HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-22 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session i
i
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
i
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, August 22, 2000
1:00 R.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
(NOTE: Time of items is approximate, subject to change, and c'~nnot be
relied upon to determine at ghat time Council will consider an iitem.
1. An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's July
Brent Wilson 24th upholding of a staff decision regarding the requirement for a
joint owner's signature on a development application submitted to
the Department of Community Development, for property located
at 1001 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
(45 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, Uphold with
modifications, or Overturn the Planning and Environmental
Commission's decision.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On June 27, 2000, the Department
of Community Development rejected an application for design
review approval from the appellant since it proposed development
on a jointly owned piece of property and the joint owner's
signature did not appear on the application. Pursuant to Section
12-3-3(A), Vail Town code, the applicant has filed an appeal. The
appellant asserts the application was originally submitted on July
14, 1999 and that the new application is a revision to the original
submittal and, therefore, it should not be subjected to a
requirement formalized on May 2"d of this year. Please refer to
the staff memorandum for more specific details.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Department i;,of Community
Development recommends that the Vail Town Council uphold the
PEC/staff decision regarding the requirement for la joint owners'
signature on an application submitted to the Department of
Community Development; subject to the following findings:
1. The staff decision is consistent with, the provisions
of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code (Material to , be Submitted;
Procedure) and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33
(attached). The application requirements have not been met in full
by the applicant/appellant.
2. Staffs decision was not an "ex post facto"
application of the code since the design review application was
submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was
drafted.
2. For many years the Potato Patch Club has been the site of a legal
Brent Wilson non-conforming "grandfathered" restaurant operation on the
property. Section 12-8-8 of the Town Code permits a change of
non-conforming uses on a site, subject to Town Co ncil approval.
The applicant is proposing a change from one non-conforming use
(restaurant) to another (professional offices). (30 mins.)
I
ACTION REQUESTED OF VAIL TOWN COUNCIL1i
Approve, Approve with Conditions, or Deny they; request for a
change of non-conforming use.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
Please refer to the attached staff memo.
i
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the applicant's request for a change of non-
conforming use, to allow for the conversion of restaurant space to
office space at the Potato Patch Club, subject to the following
findings:
I
The Town Council determines that the proposed use does not
substantially differ from the existing non-conforming use in terms
of compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located.
The Town Council determines that the proposed use does not
increase or aggravate the degree of non-conformity existing prior
to any such change of use.
3. Discussion of Third Sheet of Ice. (30 mins)
Bob McLaurin
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Decide whether to
proceed with this project.
i
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: We have been working with VRD
and Vail Junior Hockey to develop a proposal to create a
third sheet of ice. We have resolved and finalized all the
issues and Council should now make its decision.
4. _ Parking Discussion. (1:30 mins.)
Greg Hall A. 1 1/2 hr. Fee
Mike Rose B. Free After Three
Arnie Ullevig C. Summer Parking
D. Employee Parking-Debit Cards
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Continue to provide
J direction to the various parking discussion issues so staff and our
consultant can come back with suggested parking policies for
Council review and approval.
.I
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Council has heard from Vail
Resorts Inc. and the Vail Village Merchants Association with
regard to parking. Initial discussions concerning long term needs
pointed to the conclusion the town is short 1000 spaces.
Underutilized private parking spaces have been identified. A
tiered system of parking "choices" have been discussed. Parking
issues to be discussed at the 8-22-00 work session are: 1-1/2
hour free parking; Free-after-Three; summer parking; and
i employee parking/debit cards. Staff would like to get a sense
from Council on choices within those tiers that relate to free
parking vs. regular/normal parking vs. premiere parking.
I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Participate in discussions to
determine what additional information is required to continue
these discussions or to provide options needed for final review
and approval of overall parking policies for the upcoming 2000-
2001 ski season.
i
5. The purpose of this worksession is to appoint 1-2 Council
Russell Forrest members to participate in the 501 (c) - 3 board for the community
facilities. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: To appoint 1-2 members to the
501 c3 board.
i
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Active participation from the Town
Council is needed in the development and implementation of the
501(c) (3). Focus groups are being planned in the coming months
to help refine the concept for the "hub site." Staff would
recommend that two Council members be appointed to the 501-c3
board and participate in other meetings associated with refining
the concept. Council representatives will play a critical role in
helping to develop the composition of the fund raising not-for-profit
i
a =I
~l
board and ensuring the refinement of the community facilities
concept is consistent with the Town Council's goal Ii
I
6. Citizen Management of Growth Initiative. (30 mins.),
Tom Moorhead
Russell Forrest ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discussion for the purpose
of determining whether any legislative action is appropriate to be
taken at this time.
I.
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: It is anticipated that there will be an
initiated Constitutional Amendment on this November's ballot "The
Citizen Management of Growth". The proponents have submitted
the required number of signatures to place the measure on the
November ballot. It is anticipated that it will be placed upon the
ballot around September 13, 2000.
This measure effects Vail and Eagle County. Municipalities with
populations of 1000 or more in counties with populations of 25,000
or more are included.
The Colorado Municipal League has not yet taken 1position on
the Initiative but is anticipated to do so. Attached isthe CML
summary published July 21, 2000. The Measure will require a vote
to allow development on areas that have not been identified as
committed for development.
The area of most legislation being adopted especially by the front
range cities is to establish a clear definition as to what is defined
as a "valid development application." This is significant in that the
term is used in the Growth Initiative and if a valid development
application has been filed for a particular piece of property, that
property is considered a "committed area" within which a local
government may approve development. The Community
Development department is not recommending this action be
taken by the Town of Vail.
An area of appropriate discussion would be whether or not all of
the lands within the Town of Vail boundaries should be property
which is within the "committed area" for which Town of Vail may
approve development. One of the criteria to qualify as and
committed to development is land within a recorded subdivision or
town site and at least 50% of the lots have either had primary
structures built or water and sewer service extended to them and
all lots will be served by central water and sewer. It appears that if
the Town of Vail is looked at in its entirety all lands within the town
fall within this description. Dennis Gelvin, General Manger of the
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, has giver I the opinion
that the entire Town of Vail has water and sewer service extended
to it.
7. Vail Road Bid Review. (10 mins.)
Greg Hall
Steve Thompson ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff with direction
on whether we should accept the bids.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town' has a portion of Vail
Road from Beaver Dam Road to Forest Road which has a major
storm sewer and pavement improvements in order to complete
Vail Road to town standards. In addition, Holy Cross Energy
needs to make a connection from Forest Road To Beaver Dam
Road. We bid this project out two years ago and the price was
over $300,000, so we delayed it at that time. Bids were opened on
August 15 and we received four bids:
Ewing Construction $ 184,825
B & B Excavating $ 257,853
Longs Excavating $ 293,585
Meldor Construction $ 307, X328
I
I
Engineers Estimate $ 185,293
I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To proceed with the project and
make the final award and to approve supplemental appropriation
of the budget at the September 5, 2000, Council meeting.
8. DRB Agenda/Report. (5 mins.)
Allison Ochs
Brent Wilson;
9. Information Update. (10 mins.)
'I
10. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
I
11. Other. (10 mins.)
i
12. Adjournment. (5:45 P.M.)
I
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 9105100, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON'TUESDAY, 9112/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
i
;i
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ONITUESDAY, 9/05/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
~I CHAMBERS.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification.
Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
it
i
;i
,j
I
I
I
ij
'I
i,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Brent Wilson, Department of Community Development
DATE: August 22, 2000
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's July 24th
upholding of a staff decision regarding the requirement for a joint owner's
signature on a development application submitted to the Department of
Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagle's Nest
Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc.
On June 27, 2000, the Department of Community Development rejected an application
for design review approval from the appellant since it proposed development on a jointly
owned piece of property and the joint owner's signature did not appear on the
application. On July 24th, the Planning and Environmental Commission upheld the staff
decision upon appeal. Pursuant to Section 12-3-3(A), Vail Town Code, the applicant has
filed an appeal of the PEC's decision with the Town Council. The appellant asserts the
application was originally submitted on July 14, 1999 and that the new application is a
revision to the original submittal and, therefore, it should not be subject to a requirement
formalized on May 2nd of this year. Please refer to the attached staff memorandum, final
PEC agenda, PEC meeting minutes and the appellant's written statement for more
specific details.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Vail Town Council
uphold the PEC/staff decision regarding the requirement for a joint owner's signature on
an application submitted to the Department of Community Development; subject to the
following findings:
1. The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4,
Vail Town Code (Material to be Submitted; Procedure) and Town of Vail
Zoning Code Interpretation #33 (attached). The application requirements
have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant.
2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since
the design review application was submitted 41 days after the.formal
zoning interpretation was drafted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 24, 2000
SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision regarding the requirement for a joint owner's
signature on a development application submitted to the Department of
Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagle's Nest
Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc.
Planner: Brent Wilson
1. BACKGROUND
The Town has always required signatures from all affected parties whenever
applications involving common property have been involved. This includes
condominium or homeowners associations. Effective May 2, 2000 the Department of
Community Development made a formal determination that this policy must include
jointly owned "C parcels" on duplex properties. We do not accept any applications
involving jointly owned property without authorization from all owners, nor do we have
the authority to take action on property without the appropriate consent. This policy is a
direct result of numerous dilemmas (Hughes-Tuchman, Walker-McKibben, Ferry-
Repetti) where the town's authority to act upon applications without appropriate consent
has been questioned. This policy will not affect duplexes where a common parcel has
not been established. The Town has enforced this policy on a number of previous
applications, including the McKibben-Walker design review application.
Reasonina for the Reauirement of Joint Owners' Signatures - The primary reason
behind this requirement involves legal issues of due process and equal protection.
Without this requirement in place, one owner (with a 50% interest in the property) could
potentially utilize all development potential for jointly owned property for their sole benefit
without the knowledge or consent of the other 50% owner. The Vail Town Code does
not have any notice provisions for adjacent neighbors (with no ownership interest) on
design review applications. However, staff believes the joint owner signature
requirement is necessary to meet the minimum due process and equal protection
standards for notification of individuals with an ownership interest in an affected piece of
property. This is the same reason why proof of consent has been required from
condominium and homeowner associations for decades. History has shown that without
this requirement in place, Town staff and boards typically take on the role of arbitrator in
private property disputes. This results in a great expenditure of time and resources to
cover issues that are of little or no relevance to the general public or town government.
~I \T
TOWN OF Y.AIL i
1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Historv of the subiect application - On June 27, 2000, the Department of Community
Development rejected an application for design review approval from the appellant since
it proposed development on a jointly owned piece of property and the joint owner's
signature did not appear on the application. Pursuant to Section 12-3-3(A), Vail Town
Code, the applicant has filed an appeal. The appellant's statement of the nature of the
appeal is attached. The appellant asserts the application was originally submitted on
July 14, 1999 and that the new application is a revision to the original submittal and,
therefore, it should not be subject to a requirement formalized on May 2Id of this year.
The following is a timeline of the design review application process for the subject
property:
June 28. 1999 -the appellant submitted a design review application (and
appropriate fees) for a "250 GRFA addition and Type 11 EHU." This application
involved the construction of a caretaker unit and a two-car garage. It was
conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on July 21, 1999. The
application for the associated site coverage variance and conditional use permit for
the Type 11 EHU were denied by the PEC on July 26, 1999 and again by the Town
Council on November 2, 1999. Therefore, the applicant could not proceed with the
DRB application and it became void. Pursuant to Section 12-11-4(D), Vail Town
Code, a design review application becomes void unless: 1) the DRB takes action on
the submittal within 30 days of conceptual review; or 2) the applicant requests a time
extension from the DRB. The applicant never returned to the DRB with the previous
submittal and no time extension was ever requested. Therefore, the previous design
review application became void in 1999.
June 12. 2000 - the appellant submitted a new design review application (and
appropriate design review fees) for an "addition and remodel of existing duplex."
This application involves the addition of GRFA to the existing unit and no longer
includes a garage space or a caretaker unit. Updated plans (due to the PEC and
Town Council denials of an associated site coverage variance) were received on
June 26th
13 June 27, 2000 - the Department of Community Development notified the appellant
that the new application was incomplete and would not be accepted due to the lack
of signatures from the property owners as required.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission uphold the staff decision regarding the requirement for a
joint owners' signature on an application submitted to the Department of Community
Development, for property located at 1001 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village
7th; subject to the following findings:
1. The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4,
Vail Town Code (Material to be Submitted, Procedure) and Town of Vail
Zoning Code Interpretation #33 (attached). The application requirements
have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant.
2
2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since
the design review application was submitted 41 days after the formal
zoning interpretation was drafted.
III. REVIEWING. BOARD ROLES - APPEAL
Planning and Environmental Commission:
ACTION: The PEC shall make a motion to uphold, uphold with modifications, or
overturn the staff decision, based on specific findings of fact.
Town Council:
ACTION: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Councilor by the
Town Council. The Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or
DRB erred with its motion and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or
overturn the board's decision.
IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/EVALUATION
1. Was the application pending at the time of the zoning code interpretation
(May 2, 2000) or was it submitted after the drafting of the interpretation?
Staff response- A new application was submitted on June 12, 2000 and a new
submittal fee was paid on that date. The "pending" status of the 1999 application
did not become an issue until after the new application was rejected by the
Department of Community Development. The Town of Vail requires a new
application when previous applications are denied, that is why the applicant's
representative submitted a new application and fee on June 12tH
2. Did town staff apply the submittal requirements in a consistent manner
with other applications and in accordance with the provisions of the Vail
Town Code?
Staff response - All DRB applications are subject to the requirements of Section
12-11-4., Vail Town Code (Material to be Submitted; Procedure) and the Town of
Vail Zoning Code Interpretations and this is not the first application to be rejected
due to a lack of joint property owners' approval. Staff believes the treatment of
this application in a manner inconsistent with Zoning Code Interpretation #33
would be a grant of special privilege.
3. Was the-design review application incomplete when submitted?
Staff response - Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code details the specific
requirements for application submittal and it incorporates the Town of Vail's
Application for Design Review Approval by reference. One of the specific
application requirements is the name/signature of the property owner(s). The
application submitted contains a signature by Sally Brainerd (representative of
Kaye Ferry) but no signature, reference or representation is given for the other
affected property owner. Therefore, staff concludes the application is materially
incomplete as submitted.
3
' Qiri noiis? Ca the f Liiiiling Staf" al q/ V4
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APP VAL ~J
y' TOWN OF YAIL
GENERAL INFORMATION F/2- This application is for any project requiring Design Review approval. Any projcct requiring design review must
receive Design Revicw approval prior to submitting for a building permit. For specific information, see the submittal
requirements for the particular approval that is requested. The application cannot be accepted until all the required
information is submitted. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Design Review Board approval expires one year after final approval unless a
building permit is issued and construction is started.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: Z5n ~D1~ -TYr-IE~F 1:17 GP_(>
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT: C BLOCK: w FILING: -1+-, VV
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 170 tae?~~f- ~Gvr~.2
C. PARCEL (Contact Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 970-328-8640 for parcel
D. ZONING: fV7"`~
E. NAME , A,
OF OWNER(S): 2, l vt, V
12 2, 8
MAILING ADDRESS: -t3~1 0 P'l i I
V~ R((n-~7 7 rre PHONE: iii?- -
F. OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S): l
G. NAME OF APPLICANT: J1e6C D16
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE:
H. TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
? New Construction - $200 Construction of a new building.
- $50 Includes any addition where square footage is added to any residential or
~I,Addition
commercial building.
? Minor Alteration - $20 includes minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining.
walls, etc.
DRB fees are to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a building pennit, please identify
the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to the project valuation.
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
VAIL, COLORADO 8I657.
.For Office Use Oniv:..
Fee.Paid: CK#: By: .
Application Date:
DRB.1Vleeting Date' '
Pre-Application Meeting Date.
Questions'? Call the Planning Sta fat 4"r9-2128
it
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any project requiring Design Review approval. Any project requiring design review must
receive Design Review approval prior to submitting for a building permit. For specific information, see the submittal
requirements for the particular approval that is.requested. The application cannot be accepted until all the require+i
information is submitted. The pi oject may also need to. be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning am
Environmental Commission. Design Review Board approval expires one year after final approval unless a
building permit is issued and construction is started.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: A. A d 1-4-;,g 1 CLY\ . A),uA-1 6-1
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. LOT: I t BLOCK: t'0 FILING: V V. 74
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 00 '7 e 1\ i e ( 41.11 e"
C. PARCEL (Contact Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 970-328-3640 for parcel
D. ZONING:
E. NAME OF OWNER(S): 1-1!G 1'~a"~?1 ,
MAILING ADDRESS: S lil 1 %4 W11, P A
V/11) CA Q~ td PHONE:
F. OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S):
G. NAME OF APPLICANT:
MAILING ADDRESS: 1000 ~i t~tn~n~ s ()<11
l;~.i o`i r4 ~!r PHONE: L~7~U "qZ
H. TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
? onstrnction $200 Construction of a new building.
:w
Addition - $50 Includes any addition where square footage is added to any resideatial or
conunercial building.
? Minor Alteration - $20 Includes minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining
walls, etc.
DRB fees are to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a building permit, please iden=:fy
the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to the project valuation.
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIRE NIENTS AND TFIE I+EE TO 'l RE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
VAIL, COLORADO 31657.
Far Qtfiee Usc bn[v
c%
F.ee PahlZ c ("1<~''~1 I3v`
ppht spun Date: ttnnt; Date
I3 wlc, # L
pre
11GhtlOtT 'leE,tifxg dtL b~ !
LAW OFFICES
DUNN, ABPLANALP & MAURIELLO, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOHN W. DUNN WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST (970) 476-0300
DIANE H. MAURIELLO FACSIMILE:
INGA HAAGENSON CAUSEY SUITE 300
VAIL, COLORADO 81657 (970)476-4765
OF COUNSEL: highcountrylaw.com
JERRY W. HANNAH 20 July 2000 e-mail: vaillaw@vail.net
CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANTS
KAREN M. DUNN, CLAS
JANICE K. SCOFIELD, CLA
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail CO
Re: Appeal of Kathleen Ferry
Members of the Commission:
Our Firm has been engaged by Susan Rutherford, the owner of an undivided
one-half interest in Tract C, Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing, the property which
is the subject of the above appeal, to assist her in supporting the staff of the Vail
Department of Community Development in association with that appeal.
The issue before the Planning and Environmental Commission is a narrow one.
That question is:
Whether the staff of the Department of Community Development was correct
in determining that the application for design review of a proposed project was
insufficient when the application was submitted only by Kathleen Ferry without
the signature of the other co-owner of the property upon which the project is
to occur.
The Vail Municipal Code requires that an application for design review approval
be submitted by the "owner or authorized agent of a project." During a recent period
of time, the Town staff considered applications submitted by only one of a number of
owners of a property which was the subject of an application. That policy was
apparently adopted when the Town encountered complaints by owner-applicants who
found it difficult or impractical to obtain consent of their co-owners. Since that
change in policy, the, Town has been dealing with the objections of co-owners whose
consent has not been obtained and who do not, in fact, approve of the proposed
modifications to property which they jointly own. The Town also has been regularly
placed in the position of being asked to interpret private covenants which may or may
not permit applications to the Town initiated by only one owner of a jointly owned
property.
1
Apparently in a logical reaction to these recent experiences, and consistent with
the Municipal Code, the staff has returned to its earlier application of the Code and
now requires the consent of co-owners of a property which is the subject of an
application. That change is both a necessary administrative policy and a reassurance
to homeowners to which they are entitled under the Municipal Code. The staff should
be supported in its current position.
Beyond the merit of the current policy, two issues specific to this appeal warrant
limited discussion.
First, Ms. Ferry apparently justifies her argument that the current policy should
not be applied to her by claiming that this most recent application is simply a reaction
to the Town's comments on an application submitted in July, 1999. Since July, 1999,
Ms. Ferry has filed several other applications with the Town relating to the same
property, each having different proposed configurations for her proposal. Each of
these proposals has been disapproved. There is no relationship between the current
application and either the initial July, 1999, project or the various proposals which Ms.
Ferry subsequently tried to process in 1999 and in early 2000. Those earlier projects
were each far more expansive than that which is the subject of the current application,
whatever the current application may be. The current uncertainty regarding the exact
nature of the plan before this Commission arises from the. fact that Ms. Ferry's
representatives have submitted multiple conflicting plans which they say are being
submitted under the current application. Some do not involve a garage, but at least
one plan incorporated a garage into the body of the proposed structure, a change
which Ms. Ferry has argued for months cannot be incorporated into her project. Like
her argument that no garage could possibly be incorporated into the current structure,
her position that the current project is a variation on one or more submittals in 1999
has no foundation. Her current argument, like those related to her efforts to obtain
variances, is simply intended to gain a special privilege to which she feels only she is
entitled.
Secondly, the plans which have been submitted to the Town are misleading with
respect to the description of the land which is the subject of this application and the
ownership of that land. The plans identify Parcel A (the half of the residential
structure which is owned solely by Ms. Rutherford) and Parcel B (the half of the
residential structure which is owned solely by Ms. Ferry). The plans do not identify
(and the application does not refer to) Parcel C, which is the entire lot except for those
parts identified as Parcels A and B. Parcel C is owned in undivided half interests, one-
half by Ms. Rutherford and one-half by Ms. Ferry. The current application affects and
assumes construction on the jointly owned Parcel C.
2
The issue correctly identified by the Town staff is not a matter of interpreting
documents. The issue is whether, when the Town Code requires an application by the
owner of a project, one owner, acting alone and over the objection of the other owner,
can process an application for the development or modification of that jointly owned
property. If the Town is required to accept and review such applications, the Town's
staff and the Town's boards are then required to engage in exercises in futility which,
at best, will require reconsideration when, and if, a modification of the submitted
plans can be agreed upon by all affected parties. The Town's staff and the Town's
boards have better ways to spend their time than processing proposals which are not
agreed upon even by the parties upon whose property improvements are to be
constructed.
People who deal with the Town of Vail wish to believe that everyone before the
Town is treated equally. Reversing the Town staffs determination in this matter
would grant a special privilege to Ms. Ferry no different than those which she
requested in variance requests which were repeatedly and appropriately denied by the
Town.
The Town staff should be supported in its determination that the application of
Ms. Ferry was not complete or in conformity with the Municipal Code, and Ms. Ferry's
appeal should be denied.
Very truly yours,
DU , ABP P & ELLO, P.C
Arthur A. Abplanal Jr.
xc: Ms. Susan Rutherford
3
TO 9F 4IL
Department of Community Development
75 South 17rontage Road
Fail, Colorado 81 657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-4 79-2452
www. ci. vail. co. us
To: Staff Interpretations File
From: Brent Wilson, Planner II .
Re: Town of Vail Application Requirements
Date: May 2, 2000
The following is a synopsis c the T own's signature requirements for applications
involving jointly owned property.
The Town has always required signatures from all affected parties. whenever
applications involving common property have been involved. This includes
condominium or homeowners associations. E;fective May 2, 2000 the Department of
Community Development made the determination that this policy includes jointly owned
"C parcels" on duplex properties. We will no longer accept any applications involving
jointly owned property without authorization from all owners, nor do we have the
authority to take action on property without the appropriate consent. This policy is a
direct result of numerous dilemmas (Hughes-Tuchman, Walker-McKibben, Ferry-
Repetti) where the town's authority to act upon applications without appropriate consent
has been questioned. Be advised this policy will not affect duplexes where a common
parcel has not been established.
RECYCLED PAPER
JUN-27-00 11:49 FROM=TCV-CCM-DE//V-,DEPT. I0=9704792452 PAGE 3/4
Tv Wwv V
APPEALS FORM
REQUIRED FOR FILING A_IN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRON'~gEI\i'II 4L CORV~IgSSION ACTION
A. ACTIOYDECISION BEING PPEA[.ED:
B. DATE OF ACTIONi'DECISION: JU t~ L ~oo~
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON REINDERNG THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION:
-6 e,-, ?3~- w~
D. NAME OF A.PPELL_ANT(S):
VLA LING ADDRESS:2~~ c.x~ -Jl,-r . ? V(~ , i I v~
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: PHONE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLAN'T`S PROPER; y IN V.A.IL. LET
+E. SIGNATURE(S).-
Page I of 2
JON-27-00 11=4S FRCM= TO'J-COM-•DEV--DEPT. IO;9 704 79 24 52 PAGE 4:'4.
F. Does this appeal involve a 3pwciff.c parcel of land? If `'es, please provide the following inf mcation:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes ro
If no, giv° a derailed exp"tion of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely Xcctcd person. " -Ag%;rieved ur
adverscly a#tccmd person" mans any person .vho mill suffz an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common ~m th other membcn- of the
corranwnty at large, but shall exceed iri degree the general interest in corn Munxty Dodd shared by alI persons..
01 S u CI~ I~- I ct q c~ T:: ~O~
Lo 1.~ C v A ?-A v 1 . (,t,L= A S 1 IJI ~'L ` l>
u ~511~~,, -v
2) 2MO
S ovCJ~ V IC TTI"?LY Ta l5 --~Cc-~rl Gil
Net~~c-t n~
G. Pro'zde the narnes and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owri.'rs (including j,..,yenies
sefwratcd by a right-of wav, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and Amn- ped enve open for
each property owme; on the list-
H, On separate sheep oz paper, specify the precise nature cf the appeal, l?l~sc cite specific code sections having
rclCvance to the action b=- appealed.
1. FEE: $0.00
Page 2 o)"?
W, 29-'011 IHL in:dy F,J- 191 U4"iis7';z
20: 18 y?9476yV,~g RkG _
.:UN-39-®® t'1 .ate, ~&079r•,Z~OV•'-~,GOP9-OfiV-DEPT. IG•~''roFb792QS2 p,nr_.C
i
TOWN Ofli%a
RZQMRZD FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF. DESIGN VlE A` B()AJk.0 UK
PL. LNG 1 ENVIRONI MENTAL, CONWISSBON AC'110N
~C'?~ w c'~(~J t•~~ ~el~ t ~=z mot:.-''- -
A. ACTION./DFr.!.RjC)w RFING. '.Ea.
Y-~ ~ fi.s C7 .L!. \ 'iJ'.a~ t r•-" _ tS' ~ ".C ~ t I_ 1 1 1 ~ k-r". r 1 ~ ~1it . .
B. DATE OF ACTIOKIDSCCSIOPI,,-~k) d".) k---
f`. N.47N tG l'•rm 13a54i7~ t,.rs o-•s ~t t_~n. t4.Cr..LG d~ rcrr= r~c:: :...:,c.~... _,.~~z ~+r•!,~-.___.
D, NAME OF A-PPELLAII-Cr(S):
J 0cr7 ~.~C,~a i ~.11t? .
PHYSICAL ADDRESS V VAIL: I~~ ~ YPd~JM E:.. _
LEGAL DESCRIE-1 ION OF ELL A- T"8 PRoP*ER-;-'x'TN AIL: -j
k`Bg~ ~ of ?
ti^
ii
OY1~1'~ OF T~~~ ~
APPEALS FORM
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
a~~C~1 cSIO `~~JC
A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED:
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: _\c) C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION:
16c~ .1
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S):
MAILING ADDRESS: c-il f_)r~
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: PHONE:
LEGAL DES1C'RIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: I~CJ~ LV er~~ LIJt~,
E. SIGNATURE(S): 1
r
Pace I of 2
RECD J U L 3 12000
F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? US If ves, please provide the following information:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes no
if no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "A grieved or
adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the
community at targe, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
wt!F (e 7Z~>
~J 10 S
D::4-yS
P~
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all
owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties
separated by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for
each property owner on the list.
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed.
1. FEE: 50.00
Page 2 of 2
Approved August 14, 2000
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 24, 2000
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Galen Aasland Diane Golden Russ Forrest
Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon George Ruther
John Schofield Brent Wilson
Doug Cahill Tom Moorhead
Tom Weber
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
1. An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the
Department of Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 1,
Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc.
Planner: Brent Wilson
Galen Aasland stated that if there was anyone that thought he had a conflict with this application, he
would recuse himself.
Art Abplanalp said that Ms. Rutherford requested that Galen recuse himself.
Tom Weber recused himself because of a conflict.
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and noted a correction in the staff memo on page 2,
that the 1" bulleted item should reference Section 12-11-4(C)(2)(d).
John Schofield stated that the code interpretation had been in effect.for 10-12 years.
Tom Moorhead stated that there was not a change in code, but in application of policy and that the
ruling was consistent.
John Schofield mentioned that the staff interpretation came into effect around the time of the Hughes/
Tuchman issue about 5 years ago and said he would like the plat submitted for the record, since the
application didn't show that.
Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Sally Brainerd, the Architect for Kaye Ferry, stated the 1999 original application did not require having
joint owners both sign and this application did require two signatures. She then handed out that section
of the code that Brent was referring to. She said she highlighted the part "applicable to design review
and final review, " that we never applied for, was highlighted. She said no where did it say anything
about voiding a DRB application.
Brent Wilson explained the Design Review process and stated that if the applicant didn't comply with
the requirements for continuing through the process, the application becomes void.
Planning and Environmental Commission 1
Minutes
July 24, 2000
Approved August 14, 2000
Sally Brainerd said it didn't state a renewal was needed for changes.
Brent Wilson said he wasn't going to argue the semantics of the code section, since this was clearly a
new application.
Sally Brainerd explained that the applicant just submitted a new cover page with the new architect and
new phone number information. She then said an application for a variance before the Town Council
was denied.
Brent Wilson stated that the old application was for a different project including an EHU. He said the
DRB could not act on that application, since they did not have the authority to approve a variance that
had been denied by both the PEC and Town Council. The DRB could not legally act upon the original
application and it became void. That is why a new DRB application was submitted by the applicant's
representative in June of 2000 and a new fee was paid to the Town.
Chas Bernhard said, for the record, that the PEC had agreed not to discuss this at all during the
orientation pre-meeting.
Wendell Porterfield, Kaye Ferry's attorney, said they were not here to approve what's been built. He
said that the question was whether this interpretation should be entered into at this stage. He felt this
should be handled by ordinance and not by a staff interpretation. He stated that this change should
have been done in the form of an ordinance, since the rules were different when the application was
submitted. He said this was forcing people to resolve disputes before they bring them before the Town.
He said, though, that this was a separate matter and didn't relate to what an applicant had to do to get
an application in and therefore, was not fair to do this in the middle of the process. He stated that It
shouldn't be left to interpretation, as it was a matter of significance.
Doug Cahill asked staff to explain it.
Brent Wilson explained that the issue was not specifically spelled out in the code, but since it wasn't
expressly stated in the code, it was placed into the staff interpretations in order to maintain a fair and
consistent application of the policy.
John Schofield said it was not a change in philosophy but in enforcement, to always be consistent.
Chas Bernhardt asked for any public comments.
Susan Rutherford stated she was the co-owner of Parcel C and was not consulted by Ms. Ferry when
ready to improve her side of the duplex. She stated that all she wanted was a certainty and knowledge
of what was going on with her property and that was the very basis for the two-signature requirement.
She stated that this policy should be upheld.
Art Abplanalp, Susan Rutherford's attorney, explained that Parcel C was for the entire lot and
mentioned that it was a pleasure for him to support the staff this time. He said that this interpretation
had been in place for 2 1/2 years, as previously not having the interpretation had created unnecessary
staff work in looking at private agreements. He explained that when you have joint owners, or an agent
of the owner, it meant that everybody who was going to be affected on the property was represented.
He said the issue was whether the staff's interpretation was correct. He said the two-year attempt to
give flexibility was an aberration and that this was a perfect illustration of the applicant not knowing what
she wanted. He stated that almost a year ago, the PEC denied the application for a variance. He said
that around the 1 S' of July he looked at the plans submitted. He then handed out to the PEC the plans
that the PEC approved for a garage and now there was no garage when Ms. Rutherford looked at the
plans at 2pm this afternoon. He stated that the Town had a reason for asking for a signature.
Tom Moorhead asked if this was a new application.
Planning and Environmental Commission 2
Minutes
July 24, 2000
Approved August 14, 2000
Art Abplanalp said this was clearly a new application that was submitted months after the Town returned
to its original interpretation of the code.
Wendell Porterfield said we were here because of the staff interpretation and how the process should
be handled by the Town. He said the code stated the owner of the project, not the-owner of the
property. He said both owners should sign, but the way the code was written didn't say that. He then
said that due to the very fact that that there were conflicting policies, it should be handled by the Town
Council.
Chas Bernhardt asked for any more public input.
Doug Cahill said we may have to rewrite the ordinance in the future to follow proper lawyer etiquette, but
the intent is to have both owners up front on a project. He said certain things must be accomplished
before a project can move forward, as the PEC is looking at the projects, not at the disputes. He said
he was In agreement with the staff and would stand by the staff decision.
John Schofield asked, for the record, to look at that plat. He asked Tom Moorhead if any signature
would constitute a power of attorney.
Tom Moorhead said a property owner and agency could have either an oral, handshake, or something
as formal as a Power of Attorney. He said with real estate, it needed to be in writing according to the
statute of frauds and at the closing, the agency would need to be the power of attorney.
John Schofield said that most of the applications are by agents.
Tom Moorhead said we depend upon a good relationship between the architect and the owner, but with
property owners from around the world, it becomes unreasonable. He said to become more user
friendly, we encourage something other than a Power of Attorney. He read 12-7-7 from the Town Code
regarding signature requirements. He said this staff interpretation was identical to the Town's policy on
condominium associations for all practical purposes.
John Schofield asked for a copy of the plans showing the building on parcel C. He said this
Commission and the Town have encouraged improvements, but we have to protect the owners and the
PEC was not a party to the party wall agreement. He said he would definitely subscribe to the
understanding that this was a new application, and there was no doubt in his mind that there was a fairly
lengthy time lapse, so a new application was generated. He said the request for two signatures was a
reasonable request and that this interpretation is what we are going to have to live with. He said with
faxes, the Town should require all owners' signatures, even if affected owners are from all over the
world.
Chas Bernhard said he supported the Commissioners and agreed that this followed the intent of the
law.
John Schofield made a motion to uphold the staff decision based on the findings that:
1. The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vail l-own Code
(Material to be Submitted, Procedure) and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33.
The application requirements have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant.
2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since the design review
application was submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was drafted.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
Planning and Environmental Commission 3
Minutes
July 24, 2000
4 Approved August 14, 2000
The motion passed by a vote of 3-0, with Tom Weber and Galen recusing themselves.
2. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (B)(4), to allow for a third business
identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail Village 5`h
Filing.
Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar
Planner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked, after a site visit, if there were any other properties with similar frontage and
pedestrian frontages.
Brent Wilson said the Landmark Building in Lionshead received a similar variance because the PEC
determined the building has multiple frontages.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment.
Nancy Sweeney, said she was the applicant for the Larkspur Restaurant.
John Schofield asked if she was representing the Market and the Restaurant.
Nancy Sweeney explained the designated parking on the north lot with photos, as seen driving down
Vail Valley Drive. She said the existing sign on the back faced the Children's ski school and was not
legible from the bus and the traffic down Vail Valley Drive wasn't aware that there was any food service
open for business.
Galen Aasland asked about the two separate business licenses. He asked about two signs for each
business or potentially, four different signs.
Brent Wilson explained that each business was licensed separately and that the code allows one sign
per business per frontage, with a maximum of two signs per business.
Nancy Sweeney said she would like it to say Larkspur Restaurant .
Brent Wilson asked the PEC to make a determination on the number of frontages for each business.
Galen Aasland asked for a staff interpretation.
Brent Wilson said, under the code, this was a separate business and the market could get one
additional sign per frontage.
Galen Aasland said let's address the issue on the number of frontages.
Brent Wilson read the code for multi-tenant business signs.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment.
Doug Cahill said he agreed that there were two frontages per business.
Nancy Sweeney said there were three frontages.
Doug Cahill said each business had two frontages.
John Schofield said there were two, not three frontages, in that you were doing all of the parking off of
one side supported the two frontages. He said technically there were three signs, if the bustop sign
constituted a sign.
Planning and Environmental Commission 4
Minutes
July 24, 2000
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
MEETING RESULTS
Monday, July 24, 2000
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
o Discussion with Town Council
® GR Training Session - Non-Conforming Uses /Lots/Structures :30 min.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Galen Aasland Diane Golden
Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon
John Schofield
Tom Weber
Doug Cahill
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Larkspur Restaurant - 458 Vail Valley Drive
Driver: Brent
~a
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the
Department of Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 1,
Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc.
Planner: Brent Wilson
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE:3-0 (Tom and Galen recused)
UPHELD STAFF DECISION BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT:
1. The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code
(Material to be Submitted; Procedure) and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33.
The application requirements have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant.
2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since the design review
application was submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was drafted.
2. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (13)(4), to allow for a third business
identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail Village Stn
TOWN OF VAIL
1
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: August 22, 2000
SUBJECT: A request for a change of non-conforming use (pursuant to Section 12-18-8, Vail
Town Code) to allow for the conversion of restaurant space to office space at the
Potato Patch Club, located at 950 Red Sandstone Road/Potato Patch Club
Subdivision, Units 43 & 44.
Applicant: Pepi Grams hammer/Potato Patch Club Association, represented
by Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: Brent Wilson
1. BACKGROUND
The Potato Patch Club property is zoned Residential Cluster (RC). This zoning
designation is intended to "ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each
dwelling, commensurate with residential occupancy, and to maintain the desirable
residential qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development
standards." Permitted uses include residential dwelling units; conditional uses include
bed and breakfasts, dog kennels, private clubs, schools, utilities, ski lifts and Type III
employee housing units.
The following is a synopsis of the Town's objectives for non-conforming uses as outlined
in Chapter 12-18 of the Vail Town Code:
12-18-1: PURPOSE:
This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and
structures by prohibiting or limiting.their enlargement, their reestablishment after
abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting
nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended
to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the
discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by
this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 20.100)
12-18-2: CONTINUANCE:
Nonconforming sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully established prior
to the effective date hereof may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed in this
Chapter. Sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully authorized by permits or
regulations existing prior to the effective date hereof may continue, subject to such
limitations as prescribed by such permits or regulations. (Ord. 8(1973) § 20.200)
1
12-18-4: USES:
The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which
does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this Title for the district in which it
is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be
enlarged to occupy a greater site area for building floor area than it occupied on the
effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a
nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be
enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. (Ord.
8(1973) § 20.400)
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
For many years the Potato Patch Club has been the site of a legal non-conforming
"grandfathered" restaurant operation on the property. Section 12-8-8 of the Town Code
permits a change of non-conforming uses on a site, subject to Town Council approval.
The applicant is proposing a change from one non-conforming use (restaurant) to
another (professional offices).
III. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
Pursuant to Section 12-18-8, Vail Town Code, the Vail Town Council shall determine that
the proposed use does not substantially differ from the existing nonconforming use in
terms of compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located and that the
proposed use does not increase or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing prior
to any such change of use.
The following is a detailed staff response to these issues:
1. The Town Council shall determine that the proposed use does not
substantially differ from the existing non-conforming use in terms of
compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located.
Traffic Impacts -As demonstrated in the table below, staff believes the number of
vehicular trips generated by the office space would be significantly reduced from
what is expected for a restaurant of the same size. Although peak hour trip
demand for office space tends to coincide with peak hour trip demand for
residential units, staff believes the overall impacts to the residential uses will be
reduced - especially given the number of absent homeowners during normal
business hours. A restaurant, however, is expected to generate the majority of its
traffic during evening and weekend hours. This is a time frame where the
greatest presence of Potato Patch Club homeowners is expected.
2
t
CODE DESCRIPTION TRipSt IND. VARIABLE FACTOR AVERAGE; DAILY
DAY ' TRIPS
Office
710 <10,000 SF 24.39 1000' GFA 3.16 77.07
Restaurant
831 Quality 95.62 1000' GFA 3.16 302.16
Restaurant
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition
Parkina Impacts - Based on the established seating occupancy for the restaurant
space, the required parking for this space would drop from 14 spaces for a
restaurant to 13 spaces for office space. The total parking allocated for the entire
club space is 39 spaces - leaving 26 spaces available for racquet sports or
swimming activities. Staff believes there is sufficient parking available to
accommodate the proposed change of use.
Nuisance Impacts (Noise Odors Dust, etc.) - Staff believes this change in use
would have a beneficial impact on the adjacent neighbors when compared to the
noise and odors generated by a restaurant and its associated delivery and waste
disposal needs. Staff does not believe the proposed offices would generate any
nuisance impacts. Additionally, staff believes the typical (8:00-5:00) workday
hours of operation for an office use would be more compatible with the
established residential uses on site. As demonstrated in many other zone
districts throughout town, office and residential uses are compatible provided
certain criteria are met.
2. The Town Council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase
or aggravate the degree of non-conformity existing prior to any such
change of use.
The total floor area for the proposed office use will be the same as the existing
restaurant (seating area, kitchen, storage, and associated office space).
Although minor modifications of the interior will be necessary, the square
footages devoted to the non-conforming use will be identical. Therefore, staff
finds that the proposed use will not increase or aggravate the degree of non-
conformity existing prior to the proposed change of use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION,
Based upon the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum, the Department of roval
request
change Community Develops, to allow orthde conpvers onoof rrestauprant space to off ~e space at
of non conforming >
the Potato Patch Club, subject to the following findings:
1. The Town Council determines that the proposed use does not substantially differ
from the existing non-conforming use in terms of compatibility with the character
of the area in which it is located.
3
2. The Town Council determines that the proposed use does not increase or
aggravate the degree of non-conformity existing prior to any such change of use.
If the Town Council chooses to approve this request, staff recommends the following
condition of approval:
1. The applicant shall acquire all required design review approvals and building
permits necessary for construction to facilitate this change of use.
4
1BA IVBIRA ll_.I N ASSOCIATES, IINC.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
August 1, 2000
George Ruther
Chief of Planning
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Potato Patch Club - Change of Use Application
Dear George:
The enclosed materials comprise a formal application to seek a "Change of Use" pursuant to Section 12-
18-8 of the Zoning Regulations, Town Code for the space currently occupied by the restaurant "Ciao" (a
legal nonconforming use) at the Potato Patch Club in Vail. The proposal would establish a professional
office use in this building.
In accordance with Section 12-18-8, permission is required from the Town Council to approve such a
request. We hereby request that the Town Council grant this permission and would like to be considered
on the August 15, 2000 agenda of the Town Council. Please let me know if this date as works with the
Town's schedule.
The attached analysis will show that the proposed change of use to a professional office lessens the
degree of nonconformity to the site and is compatible with adjacent uses.
If you have any questions, please feel free contact me at 926-7575.
Sin ely,
Dominic . Mauriello, A1CP
RECD AUG 0 72000
Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 Ph. - 970326.7575
0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576
Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.corn
Edwards, Colorado 81632
BAIMBIRAWN ASSOCIATES, IINC.
PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application Submittal
For
"Change of Use"
Potato Patch Club
Vail, Colorado
August 1, 2000
1. Description of the Request
The owner of the existing restaurant space at the Potato Patch Club, Pepi Gramshammer, is
requesting the that the Town of Vail Council approve a "change of use" pursuant to Section 12-
18-8 of the Zoning Regulations, Town Code. The restaurant space is currently occupied by
restaurant "Ciao." The Potato Patch Club property is zoned Residential Cluster (RC), which
does not allow restaurants as a permitted or conditional use as the code is written today. The
restaurant is a legal nonconforming use.
The owner would like to convert the restaurant use to a professional office use.
Section 12-18-8 Change of Use states:
A nonconforming use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use unless
permission has been granted by the Town Council. Prior to granting such permission,
the Council shall determine that the proposed use does not substantially differ from the
existing nonconforming use in terms of compatibility with the character of the area in
which it is located, and the Council shall determine that the proposed use does not
increase or aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing prior to any such change of
use.
The Town Council has the ability to approve the owner's request for the change of use from a
restaurant to a professional office subject to making the two findings above. As further
described below, the proposed office use is more compatible with the character of the
surrounding residential area and that the proposed use lessens the degree of nonconformity. The
proposal is a positive change for the Potato Patch Club Homeowners Association, whose
members are arguably most impacted by the use of this professional office space, support the
proposed change of use from a restaurant to a professional office (see attached letter).
Edwards Village Center, Suite C-209 Ph. - 970.926.7575
0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576
Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com
Edwards, Colorado 81632
II. Background
Restaurants, such as "Ciao" and "Noodles," have occupied the commercial space for decades.
The restaurant use on the property has proven to be problematic in terms of economic viability in
recent years. The location is not ideal from a competitive standpoint with other restaurants
located in the Village and Lionshead.
III. Compatibility with the Neighborhood
The Potato Patch Club has always been a mixed-use facility. The residential uses surround and
conceal the existing tennis club and restaurant. Therefore, there are few, if any, impacts of the
existing uses on the site to the neighborhood outside of the Potato Patch Club property.
IV. Application of Review Criteria
Below are the criteria that the Town Council must consider when granting a change of use:
o The Town Council shall determine that the proposed use does not
substantially differ from the existing nonconforming use in terms of
compatibility with the character of the area in which it is located.
Response:
The property today is a mixed-use development with a large recreation
component, the tennis club and pool, multiple family residential uses, and a
restaurant. The restaurant currently generates traffic to the site above that
normally occurring on a site solely reserved for residential uses. These uses,
while probably used frequently by the residential owners on-site, generate most of
their customers from off-site. The change in use from a restaurant to an office use
will decrease the traffic to the site and demand for parking. Restaurants generate
great demand for loading and delivery (i.e., beverage trucks, linen services, food
trucks); they generate odor in the form of smoke and grease; and they generate
noise from music, kitchen noises, exhaust vents, etc. An office will have none of
these impacts, outside of the occasional UPS truck. A professional office use will
be a better neighbor to the residential uses on site due to the reduction of these
impacts.
Potato Patch Club Page 2 of 3
Braun Associates, Inc.
• The Council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase or
aggravate the degree of nonconformity existing prior to any such change of
use.
Response:
The proposed office use will occupy the same gross floor area (3,660 sq. ft. gross,
500 sq. ft. of which is common mechanical/hallways for both building tenants) in
which the restaurant has operated, thereby not increasing or aggravating the
degree of nonconformity. Additionally, the demand for parking and loading and
delivery on the site will be reduced. Depending on the final floor plan for the
office use, the parking requirement will go from 14 spaces for the existing
restaurant seating area to approximately 13 spaces for the office use, therefore
decreasing the nonconformity.
V. Association Approval
The Potato Patch Club Homeowner's Association has approved the change of use and welcomes
the establishment of a professional office use on this property. The Association's approval
provides additional evidence of the compatibility of the proposed office use with the surrounding
residential and recreational uses.
Potato Patch Club Page 3 of 3
Braun Associates, Inc.
JLL-05•-20,30 13 ' 32 F FMM: G FC-=' zaTUZ 9 s 0T=576 ?'O: 970 476 8816 P. WE',, 0021
July 5, 20M
Chid of PI inn
Town a£ V au
75 S. f.-waage Road
Vaal. CO 91657
Ra RGsWturmt Space at the lbtmto P'ateb Club
1o8 Coorgez
As owner of the cmrmnt msmuraant space at the Potato Patch Club, P bercby audwi're BrAL&u Associums.
Inc. to act on my behalf wleh reiprd to pr=wsiiug an application with the Town of !fail for u .cl=ge of
use of this facility.
Sans~cely.
Peps G l rAcs
9nrv) 'TgTnR -Tnu.T.cvn nTee 0117 AIR TVJ QYY eT nnrenrrn
JUL-17-2000 13:31 FROM VAIL HOME RENTALS, INC. TO 9267576 P.01
3tnly S, ~t3
Town of Vaal
75 S. Fmutdge Road
Vail. CO 81657
Re: Potato Patch C1nh Rest ua=t Spate (Units 43 anti 44)
To Whom It May Concern:
The Powo PatLh Gub FQumwner's Assori'ation, at its annual eneetittg of .tiny 3. XW, wm a, ej4fted
by Pepi< Granshamnox with regard to the change of use and Wr d : of the C-.-- re8canrsnt space (bb
units 43 and 44) to a professional office use. Those dkwwrs and -;.-ben present ave vcd this c e
of use.
if you have any tfucstions, please c4 to at 476.2221.
Sitac~ly,
Lwty T1<arnes
Val go= Rentals
Froperty Markspr for the'rom m Pm%h Club
TOTAL P.01
Second. Floor, Potato Patch Club
July 31, 2000
. w.. _ f
1
1.2'
~ 3.4' { 35.4' - -
1
,mow.
Existing Restaurant/
i Proposed Office Space
1
~ X /.1
Deck
t
r
3
i O
t
31 I 36.6' i~ m'i
First Floor, Potato Patch Club
July 31, 2000
14.7' .4.5 { 16.2'
~n
ui
~ o
r+
H
Ol
Existing Restaurant/
Proposed Office Space
1550 sq~ft. j ~
)
Racquet Club
cli 3,664 sq. ft. Ci
i
i
i
)
i
i
i
i
)
~ I INP~P)
51.2' 10.5'
tJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FR: Bob NlcLaurin
Town Manager
RE: Propose Ice Sheet
DT: August 16, 2000
We continue to work with the Vail Recreation District and the Vail Junior Hockey League
to develop a proposal to provide a temporary sheet of ice. The purpose of this memo is
to provide the Town Council with an update on this issue and to facilitate a discussion
about how the Council wishes to proceed with this matter.
I believe we have all the data needed and the Council now needs to decide how to
proceed.
RINK LOCATION
The best location for the proposed rink is determined by several factors, including
existing grade and site conditions, proximity parking, restrooms, locker rooms and other
amenities.. Because of the tight tolerances required by the ice, I believe the most
important factor is existing site conditions.
As you are aware, we have been discussing two locations for this facility. The first is the
ballfields at Ford Park and the second is the driving range at the Vail Golf Course. We
have now prepared topographic maps showing the existing conditions for each site.
Based on these surveys, it appears the best site to locate this facility would be at the
driving range location. While the site preparation costs are estimated to be $150,000,
this is a one time cost and is significantly less than the site preparation requirements of
the ballfield site. Also, the annual maintenance cost to restore the area when the ice is
removed is significantly less at the driving range site. Therefore, it is my
recommendation that if the Council chooses to fund this facility, it be located at the
Driving Range.
ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ISSUES
Land use at the driving range is governed by the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The
development review procedure for siting this facility at the Driving Range involves
changing the zoning from Outdoor Recreation to General Use. Once the zoning
designation has been changed, a conditional use permit will be required. Both
procedures require a review by the PEC and final approval by the Town Council. Once
the site plan has been approved, the facility would be subject to DRB approval.
As indicated last week, if we are to have this facility in place this winter, we will need to
order the refrigeration system and bubble prior to final approval of the site plan and final
development review procedures.
LOGISTICAL ISSUES
I believe all the logistical issues have also been addressed at this point. Logistical
issues involve the annual erection, removal, transportation and storage of the facility. As
indicated last week, the VRD will direct the erection and removal of the facility. Vail
Junior Hockey members will provide the labor for these events and the Town of Vail will
transport the facility to the designated storage area. It my understanding the VRD has
located a place to store this equipment down valley. It is important to understand that
the TOV does not have the manpower to accept the responsibility of set up and tear
down of the facility nor the space to store the facility.
COSTS
The estimated cost of this project is attached to this memo. As indicated in the exhibit,
the estimated cost is $770,000.
If the Council chooses to move forward with this project, it will be necessary to fund this
project from our current fund balance. This would be done through a supplemental
appropriation on September 5th and 19th. The estimated fund balance for the Capital
Projects Fund is $6.9 million (12/31/00).
Please advise how you wish to proceed.
Driving Range Site
Commercial
Item
Bubble $ 204,000
Interior Lights Included
Heat Included
Flooring $ 10,000
Interior Netting $ 1,700
Bubble Anchors $ 5,000
Subtotal Bubble $ 220,700
Refrigeration Unit
Turbochiller Unit $ 231,000
Porta Pipe System Included
Dashers $ 72,000
Subtotal Ice System $ 303,000
Electrical Upgrade $ 60,000
Site Preparation $ 150,000
Subtotal Miscellanous Costs $ 210,000
Subtotal $ 733,700
Contingency (5%) $ 36,685
TOTAL $ 770,385
CITIZEN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning the management of
development, and, in connection therewith, specifying that local governments, unless
otherwise excepted, shall approve development only within areas committed to development
or within future growth areas in accordance with voter-approved growth area maps,
requiring such local governments to delineate areas committed to development, requiring
local governments proposing a future growth area to submit a growth area map to a vote
at a regular election, specifying the content of growth impact disclosures to be distributed
to voters in connection with such elections, and specifying the type of allowed action or
development within growth areas, committed areas, or outside such areas.
Tent of Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
ARTICLE XXVIII
CITIZEN MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO:
The constitution of the state of Colorado is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A
NEW ARTICLE to read:
Section 1. Purpose. THE PEOPLE OF COLORADO FIND THAT RAPID,
UNPLANNED AND UNREGULATED GROWTH THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND
SUBDIVISION OF LAND IS A MATTER OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE AND
CONCERN, BECAUSE IT IS CAUSING SERIOUS HARM TO PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE BY CONSUMING LARGE TRACTS OF OPEN SPACE
AND FARM AND RANCH LANDS, SCENIC VISTAS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
AND HISTORIC SITES; IMPOSING UNFAIR TAX BURDENS ON EXISTING
RESIDENTS; OVERBURDENING POLICE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY
SERVICES, SCHOOLS, ROADS, WATER SUPPLIES, AND OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND SERVICES; CREATING INCREASED LEVELS OF TRAFFIC
CONGESTION; CAUSING UNHEALTHY LEVELS OF AIR AND WATER
POLLUTION; HARMING WILDLIFE, BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS;AND
IMPAIRING THE ABILITY OF CITIES, CITY AND COUNTIES, COUNTIES, AND
TOWNS TO MAINTAIN COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND PROTECT
NEIGHBORHOODS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO REQUIRE CITIZEN
MANAGEMENT, OF GROWTH BY PROVIDING VOTERS WITH INFORMATION
CONCERNING GROWTH IMPACTS, BY PROVIDING VOTERS WITH CONTROL
OVER GROWTH AREAS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND BY REQUIRING
COORDINATION AMONG LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
PROPOSED GROWTH AREAS. THIS ARTICLE SHALL PRE-EMPT ANY
INCONSISTENT PROVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, STATE STATUTE, LOCAL
ORDINANCE, OR OTHER PROVISION OF LAW.
Section 2. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT
OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
(1) "CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICE" MEANS THE
PROVISION OF POTABLE WATER AND DISPOSAL OF SEWAGEBY
MEANS OF WATER SUPPLY PIPES LEADING FROM A WATER
TREATMENT PLANT OR COMMUNITY WELL AND SANITARY
SEWER PIPES LEADING TO AN EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT
THAT IS NOT A FREESTANDING PACKAGE PLANT.
(2) "COMMITTED AREA" MEANS AN AREA OF LAND WHICH HAS
BEEN COMMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT, IN THAT THE LAND
- - MEET-S--ONE-ux-iviORE-vr6~OWt=NG=Ctz11=ExIA: -
(a) AS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BECOMES SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE, ALL OF THE LAND
IS CONTAINED WITHIN A RECORDED SUBDIVISION OR
TOWNSITE AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE LOTS IN SUCH
SUBDIVISION OR TOWNSITE (1) HAVE HAD PERMANENT,
PRIMARY STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON THEM OR (II)
HAVE HAD CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
EXTENDED TO THEM AND ALL .LOTS ARE OR SHALL BE
SERVED BY CENTRAL WATER AND SEWER WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE; OR
(b) A VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AS TO SUCH
LAND, THE APPROVAL OF WHICH WOULD RESULT IN
DEVELOPMENT THAT SHALL BE SERVED BY CENTRAL
WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED
TO THE APPROPRIATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AS OF THE
DATE ON WHICH THE 2000 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF
STATE; OR
(c) THE LAND HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AS AN AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT OR
REDEVELOPMENT AND IT DIRECTLY ABUTS, EXCEPT
FOR INTERVENING DEDICATED PUBLIC STREETS OR
ROADS, AREAS MEETING THE CRITERIA OF PARAGRAPH
(a) OF SUBSECTION (2) HEREOF ALONG 100% OF ITS
PERIMETER, OR ALONG AT LEAST 50% OF ITS PERIMETER
AND BY PERMANENTLY PROTECTED OPEN SPACES,
FEDERAL LANDS, OR BODIES OF WATER ALONG THE
REMAINDER OF ITS PERIMETER.
(3) "DEVELOPMENT" MEANS COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, OR
INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER ACTIVITY WHICH CHANGES THE
BASIC CHARACTER OR THE USE OF THE LAND SO AS TO PERMIT
COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION.
"DEVELOPMENT" SHALL NOT INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT OF FACILITIES FOR
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC UTILITIES, MINING OF MINERALS AND
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
PRODUCTION, OR FOR THE DIVERSION, STORAGE, TRANSPORTATION, OR
USE OF WATER WITHIN THE STATE OF COLORADO.
(4) "GROWTH AREA" IS AN AREA SHOWN ON A GROWTH AREA MAP
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT
MAY OCCUR.
(5) "LOCAL GOVERNMENT"-MEANS ALL STA i u i uxY~,CHaxi t~x AND
HOME RULE CITIES AND TOWNS, HOME RULE AND STATUTORY COUNTIES,
AND CITIES AND COUNTIES.
(6) "REGULAR ELECTION" MEANS AN ELECTION HELD ON THE FIRST
TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER IN EVEN-NUMBERED
YEARS, OR AN ELECTION HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER IN
ODD-NUMBERED YEARS.
(7) "SUBDIVISION" MEANS THE DIVISION OF AN AREA OF LAND OR A
DEFINED LOT OR TRACT INTO TWO OR MORE DEFINED LOTS OR TRACTS.
(8) "VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION" MEANS AN APPLICATION
THAT SUBSTANTIVELY MEETS ALL OF THE RULES FOR SUBMISSION
APPLICABLE TO A PROPOSAL AND THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS TIMELY
AND COMPLETE BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATING THE USE OF
LAND COVERED BY THE APPLICATION.
Section 3. Permitted Development. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, UNLESS
EXEMPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBSECTION (1) OR (2) OF SECTION 4 OF
THIS ARTICLE, SHALL ONLY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT (a) WITHIN
COMMITTED AREAS, (b) WITHIN GROWTH AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
VOTER-APPROVED GROWTH AREA MAPS, OR (c) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 9 OF THIS ARTICLE.
Section 4. Growth Area Maps.
(1) THIS ARTICLE SHALL APPLY TO ALL COUNTIES AND CITY AND
COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN 10,000 RESIDENTS AS
SHOWN BY THE MOST RECENT DECENNIAL CENSUS, OR IF MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE LAST CENSUS DATE, THEN THE
POPULATION AS SHOWN BY A PROJECTION PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF LOCAL AFFAIRS OR ITS SUCCESSOR AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH
YEAR FOLLOWING THAT CENSUS DATE. THE GOVERNING BODY OF ANY
COUNTY WITH A POPULATION OF LESS THAN 25,000 RESIDENTS MAY
SUBMIT A REFERRED QUESTION TO THE VOTERS EXEMPTING FOR A
MAXIMUM PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND ALL LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WITHIN IT FROM ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ARTICLE.
UPON VOTER APPROVAL OF SUCH AN EXEMPTION, THIS ARTICLE SHALL
NOT APPLY TO SAID COUNTY AND ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN IT
FOR THE PERIOD APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. SAID FOUR-YEAR PERIOD
MAYBE RENEWED OREXTENDED BY A SUBSEQUENT REFERRED QUESTION.
(2) THIS ARTICLE SHALL ALSO APPLY TO EVERY CITY OR TOWN WITH
ANY PORTION OF ITS CORPORATE LIMITS LOCATED IN ANY COUNTY TO
WHICH THIS ARTICLE APPLIES. CITIES OR TOWNS WITH FEWER THAN 1,000
RESIDENTS SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PREPARE A GROWTH AREA MAP,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE GOVERNING BODY OF A CITY OR TOWN
----OF-FEWER THAI ,000RESIDENTS SIL NO= TAPPROVE-ANY=DEV-EL=OPMENT
THAT WOULD CAUSE THE CITY'S OR TOWN'S POPULATION TO EXCEED 1,000
UNTIL THE VOTERS OF THAT CITY OR TOWN HAVE APPROVED A GROWTH
AREA MAP WITH RESPECT THERETO AS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE.
(3) EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL
DELINEATE ITS COMMITTED AREAS NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 2001
OR WITHIN ONE YEAR OF BECOMING SUBJECT TO THIS ARTICLE,
WHICHEVER OCCURS LATER.
(4) A GROWTH AREA MAP SHALL INCLUDE A MAP AND TEXT
DESCRIBING A PROPOSED GROWTH AREA AND SHALL IDENTIFY THE
GENERAL LOCATIONS OF EACH PROPOSED LAND USE AND THE GENERAL
RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES WITHIN SUCH GROWTH AREA. NO
PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAY BE DESIGNATED ON A GROWTH AREA MAP
UNLESS THE DEVELOPMENT IN SUCH AREA SHALL BE SERVED A CENTRAL
WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM AND ROADS, WHICH CAN BE CONSTRUCTED
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE BORROWING, TAXING, AND SPENDING
LIMITATIONS, WITHIN TEN YEARS FOLLOWING VOTER APPROVAL. FOR
EVERY CITY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR TOWN, EACH PROPOSED GROWTH
AREA SHALL ABUT ALONG ONE SIXTH OR MORE OF ITS PERIMETER TO A
COMMITTED AREA OR TO ONE OR MORE GROWTH AREAS THAT WERE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE VOTERS OF THE PROPOSING CITY, CITY
AND COUNTY, OR TOWN. EACH GROWTH AREA MAP AND ITS TEXT:
(a) SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH IMPACT
DISCLOSURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 5 OF THIS ARTICLE;
(b) SHALL BE DEVELOPED WITH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION,
INCLUDING, PRIOR TO BEING REFERRED FOR VOTER
APPROVAL, AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OR EQUIVALENT BODY, AND AT
LEAST ONE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY
OF THE PROPOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT UPON THIRTY DAYS'
PUBLISHED NOTICE; AND
(c) SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH GROWTH PROPOSED BY OTHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IN THAT GROWTH AREA MAPS (I)
SHALL BE DEVELOPED IN COOPERATION WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OF EACH COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPOSED
GROWTH AREA IS LOCATED AND ANY OTHER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THAT SHARES A COMMON BOUNDARY WITH
THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA; AND (II) SHALL NOT CONFLICT
WITH OR OVERLAP THE GROWTH AREA MAP THAT ANOTHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS PROPOSING FOR APPROVAL AT THE
SAME ELECTION OR WHICH HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE VOTERS OF ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Section 5. Voter Approval and Growth Impact Disclosures. THE GOVERNING
BODY OF EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSING A GROWTH AREA SHALL
REFER-EAC-Ii-YKUF0SE-li-cixUw-r-H AR=EA=MAP 7--0`-N=FuFULAR=VOTE= -T=A
REGULAR ELECTION.
(1) THE BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR THE
REFERENDUM SHALL BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA
WITHOUT ARGUMENT OR PREJUDICE, AND SHALL ASK . WHETHER THE
PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP SHALL BE ADOPTED.
(2) THE PROPOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE GROWTH
IMPACT DISCLOSURES THAT DESCRIBE THE IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT
ALLOWED BY THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP. THE GROWTH AREA MAP
AND THE ASSOCIATED GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO VOTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES SET
FORTH IN ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 (3). THE GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES
SHALL DESCRIBE:
(a) THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA, INCLUDING,
IF APPLICABLE, OPEN SPACES AND PARKS; NEW PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING LAW
ENFORCEMENT, EMERGENCY' AND HEALTH SERVICES,
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ROADS, ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS, FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES,
WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, THE INITIAL AND ONGOING
COSTS FOR SUCH FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE
PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES FOR THESE COSTS; NUMBER OF
HOUSING UNITS, INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS;
AND ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE SHARING
ARRANGEMENTS; AND
(b) THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED GROWTH,
INCLUDING: PROJECTED POPULATION INCREASE;
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE THE GROWTH AREA; PROJECTED EFFECT UPON
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY; WATER SUPPLY NEEDED AND THE
ANTICIPATED SOURCES AND COST OF THE WATER SUPPLY;
AND HOW THE PROPOSED GROWTH AREA MAP CONFLICTS OR
COORDINATES WITH GROWTH AREA MAPS EITHER APPROVED
BY, OR BEING PROPOSED TO, THE VOTERS OF ADJACENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
(3) ALL GROWTH IMPACT DISCLOSURES SHALL BE BASED UPON THE
BEST GENERALLY AVAILABLE DATA ROUTINELY USED BY -LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PLANNERS IN THIS STATE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
MASTER PLANS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
Section 6. Allowed Actions within Growth Area. ALL DEVELOPMENT,
SUBDIVISION OF LAND, CHANGES IN LAND USE OR DENSITY, AND
CONSTRUCTION OR EXTENSION OF CENTRAL WATER OR SEWER SYSTEMS
-
OR-ROADS=ON=LAND THAT IS~JT=T=H-IN=A DOTE-APPROVED--GR- - -w=l-H ARE.P-
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH AREA MAP. DEVELOPMENT
UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE,
ENTERPRISES, SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, SPECIAL DISTRICTS, TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS, OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS, SHALL ALSO BE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROWTH AREA MAP.
Section 7. Development within Committee Areas. DEVELOPMENT OR
SUBDIVISION OF LAND WITHIN A COMMITTED AREA MAY BE COMPLETED
WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS, AND ANY APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES.
Section 8. Amendment to Growth Area Maps. ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY REFER AN ISSUE TO THE VOTERS TO AMEND AN APPROVED GROWTH
AREA MAP AT A REGULAR ELECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THIS ARTICLE.
Section 9. Lands Outside Committed Areas and Growth Areas. NO
DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE APPROVED FOR LAND
NOT INCLUDED IN A COMMI i i t:D AREA OR AN APPROVED GROWTH AREA,
EXCEPT THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY APPROVE OR ALLOW, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS LAND USE RULES AND REGULATIONS:
(1) DEVELOPMENT WHICH (a) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPROVALS OR (b) REQUIRES ONLY THE ISSUANCE
OF A BUILDING PERMIT;
(2) DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION OF LAND CONSISTENT WITH A
VALID DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WHICH HAD BEEN FILED AS OF THE
DATE ON WHICH THE 2000 GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT WAS CERTIFIED BY
THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE;
(3) THE CREATION OF NO MORE THAN THREE LOTS OF NO MORE
THAN TWO ACRES EACH TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENCES OF IMMEDIATE
FAMILY MEMBERS OF AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNER;
1 0
(4) A DIVISION OF LAND THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ITS CONTROL AS
A SUBDIVISION OF LAND BASED ON STATUTES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE
LAND IS SUBDIVIDED;
(5) PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE;
(6) A DIVISION OF LAND THAT IS PERMI i i tD BY STATUTE AS A
RURAL CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ARTICLE;
(7) NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND
- --.SQUARE-FEET--TO -PERMIT-RETAIL OR SERvi(;ir-.u~iE- w-ffh -ENO-OTHER -
RETAIL OR SERVICE USES ARE LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE SITE;
AND
(S) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, OTHER THAN
CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS OR RELATED FACILITIES, THAT
PROVIDES ONLY GOODS OR SERVICES TO SUPPORT NEARBY
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, IN AN AREA WHERE THERE ARE NO OTHER
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SITES WITHIN ONE MILE.
Section 10. Private Property Rights. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION IS
INTENDED TO AFFECT OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED
TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Section 11. Interpretation. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES SET OUT IN SECTION 1. ANY
LAWS ENACTED IN DEROGATION OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE STRICTLY
CONSTRUED.
Proposed growth initiative
"Valid development application" defined
by Carolynne White, StaffArnarney , that a developer requested a letter cer- On the other hand, this poses the dan-
hat is avalid development tifying that its application was "timely ser of creating expectations for those
Wapplication? -The principal is- and complete" within the meaning of property owners who have submitted
sue a municipality can address before I the definition of valid development ap- I valid development application; that
the election. I plication. As the deadline approaches, they will certainly be able to develop,
The growth initiative uses the term this will become a critical issue for regardless of the municipality's re-
"valid development application" in both property owners and municipal ( quirements.
two places. First, if a valid develop- j officials. Once the measure is passed, A stricter interpretation could have
tracer application has been filed fora new development applications may the opposite effect. While the danger
particular piece of property, "the ap- only be approved if they ate in a I of creating expectations among prop-
proval of which would result in devcl- I growth area, which must be approved I erty owners is not present, a muniei-
opment that shall be served by central j by the voters. (With some exceptions, pality that defined valid development
water and sewer services,"_that.,prop-_^_. -Sec main-,article-aPplicaiion strictly-could ezpericnce a
=err -is-cansidercd-a'"commitud area" I j de facto moratorium because few
y What should municipalities do?
within which a local government may As with many features of the mea- properties would qualify as commitud
~
approve development„ (If property is j sure, the ultimate meaning of what areas. Municipalities experiencing
in a committed area, it can be devcl- I constitutes a valid development rapid growth may find this a useful
I
opcd without an election, as retluired I way to slow things down. On the
for new growth areas.) The applica- I app)ication, or what is "timely and other hand, there may be takings im-
tion must have been filed by the date I complete may be subject to debase plications, if property owners are un-
on which the Secretary of State certi- I and judicial interpretation. White the
following may shed light on ap- I able to develop their ..,rerty under
fies the November ballot. (The dead- ` any circumstances.
line is Sept. 13, but the secretary could ! Preaches to secure some level of cer- If a municipality decides to take no
tainty, municipal officials are encour-
certify the ballot earlier.) action prior to the date on which the
aged to consult their attorney.
11 Second, a local government may ? Some municipalities have enacted I measure takes effect, if it passes, the
approve development, "in accordance interpretation of what constitutes a
with its land use ruins and rccord j ordinances defining what constitutes it I valid development application and
, valid development application. For in- "times" will de-
tions," if a valid development applica- I I what is Y and comPlete
tion has been filed, under the excep- i stance, one could designate prelinii- ; pond on the municipality's interpreta-
nit y plat, final plat or some other Lion of its own rules and regulations
tions in Section 9 of the measure, for j stage in the process, in much the same I for development applications subject
areas that are neither committed areas J
nor approved growth areas. This ex- I way vested rights ordinances designate I to possible implementing legislation or
at what point in the procress rights to judicial review).
ception doesn't require central water j develop will vest.. In this way, both I and sewer. In any event, submission of a valid
j property owners and municipalities
A valid development application is may achieve some certainty as to development application, and being
defined by the measure as one that I orandfathcred under the measure, ap-
which properties will be included in a
"substantively meets all of the rules I committed area based on the valid de- parcntly does not nuarantee that a
fnr submission applicable to a pro- property owner can develop. It only
posal and that has been accepted as velopment application criteria, if the I ourtrantecs that its application will be
timely and complete by the local gov- measure passes. considered, under the same rules and
A more liberal interpretation of
ernment. regulations governing development in
what constitutes a valid development j etch municipality before the growth
What does this mean for application could increase a munici-
i ~ initiative. A municipality may still
municipalities? ~ pastry's flexibility by enlarging the ~ deny or condition development appli -
Many of you have already con- pool of development that can be ap-
racted the League to inform us that de- i proved without an election. This cations, whether or not the pr- -Y is
in
velopers are inquiring what they must would also allow a I.-W.r Growth Area a committed area
For more information, contact
do to get their properties into commit- I Map to be presented to the voters, be.
ted areas, or grandfathered under the j cause the -1h area must have one- Camlynnc C. White, staff attorney 0.
measure. One municipality reported sixth contiguity to a committed arses
6 CM[ Newsletter luly27, 2000
Vol. 26, No. 15
I Jul v 21, 2000
CML
`oi~~l:fl~ ~l l~~lt~1?11s1~1~~VHtl1~
CM L on the Web- w ww.crnl.oirg
itizen growth management
allot issue summarized
by Carolynne White, StafJ`Attorney Summary
n July 3, the Supreme Court up- This measure adds a new article to
held the ballot title, "The Citizen the Colorado Constitution entitled
=Management-of=Growwth,° for_proposed-- ''Citizen-Manaoement_of_Growth." In _
,::..a.....
- Initiative 256. Proponents are now general, the article which applies only
gathering signatures to place the mea- to counties with populations of greater
sure on the ballot for November. They than 10,000 residents (and their con-
PC
must ather approximately 64,000 si - stituent municipalities) limits the cir-
natures by Aug. 7 to make the ballot. cumsiances under which new develop-
-inia: ; A summary of the initiative follows. ment may occur to three categories:
A chart showing which municipali- ® Land within "committed areas,"
catogones . l ties fall into which of the measure's where development has already oc-
categories is on page curred, or has been
i 6Vyiere does your Workshop
seven. Municipalities or is being
°'.COmmuni with of processed on the
less than 1,000 are day of certification
page Preparing for the teneral
exempt from prepay- of the 2000
ing Growth Area Citizen's Growth Initiative election ballot, and
Maps. Municipalities where the develop-
within counties of Friday, Aug. 11, 1-4 p.m. ment would be
less than 10,000 At CIVIL served by central
population are 1144 Sherman in Deriver. water and sewer
exempt entirely. Free but
service.
Municipalities within ® Land within
seating is limiteda
counties between "Growth Area
T Register early: (303) 831-6411.
_ 10,000 and 25,000 in Maps" prepared by
population may be the local govem-
exempt, if the county votes to exempt ment and submitted to the electorate
- itself on a countywide basis for four for voter approval. If the map is not
years. Finally, municipalities with approved, development may not occur.
Afford abig populations of 1,000 or more in coup- Significant preparation and analysis
ties with populations of 25,000 or responsibilities are imposed upon local
housing i greater are not exempt in any way. governments in preparing the maps
The League has not taken a position and taking them to election.
DOH sets statewide 1 on the initiative, but continues to N Exceptions to the measure are pro-
monitor its progress and analyze its vided, including previously approved
workshops. implications. Our growth committee but unbuilt projects and seven other
page 4 will meet in mid-August to consider specific exceptions.
the issues and make a recommendation By its terms, the measure is de-
to the board. In late August, the board clared to be applicable to all general-
will meet and adopt a position.
Sm Samerary continued on page 2
r•
Classified Corner summary continued from page I "Development" does not include the
construction, operation, maintenance,
purpose local governments: cities, repair or replacement of facilities for
FOR SALE telecommunications, public utilities,
cities and counties, statutory towns
For sale by the city of Greenwood and home-rule municipalities. mining of minerals and construction
Village, one 1996 Elgin Pelican P, AppClgbiltty and materials, oil and gas exploration and
compfance
three-wheel sweeper, serial number p
The measure applies to all counties production, , or for the diversion, stor-
transportation or use of water.
P2001 D. Please refer to our unit with populations greater than 10,000
number 8901.ODO 15,081 (Hours residents, including city-counties such Committed areas
2,091) Bids will be received no later as Denver and Broomfield. Included A committed area is defined as land
than July 28 at 2 P.M. Bids can be as well is every municipality "with any which on the effective date of the mea-
ortion of its corporate limits located sure has been committed to develop-
ment portion
by meeting one or more of three
be mailed to 10001 E. Costilla Ave., in any county to which this article ap-
Greenwood Village, CO 80112. Mark plies." Municipalities with fewer than criteria:
1,000 residents are not required to pre- 1. The land is within a recorded
the envelope: Attn: Fleet Services. pare a Growth Area Map unless ap- subdivision or town site and at least 50
=ContaetS:=Shawn-Khankan-_fleet._._ _ _percent _of the lots have either ha_d_pri-
provai=or-a-develvYtttcnt would=cause=
manager, (303) 708-6125 or their population to exceed 1,000. mary structures built or water and
skhankan @9reenwoodvilla9e..eom An exemption is provided for coun- sewer service extended to them, and
or Julie Lafasciano, fleet staff ties with populations of less than all lots will be served by central water
assistant, (303) 708-6124 or jlafas- 25,000 residents, who may submit a and sewer; or
2. A pending development applica-
ciano@greenwoodvillage.com. referred question to the voters exempt- Lion with respect to
ing that county
The town of Snowmass Village is and all of the mu- the land has been
submitted as of the
selling two. 1993 Bluebird Mini nicipalities within Z)
Buses. For information contact Chip it for periods not date the 2000 -en-
era] era] election ballot
Foster, (970) 923-2543 or email: to exceed four
t_ S was certified, but
cfoster@tosv.com. years.
All local only to the extent
4o rx. t
ernments the property is or
FILING SYSTEM AVAILABLE quired to o are re- delineate will be served by
'
The city of Northglenn has an open- uired
central water and
shelf bucket filing system available their committed - = sewer; or
free of charge. Equipment consists areas not later than 3. The land di-
Dec. 31, 2001, or
of 1 stand-alone 45" cabinet' 1 dou- within one year of b rectly abuts, with at least 50 percent of
becoming subject to
ble-face 90" Cabinet; and 1 stand- the article, whichever occurs last. its perimeter, land meeting criteria
alone 90" (missing "L" bracket) eabi- Development within committed areas number 1 above, and along the re-
net. Contact Diana Lentz, city clerk, may take place without any further mainder of its perimeter by open
(303) 450-8755 for information.. voter approval "if in accordance with space, federal lands or bodies of water;
approved plans and any applicable and the land has been identified for
regulations and guidelines." development.
Allowed development The fact that land is within the mu-
IM L nicipal boundary currently or in the
The basic premise is that develop- future does not qualify it as a commit-
" - ' ment (defined as any commercial, resi-
Published biweekly by the Colorado Municipal League ted area unless it also meets one of the
for Colorado's municipal officials. (LISPS 075.590). dentlal or industrial construction or three criteria above.
Periodical Postage Paid at Denver. Colorado other activity which changes the basic .~i~
Communications Manager. Allison Lockwood character or use of the Iand to permit G Mh areas
Research Associate: Jane] Helt such uses") is permitted only within: While the definition and use of the
POSTMASTER: Send address change forth 3579 to committed-area concept permits con-
Colorado Municipal League. 1144 Sherman St„ 1. a committed area,
Denver, CO 80203-2207: (303) 831-6411. FAX (303) 2. a voter-approved Growth Area tinued development in areas that have
860-8175 Map; or been finally approved for development
Subscriptions to CML Newsletter are offered as a portion 3. under one of the exceptions in or are in the process of such approval,
of member dues. Cost for nonmembers is 5300 a year. Section 9. the Growth Area Map process is de-
.
2 CML Newsletter July 21, 2000
signed to regulate new growth. [TABOR). The contents of the disclo- of the 2000 general election ballot.
"Growth area" is defined as an area sures are detailed: 3. The creation of no more than
shown on a Growth Area Map ap- Major elements of the proposed three lots of no more than two acres
proved by the voters. growth area, including a long list of each to accommodate residences for
A Growth Area Map must be pre- items such as open space, parks, pub- immediate family members of an agn-
pared and submitted to the voters be- lic facilities and infrastructure, roads, cultural property.
fore any new development may be schools, fire protection, water and 4. Subdivision of land that is not
permitted, other than in committed ar- sewer, funding sources, number of subject to subdivision control under
eas or areas that qualify under one of housing units including affordable state law at the time the subdivision is
the Section 9 exemptions. The housing and revenue arrangements. approved.
Growth Area Map must include a map The measure does not describe who 5. Construction of publicly owned
and text describing the area, the gen- bears the costs of this preparation. facilities for health, safety and welfare
eral locations of land use and a range The anticipated effects of the pro- needs.
of development densities. No land posed growth including, among other 6. Division of land that is permitted
may be included within a Growth Area
Map "unless central water and sewer :t
services and roads can be extended to r w -
the area' within the constraints-of- - - ~'r _ ,F
aPPlicable borrowing taxing and
,
a a ® r
4*4
spending limitations, within 10 years
following approval.
a
Growth areas in municipalities must
Y
abut along one-sixth or more of their
a ~ . It
perimeter either a committed area or a~
previously approved growth area. The
measure does not define how the one-
sixth contiguity is to be calculated.
The one-sixth contiguity requirement
applies to municipal growth areas but a ` ;damp'
not counties. T F:
Growth Area Maps and their text
must be submitted to public notice and
hearing before a.planning commission
and the elected local governing body
and are required to be "consistent with
growth proposed by other local gov-
ernments." Growth Area Maps may
not "conflict with or overlap the things, population, transportation, traf- as a cluster development as of the ef-
Growth Area Map that another local fic, air and water quality. fective date of the initiative.
government is proposing for approval Apparently any substantial variation 7. Nonresidential development of
at the same election or which has been in the development from the Growth less than 10,000 square feet of land for
previously approved by another local Area Map and the proposal approved retail or service uses, where there are
,government" by voters requires approval at a subse- no similar uses located within one
The measure outlines disclosure quent election. mile.
and election procedures for obtaining Section 9 exceptions 8. Commercial or industrial devel-
voter approval of Growth Area Maps. The measure provides eight specific opment providing goods and services
The growth election must be held at a exceptions in addition to the ones lo- to support nearby agricultural opera-
November election. The proposing lo- cated elsewhere: teens (other than confined animal
cal government is required to prepare 1. Development of land requiring feeding operations).
a ballot title and submission clause no further approvals, other than build-
and detailed "growth impact disclo- ing permits.
sures," which are then sent to voters 2. Development or subdivision un-
"as a part of the notices distributed der a valid development application
pursuant to Article X, Section 20(3)" that was pending as of the certification Related stories continue on page 6
July 21, 2000 CML Newsletter 3
Proposed growth initiative
"Valid development application" defined
by Carolynne White, Staff Attorney that a developer requested a letter cer- On the other hand, this poses the dan-
W is a valid development tifying that its application was "timely ger of creating expectations for those
application? -The principal is- and complete" within the meaning, of property owners who have submitted
sue a municipality can address before the definition of valid development ap- valid development applications that
the election. plication. As the deadline approaches, they will certainly be able to develop,
The growth initiative uses the term this will become a critical issue for regardless of the municipality's re-
"valid development application" in both property owners and municipal quirements.
two places. First, if a valid develop- officials. Once the measure is passed, A stricter interpretation could have
ment application has been filed for a new development applications may the opposite effect. While the danger
particular piece of property, "the ap- only be approved if they are in a of creating expectations among prop-
proval of which would result in devel- growth area, which must be approved erty owners is not present, a munici-
opment that shall be served by central by the voters. (With some exceptions. pality that defined valid development
water and sewer services," that prop- See main article on page 1 r application=strietly=could-experience=a
erty is considered a "committed area" What de facto moratorium because few
What should municipalities do?
within which a local government may As with many features of.the mea- properties would qualify as committed
approve development. (If property is sure, the ultimate meaning of what areas. Municipalities experiencing
in a committed area, it can be devel- constitutes a valid development rapid growth may find this a useful
oped without an election, as required application, or what is "timely and way to slow things down. On the
for new growth areas.) The applica- " other hand, there may be takings im-
complete may be subject to debate
tion must have been filed by the date and judicial interpretation. While the plications, if property owners are un-
on which the Secretary of State certi- following may shed light on ap- able to develop their property under
fies the November ballot. (The dead- any circumstances.
proaches to secure some level of cer-
line is Sept. 13, but the secretary could tainty, municipal officials are encour- If a municipality decides to take no
certify the ballot earlier.) action prior to the date on which the
aged to consult their attorney.
Second, a local government may Some municipalities have enacted measure takes effect, if it passes, the
approve development, "in accordance ordinances def interpretation of what constitutes a
with its land use rules and regula- ining what constitutes a valid development application and
„ i valid development application. For in-
tions, if a valid development applica- stance, one could designate prelimi- what is "timely and complete" will de-
tion has been filed, under the excep- pend on the municipality's interpreta-
tions in Section 9 of the measure, for nary Plat, final plat or some other tion of its own rules and regulations
areas that are neither committed areas stage in the process, in much the same for development applications (subject
way vested rights ordinances designate
nor approved growth areas. This ex- to possible implementing legislation or
ception doesn't require central water at what point in the process rights to judicial review).
and sewer. develop will vest. In this way, both In any event, submission of a valid
A valid development application is property owners and municipalities development application, and being
defined by the measure as one that may achieve some certainty as to grandfathered under the measure, ap-
" which properties will be included in a
substantively meets all of the rules parently does not guarantee that a
committed area based on the valid de-
for submission applicable to a pro- property owner can develop. It only
velopment application criteria, if the guarantees that its application will be
posal and that has been accepted as
measure passes.
timely and complete by the local gov- A more liberal interpretation of considered, under the same rules and
ernment." regulations governing development in
what constitutes a valid development each municipality before the growth
What does this mean for application could increase a munici-
municipalities? paIity's flexibility by enlarging the initiative. A municipality may still
Many of you have already con- pool of development that can be ap- deny or condition development appli-
tacted the -League to inform us that de- proved without an election. This cations, whether or not the property is
velopers are inquiring what they must would also allow a larger Growth Area in a committed area.
do to get their properties into commit- Map to be presented to the voters, be- For more information, contact
ted areas, or grandfathered under the cause the growth area must have one- Carolynne C. White, staff attorney
measure. One municipality reported i sixth contiguity to a committed area.
6 CML Newsletter July 21, 2000
R
Municipalities <15000 municipalities in counties 10,000 a 25,000
Only required to delineate Committed Areas (unless considering Can exempt selves for four years by countywide vote
application that would boost population >1,000) Aguilar' Fraser' Montezuma'
y Aguilar Grover Pierce Alarm= Frisco Mt. Crested Butte'
Alma Hartman Pitkin Alma Granada' Oak Creek'
Antonito Haswell Poncha Springs Aspen Granby Peetz*
Arriba Hillrose Pritchett Blue River' Grand Lake' Pitkin
Bethune Holly Ramah Branson' Gunnison Poncha Springs'
Black Hawk Hooper Raymer Breckenridge Hartman Rocky Ford
Blanca Hot Sulphur Springs Red Cliff Buena Vista Hayden Salida
Blue River Hotchkiss Rico Cheraw' Holly' Silverthome
Bonanza City Hugo Rockvale Cokedale' Hooper' Simla'
Boone Ignacio Romeo Cortez Hot Sulphur Snowmass Village
Bow Mar Iliff Rye Craig Springs' South Fork'
Branson Jamestown Saguache Crested Butte Iliff' Starkville*
Brookside Keenesburg San Luis Cripple Creek Kim' Steamboat Springs
Calhan Kim Sanford Crook' Kiowa' Sterling
Campo Kiowa Sawpit Del Norte Kremmling Swink'
Central City Kit Carson Sedgwick Dillon" La Junta Trinidad
Cheraw La Jara = Sebert=- Dinosaur__ Lamar_ Victor'
Coal Creek La Veta Severance Dolores Mancos Wiley'
Cokedale Lake City Sheridan Lake Elizabeth Manzanola Winter Park
Collbran Lakeside Silver Cliff Fairplay° Marble' Woodland Park
Crawford Larkspur Silver Plume Fleming* Merino' Yampa'
Creede Log Lane Village Silverton Fowler Monte Vista 'town of less than 1,000
Crestone Manassa Simla
Crook Manzanola South Fork
Crowley Marble Starkville Municipalities in counties over 25,000
De Beque Merino Stratton Cannot exempt selves from any requirements (excludes box i towns)
Deer Trail Moffat Sugar City
Dillon Montezuma Swink Arvada Federal Heights Mead
Dinosaur Morrison Timnath Ault Firestone Milliken
Dove Creek Mountain View Two Buttes Aurora Florence Mintum
Eads Mountain Village Victor Avon Fort Collins Montrose
Eckley Mt. Crested Butte Vilas Basalt Fort Lupton Monument
Empire Naturita Vona BayWd Fort Morgan Morrison
Fairplay Norwood Walden Bennett Fountain Nederland
Flagler Nucla Walsh Berthoud Frederick New Castle
Fleming Nunn Ward Boulder Fruita Northglenn
Foxfield Oak Creek Westcliffe Brighton Gilcrest Olathe
Fraser Olney Springs Wiggins Broomfield Glendale Orchard City
Garden City Ophir Wiley Brush Glenwood Springs Palisade
Genoa Otis Williamsburg Canon City Golden Palmer Lake
Granada Ouray Winter Park Carbondale Grand Junction Paonia
Grand Lake Ovid Yampa Castle Rock Greeley Parachute
Green Mountain Paoli Cedaredge Greenwood Village Parker
Falls Peetz Cherry Hills Village Gypsum Platteville
Colorado Springs Hudson Pueblo
Columbine Valley Johnstown Rifle
Municipalities in counties <10,000 Commerce City Kersey Sheridan
Crawford Lasalle Silt
Exempt from all requirements (excluding those in box 1) Dacono Lafayette Superior
Akron Idaho Springs Ridgway Detta Lakewood Thornton
Arriba Julesberg Saguache Denver Larkspur Vail
i Burlington Las Animas Springfield Durango Littleton Ward
Center Leadville Telluride Eagle Lochbuie Wellington
Cheyenne Wells Limon Wray Eaton Lone Tree Westminster
Empire Meeker Yuma Edgewater Longmont Wheat Ridge
Georgetown Ordway Englewood Louisville Williamsburg
Erie Pagosa Springs Loveland Windsor
Estes Park Lyons
Holyoke Rangely Evans Manftou Springs
July 21, 2000 CML Newsletter 7
~r
u
Summary of Responses to CML Valid Development Application Survey
Prepared 8/10/00
Municipality I Attorney/Contact Taken What?
Action? I
Aspen John Worcester No Land use code already defines
Aurora Bob Rogers J Yes Ordinance and form
Avon I Burt Levin No
Bennett I Brad Hill Yes Resolution
Boulder Joe De Raismes
Breckenridge Tim Berry J Not yet Considering resolution
Brighton Margaret Brubaker I J
Broomfield Roy Howard I'es - - - Attorney verbal; opirikon`V-DA is
final plat and site development
plan
J Castle Rock I Bob Slentz I Yes Written opinion; considering
ordinance and resolution
Colorado I Pat Kelly I Yes I Attorney opinion
Springs
Commerce City Bob Gehler Yes Verbal guidance from attorney
Denver Karen Aviles Working Considering written policy from
on it Dir. Ping. Bd.; verbal guidance
from attorney
Durango I Greg Hoch I Staff level I Working on written policy I
only
Eagle Ed Sands
Englewood Dan Brotzman No
Fort Collins ! Steve Roy I Yes resolution
Lafayette J )
J Pat Tisdale ~
Glenwood Teresa Williams No I
I Springs I I
Grand Junction J Dan Wilson J J
Golden Jim Windholz J I
Greeley Rick Brady J No J
Greenwood Lee Phillips I Yes I Ordinance
Village
Loveland Jane Brautigam Yes Resolution
Montrose I Greg Clifton I Not yet Will incorporate language into
subdivision regulations
Pueblo Jim Munch
Rifle Lee Leavenworth Yes Ordinance and Form
Steamboat Tony Lettunich
Springs I
C Thornton Margaret Emrich No
d
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
Wednesday, August 16, 2000
3:00 P.M.
MEETING RESULTS
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 LUNCH - Community Development Department 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Melissa Greenauer
Hans Woldrich Clark Brittain
Galen Aasland
SITE VISITS 2:00 pm
1. Chateau Tremonte - 1860 Lionsridge Loop
2. Sandstone 70 - 903 Red Sandstone Road
3. Deming - 483 Gore Creek Drive
4. Vail Mountain Adventure Center - 254 Bridge Street
5. Skaal Haus - 141 W. Meadow Drive
Driver: Allison
PUBLIC HEARING - TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00 pm
1. Deming residence - Final review of proposed dormer addition. Allison
483 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 2B, Vail Village 4'h Filing.
Applicant: David & Jamie Deming, represented by Eric Johnson
MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 3-0
APPROVED WITH 6 CONDITIONS:
1. That the exterior of the unit be painted to match existing.
2. That all railings on the north side of the building be painted to match existing.
3. That the exterior lighting must be changed to meet code.
4. That a trash enclosure be required.
5. That all rails on the north side be consistent.
6. That tree protection be required during construction.
2. Chateau Tremonte - Final review of proposed repaint. Bill
1860 Lionsridge Loop/ Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge 3`d Filing.
Applicant: Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 3-0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
1. That the balcony rails be painted to match the trim.
.t
TOWN OF SAIL
1
3. Raether residence - Final review of existing metal roll-up blinds. George
278 Rockledge Road/Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village 3`d
Applicant: Paul Raether
MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 3-0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
4. Vail Mountain Adventure Center - Final review of proposed awning. Brent
254 Bridge Street/Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Village 1St Filing.
Applicant: VMAC, represented by Teak Simonton
MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Hans Woldrich VOTE: 3-0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
5. Skaal Haus - Conceptual review of proposed dormer/deck addition. Bill
141 W. Meadow Drive/Lot D2, Vail Village 2"d Filing.
Applicant: Philippe Courtois
CONCEPTUAL - NO VOTE
6. Sandstone 70 - Final review of proposed removal of 4 cottonwood trees. Bill
903 Red Sandstone Road/Lot 15, Tract C, Sandstone 70.
Applicant: Jim Cooper, Resident Manager
MOTION: Hans Woldrich SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 3-0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2000
Staff Approvals
Glacier Court and Lionsridge Loop - Bus stop shelter. Ann
1874 Glacier Court (R.O.W. adjacent to/Lot 22A, Block 2, Lionsridge 3`d (R.O.W. adjacent to).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Raether residence - Driveway stone wall addition. George
278 Rockledge Road/Lot 15, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Wendy Raether
Brillembourg residence - Balcony enclosure, interior remodel, sprinkling. Allison
600 Vail. Valley Drive, E-9/Northwoods, Building E.
Applicant: Arturo Brillembourg
Arosa/Garmisch Employee Housing - Removal of door and window addition. Allison
2477, 2485, 2487, 2497 Garmisch/Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail das Schone 2"d
Applicant: Town of Vail
Timber Creek Lodges - Repaint of windows and facia trim. Bill
2882 Kinnickinnick, Units A-1 to 5, B5-10/Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: McNeil Property Management
Thornburg residence - Deck railing. Brent
1460 B Greenhill Court/Lot 20, Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Tom Thornburg
2
J
Uhley residence - Deck infill, 250 addition. Brent
1180 A Casolar Drive/Lot 7, Casolar I/Block I, Lions Ridge.
Applicant: John Uhley
Vail Mountain School - Split-rail fence. Brent
3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
Huttner residence - DRB approval extension for remodel. Brent
5128 Grouse Lane/Lot 8, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Dr. Walter Huttner
Overlook at Vail - New sign. Ann
1330 Sandstone Drive/Lot G4, Lions Ridge Filing #2.
Applicant: Overlook at Vail Condominium Association
Thornburg residence - Change to existing materials. Allison
1460 B Greenhill CULot 20 Glen Lyon.
Applicant: Tom Thornburg
Berndt residence - Addition of heated brick pavers. Allison
756 Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: Wolfgang Berndt
Tezla residence - Replace porch roof, windows, sliders, repair stucco. Bill
2613 Cortina Lane/Lot 2, Block A, Vail Ridge Filing 2.
Applicant: Anthony V. Tezla
Rojas residence - Exterior window changes. Bill
100 E. Meadow Drive, Vail Village Inn/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Carlos and Martha Rojas
Kirschner residence - Window addition/elargement and repaint. Bill
1995 Chamonix Lane/Lot 27, Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: John Kirschner
Frierson residence - Redo existing decks. Allison
1517 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 12, Block. 3, Vail Valley 3~d Filing.
Applicant: Cartter and Patty Frierson
Erdahl residence - Replace two retaining walls and deck expansion. Bill
4030 D Fall Line Drive/Lot 26, Pitkin Creek Meadows.
Applicant: Chris and Jody Erdahl
Thompson residence - Paint guard rail. Allison
45 Forest Road/Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village 1St Filing.
Applicant: Jack and Vicki Thompson
Jordan residence - Revised windows. Brent
385 Gore Creek Drive #302/Vorlaufer #302.
Applicant: Jay Jordan
3
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356,Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
4
COUNCIL FOLLOW-UP
TOPIC QUESTIONS FOLLOWUP
2000
BOB: Write a letter to the organizers to thank them for See attached letter.
06/06/00 - BALD MOUNTAIN creating such a lovely garden.
NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY
Diana Donovan
07/25/00 DOBSON ICE ARENA PAM: Inc. 500 organizers have expressed negative Pam and Lorelei will be meeting with Kathy Fort Carty from
feedback re: the approval process for the use of Destination Services. Destination Services personnel are currently
Rod Slifer Dobson Arena. preparing a written follow up summary.
i
08/03/00 EMPLOYEE GENERATION PAM/BETH: Schedule a joint work session with Eagle Eagle County Commissioners office asked that we submit a letter
County Commissioners, as soon after the November 7th requesting a joint meeting. See the attached letter.
Chuck Ogilby election, as possible to discuss: Employee Generation.
8/17/00 VVTCB WEEKLY BROCHURE ROD: Checked w/Frank Johnson. This brochure is
paid 100% through an arrangement w/DISCOVER
Diana Donovan CARD, not wlany TOV funding. While it does
occasionally feature something like the Minturn Market,
the vast majority of advertising goes for Vail-specific
events. This brochure is handed out at the information
booths.
8/17/00 NOISE ABATEMENT GREG H.: Rod Slifer spoke directly w/Scott McGinnis,
who although Scott sits on the "Ways and Means
Council Committee," suggested it would be much more effective
August 17, 2000, Page 1
for town staff to contact CDOT and their Transportation
Committee directly.
8/17/00 BEETLE KILL PAM/RUSSELL/PATRICK HAMEL: Explore partnering FOLLOW UP: Patrick has scheduled an update w/Roy Mask, a top
w/VA to remove beetle kill from the Glen state entomologist, for the September 26th work session.
Lyon/LionsHead area. Additionally, he is working w/Brian McCartney to define public and
private areas for removal of these diseased trees to establish cost
and schedule, as well as identifying other "hot spots" to be
addressed. What is the status of the 4-5 diseased trees at the base
of "Pepi's Face" in the village? It is also suggested that if this joint
effort at funding is reached, this could allow for the LionsHead
snowcat problem on Forest Road to be concluded.
8/17/00 ECO REQUEST TO HOUSE GREG H./MIKE R.: ECO's director will be coming to
BUSES the town to request upvalley bus storage to reduce the
number of "deadhead" miles this current winter.
Kevin Foley
8/17/00 SANDSTONE CREEK CLUB BOB: The association has requested an opportunity to FOLLOW UP: Dennis Gelvin has been called to let him know Bob will
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION REQUEST sit down to discuss various issues w/the Town be happy to do this, as long as Dennis is at the table, too. Pam spoke
Manager. w/Dennis Gelvin Thursday afternoon. He has been attempting to
Dave Verwys persuade the association to "leave the town alone," and thus has told
them he will not sit down to discuss the issues w/them. He has told
them if they have an issue w/the Town of Vail, they should put it in
writing and send it to the town attorney.
8/17/00 MATTERHORN LOT BOB/RUSSELL/TOM: Council is interested in hearing
information re: the potential purchase of a vacant lot in
Council the Matterhorn neighborhood.
8/17/00 STAN BERNSTEIN/ET AL RE: BOB/TOM/GREG H.: Staff viewed the area on August
REVOCABLE ROW PERMIT 4, 2000. It appears the revocable right-of-way is
consistent w/others in the area. The original permit
August 17, 2000, Page 2
Kevin Foley was personal to the owner at the time it was granted. It
will require a re-application and it will be evaluated
consistent w/the town's evaluation of other similar
requests.
08/08/00 MOTORIZED SCOOTERS ON DEB: Are we at a point where we need to be more pro- Prohibiting scooters will require a dismount zone.
BIKE PATHS AND IN VILLAGE active about educating users, enforcing guidelines,
possibly revising our rules for use in pedestrian and bus
Kevin Foley lane areas? (See Ron Byrne letter)
August 17, 2000, Page 3