Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-03 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENtNG MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA • 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Consent Agenda: _ A. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 1994, and April 19, 1994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance of the 'Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. 3. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1994, a Resolution of the Town of Vail, Colorado, approving the corporate reorganization of Tele-Communications, Inc., the parent company of the franchise holder, and Liberty Media Corporation. . 4. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Mufti-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnidc Road more spec'rfically described as: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: ' Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness comer for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (Notth 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees OS minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curoe to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes OS seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North I 1 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.LO. record South Ol degrees 30.2 minutes East) (SouUi Ol degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicarrt: Juanita Pedotto represented by Greg Amsden. ~ 5. Town Manager's Report. 6. Adjournmerrt. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO CHANGE) , 000000 0 THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/10/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5h7/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/17/94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. • • • • • • • C:WGENDA.TC ? VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS EXPANDED AGENDA 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:40 P.M. 2. Consent Agenda: A. Approval of the Minutes of the April 5, 1994, and April 19, 1994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance of the Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. 7:50 P.M. 3. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1994, a Resolution of the Town of Vail, Colorado, Tom Moorhead approving the corporate reorganization of Tele-Communications, Inc., the parent company of the franchise holder, and Liberty Media Corporation. Action Requested of Council: Consider Resolution 12 approving corporate reorganization. - Backqround Rationale: This reorganization will not affect the operation of the franchise in the Town of Vail. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 12. 8:00 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Andy Knudtsen Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road more specifically described as: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees OS minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes OS seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130,00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South Ol degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita Pedotto represented by Greg Amsden. . Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, on first reading. Approve/deny/modify the minor subdivision request. 1 . ~ Backqround Rationale: On April 11, 1994, the PEC voted 4-4-1 (with Greg Amsden abstaining) recommending approval of the requested rezoning and minor subdivision. There are 10 conditions of approval relating to the minor subdivision that would be recorded on the plat which will stipulate how future development will occur. These conditions are listed at the end of the attached PEC memo. There are also several letters from neighbors and a petition which are included in this packet. During Council Work Session on April 12, 1994, Council called up the minor subdivision request. On April 19, 1994, the Applicant requested to table the proposal to allow time to consider the additional conditions which Council had listed in their motion to approve the rezoning. Staff understands that the applicant is prepared to respond to the additional conditions. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, and the minor subdivision request. 9:00 P.M. 5. Town Manager's Report. 9:10 P.M. 6. Adjournment. NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES SUBJECT TO CHANGE) 0 000000 THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TvESDAY, 5/10/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CFiAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/17/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 5/17/94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. • • • • • • • C:WGENDA.TCE 2 ~ RMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 5, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, in the Council ' Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston , Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting two items: (i) Approval of the minutes of the March 1,1994, March 15,1994, and March 22,1994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings, and (ii) Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 32, Cornice Building; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to take Ordinance No. 7 off of the Consent Agenda and to approve the minutes of the March 1, March 15 and March 22, 1994 Evening Meetings, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time discussion began regarding Ordinance No. 7,1994. Jim Curnutte reviewed changes made since first reading, as requested by Council. Tom Braun was present, represenHng the owner of the Cornice building, David Smith. The Ordinance was revised further, incorporating the following , changes: (i) permanently restricted employee housing units to be located within the TOV limits close to a TOV bus route, (ii) employee housing units shall always comply with the TOV housing ordinance requirements as specified in the TOV Municipal Code, as amended from time to time, (iii) Council acceptance of the three employee housing units being required prior to the issuance of a demo/building permit, and (iv) all three employee housing units to be deed restricted and ready for occupancy prior to a,TCO being issued. Merv, moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, with the above-listed changes. Further, staff was directed to prepare copies of Ordinance 7, 1994, as revised, for review by Council at the April 19, 1994 meeting. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg expressed concern about the Cornice Building construction taking place concurrent with other major TOV projects, including the proposed Vail Athletic Club. Jim Curnutte informed Council a staging plan had been submitted to the Town Engineer by Tom Braun. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Tom Steinberg opposed. Item 1Vo. 3 was Resolution No. 8, 1994, a resolution designating Dana Investments Advisors, Inc., as an investment manager for the financial funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Chris Anderson and Steve Thompson explained the details of the Resolution. Steve anticipated higher yields as a result of this investment manager designation,as dollars would be invested at a longer term and restricted to the adjustable rate mortgage markets. Merv Lapin suggested comments from local financial experts be sought to review TOV investments. Bob McLaurin agreed to speak with local businesses regarding the matter and indicated he would discuss the issue further with Merv after the meeting. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 8; Series of 1994, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, a resolution releasing a Title Restriction on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, and permanently restricting Site 4, Casolar Vail, Fourth Filing, from all development. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Braun requested the Resolution be tabled for 90 days, as the owners were not compelled to restrict Lot 4 without improvements. Paul Johnston moved to table Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, until July 5, 1994. Merv Lapin seconded , the motion. A vote was taken and the modon passed unanimously, 7-0, Item No. 5 was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the acquisiHon of, certain property by either negotiation or condemnation, for Town 1 Vail Town Couneil Evening Meeting Minutes 04/O5/94 public purposes. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead briefly explained the Resolution and the status of Trappers Run. He informed Council the contract had been entered into with Colorado Open Lands. Tom explained Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, would authorize the Town Attorney to move forward with negotiations to purchase the property, and, if that effort was unsuccessful, to proceed with a condemnation petition. Diana Donovan asked for clarification on the process which would be used to determine the value of the parcel. Tom Moorhead stated the value would be determined between the parties and reiterated the purchase would be separate and distinct from the development process. A motion was made by Jan Strauch to approve Resolution No. 10, with a second by Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken Merv stated he was opposed because of a pending zoning change request on the property. He felt it was a conflict to be involved in a condemnation process while reviewing a request to change zoning on the property. Tom Moorliead did not feel there was a conflict, noting the applicant had submitted a preliminary development plan, ' not a request to change, zoning on the property. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 6 was a discussion pertaining to design and construction of improvements to the Main Vail Interchange including installing modern roundabouts, landscaping, lighting, and signs. Greg Hall made a presentation to Council, displaying a rough draft of two proposed roundabouts for the Main Vail Interchange. A recent video which demonstrated the use of roundabouts in Norway was shown. Greg Hall estimated the roadwork alone for the two roundabouts would be approximately $650,000, and that a possible funding source might include grants from the CDOT, as well as involvement from Vail Associates. Greg also mentioned estimates as high as $700,000 for landscaping. Mayor Osterfoss requested review of .the funding of the project. Bob McLaurin recommended Council authorize TOV staff to proceed with design, which .would be subject to approvals by the Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation, Planning & Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and Council. Greg stated approximately $25,000 had been spent on design efforts to date, indicating remaining design costs to be approximately $160,000. A motion was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Tom Steinberg to authorize TOV staff to proceed with design for roundabouts. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was a report from Bob McLaurin, who updated Council on the Vail Improvement Process and expressed his rationale for wanHng to combine the Quality Council and Steering Team. Peggy Osterfoss remarked some Council members had not had the opportunity to participate in any of the TQM workshops and urged those who had not to do so. Bob discussed the performance based budget.with Council, ex}ilaining supplemental appropriations to spend department savings would be reviewed by Couricil.on a quarterly basis. Bob also reviewed an update he had received from Mike Rose regarding the discounted parking program in conjunction with VA. 657 transactions utilized the $5.00 parking coupon, with a net loss to the TOV of approximately $2,400. Other topics discussed included: Tom Steinberg requested an update from Bob McLaurin, Tom Moorhead, and Steve Thompson on the recent Pension Board meeting they attended in San Francisco. Pam Brandmeyer presented an information update which was not covered at an earlier Work Session. Pam also informed Council that the 1993 Ride the Rockies participant, Larry McLoughlin, .who suffered injuries during an accident at State Bridge during the event, had passed away March 20, 1994. Jim Shearer suggested TOV send condolences to the McLoughlin family and to the organization. Paul Johnston briefly discussed a letter received by Diana Donovan protesting a recent parking issue near the 6th green, where several vehicles were ticketed. Bob McLaurin addressed the issue, explaining an effort was made to contact owners of the vehicles and noted nearby parking structures were not full. , Paul Johnston expressed frustration regarding Council process and the length of Council meetings. He noted time allocations on Couneil agendas were not being met. He suggested members work toget~her in an effort to better control the meetings and to focus on the issues at hand. Merv discussed the upcoming St. Moritz/Sister Cities trip scheduled for four days in July. He requested direction from Tom Moorhead relating to the purchase of airline tickets through Jan Strauch's business and what would not be a conflict of interest. Tom reviewed Section 3.7 of the Town Charter, titled Financial Interest Prohibited. He advised purchase of airline tickets be viewed as a minor, incidental Eransaction. Jan suggested three bids be obtained and Council proceed with the best bid. There was further discussion pertaining to how the trip would be financed for three staff members (Bob McLaurin, Larry Grafel and Kristan Pritz) and four Council members, which would total approximately $10,500. Jim Shearer moved that expenses for the St. Moritz trip be paid out of Council Contingency funds and TOV staff budgets, and that the city of Courceval be included on the itinerary. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. 2 Vail Town Council Evening MeeHng Minutee 04/05/99 ` y ~ Sybill Navas recommended Council move forward with employee housing projects, as State funding commitments had been extended for the last time. Sybill also expressed an urgency to finalize Council Goals. Resident input from Diana Donovan included issues relating to Christmas lighting at the parking structures, the abundant number of signs on TOV streets, and the extra 250 square foot increase in GRFA allowed in certain circumstances, to be permitted only for employee housing. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was. made by Jim Shearer, seconded by Jan Strauch, and passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L McCutcheon , 3 Vail Toavn Counril Evening Mceting Minutes 04/05t94 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 19,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: . Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas . Jim Shearer Jan Strauch . MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting on behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participadon, of which there was norie. Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road, more commonly referenced through ownership as the Pedotto property. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudsten gave an overview the of rezoning criteria and the subdivision criteria. He referenced ten plat restrictions which would dictate how future development would take place. Additionally, he described buffer landscaping perimeter areas and interior clusters. Pedestrian safety and increased traffic and parking problems were resolved by the applicant through the provision of a six-foot wide sidewalk on the premises, enough parking for tenants and -guests and garages with storage areas. The proposal included three employee housing units. Andy discussed plat restrictions which kept the area to primary/secondary levels of density, with the exception of number of units. Minor subdivision criteria was consistent with the zoning standards which include buildable area, frontage, and shape as well as the_ purpose section of the subdivision code. Included in the purpose requirements was a regulation assuring the development would not produce negative impacts to the wetland area and would assure adequacy of drainage facilities. Andy pointed out that the council should review the letters from neighbors included in the packet and a petition from the neighbors submitted that day. Staff and PEC both recommend approval. Merv Lapin questioned why the recommendaHon regarding footprints had been stricken and requested it be reevaluated and reentered into the proposal. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, member of PEC and developer on project, described the character of the existing neighborhood. He listed the advantages to the community with his proposal as follows: 1. Large amount of public improvements at developer's expense including safety issues, landscaping, access to and from Kinnickinnick Road, and driveway access elimination; 2. Controlled development; 3. Square footage would be plat restricted; 4. Neighborhood sympathy including the parking issue; 5. Resolution to utility lines; 6. Preservation of the open space instead of developing wetlands and landscaping controlled by a Home Owner's Association; 7. Employee Housing Units would be provided; 8. Excellent transition area from high density condominiums and townhouses to single family homes. He also spoke of the negatives as follow: 1. Many residents feel this is a park area. Since Mrs. Pedotto owns the land, she has a right to develop it; 2. Construction problems would be eliminated by having a controlled development; 3: Enhancement of the looks of the open space. Concerns from Council included available parking, combined building envelopes, rent control language that could be present in new deed restrictions, . reduction of employee housing units, and revegetation. Residents not in support of the rezoning were as follows: Jo Brown, Peter Franke, Sara Newsam, and Victor Hoyles. Nlerv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5 with the following conditions to be added to those from the memo dated April 11, 1994: (See Tape A). At this time Rick Rosen asked to table the proposal because he felt the Town of Vail was going beyond the purview available to them within the municipal code. He felt there was no opportunity for, negotiation between first and second reading and that he would need time to restructure the proposal. Because the first motion did not receive a second, the motion died. A motion was then made by Merv Lapin to table the proposal to May 3, 1994, with a second by Jan Strauch. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12(7/93 e There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor . A1'I'EST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Michelle L Caster 3 Veil Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12l7/93 f^ ^ / n Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance of the Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth detaits relating thereto. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Dick Duran, Vail Fire Chief, explained the need for an updated fire lane map and explained his intent for signs. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 8, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994, a resoluHon of the Town of Vail supporting the transfer of mills to the Vail Park and Recreation District. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve and support Resolution No. 11, with a second by Jan Strauch. A vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was a sign variance request for the Concert Hall Plaza Building, located at 616 West Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Concert Hall Plaza/Mark Matthews, Slifer Management Company. Kristan Pritz explained because the Concert Hall Plaza is requesting to put a sign on Town of Vail property, a variance was required. The Community Development Department, as well as DRB, had approved the variance. Merv Lapin moved to approve the sign variance based on the findings and staff recommendations from the April 6, 1994, memorandum, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously, 6-0. ~ Item IVo. 6 was an appeal of the DRB approval of Kempf demo/rebuild request located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley lst Filing. Appellant: Dr. and Mrs. Kochman, adjacent property owners, represented by Rohn Robbins. Randy Stouder began with an introducrion of the •applicant, Chris Kempf and appellants, Dr. and Mrs. Kochman. Randy explained that PEC had approved the applicant's application for a conditional use permit to allow a Type II employee housing unit on the Kempf property. Randy also described the Design Review Board process, which took three meetings and resulted in several significant changes to the original application before approval was given. Rohn Robbins, representing Dr. and Mrs. Kochman, discussed Design Review Criteria Chapter 18.54, including 18.54.010 (Intent) and 18.54.050 (Design Guidelines). Mike Arnett, Chair of DRB, addressed the issue of blocking the view of the Kochman's residence stating the DRB found no grounds for refusal and supported the remodel. Tom Moorhead stated that the DRB - Guideline referenced to sight buEfers did not pertain to the preservation oE corridors. Jan Strauch expressed concern with the architectural design in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Rick Rosen, representing Chris Kempf, presented letters from numerous residents and neighbors acknowledging support for Chris Kempf, clearly stating that they felt that the design of this project meets the architectural compatibility requirements. Jim Shearer moved to deny the appeal and . uphold DRB's decision for approval of the Kempf demo/rebuild request, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 was an appeal of the PEC decision to grant a conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for an expansion to the library/classroom area at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins. Discussion focused on the berm located behind the school, its appearance and need for repair. Fred Otto and Pam Hopkins spoke on behalf of the short term master plan and the long term (5 year) master plan which is not yet available. Merv Lapin moved to uphold the approval of the conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for this expansion, with a second by Jim shearer, A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin reported bids for the Chapel Bridge replacement projeet are higher than originally expected. Work may be delayed until July 15 or August l, saving up to $25,000 by not having to work in high water: Greg Hall will meet with Sonnenalp Management and The Firstbank oE Vail before finalizing the decision. Merv Lapin requested to see a construction schedule before a decision is made. The Police Building addition was reported to be on budget and proceeding per the construction schedule. Contractors are in the process of replacing the T-111 siding on the municipal building, which replacement should be completed by the end of April. The estimate for replacing T-111 on the existing building siding had been estimated at $50,000. Kristan Pritz will research past situations to find if the Town of Vail has ,required someone to replace his/her siding to match an addition. Bob McLaurin asked to have the west entry remodel plan reexamined in order to not block as many office windows. This should not raise the amount of money that will be spent on the entryway. Merv Lapin suggested scheduling a half-hour executive session during a Work Session to discuss meeting procedures. 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutee 1217/93 r . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 19,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas ' jim Shearer e- Jan Strauch i MEMBERS ABSENT: . Tom Steinberg i i TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager - ~ Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting on behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road, more commonly referenced through ownership as the Pedotto property. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudsten gave an overview. the of rezoning criteria and the subdivision criteria. He referenced ten plat restrictions which would dictate how future development would take place. Additionally, he described buffer landscaping perimeter areas and interior clusters. Pedestrian safety and increased traffic and parking problems were resolved by the applicant through the provision of a six-foot wide sidewalk on the premises, enough parking for tenants and guests and garages with storage areas. The proposal included three employee housing units. Andy discussed plat restrictions which kept the area to primary/secondary levels of density, with the exception of number of units. Minor subdivision criteria was consistent with the zoning standards which include buildable area, frontage, and shape as well as the purpose section of the subdivision code. Included in the purpose requirements was a regulation assuring the development would not produce negative impacts to the wetland area and would assure adequacy of drainage facilities. Andy pointed out that the council should review the letters from neighbors included in the packet and a petition from the neighbors submitted that day. Staff and PEC both recommend approval. Merv Lapin questioned why the recommendation regarding footprints had been stricken and requested it be reevaluated and reentered into the proposal. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, member of PEC and developer on project, described the character of the existing neighborhood. He listed the advantages ' to the community with his proposal as follows: 1. Large amount of public improvements at developer's expense including safety issues, landscaping, access to and from Kinnickinnick Road, and driveway access elimination; 2. Controlled development; 3. Square footage would be plat restricted; 4. Neighborhood sympathy including the parking issue; 5. Resolution to utility lines; 6. Preservation of the open space instead of developing wetlands and landscaping controlled by a Home Owner's Association; 7. Employee Housing Units would be provided; 8. Excellent transition area from high density condominiums and townhouses to single family homes. He also spoke of the negatives as follow: 1. Many residents feel this is a park area. Since Mrs. Pedotto owns the land, she has a right to develop it; 2. Construction problems would be eliminated by having a controlled development; 3. Enhancement of the looks of the open space. Concerns from Council included available parking, combined building envelopes, rent control language that could be present in new deed restrictions, reduction of employee housing units, arid revegetation. Residents not in support of the rezoning were as follows: Jo Brown, Peter Franke, Sara Newsam, and Victor Hoyles. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5 with the following conditions to be added to those from ~the memo dated April 11, 1994 (See Tape A). At this time Rick Rosen asked to table the proposal because he felt the Town of Vail was going beyond the purview available to them within the municipal code. He felt there was no opportunity for negotiation between first and second reading and that he would need time to restructure the proposal. Because the first motion did not receive a second, the motion died. A motion was then made by Merv Lapin to table the proposal to May 3, 1994, with a second by Jan Strauch. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 1 Vail Town Council Evening MeeHng Minutes 12/7193 ORDINANCE NO. 8 . SERIES OF 1994 . AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL AS FIRE LANES; ADOPTING A FIRE LANE MAP AS THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 8.08 of the Vail Municipal Code provides for fire lanes and the designation thereof by the Town Council; WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that certain areas within the Town on both public and private property are necessary for fire protection purposes and other emergency purposes; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the pubtic health, safety and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The described areas within the Town of Vail as listed on the attached "Exhibit A" are hereby designated as fire lanes in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 2. The Official Fire Lane Map of the town of Vail is hereby adopted and the fire lanes as listed on "Exhibit A", attached hereto, immediately shown thereon. The Town Clerk shall maintain the Official Fire Lane Map in the Offices of the Town, and the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the same and the Official Seal of the Town affixed thereto. Section 3. All other provisions of Chapter 8.08 relating to fire lanes shall remain in full force and effect and enforced on the above specified fire lanes. Section 4. The Town Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 5. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. The 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, • 1 • Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994 r . any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of April; 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 3rd day of May, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: . Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1994. Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 , Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994 EXHIBIT "A" FIRELANES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 1. East side of Children's Fountain, near Pepi's - 70' x 20' 2. Laughing Monkey on Gore Creek Drive near Children's Fountain - 38' x 14' 3. Bridge Street Building, north side, on Gore Creek Drive -105' 4. East of Gorsuch Building in alleyway - 80' x 18' 5. East of Serrano's, Mill Creek to Christiania - 110' 6. South of Red Lion Building to Mill Creek Court - 75' 7. East of Vail Ski Rentals (Hill Building) - 110' 8. North of Golden Peak House (15' from hydrant) - 54' 9. Brick walk between Hill and Plaza Buildings (NO SIGNS POSTED) - 105' 10. Entire length of Northwoods Driveway - east side (not maintained by T.O.V.) - 569' 1.1. East of Mountain Haus, west of Vail Athletic Club (between buildings) - 80' x 12' 12. South of Crossroads East (East Meadow Drive) - 165' 13. Soutgh of Crossroads Parking on East Meadow Drive (in front of gate) - 32' 14. West of Crossroads West (back side of building) - 17' wide 15. East of Swiss Chalet - Willow Bridge Road (rock obstruction) = 18' gated drive 16. Northeast of Swiss Chalet on East Meadow Drive - 15' driveway NOTE: north side of Sitzmark has no ramp, used to have handicapped access and truck access north of the Sitzmark at the northwest entrance. 17. South of Crossroads at Village Market -105' 18. West of Crossroads east parking lot - 95' 19. East to Alphorn to Scorpio Driveway - 158' 20. East of Vail National Bank Building, west of Scorpio, betweeen buildings - 175' 21. Vail Valley Medical Center, from Meadow Drive from FDC to Meadow Drive - 130' 22. Vail Valley Medical Center front entry near Fire Department connection and • hydrant - 18' 23. North of Vail 21 & Lionspride to Lifthouse - 275' 24. South of Landmark parking @ Lionshead Mall West - 285' 25. East of L'Ostello - driveway from garage north to guard rail 24' x 12' 26. North of Vail Spa, driveway to hydrant - 150' x 18' 27. Colorado Mountain College west side behind building access to loading dock east of Mill Race - 55' x 16' 28. Westin - west side of brick drive along CMC entry to ballroom - 225' x 24' 29. Eagle Pointe - south side parking lot - 7' x 9' at FDC NOTE: no parking by order of F.D. sign posted above FDC. 30. West Vail Lodge - east side - entire length of builidng from entry to the north (no signs) - 275' x 10' 31. Vail Das Schone - east stairwe(I at F.D.C. (two signs) - 16' x 8' 32. Timber Ridge - entry by bus stop, along bike paths on east & west sides - 250' x 12' 33. Simba Run south - west entry driveway, all to north frontage road - 325' x 21' 34. Vail Run - north side parking area, lane along building entry to east - 80' x 16' 35. Snow Lion - east access way between Snow Lion and Breakaway west building - 70' x 16' . _ 36. Radisson Resort - east and south of Phase II between hotel and parking structure ° -330'x21' 37. Gateway - south driveway to underground parking - 100' x 20' 38. Breakaway West - driveway between buildings - 80' 39. Evergreen Lodge - north east access at entry - 200' 40. Lodge Tower - Northwest entry and driveway - 150' 41. Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus - access from East Meadow Drive by Swiss Chalet - 350' 42. Fallridge - west from Sunburst Drive to cul-de-sac (private) - 300' 43. Alpine Standard - north of Holiday House (private) - 60' C:\ORD94.8 3 Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994 • " - ^ ~R RESOLUTION NO. 12 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO APPROVING THE CORPORATE REORGANIZATION OF TELE-COMMUNICATIONS, INC., THE PARENT COMPANY OF THE FRANCHISE HOLDER, AND LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION. WHEREAS, Cablevision VI, Inc. ("Grantee: is the duly authorized holder of a franchise (as amended to date, the "Franchise") authorizing the operation and maintenance of a cable television system and authorizing Grantee to serve the Town of Vail, Colorado (the''Grantor" with cable television services; and WHEREAS, the ultimate parent company of Grantee is Tele-Communications, Inc. ("TCI"); and WHEREAS, Grantee has advised the Grantor that TCI and Liberty Media Corporation are entering into a corporate reorganization and after such reorganization will be subsidiaries of a new parent company, TCI/Liberty Holding Company; and WHEREAS, although Grantee believes the above-described transaction does not constitute a change in, transfer of, or acquisition of control of Grantee and therefore may not be a transaction requiring the consent of the Grantor, Grantee nevertheless has informed the Grantor of such pending transaction and has requested that the Grantor consent thereto in the form, hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado . that: 1. To the extent that the consent of Grantor is required by the terms of the Franchise . and applicable law, the Grantor hereby consents to the business reorganization described in the recitals hereto. . 2. The consent herein granted does not constitute and shalt not be construed to constitute a waiver of any obligations of Grantee under the Franchise. 3. The Grantor hereby affirms that the Franchise is validly held in the name of Grantee and is in full force and effect. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Resolution No. 12, Series of 1994 4 5. Upon notice to Grantor, Grantee may transfer the cable television system, including the Franchise, to any entity cantrolling, controlled by, or under common control with Grantee. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk e C:\RESOLU94.12 Resolution No. 12, Series of 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 1994 . AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT FROM PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.13 TO LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTtAL, SECTION 18.16 GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2850 KINNICKINNICK ROAD MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A parcel of land in the Southwest Gluarter of Sectiorl 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West (iuarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which are subtends e chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; _ Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet AAeasuredj to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 8earing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) WHEREAS, the property located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road has been replatted to a single lot from an unplatted parcel in accordance with Section 17.20.030; and WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to rezone the lot from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediate adjacent properties; WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to plat restrictions which shall be recorded on the plat at the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to second reading which stipulate how the future development shall occur; and - WHEREAS, all notices required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and ~VHE~S, the Towii Councii has heid a public hearing as requirea by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAfNED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: orainance No. s, series m 1994 1 Section 1 The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones the property from Primary/Secondary Residential to , Low Density Multi-Family Residential. . _ , Section 3 ' If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. ' Section 4 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 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed 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 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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, theretofore repealed. ordinance No, s, Series of 1994 p INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL ON FIRST READING this ~ day of , 1994, and a public hearing shall be held on the day of , 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: .Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1994. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD94.5 Ordinance fio. 5, Series of 1f~94 ~v :t• ~ -i • 1 'i ~..i,i ~r» ' ' April 19, 1994 Town Council The Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, Co 81657 RE: Pedotto Parcel Rezoning The Pedotto parcel is being presented for your review and approval for rezoning. The proposal shows 14 buildings They are being presented as affordable housing for young families at approximately $315,000 for each home; but we feel that this is somewhat out of the range of most young families and that,"in fact, these homes will become second homes. As a result we will have additional non-resident owners. While we do not object to non-resident owners, we would like to see InterMountain remain the last bastion of local ownership in the Vail Valley. At this time the ffiajority of the people who live in InterMountain are local and we feel that retaining primary/secondary zoning will maintain this permanent resident nature of this neighborhood. Although the present zoning allows for six primary/secondary duplexes on 6 15,000 sq. ft. lots; we feel that the size of these buildings would be more in keeping with the surrounding area which consists of townhomes and condominiums than 14 small alpine buildings that do not fit into the architecture of the neighborhood. As residents of InterMountain we would like to ask that you deny this request for rezoning. We are very much aware that this area will be developed and we have tried to give our input. It is of utmost concern to the residents of this neighborhood that a forinal traffic study be undertaken to actually know the amount of traffic that is evident in this area. Seven road cuts off of Kinnikinnick, which presently has an exceptional amount of traffic seems to only add to the danger of negotiating the streets in InterMountain. With all due respect, Residents of Vail/InterMountain , - PETIT'ION TO TOWN COUNCIL We, the undeisigned residents of InterMountain Subdivision, request that the members of the Vz Town Council leave the zoni.ng on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoni.ng this parcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family: ~ NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHOIVE # S~- ~ Z'For s-i* e 9 76 - 2 927, 'l~ . . 1-~tE ! ~•'~Il~a' /_1 ~ L, il{~~ T ~i''.•V.~I~~J Y1 ,:r f-, cl J , .~a-~. . i . ~ . & x 3 ~ 41W y / ~ ~c~,' ~,~,~?~~I ~i:~ ~ ~l~-~lG.~ Y - /3 kA k VC,4 -L4 V!w( 2S ` \ S•tir~v.,~l~~/ -,D// 4/ *'S S ~f r .i ~ i I v '.i I ~,1 ~ ' ! T'~./,, } ~ ~/i!/;,:~''.~(~.~-( l~'!.i_!'• =~•=rl~ T s- r ~ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ 1-. ~ - :~1 , . \ ~ ~ . f - ;i • / ~ i " / i j ' ~ / ~-p 7"~i _ .i ' ?i~- ~ i L'~V F3o2c ~ , 4'i~•, ~6-s~o i_ .t • ' • . PETITION TO TOWN COUNCIL We, the undersigned residents of InterMountai.n Subdivision, request ihat the members of the Vai Town Council leave the zoning on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoning o: this parcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family: NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE , ~ v`l~ ~ a • u 7Z Irl-7~ ~e- k ~ ~6 - l 3 3 , " ~7~ ~ 3513 VA~(L. 22 2'I ~4n?t.~ n~ 4-3 47, ' (a c'i C'n d"'t - 92 ~ 6W ,N6 JAAAdc 7G 1610 ( 1' 6 C , Y I ~ ~ J PETITION TO TOWN COUNCII, We, the undersigned residents of InterMountain Subdivision, request that the members of the Va Town Council leave the zoning on the Pedotto Site at Primary/Secondary, rather than approving upzoning. c this parcel and the proposed subdivision, to Low Density Multi-Family: NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHYSICAL ADDRESS TELEPHONE # r o-I V'Atl,, CO ;c-I.A3 ~Cl NNiy- I ,z << 2.8 ie~ * 41fo --3 ` C.~ ?t v~c ~',n v`~c~c. . 11(YV'l'~ ! IC,i i1 clci n. rf i3 i0 ruEn ~ ~ ~C, ?~n~ ~ tiv~v~~c.iC - Zm Ccofdf_ '50.S4C?'l'Li.Ic i, e.~ s P.Q,3ox3 V crl Q i, 4 / - (0:~c ~/'o ~P~,~~ ~~~~Z f,~, ~.o '3 ~,;~~r~• _ ~ / ) 17 ' V XYJN \ ~ .itI ~ lIl ~~d ~ C rI f~err- ~ 1~I~ ~ -;~Ws ~ ?y3 ,t'1%,11,'G4iilN/cI N ~ - ~ LILLO ~ ~ - 1 MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 11, 1994 SUBJECT: A request tor a minor subdivision and a request to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwesl Quarter of Sectipn 14, Towr?ship 5 South, Range 81 West ot the 61h Prindpal Meridian, more particularly described as folbws: Beg'rnning at a poirtt whence a brass pp set (a a wifiess cortwr fa the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (Nonh 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073,08 feet peed) (North 43 pegrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thenoe North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds Eest. 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet elong the arc of a curve to the rigM which are subtends a cFrord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minules 30 seconds Eest, 181.76 teet: Thence Sou?h 77 degrees 40 mrnutes 21 seconds Easi. 62.77 feet: Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which are subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence Nath 70 degrees 52 minules 55 seconds East, 406,55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing Sanh 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 aeconds East, 4420 feet; Thence Sanh 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West. 320.00 teet; . Thence NoM 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds Wast, 5p.pp feet; Thence Sou1h 77 degrees 48 minules 41 aeCOnds West. 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 ininutes 06 seconds West. 337.72 feet; Thence (Nonh 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds Easl, 130.00 feel Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds Eest, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing hom G.L.O. record tor South half ot Section line between Sections 1415. (G.LO. record Sou1h 01 degrees 302 minutes East) (SouUh Ot degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Mea,qured) . Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen . • . ~v. v::.v~.~~.:~wn~.\~+vn~::: ::v\ . n. .,--v n~ .v......vv~w. .............v:.~::::.~ii:Ji ::y.ii}}..v.......... . ~..~....~.......n...nv\.~~.. . . ~.v . ....~..~.nv.~v.w.~ ? . . ............n.»n..~ tt. . . v~ ::..:...........:.:...............:...............:.v::::::::...:v:iviTi:~i?:}::::::.~:::v::::::::::...::::::~:v v............... ..:v.v»>.~........ . \........\h..n\ :v:............................ ..............\n...v........... .v. : n... ...t...............:.x . »~!•ii:~i:i.?'::::::::::::::: ~ :....n~::::::::: v:::.vn~:::.~::v::::::.i:~~::i:~:::.........\..\:.:•::::::...., . ..~•,-Ti?::.~ ...~.:y.:;;n.~~::.:. ~v,.vn~vn.~.~:i::i};.::::::~ . :•~.v~:\.:\•: ~.vv::::ii?i: ...v::.............~.: v:. ....v...~. . ....w..~ . ~..~v.... . v v.Y\»~....v::::::::::::::::::.~\... . . . v:::::.:vi'•ii:~ii:?ii:iv^iiii'.~::.~ :::::::::::::::::::::.~:::~::::::::pi:i~:iiii:.:::~~:::!n............... ......vvw::::.~..n.. ......~n......... ? . . . . ..v v.v\..t\x.... .......:::.,:..a>:k.: ;.:..,~.::+::.a~. . . :':;:::3: 1. BACKGROUND (Please note changes to the memo since the February 28, 1994 review are shown in bold.) - On February 28th, 1994, The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted 6-0- 1, with Greg Amsden abstalning, recommending approval of the proposed rezoning. There were several conditions that the PEC requested be added to the site pBan and the plot. One of them pertained to the common access on the southwest corner of the site. The applicant was required to get approval from the adjacent property owners regarding the common access. This was to be done prior to first reading at Town Council. The two owners to the southwest of this property have decided they did not want to share the common access. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the site plan and provided access for bullding envelopes one and four from Kinnickinnick Road. There are no new curb cuts. The two westernmost driveways have been extended further into the site to provide access to these two envelopes. , ~ 1 . Because of the change in the si4e plan, the applicant has been required to return to PEC for a review of the changes. All other development issues remain as aQreed to bv the PEC, staff, and the appficant durina the Februarv 28, 1994 hearinq. The conditions are listed at the end of this memo. . II. SUEIAMARY OF APIALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIOM - Staff believes that the original site plan is more comprehensive and addresses access to neighboring properties better than the sate plan proposed at this time. Hovvever, we believe that the developer of the Pedotto pUOperty should not be required to solve an access issue in a manner that requires adjacent property owners to approve the access plan. Staff feels that the applicant has done everything urithin his control to achieve this solution; however, the neighboring property owners have not been willing to participate. Therefore, staff recommends that the Town ai9ow either site pian to be developed. Staff prefers the site plan reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 1994 with the shared access. However, staff does not believe that there are signfficant negative impacts from the site plan under review for the Aprii 11, 1994 hearing and that it should also be approved. , III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Juanita Pedotto, and her representative, Greg Amsden, would like to rezone a parcel of land in Intermountain from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi- Family. If rezoned, the applicant is planning to construct nineteen dwelling units in fourteen structures. The parcel of land is 2.49 acres. Of this, there are 2.36 acres that are considered buildable by the Town of Vail standards. In addition to a rezoning, the proposal includes a minor subdivision request. In the future, the applicant intends to use the single family subdivision process to sell off the individuai dwelling units. Prior to this, however, the currentty unptatted parcel must be platted as a lot. This provides an opportunity to document building footprint locations, GRFA restrictions, and other ' development standards on the plat. These standards will be listed on the plat and wilf be applicable to any developer as well as future home owners. Since the previous worksession, the applicant f?as deleted one single family dwelling unit from the site plan. Another change is that the building envelopes have been deleted and replaced with specific building footprints. Previously, a prototypical footprint was shown within an envelope. It measured 37 feet by 37 feet. The updated footprints have been increased to 40 by 54 feet for the larger type of unit and 38 by 30 feet for the smaller type. The footprints will be a minimum of 15 feet apart. The applicant is requesting the ability to shift the footprints as much as ten feet, if needed. Changes in footprint location would have to be approved by the DRB. Fifteen feet of separation would have to be maintained for both the structures and decks. The PEC approved these standards at the previous hearing on February 28, 1994. 2 . . J ~ The current site plan proposed by the applicant is made up of nineteen dweiling units.in fourteen structures. Nine of these wiil be single family residences. Three of them will be single family residences with a deed restricted caretaker unit located above the garage. Four of the dwelling units will be located in two duplexes. The total number of structures would be fourteen. Total GRFA for these dwelling units is anticipated to be 25,900 square feet. A site plan is attached at the end of this memo which shows where these structures would be located. The chart below shows the break down of the structures and units: Number of Units Number of Structures 9 single family g g 3 single family with EHU's 6 32 duplexes 4 ' 2 TOTAL: 19 14 The architect has designed three styles for the fourteen structures. These are shown in the perspective attached at the end of the memo. Each type will have the same materials, which include a stucco first story and horizontal cedar siding on the second story. The roofs will be shake shingles and will have clipped gables. There will be corbels to support the second story cantilevers as well as the eaves. The windows will alt have shutters to help create a ' bavarian appearance. Though there are three different interior plans, the exterior mass and bulk is almost identical for two of the units. Therefore, there will appear to be only two different types of exteriors. The larger home, with the caretaker unit, will have.a footprint . •measuring 40 feet by 54 feet. The smaller home will have a footprint measuring 38 feet by 30 feet. The neighboring properties to the parcel under consideration include: North: Columbine North East: Primary/Secondary development South: Camelot Townhouses and single family development West: Primary/Secondary development The property to the. north and east is zoned Residential Cluster. The property to the south and west is zoned Primary/Secondary. The Land Use Plan has designated the parcel under consideration as Medium Density Residential. Per Land Use Plan, a range of seven to thirty- three units is possible based on the 2.49 acres. This translates to three to fourteen dwelling units per acre. IV. BACKGROUND/FORMER REQUESTS In October of 1990, the Professional Development Corporation proposed employee housing deveiopments on severai sites in the Town of Vail. The Pedotto site was one of them. In their request, they proposed Medium Family Multi-Family (MDMF) zoning. In the memo dated October 29, 1990, staff recommended that the applicant reduce the number of units on this site to LDMF densities and maintain the amount of GRFA on the site to RC standards. The proposal for the site is shown below: 3 Type ot Unit Number ot Units Square Footaqe GRFA Efficiency Units 6 435 sq. h. 2,610 sq. h. One Bedroom Unils 6 482 sq. R. 2,892 sq. R. Two Bedroom Unes 27 609 sq. tt. 16,443 sq. R. TOTAL: 39 21,945 sq, ft. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Total Site Area: 108,682 square feet or 2.49 acres Buildable Area: 102,788 square feet or 2.36 acres Allowed Dwelling Units Employee Housing Density Allowed Units Allowed GRFA Allowed" Primary/Secondary: 15,000 sq. tt. of . 12 dwelling units 6 EHU's by 24,368 + 5,100 ~buildable required conditional review' 29,468 sq, ft. per bt (six bts) Residential Cluster: 6 dwelling units per 14 dwelling uniis - 25,697 + 3,150 ~ buildable aae 28,847 sq. R. Low Density MuRiple Family: 9 dwelling units per 21 dwelling units - 30,836 + 4,725 ~ buildable acre 35,561 sq. Pl. Land Use Ptan Medium Density Residential: 310 14 dwelling units 7 to 33 dwelling units - - per buildable acre Proposed: 8.5 dwelling unes 16 dweliing units 3 EHU's 21,625 + 4,275 - per buildable acre 25,900 Sy, h, 'These 6 EHU's would not count in density calculations. "Garages not inGuded in GRFA calculations. 4 . ~ Staff has analyzed the proposed site plan submitted by the applicant and has provided a zoning analysis below. Total Si1e Area: 108,682 sq. fl. or 2.49 acres Buildable Area: 102,788 sq. ft. or 2.36 aaes Zoning which would be in effect: Low Density Multi-Famity Allowed Per - LDMF Standards Proposed Uses: Single Famity, Two Family, and Mul6-Family Single Family and Two Family Lot Area: Minimum size: 10,000 sq. ft of buildable 102,788 sq. fL' of buildable • Setbacks: Required: Front: 20' Front: 20' Side: 23' (west) Side: 20' Side: 20' (east) Side: 20' - Rear. 20' Rear: 2U' Height: 38' 33' GRFA: 30,836 + 4,725 = 35,561 sq. ft. 21,625 + 4,275 = 25,900 sq. ft. Density: 9 ciweffing units per buildable acre or ' 8.1 dwel(ing units per buildable acre or 21 dwelling units 19 dwelling units Site Coverage: 35% of total area or 38,038.7 sq. (t. 19.5% or 21,137 sq. ft. Landscaping: 400/o of total site area or 43,472.8 sq. R 71.8% or 73,761 sq, ft. Parking: Per off-street parking requirements Meets code VI. RQONING CRITERIA , A. Suitabilitv of the proQOSed zoninp ' Staff's analysis of the suitability of the proposed zoning focuses on density, compatibility with surrounding developments, and ways that the proposed development can be buffered from existing neighboring uses. Staff recognizes that many of the surrounding properties adjacent to this parcel are multi-family complexes. The applicant has estimated their densities to exceed Residential Cluster (RC) standards and staff has confirmed this information. The surrounding multi-family developments have densities that range from 11.3 dwelling units per acre to 22.2 dwelling units per acre. Please see the chart below. There are also surrounding single family and primary/secondary developments which have densities that are lower than the proposal. 5 Name Untts Area penairy Intertocken 39 1,80 21.6 Columbine North 16 .92 17.4 Flussheim 4 • .24 13.8 tnnsbrook 8 .36 22,2 Columbine West 7 .62 11.3 Camelot 8 .36 22.2 . Though the density of the surrounding properties are higher than Residential Cluster, the type of development (single family, duplex or multi-family) effects the way ttie density appears on this site. For example, many of the developments are made up of townhouses. Since the units are more compact than detached single family homes, the structures do not cover as much of the site and are likely to have larger aceas of useabie open space. Staff believes that the proposal should be modified to improve the amount of useable open space, to reduce the amount of asphalt, and to increase architectural variety within the clusters on the site. , Specifically, staff believes that Units 13 and 14, Units 7 and 8, and Units 1 and 2 should be combined. The units to be consolidated, however, should be the smaller of the two styles. At this time, the larger unit with the employee housing caretaker apartment is shown in each of the three areas. We are concemed that the structures may be too large if triplexes are created. Therefore, in addition to consolidating these footprints, staff believes that the employee housing units should be shifted to other footprints in the development. We believe that the variety of massing created by a combination of units will help the develapment be more compatible with the surrounding properties, as they have been developed in more of a townhouse style. In addition, staff,believes that the resulting open spaces will be larger and will be able to accommodate additional landscaping, particularly on the northeast, northwest and central portions of the site. Landscaping is a key issue in staff's opinion; as the amount of density to be considered under the rezoning proposaV should be evaluated based on how it is buffered from adjacent properties. Staff is primarily concerned about the perimeter of the site. At this time, the applicant has committed to the following: 1. Six clusters of aspen located around the perimeter of the project along Bellflower and Kinnickinnick. These clusters range from three to eight aspen each. 2. On the east end of the siRe, there will be ten to iwelve aspen along Basingdale. 6 , ~'t~. • t, . ' 3. Two planfing areas of aspen made up of a total of fifteen to twen trees ' will be located next to the Camelot Townhouses. ~ ~ , ~ Staff understands that the drawings submitted to the Design Review Board (DRB) will . include additional landscaping and that the landscaping shown on these pians reflects • the basic landscaping needed to buffer adjacent properties. The landscaping listed . above must be incorporated into the DRB drawings and'must be planted prior to • issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the dwelling unit adjacent to the landscaping. , Another key issue that relates to landscaping is the preservation of the green space in the center portion of the site. Since the last worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the appiicant has had an environmental assessment (EA) done for the wetland area This report is attached to the back of this : memo and delineates the boundary of the wetland area as well as a 10 foot buffer area along all sides of the wetlands. The map from the EA was drawn on the previous plan which showed a building footprint within the buffer area. This has besn corrected. The revised location sites the building outside the buffer area. Staff believes that any rezoning approval should be conditioned with a requirement that the consultant retum to the site in the spring or summer to confirm that his analysis made during winter months is accurate. Any modifications that would be generated by the consultant would have to be incfuded into the site plan. Building footprints would have to be shifted if the update indicates that they are located in the buffer area. lf the footprints . need to be shifted, staff believes the project should be reconsidered by the PEC. There are some large existing aspen in this area adjacent to the wetland area to the . west. They range in size from two inch caliper to eight inch caliper. Staff believes that any trees that can be transplanted should be. If they are to be cut down, they should be replaced on a 1:1 ratio based on the caliper of the tree to be removed. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be replaced with two 4 inch caliper trees. Staff believes this is reasonable since larger trees do not transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect. Staff understands that the applicant desires to change the zoning from . Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi Family to allow additional units, . not necessarily more GRFA or site coverage. The applicant has agreed to reduce the amount of GRFA to below Primary/Secondary standards and maintain the amount of site coverage and height to Primary/Secondary standards. These restrictions will be recorded as plat restrictions. Staff does not have a problem with the number of units if they can be sited in such a way to provide adequate open space, buffering and minimal site coverage. In order to achieve this, we believe a more clustered design concept is necessary. We feel an adequate landscape plan has been provided, the _ wetland area has been protected, and that unit layout is good as long as the units are combined as suggested above. . B. Is the Amendment Providinq a Convenient Workable Relationship with Land _ Uses Consistent With Municipa( Obiecfives? . 7 Under this criteria, staff has evaiuated the rezoning proposal to ensure that it wiii provide workable relationships to thase praperties around the site. in addition, the rezoning proposal must be consistent with the Municipal Objectives. Ensuring that the future development will have a reasonably compatible relationship with the existing neighborhood has been tfie focus of much of this review. On January 17, 1994, there ' was a neighborhaod meeting attended by approximately thirty neighbors. Attached to _ the memo are all of the letters that have been received by staff from the neighbors. - The primary concems of the neighbors seem to revolve around pedestrian safety and tiraffic safety. Staff has contacted the Police Department and the Public Works ,.Department since the neighbofiood, meefing to ask them to look at increasing patrol as welt as increasing the number of stop signs in the area This appears to be a problem that needs to be solved independent of the rezoning issue. However, the proposal will have some positive impact on these issues, since there will be public improvements made by the developer. The Town is requiring the developer to provide a sidewalk that will run the length of the property. The applicant is proposing a 6 foot wide walk that will be detached from the edge of pavement on Kinnickinnick. The Town is requiring that this be a hard surface watk that can be maintained during winter months. It vvill be the responsibility of the homeowners association to keep the walk clear. This is,a Town wide requirement that applies to all developments that have ad}'acent sidewafks. The appficani is proposing a cinder walk; however, staff believes it must be hard surface. Please see the plat restrictions at the end of this memo regarding the sidewralk and other public improvements. . A concem related to safery involves tfie number of curb cuts on Basingdale, Bellflower, and Kinnickinnick. Originally, the appdicant had submitted a plan with five curb cuts on, Kinnickinnick and three on Bellflower and Basingdale. Since the original submittal, the architect has removed all curb cuts off of Basingdale and Bellflower. Staff believes that this is a significant improvement as the driveways were previously located relatively close to the intersections. At this time there are five curb cuts for the entire project which access from Kinnickinnick. These -curb cuts access shared driveways. Staff believes that the revised plan provides a more efficient use of the site and leaves more of the landas landscaped area and open space. Though there has not besn an increase in the number of curb cuts on Kinnickinnick fram what was originally submitted, staff believes . there is an opportunity to improve the situation. By relocating the access to Building . Envelope #1 from Kinnickinnick to the shared access on the southwest comer of the site, there would be more open space around Building Envelope #1, and one less curb cut on Kinnickinnick. Staff believes that this wouid be an improvement. Another concem of the neighborhood involved parking, storage, and general appearance of the project. The neighbors were concemed that individuals living in this - , development would not have adequate parking and that additional cars would be pariced in the neighboring parking lots. Staff has reviewed this concem with the • developer and believes that the two car garages for each unit and the driveways in _ front of each unit will accommodate the parking demand. An alternative woutd be to . - create a parking lot for guests. However, staff believes that the parking apron in front . , of each garage can accommodate gueyts most of the time. 8 ; ^ . Regarding storage, during the neighborhood meeting it was suggested that there be an area on the side of each garage for bicycles and other miscellaneous items. The applicant has designed one of the garages to be 480 square feet. The drawings show a template of a Suburban and a Cherokee to indicate• how much of the garage will be taken up by automobiles. The remaining area of the garage will be avaiiable for storage, and staff believes that this will be an adequate amount. One of the goals with the storage area was to ensure that the two parking spaces will always be available for - parking. Though this cannot be guaranteed, staff believes that providing the storage that is shown on the drawings is a reasonable assurance that the spaces will be available. Staff believes it is critical that the other units (with garages approximately 387 square feet in size) be expanded to the siie of the larger garage. A significant concem to the planning staff was how the developer was going to work out agreements with the neighbors adjacent to the southwest comer of the site conceming parking and access. Currently, there are parking and driveway , encroachments onto the Pedotto property by the neighbors. The applicant has worked closety with the two existing homeowners in this area 'and has worked out agreements with them for shared access. This access also includes a fire truck tumaround. All of the driveway in this area will be paved. The adjacent owners will share the expenses with the developer. Staff believes that this is an excellent reso(ution to a problem that - has occuRed for some time. Staff wants to emphasize the positive benefits that result from the solufion have been negotiated by the applicant. One of the final issues of concern by the neighbors involves the appearance of the project. The applicant has provided prototypical elevations as well as a perspective of three homes sharing one driveway. Staff believes that the design character of the homes is positive, including the materials, detailing and generat massing. Staff believes that the three employee housing units proposed in this development are consistent with the Land Use Plans goals of the Town to have employee housing units added to our community. We believe that this component of the development addresses a larger community need. By dispersing the three deed restricted employee housing units among the nineteen dwelling units, staff believes that there is a good balance of free market and employee units within the development. Attached to the . end of this memo are employee housing restrictions that have been tailored for this development. They are based on the Type III EHU; however, they do not include provisions that allow the sale of the employee housing unit. C. Does the RezoninQ Provide for the Growth of an Orderlv Viable Communitv? In order to ensure that the future development on the rezoned parcel will be developed in an orderly manner, staff has prepared the following plat restrictions which will be located on the plat and recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder: 9 u Plat Restrictions 1. All construction shall conform to the standards listed below and shall comply with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. 2. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between stn.ictures, inciuding all decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. After completion of the first structure and prior to the.application for any subsequent building permit, the applicant must provide surwey infoRnation veMying the locafion of previously built structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement will be met. 3. The height limitation for the development on this parcel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 feet. 4. All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% stope. _ 5. GRFA and site coverage and height shall be allocated for the structures as follows: - Butlding Envalopa 0 Dwwlling Units Crodk GRFA Tatal GRFA Slto Covoraga ?laight akwmd . 1 2 450 sq. ft. 2.080 sq. fl. 2.530 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 33 h. i 2 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 3 1 225 sq. h. 1.425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 4 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. R. 33 ft. 5 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 h. 6 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 7 1 225 sq. ft. 1,425 sq. ft. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 h. 8 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. h. 1.683 sq. ft. 33 h. 9 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 10 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 aq. h. 1,650 sq, h. 1,400 sq. R. 33 ft. _ 11 2 450 sq. ft. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. ft. 33 h. 12 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 33 ft. ' 13 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. h. 1,650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 14 2 450 sq. h. 1,680 sq. h. 2,130 sq. ft. 1,683 sq. h. 33 R. 6. No fences shall be allowed on this property. , 7. Phasing - The applicant shall provide the employee housing units according to the phases shown below. . 10 . . A. Prior to the issuance of a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on Building Footprints #1 through #6, the applicant shall secure a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of three deed restricted employee housing units. B. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit on Building Fooiprints 7, 8, 9 or 10, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for - the second of three deed restricted EHU for the development. C. Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO for any dwelling unit located on. Building Footprints 11, 12, 13, or 14, the applicant shall secure a final . CO or TCO for the third of three deed restricted employee housing units. The Fire Department and Public Works Department have reviewed the proposal and support the project with the following conditions. Fire Department 1. The fire access easement on the southwest corner of the site must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorcier prior to DRB approval af any dwelling unit if a common access on the southwest comer of the site is provided. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. Staff . wilf allow the site plan reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 7994 or the site plan revised on April 11, 1994 to be constructed. 2. All driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." 3. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works . 1. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of-way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town Engineer is requiring sidewalks, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings and/or grading plans to be provided by the developer. 2. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewalks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for any ciwelling unit. D. Does the rezoninQ complv with the Vail Land Use Plan? Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the Land Use Plan below: 1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance belween residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 11 , 1_2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). ' 5_1 Additional residenUal growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, - platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5_5 The existing employee housing base should be presenred and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The Land Use Plan designates this site as Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the dwelling units allowed on this site range from 7 to 33. Based on the MDR designation, staff believes some 6ncrease in units by rezoning is reasonabfe. The goals and objectives in the Land Use Plan describe development generally like the one being proposed. Goals 1.12 and 5.1 call for infill development that is not located in hazards. This plan complies with these goals. Also, the Land Use Plan calls for additional employee housing, which wil9 be included in this proposal. Staff believes the three employee housing units proposed are positive. VII. MIIdOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA The Subdivision Regula#ions in the zoning ordinance establish minimum standards foP the creatoon or modification of lots. The Subdivision Regulations allow for the division of existing lots with the creation of newr lo from previously unplatted properties. The zoning ordinance establishes the requirements for lot dimension, lot size and road frontage. These zoning standards have been met by the Pedotto proposal. The zoning code requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The proposed lot size is 102,788 square feet of buildabfe area. The minamuen frontage required is 30 Iinear feet on a public right-of-way. The proposed frontage is approximately 1,000 linear feet. There is also a requirement that the lot be abVe to enclose a shape 80 feet by 80 feet within its boundaries. This standard has also been fulfilled. In addition to the specific standards listed im the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Regulations have purpose statements vvhich are also criteria to review subciivision proposals. The purpose statements of the general provisions in the Subdivision Regulations (Section 17.04.010(A and B)) are provided be0ow: "17.04.010 • Purpose. A. . The Subdivision Regulations contained in.this title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Title 31, Article 23, Part of C.R.S., 1973. For the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Town of Vail, Colorado. 12 a B. To these ends, the regulations are intended to protect the environment to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, suffacient open space, and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the Town. These : regulations also provide for the proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper.distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental - improvement prograrres. The standards for design and - construction of improvements are hereby setforth to ensure . adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency , access, drainage, recreation, and light and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans and plats, and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide comQnon protection for the purchasers; and to regulate other matters and the Town Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public." The proposed plat will be taking a currently unplatted parcel and creating it as Lot 1, Innsbrook Meadows. Staff believes that the change from an unplatted parcel to a - platted lot will not negatively impact the criteria listed above. As part of the subdivision approval, the design and construction of improvements in the public right- of-way will be reviewed by the Town Engineer. The developer will be futly responsible *for providing a public sidewalk and drainage facilities adjacent to this parcel. Staff believes that these requirements fulfilt the standards listed above.- The Subdivision Regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes (17.040.010 (C)): "1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evatuated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required:' The, developer is fully aware of the requirements of the subdivision. 92. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Staff has evaluated the proposed rezoning and subdivision proposal relative to the surrounding properties. As previously discussed in this memo, the developments to the north of the site all exceed the proposed densities. Furthermore, staff has worked closely with the developer, the Fire Department, and the Public Works Department on the proposed site plan. The site plan will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office as an exhibit to the Innsbrook Meadows plat. The site plan has been carefully designed to minimize conflicts with developments on adjacent land, to preserve the environmentally sensitive area in the center of the site, and to ensure that all future development will be in compliance with Town standards. 13 "3. To protect and cmnserve the value of land throughout the municipailty and the value of buiidings and improvements on that land:' Staff believes that future development, in accordance wath the proposed site plan and plat, will not adversely affect the value of buildings and irmprovements in the . surrounding area. - - 9@4. To ensure that subdivision of properties is in cornpiiance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable. relationship aenong land uses, consistent with municipal deveBopment objectives." As discussed previously in this memo, the proposed re2oming and development on the replatted lot will be in cor¢formance with the proposed zone district of Low Density Multi-Family (LDMF). _ "5. To guide public and private policy and actimn 1n order to provide adequate and efficient Yransportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirememts and facilities and generally to proeride that pubUc facllities will hmve sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision:' Staff believes that the review by the Public Works Department has identified all issues such as transportation, water, sewage, etc. and that the existing infrastructure will be able accommodate the new development. The developer wrill be responsible for providing drainage improvements and sideuvalk improvetnents on the perimeter of this site. These will tie in with existing improvements in the area and will be consistent with the work the Town has done in the Intermountain neighborhood in the recent past. 1@6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newAy subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures." The applicant will be requesting Single Farrvily Subdivision review for each unlt as it is constructed. Once the foundation has been poured, the applicant will be able to submit a Single Family Subdivision application for that slte. Staff believes that using the Single Family Subdivision process, the larad will be further subdivided in conformance with the Town standards. . 7. To prevent the pollution of air,, streams, ponds, and to assure adequacy of drainage facblities, to safeguard 4he water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the vaBue of the land." Staff believes that the environmental assessment done for the central wetland area of the site adequately discusses the issues associated with that area. The wetland area has been delineated and a buffer area has been added to further protect the green 14 space. A condition of approval of the rezoning is that the consultant who provided the ~environmental assessment return to the site in spring or summer to verffy his estimates. Staff understands that during winter months, accurate wetland delineations cannot be done. ff there is any change to his original estimates, the appiicant will have to return to the PEC with the site plan modifications. The verification must be done prior to any issuance of a buildirag permit for this property. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed.rezoning and minor subdivision. The minor subdivision approval will be contingent on approval of the rezoning. We believe the proposed LDMF zoning is consistent with the rezoning criteria and subdivision criteria and will be compatible with the surrounding properties. Specifically, staff believes that the requested zoning is suitable for the site given that it will be integrated into the neighborhood per the design of the site plan. We belive that the request provides for workable relationships with suROUnding land uses and is consistent with municipal objectives. Specifically, it is consistent with five different goats as well as the MDR land use designation of the Town's Land Use Plan. Finally, staff believes that the plat restrictions will insure that the devetopment will contribute the viability of the community. The proposed subdivision meets all of the platting requirements of the Zoning Code as well as the purpose section of the subdivision section. Therefore staff recommends approval with the conditions that: (Please note that the condations shown below in bold reflect the changes per the Planning and Environmental Commission.) 1. The developer shall submit the subdivision plat, site plan, and recording fees to the Town prior to issuance of any building permit for a structure on this property. The plat and site plan shall include the ptat restrictions listed below and all future development shall conform to these. a. All construction shall conform to the standards listed betow and shall comply with the building footprints shown on the attached site plan. b. There must be a minimum 15 foot separation between structures, induding all dedcs and cantilevered portions, but exduding eaves. ARer the construction of the ffrst structure and prior to any subsequent building pernfit applications, the applicant must provide survey information verifying the location of previously buih structures to show that the 15 foot separation requirement shall be met given the constructlon of the proposed unlt(s). c. The height limitation for the development on this paroel shall be lowered from the 38 feet allowed by LDMF zoning to 33 teet. d. All dnveways to be constructed on this sAe shall not exceed 8% slope. e. GRFA, site coverage and height shall be allocated for the structures as follows: 15 Building Tocal GRFA EnwlaQa 0 DMwlling Unib CfodR GRFA Allowed SRo Covengp HNgM 1 2 450 sq. h. 2,080 sq. h. 2,530 sq. h. 1.800 sq. ft. 33 h. 2 1 225 sq. h. 1.425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 3 1 225 sq. fl. 1.425 sq. ft. 1.650 sq, ft. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 4 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. fl. 1.650 sq. h. 1.400 sq. ft. 33 h. 5 2 450 sq. ft. 1.680 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. ft. 1.683 sq. ft. 33 R. . 6 1 225 sq. ft. 1.425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. ft. 1.400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 7 1 225 sq. ft. 7.425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. h. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 8 2 450 sq. ft. 1.680 sq. h. 2.130 sq. h. 1.663 sq. h. 33 ft. 9 1 225 sq. fi. 1.425 sq. ft. 1.650 sq. h. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 10 1 225 sq. h. 1,425 sq. R. 1,650 sq, ft. 1,400 sq. h. 33 h. 11 2 450 sq. h. 1.680 sq. ft. 2.130 sq. h. 11683 sq. h. 33 h. 12 1 225 sq. 1t. 1.425 sq. R. 1.650 sq. ri. 1.400 sq. h. 33 h. 73 / 225 sq. ft. 1.425 sq. h. 1.650 sq. h. 1.400 sq. ft. 33 ft. 14 2 450 sq. h. 1.680 sq. ri. 2.130 sq.1t. 1.683 sq. n. 33 n. , f. No fences shalt be allowed on rthis property, , g. Phasing - The applicarn shall pmvide the employee housing unils aocording to the phases shown below. i• Prior ro the issuanoe oYa fir+al CO w TCO fa any of the first aix struaures construqed in Innsbrook Meadows, the applicarn shatl seare a final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of three deed resuicted empbyee houaing units. ii• Prior to requesting a final CO or TCO ior any of the aeventh through tenth structures constructed in ' Innsb?ook Meadows, the applicant shall sewre a final CO or TCO for the seoond of three deed restnaed EHU for the development. iii. Prior to requestinq a finaF CO or 7C0 ior eny of the eleventh through fourteenth structures constructed in Innsbrook AAeadows, the rpplicant shall secure a finat CO or TCO for the third of three deed resMcted employee housmg units. 2. The developer shall have the Environmental Assessment updated and shall have any required amendment to the site plan presented to the PEC for their review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permit on this property. - • , , 4. The driveways serving Building Footprint #1 shall be modified to reduce the length by shifting the curb cut to the west. The Town Community , Development staff and the Tovirn Engineer must approve the change prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this property. 16 5. The existing aspens located to the west of the green space area in the center of the site shall be transplanted or replaced on a 1:1 rato based on the caliper of the existing trees. For example, and eight inch caliper tree would have to be replaced with two 4 inch caliper trees. Staff believes this is reasonable since larger trees do not transplant well according to the Town's Landscape Architect. 6. Staff may approve up to 10 foot shifts in building footprint location from - those shown on the plan approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on February 28, 1994 as long as the 15 foot separation betrveen the units is maintained. - 7. The applicant shall provide a minimum garage area within each structure of 480 square feet. 8. The applicant shall amend the site plan and. subdivision plat according to the Public Works and Fire Department comments listed below. These changes shall be done prior to any DRB hearing for any dwelling unit on this site. Fire Department A. The fire access easement on the southwest corner of the site must be defined and then recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder prior to DRB approval of any dwelling unit if a common access on the southwest comer of the site is provided. The easement must be posted in field with "No Parking" signs. Staff will aUow the site plan reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 1994 or the site plan revised on April 11, 1994 to be constructed. B. AIl driveway surfaces must be "all weather driving surfaces." C. Hydrants must be installed according to Town of Vail standards. Public Works . A. Detailed regrading and landscape plans for the sidewalk and right-of- way area must be provided prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling units. The Town Engineer is requiring a hard surface sidewalk, curb, gutter, storm sewer, inlets, engineering drawings and/or grading plans to be provided by the developer. B. Easements must be dedicated for the sidewaiks, drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, etc. prior to a DRB hearing for any dwelling unit. 9. Either site plan, the one reviewed by the PEC on February 28, 1994 or the one reviewed by the PEC on April 11, 1994 may be constructed by the applicant. 17 10. Approval of the minor subdivision shaff be contingent on approval of the rezoning. c:lpecvnemoslpedotto.,o, _ . ~ . 18 . ~ -cft DAMES & MOORE 1125 SEVENTEE:VTH STREET, SUiTE 1200, DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2027 (303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299-7901 January 21, 1994 Community Development Town of Vail • 75 S. Fmntage Road Vail, CO 81657 , Attn: Mr. Andrew Knutdsen File: 02442-050 Re: Wetland Analysis - Pedotto Property West Vail Dear Mr. Knudtsen: .The above-referenced property was inspected on.January 19, 1994, to determine whether wetlands occur on the site. This inspection was conducted with Greg Amsden of Christopher Denton Real Fstate and Russell Forest, Town of Vail staff. This analysis must be considered preliminary because of snow, which covered most understory vegetation. Therefore, shrubs and trees were used to indicate potential wetland areas, along with site hydrology along a stream. The results of the field inspecdon are provided in the attached letter report. Please contact me at 1-299-7836 if you have questions on the information pmvided herein. Sincerel , _ D MOORE ren . Hettin , P phD Seruor Ecolo s Enclosure cc: Greg Amsden t.Rx:mcm v:W.;npca«Loureoi oFFtcas wOuowIDE . . ~ PLAT OF SURVEY • ' OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH,RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TF1 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAK EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO ~„s~M~ . • . . . • ~ w.«~ ~.r ~r ~«.a~~~ ww.var r wn~~ u i.~.~~~ . • ~ n~ ~ ~n~.~.~w ~r ...wr.r ~r ~w• a o~n.~. ~ w~ 1 ~W ~ui... ~ ~ • ~ ~ M~~ wlNl~ ~~IM I~IIw~~ r ~ 11~1~ ~M~ R•I~w1 y~ r~1~1~ W Ir ~Y y~ .1~ • 1• ~J ~w i ~M w~~ N ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ M ~Ir 11 HMINIiY M~~~~ MI1~1 y 1 ~ • . • 1~ ~1 ~ ~ • 11~.1~ 1~~1 • INI I~~M ~ ~ 'r,• . ~ =~T,_= „ ~.~.'.7. • ~ ` i~». ~Z :i..~.= ~i.:.w.r~ w.~. i~.ii~»~~ ~~~i.i~ , ~ . ri~IM M ~ NN~ ,1 11i'~ Y~t. 1~1.~~ • i ~ ~ 1~~~1 Ir~~ ~w ~ t~ w • ~ Ny • 1 W~ 11.1~ ~~y u F~ : ~Z.~ ~ ~ ~••~i ~wr• 1~~.~1 :wt ~I~y IM ~ i~~wM • ~Y.1~111 / • ~~~~Itiww M~~w 1 1 ~ . 1 11 1~ li 1~.~ Iw Ir •i • . • ~ • Ir~•~l N.~1~~ • I~W ~ ~ w~~~~ MI~ 11 ' ~ ~ ~ i ~ n ~ ~:.L.~n~».'.3~. a.~ u.~S'i..~~... a«. w . i ~ ~ ~ i~wa..~ii :.~'•:'~~~•i:W~ II~.M Iw~l ~M~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~rl~ li i~~~~~~ 11 • ~ ti W~ ~~.M Ir~~l ~ _ • . ~ i~ ~i j ~ _ - w..'^.. ...i: ii .i. I i w ~i..~ . (7 I . 1% .w: W W~i. IM.M 1«~ ~ . w~~rMl ~Y • IIN~~y i.L~~Y • ~ .~r~.~.~ ~ ~ ~ M~ti~~ ~I~Iy. ~ . . ~ M~rl~l~r ~ Iw Iw1~ 11 ~1 IMIw 11~ wY • , ~ ~ ` ~M~ + ~~L~ y ~ ~ ~ ' •1~~~~ M w~ ~.~M~ N+1 I~Mw 1 • fl~- ~~r~~ ~i ~~~w~~ I~ Yn~~ ~i~ ~ ~ Z ~~t / lMN ~ ~ rMr ~ • ^T ~ ~ • • ~ ' i 1 • f+w~ua~w: wu~ f~..+... uwt ~24L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .•~•,t ~ rt / s ' • 1 ~ wa`;YY.~1l4 ` W.iYM~~h.~~'~N?MI' .w.y~ , Y' I ~ J~ • / l 4 ~ , ` : . YIl W*F.f.N't/.1.1M: ' . : ~ •14 ~~~~1 ; +'~a•`:~ rti~ ! /~•~~'J~~P.. ~.1'. ~/r 0.~1 ~p _ _ ~ ~ _ F . 'J ' Guo ~ rya %a r'°"'r :~0?~ . ~ ` ~ o Ir .ti ' - r.,,. • ~ ~ yy, ~ ~ / / W~I ~ ~ - " ~ ~ K~ ~ ~s~ ~ • N w' i • ~ ~ ; ~,a. ...w.~~ ~ n / I~S ~ •1«F Z ~ , / j~1~ ~ _ w- ~ ~ ~t+t~ ~ ~ r..~ / ~ .c ' C 8 • , / [..?'r ~ , 27 ~ , r` r i ? - - 1 L -I ~ ~ ' J - • J?`}~ ~ ~ ' ` r... y~ e-oeu 3 ~ ~ •O~ ~ f ~ r. DENTL9r^ ~iG9i ~ ~l ~ ' ' ' ' e. ~ •t'L'- vUs:~i ~ ~ ~ _ • - o',~•~~ . . yv ~ ~ ~~~~/~i ~ :f''• `~~tf'f'4 . . "It;.~'.~., •a .~n ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ • . ,;,xc~c rr~ w+ t 1~" ~ _ ~ j~C,~..._ ~'ti~- , / ~ / ~w. . ~ar.. ~.~rw .~w~ ~ ' ` ,J ~e~~ ~ ar.. r• l[~[MO ru vwweW •w ~.m 9USM f,0.mOMJM7 MIEli ~f. C.~H7C~NIA!JM ~ ~tir ~ • ~~.nn~~ ~~u ~.ti ~ w.~ ~r • Aw~ ar~a ~/~M' ~tdN ~ W r~~ J^~~~~ w. • I~r wr~ . ' BL!KK D . . • w.. w/. YA& IV~l.iMLV11lA! , fiEvuB!hCLYT ' D ~..rv ' • . ' w.m ca1ra L.w.eRs Y w• w • w.r i.. ~ ~.r=w 1 ¦ir4' w~i wn• •~r! -~u/ rnu r.rw.~w.w ~nrr.nnnrw • r A Ar 1" r r.~ a~ ~l :rW:A 9~K• ~w 0 MM M ~ w~ w~ ~~.r ~r w w~.aw r r~r w~•~• ~rw w~ ~ ~ ~W W Iw~ II~ W rM N W r~111M1~ W~. ~n. na~ m. ,~5''S'OCI4T~'S' ems n..,I ratct go. ra. I~ING & d4 v'i'oa°,~w. "ee' I ~ DC" , . . . . . . ) t!' ' : ~!s`~k;t • ~w.'ti~~'=-"~, . . ~ . . . ~ , . , . ~ . . . . . ~ ~ ~ • ~ . ' e~ 1 • . ' ~ . ? ' 1 • ' , ~l • . . ' ' ' . . . ' ..i . .L~~t~ ~ . • • . . . . . . , ~ • ' . . . . . . . . . , . ~ . . . . . • • Y \ • J • _ ~ - ~ ~~1 ~~~t'~~j ~ ~ ~ • . . • ~ ~ , ~i ' ~ 1 ~ • ~ _.1_ T_-~~ . • _ ~ t• I • ~ • . - • • . _~`~dd1r - Ll.~-Ttii \ ~~F 1 1-~",.t?, I`' ~'1 ~ - Y'=Y... ~ 1=1~-~.~...d:i 4_~ ' _Y._ • _ ~ _ - - i _ • `i. ~ d _ _ • " - . . _ d . ~ ~r;,~,~~ - - _ _ ~ . . J ' I~!r y. _ " ~ - ; ~7.: ~ _ • . . _ . . ; • ~ • - . • . . . , . e . ~ t:. . . . . . ~i:~... . 1 ~ . i ~ . i.i.. • ~ , . ~ . . • ~ ~ ~ . ; . . ' . . , ~ U115~~ ~:G F= i'~is.?~-~ i.,~ S . • Y~ , ~ . . j~,~~q~ . . . ' ' [ . ' ~ ' ~ • • ~ ~ ~'iY~a~B~.;~y,'.4,~•~~:,4 ~~~..f:.., l.; ~ : Yj" .':i , . ' . ' ~ . . `~~i•+ .1 .y'~. i;i G~.ii1'1'i~"1~'iy;J1~~!~.;, .t~.. . ' ~ ~ . ~ , • . . . . ''.~:f.;t:~:'~~i~~+. ;f••p=t:~: • s::. ' . ` • ' . , ; ~~~~jif r . . , . . , . , . ,~5.;'. ; ; , . , , • , . . . . • i'; . : ~ , . . . . . . : ' ' ~ ' ~ ; ~ ~ . . : . , , . . . . . . . - r;.~:, , . . .u..._.~... . • ~ . ~ ' s.~,",' . • • ' . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ? . • . ~ ~ , . ' , ' . i . . i ~ ~~.~~t I . . . . . ' ~,,~:..t : : . . . . . . • . i ~ : ~ , ~ , . . . • , . . ~ , 7 ~ . . . . . . . . . ; C'~1 ' ' . • . . • _ .t ~ ~i I , MJ..~' ~ , . . • • ~•.I'~,N • , . ~ , . : ~ . . ~ 1• ~ • . ~ ~ ~ I'. I.. i,. ' ' . ' ' • ~.~''~•il:: ~ ~ ' • • ~ • ~ ' 'i. . • . . s~ . . _ • ~ - • I ~ ~ ~ • ~ -i"~ ~.~~'t~ • , , , - i ~~L ~ r~•~ •w„ ~ , ~ ~ ~ _~.--~-i _-~1. ~ _ . : t • . . . ' . . . i 1 . i - ~ _ ^~i a:aL.ir-~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ • • a ~ " 1 u y;, - I • ~c~".~'; ~ ~ - . . ~ : . _ ~ _ -~:y ~ ~.'t~b~. :~:t.. -~~~R_• JL r• - _ _ ~ N- ~--_1 1 ; ' _ , r • ' ~r 'r = - - u • ~a' ( ' , . ~ `jr ~(~,}i'~'s-.. !x~ - ~ _ • _ .ea : ~ , _ ' ; I;~ . y: I ~ • i . . u.` ' ~ _ • . . ~ . ~ ' ^ ~ . • : • • ~ ~ ` • r . . . • , . .t ~ 1 . o. ~ ~ • ~ . : . , ~ . . :u'115~z:~Gl~'- ~'~,?~-~i.J~S . ; . . • v... ~ . i_~1.~.f. , . . ~ r . . , t , ~;:_~..r.; " , ~ . ~ r ti• . 1 , . L.11M ~.i ~ l~~ . , • . . • : ~ ~ . . , r•~~ • . : . . . . . • • . ~ . ' . . , ~ . . ~ t;~f;: , . • . • • - • .r'. . ~ ,.i•_. . , • ~ . . . , . . . ~ ~ •~,:1~.~"~ . • I. • ti~9'r ~ . . . . ~ ' ~ ' . . ' • ~j'~''' ~ It' ~ , ~ '•11~ . . . ' _ . , . , ' , , f • . ~ . , I•.•1 ! i . . . . ~ • • . . . . ; . . ~ • . , • , • • • , , ' • • • . . , ~ . ' ' . • ~ . ~ . ~ • ~ • ' . , ' • , ' ~ . . • • , ,J;f. ~ ~ ~ : ~ • ~ . ~ Z ~ . :.1:•: - t•'~ - '~f i~...._ , .`'i~ J.. i'•j ~''I . . . ~ ~ co ~ V C'4TAGE 81E C4I:LE'~1".Ititl 30.feet ~ Fa 05 Oeor i/OIYT cov m . ' ~ . LS. ~561 o W~ ~ a;~ 8 ? . ~Cb , • ~ . ~ _ _ - _ f_ i INV 76 ` - • . ~ ~ • . ~i•.i ~ ~ C'm " g; 63 Do• • °o~ • O_C8-N66' 36' 1 59 ~ °147, 43 Am 6'44 , 268.65 ~ 2o` , O~r i \ l ea, ~ ~ See CON S ?.tOttE H4 a pa - ` . . , ' ~ ~e' t ~ . ~ w • ~ - ~ 160 ~ p z-~„ . • ~ • a ~ . 77 0 4 ~ • ~ 785~,~ - :A 7 H60 - ~.r' S•'~ ` - ` - - s_;.-, ~ ~ - -M. H. R!M 57.130 - ;-~:~~_..w ~ • _ _ , v. • I~I 4 9. TO~W U 46.~~~ = ' - IT 9 ,6 _ ;JC'~~ ~ • , •I~~rti. r~~. ~ ~ ~ y 8 8- ~ . • ~ ~'HM: . . . . - ~ . . . . ~ ' ~ . . - (S.E '~ti~.. ~ : .-~r~•~. • . _ : , . ..,i. . . . ' ~ L. ~:I • fr . ' ~ . , . ~ ~ :~~~~:::;~~?.;~r~~~~=..~~r::•~..~ ~ ~ . . ~ : . . '.~'.~,Y~ : - . . _'••:~~ti~~;;=: _ ~ ~ _ . . v ~ r 0 ...~r' , 3 ~ • i!e 'S , ~ , _ . . • I - s ~ . " ~ ~ c• _ "".`'p}W.•:?...t! y.. _ , V!!.: . t. Plate 1. Willow-dominated stream that floNvs southeast to northwest across the property. Area of property on the left side of photo is non-forested. ,~c _ , - - • ,-,~.i . - . ;t.r . : . , ~-w ~ '1t yY _ 4ee!_ _ h.l,~ i~ • ~ - -Y . / ~~~u ~ .Yr.K. :a'-....-`~~jc~.lr:.: L:L.•-' . :J « ;-~r; p . •,~~!.~i..~_^ ' y . Z ~ ! ra ~ _ ,r.•rr--. _ ~ : ° • ~ . Plate 2. "A small seep may be indicated by the presence of co\v parsnip and cow bain (center background). . ~ . AMERIC1iN ' ~r * • ~ S~Z E~Ct1ANGZ 4 . / ~ . _ a~~o~ ~ E~ UV~Q . - ~ ~ ~ . ti~ c~~~l ~ ~-v~~ ~ w ~ . t o~d ~ ~-1~-~ . . ~-~~~~„moo . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~1 C'~~c U•~ ~Y1 . ~ ~ ~n~c~~ ~ 1 225 V~~all Street Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-1477 Q~itside Colorado 1-800.327-1 ~ ininEY non Jan gq 10:49 PAGE 2/2~ + . ' . - TO: Grcg Amsdan " And.7 R.zudtsen . , ~FROM: Rap Chenep 2754 Basingdale Blvd. . ' J • 1.76-4935 . I map not be able to attend the neighborhood meeting this • even.ing, so- I wanted to conve} ny fee.lings on the Froposed . development on the Pedotto prcperty.. . . I have to say that I don't uaderstand the opposition which is beinq mounted to the davelopment, since it seems to me *_o coavey a ver-I residential fealinq, which is what I think . most people in Intezmountain are hopirxq to have, insofar as it is possible with the condominium projacts nlreadp in . the neighborhood. I think it is a goo3 idea to bsild single family homes, since.that is what fa,-nilies in Vail want now that we are ~ coming of aqe. The families that haves lived here long enough have qrosan fron rentinq apart+nents, to craaing condorainiums, thzn duplcxes and ultimately single familp ' homes. Regardless of ahetcer or not that is the best use of our limited space, that is what peopla want. Buildirig the homes for sale, zather than rental, also adds to the residential qsality of the =roject. : I thir.k the revised sita p:an appears to be an improvement aesthetically on the orivinal sita pla.n. : . As I mer.tioned at the work session in December, my onlp concern would be that a rezonir.q to low density raulti-family, so that thc nature of the developraer.t ceuld not ba changed ' once the ir.crcase3 density was approved. I'm scrry that I might not be able to a-ttend tre meeting, since so often only•negative vcices are heard at these ' _ 'meetings. If I can geL aWay from my. otlzer appointment early enough, I will be there. . f: . l . • - . ' ' - - . • ; ; . • • _ - ~w:~~:- _ - . . . . . . . . . . _i~ • . ';~.:i;.~. , : • • Chules Overy 2833 Kinnicl:inrudr #3 ~ Vail, Colorado 8I657 (303) 479-9I33 = L . • l : ~ 'cf 3 Sun, Dec 19, 1993 1"~ • . To The Pfanning and Environmenfal Commission, Town of Vaii, h ( must (odge, in the strongest possble terms, my protest to your convening a p(anning ~(=~S and zoning worksession regarding the rezoning of the "Pedotto parcel" in . Intermountain during what is certainiy one of the Valley's most busy periods. I received your notice for an initial meeiing on the 13th of December and was ab(e to : •--take time to attend. t spent one and one half hours waiting for the "request for ' worksession" on the 2850 K;nnickinnick parcel to come on to the 2genda. After the first item of the agenda had not been finished, it was evident that the meeting was , going to progress slowly. I had not planned to spending the entire afternoon ai the . meeting and had to (eave. In addition, Iwas frustrated by the fact that I could not find anyone in the front office of the buiiding who knew what a"request for worksession" ,-was. , If the request was a minor procedura( matier, might ii not, more democratically, . . have been disposed off at the beginning of the meefing? If "a request for worksession ~ is a schedu(ing matter should it not be stated as such. In addition, I have not received ~ a mailed notice of the meeting on 20th December aithough i;was on your list to receive ' a notice about the initial meeiing. t am unab(e to atfend the meeting on Monday the 20th as I have had prior work commitments for over 4 months: I am very interested in the-proposai as ( live at 2833 ~ Kinnickinnick n3 and my residence fooks out across Kinnicwnniclc road at the property in *question. . . : I am not unfavorably disposed to the deve(opment of the Pedotto parcel as 1 believe . ~ that suifable deve(opment of a significant portion of this land will impcove the. • Inte: mouniizn neighborhood. Furthermore, I am very encouraged by the open discourse that your department nurtures regarding all of Vai1's planning questions. I do not teel that I have adequate information regarding this development and, at this time, 1 am opposed to the plan as outlined in your memorandum of Dec. 13. I feel that the timing of your worksession on this property is most inappropriate. The . neighborhood in question is certainfy a"working" neighborhood and most residents :will be very inconvenienced by this meeting if, indeed, they are able to attend at all. : . - Shou(d there be any question that the submitfai or scheduling of this worksession hasr in any way been affected by the above concerns I wiil fuliy pursue my legal - . F. ~ - . . . aliernatives. In addition, Iwill become vociferous and obstreperous in my opposition . . to the app(icants proposai. • - . ' : j•. . - - - - - - - - _ I ::I . . ' ~ ~ • , . • ~ )AAhY.-YOKUBO St .1&=AT_$ w ..c' _ . CC1:ST' Lh.O~: CC..:SI.l.T.•.?cT.! hRCHITEGTL1IlE . , ~ Dcccmbcr 20, 1993 ~ • : . • - ; ~ • • . . - . , , . . . . . . ; • _ - T'hc Citv of Vail , - ' ' - Plannin4 Dep~rtment; . Vai1, Colorado ~ ; . • . . . : . . , ; . . ATN:, Andy Knudtsal ~ , • ~ • . : : . i : RF.: .R;50 Kinpiclanri;icL- Road Zorling , Dcar iv(r. Knudtscn- . . ~ . • : ; ; , _ Yurs~.~ant to our recerit discussions,'1 wish'to fcrmally outline 14 objections regarding the Pedotto Parcel devc'.opnlent plans, ~as currcntly prctented. 't`bs incieasa.in dznsity on the proocrt}•, couplcd iS-ith thc, sigaificant amount of hard .urface ~ areas, wi11 result in zn ircreased run-off. A p:eliminary invesubation reveals a great deal of chis run•aff:has gciteiitial: ,o char.ne_1 itsellf intn the adj3cenC parcel at'the cxist:ng VaiI Swim and Terir:is Club entiance. lnis increascd nin-off will not o:lly cause problenu . associatedwitli the entrance; but it wi;l have a n.*oaiive impact,on the site drainage on the ~ structures imnediateiy ad;acer.t to Kinuickirnick Ftoad, ; • . . ; - • • • . , Tf:e second_concern which v~c have:regar~np the increased density and the proposed plan, zelatas to the arcliitectural de;ign which 'sbeing proposed. Wc lughly recoinmend t;iaL the' deveIoper softcn the yery hard lines of his prc?jcct;tlirou&h the utiJization vf pcr'mcter earth berming, and a genetous in:ta!lation of conifers and decidt:ous trees to soften the visttal I1I1p3C2. ~ , . . I«ish to adri;e ; ou that I am not in obaection to the devcloper's proposed project. However, in the bcst;ir.terest oi the irnage oT c;ci!eloprient in ihc tU%4n of ~'ail, tlle aboa•e : iterns need to be adciresced :by the;developer. • , - l 1C •1'Cl . ~ ' ' • , . • ~ . . I , i ~ , i J es A.I.A ' ~ . . . mFnww c,rna ' ; . _anT sL.;rE tc~ iov~r c e ~ ~ , sot,~x~~sr oMcE c~x~Rnh a~-~ • . • seA7•l~a. .~.~is. , v~o~t~~~ssr. Je•,n;Iw,r~u-,RttLR~f ASF'.~:G7'U?I961f'I CJRA:AF~t.GU.IFC:1~:..122E:S . HOL'STOW,MLA:.:1x: D-~'~'FRCO{.C~tA.'10~2:3 ' 21~.621•?!22 ~ 7:<-Jl~•filJ ' iI3 ' 2~dSl.9:ti1 ~'F.l~ • ~L•i0.f17I • 3C~•9:1d7LV ~ , ~:..:,s•:,za ~r~v,;~ ri~ : , •isttia~ trwr) .+f!-S6LSiES ff41 . : . . , • 3rd May, 1994 Dear Vail Town Councilperson: . I have been a bit overwhelmed recently by all of the irons I have in the fire so didn't get the telephone calls made that I would have liked to make. I hope you will have time to read this note, then, before making a decision on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994 (rezoning of Pedotto parcel). While Ernie and I are not as affected by the rezoning as some of our neighbors may be, we do feel that the number of buildings planned for the Pedotto Parcel is out of porportion with the near neighborhood. True, there are a number of condominium and townhouse projects across the street to the north of this parcel, but most of the homes to the right, left, and behind the property (except for The Camelot) are single family or primary/secondary homes. The ambiance of the area will certainly be lost. Now when one crosses the bridge one appears to be driving into the forest; if this project is allowed and completed, one might as well be driving into a Denver Subdivision. Some of my younger neighbors are concerned as to what the completion of this project might do to real estate taxes. While we are in a position to handle an increase, many of the young families who have recently purchased in the neighborhood, while prices were down and interest rates low, may be very much affected. Their ability to make the payments may be marginal, and they may be forced out of the area down valley. We would really hate to see this happen as we feel we need young families in this end of the valley; they are Vail's future. Thank you, for your time. I respectfully request that you consider all of the ramifications of allowing a rezoning of this parcel before you make your decision. Sinc' er~ly, J Brown MEMORANDUM TO: Vcul Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager~ - DT: April 22, 1994 , RE: Work Program for Employee Housing Introduction At the Work Session on April 19th, the Council identified six housing tasks on which you wished us to focus. These included the planning cmd construction of the Vcdl Commons project; construction of employee housing on the lots adjacent to,the Town Mcmager's residence; establishment of a mortgage pool/soft second program; cmd prepcsation of site plcros for Pcircel H, the Old Public Works Shop site, cmd the Water District Pcircel. The Council also requested that we identify the expiration date of the Timber Ridge deed restrictions. I have also listed the on going efforts of the stcdf regcirding housing. The purpose of this memo is to provide the Council with information on these ideas, to advise you of the tasks necesscuy to implement these projects, cmd a recommendation regcirding priorities. ' Vail Commons The RFP for the plcmning of the Vail Commons project has been prepcsed cmd approved by Council. It has been distributed to approximately forty consultcmts. The proposals cse scheduled to be returned May 16th. The Vail Commons Task Force will review them cmd select a consultcmt by the end of May. Work on this project is expected to begin around June 1 st and be complete by December of this yec[r. Assuming PEC, DRB and Town Council approval, cmd assuming project fincmcing ccm be secured, project construction could begin in Spring 1995. As you cire awcire, the $300,000 grcmt for the State for housing must be used by June 30, 1995. Town Mcmager Lots The Town of Vcdl owns four lots immedicrtely east of the Town Mcmager's residence. These lots, described as Lots 1,2, 3, & 4, Block H, Vcul Das Schone, lst Filing, cle located on Gcsmish Drive. These four lots are 1.08 acre in size cmd are zoned P/S. The current zoning on these lots would allow up to eight units to be constructed. Approximately three yec[rs ago the Town had several conceptual site plcros prepc[red for this property. These plcros cire in the files of the Community Development Depc[rtment cmd cse available for your review. Please note that each of the plcros shows eight dwelling units on these lots. To construct eight units on these lots would require cm SDD or several vcsicmces. Six units could be constructed with the existing plat. If you wish to proceed with this project, the Council should review these plcros cmd select one on which to proceed. Once the Council has selected the preferred site plcm, the steps necesscay to proceed with this project cQe as follows : 1. Hire a consultcmt to prepc[re drawings. 2. Submit necessary applications (SDD, vcQicmce, etc). 3. Review cmd approval by PEC. 4. Review cmd approval by Town Council. 5. Review cmd approval by DRB. 6. Prepcse construction documents. 7. Construct units. If the Council desires, we will schedule a work session to review these site plcros. Once you have selected a preferred plcm, we will as indicated in Step 1 hire a consultcmt to finish the site plcmning, prepcme the construction design, cmd to see the project through the design review process. Upon project approval, we will hire a construction mcmager supervise the site work cmd construction of the units. Given the level of neighborhood interest (and opposition), it would be appropriate to schedule a public hecsing on this matter ecirly in the process. In addition to approving the project design, Council also needs to decide how to hcmdle these units after they have been constructed. The alternatives rcmge from renting the units to selling them. I believe this issue ccm be dealt with during the Council's review of the project. Funding for the construction would come the from Housing Fund Account which has a fund balcmce of approximately $800,000. It should be noted the construction of these units is mechcmically fcarly strca.ght forwcird. However, (as you cire well aware), the Council ccm expect significcmt neighborhood opposition to this project. The construction of a pocket pcmk could cuneliorate these concerns to some extent. It should also be noted that the Trappers Run issue could also cdfect this project, in that if the Town purchases Trappers the need for open space in West Vail is lessened. ' Old Town Shop Site The Town of Vcul also owns a lot on the South Frontage Road across from the Vcul Associates mcuntencmce ycird. For a number of yecrs this property was used as a the town's public works facility. It is now leased to the VRD, although the Town retcuned a portion of the building for storage. This property is .52 acres in size and zoned PUD. Our initial studies indicated that this pcircel could support between five and ten units. PcLrcel H Site Pcscel H is located in East Vail. Although it is located within the corporate limits of the Town, this pcircel is owned by the Forest Service. T'he property is approximately 10 acres in size. This site was identified the Housing Authority's Study and the Open . Lcmds Plcm as being potentially suitable for housing. Water District Parcel The Vcdl Valley Water District owns a small pcircel on Red Scmdstone Road which it intends to sell or trade. The site is approximately 1.24 acres in size. If rezoned to LDMF, this pc[rcel could support ten or eleven units. We cire in the process of prepciring cm RFQ for design services to prepcse cmalyses and site plcros for these pc[rcels. In addition to cmalysis, plcmning and design services, surveys, topographic maps, and title resecirch may also be required. We cire also contacting the owners of the pca'cel to advise them of our intentions. However it should be noted that we have had discussions about housing with both of these entities previously. Mortgage Pool The mortgage pool as envisioned would provide a funding source to help home buyers lessen the impact of the down payment to purchase homes in Vcul. I cun in the process of setting up a meeting with Jen Wright, Andy Knudtsen, Kristcm Pritz, Steve Thompson, Jerry Flynn, and Mcirk Ristow to discuss this proposal. No date has been currently been set for this meeting. Timber Ridae Restrictions - Timber Ridge Apartments were constructed between 1979 and 1981. This apc[rtment complex contcdns 198 units. As pcirt of the project approval, these units were deed restricted until November 30, 2001. On Going Stciff Efforts The Stcdf is currently working on zoning code canendments that should help with the housing issue. The first would allow developers to use common cQea allocated to multifcunily or commercial buildings to be used for employee housing. The second will tighten up the EHU requirements. The Staff is proposing to require the unit be rented, that the owners pay a fine or something equivalent if they don't rent the units, and that the rental rates be similcs to other compcirable units within the town. Recommended Priorities As you may recall during the work session with the Housing Authority, Jen Wright cmd Kathy bLcmgenwalter recommended focusing on one project cmd finishing it before taking on additional projects. It is my recommendation the Council invest resources, both fincmcial cmd staff time on the projects listed in the following order: 1. Vcdl Commons. 2. Adopting code chcmges discussed previously. 3. Pursuing lots adjacent to town mcmager's residence. We recommend using the existing platting, proposing three duplexes, and selling the units once they cire built. An alternative is to utilize an SDD approach for clustered units to allow four duplexes. The trade offs related to review process would need to be evaluated by the Housing Authority cmd the Council. 4 Hire consultcmt to develop mortgage pool. 5. Gather information and site plcmning for Pcircel H, water district pcircel, cmd old Town Shops pcErcels for future consideration. Thcmk you for your consideration of these issues. a MEMOR.ANDUM TO: Vcul Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Mcmager / RE; Town Mcmager's Report DT: April27, 1994 Community Development Work Program At the Mcirch 8th Council work session, the Town Council reviewed cmd prioritized the work program for the Community Development Depcirtment. The Council's priorities cire reflected in the attached exhibit (Exhibit A). At the work session last week (April 19), the Council reviewed the SDD ordincmce. It was our perception, based on the Mcsch 8th meeting, the SDD ordincmce was to be revised to make several minor modification s, and that the comprehensive review would take place later. However, following this discussion, the Council agreed to move forwcQd immediately with a comprehensive review of the SDD regulations, pcirticularly relating to the applicability of SDDs in general throughout the community. In accordcmce with the Council's wishes, we cse proceeding with this review. In order to mcantcun cm orderly flow of work, I am requesting the Council revisit the priorities established Mcirch 8th. Specifically, you will need to remove one of the high priority items in order to make room for the work on SDDs, assuming this is what the Council . desires. Thcmk you for your consideration of this matter. Water District Meetina Last week Greg Hall, Lcmry Grafel, Russ Forrest, cmd I met with representatives of the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water District to discuss the water supply cmd distribution within the Town of Vail. The District representatives discussed these issues cmd generally croswered most our questions. The District is currently completing a report that addressed supply cmd hydrologic issues. They indicated the report should be complete in late May. When this report is complete, they will make a formal presentation to the Town Council. Goals cmd Objectives Resolution Please find the attached resolution that formally adopts the Goals cmd Objectives for the Town of Vcdl. If this document is satisfactory, please let Pcun know so it ccm be scheduled for formal adoption at the next Council meeting. Open Lcmds Plcm Implementation We cire in the process of seeking a lcmd negotiator to help implement the open lcmds plcm. The RFQ has been prepcired cmd submitted to approximately six consultcmts. The deadline for returning proposal is May 27th. We hope to have someone on boc[rd cmd working on implementation of the Open Lands Plcm by mid June. Housina Please find the attached memo which outlines housing issues discussed at the April 19th Town Council workshop. 1 .w = .~'.an. . MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development, Bob McLaurin FROM: Kristan Pritz DATE: March 15, 1994 SUBJECT: Summary of project priorities from the discussion with the Vail Town Councii on March 8, 1994.. >:ti: . . . . . . . , _ , . . . . Below is a summary of the priorities determined by the Vail Town Council: 1. Building Division. , A. Sierra Computer Implementation B. - Community Education on the Development Review Process The above priorities will be completed within tlie next six to nine months. The community education on development review is an ongoing effort. : II. Environmental Division. A. Implementation of the Environmental Strategic Plan, to be completed within the next six months B. Open Lands Plan Implementation, ongoing , C. Air Quality, ongoing D. Water Quality, ongoing E. Solid Waste Management Policy, to be completed within the next three months F. Environmental Excellence Award, to be initiated within the next three months . G. Food Handlers Education Program, to- be completed within the next six , months " • . . . Second Tier Priorities ~ •Environmental Impact Report Zoning Code Amendment •Tree Ordinance . 1 i. •Haza'rdous Waste Policy/Program ((i. Pianning i ~ A. Vaii Commons Site, RFP to be completed by the end of March, 1994 : B. Housing Authority Discussion, to be scheduled in early Aprii, topics to includs the mortgage pool, purchase of existing units, Vail Das Schone project, Lion's Ridge project, and Vail Commons project. It was decided that if the Housing Authority develops any additional projects beyond Vail Commons, a consultant would be necessary to work with the Board. C. Art in Public Places Board, ongoing efforts include follow-up on the "Exuberance" mural at the Vail Transportation Center, schematic design for Vail Transportation Center for new lights, Temporary Exhibit Program; Mural at the Vail Transportation Center involving school children, participation in Save Outdoor Sculpture, investigation of percent for Art Program, dedication of Terre Haute, and maintenance ot existing artwork. It was decided that the staff should look into the possibility of having a part-time person staff this board as opposed to the Community Development Department. D. Adoption of the Land Ownership Adjustment Plan, to be completed within the next three months E. Employee Housing Amendment, to be completed within the next three months F. . Lindholm Land Exchange, ongoing G. Organization of State APA Conference, ongoing H. Vail Associates Category III Review, ongoing 1. Gondola/Sunbird Redevelopment effort, ongoing , J. Village Loading and. Delivery Plan, ongoing K. Cemetery Master Plan implementation, the Council decided that this ' item needs to put on their agenda to determine a funding source. Dalton Williams and others from the Cemetery Task Force should be invited to this meeting.. . - - Second Tier Priorities . . These projects will not be started until, at a minimum, a new planner is ' hired and has been on board for one month and the Vail Commons project is underway. 2 1 ~ . •Open Space Code Amendments •Subdivision Regulation Amendments - Third Tier Priorities The Council reviewed the list of projects in this category and voted for their top five choices. The following projects were included in the top six: 1. Amend the Hillside Residential zone district to require larger lots and possibly less GRFA; 6 votes. 2. Newspaper boxes, 5 votes. 3. Four new view corridors, 5 votes. 4. Amendments to the Special Development District Section of the Code, 5 votes. 5. Amend the parking pay-in-lieu areas, 5 votes. 6. Amend the Urban Design Considerations in relation to window design, American Disability Act implications for design, issue of alpine character, discourage split level retail, etc., 5 votes. The following projects received votes but did not make the top six category: - • •Nonconforming signs, 2 votes •Review of private parking practices, 0 votes •Creation of a Hospital zone district, 0 votes ` •Trash enclosure requirement, 2 votes •Utilities Master Plan, this project was seen as being a Public Works project if pursued and did not receive any votes. IV. Other Comments: •Do not limit current planning applications •Loot at an additional planning position funded from an increase in development fees •Look at sign code enforcement.transferring to Police . ; - , . 3 RESOLUTION NO. 13 SERIES OF 1994 A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND ADOPTING THE MISSION, VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, FOR 1994/95. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado recognizes the importance of goal setting as part of effective local government policy making, and; WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council, after much discussion and debate has articulated the Town Council's vision for the Vail Community, and identified the Mission of the Town of Vail Organization, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has also identified ten goals and numerous priority objectives, and; WHEREAS, it is the Vision of the Vail Town Council that the Council's Vision for our community is; TO BE THE PREMIER MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL RESORT. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council declares that: It is the Mission of the Town of Vail to provide: * EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES * AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE * POSITIVE, SUSTAINED ECONOMIC CLIMATE * RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP WHEREAS, the goals of the Town of Vail, Colorado are to,: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the Town of Vail, the area served by the regional transportation system, and the Denver/Glenwood corridor through a multi-model system. Pursue a Valley wide approach with other governmental agencies and the private sector to provide services to solve common problems, to avoid duplication, and to improve the value delivered for tax dollars expended. Facilitate construction and retention of local housing, which is affordable, and compatible, in order to maintain the economic and sociaf viability of the Town of Vail. Strive to maintain the unique alpine character of the Vail community. Maintain a balance between resort development and environmental and quality of life considerations. Provide for maintenance of existing and future Town infrastructure. Work to promote a positive, year round economic environment. Strive to be a world leader in providing a safe, pollution free environment. Strive to maintain a high quality of life for Vail residents and guests while protecting the Town's natural resources. Maintain the financial viability of the Town. Maintain a high performing, highly efficient, customer driven organization. Provide services and support activities that enhance quality of life in the Town of Vail. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council desires to ratify the Mission, Vision, Goals, and Priority Objectives, and; WHEREAS, the Goals and Priority Objectives will serve as the basis of the 1994-95 Operations and Maintenance Budget, Capital Improvement Program, and the Town of Vail work program, and; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL COLORADO, IN REGULAR SESSION, DULEY ASSEMBLED THAT: The Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado hereby ratifies the attached Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives for the Town of Vail.. INTRODUCED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of May, 1994. TOWN OF VAIL Margaret A. Ostertoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO VISION STATEMENT March 31, 1993 TO BE THE PREMIER MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL RESORT. TOWN OF VAIL MISSION STATEMENT March 31, 1993 IT IS THE MISSION OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE: * EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES * AN ENi/IRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE * POSITIVE, SUSTAINED ECONOMIC CLIMATE * RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO STATEMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES 1994 TRANSPORTATION Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the Town of Vail, the area served by the regional transportation system, and the Denver/Glenwood corridor through a multi-model system. (1)B. Provide and maintain a safe and efficient street system. Minimize congestion at the Main Vail and West Vail intersections. (14 points) (2)A. Promote the greater use of public transit throughout the Town of Vail and the regional transportation system. (16 points) (3)D. Provide for the efficient delivery and distribution of goods into the Vail Village and Lionshead. (21 points) (4)C. Provide for the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the Town of Vail and the Upper Eagle Valley. (24 points) (5)E. Provide value-priced parking for visitors, employees, and residents. (36 points) (6)F. Cooperate with other governmental agencies to promote the viability of the Eagle Airport. (46 points) (7)H. Identify lands necessary to meet future transportation needs. (47 points) (8)G. Investigate combined transportation services for school children within the RE50J School District. (48 points) INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Pursue a Valley wide approach with other governmental agencies and the private sector to provide services to solve common problems, to,avoid duplication, and to improve the value delivered for tax dollars expended. (1)J. Establish quarterly meetings with other governmental entities in the Vail Valley to discuss matters of mutual concern. Encourage interagency staff cooperation. (24 points) (2)G. Implement the Land Ownership Adjustment Plan. (29 points) (3)E. Work with other governmental entities and the private sector to enhance the efficiency of the regional transportation system. (32 points) (4)A. Identify existing shared services and explore additional opportunities for the shared services. (40 points) 1 TOV Statement of Goals and Objectives/1994 (5) D. Establish a public private partnership for the continuation of a valley-wide marketing effort. (41 points) . (6) H. Investigate the potential of a private land trust to preserve open lands. (41 points) (7)B. Explore the political and economic feasibility of consolidation with other town and/or' special districts. (45 points) (8) F. Work with the Recreation Authority to complete the site planning, including a residential component, and secure the necessary approvals for the Berry Creek 5th site. (47 points) (9)C. Explore opportunities for joint purchasing with other governmental agencies. (48 points) (10)I. Encourage and cooperate with other governmental agencies to preserve and protect open space outside the Town of Vail. (52 points) (11)K. Review opportunities for fuRher annexation to the Town of Vail. (63 points) HOUSING Facilitate construction and retention of local housing, which is affordable, and compatible, in order to maintain the economic and social viability of the Town of Vail. . (1)D. Begin construction on TOV-owned parcels. (15 points) (2)B. Identify and acquire existing dwelling units to be converted to permanently deed restricted housing units. (25 points) (3)E. Explore a mortgage pool financing mechanisms for affordable housing. (25 points) (4)C. Analyze previously identified,land to be used for construction of new local housing units. (26 points) " Vail Commons * Old Town Shops - * Lots adjacent to Managers House " Upper Eagle Valley/Lionhead sites. (5)G. Encourage through zoning improvements/changes/modifications our ability to stabilize the local population, thereby increasing voter base. (34 points) (6)H. Work to stop the conversion of local housing into tourist properties. (37 points) (7)F. Facilitate financing for those who voluntarily deed restrict properties. (39 points) (8)A. Work with Housing Authority to develop a 5 year Housing Plan. (Affordable Housing Study, Housing Authority Business Plan) (51 points) PLANNING, GROWTH, AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Strive to maintain the unique alpine character of the Vail community. Maintain a balance 2 TOV Statement of Goals and ObjectivesN994 between resort development and environmental and quality of life considerations. (1)D. Implement the Vail Commons (West Vail/Safeway) site plan. (17 points) (2)C. Protect and enhance the quality of life in the community through the preservation of open lands within the Town of Vail. (26 points) (3) B. Allow sustainable growth and change which can be served within the capacities of existing and planned infrastructure. (32 votes) (4)E. Identify parcels necessary to meet future local housing needs. (36 points) (5)A. Maintain a land use pattern that provides a balance of land uses and recognizes the capabilities and limitations of natural and man-made features. (37 points) (6)F. Implement the Cemetery Plan. (40 points) (7)G. Conduct proactive, long range planning activities. (40 points) (8)I. Provide efficient development review and current planning activities. (42 points) (9)J. Provide opportunities for local, viable, convenient shopping within the Town of Vail. (46 points) INFRASTRUCTURE Provide for maintenance of existing and future Town infrastructure. A. Plan, prioritize, and fund additional infrastructure necessary to maintain and enhance the quality of life in the community. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ~ Work to promote a positive, year round economic environment. (1)A. Maintain and encourage the retention of the short term bed base in the Vail Village and Lionshead. (13 points) (2)C. Work with the Vail Recreation District, the Vail Valley Marketing Board, the Vail Valley Foundation, and others to conduct special events that will enhance the local economy. (17 points) (3)B. With the retail community, develop strategies to enhance Vail's economy. (20 points) (4)E. Work to develop a year round economy. (26 points) (5)D. Create unique, commercial, innovative, and upscale economic opportunities for local businesses. (27 points) ENVIRONMENT 3 TOV Statement of Goals and Objectives/1994 Strive to be a world leader in providing a safe, pollution free environment. Strive to maintain a high quality of life for Vail residents and guests while protecting the Town's natural resources. (1)A. Implement the Environmental Strategic Plan that will identify a long-term environmental work plan for the town and will promote sustainable economic development. (20 points) (2)H. Maintain and enhance the aquatic habitat, riparian environment, and water quality of Gore Creek. Maintain minimum stream flow in Gore Creek. (22 points) (3)C. Complete the Vail Water Quality Study. (27 points) (4)F. Increase the greening of the Gore Valley by planting trees, shrubs and flowers with a special emphasis on the I-70 corridor. (27 points) (5)B. Increase annual conversion of noncompliant wood burning units by 10% through incentives and educational programs. (28 points) (6)D. Promote responsible waste management that encourage individuals and businesses to reduce, reuse, and recycle. (36 points) (7)G. Participate in and support the Eagle River Corridor Study. (40 points) (8)E. Help ensure adequate progress on the Eagle Mine clean up process. (46 points) ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Maintain a high performing, highly efficient, customer driven organization. (1)C. Integrate the principals of continuous improvement in the operations of the Town of Vail. (17 points) (2)D. Become a customer driven organization. Be sensitive to our customer's, both internal and external needs, and concerns. (20 points) (3)E. Provide municipal services in as efficient and effective manner as possible. (23 points) (4) F. Analyze the result of the 1993 Resident Survey and implement changes needed to improve the service delivery. (27 points) (5)A. Improve internal communications within the Town of Vail organization. (28 points) (6)B. Improve external communications. (32 points) FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Maintain the financial viability of the Town. (1)C. Analyze the effectiveness of performance based budgeting. (11 points) (2)A. Maintain stability of the town's revenue streams. (13 points) 4 TOV Statement of Goals and Objectives/1994 (3) E. Evaluate opportunities for privatization of municipal services. (24 points) (4)D. Develop policies regarding fund balance levels, and debt management. (30 points) (5) B. Analyze the potential impacts of Amendment 1 on the Town. (33 points) (6)F. Explore the economic and politically feasibility of TOV control of local utilities (water, sanitation, electricity, and cable tv). (36 points) HUMAN SERVICES . Provide services and support activities that enhance quality of life in the Town of Vail. (1)D. Explore strategies for enhancing day care alternatives within the Town. (10 points) (2) B. Investigate the feasibility of a private public partnership to construct a performing arts center. (16 points) (3)A. Provide opportunities for life long learning, and research through the Vail Public Library. (25 points) (4)C. Work with the VRD to ensure continued recreational services for the Town's residents. (25 points) (5)E. Cooperate with other educational agencies to support a variety of educational opportunities. (e.g. Colorado Mtn. College, Vail Mountain School, RE50J, Ski Club Vail). (29 points) 5 • TOV Statement of Goals and Objectives/1994 ~ , . TOWN OF VAIL COUNCIL CONTINGENCY 1994 Special Events Original Budget Amount $50,000 20;000 Uses: Sister City Trip - January 5,550 CML Conference (Allocated in 1993) 5,000 Buck Allen - 15 Year Award 500 Council Retreat 4,789 Colorado Film Comission 500 U.S. Ski Team Contribution, Chad Fleischer (Paid in 1993) 2,500 Total Amount Used 15,839 3,000 Total Amount Left $34,161 $17,000 COUCON94 PAGE 04/27/94