HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-05 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, September 5, 2000
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
NOTE: Time of items is approximate, subject to change, and cannot be
relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1. Discussion of the co-owner signature requirement for "A, B, C" &
George Ruther "A/B parcel development review applications. The purpose of this
worksession is to introduce the Town Council to the many issues
associated with development on co-owned parcels and to move in
a direction to codify in our Zoning Regulations policies regarding
development review application requirements. (30 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to the staff's
presentation and then provide direction and input to the staff.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: See the attached memorandum
from Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development and
George Ruther, Chief of Planning to the Vail Town Council dated
September 5, 2000
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department
staff is not making a recommendation at this time. We will provide
a formal recommendation once the Town Council, staff and
community has had an opportunity to discuss the issues.
2. An appeal of the Design Review Board's (DRB) August 2, 2000
Brent Wilson approval of the placement of boulders and landscaping within the
Gore Creek stream tract, located at the "Gore Creek Whitewater
Park," Gore Creek Promenade / Tracts I & A, Block 513, Vail
Village 1st Filing. (30 mins.)
Appellant: Village Center Condominium Association
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is being
asked to uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the DRB's
approval of this proposal.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Please refer to the staff
memorandum.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Vail Town Council uphold the
Design Review Board's August 2, 2000 approval of the placement
of boulders and landscaping within the Gore Creek stream tract,
subject to the following findings:
1. The proposal is in conformance with the Town of Vail
Design Guidelines, including applicable park design criteria, as
outlined in Title 14 of the Vail Town Code.
2. All of the procedural requirements outlined in Chapter 12-
10 (Design Review), Vail Town Code have been complied with.
3. Town Council call-up of the Design Review Board's denial of a
Allison Ochs request for a proposed deck addition at the Tap Room, located at
333 Hanson Ranch Rd. / Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st. (5 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The applicant has
requested that the Town Council, table this item to the September
12, 2000 worksession.
4. Community Facilities Project. (45 mins.)
Russell Forrest
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
o Provide staff with direction whether to proceed with contract
negotiations with the current design team to complete the next
phase of the design.
Receive a brief update from the White River Institute (WRI) on
progress to date on implementation of the WRI agreement.
o Request that Council appoint 1-2 members to participate in the
501 (c)-3 (as well as others on the various planning teams).
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Additional design work does not
need to occur until late October or (after the project concept has
been refined). However, staff wanted to determine how Council
wanted to move forward with the next phase of design. The scope
of service for EDAW has essentially been completed on budget.
The next step from a design standpoint is to refine the site plan
and develop architectural sketch plans.
In addition, 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 (C)-3 board and
participate in other meetings associated with refining the concept.
5. Municipal Building Remodel. (30 mins.)
Pam Brandmeyer
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: In an effort to further consolidate
services while reducing positions, staff has been working to
combine the reception/cashiering position at the administration
front desk with the police reception area. Further, Council at a
past summit expressed interest in "cleaning up and modernizing"
their workspace, e.g., the Council Chambers. Unresolved has
been the issue of Council office space available "24/7."
Morter/Aker Architects, as well as Ken Howard from Viele
Construction, will be here to further address the options that
address these concerns.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction as to
what, if any, action Council wishes to take regarding the proposed
improvements to the west end of the municipal building.
6. PEC Agenda/Report. (5 mins.)
Allison Ochs
Brent Wilson
7. Settlement Review for Whitewater Park. (15 mins.)
Tom Moorhead
BACKGROUND RATIONAL: On August 25, 2000 a meeting
was held with representatives of the Town of Vail and Village
Center Association in attendance. At that time there was a
general discussion in regard to the project, and whether
there was a benefit to move forward with additional
discussion to resolve or lessen the level of objection by the
Village Center Association. All in attendance believe that the
meeting was productive and warranted moving forward with
settlement proposals and responses that could lead to a
resolution of the pending legal action.
It has been proposed by the attorneys on behalf of the
Village Center Association that we hold the legal action in
abeyance until September 29, 2000, to explore the
possibility of settlement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Town Attorney
recommends entering into an agreement to stay the court
proceedings until September 29, 2000 to continue settlement
discussions.
8. Review Evening Meeting Agenda for September 5, 2000.
(5 mins.)
9. Information Update. (10 mins.)
10. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
11. Other. (10 mins.)
12. Adjournment. (5:15 P.M.)
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, 9/12/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 9119/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 9/19/00, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification.
Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
P
Memorandum
To: Vail Town Council
From: Russell Forrest, Director of Community Development
George Ruther, Chief of Planning
Date: September 5, 2000
Re: Town of Vail Development Review Application Requirements Discussion
1. BACKGROUND
As a result of several recent conflicts between duplex owners, the Town Council and staff have
raised questions regarding the application requirements for jointly owned properties.
Specifically, the Council questioned the need for written approval for proposed improvements
from both owners of a duplex property. The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce and
discuss the issues surrounding development on jointly owned property. Once the issues have
been discussed, staff recommends adopting amendments to our zoning regulations to codify the
Town's policy on development applications and jointly owned property.
The majority of residential property ownership in the Town of Vail can be characterized as jointly
owned. The development of land in Vail has been primarily duplex or multi-family. Only a
small portion of land has been developed with single family residences (<10%). The majority of
the duplex properties have been created as 1) A parcels, B parcels, C parcels or 2) AB parcels.
These parcels are recreated when the owners of a duplex property plat and record a duplex plat in
accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations. A,B,C parcel development creates fee
simply ownership of the A and B parcels (each half of the duplex) and a common C parcel that is
jointly owned and maintained by the two, parcel owners. A second type of duplex subdivision is
AB parcels. AB parcel development creates fee simply ownership of each half of the duplex
unit plus a portion of the lot. Often times however, a party wall agreement outlines limitations
for improvements to these properties. The joint owner signature policy on AB parcels has
historically been more difficult to implement.
The Town's zoning regulations are drafted and implemented recognizing duplex platting of
properties. According to the subdivision regulations, when a platted lot is subdivided to create
duplex parcels (AB/C or A/B) a note stating that the purpose of the plat is to subdivide the lot for
ownership purposes and that the lot is to be treated as ONE lot for zoning purposes (i.e.,
calculating allowable GRFA, site coverage, landscape area, setbacks, etc.) is required on the
recorded plat. This is important as it substantiates the Town's recognition that simply owning a
separate parcel than your adjoining duplex unit owner does not insulate you from complying with
the Town's regulation as a whole.
11. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REOUIREMENTS
The following is a summary of the Town's signature requirements for development review
applications involving jointly owned property or improvements encroaching upon someone else's
property.
1
1
4
The Town of Vail Community Development has required signatures from all impacted property
owners whenever an application for development review involves commonly held property. An
example of this is a condominium or townhome association. A second example is the
requirement that the Vail Town Council allow an applicant to proceed through the development
review process whenever an application involves improvements on or to Town of Vail property
(Dobson Ice Arena, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, Waterhouse Garage). To insure that the staff is
able to adequately determine property ownership, the Community Development Department has
been requiring that applicants submit a copy of schedules A & B of a title report., Schedule A
identifies ownership and schedule B identifies easements and encumbrances. This requirement
has been in effect for over seven years.
Effective May 2, 2000, the Community Development Department made the determination that the
same policy must apply to jointly owned "C parcel" duplex properties. The department no longer
will accept development review applications involving improvements on or to jointly owned
property without written approval to proceed with the application from all owners, nor do we
believe we have the authority to take action on a property without the appropriate owner(s)
consent. This policy is in direct response to several recent development applications (Hughes-
Tuchman, Town of Vail - Waterhouse, Walker - McKibben, Ferry - Repetti, Pearson - Vail
Rowhouses) where the town'. s authority to act upon an application without proper written
consent has been questioned, and more importantly, placed the staff, boards and commissions in
very difficult decision-making positions. This policy currently does not affect duplex properties
where a common parcel has NOT been platted.
The staff has discussed the "C" parcel policy with the Town of Vail Design Review Board and
Planning & Environmental Commission. The Board and the Commission are in support of the
"C" parcel policy. Historically, the negative impacts of not implementing the "C" parcel policy
has been played out in the venues of the Design Review Board and Planning & Environmental
Commission and Town Council.
III. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of this section of the memorandum is to outline several possible alternatives for
implementing a joint owner signature policy. The list of possible alternatives is not intended to
be all-inclusive. There may be more.
Notification Requirement
The Town Code currently does not require a 15-day notification to adjoining duplex unit owners
on Design Review Board applications. The reason for not requiring notification is that as long as
a property owner is constructing improvements that comply with the Town's prescribed design
guidelines and zoning requirements, and is not seeking to deviate from the requirements, the
improvements should be allowed as a "use by right". However, on occasion, because of
differences in architectural or design opinion (wood, stone, stucco, wood shakes, metal roof,
shingles, gable roofs, dormers, etc.), two property owners may disagree with one another's
proposal even though the technical requirements of the design guidelines are met. This was the
case in the McKibbon-Walker dispute. Each of the owner's separate architectural design styles
complied with the Town's design guidelines, yet they were not compatible with one another. The
concern then becomes which style gets approved and sets precedence for future development. In
this particular case, the Town of Vail Design Review Board was asked to not only review the
proposals for compliance with prescribed standards, but also to resolve the design style dispute
between the two property owners.
2
A possible way to address this issue would be require a 15-day written notification of all design
review board applications to adjoining duplex unit owners. This would provide notice and
opportunity for input in the review process. No longer would an adjoining duplex unit owner be
surprised to find improvements done by the other unit owner without notice. The owners could
participate in the design review process. A negative impact however would be an increase in the
time it takes to get a design review board application approved. Currently, some types of
improvements can be staff approved in a matter of 24-48 hours. A notification requirement of 15
days would likely increase the approval time frame to three for even the simplest of applications.
Use of Development Potential
The Town Code does not require written approval or notification to adjoining duplex unit owners
when remaining development potential is being utilized. Due to the development pattern of land
in the Town of Vail, the majority of the platted lots are zoned for duplex or multi-family
development. As such, the development potential (GRFA, site coverage, landscape area, etc.) of
a lot is shared with one or more property owners. In the instances where unused development
potential remains, the Town has historically taken a first-come/first-serve approach. As long as
the technical requirements of the regulations are met and no variances or exceptions are sought, a
development application could be approved. This can create disputes between adjoining unit
owners.
The first-come/first-serve approach resulted in a neighbor dispute regarding the Hughes-Tuchman
application. In the case of the Hughes-Tuchman application, one of the owners submitted an
application to the Town of Vail to utilize the remaining development potential on the duplex lot.
Once the other owner received word of the application (not by formal notification), they too
submitted an application to utilize the same remaining development potential. The Planning &
Environmental Commission was then asked to decide not only if the applications complied with
the prescribed regulations, but also whose application would be approved and whose would be
denied.
A possible way to address this type of situation from reoccurring would be to require adjoining
duplex unit owner signature on applications that propose to utilize development potential. By
requiring the signature of the adjoining unit owner the Town could be assured that the owners are
in agreement on the use of the development potential before the application is even submitted to
the Town for consideration. Thus, the boards and commissions would no longer be placed in a
position to decide which owner "wins" and which owner "loses". This policy would be
applicable to both A/B/C and A/B parcels. The reason for applying it to both types of subdivision
is that the Town's development standards are based upon the combined area of the lot as a whole
and not just the area of the individual parcels.
Signature Requirement on all Development Applications
The Town Code currently requires joint owner signatures on applications affecting commonly
owned property (A/B/C parcels & multi-family). A means of insuring that all affected property
owners are notified AND approve of proposed improvements is to require joint owner signatures
on all applications. This would insure that the joint owners have approved the proposed
application before it is submitted to the Town of Vail for consideration.
The following is a list of possible pros & cons of requiring signatures of all property owners of
development applications on A/B parcels:
3
1.
Pros
0 Reduces conflicts and arguments between adjoining owners at public meetings.
0 Eliminates the use of staff, board, commission and council member's time and resources
resolving conflicts that are civil matters between adjoining owners.
0 Staff, PEC, and DRB will no longer need to reject applications from review because the
adjoining owners will have resolved their differences prior to submitting an application and
appearing at a public hearing.
Cons
0 May reduce the current level of redevelopment of older properties.
0 An absentee owner may be difficult to locate, thus making it more difficult to construct
improvements and maintain property.
0 Would require signatures for even minor improvements such as window changes, door
changes, reroofing, deck changes, etc.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 5, 2000
SUBJECT: Addendum on the appeal of the Design Review Board's August 2, 2000
approval of the placement of boulders and landscaping within the Gore
Creek stream tract, located at the "Gore Creek Whitewater Park," Gore
Creek Promenade / Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Village Center Condominium Association
Planner: Brent Wilson
The Town received a request from the Village Center Condominium Association to hold
the litigation and the appeal of the last DRB approval at a stand still while we explore the
settlement of this dispute. All proceedings would be held in abeyance until September
29th. This would push the hearing date of this appeal request back to October 3, 2000
(one week prior to the Town's anticipated construction start).
The Vail Town Code contains provisions for the continuance of appeals (up to 30
additional calendar days) if the parties involved need to gather additional information.
Therefore, the Town Council has the ability to continue the hearing to October 3rd
(pending the outcome of the potential settlement of this dispute) if it so chooses.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 5, 2000
SUBJECT: An appeal of the Design Review Board's August 2, 2000 approval of the
placement of boulders and landscaping within the Gore Creek stream
tract, located at the "Gore Creek Whitewater Park," Gore Creek
Promenade / Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Village Center Condominium Association
Planner: Brent Wilson
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On August 2nd, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) approved the
Town's request for final review of the placement of boulders and plant materials
within the Gore Creek Stream Tract, subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findinas:
1. The proposal is in conformance with the Town of Vail Design Guidelines,
including applicable park design criteria, as outlined in Title 14 of the Vail
Town Code.
2. The DRB finds that the location of these recreational amenities is not
detrimental environmentally or aesthetically, and therefore grants an
exemption from setback limitations in accordance with Title 14 of the Vail
Town Code.
Conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during construction must be revegetated in accordance
with the approved plan. This is necessary for erosion control as well as
aesthetics.
2. The concrete pad underneath the pedestrian bridge will be covered in stone
to the maximum extent feasible. A revised hydrology study will be
conducted if it is necessary to ensure the rocks will not wash off of the
concrete pad.
3. Boulder sizes will be staggered and erratic in order to avoid a uniform
"man-made" appearance.
4. The beach area on the south side of the creek should be made as easily
accessible as possible.
t
The Village Center Condominium Association has filed an appeal of the DRB's
approval in accordance with Section 12-3-3, Vail Town Code. The appellant's
written statement has been attached for reference.
Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town
Council uphold the Design Review Board's August 2, 2000 approval of the
placement of boulders and landscaping within the Gore Creek stream tract,
subject to the following findings:
1. The proposal is in conformance with the Town of Vail. Design Guidelines,
including applicable park design criteria, as outlined in Title 14 of the Vail
Town Code.
2. All of the procedural requirements outlined in Chapter 12-10 (Design
Review), Vail Town Code have been complied with.
Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the issues of appeal outlined
in Section IV of this memorandum.
1110. STANDING OF APPELLANT
The appellant has standing to file an appeal as an adjacent property owner.
IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
The appellant's description of the nature of appeal is attached for reference.
Specific reasons. for appeal are listed below with a staff response to each item.
Setbacks for Recreational Amenities - The DRB found that the "location of
these recreational amenities is not detrimental environmentally or
aesthetically, and therefore grants an exemption from setback limitations in
accordance with Title 14 of the Vail Town Code." The appellant asserts that
the DRB "has exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting
an exemption to setback requirements" and that nothing in the Town Code
permits the DRB to grant any kind of exemption to setback requirements.
Staff Response - The appellant is wrong. Title 14 (Development Standards
and Design Guidelines) of the Town Code clearly states:
14-10(H)(3) (formerly Section 12-14-2), Vail Town Code:
FENCES, HEDGES, WALLS AND SCREENING:
A. Setbacks Observed. All accessory uses and structures except
fences, hedges, walls and landscaping, or ground level site
development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located
within the required minimum setback lines on each site. Recreational
amenities may be exempted by the Design Review Board if it
determines that their location is not detrimental environmentally
and/or aesthetically (emphasis added).
This language comes directly from the Town of Vail Design Guidelines.
o Submittal Reauirements - The appellant states that "several of the materials
required for final design approval were not submitted" to the DRB.
Staff Resoonse- Although the appellant did not indicate which submittal
items they thought were missing from the final review, the Design Review
Board found (after three public hearings) they had enough information to
approve the request. There are a number of submittal items outlined in the
Town Code for final design review, however, many of these items (lighting
plans, utility verification forms, phasing plans, drainage plans, an NPDES
permit, etc.) are not relevant to this specific proposal. Submittal requirements
that are not relevant are waived by town staff prior to every DRB meeting.
This has been consistently applied to every application that the DRB reviews.
The appellant states that staff violated code provisions by not submitting a
written request for a waiver to the Department of Community Development for
these irrelevant items. Staff believes it is a redundant task for Community
Development staff to write a letter to themselves requesting that Community
Development staff waive specific submittal items. Staff believes this issue is
immaterial and that it had absolutely no effect on the DRB's ability to review
the proposal.
3
.SENT BY:GRIMSHAW &.HARRING, PG; 8-14-00 3:33AM 3038393838- 919704792172;# 3
T W a~
APPEALS FORM,
REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A. ACTIONMECIS ION BEING APPEALED: Auqust 2, 2000 Desi Qn Review Board final 'approval
with conditions of oroposed modifications to the GQre Creek Flood PlLin. located
at the Gore Creek Whitewater.Park, Gore Creek Promenade/ Tracts 1 ,and A, Block 5B,
Vail Village 1st Filinq, Eagle County, Colorado.
B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: Auaust 2. 2000
C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Design Review
Board
D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Village Center Association
MAILING ADDRESS: 120 Willow Bri dae Road. Vail. CO 81657
PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: 129 Willow Rridoe-Road PHONE: 970-476-1063
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village,
1st Filing, Eagle County, Colorado
L-.&44 ~
\ E. SIGNATURE(S): Gilbert F. McNeish as attorney and representative of
Village Center Association
Grimshaw & Harring, P.C.
1'700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800
Denver, CO 80203
303-339-3800
Page I of 2
SENT BY:QRIMSHAW & HARRING, PC; 8-14-00 3:33AM 3038393838- 919704792172;# 4
Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? Yes If yes, please provide the following information:
are you an adjacent property owner? Yes _ X no
If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved 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 large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
N/A
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.' See attached
On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having
relevance to the action being appealed. See attached
FEE: $0.00
Page 2 of 2
SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRING. PC; 8-14-00 ; 3:33AM 3038393838- .919704792172.;# 5
SENT BY:GRIMSHAW HARRING, PC; 5-19-00 3:47PM 3038393800-a 4782523;4 6
G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and properry's physical address
in Vail) of all owners of properly 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
add•sssed and stamped envelopes far each property owner on the list.
Max Address 1 s' 1 Address. If Different
Town of Vail Tract I & A, Block M, Vail Village Filing 1
c/o Finance Dept. Vail, Colorado
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Bob & Helen Fritch
The Sitzmark Lodge
183 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Swigs Haus 82 East. Meadow Drive
20 Vail Road Vail, Colorado
Vail, CO 81659
Riva Ridge North Condo Association 133 Willow
P,O. Box 3671 Vail, Colorado
Vail, CO 81658
Mr. Pepi Gramshwumer
Gasthof Gramshammer, Inc.
231 E. Gore Creek :Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Summers Lodge
123 Willow Place
Vail, CO 81657
Creekside Condominium Association
233 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Vail lvlanagement Company
Bell Tower Association
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Gore Creek Plaza Condominiums
193 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
SENT BY:GRIMSHAW & HARRINQ, PG; 8-14-00 3:34AM 3038393838-+ 919704792172;## 6
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.
The Design Review Board ("DRB") found that "the location of these recreational
amenities is not detrimental environmentally or aesthetically, and therefore giants an
exemption from setback limitations in accordance with Title 14 of the Vail Town
Code" However, nothing in Title 12, Chapter 11, the chapter governing the
authority of the DRB, permits the DRB to, grant any kind of exemption to setback
requirements. The only procedure in the Vail Town Code for obtaining an exemption
to setback requirements is found in Title 12,. Chapter 17 of the Vail Town Code.
Chapter 17 requires an application for a variance to the Planning and Environmental
Commission ('?EC"), and specific findings by the PEC before a variance may be
granted. Therefore, the DRB has exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion
in granting an exemption to setback requirements and its decision granting an
exemption should be overturned.
The Vail Town Code requires that the DRB first make a conceptual design review
of a project, followed by a final design review. §12-11-4, Vail Town Code. A
project may not proceed until the DRB's final approval is granted. § 12-11-3(A), Vail
Town Code. In order to obtain final design approval, an applicant is required to
submit all of the materials set forth in § 12-11-4(C) of the Vail Town Code. Here, the
materials submitted to the DRB were conceptual in nature see §12-11-4(B), Vail
Town Code), and several of the materials required for a final design approval were
not submitted. No written determination of a waiver of any of the final design review
submittal requirements was made by the Administrator as provided in § 12-11-4(C)(1)
of the Vail Town Code. Therefore, the DRB has exceeded its jurisdiction and
abused its discretion by granting a final approval without examining all of the
materials required by the Vail Town Code. The DRB's decision should be
overturned, the DRB should be directed to require the applicant to submit all of the
materials required for a final review, and the DRB should review all of the required
materials before a final approval is granted.
OA13372111Appeal ofDRH decision-parograph H.wpd
Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook
6ti7.; _4
sloping vegetated areas.
7. Slope of cut and fill banks shall be determined by soil characteristics for the specific site to avoid erosion, and promote revegetation opportunities, but in any
case shall be limited to a maximum of two to one (2:1) slope.
S. Measures shall be taken to retain all eroded soil material on site during
construction, control both ground water and surface water runoff, and to
permanently stabilize all disturbed slopes and drainage features upon completion
of construction.
9
9. All plants shall be planted in a good quality topsoil mix of a type and amount
recommended by the American Landscape Contractor Association and the
Colorado Nurseryman's Association.
10. All plantings must be mulched.
11. Paving near a tree to be saved must contain a plan fora "tree vault" in order to
ensure the ability of the roots to receive air.
K. Fences, Kedges, Walls, and Screening:
1. The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing land forms and fit into
land massing rather than arbitrarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be
encouraged except to screen trash areas, utility equipment, etc.
2. Design of fences, walls, and other structural landscape features shall be of
materials compatible with the site and the materials of the structures on the site.
Retaining walls and cribbing should utilize natural materials such as wood timbers,
:K:=t
logs, rocks, or textured, color tinted concrete. No chain link fences shall be
allowed except as temporary construction fences or as required for recreational
facilities.
11 10-111111 A" -
Setbacks
Observe
All accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges; walls and landscaping, or
ground level. site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be .
located within the required minimum setback lines on each site. Recreational
amenities may be exempted by the Design Review Board if it determines that thee
location is not detrimental environmentally and/or aesthetically.
4. Sight Triangle-
To minimize traffic hazards at street intersections by improving visibility for
drivers of converging vehicles in any district where setbacks are required, no fence
or structure over three feet (3') in height shall be permitted within the triangular
portion of a corner lot measured from the point of intersection of the lot lines
abutting the streets a distance of thirty feet (30') along each lot line. X16
33t
12-11-4 12-11-4
c. Sufficient information to show his/her representative shall be present
that the proposal complies with the at the Design Review Board hearing.
development standards of the zone
district in which the project is to be Preliminary And Final Design Review:
located (i.e., square footage total, site
coverage calculations, number of 1. The owner or authorized agent of
parking spaces, etc). any project requiring design approval
as prescribed by this Chapter shall
d. Application form. submit for final design approval all of
the following material to the Adminis-
e. Planning and Environmental trator, unless the Administrator deter-
Commission and/or Town Council mines within five (5) days of a written
approval if required. request for such determination that
some of the following material may be
2. Staff; Board Procedure: excluded:
Aer
a. Upon receipt of an application for dT~ a. Survey: A topographic survey
conceptual design review the Depart- representative of existing conditions
ment of Community Development shall stamped by a surveyor licensed within
review the submitted materials for the State at a scale of one inch equals
general compliance with the appropri- twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger of the
ate requirements of the Zoning Code. site with contour intervals of not more
If the proposal is in basic compliance than two feet (2'). Existing trees or
with the Zoning Code requirements groups of trees having trunks with
the project shall be forwarded to the
Design Review Board for conceptual
review. If the application is not gener-
ally in compliance with Zoning Code
requirements the application and sub-
mittal materials shall be returned to
the applicant with a written explana-
tion of the Department of Community
Development's findings.
b. The Design Review Board shall
review the application and supporting
material that has been submitted for a
conceptual review in order to deter-
mine whether or not the project gener-
ally complies with the design guide-
lines, and forward comments concern-
ing the design to the applicant. No
vote of the Design Review Board will
be required unless requested by the
applicant. The property owner or
1298
Town of Vail
12-11-4 12-11-4
diameters of four inches (4") or more of roof ridges. The site plan shall
at one foot (1') above. natural grade, indicate the locations of ingress and
rock outcroppings and other signifi- igress and the directions of traffic
cant natural features such as ava- flow into and out of as well as within
lanche areas, 100-year flood plain, parking and loading areas, the loca-
and slopes of forty percent (40%) or tion of each parking space and load-
more shall be shown, if applicable. ing berth, and areas for turning and
The survey shall include ties to an maneuvering vehicles. The site plan
existing benchmark (either a USGS shall show exact locations of all utili-
landmark or sewer invert), property ties including existing sources and
lines showing distances and basis of proposed service lines from sources
bearing, and all easements. to the structures. The site plan shall
designate proposed limits of construc-
b. Title Report: A preliminary title tion activity.
report.
e. Utility Verification Form; A utility
c. Drainaae_Plan: A drainage plan verification form signed by each utility
shall be prepared. For all develop- verifying location of service and avail-
ments this study shall include a con- ability.
tour map showing all existing and
proposed watercourses, including the f. Landscape Plan: A landscape
seasonal course-limits of points of plan drawn at a scale of one inch
departure from the development. An equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger.
indication of the limits of the 100-year The landscape plan shall show loca-
flood plain shall be plotted on the tions of existing trees or groups of
contour map as well as any revised trees having trunks with diameters of
flood plains. The drainage plan shall four inches (4") or more at one foot
also indicate the location and types of (1') above natural grade that are pro-
structures that will be necessary to posed to be removed. Shrubs and
handle the quantities of water evi- other native plants proposed to be
denced on the site. removed shall be indicated. The land-
scape plan shall show trees and other
d. Site Plan: A site plan, drawn at a native plants proposed to be retained
scale of one inch equals twenty feet and methods to be utilized for the
(1" = 20') or larger, showing existing purpose of protecting existing vegeta-
and finished grades, the existing and tion, the location and design of pro-
proposed layout of buildings and other posed landscaped areas, irrigation
structures including decks, patios, systems, the varieties and sizes of
canopies, fences, and walls. The site plant materials to be planted therein,
plan shall show the locations of land- and the location and design of swim-
scaped areas, service areas, storage ming pool areas, patios, play areas,
areas, pedestrian walks, driveways recreation facilities, and other useable
with percent slope and spot elevations open space. The landscape plan shall
off-street parking and loading areas, be accompanied by a landscape mate-
all retaining walls with spot elevations, rials list specifying size and quantity
and the proposed elevations of the top of plant materials and a report of the
Town of Vail
12-11-4 12-11-4
condition of the existing vegetation Upon request of the Administrator,
upon the site. The landscape plan samples of sign materials shall be
shall include sufficient detail to pro- submitted.
vide a reliable basis for estimating the
amount of a performance bond guar- - i. Erosion And Revegetation Plan:
anteeirig installation and maintenance Erosion control and revegetation land-
of the improvement if required by the scaping plans.
Town.
(1) In all developments involving
4Z g. Architectural Plans: Preliminary two (2) or more acres, an ero-
architectural plans drawn at a scale of sion control plan will be required.
one-eighth inch equals one foot ('/e" = For developments involving less
V) or larger, including floor plans than two (2) acres, an erosion
labeled and drawn in sufficient detail control plan may be required by
to permit determination of whether all the Department of Community
requirements of this Title based on Development, based upon condi-
floor area will be met. Architectural tions of slope and soil stability.
plans shall include all elevations of
proposed structures as they will ap- (2) The erosion control plan shall
pear on completion. All elevations contain control measures suffi-
shall indicate both existing and fin- cient to prevent the loss by ero-
ished grades. One or more perspec- sion of no more than three (3)
tive sketches, a scale model, photo- tans of soil per acre per year.
graphic overlays, or other similar tech- These standards may be met
niques shall be submitted, as neces- through the use of physical mea-
sary, to illustrate the overall appear- sures as detention ponds,
ance of the building and site develop- grassed waterways and filtration
ment features in relation to adjacent galleries, or by nonstructural
properties in the neighborhood. All means.
exterior surfacing materials and colors
shall be specified, and samples of (3) The Department of Communi-
each, with proposed finish shall be ty Development shall review and
submitted. approve all erosion control plans
and shall maintain a list of ero-
" h. Sign Regulations Compliance: sion control practices, both
Scale drawings, plans renderings, structural and nonstructural.
photographs or other information re-
quired by the Sign Ordinance' codified (4) Revegetation: revegetation
in Title 11 of this Code, showing in shall be an integral part of the
detail design, materials, and colors erosion control plan. Topsoil
and specifying the method of illumina- shall be saved during construc-
tion. Locations of proposed signs shall tion and used for revegetation of
be indicated by a numbering system disturbed areas.
or other clearly comprehensible sys-
tem of reference to the site plan pre- (5) Revegetation landscaping:
scribed in subsection C1 d above. such plan shall be required of
Town of Vail
12-1.1-4 12-11-4
any applicant proposing to re- present a "no discharge" storm water
move or disturb existing vegeta- drainage plan, which may include
tion. Potential damage to exist- such measures or detention ponds,
ing landscaping/vegetation shall high curbs, and infiltration galleries.
be adequate reason for requiring The Department of Community Devel-
a revegetation plan. At a mini- opment shall establish and maintain a
mum, plans submitted under this list of such "no discharge" measures.
subsection shall include
revegetation of land disturbed by - k. Phasing Plan: If a project is to be
development and construction built in phases the applicant shall
activity- The Department of Com- submit a site plan of the proposed
munity Development shall estab- project indicating the location and
lish and maintain a list of timing of each phase of the project,
revegetation best management areas to be utilized as construction
practices. staging areas for each phase, and the
limits of construction activity for each
(6) In addition to the above re- phase.
quirements, the Department of
Community Development may Form And Fee: Application form
require any or all of the follow- and appropriate fee.
ing:
m. Lighting Plan: An outdoor light-
(A) Timing of disturbance. ing plan shall be submitted separately
from the site plan or landscape plan,
(B) Disturbed area controls. and shall show the location, the height
above grade, the type of illumination
(C) Stabilization during distur- (such as incandescent, halogen, high
bance. pressure sodium, etc.), the source
lumens, and the luminous area for
(D) Monitoring during distur- each light source which is proposed.
bance. The applicant shall provide documen-
tation that the lights meet the stan-
(E) Post-disturbance monitoring. dards set forth in subsection
12-11-5J2 of this Chanter. In addition
(F) Water quality impact report. to locating this information graphically
on a plan, the applicant shall provide
(G) Drainage study. the information on the application form
provided by the Department of Com-
j. NPDES Permit: An approved munity Development.
National pollutant discharge elimina-
tion system permit for storm water 2. Staff Or Design Review Board Pro-
discharges to surface waters resulting cedure: The Department of Communi-
from developments draining two (2) or ty Development shall check all materi-
more acres shall be presented. In lieu al submitted for design review for
of such permit, the developer of an compliance with the applicable provi-
area of two (2) or more acres may sions of the Zoning Code, subdivision
Town of Vail
To: Vail Town Council
From: Russ Forrest
Date: September 5, 2000
Subject Community facilities design team and Council representation on the 501 c-
3
1. INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of the community facilities discussion on September 5th is to
Provide direction to staff on whether to proceed with contract negotiations with
the current design team to complete the next phase of design.
Receive a brief update from the White River Institute (WRI) on progress to date
on implementation of the WRI agreement.
Request that council appoint 1-2 members to participate in the 501 c-3.(as well
as others on the various planning teams)
2. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL DECISIONS TO-DATE:
On September 21, 1999; November 16, 1999; and on March 14, 2000 the Town
Council affirmed the list of public uses that would be considered further, primarily a
2"d sheet of ice, a family activity center, learning/meeting/performing arts facility
(convertible floor space which can convert into either a meeting space or a
performing arts/event venue), and affordable housing.
On July 181h'the Town Council eliminated alternative 3 from further consideration.
On August 1, 2000 the Town Council directed staff to move forward with a 2001
ballot initiative.
On August 1, 2000 the Town Council directed staff to:
- Foster the redevelopment and enhancement of existing hotel properties near the
project site.
- Work with VVTCB to encourage existing hotels to commit rooms at a competitive
price for meetings and functions.
- When refining the design for the project site, identify phasing plans that could
allow the expansion of the meeting center and a future hotel in a phase 2 plan if
the market demonstrated in the future that an on-site hotel was necessary to
make the meeting center operate successfully.
- Identify alternative mass transit technologies to move people more efficiently
along the in-town route
On August 15th, the Town Council directed the Town Manager to sign a contract with
the White River Institute to assist in the development of a fund raising campaign for
all the public uses and to also help refine the concept of a "learning center."
1
3. ISSUE FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION
A) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/ARCHITECTURAL WORK
Additional design work does not need to occur until mid to late November or (after the
project concept has been refined). However, staff wanted to determine how Council
wanted to move forward with the next phase of design. The scope of service for EDAW
has essentially been completed on budget. The basic purpose of the contract with
EDAW was to develop alternative site plans. The next step from a design standpoint is
to refine the site plan and develop architectural sketch plans. Also architectural
renderings for any of the alternatives will be valuable in gaining support for a particular
concept. A critical question is whether the Council wants to add an additional architect
to the design team. On May 23`d Council indicated that this was not necessary. As you
recall, staff did provide portfolios on several other design firms (Robert Stern, Curtis
Fentress, Harry Teague, and Scott Smith). If Council would choose to make an addition
or change to the design team, staff would recommend that we invite the above
mentioned designers to present their work and their ideas regarding this project to the
Council. Staff believes that the existing design team has been responsive and creative
in the site planning that has occurred to date. We have not yet engaged the existing
design team to invest significant time in the architecture of the buildings.
Specific actions that need to occur after a refined concept plan has been approved and
general site plan is chosen include:
1. Survey and geotechnical work
2. Additional parking analysis
3. Refining the site plan based on Council direction
4. Developing an architectural sketch plan and renderings
5. Additional public meetings to seek public input on the refined site plan
6. Preliminary reviews with the PEC & DRB
7. Council approval of the design
8. Development review process
The Town Council will need to first determine whether to move forward with the existing
design team and then whether to authorize a supplemental appropriation to pay for the
next steps. If the Town Council would choose to move forward with the existing design
team, a scope of service would be prepared that would include the actions mentioned
above and costs would be negotiated with EDAW. Prior to signing a contract, the Town
Council would need to approve the agreement and allocate the necessary resources.
Staff would also determine if the VRD would like to participate in a cost sharing program
to help pay for the design costs.
2
The following is a rough estimate of the costs for the next steps.
Proposed Budaet
Action j Estimated Cost j
Refine the site plan and develop $165,000 (Rough estimate provided by
architectural sketch plans. This would EDAW)
include participation in public meetings
and making a submittal to the PEC &
preliminary review by DRB.
Survey and geotechnical work I Already budgeted in 2000
Public meetings and communication with $15,000
Residents
Additional parking analysis $4,000 f
B) COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN THE 501 c (3)
Active participation from the Town Council is needed in the development and implementation of
the 501 c (3). In addition, 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, along with other Council members, in the other meetings
associated with refining the concept. The Council representatives will play a critical role in
helping to develop the composition of the fund raising not-for-profit board and ensuring the
refinement of the community facilities concept is consistent with the Town Council's goals.
4. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
Action I Time Frame Who j
Discussion with Council & September 5, 2000 Town Council & VRD
VRD on next steps in the
design process. Should a
new agreement be signed
with EDAW?
Refine the learning Center August 15th -November 7 White River Institute
Concept, develop an working with community
operational plan, groups and individuals
determine name, and refine the concept.
develop grass roots
support for the concept.
Approve the concept and November 21 th Town Council & VRD
preliminary operational
plan for the learning center
and other uses.
3
Refine design and cost November 21"- December Design Team
estimates. Work with 12th
adjacent property owners
to address specific
concerns. Refine parking
plan.
Public meetings on refined December-January Public
site plan and desiqns.
PEC, DRB, and Town January 2001 PEC, DRB, & Town Council
Council preliminary
Review of Designs.
Complete operational and February 2001 Financial consultants, WRI,
financial plan & & staff complete plan and
TOV approve of plan TOV & VRD approve of
plan.
Council approval of design March 2001 Town Council
and operational plan
1S' Reading and 2"d August 2001 Town Council
Reading of an Ordinance
for a ballot initiative
f Fund Raising for all public I September 8, 2000 - Fall I The Renaissance
facilities 2001 Foundation 501 c (3)
5. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
Public uses:
® Learning/Meeting/Performing Arts Center
- 20,000 square foot meeting space that can be converted into seating
for special events and performances
- 12,000-16,000 square feet for breakout space
- 11,000-15,000 square feet of space for dedicated meeting/class
rooms for learning/community functions.
- Internet/computer room center which could be an extension of the
library and also booked for uses as classroom space
- 250 seat theatre for community theatre, small performances, and
lectures
Note: The entire facility would have state of the art technology with
computer terminal access, telecommunication capability, and internet
access.
• 2nd Sheet of Ice
® Family Activity Center
0 Locals Housing (25,000 square feet)
4
Private Uses:
Fractional Fee or Dwelling units to generate revenue for the public uses
o Hotel (Will not be included in the first phase but the design team shall identify
ways to phase in an expansion of the learning/meeting center and a hotel if
the market clearly demands it)
Private parking for sale (100-200 spaces)
Private uses have been considered for the sole purpose of helping to fund the public
uses. Staff would recommend that a final decision be made on funding sources and
private uses after the concept paper is prepared and reviewed with the Town Council.
\\VAI L\DATA\cdev\COUNC IL\MEMOS\00\COM905.doc
5
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, August 28, 2000
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
o GR Training Session - Non-Conforming Uses-/Lots/Structures :30 min.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Wilson Family Trust - 3886/3896 LupineDrive (bring hiking footwear)
aT G
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing
lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation
District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition.
Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
2. Information Update
SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOR 2000-
Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00
Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, '00
Galen Aasland - May 3, '00
Brian Doyon - May 17, '00
Jun 7, '00
Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00
John Schofield - Jul 5, '00
Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, '00
Doug Cahill - Aug 2, '00
JL
1 TOIVNV of VAIL
Galen Aasland - Aug 16, '00
Tom Weber - Sep 6, '00
Brian Doyon - Sep 20, '00
John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00
3. Approval of August 14, 2000 minutes.
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.
Community Development Department
Published August 25, 2000 in the Vail Trail
2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
MEETING RESULTS
Monday, August 28, 2000
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
o GR Training Session - Non-Conforming Uses /Lots/Structures :30 min.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland
Diane Golden John Schofield
Brian Doyon
Doug Cahill
Tom Weber
Site Visits : 1:15 pm
1. Wilson Family Trust - 3886/3896 LupineDrive (bring hiking footwear)
Driver: George
®D
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
Public Hearinq,, - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing
lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two-
Family Primary/Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation
District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition.
Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
2. Information Update
SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRS FOR 2000-
Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00
Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, '00
Galen Aasland - May 3, '00
Brian Doyon - May 17, '00
- Jun 7, '00
Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00
John Schofield - Jul 5, '00
Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, '00
Doug Cahill - Aug 2, '00
TOWN OF:
1
Galen Aasland - Aug 16, '00
Tom Weber - Sep 6, '00
Brian Doyon - Sep 20, '00
John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00
3. Approval of August 14, 2000 minutes.
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.
Community Development Department
COUNCIL (FOLLOW-UP
FOLLOWUP
FTOPIC QUESTIONS
2000
8/23/00 MUNICIPAL BUILDING GREG H.: When will this be re-striped? It was effective Done!
CROSSWALK and its absence is noted.
Greg Moffet/Sybill Navas
8/23/00 LIONSHEAD FORMER GREG H.: Stalagtites (mites?) are forming outside the The area on the floor in front of this space is caused from ground
UNDERGROUND OFFICE SPACE former Arts Council office on the groundfloor level. water, and hopefully when the hub site is developed this will be
What can be done to remove these and to clean up this resolved. The area above is caused by water running through small
Greg Moffet are? cracks in the concrete. Once this begins, it's very hard to seal. This
area has been injection sealed in the past and it didn't do any good.
Again, when the hub site is redeveloped, these stairs will be removed
and rebuilt, and the problem will be resolved.
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.
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 7`' requesting a joint meeting. We do not expect an answer before the
Chuck Ogilby election, as possible to discuss: Employee Generation. election. Russ did call to explain the content of Council's request.
8/17/00 NOISE ABATEMENT GREG H.: Rod Slifer spoke directly w/Scott McGinnis, The current Draft 2020 Statewide Transportation Plan states that the
who although Scott sits on the "Ways and Means noise abatement funding is currently funded till 2002. There is no
Council Committee," suggested it would be much more effective money in their budget for Vail. After 2002, they have recommended
for town staff to contact CDOT and their Transportation this program not be funded. We have drafted a letter for the Mayor's
Committee directly. signature to respond to this item, as well as other issues in the plan
September 1, 2000, Page 1
which affect Vail. The comment period for the plan ends September
8, 2000. There will be a hearing later on the plan with the
Transportation Commission. We will send representatives to state our
case one-on-one, as well.
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? This is VA and Forest Service
jurisdiction. 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.
08/08/00 MOTORIZED SCOOTERS ON Greg M: Are we at a point where we need to be more Prohibiting scooters will require a dismount zone. Bob will prepare a
BIKE PATHS AND IN VILLAGE pro-active about educating users, enforcing guidelines, letter to the rental shops.
possibly revising our rules for use in pedestrian and bus
Kevin Foley lane areas? (See Ron Byrne letter)
Greg: Follow up with letter to rental shops.
September 1, 2000, Page 2