rw , _ . _ r ...y . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ Q11 ••wwff Iw? OM Iw•w•w'i ww Al . 1 ~ T iY ~ i ~ - v.w Lr a.1 an n. v«•r ~m Ivw•nt wn .n ' , , . - _ _ . I.pa I I c . _ _ i ~ . I 1 - u1n Le Ie t ~ I ~ on, ou man ara ,n , _ . . . : aw,1 naa .or - - - - - - taum - i'" Iaatt , _ y . _ / _ . ~b Nit0. _ _ - - _I - , - I . • _ . 1rL..... t 1 yA I ~-f'~ ~ I ~Im ~ I . ' , ti.. ~ I - i 1 • i _ . _ _ _I 1 I _ ~ • - - - - r- - - - - - - - _ ' _ - , ~ ~ I- f I . - _ , . . _ .s. , . J ~o.av n.•c ~ ~,7: r a•ao N.ro a•ao w.ro n•ao 'e.c ' ~ ~ ~lAPIRO PROPERTY DRMEWAY I a.:. xu.a au.a A ~ C. a:rw•1 I n• Ail 1ti•lW IMrr ~r.w rwra Y~ M ?.A S I ~ • I ro I a. ~ v1.1 ~ gregr v[tca•nvr ~ a..ato vIn rwxv a. ma:++ « o. ~ . I VAp, COLORADO I PLAN i PROFlLE I ' ~ ~ ilk , i _ ~ ~ i, • ~ ~e+es . ~'1'' _ ~ •y . . • • • .w ~ ~ t ~ , I ~ Z ~ } ..~C .rrr ~ ,l~~ll `~,I~`~~~i ;;I~~~ I I,, ~ . I y - - SHAPIRO RESIDENCE TITLE ~ - sasvu~!e-. ~ a eat ~n . LION'S RIDGE PARCEL ~ ae~e • • VA1L COLORADO ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ _ „ rc , ~ ~ ~ ~ .1 ~ ~'A' . N11 . ~ i , ~ ~ 1ksRwsj NA'( ~a+ Tluc~we o _ ~ e; 3nR~1 Steve= Sfeut+~ STope6 PAa o • o~ SfAti STALL 5~'?,tt pgcl: I f I ~ I^ 9 - I - - = r I I i --~°e I 10.0--1__b'-o_ Igo.- - ~~~0 GeEBiJHOU~~ • __..._..__._.-.__50'-0 _ 3A¢U oo2Pl.~4l ~ ~ ---t .~1 - ~ i ~ . SouT?t filcyATloa ~A:~T EtBWT~Oa ~i . SHAPIRO RESIDENCE TITLE + ~ ~ ~ `LION`S RIDGE PARCEL DARN andNi.o~o ei~e ~ VAit COLORADO GREENHOUSE arc c - J~ ~~~~y ~a Nc 5 COLORADO ALPINES INC. 41246 HWY 6 & 24 '9.16" ~ ~v~\ sox 2708 A~ G 1 AVON, COLORADO 81620 949-6464 June 26, 1991 SHAPIRO RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY REVEGETATION PLAN To reduce the visual impact of grading and road cuts and to maintain the native landscape, a comprehensive plan of landscape conservation is proposed in conjunction with the new Shapiro residence. This plan shall include utilization of existing rock features ae much as possible, as well as extensive regevegation. The revegetation program shall consist of transplanting of existing materials (including shrubs, wildflowers and native grasses), reseeding with similar grasses and wildflowers, and using an excelsior erosion control mat on all slopes of two-to-one or greater. 1. The transplanting method involves beginning the excavation process late enough in the season to allow for successful transplanting of the existing materials. This will involve removing the top two feet of soil including the vegetation and transplanting it through an erosion control net along the upper and lower edges of the cut behind the current work area. This will be watered as necessary. 2. The grass seed mix shall contain 60% durar hard fesque, 10% dwarf Canada Blue grass, 10% perennial rye and 10% streambank wheat grass. This mix will not duplicate the existing grasses but will be quite similar to them. To the point that a discernable difference will not be noticeable. 3. Wildflower seed from the site will be collected in addition to other suitable species available on a commercial basis and sown at a rate of .5 lbs per 1,000 sq ft in disturbed areas. 4. 8" tublings of Sage (Artemisia tridentate var. wyomingensis), Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Cliff Rose (Cowania mexicana) and other native shrubs will be used if necessary to revegitate disturbed areas if there is not enough material salvaged from the cut. This material will be planted approximately S' on center. S. In the spring an irrigation system will be installed to cover disturbed areas. This will consist of large throw heads (40'-50') surface mounted on a temporary basis <1 to 2 years or as long as it takes to get the plant material established to a point where it can sustain itself on available rain fall. 6. The natural rock formations will be utilized wherever possible ae retaining walls and landscape features. Any excavated stone will be utilized in retaining walla where necessary. The retaining walls will be constructed so as to compliment the natural rock formations. Every effort will be made to insure unnecessary scaring of the stone and the existing landscape during excavation. 7. The goal, ie to cut the driveway and revegetate the disturbed areas so as leave them looking as natural as possible and to achieve maximum recovery as soon as possible. It is my professional opinion that the desired results can be achieved with the proper initial and subsequent attention and effort. This same treatment (as recommended for the driveway shoulders) can be applied to the excavated area necessary for the utility ditch. When completed, there should be very little visible evidence of disturbance other than the driveway itself. The natural shelf rock formations, as well as the boulder and rock walls, will blend very compatibly with the existing mountainside. This method has proven successful in the past in a similar situation in Singletree. (A site visit can be arranged at your convenience if so desired. Slides are also available. ) Martin Jones G~ Horticultural Consultant Colorado Alpines, Inc. HOLY CROSS ~L~CTRIC ASSC.~CIR 1 IUN, 1 l~L . ' 3799~HIGHWAY 62 (303) 945.5491 P. O. DRAWER 2150 FAX: 945-4081 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 June 21, 1991 ~ JUL - 11991 Mr. Mike Mollica Planning Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Abe Shapiro Tract in the SW 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South,. Range 82 West of the 6th P. M. Dear Mr. Mollica: Reference is made to your inquiry of June 20, 1991 concerning the conversion of a portion of Holy Cross Electric's overhead primary electric line to underground where it crosses the above mentioned tract. Due to the fact that overhead to underground conversion points tend to be more troublesome than other parts of our system, we prefer to avoid short projects like this one where two conversion points would be required. Said conversion points also must be quickly accessible should problems arise. The terrain around Mr. Shapiro's tract would make the conversion points difficult to access due to the steep, hilly terrain and particularly so in the winter time, creating longer outage times than necessary. Should you have additional questions, please call me at 949-5892. Sincerely, HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. ~ Ted Huskey, Engineering Service Supervisor TH:rjm CC: Mr. Abe Shapiro A. L. Shapiro and Company P. O. Box 1448 Vail, Colorado 81658 W/O#91-13008:51-50:Shapiro Tract 3~ ~i~ • ~ ~ TOj~'iV OF UAIL 7S Soutb Frontage Road Department of Public {Forks/Transportation Yail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2158/FAX 303-479-2166 June 27, 1991 Mr. Abe Shapiro A.L. Shapiro & Company P.O. Box 1448 Vail, CO 81658 Dear Abe: The following is needed from you before I will sign off on your overall wall design. 1) Provide sufficient geotechnical investigation from a registered professional engineer to determine: a) Deign parameters for the wall design, which include; soil bearing capacity, angle of internal function or coefficient against sliding, soil unit weight, equivalent fluid weight, maximum graded slope angle allowed above the wall and any surcharge imposed on the wall from the sloping backslope. b) Areas of rock cuts expected and determination of . maximum cut slope allowed in the rock. c) The design of the geogrid reinforced fill slope at its maximum degree of slope allowed. Whether this slope could be irrigated or watered to allow revegetation and minimize erosion. 2) Provide from a registered professional engineer design calculations, construction guidelines and specifications for the rock retaining walls. a) The design calculations need to take the design - parameters provided from the geotechnical report and look at the wall for overall stability regarding failure due to soil bearing capacity, sliding and overturning. The calculations must also look at internal stability concerning the members of the wall being able to resist the forces being put on them and how the rocks interact/interlock as individual members to transform the forces to the walls overall system. The calculations should look at sufficient wall scenarios to provide construction guidelines for the varying wall heights but not design every single wall height. b) The construction specifications should be written to ensure that the walls are built in a manner presumed by the design engineer when analyzing the walls stability. If you have any questions, or your design professionals have any questions please contact me at 470-2160. Sincerely, s~ Greg Hall Town Engineer GH/dsr cc: dike Mollica ENGLEW OOD, CO 80110 ~ J U~ J l l y y 1 ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~ 1 V (303) 761-4805 To: r~c.~_ n,~~ DATE: ~ --a SUBJECT: ' n ~ ~1 j ~(J ~t 11,x..., rt-~~~.~C ~v~~ ~J • _ : 1~~ G ~ ~ O 9~1 COLO4e4 950 Red Sandstone Road it44 Vail, Colorado 81657 July 22, 1991 Mr. Mike Mollica Community Development Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Mollica: This letter shall serve as a formal protest for the entire Potato Patch Club • Condominium Association regarding Abe Shapiro's request to cut a road on the hillside adjacent to Potato Patch Club. Having attended the last community development meeting regarding this issue, the major concern to our homeowners does not seem to be the house itself as is the defacing of an entire hillside for a single home. Several of the homeowners have walked on that hillside and the ground itself is unstable at times even for human footing. This hillside is a beautiful, natural red sandstone area and the homeowners feel it would truly cause a negative impact on the view from Potato Patch Club. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, Laurie Hardmeyer Secretary for Potato Patch Club Condominium Association cc: Potato Patch Club homeowners PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 8, 1991 Present Staff Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz Diana Donovan Mike Mollica Connie Knight Jill Kammerer Ludwig Kurz Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack Gena Whitten Amber Blecker The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A request for front setback and density variances for the Dick Residence, Unit 2, Tract Bighorn Townhouses/4708 Meadow Drive. #2A. Aut~c' ant: Carol Dick Planner. Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer made a presentation. Sid Schultz, representing the ap 'cant, showed a new landscape plan the app 'cant preferred over what was presented in staff memo. Sid Schultz said the applicant agreed to pave the driveway. Kathy Langenwalter suggeste a dumpster be built into a hillside. Jim Shearer preferred to see the dumpster at the soothe end of the access Bement. Chuck Crist did not have a problem with the applicant's plan, b said the du ster should be placed as far down on the road as possible away from Meadow 've. Diana Donovan stated she also wanted to the dumpster as far south as possible. If possible, the owner should berm arou the d ster to screen it. She felt that three aspens generally provided more screening the prop d landscape plan. Connie Knight said she wool a to see the aspens in a landscape plan. Kathy preferred the shrubbery for the color udwig Kurz did not have a ference on the landscaping. Diana suggested the ement be narrowed in the drive if pos ' le. A motion was de by Kathy Langenwalter to approve the request er the staff memo, and cited the fin ' gs that no special privilege was being granted, and th quest complied with B(1), B(2 d B(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the memo. The conditions of ap oval stated that the applica shall install the submitted landscape plan, including one crab tre nine potentilla, 1 4. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District for an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South. Rance 81 West. 6th Prime Meridian, generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Avnlicant: Abe L. Shapiro Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica presented the overview of the request, reviewed the staffs position and the SDD review criteria. Staff recommended denial of the request for a Special Development District, citing the fact that staff could find no community benefit from its establishment. Staff could see some flexibility with the retaining wall height requirements, and the slope requirements, but had concerns with the request for additional GRFA. After the completion of staffs presentation, Mr. Shapiro presented a detailed rebuttal to staff's concerns. He read porrions of two letters into the record, to illustrate his reasoning in applying for an SDD. The first was dated March 21, 1991 from the Town Engineer, and the second was from Mike Mollica, dated September 4, 1990. Mr. Shapiro also addressed the concerns over the height of the retaining walls necessary for the construction of his driveway, stating it was not uncommon in many areas of Town. He also discussed the specific engineering of the driveway, including the revegetation plans. Concerning the size of the proposed residence and employee housing units, he indicated 2,000 sq. ft. for a single family dwelling was too restrictive, and that he believed he was doing the right thing with providing a 1,200 sq. ft. employee housing unit. Concluding his statements, Mr. Shapiro stated he believed the proposal was practical, reasonable and made sense. He thought he had responded to every request made by staff. He said 2,000 sq. ft. was more suited to a condominium than a single family home. He declared the requests from the WI, Sonnenalp and Spraddle Creek for similar concessions were motivated by profit, and staff had supported those requests. He simply wanted to build a home he and his wife could live in. He believed the negative affects from the by-right agricultural development of this property would be far worse than his proposal. If the PEC needed a hardship criteria to justify the SDD, he said the 2,000 sq. ft. size for a single family home on the lot was unreasonable. Laurie Hartmeyer, representing the Potato Patch Homeowners Association, stated the Association did not object to the house, but to the driveway--that it would hurt the natural beauty of the Sandstone area. The Association was also concerned with the possible impacts of having boulder retaining walls if the road failed, questioning if boulders would "fly" down the mountain. Mr. Shapiro responded that the rockfall hazard area on his lot did not affect the roadway, and from the drainage report, if the culvert backed up, Sandstone Creek would flow east and down the road. However, at the high water point approximately three weeks previously, only 25% of the culvert had been used. Ms. Hartmeyer said that the main concern was the view factor and the possible failure of the boulder retaining walls. 11 Audience member Joan Ackerman asked if a corral area was planned. Mr. Shapiro said it would only be a portable outside corral. Kathy Langenwalter said she believed the issue of whether an SDD was appropriate for this project should be the focus of the discussion, rather than the specific design. Connie Knight asked why an SDD was being pursued in this circumstance. Mike Mollica replied staff had related to Mr. Shapiro there were two ways he could proceed with his request. He could either pursue an SDD, or ask for density, wall height and slope variances. However, staff could find no hardship which would support the density request. Staff said this was a unique situation where an SDD was being proposed for additional GRFA. Larry Eskwith elaborated that there was no zone district within the Town which would allow Mr. Shapiro to accomplish his goals. Mike explained that, if the parcel were rezoned to Hillside Residential, additional dwelling units and subdivision of the property would be possible, and neither the Town nor Mr. Shapiro wished to proceed that direction. Mr. Shapiro clarified it was his opinion the Warner SDD had been allowed for a similar purpose, namely additional GRFA. Kristan Pritz explained that Spraddle Creek Subdivision had been developed under the Hillside Residential zone district, and the landscape plan submitted with the subdivision request was much more extensive. With Mr. Shapiro, only a written statement of intent had been submitted. Kristan said Mr. Shapiro's site was very sensitive; even more sensitive, perhaps, than Spraddle Creek. She felt it was not appropriate to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. employee unit on the site. Mr. Shapiro responded he believed 800-900 sq. ft. was too small for two people, and believed a unit of 1,200 sq. ft was the right thing to do. He believed that if employees did not have a decent place to live, they would leave Vail. Diana Donovan questioned if the zoning allows a 2,000 sq. ft. residence to be built, and the road could be designed without the need for any variance, would any approval from the PEC be necessary for development? Larry stated none would be needed, but that the Town did not have an obligation to allow Mr. Shapiro to cross the Town right-of--way in order to access his property. Diana asked for a show of hands from the Commissioners on whether an SDD were appropriate for this development. After a majority indicated they did not believe it was, Diana related to the applicant the Commission had also voted against recommending the Warner SDD, but the Council had approved the development. She suggested the Commissioner's comments be given so they could be passed on to the Council. Before the Commissioners began their comments, Kristan clarified that staff was not certain the driveway could be built without variances. Chuck Crist began the comments by asking for clarification that the site could be developed as a vineyard or other agricultural use. Lanry stated it could, as it was a by-right use in the zone district. Chuck said he believed an SDD was inappropriate, but that Mr. Shapiro had done a good job trying to make it work. Chuck's main concern was with the cuts necessary 12 for the construction of the driveway. He said the size of the house, in his opinion, would have a minimal impact. Jim Shearer asked why the GRFA in the zone district was so low. Larry explained it was designed as a low density development zone district, primarily agricultural in nature. The intent of the Council was originally to prohibit all development in the zone district ,but the Council had compromised by allowing minimal development. Jim also wanted to know what the maximum size of a generic employee unit was. Mike related the housing study had recommended between 700-800 sq. ft. The Dauphanais development had been permitted 500 sq. ft., with an additional 300 sq. ft. transferrable from the primary unit in certain conditions. Jim said he would support the allowable 2,000 sq. ft. for the primary unit, and 500 sq. ft. for an employee unit, for an approximate total of 2,500 sq. ft. of GRFA on the site. He stated his support for the construction of an employee unit. Diana stated she would support an even a larger employee unit. Gena Whitten agreed, saying she could support between 600-800 sq. ft. of GRFA for an employee unit. Ludwig concurred, saying he could also support a larger unit. ' Kathy expressed she had a problem with the driveway, and was not sure she could support any development on the site for that reason. Also speaking on the issue of the driveway, Jim said he did not like the possibility of a permanent scar, but believed property owners had a reasonable right to enjoy their property. He said that if everything possible were done to limit the scarring, he would support Mr. Shapiro's development rights, though he would prefer to see the house closer to the base of the property to lessen the scar. Jim also said he would like to see the Forest Service trailhead design further studied. Jim asked if the road would be deeded to the Town of Vail. Kristan replied the Town would probably not wish to accept it. Chuck said he would support an employee unit of between 500-800 sq. ft. in addition to the allowed 2,000 sq. ft. primary residence. Mr. Shapiro asked for direction on how he should proceed. Mike indicated he could table the request and amend it to take into consideration the comments the Commissioners had made, ask for a vote or withdraw the proposal. Gena said she believed Mr. Shapiro had done a good job on the road. She thought the 2,000 sq. ft. allowed was outdated, and recommended to staff that be reviewed for the future. Mr. Shapiro responded he felt it was the Commission's job to make right the problems in the zoning code. Diana said she did not want to see large houses on agricultural zoning, and the zone district was accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do. - Diana's biggest concern was the road. She said the house was set back far enough to minimize its impacts, but did not believe a GRFA bonus should be given for the primary unit. She did believe an employee unit would be acceptable, however. She had an additional 13 concern over the recommendation of more planting of trees, as there were few on the site at this point. Mike clarified the staff s recommendation was for planting of "grove-like" areas, specifically near the creek. Diana recommended that if this proposal continued to Council, it be recommended Mr. Shapiro blend the old scar on the Town right-of--way. Diana could not support the SDD request, as she saw no benefit to the community, only a benefit to the applicant. If the primary unit were decreased in size to the allowed 2,000 sq. ft., she could support an employee unit up to 1,000 sq. ft. in size. Ludwig Kurz was concerned with the scar, even with the mitigation measures Mr. Shapiro proposed. However, he stated if anyone could accomplish a good development on this site, it would be Mr. Shapiro. Ludwig had no problem with the bulk and size of the structures, but that an SDD was not appropriate since he could find no community benefit. Kathy concurred with Ludwig, saying the SDD was inappropriate. She was uncomfortable with the cut and fill proposal, as she had found the actual construction impacts to always be worse than originally anticipated. She said there would be too much scarring for a private residence. However, if the development could be accomplished without a variance, she believed Mr. Shapiro had the right to build his house. Regarding the employee housing, her support would be influenced by the driveway. If the driveway could be better designed, she may be able to support up to an 800 sq. ft. employee unit. Connie Knight agreed with staff's recommendations, finding no community benefit from the SDD. She agreed that 2,000 sq. ft. was not enough for a single family unit, but it was the zoning. She had no concerns with a smaller employee unit on the site. Mr. Shapiro asked for the consensus of the Commission if they preferred the employee unit be attached to the primary unit. They said they would. Mr. Shapiro then asked for direction on how he could proceed. Larry Eskwith said the Planning Commission's role in the SDD process was advisory, and they gave recommendations to Council. The options he related to Mr. Shapiro were that he could: 1) go forward with his proposal to Council, 2) withdraw his application and bring back a new proposal, or 3) table his request and revise his proposal. 1f he chose to withdraw the current application, he would have two options for a new request. He could bring a new SDD request, or request variances. However, Larry stated either request would be evaluated by the appropriate criteria -either the hardship criteria for the grant of a variance, or the 9 SDD criteria. Mr. Shapiro thought tabling the current SDD request was moot, as it was clear the Planning Commission did not want an SDD. He said he wanted to withdraw his application and pursue a variance request. Diana reminded Mr. Shapiro that he could still proceed to Council, with the Planning Commission recommending denial of the request. She said it was her opinion it might be wiser to proceed to the Council, and if they denied the request, he could 14 ' proceed from there. She believed that gave him more options, as he could have more time to reflect on the course of action he wished to take, and could still table or withdraw his application at the Council level. Kathy added that if Mr. Shapiro ended up returning with a variance request, it was still possible the determination of the PEC could be called up for review by the Council. If Mr. Shapiro proceeded with a recommendation from the Commission at this point, he could at the minimum receive input from the Council on their opinions. After Mr. Shapiro stated he would like to receive a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission on the SDD, and proceed to Council, Kathy Langenwalter moved to recommend denial to the Council of the request for the establishment of a Special Development District for an unplatted parcel located in a part of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, 6th Prime Meridian, generally located north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive, based on the finding that the Special Development District did not further the overall community goals of the Comprehensive Plan . or the Special Development District objectives. She further moved that the Commission's comments on the Special Development District be included with the recommendation. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0. 5. A request for a worksession on wall heights at the E.B. Chester Residence. Lot 19., Block 1. Vail Villaee First Filing/395 Mill Creek Circle. Annlicant: E.B. Chester Planner: Kristan Pritz Kristan Pritz explained the reason this worksession had been called was to get the Planning and Environmental Commission's opinion on the retaining wall height exceedence. Jay Peterson, applicant's representative, presented the applicant's position on the options available to rectify the situation. Mr. Grant Williams, a neighbor of the Chesters, argued that the subdivision covenants did not allow for fences, and that the Town Zoning Code upheld the covenants. The issue was left undecided, with the question to be researched by Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney. The PEC stated their desire to see the fence meet the heights required by the code. Most members felt some flexibility may be warranted concerning the height of the wall in the parking area on the southwest corner of the property. 15 ' ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Agricultural and Open Space Zone District •i:::: , .:.v:}. 1.:+.]..'.:ip;?w f :.k!:: " ::}t0 ::iN{;M' A '.LY.•%/%i{..\:Y.lR:ib" f ~e , ~XG' r)H `%/.V/+/.' :XW.{d.' Nil.. / W'G.: 'vf.' ..:J... N.4. i... . Nou~....aki ...»c,,..G:.K:::c r. ~/`....?'L!•.Ji'(.i:1 ~.rr....... .i:•i i::;•;:iii;:;.:::: • • - ~ i:liv~iH M.• +r.: ~ vn.: !wiviiiY:w-i: i:•::.Ci;:iii: V.'F.::C['f/,/~/iknit4'!.•.O.L.: {^iiAwJ:CitiJ %ii: N:ii:i~: ~ %::::ii':~i: ~ v~:;'i • • • n: :v:::. i . t!i•.H Ywi:...., h.... i.,::: /.~i%~ :..iiii}Wl:'O!! ~:!MMIh..... .•w}:9'~:.w.>!!iSw i.Vw:.ii:' e•~••Q•••••••:••• ~ a~l,~en.i ~00lMiJA~VAY/.l~waurl Mlw.w~/.VNN ~••JG"~ I. INTRODUCTION At the request of the Town Council, the planning staff has undertaken and completed research regarding all of the Agricultural/Open Space zoned parcels within the Town's municipal limits. The attached worksheets indicate parcels by County tax parcel number and also by the • designation of private vs. public ownership. Each parcel's acreage, ownership, and a brief description of the location of the parcel are also indicated. Our research of Eagle County's records indicates that a total of 23 parcels, all of which are in private ownership, are zoned Agricultural and Open Space. Of those 23 parcels, 12 are greater than one acre in size. In addition to these private ownership parcels, the United States Forest Service owns one parcel, of 26.6 acres in size, which is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. Also, Vai! Associates owns a total of ten parcels which are zoned Agricultural and Open Space, and of those ten parcels, nine are greater than one acre in size. The Town of Vail owns 28 separate parcels, all of which are zoned Agricultural and Open Space. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY As you may recall, the issue of potential development on parcels which are zoned Agricultural and Open Space first arose when Abe Shapiro presented a request to the Town to develop a parcel which he owns immediately above Lionsridge Loop. The Town's initial response to Mr. Shapiro's request was that he would need at least 35 acres of land in order to construct a single family dwelling. However, with further research of the Town's records, it was discovered that a codification error existed, and that Mr. Shapiro was, indeed, entitled to one single family dwelling with a maximum GRFA of 2,000 sq. ft. The specific wording in the Muniapal Code, under Section 18.32.090 -Density reads as follows: 'Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted far each 35 acres of site area, of ; which one acre must be buildable. Provided, however, that one dwelling shall be ` allowed on a lot or parcel of less than 35 acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed 2,000 sq. it. of GRFA.' !t is impossible, at this time, to determine exactly how many parcels, which are in private ownership, have the abitiry to construct a single family dwelling. The reason for this is that, without very expensive survey information. K is trr~ossible to determine whether any of the private ownership parcels have the required one acre of buildable area. Buildable area, as you may recall. means any site, bt, parosl or any portion thereof which does not contain designated floodolain. red hazard avalanche area. or areas in excess of 40% sloae, AS Indicated above, there are only 12 parcels which are in private ownership which have an acreage'of greater than one acre. Although it is impossible to determine the 'buildable area' of these 12 paroels, staff believes that a majority of said parcels would be impacted by either floodplain, steep slopes or hazards. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given the limited number of private ownership parcels. and their potential for future development, the staff recommendation at this time is to take no action. We believe the existing zoning code can address the concerns which might arise due to potential development on any of the above sites. We believe it would be inappropriate to modify the zoning code at this time. c:boundnmemoslsnapiro.a30 ' A GRICUITURE ANU O1'EN.SPACE PARCELS ' TOWNOFVAH, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP PARCELS PateottZonlo :Men '(';tw it1 :7axParrel Na ~Red'Hamtd`A6alaa~che <kloodolaln`` Acreaee Owoet'. ;:AdArrsS ; sDeaerloflon t ...~,Y~~..~ p. 5 2103-014.00.004 No No 6.8 Abe Shapiro Boot 5649 Above Lionsridge Loop Avoa CO 81620 p. 5 2103-014-00005 No No 1.3 Abe Shapiro see above Below Liansridge Loop p. 6 2101-072.00003 No Yes OS Water/Sanitation 846 Forest Road, Vail Creek bank below Sanitation Bldg District p. 9 2101-111-0t-016 Possibly No 3.1 Stan Wilson 5455 West ]ewell Ave Lat 16, Bighorn 2nd Denver CO 80226 p. 9 2101-013-01.017 No No approx 2.0 Booth Falls c/o Stuart Frio Tennis wuru Home Owners Box 356 Vail Part of Lot 12, Blk 2, Vail Vill 12th p. 10 2101-123-00005 Yes Yes 453 Cara Beutel 9119 Menarial, Houstm Bounded by Bighorn Sub, Bighorn Estate, TX 77024 atd Forest Service p. 10 2101-122-03-001 No No 0.02 Suranne Hill Box 2984 Vail Northeast of Firkin Creek Park p. 10 2101-123-00003 No No 1.1 Consolidated Oil 1860 Lincoln St H110 Unplatted area SW of Timber Falls Denver CO 80203 p. ]0 210]-111-00004 Yes No 2.4 Consolidated Oil 1860 Lincoln St N110 Bounded by Forest Service 8t Bighorn Ise Denver CO 80203 p. 10 I-70 R.O.W. No No 1.8 Dept of Highways Box 298 Eagle Triangulaz panel N of Interstate p. l l 2101.124-00009 Yes No 4.5 Consolidated OiJ Sce above Bounded by Courtside Townhomes and Mountain Meadows p. 11 2101-131-04-007 No No 1.8 Donald 0 Fomtigli c/o Duane Rogers Bounded by Forest Service & Bighorn 5th 4802 Meadow Ln, Vail p. 11 2099-182.00002 Possibly No 4.3 Vail Meadows Inc c/o David Elnare Bounded by lou 18 & 19, Vail Meadows NI 10001 E Evans, N69C Denver f.(1 80231 Pa~eoo Zonln~ Map ::CouotyTaiiParcel Na <i Red HarardAvalanche^ ?Floodplam . :Acreage Owner::: Address ; DesalpQou(, . p. 11 2099.182-16-001 No Yes OS Richard Holston 4595 5 Youmite tl107 Lats 1 ~ 2, Vail Meadows tt1 Denver CO 80237 p. l l 2099.182-16-002 No No 0.6 'David Elmore ••10001 E Evans, N 69C Lata 3 dt 4, Vail Meadows 12 Vail Cary Corp Denver CO 80731 p. 11 2099.182-16003 No No 03 •Sce above ''See above La S, Vail Meadows #t2 p. l l 2094.182-16004 No No 03 •Sce above ••Sce above Lot 6, Vail Meadows tiZ p. l l 2099-182.16005 Na No 0.35 'See above ''See above Lat 7, Vail Meadows B2 p. l1 2099.182-16006 No Possibly 2.2 'See above ••Sce above Lot 12, Vail Meadows tt2 p. l l 2099.182-16007 No Yes 0.46 'See above ''See above Lot 11, Vail Meadows B2 p. l l 2099-182-16008 No Yes 0.65 'See above ••Sce above Lat 10, Vail Meadows N2 p. 11 1099-182-16009 No Yes 0.7 'See above ••Sce above Lot 9, Vail Meadows N2 p. l l 2099-182-16A10 No Yes 0.61 David Elmore 10001 E Evans, N69C Lot 8, Vail Meadows k2 Denver, t:'O 80231 i` TotalPrlvatePaccels " SZ39,~~~ FOREST SERVICE OWNERSH~ 1 ?Floodolatn 1~ Acreage Owner, :Address ,Desaiptloo Pa eon Zooin Map ~ Gounty TyrParcd No . ~ :Red Hazard Avalanche k 8 p. 6 2101-061-00-001 No Yes 26.6 ac Forest Service Box 190, Minwrn CO. Spcaddle Cscek Parcel B TOWN OF VAIL OWNERSHIP . PageonZonmg~Iap . . ; bounty Tex Parcel.>yo. Acreage . IlescriQ6on . p. 4 2103-123.02-024 0.8 Buffehr Park p. 4 2103-123-00-011 61.1 Donovan Park, upper bench p. 5 2103-122-02-017 41.5 Lionsridge Fil. 3, N of Lionstidge 2 p. 6 2101-072-00-001 4.5 Unplatted parcel west of West Forest Rd p, 6 17.86 Tract C, Potato Patch p. 6 2101-064-00-001 1.1 Mountain Bell Building Site p. 6 2101-064-00-002 24 Area Surrounding the Mountain Bell Building p.6 2101-071-09-002 1.8 Tract J, at Chapel p, 6 12 Stream tract, Lionshead 1st Filing p, 6 0.09 Stream tract, Lionshead 2nd Filing p, 6 0.1 Stream tract, Lionshead 3rd Filing p. 7 0.6 Tract F2 tennis courts west of Manor Vail p, 7 2.9 Stream tract south of Mtn HausJAthletic Club p, 7 2.7 Stream tract South of Apollo Park p, 7 2.7 Stream tract Gom Vail Road eastward p. 7 3.6 Other stream tracts, part Trots B&C, Lot B. Bllc SB, V.ViI 1st Pageon:~;uamg Map Count~.Tax Parcel No ;Acreage... Descnpton p. 7 2101-081-14-004 2.1 Lots 9,10,11, V Vill 10th p. 7 2101.092-00-002 57.3 Holes 2,7,8,9,10,18 golf cotuse p. 8 2101-081-14-002 74.3 Golf course east of clubhouse plus 4th, 5th 8c 6th holes p. 8 2101-102-O1-007 0.5 Golf course adjacent to Lots 13-16 p. 8 2101-033-O1-015 93.3 Tract C, north and west Bald Mtn Rd p. 8 & 9 2101-034-03-002 13 Tract A, I-70 and Vail Village 13th p. 9 2101-023-O1-004 30.2 Tract A, Vail Village 12th p. 9 2101-034-O1-012 3 Lot 11, Blk 1, Vail Vi1113th p. 9 2101-034-O1-001 3.8 Tract B, Booth Creek stream tract p. 10 2101-122-00-001 5.7 Unplatted parcel north of Pitkin Creek Meadows p. 10 2101-111-04-009 0.05 Tract B, Gore Creek Sub p. l l 2101-124-00-002 6.4 Bighorn Pazk Total Acreage TOV. :456.2 VAIL ASSOCIATES OWNERSIOP - _ _ Pageon7oam;~,Map Connty'faxParcel lVo Red Hazard Avalanche . Floodpla~n ; .Acreage Description p. 6 2101-063-01-016 No No 10.7 Tract A, Potato Patch p. 6 2101-063-01-034 No No 2.8 Tract B, Potato Patch p. 6 2101-062-O1-033 No No 3.2 Tract D, Potato Patch p. 6 2101--071-00-001 No Yes 13.32 Under Lionshead Gondola p. 6 2101-072-07-005 No No 0.76 Tract A south of Lionsquare Lodge p. 6 2101-072-11-001 No No 1.68 Tract A, Vai! Village 6th p. 7 2101-081-00-001 No No 30.6 Westof Town Shops p. 7 2101-082.42-006 No Yes 3.1 Tract E, Vista Bann area p. 9 21D1-023-01-018 No No 6.1 Mountain School p. 9 2101.023.04-009 No Yes 3.3 Stream tract Vail Village llth Filing ' 7556 ai ' Total Acreage VA: ;i fG~~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. 25, Series. of 1991 1~ AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 15.02; ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 1991 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, AND THE 1990 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE; SETTING FORTH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, AND THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE; AND REPEALING CHAPTERS 15.08 BUILDING PERMITS -REVIEW PROCEDURE, 15.28 WATER CLOSET SPECIFICATIONS, AND 15.32 MODEL ENERGY EFF{CIENCY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS; AND AMENDING SECTION 15.36.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous . Buildings, Uniform Building Code Standards, Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Cade have all been published; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail wishes to adopt the most recent additions of these Uniform Codes; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.08 Building Permits -Review Procedure provides for review of all building permits by the Town Council; and WHEREAS, reviews are presently done by the Chief Building Official; and WHEREAS, Chapters 15.08, 15.28, and 15.32 are presently obsolete. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: 1. Chapter 15.02 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Chanter 15.02 15.02.010 Preamble. The Charter of the Town of Vail and the statutes of the state of Colorado provide that standard codes may be adopted by reference with amendments; and the Town of Vail wishes to adopt the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Codes for Uniform Building Code Standards, the Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Cade. 15.02.020 Adoption by Reference. A. The 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code and all appendix chapters thereto, excepting Appendix Chapter 12 is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 South Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. B. The Uniform Fire Code, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Fire Code, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and The Western Fire Chiefs Association, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. C. The Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. D. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Plumbing Code, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. E. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference, The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. F. The Uniform Building Code Standards, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Building Code Standards is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. G. The National Electric Code, 1990 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The National Electric Code, 1990 edition, is published by the National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269. H. The Uniform Fire Code Standards, 1991 edition, and all appendix chapters thereto, is hereby adopted by reference. The Uniform Fire Code Standards, 1991 edition, is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Association, 5360 S. Workmen Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. 15.02.030 Amendments to Uniform Building Code. The following amendments are hereby made to the Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition: ` A. Chapter 1, Section 110(b) of the appendix of the Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition, is hereby amended to read as follows: 110(b) Effective Date. Within eighteen (18) months after notification by a building official of the Town of Vail, the plans for compliance shall be submitted and approved, and within eighteen (18) months thereafter the work shall be completed or the building shall be vacated until made to conform. B. Section 202(d} Stop Work Orders is hereby amended to read as follows: 202(d) Stop Orders. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this code, the zoning ordinances of the Town of Vail, subdivision ordinances of the Town of Vail, the nuisance ordinances of the Town of Vail, or any other ordinances of the Town of Vail, the building official may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing such work to be done, and any such person shall forthwith stop such work until authorized by the building official to proceed with the work. C. Section 304(b) and (c) are hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: 304(b) Valuation. The valuation for a building permit shall be based on the average cost figures per square foot shown in the building valuation data chart published bi-monthly in the Building Standards Magazine of the International Conference of Building Officials, a copy of which shall be on file in the Community Development Department of the Town with the following modifiers, or on the actual cost of construction, whichever is greater. CONSTRUCTION ZONES ZONE & TITLE MODIFIERS $PER SO FT. IDENT{F{CATION ZONE #1 1. Matterhorn 1.0 Matterhorn Pillage, Vail Village West 1st & 2nd, Donovan Pk, West Vail Exit to Coldstream south of freeway. 1. Intermountain 1.0 From West Vail Exit west on south side of freeway. 1. West Vail 1.0 Vail Ridge, Vail Das Schone 1st, 2nd, & 3rd, Vail Heights, Buffer Creek Rd. west on north side of freeway. ZONE #2 2. East Vail 1.2 East of East Vail Exit. Includes all Bighorn Subs, Puking Creek Meadows, Gore Creek Sub, and Vail Meadows. 2. The VaAey 1.2 Lions Ridge 3rd & upper sections of upper sections of Lions Ridge 4th, Casolar, The Valley, Ctiffside. 2. Lions Ridge 1.2 Part of Lionsridge 1st and 2nd. East Buffer Cr. Rd. to Vail View. 2. Sandstone 1.2 East of Vail View Dr. ABC School. Dr. including Vail Run. ZONE #3 3. Potato Patch 1.7 From Potato Patch Club north. 3. Booth Creek 1.7 Vail Village 11th, 12th, & 13th, Vail Mtn. School. Booth Creek area both north & south of freeway. 3. Golf Course 1.7 Vail Valley 1st, 3rd & 4th, Vail Village 7th, 8th, & 9th, Northwoods and Pinos del Norte 3. Village Area 1.7 Vail Village 1st, 4th, & 5th. East of Vail Road to Gold Park. 3. Glen Lyon 1.7 Glen Lyon Sub. & Cascade Village up S. Frontage road to V.A. Maint. Shop. 3. Lyons Head 1.7 Vail Village 2nd, Vail Lionshead 1st, 3rd, 4th & part of 2nd. Lionshead parking structure to West Day lot. ZONE #4 4. West Meadow 2.6 Vail Village 3rd & 6th. Part of Vail Beaver Dam Area Lionshead 2nd, TOV Offices to residences adjacent to Vail Mountain. 4. Spraddle Creek 2.6 North of Freeway to new subdivision. 304(c) Construction Fee Schedule. The construction fee schedule for the Town of Vail shall be as follows: _ CONSTRUCTION FEE SCHEDULE UBC TABLE 3-A 1 BUII.DING PERMIT FEES - TOTAL VALUATION FEES $I.00 TO $500 $20.00 $501.00 TO $2,000.00 $20.00 FOR THE FIRST $500.00 PLUS $3.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $100.00 OR FRACTION TI-IEREOF. TO AND INCLUDING 52,000.00 $2,001.00 TO $25,000.00 $65.00 FOR THE FIRST $2,000.00 PLUS $10.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $25,000.00 $25,001.00 TO $50,000.00 $315.00 FOR THE FIRST $25,000.00 PLUS $7.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $50,000.00 $50,000.01 TO $100,000.00 $490.00 FOR THE FIRST $50,000.00 PLUS $5.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $100,000.00 $100,001.00 TO $500,000.00 $740.00 FOR THE FIRST $100,000.00 PLUS $4.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $500,000.00 $500,001.00 TO $1,000,000.00 $2,340.00 FOR THE FIRST $500,000.00 PLUS $4.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF, TO AND INCLUDING $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 AND UP $4,340.00 FOR THE FIRST $1,000,000.00 PLUS $3.00 FOR EACH ADDITIONAL $1,000.00 OR FRACTION THEREOF. 2 OTHER INSPECTION FEES: 1. INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS (NIII~TIMUM CHARGE TWO HOURS) $40.00 HR 2. REINSPECTION FEE ASSESSED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 305 (g) OF THE UBC. $40.00 HR • 3. INSPECTIONS FOR WHICH NO FEE IS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED INCLUDEING SPECIAL INSPECTIONS, STOP WORK ORDERS AND ZONING. $40.00 HR • • OR THE TOTAL HOURLY COST, WHICHEVER LS THE GREATEST. THIS COST SHALL INCLUDE SUPERVISION, OVERHEAD. EQUIPMENT, HOURLY WAGES AND FRINGE BEhnrii ~ OF ALL EMPLOYEES INVOLVID. * 3 PLAN v vv FEES UBC SEC304 (C) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE SHALL BE 6590 OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE. 4 PLAN REVIEW FEES UPC SEC.30.4 PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW FEE SHALL BE 25S'o OF THE PLUMBING PERMIT FEE. 5 PLAN RE~i~vv FEES LJMC SEC.304 (C) MECHANICAL PLAN REVIEW FEE SHALL BE 25go OF THE MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE. 6 PLAN REVIEW FEES UBC SEC. 304 (E) INVESTIGATION WHENEVER ANY WORK FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRID HAS COMMENCED WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING SAID PERMIT. THE INVESTIGATION FEE SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF THE BUII.DING, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, OR ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE. ALL OTHER FEES SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO THE INVESTIGATION FEE. 7 PLAN REVIEW FEES NOT IN CODE ADD TO FAST TRACK PLAN REVIEW FOR A FAST TRACK PERMIT, WHEN PLANS ARE NOT TOTALLY COMPLETE SHALL PAY A PLAN REVIEW FEE EC)UAL TO THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE. 8 PLAN REVIEW FEES NOT IN CODE ADD TO RESTAURANT FEE HEALTH DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR KITCHENS SHALL BE A FLAT F $75.00 9 PLAN REVIEW FEES NOT IN CODE ADD TO PRECONSTRUCITON A FEE MAY BE CHARGED W}HI.N TAlE SPENT IS DEl'FRMINED TO BE EXCESSIVE BY THE BUII.DING OFFICIAL. Mnn 11PIGS (EXCESSIVE REVIEW IS OVER TWO Mn1:I uiGS OR FOUR HOURS 540.00 HR. + 10 PLAN REVIEW FEES NOT IN CODE ADD TO ADDITIONAL PLAN ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW REQUIRID BY CHANGES, ADDITIONS 540.00 HR. • REVIEW OR REVLSIONS TO APPROVED PLANS. • OR THE TOTAL HOURLY COST, WHICHEVER IS THE GREATEST. THLS COST SHALL INCLUDE SUPERVISION, OVERHHIAD. EQUIPMENT, HOURLY WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS OF ALL EMPLOYEES INVOLVID. 11 ELECTRICAL FEES NEC NEW RESIDENTIAL THIS INCLUDES MODULAR HOMES, MOBIIE HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAII,ER, ALSO DUPLEXES FEES AND CONDOMINIUMS. (BASED ON ENCLOSED LIVING AREA) NOT MORE THEN 1,000 SQUARE FEET $50.00 OVER 1,000 SQ. FT. AND NOT MORE THEN 1,500 SQ. FT. $72,00 OVER 1,500 SQ. FT. AND NOT MORE THEN 2,000 SQ. FT. $89.00 PER 100 SQ. FT. IN EXCESS OF 2,000 SQ. FT. $4.00 COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL AND ALL OTHER FEES, INCLUDING ADD, ALT, REP, AND SHALL BE COMPUTED ON FEES THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION, INCLUDING FIXTURES AND INSTALLATION COST THEREOF, AND SUCH FEE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: NOT MORE THEN $300.00 $42.00 - MORE THEN $300.00 BUT NOT MORE THEN $2,000.00 $50.00 MORE THEN $2,000.00 BUT NOT MORE THEN $50,000.00 (SIS.oo PER PAC3i Sl,ooo.oo VALUATION oR PRACaoN TFffiROP oP TOTAL VALUATION. MORE THEN $50,000.00 BUT NOT MORE THEN $500,000.00 (sn.oo Poe EACH s I,ooo.oo oR eetwclTON TIIEItOP oP TOTAL VALUATION PLUS s57A0 MOBII.E HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAII.ER PARKS PER SPACE $42.00 TEMPORARY POWER $50.00 REINSPECTIONS ON ALL OF THE ABOVE $42,00 12 PLUMBING PERMIT FEES UPC TABLE 3-A $15.00 PER $1 000.00 VALUATION. (VALUATION =$500.00 PER TRAP OPENING) 13 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES UMC TABLE 3-A $20.00 PER 1000.00 VALUATION. (VALUATION = $500.00 PER OPENTrTGI 14 CLEAN-UP DEPOSIT VALUATION FEF,S $2,000.00 TO $25,000.00 $100.00 $25,001.00 TO $100,000.00 $250.00 $100,001.00 TO $500,000.00 $500.00 $500,001.00 TO $1,000,000.00 $950.00 OVER $1,000,000.00 $1,000.00 NOTE: EXCEPTION ON CLEAN-UP DEPnSTTS -ALL RE-ROOFING PROJECTS REQUIRE AT LEAST THE MINIMUM DEPOSIT. 15.02.040 Amendments to Uniform Fire Code. The following amendments are made to the Uniform Fire Code, 1991 edition: A. Article 14 of the Uniform Fire Code is hereby amended by the addition of Section 14.111 to read as follows: 1. Definitions a) ALARM SIGNAL is an audible or visual signal or other indicating the existence of an emergency fire condition. Audible devices may be horns, chimes, speakers or similar devices. Voice alarms and pre-recorded messages shall be approved by the Chief. Sound pressure level of fire evacuation signals shall be no less than 15dbA above ambient noise levels of 5dbA above the maximum noise level lasting 60 seconds or more. b) ALARM SYSTEM is a combination of approved compatible devices with the necessary electrical inter-connections and energy to detect and produce an alarm signal in the event of system activation. An alarm system shall be installed in an approved manner and shall conform to the following standards with respect to the type of fire alarm system; 1. Uniform Fire Code Standard 10-2, 1991 edition, as adopted by the Town of Vail Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1982, entitled "Use of Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems"; 2. National Fire Protection Association (N.F.P.A.) Standard 72A-1979, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Local Protective Signaling Systems for Guard's Tour, Fire Alarm and Supervisory Service; 3. N.F.P.A. 72B-1979, Auxiliary Protective Signaling Systems; 4. N.F.P.A. 72C-1982, Remote Station Signaling Systems; 5. N.F.P.A. 72D-1979, Proprietary Protective Signaling Systems; 6. N.F.P.A. 74-1980, Household Fire Warning Systems; 7. N.F.P.A. 72E-1978, Automatic Fire Detectors; 8. N.F.P.A. 71-1977, Central Station Signaling Systems; 9. N.F.P.A. 90A-1981, Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems; 10. N.F.P.A. 906-1980, Warm Air Heating and Conditioning Systems; 11. N.F.P.A. 13-1980, Sprinkler Systems; 12. N.F.P.A. 14-1980, Standpike Systems; 13. N.F.P.A. 96-1980, Removal of Smoke and Grease-Laden Vapors from Commercial Cooking Equipment; 14. Uniform Building Code, Section 1807, 1991 edition. 1 2. REQUIRED INSTALLATIONS a) Every hotel, motel, apartment building, condominium building and commercial building with attached residential occupancies, having 3 or more stores, with more than 11 units, classified under the Uniform Building Code, 1982 edition, as Group A-1, A-2, A-2.1, A-3, A-4, B-2 or R-1, shall have a fire alarm system installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard 18-1, and in accordance with Uniform Fire Code Standard 10-2, N.F.P.A. 72-A, 72-E, and 726, C or D. 1. Double action manual fire alarm pull stations shall be installed at each level of each egress, behind the bar in drinking establishments, at the front desk of a hotel and at locations required by the Chief and N.F.P.A. 72-A.. 2. Interior common corridors shall be equipped with system smoke detectors complying with U.L. 268, installed as per the listed spacing requirements. 3. All common public areas shall be equipped with system smoke detectors complying with U.L. 268, installed as per the listed spacing requirements. EXCEPTION: AREAS NOT SUITABLE FOR SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY HEAT ACTUATED DEVICES OR EQUIVALENT DEVICES. 4. Each sleeping room shall have a smoke detector complying with either U.L. 268 or U.L. 217 installed as per N.F.P.A. 72-E. 5. Audible alarm signals shall be annunciated to all portions of the building upon activation of any manual or automatic fire detector. EXCEPTION: WITH PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF, ALARM SIGNALS MAY BE INITIALLY ANNUNCIATED TO PORTIONS OF A BUILDING PROVIDED THAT THE FIRE ALARM CONTROL PANEL IS EQUIPPED SO AS TO ALLOW THE ANNUNCIATION OF A FIRE ALARM SIGNAL TO THE ENTIRE BUILDING BY MANUAL ACTIVATION. 6. An approved voice communication system of equivalent telephone communication system shall be installed so as to enable the fire department to automatically or manually give verbal instructions to occupants of the building by selected zones and by general alert. EXCEPTION: OCCUPANCIES WITH COMBINED OCCUPANT LOADS OF LESS THAN 500 PERSONS. b) Basement occupancies classified as Group A-1, A-2, A-2.1, A-3, A-4, B-2 or R-1, under the Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition, with an occupant load of 100 persons or more, shall have a fire alarm system installed in accordance with Uniform Fire Code Standard 10-2. Occupancies not intended residential usage may be equipped with heat detectors, manual fire alarm pull stations, and fire alarm signal devices. ~ c) Occupancies such as nightclubs, discos, dining and drinking establishments with live music, recorded music or other similar sound producing equipment shall have an alarm actuated shunt-trip to disconnect the source of music amplification, when the building is equipped with a fire alarm system. d) Buildings classified as R-1 or with residential occupancies in Group A-1, A-2, A-2.1, A-3, A-4 or B-2, 4 stories or more, shall be equipped with a fire alarm system in accordance with Uniform Fire Code Standard i 0-2. e) Buildings under remodel where the fire or occupant load is increased, located in Commercial Core 1, 2, or 3, shall have a fire alarm system installed in accordance with Uniform Fire Code Standard 10-2. f) Structures six stories or more, but below 75 feet in height, that do not provide fire department vehicular access within 20 feet of 50% of the exterior perimeter, including access to at least one side of the highest portion of the building, shall have a fire alarm system installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code, 1991 edition, Section 1807, Uniform Building Code Standard 18-1, Uniform Fire Code Standard 10-2. 3. APPEALS Appeals from Section 114.11 relating to the suitability and numbers of devices required pursuant hereto and interpretations of the provisions thereof shall be made to the Board of Appeals established by Section 2.303 of the Uniform Fire Code, 1991 edition. 4. APPLICATION A. The provisions of this section shall apply to existing conditions as well as to conditions arising after the adoption hereof except that in regard to existing buildings the following procedures shall apply: Within 18 months of the effective date of this ordinance, plans for compliance shall be submitted to the Dire Department for approval. Within 36 months after effective date of this ordinance, the work shall be completed and a letter of certification from the alarm manufacturer, the equipment supplier, the installing contractor or owner, stating that the requirements of this ordinance have been met and that the equipment has been installed as per the manufacturers specifications and that all equipment installed under this ordinance has been tested and is operable, shall be submitted to the Fire Department. B. Section 2.105 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.105 The Chief and members of the fire prevention bureau shall have the powers of a peace officer in performing their duties under this code. r C. Section 2.106 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.106 When requested to do so by the Chief, the Chief of Police may assign such available peace officers as may be necessary to assist the Fire Department in enforcing the provisions of this code. D. Section 2.107 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.107 Whenever necessary to make a fire prevention inspection to enforce any of the provisions of this code, or whenever the Chief has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in any building or upon any premises any condition which makes such building or premises unsafe, the Chief may enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty authorized by this code, provided that if such building or premises be occupied, the Chief shall first present proper credentials and demand entry; and if such building or premises be unoccupied, the Chief shall make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the building or premises and demand entry. If such entry is refused, the Chief shall have recourse to every remedy provided by law to secure entry. If the owner or occupant denies entry, the Chief is authorized to obtain a proper inspection warrant or other remedy provided, by law to secure entry. Owners, occupants, or other persons having charge, care, or control of any building or premises shall, after proper request is made as herein provided promptly permit entry therein by the Chief for the purpose of fire prevention inspection and examination pursuant to this code. For the purposes of this section, the term "Chief" shall include the chief officer of the Fire Department serving the jurisdiction and the officers named in Sections 2.104, 2.105, and 2.106 of this code. E. Section 2.205(c) is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.205(c) Stopping Uses, Evacuation. The Chief is authorized to order an operation or use stopped, or the evacuation of any premises, building, vehicle, or portion thereof which has or is a fire hazard, or unsafe building, or which is dangerous to human life. F. Section 2.205(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.205(b) Unsafe Heating or Electric Equipment and Structural Hazards When the Chief deems any chimney, smokestack, stove, oven, incinerator, furnace, or other heating device, electric fixture, or any appurtenance thereto, or anything 4 regulated under a nationally recognized standard in or upon any building, structure, or premises not specifically mentioned in this code, to be defective or unsafe so as to create a hazard, the Chief is authorized to serve upon the owner or the person having control of the property a written notice to repair or alter as necessary and shall notify any other authority enforcing codes regulating such equipment. The Chief is authorized to fix a hazard tag prohibiting the use thereof until such repairs or alterations are made. When affixed, such tag may be removed only by the order of the Chief and may be removed only when the hazard to which the order pertains has been eliminated in an improved manner. Until removed, that item or device which has caused the hazard shall not be used or be permitted to be used. When an apparent structural hazard is caused by the faulty installation, operation, or malfunction of any of the items or devices listed in this subsection, the Chief shall immediately notify the building official to investigate such hazard and cause such hazard to be abated as required by the Building Code. G. Section 10.203 is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.203 Fire Apparatus Access Routes Fire apparatus access routes shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of the building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall on the first story of the building is located more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from fire apparatus, access measured by an approved route upon the exterior of the building or facility. Access to structures more than three stories above grade at any point on the exterior perimeter, shall be provided to within twenty (20) feet of the exterior of the building from the public right away or an approved Fire Department access road. Approved access shall extend to fifty percent (50%) of the exterior perimeter of the building including the highest point of habitable floor area. Buildings not meeting minimum access requirements shall be subject to the requirements set forth in section 10.501(b) of this code. Exceptions: 1. When buildings are completely protected within approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. 2. When access roads can not be installed due to topography, waterways, non-negotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the Chief is authorized to require additional fire protection as specified in section 10.501(b). 3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided in the opinion of the Chief, firefighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. 4. More than one fire apparatus road shall be provided when it is determined by the Chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access. 5. For high piled combustionable storage, see section 81.109(a). 6. For open yard storage, see section 30.102. 7. For hazardous materials, see article 80. 8. For fire safety during construction, alteration, or demolition of a building, see section 87.103(b). H. Section 10.602 is hereby amended by the addition of subparagraph (e) to read as follows: 10.602(e) Identification All fire doors, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms, and stairs shall be identified by labels or signs. I. Section i 1.403 is hereby amended to read as follows: 11.403 Above ground gas meters, regulators, and piping shall be protected from damage by ice or snow, and if exposed to vehicular damage due to proximity to alleys, driveways, or parking areas, shall be protected from such damage in an approved manner. J. Section 25 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 25.118 to read as follows: 25.118 Standing Room Only Prohibited Lessees, owners, managers, promoters, their employees or agents shall not advertise, allow the safe of, or otherwise permit standing room only access or tickets to be sold at indoor or outdoor concerts, meetings, or other assemblies. The use of cross aisles shall . be restricted to egress and access only and shall not be utilized for standing at any such concert, meeting, or other assembly. The use of the area between the front row of seating and the stage, bandstand, security barrier, or other similar physical barrier shall not be permitted to be used for standing room. 15.02.050 Amendments to the National Electrical Code The following amendments are hereby made to National Electrical Code, 1990 edition: A. All electrical wiring in Groups A, B, E, I, and H occupancies as defined in the Uniform Building Code, shall be encased in conduits, raceways, or an approved armor. All wiring in Group R shall be encased in metal conduits, raceways, or in approved armor to the circuit breaker box for each unit. No aluminum wire or copper clad aluminum wire smaller than size 8 will be permitted within the Town. B. Persons engaged in the installation of remote control, low energy power, and signal circuits as defined in article 725 and 760 of this code, need not be licensed themselves pursuant to Title 12, article 23, Colorado Revised Statutes, nor work under the supervision of such licensed electricians; however, all such persons shall register with the State Electrical Board. Proof of registration shall be produced by the registrant to the Town of Vail Building Official. C. All such installations of remote control, low energy power and signal systems are subject to the permit and inspection set forth in 12-23-116 C.R.S. Accordingly, all installations of remote control, low energy power and signal systems must be performed in accordance with the minimum standards set forth in the National Electrical Code. 15.02.060 Copies of Code Available Copies of all the codes adopted by this chapter and all amendments thereto shall be available for inspection at the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado. 15.02.090 Penalties A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of the codes adopted by this ordinance or fail to comply therewith, or who violate or fails to comply with any order made thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statements, specifications, or plans submitted and approved thereunder, or any certificate or permit issued thereunder, or within the time fixed therein shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. The imposition of a penalty for any violation shall not excuse the violation or permit it to continue; and all such persons shall be required to correct or remedy such violation or defects within a reasonable time, and each day that the prohibited conditions are maintained shall constitute a separate offense. B. The Town may maintain an action for damages, declaratory relief, specific performance, injunction, or any other appropriate relief in the District Court in and for the County of Eagle for any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter. 2. Chapter 15.08 Building Permits -Review Procedure Building permits -review procedure is hereby repealed. 3. Chapter 15.28 Water Closet Specifications Water closet specifications is hereby repealed. 4. Chapter 15.32 Model Energy Efficiency Construction Standards Model energy efficiency construction standards is hereby repealed. 5. Section 15.36.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: 15.36.010 Designation -Criteria For the purposes of Section 104(f) of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code, if a building or structure within the Town of Vail shall be designated as having special historical or architectural significance and such building or structure meets the following criteria; 1. It has been in existence for at least fifty (50) years. 2. It has importance in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the Town of Vail as determined by the Planning and Environment Commission. INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING this day of , 1991, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk C :\ORD.25 RESOLUTION #15 A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO TO ISSUE BONDS TO FINANCE VARIOUS PROJECTS. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail, Colorado (the "Town") is authorized pursuant to Article X of the Town Charter to issue bonds to finance public projects of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has been advised of the need to construct a new facility to house the Town Police Department and to construct an addition to an existing Town public works facility. WHEREAS, the Town Council expects to incur certain expenditures relating to such projects prior to obtaining permanent financing, and the Town intends to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures with proceeds of the permanent financing. WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to constitute the Town's declaration of official intent to reimburse itself for such expenditures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Section 1. In order to permit the Town to reimburse itself for prior expenditures relating to the Projects (as defined below) with the proceeds of bonds, the interest on which will be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes, the Town Council hereby determines and declares as follows: a) The projects to be financed by the issuance of the Bonds will be a building of approximately 22,000 square feet to be constructed on land currently owned by the Town to house the Town Police Department and other Town functions with an approximate cost of $3,500,000, and an addition to an existing Town public works facility of approximately 3,000 square feet at a cost of approximately $400,000 (the "Projects"); b) The Town intends to incur expenditures with respect to the Projects prior to the issuance of Bonds for financing the Projects and to reimburse those expenditures from the issuance of Bonds; and c) It is reasonably expected that the expenditures which will be reimbursed will be made from the Town's Capital Projects Fund and that the source of funds to pay debt service on the Bonds will be the Town's sales, use, or other excise tax (or a combination thereof). d) The payment of costs related to the Projects from the Town's Capital Projects Fund and the reimbursement of such costs from the proceeds of the Bonds is consistent with the Town's budgetary and financial circumstances as of the date of this Resolution. The Town does not currently have moneys which are, nor does the Town reasonably expect moneys to be, allocated on a long-term basis, reserved or otherwise available pursuant to the Town's budget to pay the expenditures which the Town intends to reimburse. Section 2. This Resolution shall be available in the records of the Town Clerk at the Town Hall for inspection by the general public from the date of adoption until the date of issuance of the Bonds. -1- Section 3. The officers of the Town be, and they hereby are, authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this Resolution. Section 4. All resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revive any resolution or part of any resolution heretofore repealed. Section 5. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall in noway affect any remaining provisions of this Resolution. Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage and adoption by the Town Council. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of August, 1991. Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -2- ~ z MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department . DATE: June 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Appeal of staff interpretation regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst. Appellant: Jack Stanley Planner: Jill Kammerer ......:w::.::: :v:~ :.....................:.:n.::.:.:: i:..................::::: iiN :ii:~i:<~S :ii%>:::::::i:?r?::j: ~i SY::::i:: i`:j}:iii::}::i::jii:i.!iii:Y:isii?ii>v:i:{}~':~}:%:>.~ ~''>.i' /..8:_X:: i:: ii}:::::: is is^i: iih+iiiiiii'.?•::.: n~::::::::: is iiiY.C•i: ~~ii: ::.~iii:.'..::v 'JD6'n+1\Mw )~w'S'ri'~ii':'i:~'~ ~'}~j iiiinv i::i~i:i ~i}!::ii`?i'^:'ii~:iii'rY~i 'lti; ~:!i;'.: ~?;{:~i':':~:}?iii:: ~~.fiii: ~ ~`i ~~~'i"~4'~~~~:i:i:~ j"yi'{'?;:LiiT •i ~~f~:v:?~'~:i::?'::::: i:: iY:.i:i:: i:L:iiiii:; i:i:: ii}i`i: iii: ii:<.i: iiJ ii:bi'~i xw.»v).+.w... +,vve}.tvW.WN :i:.. . . • v.~..v:.m:;:. ~ : '~vw ""pw<4vwS:vJiriY"" t..vv:::::: ti::::vt•+nvv viiiiif :~i)iii::~`ii:~ r ~i~.J:Jivi.;4~ n.......: Mr. Stanley, the owner of the residence at 1816 Sunburst Drive, has requested to enclose the area under an existing unroofed deck which leads to the front dcor of the primary residence. Section 1 of Ordinance 41, Series of 1990, which addresses the definition of site coverage, reads: "'Site coverage' means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, 'building area' shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as measured from the exterior face of perimeter building walls ar supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is greater. Building area shall include all buildings, carports, Porte cocheres, arcades and covered or roofed walkways. In addition to the above, building area should also include any portion of roofed overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than 4 feet from the exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting columns." (Emphasis added by staff) According to this site coverage definition, there is a 4 foot "grace area" for overhangs, eaves, etc., from the face of any building which does not count toward site coverage. In this particular instance, tree deck which covers the walkway, is not considered to be a roof per Section 18.58.060 of the Municipal Code: "...A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord 8(1973) Section 17.203.)" The appellant believes, as written, that the site coverage definition should include areas underneath decks as site coverage. C.ipeclmemos\sfilyapp.610 i G7,~ ~ ~ . ~ i _ t 1 Ri . ! ~ J~~ i RICH AND KR USEN DESIGN ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT Town Council Town Of Vail 75 So. Frontage West Va i 1 Ca. 81 E~7 June i0, i991 Re : Appeal c• i= G. E. C. ~iec i s i Grr an the Stanley D~?~~lex To Whorn It play Concern: ' Recently, tt-~e F'. E.. C. upheld the staff' CjPC1 ~1C'~ri t.c~ rirrci tt-rat areas r_?nd~r^ a c~~wered walk. ar^e not site c~wer^rg~ despil-e thF~ 1'751 ordinance reading "buildinr~ areas sha•11 inr-aurle c?i tauilninr~~s. Car'Q~=~r't5, p~!r'te C'~=~C:here5, arCadf_•S. a'nd r_~!VE?i^eCj ar~cf r^0~.:~1'BCl walkways. " Wt-~i la it has bePr~ exnlair~ed tt•r;t ttiE~ irrtc~rrt ?•,as r~c:~t: to cc~~_?r~t the area r_?nder deck ire close proximity t•• h~.?i ldinn, and this is a very r^eaa•arrable appr^c~ach, this is r~_~t what w~;~==. wr^it tern. We simply set c~~rt to follow what was !wP rr~lt) clee.~^1y stated ire the new or^dir~ance. Wca reasoned that it tt~~c~ covr`r-•~~ci walk werF ccrrrsidered site ci:wprane we w~~u.ld b~ perr,?itted t~-• in f.i l1 thi= area withc~r.?t negatively impacting the site r_c~ver~aqe. We haci n.~ lntentlGn t:~f seell.ing a '~lc~c~phc~le", hilt rather' SoF?tr?f~lE'C~ ti:~ h~iVE~ st urnbl ed on a very c~_~nt rod i et ory area, cif th~a new or~ci i Trance and then proceed to sp~and a great deal of t imP on what sc-ezrneci t~~ bey a logical inter^pr^etatiarr of that sectiarr. As you know better than anyone else, the wr^iting of laws is a difficult task, however, until all the bugs are worked out it, seems only fair to give us the benefit of the doubt. Thank you far your time. Very Trul~~urs, . Jack i~:. Srr~~W. Hrct~itE?Ct P.O. BOX 45 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 303-926-2 2 8 6 A MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 17, 1991 SUBJECT: A sign variance request for Breeze Ski Rentals, Montaneros Commercial Condominium, Unit 100/ 641 W. Lionshead Circle/ Part of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Louis Sapiro I. THE VARIANCE REQUEST Breeze Ski Rentals is located at the western end of the Lionshead Mall, in the Montaneros Building. The applicant has indicated that pedestrian traffic to his store comes from three directions: north, south, and east. On January 16, 1991, the DRB determined the business faces onto one major pedestrian way. The DRB reviewed the applicants sign variance request at the April 17th DRB meeting. Following discussion the applicant's representative requested the variance request be tabled. On June 19th the DRB again reviewed the pedestrian frontage issue and upheld their January 16, 1991 decision. Therefore, the business is allowed one sien, a projecting or wall mounted sign, in addition to the window signs as discussed later in this memo. An existing 2.25 square foot projecting sign is visible from both the north and south, but not from the east. The applicant believes only a sign facing directly east toward the Mall would be visible from that direction. Further, the applicant believes, due to the distance the business is located from the main part of the Mall, and the location of a raised planter containing a number of trees and flags in front of his store, additional signage is necessary. (Please see attached applicant's rationale for the variance.) The DRB will review the sign variance request and make a recommendation to Town Council as to whether or not they believe the sign variance request should be approved. II. PROPOSED SIGNAGE Under this sign variance request, the applicant is proposing to install a 6 square foot wall mounted sign reading "BREEZE" on the wood band above the shop entrance. The background of this redwood sign would be sandblasted so that the letters would be raised. The letters would be painted white and the background blue. Colors will match the colors of existing signs. The dimensions of the proposed sign would be not more than 2' x 3', for a total of 6 square feet. 1 Additionally, the applicant would have a maximum of two window signs totaling not more than 10 square feet which read "SKI RENTAL". All other existing window signs would be removed. The applicant is requesting approval of the following variances: 1. A variance to exceed the maximum all~~~kble projecting or wall mounted sign area of 6 square feet. Section 16.20.190(B) of the Sign Code relating to the allowable size of a wall sign for an individual business within amulti-tenant building reads in part as follows: "Size, one square foot for each five lineal feet of the individual business or organization having its own exterior public entrance in a multi-tenant building, with a maximum of three square feet allowed for a business with insufficient frontage..." 2. A variance to exceed the maximum allowable number of projecting or wall signs. Section 16.20.190(D) of the Sign Code relating to the allowable number of wall signs for an individual business within amulti-tenant building reads in part as follows: "Number, one sign per vehicular street or major pedestrian way which the business abuts... III. SIGNAGE COMPARISON A. Existing Signage The business' existing Signage consists of: - a 2.25 square foot .projecting sign, which reads "BRFF~E SKI RENTALS"; and - Two window signs. One of these signs is 5.8 square feet and reads "SKI RENTALS." The other window sign, which reads "BRFF~E SKI RENTALS" is located above the entrance to the store and is 8 square feet in size. The combined area of these two signs is 13.8 square feet. The existing "BREEZE SKI RENTALS" sign is illegal, because a window sign which incorporates the name of the business cannot exceed 1.5 sq. ft. in size. 2 B. Allowed Signage Breeze Ski Rentals, as an individual business within amulti-tenant building, with a lineal frontage of 30.3 feet, is allowed: - One projecting sign or one wall mounted sign with a maximum sign area of 6 square feet; and - A maximum of two window signs, the purpose of which is to identify particular types of services, products or events. The total area of all window signs may not exceed 10 square feet; and - 3 square feet for the display of incidental signs (name of business, hours of operation, credit card information etc.). Of this 3 square feet, a maximum of 1.5 square feet for the display of the name of the business is allowed. IV. BACKGROUND The existing 2.25 sq. ft. projecting sign is legal and could remain. However with the addition of the proposed 6 square foot wall mounted sign reading "Breeze", the applicant will exceed the total number of allowable projecting or wall mounted signs and the total allowable square footage for projecting or wall mounted signs by 2.25 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a sign variance for the total projecting or wall mounted sign area and for the total number of projecting or wall mounted signs for a business located within amulti-tenant building in Commercial Core II. V. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSE 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 a particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not generally apply to all businesses or enterprises. 3 Staff Response: Staff does not believe the location of the business, at the western end of Lionshead Mall, or the existence of a raised planter with trees in it, is a physical hardship sufficient to warrant allowing the installation of a projecting or wall mounted sign greater than 6 square feet in size. The applicant may be able to increase the visibility of this business by increasing the size of the existing projecting sign from 2.25 square feet to 6 square feet, or by removing the existing projecting sign and installing a 6 sq. ft. wall mounted sign or by installing an awning sign. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone privy to the applicant. Staff Response: Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose 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: The proposed window sign location, design, materials and colors would be compatible with the appearance of .surrounding business facades and signage. However, the additional signage size (configuration) would not be harmonious with the scale of the Town (Section 16.16.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code). In addition, staff believes the proposed signage would be incompatible with the scale of signage in Lionshead Mall. D. The variance applied does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to install a 6 sq. ft. wall mounted sign. In doing so, the allowable projecting or wall signage size maximum of 6 square feet will be exceeded by 2.25 square feet and the maximum number of projecting or wall mounted signage of 1 sign will be exceeded by 1 additional sign. Staff believes a 6 square foot sign reading "BREEZE" and a maximum of two window signs of no greater than 10 square feet reading "SKI RENTALS" would be sufficient to identify the business and its services. The applicant could also install 1.5 sq. ft. of incidental window signage which states the name of the business. As an alternative to installing a projecting or 4 wall mounted sign totaling 6 sq. ft., staff has suggested the applicant explore the possibility of installing awning mounted signage. Many of the businesses in this area use awnings with signage on them to identify their businesses. As is the case with a projecting or wall mounted sign, the name of the business on an awning sign could not exceed 6 sq. ft. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff does not support the Breeze Ski Rental projecting or wall mounted sign size or number variance requests. Staff does not believe the location of the business at the western end of Lionshead Mall is a physical hardship. The existence of a planter near the business' eastern facade does partially obscure the visibility of the business. However, if the location of landscaping in front of a store front and the location of a business at the western end of Lionshead Mall were considered hardships, conceivably almost any business along the Mall, west of the Lifthouse Building, could request sign variances. Staff believes the business can be adequately identified through the installation of the following allowable signage: 1. One or two window signs totaling no more than 10 sq. ft. which reads "SKI RENTALS." 2. Eliminating the existing 2.25 sq. ft. projecting sign and replacing it with one 6 square feet wall mounted sign or a 6 sq. ft. awing mounted sign. 3. Installing 3 square feet of incidental signage, 1.5 square feet of which can identify the business. c:\drb\memos\breeze.717 5 l ~ ~ ~ ` ~ __..1 I ~ ~ aw w~~~~ ~arh ~e~'~YS 131u~ ~p T- 7z, cS~f-~ LC ~)ct[~TUa~uc~ Y ~l U ~ S J - ya: d / ~/i `_3 ; - <a'~~ ~ • \ _ Y.'\ sS~. ,;f~,~. : is • ~ , • ~?f ~''r v \A. ~I~ ~r1 ~ ? \ ~ ~y '\sj~\ (t r'~ ypp ti :Y•. / ` III II ' Tows. of Vail, Colorado ~z`~ Y AN ORDER PROCLAIMING LABOR DAY WEEKEND AS ? ;~.r PHYSICALLY-CHALLENGED ACCESS TO THE WOODS WEEKEND p ~ A WHEREAS, Physically-challenged Access to the Woods, ~ otherwise know as P.A.W., is a joint venture of the ;Y~, Vail-Eagle Valley Rotary Club and the White River National Forest; and t~ [[@@~~yi: kYY-•6 ~ ~C a L~ ,.Y WHEREAS, the purpose of P.A.W. is to enhance ~ YY recreational opportunities for physically challenged persons of all ages, and provide them with greater \ rM access to the facilities in our national forests; and WHEREAS, the Vail-Eagle Valley Rotary Club is - sponsoring its third annual benefit concert on behalf of P.A.W. featuring the Dallas Brass, on Sunday, ' September 1st, at 1:00 p.m., at the Gerald R. Ford ~ Am hitheater in Vail; and WHEREAS, proceeds for this concert will go to the ~:•Y°~- develo ment of accessible cam sites in the White River - p':~, _ National Forest for physically challenged of all ages. c~ ~ , ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, that Labor day Weekend is ~ hereby declared in Vail as Physically-challenged Access ti to the Woods Weekend. a ~ ~ a~: DATED this day of August, 1991. \\S . # ^ fa i : F ~i Kent R. Rose, Mayor j ; r.:; , : Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk ~ \ ~ ~t / ~ tt q\ / T i.3 ~L\ fF!_ Y . ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a te~:..f \a~ ~ ,rY~Q ~ ~~r./i y+~\~'~ ~~ri e ~ i`YYGLw~\~ "~-Y y4. a _ v ' f ~L f_ ~1 ~ aelAr • _ ~ ?~chcn~eln ~ enc s fits . ~ Y p rota a~ cans anic~ ~ p . sy Michelle Mahonoy . Denver Poat Business Writer - Schenkeln Advertising, Marketing, Pub- . lic Relations has undergone a major res- tructuring, firing its much-touted Atlanta ~ creative director and spinning off sepa- - _ .rate agencies for public relations and ad- ''`~^~j. vertising. ~ ~ .l The 19-year-old Denver ad firm will be- ` ~ _ come an advertising agency called RSA - ~ „ :r and a public . rA~VERlISiNG 'a~` relations firm called ~ ~~''~''r Schenkeln/Sherman Public Relations. Schenkeln Sherman David Reece, former partner and vice . president of account services at Schen- Stephen Heller, former creative direr- kelp, will be a major shareholder and for at Qgllvy & blather Atlanta, was let go president of RSA. Former President Bob earlier this month along with two other ' ;Schenkeln will retain a majority stake in staffers, Art Director Rob Landry and me- _ ;the 26-employee ad agency and serve as Dta P;anner Ric Dittman. Heller joined ~ - • its Chairman. ~ Scheai;etn in Map 1990 as vice president Schenkeln and forffier partner and Vice and creative director. - 'President Sharon Sherman will head Reece is conducting a national search Schenkeln/Sherman Public Relations as for a creative director ~o be a major 'president and managing partner, respec- stockholder in the new agency. The agen- e c . ~ y y's client list includes Manville, Hunter tiv he rn o the `T time was right to to v~r Douglas, Vail Valley Marketing Board and . r n „ • - - - ei s, Schenkeln said. Lutheran Medical Center. The ubllc rela- - ~ "There's a difference between running tions .firm's clients include Te~edyne Wa- ' ' ~ ' ~ the show and being a vice resident of a ter Pik, Vall Valley rketing Board d - . -~departraent of that company," he said. Reynolds Aluminum~ecycling. ~ • ' :"This gives tither people greater opportu- Ligature Design, a local firm, has been ~ Wily to exercise influence on these comps- -acquired as a Schenkeln company. ' ' , . _ August 1, 1991 Town Council Members, ~ ~ As you might have heard, Schenkeln has split into two agencies, covering both the PR and advertising aspects. The Marketing - Board has known about the proposed separation for a number of months, with it becoming finalized this week. ~ As the holding company is still Schenkeln, no changes will be necessary in Vail Valley contracts at this point. UVMB members - feel this is a positive change. R yl;~ CG~~ r ~ r WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP August 2, 1991 Page 1 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 8/8/89 WEST INTERMOUNTAIN LARRY: Proceeding w/legal requirements or Council is mulling over next step. ANNEXATION annexation. (request: Lapin) 07/27 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN LARRY/GREG: Work with Holy Cross Electr'c Cost estimate on per lot basis received; EAST VAIL to establish special improvement distric (s) engineering and bonding costs to be for underground utilities in East Vail. added to this estimate. Staff meeting to be called for week of 7-29-91. Report to Council 8-13-91. 12/18 MILLRACE CONDO. ASSN. KRISTAN: Respond. With foreclosure of property complete, LETTER follow-up on new contacts initiated. Betsy is doing research. Shelly/Gary to meet with Larry. 1/11/91 SNOW STORAGE RON/GREG: Work out site acquisition wit VA. Lease signed for seven (7) years. Complete design. 05/07 VA/2o SALES TAX COLLECTION LARRY/STEVE: Research remedies to chang Research is underway. Larry to get any (request: Gibson/Lapin) this to a mandatory TOV tax collection. legal information needed to Steve. 05/14 IMPROVEMENTS TO MULTI- KRISTAN: What incentives can the TOV 7-9-91 memo from Community Development FAMILY BUILDINGS provide to condominium/townhouse associa discussed with Council. Further input on (request: Fritzlen/Lapin) tions to initiate/expedite this process? updated California legislation to follow Investigate what California and Hawaii when it is received. have on their books. 05/14 VIEW CORRIDORS KRISTAN: Research additional corridors Long-term project to be brought to Council to be legislated. within next 6 months. WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP August 2, 1991 Page 2 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS _ 06/04 EAST VAIL BIKE PATH GREG: What was the final resolution of t e Design options to be presented to Council (request: Steinberg) bike path at the far east end of Bighorn? at 8-20-91 Work Session. North or south side access? 07/02 SHOSHONE WATER RIGHTS RON: Speak with Warren Garbe to clarify Will do. TRADE issues and establish procedure for future (request: Lapin) talks. 07/09 SNOW REMOVAL ON PRIVATE LARRY: Research ordinance. Ordinance already on TOV books regarding PROPERTY individual's responsibility to clear sidewalks. Wording to the effect this is a "negligent act" if left undone to be added. 07/09 PARKING FEE BARWICK: Bring back to Council Mike, Bill, and Steve will make RECOMMENDATION recommendations for parking fees for the recommendation to Council on 8-20-91. upcoming ski season. 07/09 LETTER TO PHIL NOLL RON: Thank him for the dinner at In 8-6-91 packet. (request: Lapin) Cordillera and include specific comments about the Shoshone water diversion (cc: G rbe) 07/09 NORTHWEST COLORADO LINFIELD: Respond by 8-18-91, to suggest'on Draft prepared by 8-9-91. TRANSPORTATION STUDY-CDOH the route from Denver to Vail be enlarged (request: Lapin) improved. 07/16 INVESTIGATE SUMMIT LINFIELD: Pursue. In process. COUNTY BIKE PATHS . WORK SESSION FOLLOW-UP August 2, 1991 Page 3 of 3 TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOW-UP SOLUTIONS 07/16 BUSINESS/CONTRACTOR'S LARRY: Prepare memo with staff Will be in 8-20-91 Council packet. LICENSE recommendation. 07/23 DAMES AND MOORE TOUR EVERYONE: Scheduled for 8-13-91 at 11:30 OF EAGLE MINE SITE A.M. Meet at TOV at 11:10 A.M. Lunch wi 1 be provided. RSVP to Caroline or Pam by 8-7- 1. 07/23 MARKETING BOARD SPECIAL CAROLINE/STEVE: Invite board to meet wit EVENTS COMMITTEE Council prior to budget to discuss budget To meet with Council at 8-13-91 WS. and process. Submit proposal to Council f prospective board make-up, i.e., 1 Counci member, 1 TOV Staff, 2-3 members of Upper Eagle Valley - and funding amount. 07/30 GENERAL TRASH/LANDSCAPING LINFIELD: With all the concerts in the F rd Done. Park area, the pedestrian path behind the Wren, Athletic Club bridge, and Lower Ben h of Ford Park are noticeably trashy. Also landscaping around Ford Park restrooms is weedy looking.