HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-19 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
o w
t ~
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, September 19, 2000
12:00 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. Lunch meeting with the Planning and Environmental
Russell Forrest Commission and the Design Review Board. (1:30 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff would suggest
having a discussion regarding the following items.
SUGGESTED ITEMS FOR DISCUSION:
0 Council Vision and Mission statement
Communication during a complex development review
process (Chateau Redevelopment)
Expectations for applications, applicants, review boards,
and staff (What do you want applicants and the public to
say after an application is acted upon)
Other
2. Site Visit to Lot 15/16, Bighorn, 1552 Matterhorn and Vail
Tom Moorhead Ridge. (45 mins.)
Russell Forrest
3. Open Space Acquisition. (15 mins.)
Russell Forrest
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: There are currently 3
open space acquisition actions for the Town Councils
consideration. Staff would request direction on these three
potential open space acquisition opportunities
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: There are three separate
and unrelated open space acquisition actions for the Town
Councils consideration. They include:
0 Lots 15 & 16 in the Bighorn Subdivision, Second
Addition. This was a high priority open space action in
the Open Lands Plan.
0 1552 Matterhorn Circle to connect the lower bench and
the middle bench of Donovan Park.
0 Unplatted parcel north of Vail Ridge. This was a high
priority open space action in the Open Lands Plan.
4. Executive Session to Consider Land Acquisition. (30 mins.)
Tom Moorhead
Russell Forrest
5. Interview for DRB Appointment - One Position. (5 mins.)
George Ruther
6. Update on Berry Creek 5th. (30 mins.)
Tom Braun
Dominic Mauriello BACKGROUND RATIONAL: The Town of Vail and Eagle
Nina Timm County have been moving forward to reach agreement on a
Tom Moorhead contract with the chosen developer Auerbach. We also have
been refining the sketch plan for the site with Braun
Associates.
Braun Associates has filed an application for sketch plan
n r
approval. This has been deemed complete as a valid
development application by the Eagle County Community
Development Department.
The purpose of this presentation is to update the Town
Council on the current status of the development plan.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: None at this time.
7. Discussion of first reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000,
George Ruther an ordinance amending Section 12-11-4 (Design Review, Materials
To Be Submitted; Procedures), Section 12-15-4 (Interior
Conversions, Process), Section 12-15-5 (Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area; 250), Section 12-16-2 (Conditional Use
Permit, Application, Contents), Section 12-17-2 (Application
Information Required), adding the requirement for co-owner
signatures on development review applications or written letters of
approval to be submitted to the Town of Vail Community
Development Department; and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000, on first
reading.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 5, 2000, the
Community Development Department presented a memorandum
to the Vail Town Council outlining the many issues and conflicts
associated with development review applications for jointly owned
property. Specifically, staff addressed the issue of development
on A,B,C and A/B parcels in the Town of Vail. Due to the joint
ownership nature of much of the land in the Town and the need to
insure fairness and consistency in the implementation of the
Town's land use regulations, the Council directed staff to prepare
an ordinance that would require all owners of a property being
considered for development to sign the development review
application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development
Department recommends that the Town Council approve
Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000, on first reading.
8. Tap Room - Presentation of Revised Plans. (15 mins.)
Allison Ochs
9. Review Evening Town Council Meeting Agenda of
September 19, 2000. (5 mins.)
10. Information Update. (10 mins.)
11. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
12. Other. (10 mins.)
13. Adjournment. (4:40 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, 9/26/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 10/3/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIN TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1013100, 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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council 4
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 22, 2000
SUBJECT: Consideration of three open space related acquisitions
1. WILSON PROPERTY, LOTS 15 & 16 IN THE BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND
ADDITION/ACTION #11 IN THE COMPREHENSIVE OPEN LANDS PLAN
Attached is a memo that summarizes a proposed replatting and rezoning of the above mentioned
lots. This application is still active. However, staff and the PEC have indicated to the applicant
that the proposal is not acceptable in its current forma Lot 15 is 83,560 square feet and zoned
primary/secondary. Lot 15 is primarily in a red avalanche hazard zone. Lot 16 is 125,797 sq. ft
and is zoned agriculture open space. There is a "by right" development potential on lot 16 of one
2000 square foot single family dwelling unit (excluding GRFA credit).
Lot 16 was identified in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as a high priority for acquisition
because it was in a red avalanche zone, provided access to a water fall, and could provide
access to a potential south trail. The neighbors would like to discuss the protection of lots 15 and
16 as open space through a cost sharing agreement with the Town of Vail. The value of the land
is estimated at approximately $525,000. Attached are also letters from the Stewart's and Claudia
Delude outlining their interest in the land.
2. UNPLATTED LAND NORTH OF VAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION/ACTION # 2 IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE OPEN LANDS PLAN
The Town of Vail has tried to acquire a 7.2 acre tract of land directly north of Cortina Lane on
several occasions directly from the owner and then through a tax sale. The land is in Eagle
County and zoned Agriculture. It has the potential for 1 single-family lot under Eagle County
zoning. This parcel was identified as a high priority for acquisition in the Comprehensive Open
Lands Plan. The proposed use of the land outlined in the plan was to use it in the USFS/TOV
land exchange and maintain it as open space under USFS ownership. Mr. Randall of Grand
County owns the land. It is land locked with private development on Cortina to the south and
U.S. Forest Service land on all other sides. It may be possible to gain access on the west side of
the property over U.S. Forest Service land. This would require approval from the USFS. Brad
Udall of the. Eagle Valley Land Trust has contacted the Town to determine if we would like to
protect this land by purchasing it for $150,000. There would also be a conservation easement on
the land if the Town choose to purchase it in cooperation with the Land Trust. The owner of the
land has been in contact with the Eagle Valley Land Trust.
3. 1552 MATTERHORN CIRCLE
The Town Council directed staff to move forward with an appraisal of 1552 Matterhorn Circle for
the purpose of open space protection. This land is zoned Residential Cluster and is 37,984 sq. ft.
This property was sold on August 21, 2000 to a Mr. Hilb of Vail for a price of $490,000. An
appraisal can be completed within 5 weeks but the anticipated value of the land is expected to be
similar to the recent purchase price. Mr. Hilb has had a meeting with the Community
Development Department to explore development options on the land.
TOWN OF PAIL
LOTS 15 1 IN THE BIGHORN SUBDIVISION,
M0 #3
v. ! R m«
t~P,,F o
1552 Matterhorn Circle
Matted Parcel
North of Vail R"Idge
J ~ V
t
I
970-476-8354 p.l
Aug 29 00 04:53p W.Stewart
y3lb
r b.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 29, 2000
TO: Mr. George G. Ruther
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
FROM- Tana F. Stewart
Wendy M. Stewart
Bill E. Stewart
3880 Lupine Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
S1T.B.11EcCT: Lot 15116 Bighorn 2nd Addition
Dear Sirs:
We believe maintaining open space in Vail is one of the most critical isgies for our
c..-,.vanity. Recently, our family participated in a petition campaign asking Vail citizens
to record their support of Vail's open space plan and to oppose development of lot 15116
of Bighorn 2nd Addition. i would report that our c.,......anity is fully supportive of any and
all open space preservation.
Ln that regard, we are prepared to contribute U5$100,000 towards the acquisition of these
lots for open space. You will receive a matching offer from our neighbor. We ask that the
Town of Vail also contribute to the acquisition.
0" cu..,yu4ment is as follows:
1) We will retain a strip of land approximately 50 feet by 250 feet immediately
adjacent to our lot (14A.).
2) Any additional land, as represented by the proportion purchased by our
contribution, will be donated to the Town of Vail for open space.
3) We would require that the use of the land be restricted, in perpetuity, to open
space.
4) We will not request any development rights (no f;RFA) for the 50 by 250 addition
to our lot.
5) We would be prepared to legally restrict our total lot as required.
We look forward to discussing our proposal with the Town Council.
Regards,
Aug-30-00 02:39P Colorado Speakers Bureau 970 476 0505 P-01
August 30. 2000
George Ruther
Community Development
Town of Vail
By facsimile
Dear George,
Per our discussion, I am prepared to offer a $100,000 contribution to the Town
of Vail towards the purchase of Lot 16 and Lot 15, if the lots are to be held as
"designated open space""in perpetuity. Dalton and I need a little time to discuss
whether or not we would extend our property liner request additional GRFA.
As of September I P I will be traveling. If you think that this deal may occur
before October 1" I could leave the funds with my attorney Fred Otto. Fred may
act for me if I am unavailable. His number in Eagle Vail is 949-5380.
Good lucid with this project and the acquisition of other open spaces.
5ircerely,
Claudia Dulude
3916 Lupine Dr.
Vail, CO 81657
476-8505 Tel
476-5885 Fax
cdulude@vail.net
4-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 28, 2000
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss 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
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, the Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, of First Land
Development, L.L.C., has submitted two development review applications to the Town of
Vail Community Development Department. The applications are for the resubdivision
and rezoning of two lots in East Vail.
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to resubdivide Lots 15 & 16 in the Bighorn
Subdivision, Second Addition. These lots are located at 3886 and 3896 Lupine Drive.
The purpose of the resubdivision is to create two new lots, each approximately 1.2 acres
in size and to establish a tract of land 2.4 acres in size to be dedicated to a third party
(i.e., TOV, USFS, Eagle Valley Land Trust). The creation of the two reconfigured lots will
be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between existing Lots 15 & 16
and replatting two new property lines. A copy of the proposed plat has been attached for
reference.
B. REZON[1NG
The applicant is proposing to rezone Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second
Addition. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot 15 is zoned Two Family
Primary/Secondary Residential and Lot 16 is zoned Agricultural & Open Space. The
applicant is proposing to rezone Lot 16 to Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential
and to rezone the newly created, undevelopable tract (Tract A) of land to Natural Area
Preservation District.
1
TOWN OF VAIL ~Y
I1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not be making
formal recommendation to the Planning & Environmental Commission at this time. We will
provide a formal recommendation at the time of final review of the request. A final review of this
request is tentatively scheduled for Monday, September 11, 2000.
While we are not prepared to make a final recommendation at this time, staff recommends that
the applicant, neighbors and Commission explore alternatives to the present proposal. Staff
suggests that the applicant revises the current proposal to come into greater compliance with
existing development conditions and to reduce any potential negative impacts on the
neighborhood and community.
A. MINOR SUBDIVISION
B. REZONING
III. BACKGROUND
The Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition was platted on July 22, 1963. The platting was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County as the property was then
under Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 15 & 16 have remained in the current configuration since
their original platting.
The Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to
Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974.
Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 15 & 16 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary
Residential.. Lot 15 remains to be zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. Lot 16 has
been rezoned.
In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur I. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive
Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow
avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr. Mears' study the Town of
Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as
components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in
1977.
In 1977, Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition was rezoned. The lot was rezoned to
Agriculture & Open Space from Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The request for the
rezoning was submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Stanley and Martha Wilson.. According to the information
in the Town's file, the reason the rezoning was requested was because a restriction had been
placed on the warranty deed dated September 1, 1972, prohibited habitable structures being
built on Lot 16 for a period of twenty years (September 1, 1992).
In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations are to
help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains,
avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land
areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes;
2
to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and
recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with
flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage
to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give
notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and
areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare.
In 1986, the,Town of Vail adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic
Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan.
According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 15 & 16 are designated "low density residential". The
purpose of the low-density residential designation is to provide sites for single-family detached
homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development with in this category would
typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private
recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of
residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations,
and parks and open space related facilities.
In 1994, the Town of Vail adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the
plan are:
To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of
open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources,
trails, and to reserve lands for public use;
To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection;
To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program;
To define a management system to appropriately manage Town-owned open space
lands, and;
To buffer neighborhoods with open space.
The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action-oriented plan that identifies specific parcels
of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail
easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51
parcels on which actions are recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing
specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest
priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of
the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number
of recommended actions. These priorities are:
o Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas;
Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail;
Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing
trailheads and neighborhoods;
Add three "trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform
visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek;
Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to
Vail Valley Drive.
The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lot 16,
Bighorm Subdivision Second Addition as "Parcel 41" for implementation purposes. Parcel 41 is
3
r
classified as a "High Priority". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to
acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension.
The plan also notes that Parcel 41 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for
protecting Parcel 41 include acquisition through a fee simple purchase, purchasing the
development rights, and/or acquiring an access easement through the parcel.
As a high priority classification, Parcel 41 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation
criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural
resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic/public
uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the
threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost,
unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, low
management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town.
In 1995, the Town of Vail Community Development Department sent correspondence to the
owner of Parcel 41 (Lot 16). The purpose of the letter was to gauge the level of interest of the
property owner to sell Parcel 41 to the Town of Vail. The property owner expressed no interest
and no further communications have taken place. The Town of Vail has never made a formal
written offer to purchase Parcel 41.
Research into the Town of Vail Zoning Map indicates that there are twenty properties in the
Town of Vail zoned Agricultural & Open Space. Of these twenty properties seven are privately
owned. The other thirteen properties are either publicly owned (TOV/USFS), owned by Vail
Associates and restricted as dedicated open space as part of the original subdivision, or owned
in common by a homeowner's association and restricted as dedicated open space. Of the
seven privately owned properties, three are legally platted subdivisions. One of the legally
platted properties is Lot 16.
The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development
within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the
applicant's proposal.
Chapter 6 - Single-Family Residential
Chapter 6 - Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential
Chapter 8 -Agricultural & Open Space
Chapter 21 - Hazard Regulations
Copies of each of the code sections listed above have been attached for reference.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Zoning Analysis is to provide a written comparison of the existing
development rights of Lots 15 & 16. The analysis also provides a comparison of the lot sizes,
allowable GRFA, and geologic hazards associated with other properties in the same
neighborhood.
4
I
LOT 15, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION SECOND ADDITION
(Primary/Secondary Residential)
EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Size: 83,653 sq. ft. sq. ft.
Density: 2 DU + 1 Type II EHU 2 DU + 1 Type II EHU
GRFA: 7,933 sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU) sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU)
Site Coverage: 16,731 sq. ft. sq. ft.
(20%)
Setbacks: Front -20 ft. Same
Sides-15 ft.
Rear- 15ft.
Landscape Area: 50,192 sq. ft. sq. ft.
(60%)
Building Height: 33' maximum Same
LOT 16, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION SECOND ADDITION
(Agricultural & Open Space)
EXISTING PROPOSED
Lot Size: 125,797 sq. ft. sq. ft.
Density: 1 DU + 1 Type II EHU DU + 1 Type II EHU
GRFA: 2,000 sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU) sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU)
Site Coverage: 6,289 sq. ft. sq. ft.
(5%)
Setbacks: Front -20 ft. Same
Sides-15 ft.
Rear- 15ft.
Landscape Area: N/A Same
Building Height: 33' maximum Same
V. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
5
A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation
of a new lot must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision
Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental
Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is:
Lot Area:
Staff Response:
Frontage:
Staff Response:
Dimension:
Staff Response:
B. The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application,
as outlined in the subdivision regulations, is:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the
application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter,
the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning
and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration
shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C. The
Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to
subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable
documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town.
The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development
proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
Staff Response:
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent land.
Staff Response:
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value
of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response:
6
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with Town development objectives.
Staff Response:
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and
efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and
other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities
will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
Staff Response:
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures.
Staff Response:
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and
management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the
integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land.
Staff Response:
VI. REZONING CRITERIA
The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
recommending approval of a zone change request:
1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land
uses?
Staff Response:
2) Is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses
consistent with municipal objectives?
Staff Response:
3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community?
Staff Response:
4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan?
Staff Response:
7
Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan outlines numerous goals and policies for the
development of land in the Town. The goals and policies reflect the desires of the
community as expressed during a series of public meetings that were held throughout
the development of the plan (1990). These goals are to be used as adopted policy
guidelines in the review process of new development proposals.
The following is a list of goals and policies of the Land Use Plan staff believes are
relevant to the proposed minor subdivision and rezoning requests:
General Growth/Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance
between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed
areas (infill).
Skier/Tourist Concerns
2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while
continuing to purchase open space.
Residential
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted
areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate
restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full
range of housing types.
8
08/22/00 TUE 09:56 FAX 1 707 785 1965 STEWARTS 10002
Aug-22-00 09:26A Colov-ado Speakers 6uv eau 970 476 OSOS P-01
PUBLIC PETITION
- -
we request that t-r,-. Mail Town Council and Planning and Envin,nmental
Commission deny the application of Developer, Henry Jay Tschirner, and
Property owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 16,
Bighorn, 2nd Addition, from Open Space en Primary/Secondary Development.
1) Whams, the !fail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the
"Highest PriodW' In the preservation of open space in Vail;
2) Whereas, the bail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural,
open spate and preserve the'mountain experience"."
3) Whereas, the VaH Open Lends Plan states that the Alan protects open spaces
which provide a "recreational, environmental, and visual resource".
THiE ,ICE VEGOROUSLY OBJECT TO THE SUBD ON OF LOT
k5 AND THE RIEZONING OF LOT 16 FROM OPEN SPACE TO
PRX( RY/'STECONDARY HOUSING.
The Undersigned:
Printed Name Address Signature Date
T~L
2. o?oz vc~
00K OIL' a 9 /&1;-
- t /-lobo f f .z/ 1Sj a c~~a~o d
s- (J vv & hc-cn &hc, PO 0-4-X-,911173 Vii, 0, GD ~~a10v
r.
1/6 07
8.
- - - - - - - -
PUBLI GPETITION
RE-: East Vail Waterfall _ C
We request that the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental
Commission deny the application of Developer, Henry Jay Tschimer, and
Property Owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 16,
Bighorn, 2"d Addition, from Open Space to Primary/Secondary Development.
1) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the
"Highest Priority" in the preservation of open space in Vail;
2) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural,
open space and preserve the "mountain experience'."
3) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states that the Plan protects open spaces
which provide a 'recreational, environmental, and visual resource".
THEREFORE, WE VIGOROUSLY OBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT
15 AND THE REZONING OF LOT 16 FROM OPEN SPACE TO
PRIMARY/SECONDARY HOUSING.
The Undersigned:
Printed Name Address Signature Date
O 4 L Z- o s
3- 1
4.
5~ 411A GEC,'
f a
v
~W y~
.r -
8-
JJ
9.
-
i`
r q
il~s
12.
~~T ~I,.j-e~?~~>.' ~ rya ew
13.
r4 f~
14.
15. ' r c 13C-3 2. fr;~ o 6/1'17 f9i _ /)II , z1O0
16.
17.
18 .7
gx/d~,,
26.
70
Ilk, 67
X22.
23.
_.s
2 4.
25. C C
26.
27. /
28.
30.
32.E f j' / `v` 1,cJ /j !/Z- : / j ~Y,>~J C ~v 1-D7; r+C / V l of t tf
33. W4 Q { I a Cv 6,
35Z
}
6, f
37.
38. r„
V 1<71
_ - - 1 t1
39. ~71 - ~ ] 1 g •'1 ~ 1 ~ 1; ,i,I ~J rl `j' V !k. -
m _
40. -7
41.
42-
1.
43.
45.
46.
jam... r 3 l l j
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Dear Galen,
As Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission, there are two
requests that we East Vail residents have pertaining to the August 28th meeting.
1) We would like 3 minutes per family to present our views.
2) We would appreciate a question and answer time.
3) We would like to submit the attached example petition on Monday as we
would like to accumulate the signatures of our weekend residents.
Thank you for your consideration. We are having a meeting Saturday morning
in East Vail. If you have any direction it would also be appreciated. Please call
Bill Stewart at 476-4316.
Sincerely,
Concerned East Vail Residents >
PUBLIC PETITION
We request that the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental
Commission deny the application of Developer, Henry Jay Tschimer, and
Property Owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 16,
Bighorn, a Addition, from Open Space to Primary/Secondary Development.
1) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the
"Highest Priority" in the preservation of open space in Vail;
2) Where the Vail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural,
open sie and preserve the `mountain experience'."
3) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states that the Plan protects open spaces
which provide a "recreational, environmental, and visual resource".
THEREFORE, WE VIGOROUSLY 083Wr TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT
15 AND THE REZONING OF LOT iS FROM OPEN SPACE TO
PRIMARY/SECONDARY HOUSING.
The Undersigned:
Printed Name Address Signature Date
1.~1a~;ctti~ 1)uluAf 'M 1(o -1-00
tin ~
J
August 14, 2000
Doug Cahill
Planning and Environmental Commission
Municipal Bldg.
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Cahill:
You are probably aware that the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
meets August 28 to consider an application to re-zone and re-plat lots 15 & 16 in the
Bighorn 2d addition in East Vail. These lots are directly below the waterfall on Lupine
Drive. As you know, the waterfall is one of the more scenic attractions in the Vail
Valley, visual from 1-70, Bighorn Road and Lupine Drive. Hundreds of people every
year stop on Lupine Drive to photo the falls or climb to its base.
Lot 16 is currently zoned open space / agricultural, and the applicants proposal
is to change the classification and re-plat the two lots to allow the construction of four
housing units, which would effectively block the view of the falls. In addition, the area
is classified by the Town as being within a high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides,
and mudslides. Any construction to mitigate these hazards would almost certainly
affect the adjacent property owners. Also, drainage from the falls creates a wetlands
issue on the two lots.
In view of the Town's commitment to open space, there would seem to be no
valid reason to change the zoning of lot 16 to allow construction of housing units.
I urge you to become involved in this issue so that a decision is made that is in the best
interest of the Town of Vail and its visitors.
Signed,
r-
Neil Muncaster
RECD AU G 212000
August 14, 2000
Diane Golden
Planning and Environmental Commission
Municipal Bldg.
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ms Golden:
You are probably aware that the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
meets August 28 to consider an application to re-zone and re-plat lots 15 & 16 in the
Bighorn 2d addition in East Vail. These lots are directly below the waterfall can Lupine
Drive. As you know, the waterfall is one of the more scenic attractions in the Vail
Valley, visual from 1-70, Bighorn Road and Lupine Drive. Hundreds of people, every
year stop on Lupine Drive to photo the falls or climb to its base.
Lot 16 is currently zoned open space / agricultural, and the applicants proposal
is to change the classification and re-plat the two lots to allow the construction of four
housing units, which would effectively block the view of the falls. In addition, the area
is classified by the Town as being within a high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides,
and mudslides. Any construction to mitigate these hazards would almost certainly
affect the adjacent property owners. Also, drainage from the falls creates a wetlands
issue on the two lots.
In view of the Town's commitment to open space, there would seem to be no
valid reason to change the zoning of lot 16 to allow construction of housing units.
I urge you to become involved in this issue so that a decision is made that is in the best
interest of the Town of Vail and its visitors.
Signed,
Neil Muncaster
RECD AUG 2 2 2000
Planning and Environmental Commission August 21, 2000
Town of Vail
Dear Commissioners Aasland, Doyon„ Scholheld, Golden, Cahill, Bernhardt and
Weber:
We object to the rezoning of Lot 16 and the Subdivision of Lot 15. We are
adjacent property owners. We ask you to deny the applications in front of you
on the 28th of August. A vote yes is a desecration of open space in Vail. George
Ruther's semantics on Open Space are null and void. Open Space is open space
regardless of who owns it.
Please consider:
1) This was downzoned more that twenty years ago at the request of the
current owner, Martha Wilson and the Wilson Family. The taxes paid on Lot
16 are $134/year. The application for the initial downzoning is attached. It
states "This is the waterfall area in Bighorn and the lot is right on the slide
area". Hopefully this is not a case of tax fraud, but then what is it?
2) Art Mears states in the letter attached dated 9/6/79 that "building be avoided
on Lots 15 and 16." The W91sons' and Mears negotiated the downzoning
25 years ago and now are asking for upzoning? Has the hazard changed?
Or the money? And can you make a decision on only one paid consultant?
3) According to the Vail Open Lands Plan Lot 16 is the "highest priority" for
preservation. George Ruther entered negotiations with the Wilsons and made
an offer. We request disclosure on the offer and the terms involved in
Ruther's current negotiations. We believe that the Town of VaH has an
obligation to Wll the provisions of the Open Lands Plana
4) According to Town of Vail Hazard Regulations any development must prove
without a doubt that there is "not (an) increase in the hazard to other
properties and structures" before a subdivision is approved. We have not
been satisfied that there is any work done concerning the safety of our
property and family.
5) This is a severe geological hazard and geographically sensitive area with
avalanche danger, rock slides, debris, wetlands protected by the Clean Water
Act of 1972. The Town Hazard regulations require that there is "clear and
convincing evidence" that the property should not be considered
geographically sensitive. Since only the developer has provided data, by the
same engineer with a different story every twenty years we do not consider it
accurate nor obviously objective, and do not think a legal interpretation
would be that the geologic report is in any way ""clear and convincing
evidence
6) We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading our home and views
per town hazard reports and are shocked that the reports could be changed
on the whim of Community Development.
Page Two
August 21, 2000
Dulude/Sim Comment
As you review these applications please also consider:
(a) Requesting a bond as specified in 12-21-17 "Requirement of Bond" for
$50,000 to "ensure that the reports and requirements are completed and
compiled."
(b) Requesting disclosure on "'intent" from the Town of Vail Community
Development, the Developer, Jay Tschirner, the Owner, the Wilson Family
Trust, and the Broker, Jo Ellen Nash.
Thank you for your consideration and please vote no on the applications noted
above.
Sincerely,
Claudia D Jude & Dalton Sim
3916 Lupine Dr., Vail, CO
PS: Please note as we file this letter on 8/25/00 at noon that we have not been
notified as to the recommendation of Community Development and have not
been provided time to respond.
ARTHUR MEARS, P.E. r
NATURAL HAZARDS CONSULTANT l J
712 East Gothic Avenue
Gunnison, Colorado 81230
(303)6!1.3236 i
September 6, 1979
Mr. Hillis Akin
Box 5502
Snowmass Resort, Co 81615
Dear Mr. Akin:
At your request I conducted a preliminary field appraisal of the snow
avalanche hazard to Lots 15 an (-,Bi--horn Siahrl~ vl-.i nn Addition.,
on September 5, 1979• These two lots are affected by design-magnitude
avalanches in the 'Waterfall" avalanche path and are included in an ava-
lanche influence zone by the Town of Vail. As a result of my inspection
I offer the following general comments regarding the Waterfall avalanthe
and the effects of this avalanche to Lots 15 and 16. However, these comments
should be considered to be tentative and possibly subject to revision in
the event that a detailed study of the avalanche is conducted.
The Waterfall Avalanche
During very severe and infrequent conditions large dry slab avalanches will
release from large steep areas generally above 10,200 feet elevation in
the upper portions of the avalanche path, and will flow down the intermit
tend stream course that produces the waterfall. A portion of the avalanche
mass will stop above the cliff bands in the forest, but a portion will also
fall over the cliffs, entrain air, and probably reach Gore Creek. Nearly
all of Lot 16 and the eastern portion of Lot 15 will be covered by such an
avalanche. The resulting impact pressures, although not computed through
a consideration of -the avalanche dynamics, would most likely be well in
excess of those for which buildings are usually designed, and may place
Lot 16 entirely within a "high hazard zone."
Wet snow avalanches will also occur and will affect Lot 16, but because of
their lesser velocities can be deflected to the west to-affect the western
portion of Lot 15. Thus major avalanches will probably affect all of Lot
16 and most of Lot 15.
Recommendations
I concur with the Vail avalanche zoning map and recommend that building be
avoided on Lots 15 and lb. Altriough it is possible that some portion of
these pots would-be classified as "moderate hazard," thus-allowing-specially-
designed buildings, the boundaries of the mode; bazaar Tle cannot be
determined without a detailed study of the avalanche topography and dynamics.
We appreciate the fact that you have considered potential avalanche hazard
in your assessment of this property and hope to have the chance to work with
you in the future.
Sincerely,
04 ~,t~o N at4
cc: Jim Rubin Arthur L. Mears, FE
Avalanche Dynamics, Defense. Zoning 0 Mountain Torrent Analysis 0 Slope Stability
f~1'i'1.III~N I'ii' V AttIAH"',(
CUldit(l Illil/~l_ 11'~I !'1=1:;11'{
P, ~ I f c u i r: _ ; ~ ~f/ ~ t1 I . c ~J ! i . • r, D., r ~ - _7
J
t o r I'._` i s7 r; t r i n ~-itin
'`n' > /.Gs/_!PG G~/r'!?~iL `c.tf~ ~~S_ G: c
-lip
C7 t; i1F: ^.-"j re '^UESi v c, ?f rh E... t7'=iJr IfIC IflLnniv
~.C?!': C:l f':.I cn !~•^L^St hr: YG IG:•. rl -
(ron i na CI arr~e T ornjlfclJ.R
u: J s to
i n rle .
for thz- ic,r:inc cfescr/i.. r-, 0ro._:,
Cleo! S,,:ie porn-, sr!d :ni"n of tt!1 i. 1. n
Ile-
do C,(,; i' lc i-l hard_.,,i p r! 1 ~ ..1
mpt
t '
i
i
i
1 C)*
- - - - -
W-D
V ~
- - pc-'~--cam..,.`
is
i~
- ------%!-~liL/jt~'!'t.~~L~c c?ra2e~e.'~iJ S- ---~.vz~e~ '~'LG_ 'L ~ ~ -0~
.a. _ /,!/GB?vG- ~ ~ ~ ~~~p2.c~ f~ Cc.o ,S /j0-llka~-
eq~
ell-
~p
v,(
_~~~r~_. ~fDy~ee.o- _ lam- ~;-.e- _ ® ~ _ • ~ ~ G~~~o~c.4.~
o
~-0-~ u u-~ air 2Q
~~2/~i0__ Q/1011 ~ C' a ~ - rQ ,J, ~?~J~.I..V~~ ~V~ ~SL3.q '
t.~M• ~Q.( 9../~~ /Y uP1 ~g/N~C~it/~w n \N~lt ~vl.~.~G.~.. ~
n J o
August 24, 2000
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Members of the Commission,
Mrs. Stevenson and I are homeowners residing at 3987B Lupine
Dr. for the last nine years. We have been advised by public notice
of the application to rezone and subdivide Lots 15 and 16 located
at 3886/3896 Lupine Dr.
We want to urge you to reject this application. This property is in a
high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides and mud slides. In
addition, it is our understanding that part of this property falls
within the red zone and other parts in the blue zone. It is not
apparent to us that even with mitigation that such large units could
be built without effecting us and other property owners. We also
believe that there could be a wetlands issue resulting from drainage
from the falls.
We would also appeal to the commission on the broader issue of
maintaining your commitment to open space. This area is one of
the most scenic visual sites within Vail and is enjoyed by many
hundreds of residents and visitors for photography and hikes to the
base of the falls. Allowing a rezoning and reconfiguration to build
two monstrous primary/secondary structures blocking this pristine
view seems unnecessary and not in the spirit of supporting an open
space obligation.
This position is supported by many other Vail residents who may
not have written to you on this matter. We are convinced that this
request is not in the best interests of the TOV or its residents and
once again request the application being denied.
Sincerely,
Mark Stevenson Maureen Stevenson
Cc: George Ruther
Pwathmey
•
Schultz
ANDREW BLUMETT~, MA
ACADEMIC: Bachelor of Architecture
New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1989
RESTORE Certification, 1994
Intensive 12-week course in Building
Preservation & Restoration
AFFILIATIONS: American Institute of Architects
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Present Gwathmey Pratt Architects, P.C. - Vail, Colorado
1991 -1995 SBLM Architects, P.C. - New York, New York
1990-1991 SLM & Associates, P.C. - New York, New York
1988 - 1990 Y.B. Tomm, A.I.A., Lyndhurst, New Jersey
PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
WOLFE RESIDENCE Single family home in Mountain Star, Avon, Colorado
BLUE RESIDENCE Single family home in Bachelor Gulch, Colorado
WADDILL RESIDENCE Single family home in Beaver Creek, Colorado
EAGLE RIVER ENCLAVE 28 condominium units along the Eagle River in
Minturn, Colorado
MILMO RESIDENCE Single family home along the Golf Course at
Beaver Creek, Colorado
COOK RESIDENCE Single family home in Strawberry Park at Beaver
Creek Colorado
TRINITY BUILDING Project Manager, Phase II - exterior restoration
New York, New York
THE WOOLWORTH BUILDING Restoration and on-going maintenance program
New York, New York
BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS Design/layout of new national retail chain
ANDREW BLUMETTI
1875-B SUNBURST DRIVE
VAIL, COLORADO
81657
H 970-476-7609
W 970-476-1147
September 11, 2000
Town Council Members
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Application to DRIB
Dear Sirs and Madams:
I, respectfully submit for your consideration this letter, along with a Resume, as a formal
application to serve on the Town of Vail Design Review Board. I am a 3 year resident of
Vail presently employed as a Project Architect with the firm of Gwathmey Pratt Schultz
Architects, P.C.
As a resident involved with the local Design/Construction industry I feel I will bring
experience and knowledge that will prove a benefit to the DRB. Along with almost 15
years of combined experience in architecture and construction I have also sat on Design
Juries at New Jersey Institute of Technology.
I hope you will find my credentials appropriate and will seriously consider me to fill the
vacant position presently available.
If you should have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
/ -
Andrew Blumetti
cc: Mr. Bob McLaurin; TOV Town Manager
Files
Y y
ORDINANCE N0.24
SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-11-4 (DESIGN REVIEW, MATERIALS TO BE
SUBMITTED; PROCEDURES), SECTION 12-15-4 (INTERIOR CONVERSIONS,
PROCESS), SECTION 12-15-5 (ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA; 250)
AND ADOPTING SECTION 12-16-2(H) (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, APPLICATION,
CONTENTS), SECTION 12-17-2(G) (VARIANCES, APPLICATION INFORMATION
REQUIRED), TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT FOR CO-OWNER SIGNATURES ON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATIONS OR WRITTEN LETTERS OF APPROVAL TO
BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT;
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to codify the requirement for co-owner
signatures on development review applications or written letters of approval; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the Vail Town Council held a worksession meeting to
discuss the need for co-owner signatures and has directed staff to prepare this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council has found that there is a need for co-owner signatures on
development review applications or written letters of approval to insure the reasonable and equitable
implementation of land use regulations on properties with more than one owner; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board have
discussed the need for the co-owner signature requirement on development review applications or
written letter of approval and support this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health,
safety, and welfare to adopt this ordinance and require co-owner signatures on development review
applications or written letters of approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Puroose of the Ordinance
The purpose of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2000, is to amend Sections 12-11-4(B)(1) (d) & (C)(1)(1),
12-15-4(D), 12-15-5(I), and adopt 12-16-2(H), and 12-17-2(G) to add the requirement for co-owner
signatures on development review applications or written letter of approval.
Section 2. Prooosed Amendments
The following sections of the Vail Town Code are amended and/or adopted and shall read as follows:
Note: (Revised language shown in BOLD)
Section 12-11-4(B)(1)(d): Application form. If the property is owned in common (condominium) or
jointly with other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by
1
Ordinance 24, Series of 2000
way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or
applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application.
Section 12-11-4(C)MM: Application form and appropriate fee. If the property is owned in common
(condominium) or jointly with other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in
duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other
property owner, owners or applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either
in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application.
Section 12-15-4 (D): Process: Applications shall be made to the Department of Community
Development staff on forms provided by the Department. Applications for interior conversions to
single-family, two-family, primary/secondary or multi-family dwelling units located in a Special
Development District (SDD) pursuant to this Section shall also be allowed without amending the
GRFA provisions of the SDD. However, properties with GRFA restrictions recorded on the plat for
the development shall be regulated according to the plat restrictions unless the plat is modified to
remove such restrictions. If the property is owned in common or jointly with other property
owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of example and not
limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or applicable owner's
association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature
r
on the application. The planning staff will review the application to ensure the proposed addition
complies with all the provisions of the interior conversion section.
Section 12-15-5(D)(1): Application shall be made on forms provide by the Department of Community
Development. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly with
other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of
example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or
applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application. The application shall also include:
a. A fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the application.
b. Information and plans as set forth and required by subsection 12-11-4C of this Title.
c. Any other applicable information required by the Department of Community Development to satisfy
the criteria outlined in this Section.
Section 12-16-2(H): If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly
2
Ordinance 24, Series of 2000
y b
with other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of
example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or
applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application.
Section 12-17-2(G): If the property is owned in common (condominium association) or jointly
with other property owners such as driveways or "C" parcels in duplex subdivisions, by way of
example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners or
applicable owner's association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of
approval or signature on the application.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted.
The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any
bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 19th day of September, 2000, and a public hearing for
second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of October, 2000, in the Council Chambers of
the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
3
Ordinance 24, Series of 2000
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of
October, 2000.
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
4
Ordinance 24, Series of 2000
e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 19, 2000
SUBJECT: A Town Council call-up of the Design Review Board's denial of a deck
expansion, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)/Lot
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company, represented by Knight Planning
Services
Planner: Allison Ochs
This item was tabled by the Town Council at the September 12, 2000 worksession. Council
requested a revised plan. This plan will be presented at the September 19, 2000 worksession.
Please refer to the attached memo from the September 12, 2000 meeting for additional
information.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 12, 2000
SUBJECT: A Town Council call-up of the Design Review Board's denial of a deck
expansion, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)/Lot
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company, represented by Knight Planning
Services
Planner: Allison Ochs
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
According to the Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook the Design Review
Board is:
The body responsible for reviewing development proposals in the Town of Vail.
The Design Review Board focuses on evaluating projects based on the Town
Code, Master Plans and the Design Standards as set forth in the Town Code,
including architectural design, site planning, landscaping, site disturbance, etc.
On May 15, 2000, an application was received for a conditional use permit to allow for
the addition of a deck to the Tap Room, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Rd. An outdoor
dining deck is a conditional use in the CC1 Zone District. The deck extended beyond
the property line of the Vista Bahn Building, onto Vail Associates property zoned
Agriculture and Open Space. Vail Associates allowed the encroachment through an
easement. The deck also extended onto the Town of Vail stream tract. On June 12, the
Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit. The
Planning and Environmental Commission had concerns about the effect of the use on
adjacent residential uses and its proximity to an adjacent private deck. The request was
tabled, with direction from the Planning and Environmental Commission to investigate
providing more of a buffer to adjacent properties and to go to the Design Review Board
for a conceptual review on the design of the deck. On June 21, 2000, the Design
Review Board conceptually reviewed the deck expansion. The following were their
major concerns:
1. The deck will create a dark and uninviting space for the pedestrian flow
that was intended with the original building design.
2. The board generally felt that the angles of the deck were out of character
with the existing building. Instead, the board felt that they would be more
TOW*YAIL
1
i
supportive of expanding the existing decks and opening up the restaurant
more to the outside.
3. The board felt that the deck would create a dark, wet entrance to the ski
lockers. They also felt that the proposed head height created would not
be conducive to people carrying skis.
4. The board felt that using up all of the available space was not an elegant
solution. The proposed deck introduced a vocabulary unfamiliar to the
existing building.
5. The board also expressed concerns about the proximity of the deck to the
adjacent residential use.
These concerns were forwarded to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the
July 10, 2000 meeting. At the July 10, 2000, Planning and Environmental Commission
hearing, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the Conditional Use
Permit for the outdoor dining deck with the condition that the deck would go no further
than the western portion of the stucco pilaster (see attached plan). The Planning and
Environmental Commission also noted that the Design Review Board would review the
architectural elements of the application, as the Planning and Environmental
Commission's role was to focus on the use. The staff memorandum and minutes of the
Planning and Environmental Commission meeting have been attached for reference.
When the applicant returned to the Design Review Board meeting on August 2, 2000,
the applicant had not addressed any of the concerns of the Design Review Board that
had been discussed at the conceptual review. A motion was made to approve the deck
addition, and a tie vote resulted. A tie vote is equivalent to a denial.
The denial was then called-up by the Town Council. Though the call-up was originally
scheduled for September 5th, the item was tabled to the September 12th Town Council
meeting. Following the Town Council call-up, the applicant submitted an appeal of the
Design Review Board decision. Their statement of appeal is attached for reference.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council uphold
the Design Review Board's denial of the proposed deck expansion subject to the
following findings:
1. That the addition does not meet the intent of the guidelines as established by
Section 12-11-5 (Design Guidelines) of the Town Code and outlined in Section III
of this memorandum.
2. That the deck addition does not meet the intent of the guidelines as established
by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and as outlined in Section III of this
memorandum.
2
III. APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design Guidelines:
1. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with
Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be
compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale,
proportions, site planning, landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with
the guidelines herein contained.
Staff Response: The Design Review Board and staff believe that the proposed deck
is out of context with the existing structure. The deck is out of scale with the existing
decks and balconies. The Design Review Board specifically felt that the angles of
the deck were out of character with the existing building. The proposal does not
meet the intent of the Design Guidelines.
Urban Design Guide Plan:
1. Pedestrianization - A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian
circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant, pedestrian ways.
Staff Response: The Design Review Board and staff believe that the deck creates an
uninviting pedestrian space. The deck creates a very dark entrance to the ski lockers,
and fails to maintain the openness of the pedestrian path around the east side of the
building. The proposal does not meet the intent of the Urban Design Guide Plan with
regards to pedestrianization.
2. Decks and Patios - Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring
people to the streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute
to the liveliness of a busy street - making a richer pedestrian experience than if those
streets were empty. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due
consideration to: sun, wind, views, pedestrian activities.
Staff Response: The Design Review Board and staff believe that while this is an
appropriate location for a deck, the deck must also be properly designed and sited.
The.current proposal is out ofcontext with the architecture of the existing building,
creates an uninviting pedestrian experience, and severely darkens and spoils the
entrance to the ski lockers. The head height created by the deck makes it difficult for
pedestrians carrying skis to pass through. The proposal does not meet the intent of
the Urban Design Guide Plan with regards to decks and patios.
Vail Village Master Plan
Goal 1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
Staff Response: The Design Review Board and staff believe that the deck is out of
character with the existing architecture of the Vista Bahn Building. The proposal does
not meet the intent of Goal 1 of the Vail Village Master Plan.
Goal 2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health
and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where
compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.1 Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning
regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible
greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
network throughout the village.
2.4.2 Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest
and the community shall be encouraged.
Staff Resaonse: While staff believes that the use of the deck meets the above
objectives and policies of Goal 2, staff does not believe that these over-ride the
importance of the architectural considerations of the Vail Village Master Plan as stated in
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan.
Goal 3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the Village
3.3 Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian
ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in
commercial infill or redevelopment projects.
3.4 Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways, and accessible green
space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
3.4.1 Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further
restrict public access.
Staff Resaonse: While staff believes that the above objectives and priorities are
applicable to the proposed deck addition, staff believes that proper siting and design are
integral to any development. The Design Review Board and staff feel that the current
proposal does not meet the intent of Goal 3 of the Vail Village Master Plan.
Intent of original design (from the original application to the Town of Vail)
"The creation and enhancement of the Mill Creek area as an important connector link
will alleviate skier congestion at peak hours on the west side of the Golden Peak House.
The opportunities to direct pedestrians along the Mill Creek improvements will assist in
improving the aesthetics in these strategic areas."
Staff Response: As part of the original design concept of the Vista Bahn Building, the
architect described the importance of the pedestrian link from the ski yard, around the
eastern portion of the building along Mill Creek. The Design Review Board and staff
believe that the deck is in direct contrast to the original design concept as specified by
the original architects of the building. The proposal does not meet the intent of the
original design, as specified by the architects.
4
Vii(
'U)1'1 tI ~iI
1
i
NEW DECK LINE
I 1
' EyiajT
O
rr', h
~ Y II~
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 12, 2000
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor
patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn
Building)/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1St Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company
Planner: Allison Ochs
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vistsa Bahn Building is proposing an outdoor dining deck to be located at 333
Hanson Ranch Rd. / Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1St. The establishment of outdoor patio
dining is a conditional use in the CCI Zone District. The deck addition will allow for
outdoor seating for the Tap Room Restaurant. The deck addition will be reviewed by the
Design Review Board for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the
establishment of an outdoor patio dining deck, based on the following findings and the
criteria outlined in this memo:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
'
TOWN OF VAIL
1
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional
use permit, staff recommends the following condition:
1. That the proposed deck encroachment is entirely removed from the Town of Vail
Stream Tract or resolved with the Town Attorney prior to Design Review Board
approval.
III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
Plannina and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental
Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application fora
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian,
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title.
7. Conformance with development standards of zone district
Design Review Board: The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the
Design Review application for
1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings
2. Fitting buildings into landscape
3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography
4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation
5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site
6. Acceptability of building materials and colors
7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms
8. Provision of landscape and drainage
9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures
10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances
11. Location and design of satellite dishes
12. Provision of outdoor lighting
13. The design of parks
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for the
establishment of the outdoor dining deck at the Vista Bahn Building based on the
following factors:
2
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff believes the applicant's proposal is in concert with the Town's
development objectives and will have minimal impacts on existing or
potential uses in the surrounding area.
The following development objectives of the Town are listed in the Vail
Village Master Plan and staff believes are relevant to this proposal:
2.1 Recognize the variety of land uses found throughout the Village
and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
3.3 Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along
pedestrian ways and plazas
3.3.2 Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and
shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment
projects.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the proposal will have minimal, if any, negative impacts
on the above-described criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
Staff believes there will be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the
above-described criteria
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the proposal has many positive aspects and that the
character of the area will be enhanced as a result of the proposed
improvements. Los Amigos has an outdoor dining deck similar to the
proposed Tap Room deck. As this site is adjacent to the ski yard, staff
believes this will be an amenity to the public. However, staff recognizes
that there are residential uses adjacent to the proposed outdoor dining
deck. All Town of Vail noise ordinances are applicable to this site. As a
conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
the ability to revisit the conditions imposed upon it, should any conflicts
arise between adjacent uses.
3
B. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before
arantina a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
4
.r
Description & Compatibility
The proposed project consists of an exterior deck extension on the south side of the second floor
of the Vista Bahn Building. The purpose is to provide outside seating for the Tap Room
Restaurant.
This addition meets development objectives of the Town of Vail by providing outside restaurant
and bar area thereby increasing existing commercial use in properly zoned areas.
The design of the deck has been carefully done to be compatible with features of the existing
building. For example the deck rail will be identical to that which currently exists on the
building. Also the deck is designed to respect the existing stairways, walkways and first floor
patio. Landscape materials consisting of two trees and some small shrubs will be relocated on
site.
In addition to the physical compatibility efforts, the compatibility of the proposed use will be
assured. There are some residential uses adjacent to and above the proposed deck. Our team is
r
contacting owners to resolve any issues.
Positive impacts are anticipated. An increase in food and beverage service at the base of the ski
mountain will be a public benefit. As this is limited to outside space, increase in the times of use
will be limited.
No additional parking will be needed. Also pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be impacted.
e -
I5WDGE STREET LODGE
( v /TO STA 0a, uU LGOUe
f e ]n e' a xsr yl V log
. BidIR K 81nJ¢ I
` LP w ffid
ro f
s+a ~N
lit
DMPYa
TRACT E
I
I1J1
/ ~ ~ ~ DMPtl n 1 a ~
2Cu
a l Imo-JI~~ w
i
~~ro ewrr.a ~ ~ ~
'ZIP ~ MATERIALS: ? fu
DEM
TCU H O BTAMFM CITE
TWlA LF VAiL TO MATCH ExICTR4's
RAIL,
CEDAR TO MATC44
EXISTw. 1J
UNDER: /
_ T4G NEW RAILMG TO MATCH EXISTNG
rQQ. ~ ~
981m
DM 74 AAlL Qf
1 t H4T 00
I
I I ~
65dlf ~ 1
I SSS 1 it Le.L+~ 1..u ,
RE 131AAJ
J~ ;
1
Ift
1XI
j1
ass ale I j I ,44.4
1, 5 5,
f STONE WALL )ECKTO13E SUPPORTED
ST'ONF.1t;AL1'
II SIGN FOR 1 RANT EY STONE W1fL
"TAP ROOM" (V_1.1'. 111-IGifFOF WALL)
Approved June 26, 2000
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 12, 2000
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Galen Aasland John Schofield George
Ruther
Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brent Wilson
Brian Doyon Allison Ochs
Doug Cahill Ann Kjerulf
Tom Weber Judy Rodriguez
Todd Oppenheimer
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
1. Swearing in of PEC member Tom Weber - Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk.
Galen Aasland mentioned that item #5 had been withdrawn.
2. A request for a conditional use permit to construct a Type II Employee Housing
Unit, located at 2490 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 131h Filing.
Applicants: Mary & Sonny Caster, represented by Ben Aguilar
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to
add.
Galen Aasland asked if the public had any comments. There were no public comments.
Doug Cahill asked if there was an exit door from the garage to the EHU.
Ben Aguilar said you would have to exit the garage and go outside to get to the EHU.
Doug Cahill suggested an access door from the garage to the EHU.
Tom Weber had no comments.
Brian Doyon said he was concerned with Condition #2, reducing the curbcut.
Ben Aguilar explained that the cut was reduced by 20'.
Ann Kjerulf said the DRB made the condition part of their approval .
Chas Bernhardt had no further comments.
Galen Aasland asked if rents would be removed from the deed restriction.
Planning and Environmental Commission 1
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000.
Brent Wilson said the Town of Vail has no cap on rents.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the installation of wireless
telecommunications rooftop antennas & a public service use within the Brandess
Building, located at 2077 N. Frontage Road (Brandess Building)/Lot 39, Buffehr
Creek. -
Applicant: Jayne Brandess Revocable Trust
Planner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. The applicant was not
present. He then asked if there were any public comments.
Charlie Clark, a resident of 29 Zermatt Lane, Unit H, stated that he didn't want the
antennas to be huge.
Brent Wilson explained the antennas and said they were 4' tall and quite small. He said
the Design Review Board would address the aesthetics.
Tom Weber said his only concern was that they should be concealed behind a louver
and it should be part of the PEC approval.
Galen Aasland asked how past applications were required to screen.
Brent Wilson said we would have to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and we
could forward that as a suggestion or condition.
Brian Doyon agreed with enclosing the dumpster and the cupola, but said he was not in
favor of bumping out and suggested re-angling with brackets painted to match.
Chas Bernhardt asked staff who the applicant was.
Brent Wilson said the applicant was the Brandess Building.
Doug Cahill said he agreed on the screening and dumpster enclosure.
Galen Aasland said the application was appropriate and complies with Town Zoning.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
Chas Bernhardt asked if we shouldn't recommend the wingwall change to the DRB.
Brian Doyon said we don't need more bulk and mass.
Planning and Environmental Commission 2
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000
Brent Wilson said the PEC should suggest the bulk and mass be minimal and we should
leave the screening to the DRB.
4. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor
patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn
Building)/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1Si Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company
Planner: Allison Ochs
Galen Aasland mentioned receiving a letter from Mr. Hughes that had been fedexed to
the Town. He the disclosed, for the record, that while on a site visit, the applicant just
showed him directions without influencing him.
Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Tom Bonnie, from Knight Planning Services, said he became aware of the encroachment
of the deck on some land and wanted to work out with the Town Attorney on an
easement agreement. He then explained a rendering of the deck and the importance of
the deck expansion. He said he was pleased with the interaction with the Town of Vail
staff.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. There were no public comments.
Tom Moorhead said he was prepared to answer any questions about stream tract land.
He said that the land was given to the Town of Vail within the last 3-4 years and was very
restrictive. He said there was a provision for any improvements saying that Vail Resorts
had to be a party to those improvements or they would take back the land and so Vail
Resorts would decide the appropriateness . He said dining decks were an appropriate
amenity and there were dining decks adjacent to private residences, but there were
sound ordinances in place if it became disruptive. He then said anyone who owns
residential property in CC1 should anticipate this activity.
George Ruther gave the list of planning documents that encouraged the mix of lodges,
commercial uses, etc.
Tom Moorhead said various dining decks in the Town do have residential,in the building
or adjacent to them.
Brian Doyon asked if a decision on the conditional use would affect the agreement with
Vail Resorts.
Tom Moorhead said the applicant was willing to work with Vail Resorts.
Doug Cahill said that there was an issue with a neighbor, having a private deck next to
this adjoining deck. He said he would like the deck to be pulled back and suggested a
solid screen.
Tom Bonnie said he would like to put up a screen between the decks.
Doug Cahill asked about the Tap Room bar activities.
Planning and Environmental Commission 3
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000
Tom Bonnie said the Tap Room was moving into lunches everyday outside and hor's
deurves into the evening until it was too cold outside.
Doug Cahill said he could see the adjacent's concern with an overflow of a noisy bar, but
not with dining. He said the stairs could be moved to the door on the west end.
Tom Bonnie said they had tried to maximize the deck and still be within code and said
they would love to move to the east closer to the residential unit on that side.
Doug Cahill said to move the stair to line up with the door to the west making the existing
deck come out to the property line.
Tom Bonnie said there were main gas lines coming through and mentioned that the rise
to run gets steeper and there would not be enough horizontal distance for the rise.
Tom Weber said it was an appropriate spot for a deck. He said he was concerned with
covering up the entrance and said, from an architectural standpoint, that he would rather
see that deck move over than have a screen there. He said if there could be an
agreement with the Town on Tract H, given that that tract was for recreational purposes,
there would be an argument that this was the best place for the deck. He then suggested
that the deck be pulled in a couple of feet from the neighboring deck.
Brian Doyon said this was an appropriate use. He would like the pine trees to the east
cut down for more sun.
Chas Bernhardt said it was appropriate for the zone district. He said the adjacents were
stuck with the use and he liked the idea of moving the deck away, but since it would cut
the size of the deck down, he liked the idea of moving the staircase, which would give
more usable space on the deck. He suggested set hours of 7a.m. to 7p.m., so there
would not be late-night drinking hours.
Tom Bonnie asked if it would be possible to extend the hours until 9:30 p.m.
Chas Bernhardt said the applicant would need something to appease the neighbors and
would like to see the deck moved with the stairway investigated.
Tom Bonnie said he would like to figure out how to be good neighbors:
Galen Aasland said this met the intent of the Town, but he recognized the conflict
between the adjacent neighbor. He said he would like to see a reasonable buffer and as
part of the condition of approval, there should be a reasonable separation. He stated
that residential properties in the CC1 should recognize that a conditional use deck might
go in.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in~accordance with the staff memo.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Tom Weber said he would like to set a minimum distance between decks.
Discussion ensued between Brian Doyon and Tom Weber.
Galen Aasland said we needed to set some kind of reasonable separation and the PEC
was entitled to ask for a reasonable buffer.
Planning and Environmental. Commission 4
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000
Tom Bonnie asked if there were any guidelines for this separation, rather than being
arbitrary.
Galen Aasland said this was a conditional use permit, with conflicting interests.
Tom Moorhead said Galen correctly defined it.
Allison Ochs said the PEC could table this and propose a separation distance, or the
PEC could set a separation distance.
Brian Doyon said the DRB should take care of this and that the applicant should provide
this to the DRB.
Tom Weber said that one of the criteria for the PEC to address was light and air.
Chas Bernhardt said the width of the staircase might be an adequate buffer.
Doug Cahill agreed that it would be a substantial buffer.
Rick Mueller said tabling this would not be advantageous to the applicant, as they
wanted to catch some of the summer traffic.
Tom Weber said it was the responsibility of the applicant to come up with a buffer. He
said he would be more comfortable with tabling this, to let the applicant come up with a
separation suggestion.
George Ruther suggested tabling this and have the applicant propose some sound and
visual design alternatives. He said the applicant could then go to the DRB meeting for a
conceptual review and then come back to the PEC.
Galen Aasland suggested tabling this and coming back in two weeks.
Tom Bonnie explained the site with the gas lines, power lines, etc. He said he didn't
want a $30,000 deck to become a $100,000deck.
Chas Bernhardt said tabling would only set the process back one week.
Galen Aasland said the use was appropriate, but the buffer was important.
George Ruther summarized the PEC's comments. He said the PEC was agreeable to
the use, but the PEC needed some alternatives to the buffering.
Tom Weber said there were other ways to do this with a screen, rather than pulling the
deck back.
Brian Doyon said he supported this the way it was.
Doug Cahill said he supported it with conditions of numbers and operating hours.
Tom Moorhead said it was within the PEC's authority to require operation times, when
considering adjacent properties and said this was not unusual for operational-type
issues.
Galen Aasland asked for this to be tabled, so staff could research other properties to
Planning and Environmental Commission 5
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000
treat everyone fairly.
Doug Cahill made a motion to table this to the June 26, 2000 meeting.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-1, with Brian Doyon opposed.
5. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-6D-7 Vail Town Code,
located at 1755 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 6, Vail Village West 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Daniel and Karen B. Forey
Planner: Allison Ochs
WITHDRAWN
6. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to
an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd
Filing.
Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz
Planner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL JUNE 26, 2000
7. A worksession to discuss a proposed zoning code amendment to Section 12-713-
18 (Location of Business Activity), which would allow for mobile information
dissemination within the CCI Zone District on public property.
Applicant: VVTCB
Planner: Allison Ochs
WITHDRAWN
8. 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 - June 21, 00
Diane Golden - Jul-Sep '00
John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00
George Ruther suggested reducing the impact by scheduling PEC reps for two months at
a time and that he had tried to get Council to do away with this altogether.
Brian Doyon said it was not up to the PEC to make quorum.
Tom Weber said he was in favor of 1 month intervals.
9. Information Update
Planning and Environmental Commission 6
Minutes
June 12, 2000
Approved June 26, 2000
Russ Forrest mentioned the Wednesday night ComFac meeting at Red Sandstone at
5p.m. He mentioned the next step would be reviewing the 4 alternative concepts and on
the 181h they would be asking Council to narrow down the alternatives. He then gave a
Donovan Park update and said the VRD would operate, but not pay for recreational
updates.
Galen Aasland said he felt that PEC worksessions should be in a public forum and
thought the pre-meeting should be held in the Council Chambers.
10. Approval of May 8, 2000 minutes.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the amended minutes.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0 with Tom Weber abstaining.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to adjourn.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission 7
Minutes
June 12, 2000
H. After reviewing the goals of the Town of Vail and after discussions with the Community
Development staff an application was made to increase the size of the deck at the Vista
Bahn Building located at 333 Bridge Street. The purpose was to increase the size of the
exterior deck to provide outside seating space to compliment and expand the Tap Room
Restaurant service area. It was made clear that this was a desirable addition for the Town.
Applications for a Conditional Use Permit and design approval were properly submitted
and processed. We met with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
Design Review Board on two occasions each. While the PEC approved and highly
supported the deck use, its direction to us was counter to that of the Design Review
Board.
Plans were amended several times in order to accommodate conflicting direction given by
the two Boards. We have attempted to resolve the stated desires of Board members in an
open manner. It is our goal to be cooperative in meeting public goals as well as providing
a practical design.
Application was originally made to construct a deck to extend southward from the
existing restaurant in the configuration as described on Exhibit A. Subsequent to and in
response to suggestions by various Design Review Board members, the plan was
modified as shown on Exhibit B. Principally, the deck area was reduced above the
stairwell to improve headroom and to increase natural light to the area below.
Additionally, a planter was proposed at the northwest corner of the deck to increase noise
protection for the neighbor to the west and was stepped-down to assure maintenance of
their existing views.
One of the suggestions of the Design Review Board was to reduce the deck to a parallel
line with the building, north of the bottom of the stairwell. This made the addition
impractical from a cost and use point of view. However, a revised design was submitted
for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as shown on Exhibit C. This
was the minimum area for a useful deck. The Planning and Environmental Commission
approved the "use of the deck, but restricted it's westward extent to a specific point on
the building in order to lessen potential impacts to adjacent properties. The Board further
stated that greater extension eastward to make the addition practical was preferred.
Upon revising the plan and again meeting with the Design Review Board, the plan was
formally not approved. The plan as revised and review by the Design Review Board is
included as Exhibit D.
TOWN OF VAIL
Department of Communin.) Development
- a
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www ci. vail. co. us
June 22. 2000
Terrill Knight
Knight Planning Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 974
Eagle, CO 81631
RE: Addition of the Vista Bahn Building deck for outdoor dining at the Tap Room
Dear.Terrill,
The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the deck addition at the Vista Bahn Building at their
June 21, 2000 meeting. The following were their comments and concerns:
1. The deck will create a dark and uninviting space for the pedestrian flow that was intended with
the original building design.
2. The board generally felt that the angles of the deck were out of character-with the existing
building. Instead, the board felt that they would be more supportive of expanding the existing
decks and opening up the restaurant more to the outside.
3. The board felt that the deck would create a dark, wet entrance to the ski lockers. The also felt
that the head height created would not be conducive to people carrying skis.
4. The board felt that using up all of the availabie space was not an elegant solution. The proposed
deck introduced a vocabulary unfamiliar to the existing building.
5. The board also expressed concerns about the proximity of the deck to the adjacent residential
use.
The Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on the conditional use permit for the outdoor dining
deck has been tabled to the July 10, 2000, meeting to allow you adequate time to integrate the Design
Review Board's comments into the proposal. Please submit new plans to me no later than July 3`d. Once
plans are submitted, I will schedule the deck for final design approval. Should you have additional
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2369.
Sincerely,
Allison Ochs
Planner II
Town of Vail
CC: Planning and Environmental Commission
~Mk RECYCLED PAPER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 10, 2000
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor
patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn
Building)/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 151 Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company
Planner: Allison Ochs
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vistsa Bahn Building is proposing an outdoor dining deck to be located at 333
Hanson Ranch Rd. / Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 151. The establishment of outdoor patio
dining is a conditional use in the CCI Zone District. The deck addition will allow for
outdoor seating for the Tap Room Restaurant. The deck addition will be reviewed by the
Design Review Board for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations.
19. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the
establishment of an outdoor patio dining deck, based on the following findings and the
criteria outlined in this memo:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
TOWN OF VAIL i
1
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional
use permit, staff recommends the following condition:
1. That the deck is shortened in compliance with the Design Review Board's
conceptual review of June 21, 2000 (see plan).
III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
Plannina and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental
Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for.
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed
use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title.
7. Conformance with development standards of zone district
Design Review Board. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the
Design Review application for:
1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings
2. Fitting buildings into landscape
3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography
4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation
5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site
6. Acceptability of building materials and colors
7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms
8. Provision of landscape and drainage
9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures
10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances .
11. Location and design of satellite dishes
12. Provision of outdoor lighting
13. The design of parks
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Upon review of Chapter 16 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for the
establishment of the outdoor dining deck at the Vista Bahn Building based on the
following factors:
2
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
Staff believes the applicant's proposal is in concert with the Town's
development objectives and will have minimal impacts on existing or
potential uses in the surrounding area.
The following development objectives of the Town are listed in the Vail
Village Master Plan and staff believes are relevant to this proposal:
2.1 Recognize the variety of land uses found throughout the Village
and allow for development that is compatible with. these
established land use patterns.
3.3 Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along
pedestrian ways and plazas
3.3.2 Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and
shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment
projects.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the proposal will have minimal, if any, negative impacts
on the above-described criteria.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
Staff believes there will be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the
above-described criteria
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the proposal has many positive aspects and that the
character of the area will be enhanced as a result of the proposed
improvements. Los Amigos has an outdoor dining deck similar to the
proposed Tap Room deck. As this site is adjacent to the ski yard, staff
believes this will be an amenity to the public. However, staff recognizes
that there are residential uses adjacent to the proposed outdoor dining
deck. All Town of Vail noise ordinances are applicable to this site. As a
conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission has
the ability to revisit the conditions imposed upon it, should any conflicts
arise between adjacent uses.
3
B. FINDINGS
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before
arantina a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes
of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
4
_ ~1~. a rmima e~tar p
'fb OR!Lx^.ffi 91Rb2r LCMA
. t-.-PMC ON PI'^I:WLf%MS~
1
P a s.,. 4-
' ! I I OitST3i.. /WfLATJR~ ~1 n
fLG,(S,C I.EbkL
4
( }FAv~L~ I L47E IE1F. E+F~SL!I '
f;
i
C9(?IDGrE 9Tf^~EET L[N%G-E -r- _ _ J ~
T~'.~fT~ A°f`Q",9EANbLIN_NN arllif°)Raf4^,':Ft ; C( l 1 .
fr CnA:l~'+~I~.LCQ6, _fd>- 711
M T;mW C
6
e n cm a n•~ s-"'f~.~~1~~~ ~1~ _=-L-.~~~ 1~ A,
- -
-
~ ,V anm , 1
, , 1 aea<:e c - ~ I
kw rr'+caa4c~~.~ .
VIACT r. rH rcgr i1
~ I ll ~ - I F
II
~A A(
\ ent'mR2t72r.<e i._ meua asma i~L"s amsaie M
Irn~~l a- ~:n,u- _ _
1:1A lAiv
°R^m:,m_ "CO hTATCII E::IFiT INf~ - - ICEDAta 17NR
( Cc MATCH
'CFCs 'IT tJJ U 7f~"~p;LC.L! PId-Mt*
10 MAT'GH F_XI6T'IrJCi C /
APPROVED 7/24/00
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 10, 2000
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Galen Aasland John Schofield George Ruther
Chas Bernhardt Tom Weber Brent Wilson
Diane Golden Doug Cahill Allison Ochs
Brian Doyon Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearina, 2:00 p.m.
Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m..
1. 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 5th Filing.
Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar
Planner: Brent Wilson
Brian Doyon made a motion to table this item until the next meeting.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
2. A request for a major CC1 exterior alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-12
(height), to allow for a dormer addition, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive (Sitzmark
Lodge)/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Sitzmark Condominium Association
Planner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland said that Slifers, Pepi's, Lodge at Vail, Vista Bahn Building and the Bridge Street
Lodge had requested height variances in the past. He said he wanted to know their outcomes,
in order to be fair to the applicant.
George Ruther explained the height variances that had been requested and granted in the past.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment.
Bob Fritch said his proposal was consistent with the master plan and said that the dormer would
break up the roofline making it more interesting. He said that they were consistent with the
building next door with relation to height and that no view would be blocked.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment.
Galen Aasland stated that the PEC would now take a minute to review the Slifer and Gasthof
Gramshammer prior variance requests.
1
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
July 10, 2000
APPROVED 7/24/00
Brian Doyon asked if the applicant had any GRFA left.
Brent Wilson said they had 1100 sq. ft. of GRFA left.
Brian Doyon stated that the existing building was the hardship. He said if the applicant wanted
to use up the allowable GRFA, he would have to go up, since he was surrounded by buildings. I
can see granting this using the existing building as the hardship.
Bob Fritch said there were 35 lodge rooms and 1 residential unit.
Brian Doyon explained since they couldn't go out the sides, he could see giving a height
variance.
Galen Aasland clarified the different uses in the building. He said the hotel units were seen
differently than the condo units.
Chas Bernhardt said the Sitzmark was built prior to the current zoning, and so it was not a grant
of special privilege.
Diane Golden agreed with Chas.
Galen Aasland said the Slifers were approved in 1989 and denied in 1998 because they were
asking for density. He said it appeared that the Slifers were given an approval in '89 because
they weren't asking for density. He said the building was built before zoning and the height
would not be affecting anyone. He said however, that if this was in the front row like Cyrano's,
he wouldn't vote for it.
Brent Wilson suggested making two separate motions with this request.
Brian Doyon said he would like the DRB or staff to make sure it did not exceed 8'.
Bob Fritch said the gable was up to 9' from the slab and less than a foot and a half on the sides.
Galen Aasland said they were comfortable with 52 1/2'.
Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the major CC1 Alteration, subject to the finding on page
2.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the variance with required findings on page 7 & 8.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio
dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)/Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1" Filing.
Applicant: Remonov and Company
Planner: Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add.
2
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
July 10, 2000
APPROVED 7/24/00
Terrill Knight explained his rendering to the PEC and said he still had to go back to the DRB and
address the access below.
Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. He said, for the record, that Tom
Moorhead said residents in the CC1 Zone District could expect a restaurant use. He said the
PEC would weigh the impacts of this proposal to protect the adjacent's property. He mentioned
that the neighbor was providing some of the 4' separation from the neighbor's deck.
Diane Golden said a server station in that location would be worse than a table there.
Galen Aasland asked if the planter was 1' wide.
Allison Ochs said it would come out 9 sq. ft. from the wall and there would be 707 sq. ft. of deck
area.
Diane Golden stated that they were close to the neighbor, but mentioned that nobody had heard
from the neighbor either way and also outdoor dining decks were encouraged.
Brian Doyon said he was in favor of this. He said he disagreed with the DRB and still thinks it
should go out from the eastern side and should pull back and said he encouraged an irregular
deck.
Chas Bernhardt agreed with Brian, specifically with regards to pulling away from the other deck
some more. He said if the deck started just east of the copper roof, then it would have adequate
separation from the unit next door and wouldn't infringe on the light and air below. He said he
also liked an irregular deck.
Terrill Knight said the DRB was thinking smaller.
Diane Golden said she read a letter of opposition from the Bridge Street Lodge.
Allison Ochs said staff would recommend approval if the deck was made smaller.
Brian Doyon said if the two squares were taken off that run perpendicular to the building than it
would provide the buffer that was needed.
Allison Ochs said the PEC needed to focus on the use and impacts and let the DRB review the
architectural details.
Galen Aasland said tables would look into the adjacent property owner's living room and so what
the PEC was asking for was a reasonable buffer. He said if more space was added to the east
he would be fine with that space, but a 1' landscape buffer was not sufficient. He said his choice
would be to have the juncture be stucco:
George Ruther clarified that the point east of the door was the approximate location where the
deck would terminate and summarized that the PEC wanted nothing further west of the stucco
pillar.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition
that the deck be shortened to the west end of the stucco pilaster.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
3
Planning and Environmental Commission -
Minutes
July 10, 2000
APPROVED 7/24/00
4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6F-6, to allow for a garage addition, located at
4718 Meadow Drive/Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision.
Applicant: Bill Bernardo, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz
Planner: Allison Ochs
TABLED UNTIL JULY 24, 2000
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table the above item.
Diane Golden seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
5. Information Update
Russ Forrest gave an update on the Community Facilities, in terms of the three developed uses
on the site and encouraged the PEC to participate.
Russ gave an update on an administrative change to DRB applications. He said effective May
1st, both signatures would be required on an application for,Parcel C lots. He said he would like
to discuss with the PEC having the same requirement for parcels just A and B lots.
Tom Moorhead said property rights would be a concern with A and B parcels, as far as GRFA
and it was not within our rights to determine property rights and available GRFA.
Brian Doyon said a lot of work won't get done since a lot of neighbors don't like each other. He
said the PEC was not here to pass judgement and until they resolve their problems, he didn't
want to see them.
Tom Moorhead said since it was a tremendous time allocation on our resources, he would like to
come up with a procedure to bring the parties together.
Brent Wilson said, for the record, that he had received 144 emails from the Ferry/Repetti
situation.
Brian Doyon suggested getting the signature of the neighbor before coming in, as it was wasting
staff and the PEC's time.
Chas Bernhardt agreed that it had to be settled before coming in.
Galen Aasland summarized that it was very appropriate on an ABC property, however AB
properties may have individual property rights, so it may be overstepping the Town's right to do
this. However if it was to be adopted, it should be a fair due process with written notice.
6. 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
No Rep - Jun 7, `00
Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00
John Schofield - Jul 5, '00
- Jul 19, '00
4
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
July 10. 2000
APPROVED 7/24/00
Aug 2, '00
Aug 16,'00
- Sep 6, '00
Sep 20, '00
John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00
Chas Bernhardt volunteered to be the PEC rep for DRB for July 19tH
7. Approval of June 26, 2000 minutes.
Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the amended minutes.
Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
5
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
July 10, 2000