Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-21 Support Documentation Town Council Evening SessionTOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Board Appointments. (15 min.) Liquor Licensing Authority (LLA) - (2) Housing Authority (HA) (1) 3. Joe Blair ITEM/TOPIC: Approval of request to use Town of Vail land at Dowd Junction. (10 min.) 4. Bob McLaurin ITEM/TOPIC: I-70 Noise Discussion. (30 min.) Dwight Henninger - 65 mph-CDOT enforcement Matt Mire - Jake brake/sound ordinance simultaneously Greg Hall - Photo Radar linked to decibel regulations 5. ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance #8, Series of 2002, first reading. (30 min.) An ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, providing for the re-establishment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 28, and providing for amendments to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2002, on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The applicants, Gail and Richard Siegal represented by Morter Architecture, are proposing to consolidate Units 410 and 420 at the Christiania at Vail into a single dwelling unit. The proposed consolidation of these two units will constitute an elimination of one dwelling unit from the site. The property is zoned Special Development District No. 28, with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. Based upon the provisions of Section 12-9A-2, Vail Town Code, any change in the number of dwelling units within a special development district (SDD) requires the approval of a "major amendment" to that SDD. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area F:mcaster/agendas/tc/2002/052102 square footages, and amendments to the development plan for the Christiania at Vail. At its March 25, 2002, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposal and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28. The Planning and Environmental Commission's findings and recommended conditions of approval are identified in the March 25, 2002, staff memorandum to the Commission. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2002, changes the number of dwelling units, modifies the common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amends the development plan for Special Development District No. 28, to allow for the proposed change in the number of dwelling unit at the Christiania at Vail. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2002, on first reading. 6. ITEM/TOPIC: Ordinance #10, Series of 2002, second reading, an ordinance to designate two properties in the Town of Vail as open space as per Section 13.11 of the Town of Vail Charter. (5 min.) 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Appointment of an alternate to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO). (5 min.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Appointment a second Council Member or staff (Mike Rose). 8. Town Manager's Report. (5 minutes) 9. Adjournment (8:45 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, JUNE 4, 2002, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2002, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2002, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN THE TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. F:mcaster/agendas/tc/2002/052102 THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2002, 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. F:mcaster/agendas/tc/2002/052102 .. .~_-:aT .: ~... Town Council Members, The Vail Valley Chamber 8~ Tourism Bureau and Untraditional Marketing request the use of the Town on Vail land located at the confluence of Gore Creek and the Eagle River on Sunday, May 26, 2002, The area being requested will. be used for sponsor display tents and a staging area for the Teva Mountain Games kayaking and rafting races (please see attached map for details), Untraditional Marketing has been in contact with and has received permission from the Union Pacific Railroad, the Division of Wildlife and the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service to use the area for the event, Thank you for supporting of the Teva Mountain Games and we hope to see you at the event! (~Y--,°_ _ -Blair Untraditional Marketing k ~ y ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager~~ RE: Interstate Noise Discussion DT: May 12, 2002 We have scheduled an hour at the evening meeting to discuss the I-70 noise issue. While we have previously identified long-term and short-term solutions to this problem, our discussion on Tuesday will focus on short-term issues. Specifically we will discuss potential actions over which the Town of Vail has control. Actions that must be approved to by other agencies (e.g. FHWA, CDOT etc) will require further study and collaboration with these state and federal agencies. In reviewing our near term options to address this problem, we believe there are only three alternatives (over which we have control) which may help mitigate this problem. These include enforcement of the current speed limit, enforcement of the state engine muffler statute and creation of an engine brake prohibition. All of these alternatives anticipate enforcement by the Vail Police Department. Historically, we have only responded to accidents on the interstate. This would be a significant policy change and without additional personal, there would be less police presence in the residential and commercial core areas. I have attached a memo from Chief Henninger that outlines these issues from a police perspective implementation of any of these actions. Chief Henninger will be present at the meeting on Tuesday to discuss the enforcement aspects of this policy. Enforce existing speed limits The posted speed on i-70 through the Town of Vail is 65 mph. Speed studies conducted by the town last year indicate be in the 85th percentile to be approximately 70 mph. Reducing the 85th percentile to 65 mph (from 70) would decrease noise by less than one dB. In layman's terms, this reduction will not be noticeable. Enforce State engine muffler statute This option involves enforcement of the currently adopted state engine muffler statute. This statute requires that all engine brakes have a muffler to dampen the noise generated by the engine brake. Violation of the statute may result in a fine of up to $500. This statute is currently charged with enforcement of this statute. Inspections typically occur at Ports of Entry and Weight Stations. Prohibit Engine Brakes This option involves adoption of a local ordinance that would prohibit the use of engine brakes along given sections of the interstate. MEMORANDUM TO: Bob McLaurin Town Manager FR: Dwight Henninger Chief of Police DT: May 16, 2002 RE: Noise Enforcement Pursuant to your request, I have prepared this memo outlining issues regarding noise enforcement on the interstate. For the Police Department to begin enforcement of truck noise, or engine brake violations, a change in philosophy within the organization would be required. The current direction is to concentrate enforcement efforts on in-town violations and not to work traffic violations on the highway. To begin enforcement activities on commercial vehicles would require a minimum of eight hours of additional training for each officer on safe traffic stops of trucks, understanding of truck brake and muffler systems and other related commercial violations. If the Vail Police Department is to have a presence on the highway it is important to recognize that it would require the officers to take action on other serious violations such as passenger vehicles traveling at very high rates of speed. To do otherwise, could result in a perceived lack of respect for Iaw enforcement authority, which has a demoralizing effect on the officers and reduces their overall effectiveness. Depending on the desired level of enforcement for truck noise violations, the additional enforcement staff on the highway could range from three new full-time officer positions seven nights a week to only placing an officer in an overtime status working certain nights and times. Whichever course of action is preferred, it is clear that during the early stages of this project, additional staff time would be necessary to conduct education with the motor carriers. Additionally, early enforcement activities would have to be at a level of adequacy to assure it will have a clear and observable presence on the highway. This perceived presence is necessary to secure the understanding of the Town's resolution to solve this problem with the trucking industry. I would estimate, as a minimum, that it would take twenty-one hours a week for at least four months. Due to the large number of special events in Vail it is sometimes difficult to fill overtime with Vail Police Officers and requires us to seek assistance from Avon Police Department, Colorado State Patrol and Eagle County Sheriff's Office. The potential for additional truck related overtime might exasperate this problem. Enforcement of the muffler laws is difficult as it requires a reason for a truck traffic stop in order to inspect the muffler system, which may not always be easily identified. MEMORANDUM T0: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manage RE: Interstate Noise Discussion DT: May 7 2, 2002 ' We have scheduled an hour at the evening meeting to discuss the I-70 noise issue. While we have previously identified long-term and short-term solutions to this problem, cur discussion on Tuesday wil- focus on short-term issues. Specifically we will discuss potential actions over which the Town of Vail has control. Actions that must be approved to by other agencies (e.g. FHWA, CDOT etc) will require further study and collaboration with these state and federal agencies. !n reviewing our near term options to address this problem. we believe there are only three alternatives {over which we have control) which may help mitigate this problem. These include enforcement of the current speed limit, enforcement of the state engine muffler statute and creation of an engine brake prohibition. Ail of these alternatives anticipate enforcement by the Vail Police Department. Historically, we have only responded to accidents on the interstate. This would be a signiricant policy change and without additional personal, there would be less police presence in the residential and commercial core areas. I have attached a memo from Chief Henninger that outlines these issues from a police perspective implementation of any cf these actions. Chief Henninger will be present at the meeting on Tuesday to discuss the enforcement aspects of this policy. Enforce existing speed limits The posted speed on I-70 through the Tcwn of Vail is 65 mph. Speed studies conducted by the town last year indicate be in the 85th percentile to be approximately 70 mph. Reducing the 85th percentile to 65 mph (from 70) would decrease noise by less than one dB. In layman's terms, this reduction will not be noticeable. Enforce State engine muffler statute This option involves enforcement of the currently adopted state engine muffler statute. This statute requires that ail engine brakes have a muffler to dampen the noise generated oy the engine brake. Violation of the statute may result in a fine of up to 5800. This statute is currently charged with enforcement of this statute. Inspections typically occur at Ports of Entry and Weight Stations. Prohibit Engine Brakes This option involves adoption of a local ordinance that would prohibit the use of engine brakes along given sections of the interstate. MEti10R-~NDL-'~1 TO: Bob :~1cLaurin Town 'Manager FR: D~.viaht Henninger Chief of Police DT: Mav 16. X002 RE: Noise Enforcement Pursu.nt ro your request. I have prepared this memo outlining issues regarding noise enforcement on the interstate. For th_e Police Department to begin enforcement of truck noise, or engine brake violarons. a chanJe in philosophy within the organization would be required. The curre.,t direction is to concentrate enforcement efforts on in-town violations and not to work gaff c violations on the highway. To begin enforcement activities on commercial vehic?es ~~ould require a minimum of eight hours of additional training for each officer on sai~ tragic stops or trucks. understanding of truck brake and muffler s~~stems and other -elated commercial violations. If the Vail Police Department is to have a presence on the highwa~~ it is important to recog_sze that it would require the officers to take action on other serious violations such as passen~_er ~-ehicles traveling at very high rates of speed. To do otherwise, could result in a perceived lack of respect for law enforcement authority, which has a demoralizing effect on the officers and reduces their overall effectiveness. Depending on the desired level of enforcement for truck noise violations. the additional enforcement star on the highway could range from three new full-time officer positions seven nights a week to only placing an officer in an overtime status working certain ai~ghts and times. Whichever course of action is preferred, it is clear that during the early stages of this proiect. additional staff time would be necessary to conduct education with the motor Barriers. Additionally, early enforcement activities would have to be at a level of adequacy to assure it will have a clear and observable presence on the highway. This perceived presence is necessary to secure the understanding of the Town's resolution to solve :his problem with the trucking industry. I would estimate, as a minimum. that it would take twent<~-one hours a week for at least four months. Due to the large number of special events in Vail it is sometimes difTcult to till overtime with Vail Police Officers and. requires us to seek assistance from .-won Police Department, Colorado State Patrol and Eagle Count<~ Sheriff s Office. The potential for additional truck related overtime might exasperate this problem. Enforcement of the muffler laws is difficult as it requires a reason for a truck traffic stop in order to inspect the muffler system, which may not always be easily identified. MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 21, 2002 SUBJECT: An ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, providing for the re-establishment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 28, and providing for amendments to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with- Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.regard thereto, Applicant: Gail and Richard Siegal, represented by Morten Architects Planner: Bill Gibson I. SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is the Christiania at Vail, located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1St Filing. The property is zoned Special Development District No. 28 with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. II. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Gail and Richard Siegal represented by Morten Architecture, are proposing to consolidate Units 410 and 420 of the Chateau Christian Townhomes at the Christiania at Vail into a single dwelling unit. The proposed consolidation of these two units will constitute an elimination of one dwe-ling unit from the site. The property is zoned Special Development District No. 28, with an underlying zoning of Public Accommodation. Based upon the provisions of Section 12-9A-2, Vail Town Code, any change in the number of dwelling units within a special development district (SDD) requires the approval of a "major amendment" to that SDD. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a major amendment to .Special Development District No. 28, in regard to changes in the number. of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan. At its March 25, 2002, public hearing the Planning and Environmental Commission. reviewed the proposal and voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28. The Planning and Environmental Commission's findings and recommended conditions of approval are identified. in the March 25, 2002, staff memorandum to the Commission. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2002, re-establishes Special Development District No. 28 and amends the permitted number of dwelling units and floor area allocations of Special Development District No. 28, to allow for the change in the number of dwelling unit at the Christiania at Vail I Since the March 25, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing, it has been determined that the existing regulations of Special Development District No. 28 do not make specific mention of development standards for the Chateau Christian Townhouses building at the Christiania at Vail. Therefore, staff has since revised the proposed Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2002, to include language specifically referencing the Chateau Christian Townhomes building. These revisions to the proposed Ordinance No. 8, Series 2002, are based upon the previously approved development plans for the Chateau Christian Townhouses building and make no changes to the those previously approved development standards other than to modify the number of allowed dwelling units to address this application to consolidate units 410 and 420. Also since the March 25, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing, the applicant submitted a Design Review application for the construction of dormers as part of the consolidation of units 410 & 420. The application for the proposed dormers was reviewed and conditionally approved by the Design Review Board at its April 17, 2002, public hearing. An additional amendment to this application was reviewed and denied by the Design Review Board at its May 1, 2002., public hearing. The applicant is currently proposing to proceed with their April 17, 2002 design review approval. Please note that this design review approval is contingent upon Town Council approval of this amendment to Special Development District No. 28; and if the Town Council chooses to deny this proposed amendment to Special Development District No. 28 the April 17, 2002, Design Review Board approval will be null and void. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a draft version of a revised condominium map for the Chateau Christian Townhouses to begin addressing the condition of approval recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission. I(I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that Town Council approve the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, to allow for a change in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages; and amending the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 356 Hanson. Ranch Road (Christiania at Vail), Units 410 & 420. The staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the applicable policies and regulations outlined in Sections IV and V of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25, 2002; the criteria outlined in Section VI of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25, 2002; and the evidence presented. Should the Town Council choose to approve the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, staff recommends that the following findings be made part of the Council's motion: 2 1. That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12- 9A-8, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Should the Town Council choose to overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of this exterior alteration or modification, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition of approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant .submits a revised condominium map reflecting the approved major amendment; and that the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28 be contingent upon staff review and approval of said condominium map. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES, REGULATONS, AND MASTER PLANS COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DISTRICT Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the purpose statement of the Public Accommodation District as identified in Section IV of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Vail Land Use Plan as identified in Section VI of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. dated March 25, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THEVAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Staff believes this proposal is in compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan as identified in Section V of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25, 2002. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN There are no site improvements or any exterior construction associated with this proposal; therefore Staff does not believe that the provisions of the Streetscape Masterplan are applicable. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE As identified in Section V of the Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25, 2002, this property is not located within the area included in the Urban Design Guide Plan; therefore Staff does not believe that the provisions of the. Urban Design Guide Plan are applicable. 4 _ - ~_:;~ ORDINANCE NO. 8 - _.~~ Series of 2002 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 1992, PROVIDING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, AND PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL, IN REGARD TO CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, MODIFtCATtONS IN COMMON AREA AND GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA SQUARE FOOTAGES, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, CHAPTER 9, OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Title 12,.Chapter 9 of the Vail Town Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as. stated in the Vai{ Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, in 1992, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, establishing Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail (SDD 28); and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code permits major amendments to previously approved SpeciaLDevelopment Districts; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Gail and Richard Siegal represented by Morter Architecture, has submitted an application for a major amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with the requirements outlined in Section 12-9A- 10 of the Vail Town Code; and - WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the repeal, re-establishment, and amendment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Town Code and setting forth details in regard thereto; and :; WHEREAS, the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. - 28, Christiania at Vail, and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedent or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Title 12 of the Vail Town Code, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major amendment application on March 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, all public notices as required by the Vail Town Code have been published and sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail and has submitted its recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to approve the major amendment and adopt the revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the major amendement for Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the underlying zoning designation of Public Accommodation District is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, and is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and 2 c°., , WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives a5 identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAfL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992 is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: Section 1: Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the repeal, re-establishment, and amendment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Town Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Section 2: Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report The review procedures prescribed in Section 12-9-10 of the Vail Town Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed major amendment Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail Section 3: Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail The Special Development District and the major amendment to the approved development plan are established to ensure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 28 is regarded as being complementary to the Town of Vail by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Deveiopment District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation District requirements. 3 F-...r - ~ . t.: Section 4: Approved Development Plans The Town Council finds that the amended approved development plah for Special Development District No. 28 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code. In accordance with Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code, the amended development plan for Special Development District No. 28, legally described as Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 151 Filing, is approved and Special Development District No. 28 is hereby approved. The amended approved development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by the developer/applicant and consists of the following documents: 1. Sheet No. AI, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (site plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 2. Sheet Nos. A2-A5, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (first, second, third and fourth floor plans), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 3. Sheet No. A6, dated January 27, 1992 (roof plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 4. Sheet No. A7-A9, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (North, South, East and West elevations), prepared by Pierce; Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 5. Sheet No. L1, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 6 and March 16, 1992 (landscape plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 6. Parking Plan for Lot P-3, dated February 8, 1992 and revised February 18, 1992 and March 16, 1992, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, 1991, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg & Spaeh Architects. 8. Proposed Dumpster Relocation, dated April 21, 1992, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 9: Siegal Residence, 4`h Floor Plan, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 10. Siegel Residence, Loft Plan, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 11. Chateau Christian, East Elevation, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 12. Chateau Christian, West Elevation, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. A ~y 13. Chateau Christian, North Elevation, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 14. Chateau Christian, South Elevation, dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 15. First Amendment to the Condominium Map for Chateau Christian Townhouses, prepared by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. Section 5: Approved Development Standards The Town Council finds that any deviation of the development standards from the underlying zone district provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 28 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: A. SETBACKS: Setbacks shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. B. HEIGHT Building height for the Christiania at Vail building, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive; or for a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed 45 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. The building height for the Chateau Christian Townhouses building shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. C. DENSITY: Development in Special Development District No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 3 dwelling units and 21 accommodation units at the Christiania at Vail building, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance, and as follows: 1. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be limited to a maximum of 14,117 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. ft shall be dedicated to accommodation units, 5,041 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to dwelling units and 1,741 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to excess common area. It should also be noted that the provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to S certain zone districts, does not apply to this Special Development District. a. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one off-site dwelling unit, (the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing, for use by employees in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 13, Vail Town Code. 2. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one on-site dwelling unit, (the third floor dwelling unit in the Christiania Lodge) located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, according to Title 13, Chapter 7 (Condominiums and Condominium Conversion), of the Vail Town Code. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Development in Special Development District No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 7 dwelling units in the Chateau Christian Townhouses building and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. D. SITE COVERAGE: The maximum allowable site coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 39% of the buildable lot size and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. 6 E. LANDSCAPING: At least thirty-two percent (32%) of Lot D shall be landscaped and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. F. PARKING: Parking for Special Development District No. 28 shall be met as designated on the development plans set-forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. Section 6. .The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following: 1. The applicant or his successors in interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area, as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. 2. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed to financially participate in the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute, from Hanson Ranch Road to West Gore Creek Drive, as designated in the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. Such financial contribution shall not exceed one third of the total cost of the sidewalk. 3. If and when the Town of Vail or other party develops sparking/loading delivery facility on Parcels P-3 and Lot J, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, the applicant or his successors in interest shall not remonstrate against the development of a parkinglloading facility as long as the amount of parking that the applicant currently has on parcel P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, including either the right-of-way to the east or west, is incorporated into the parkinglloading facility. The number of spaces shall not include valet-parking. Section 7. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-6 and 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan steal! be required to be approved by the Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this. ordinance is for any reason, held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal. of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 10. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 215' day of May, 2002, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 4"' day of June, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Town Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 8 ~., _~, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 4"' day of June, 2002. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Gerk 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Panning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 25, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit, located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road (Christiania at Vail), Units 410 & 420/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Gail and Richard Siegal, represented by Morter Architects Planner: Bill Gibson DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicants are requesting to consolidate two existing fourth-story residential dwelling units at the Christiania at Vail, located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road. The proposed consolidation of units 410 and 420 at the Christiania at Vail will- constitute the elimination of one dwelling unit within Special Development District No. 28. The elimination of a dwelling unit will bring the density of Special Development District No. 28 more into conformance with the density requirements of the underlying Public Accommodation District zoning. Pursuant to Section 12-9A-2, Vail Town Code, any request to change the number of dwelling or accommodation units within a special development district constitutes a "major amendment" request. In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 8, Series 1992, establishing Special Development Districts No. 28, Christiania at Vail, and adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 28 in accordance with the requirements of the Vail Town Code. Any major amendment to Special Development District No. 28 requires Planning and Environmental Commission review and the approval of an ordinance by the Town Council. A draft version of Ordinance 8, Series of 2002, which repeals and reenacts Ordinance 8, Series of 1992, with the proposed amendments has been attached for review. No exterior construction is being proposed as part of the consolidation of these two dwelling units, therefore, this proposal does not require Design Review approval. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council regarding the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit, located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road (Christiania at Vail), Units 410 & 420. The staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the applicable policies and regulations outlined in Section IV and V of this memorandum, the criteria outlined in Section Vl of this memorandum, and the evidence presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of this request to the Town Council, staff recommends that the following findings be made part of the Commission's motion: 1. That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, complies with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval for the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant submits a revised condominium map reflecting the approved major amendment; and that the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28 be contingent upon staff review and approval of said condominium map. ZONING /DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot size: 0.380 acres (16,553 sq.ft.) Underlying PA Zoning (1992) SDD No. 28 (1992) Proposed Total GRFA: 13,242 sq.ft. 14,117 sq.ft. no change Density: 9 dwelling units 3 du's & 21 au's = 2 du's + 21 au's = 13.5 d u's 12.5 d u's AU GRFA N/A 7,335 sq.ft. no change DU GRFA N/A 5,041_ sq.ft. 5,202 sq.ft. Common Area N/A 1,741 sq.ft. 1,579 sq.ft. Site coverage: 55% 39% no change Landscaping: 30% 32% no change Setbacks: front: 20 ft. 15 ft. no change side: 20 ft./20ft. 0 ft./10 ft. no change rear: 20 ft. 8 ft. 6 in. no change Height: 48' sloping/45' flat 44 ft. flat no change Parking/Loading: N/A 41 spaces no change 2 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS Title12, Chapter 9, Vail Town Code, provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According. to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is as follows: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; fo improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic feafures of open space areas; and fo further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan fora Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. Staff believes that the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28 conforms to the purpose of Special Development Districts. At the time of its establishment, Special Development District No. 28 allowed a density that exceeded what would have been allowed by the underlying zoning. The proposed elimination of one dwelling unit brings the density of Special Development District No. 28 more into conformance with the density requirements of the underlying Public Accommodation District. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity. " This proposal complies with this goal by upgrading and redeveloping an existing residential property in the Village without altering the existing architecture of the property. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. " This proposal complies with this goal by upgrading and redeveloping an existing residential property in the Village. However, the cumulative effect of reducing the number dwelling units in the Village may have a negative affect on the economic health and viability of the Village. "Goal 3 To recognize as a fop priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." This proposal will have little or no affect on the walking experience throughout the Village. 3 "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. " This proposal will have no affect on any open space areas or green space opportunities. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. " This proposal complies with this goal by eliminating one dwelling unit at the existing Christiania at Vail, thus decreasing the number of daily vehicular trips to this site. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village." This proposal will have little or no affect on the operational elements of the Village. VI. MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW CRITERIA The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. There are no site improvements or any exterior construction associated with this proposal; therefore Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is no proposed change in use or activity associated with this proposal. Staff believes that the proposed reduction in density continues to provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity The proposed elimination of one dwelling unit brings the density of Special Development District No. 28 more into conformance with the previous density requirements of the underlying Public Accommodation District. However, the cumulative effect of reducing the number dwelling units in the Village may have a negative affect on the economic health and viability of the Village. 4 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. This proposal complies with the parking and loading standards of the approved development plan and Staff believes that the reduction of one dwelling unit will have a positive impact on parking availability for the Christiania at Vail. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan 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. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. Staff finds the application to be in conformance with all applicable goals,. policies and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan This property is not located within the area included in the Urban Design Guide Plan; therefore Staff does not believe that the provisions of the Urban Design Guide Plan are applicable. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Town of Vail's Official Hazard Maps, there are no natural or geologic hazards present on the subject property. 5 F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. There are no site improvements or any exterior construction associated with this proposal; therefore Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. There are no site improvements or any exterior construction associated with this proposal that directly affect the existing vehicular or pedestrian traffic circulation. The elimination of one dwelling unit from the site should provide a net decrease in the number of daily vehicular trips to/from the site, and Staff believes that this will have a positive impact on vehicular traffic circulation at the Christiania at Vail. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There are no site improvements or any exterior construction associated with this proposal; therefore Staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. There is no phasing of this proposal; therefore Staff does not believe that this criteria is applicable to this proposal VII. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for a major amendment to a Special Development District: 1. That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code. 2. That the applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 6 ORDINANCE N0.8 is ' " ~~ =~~ Series of 2002 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SERIES OF 1992, PROVIDING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL, ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, AND PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28, CHRISTIANIA AT VAIL, IN REGARD TO CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, MODIFICATIONS IN COMMON AREA AND GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA SQUARE FOOTAGES, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, CHAPTER 9, OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. .WHEREAS, Title 12, Chapter 9 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of Viand in order to promote, its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. WHEREAS, in 1992, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, establishing Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail (SDD 28); and WHEREAS, Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code permits major amendments to previously approved Special Development Districts; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Gail and Richard Siegal represented byMorter Architecture, has submitted an application for a major amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with the requirements outlined in Section 12-9A- 10 of the Vail Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the repeal, re-establishment,.. and amendment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto; and r~' - - -m ~ ~ I WHEREAS, the approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, and the development standards in regard thereto shall not establish precedent or entitlements elsewhere within the Town of Vail; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Title 12 of the Vail Municipal Code,-the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the major _ amendment application on March 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, all public notices as required by the Vail Municipal Code have been published and sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning ~ Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail and has submitted its recommendations to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to approve the major amendment and adopt the revised Approved Development Plan for Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the major amendement for Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, will ensure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the underlying zoning designation of Public Accommodation District is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, and is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992, to provide for such changes in Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail; and - -. r - ~: ~ ~€ WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the major amendment to Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, is in the best interest of the town as it meets the Town's development objectives as identified in the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1992 is hereby repealed and re-enacted to read as follows: Section 1: Purpose of the Ordinance The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the repeal, re-establishment, and amendment of Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail, in regard to changes in the number of dwelling units, modifications in common area and gross residential floor area square footages, and amendments to the development plan in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 9, of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Section 2: Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planning Commission Report The review procedures prescribed in Section 12-9-10 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed major amendment Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail. Section 3: Special Development District No. 28, Christiania at Vail The Special Development District and the major amendment to the approved development plan are established to ensure comprehensive development and use of the area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreation amenities, and promote the goals, objectives and policies of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. Special Development District No. 28 is regarded as being complementary to the-Town of Vail by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and has been established since there are significant aspects of the Special Development District that cannot be satisfied through the imposition of the standard Public Accommodation District requirements. 3.i .___' ~ '~ ii' .~. ~~ Section.4: Approved Development Plans The .Town Council finds that the amended approved development plan for. Special Development District No. 28 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code. to accordance with Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code, the amended development plan for Special Development District No. 28 is approved and Special Development District No. 28 is hereby approved. The amended approved development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by the developer/applicant and consists of the following documents: 1. Sheet No. AI, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (site plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. Sheet Nos. A2-A5, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (first, second, third and fourth floor plans), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg 8 Spaeh Architects. 3. Sheet No. A6, dated January 27, 1992 (roof plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 4. Sheet Nos. A7-A9, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 16, 1992 (North, South, East and West elevations), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 5. Sheet No. L1, dated January 27, 1992 and revised March 6 and March 16, 1992 (landscape plan), prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. - 6. Parking Plan for Lot P-3, dated February 8, 1992 and revised February 18, 1992 and March 16, 1992, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 7. North elevation of lobby, dated April 22, 1991, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg ~ Spaeh Architects. 8. Proposed Dumpster Relocation, dated April 21, 1992, prepared by Pierce, Segerberg &Spaeh Architects. 9. Siegal Residence, Proposed 4t" Floor Plan, dated February 25, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. 10. Siegel Residence, Proposed Loft Plan, dated February 25, 2002, prepared by Morter Architects. :~ ~:- .. _ - - ~=~ Section 5: Approved Develooment Standards The Town Council finds that any deviation of the development standards from the underlying zone district provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. The development standards for Special Development District No. 28 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: - A. SETBACKS: Setbacks shalt be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. B. HEIGHT Building height, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 48 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive; or for a flat or mansard roof, shall not exceed 45 feet from existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive. C. DENSITY: Development in Special Development District No. 28 shall be limited to a maximum of 2 dwelling units and 21 accommodation units, as designated on the floor plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance, and as follows: 1. The Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be limited to a maximum of 14,117 sq. ft., of which 7,335 sq. ft shalt be dedicated to accommodation units, 5,202 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to dwelling units and 1,579 sq. ft. shall be dedicated to excess common area. It should also be noted that the provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to certain zone districts, does not apply to this Special Development District. 2. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one off-site dwelling unit, (the secondary unit in a primary/secondary residence located at 1184 Cabin Circle/Lot 2, Block 2, Vail Valley First Filing, for use by employees of the Upper Eagle Valley (employee housing unit) in the following manner. a. The employee housing unit shall be provided with a full kitchen (refrigerator, stove, sink, oven/microwave) and shall ;_, not be leased or rented for any period less than 30 ~~ consecutive days and shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle Valley. b. The Upper Eagle Valley shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle-Vail and Avon and their surrounding areas. c. A full-time employee is a person who works an average of thirty hours per week. d. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The applicant or his successors in interest agree to permanently restrict one on-site dwelling unit, (the third floor dwelling unit in the Christiania Lodge) located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing, according to Title 13, Chapter 7 (Condominiums and Condominium Conversion), of the Vai! Municipal Code. The applicant or his successors in interest shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the.Town to insure the restrictions set forth herein shall run with the land. Said declaration shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town of Vail. Subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for the redevelopment of this Special Development District No. 28 until said declaration of r--~ ~, ~; .~~ 1. covenants and restrictions are executed and filed with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. D. SITE COVERAGE: The maximum allowable site coverage for Lot D shall not exceed 39% of the buildable lot size and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth • in Section 4 of this Ordinance. E: .LANDSCAPING: At least thirty-two percent (32%) of Lot D shall be landscaped and shall be as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. F. PARKING: Parking for Special Development District No. 28 shall be met as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. Section 6. The applicant or his successors in interest agrees to perform the following: 1. The applicant or his successors in interest shall obtain a revocable right-of-way permit from the Town in order to add the proposed landscaping at the entrance to the Lot P-3 parking area, as designated on the development plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance. 2. The applicant or his successors in interest has agreed to financially participate in the construction of a sidewalk along the west side of the Mill Creek Court Chute, from Hanson Ranch Road to West Gore Creek Drive, as designated in the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. Such fihancial contribution shall not exceed one third of the total cost of the sidewalk, 3. If and when the Town of Vail or other party develops sparking/loading delivery facility on Parcels P-3 and Lot J, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, the applicant or his successors in interest shall not remonstrate against the development of a parking/loading facility as long as the amount of parking that the applicant currently has on parcel P-3, Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing, including either the right-of-way to the east or west, is incorporated into the parking/loading facility. The number of spaces shall not include valet parking. Section 7. .~- Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-6 and 12-9A-10 of the Vail Municipal Code. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by the Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9. The repeai or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vai! Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 1D. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. { ., f- INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED ~~ PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 2nd day of April, 2002, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 16'h day of April, 2002, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 16"'day of April, 2002. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Mary CGstor - nr~ 10 -Des open space.doc Page 1 ORDINANCE NO 10. Series of 2002 AN ORDINANCE TO DESIGNATE TWO PROPERTIES IN THE TOWN OF VAIL AS OPEN SPACE AS PER SECTION 13.11 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL CHARTER (SEE EXHIBITS A) WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Charter provides a process to protect properties as open space that met specific criteria outlined in Section 13.11 of the Town of Vail Charter; and WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that it is appropriate to maintain open space zoning on certain designated properties in perpetuity unless, and until, a majority of the Town of Vail registered electors decided to remove the a Designated Open Space classification; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Open Space Board of Trustees unanimously voted to designate two properties in Exhibit A as open space on March 20, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the two properties in Exhibit A meet the criteria outlined in Section 13.11 of the Town of Vail Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the properties identified in exhibit A will be designated open space. ~~ - ~, Mary Oster -Ord 10 -Des open space.doc Page 2 Section 2 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 3 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under 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 4 At this time, available records indicate all included properties are owned by the Town of Vail. If title of a property placed in the open space designation as identified in Section 13.11(a) 1-3 is found in the future to not be owned entirely by the Town of Vail, then the designation of that property is null and void and will be repealed with approval of an ordinance. 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 Mary Oster - Oi u i 0 -Des open space.doc Page 3 PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 7th day of May, 2002. A public hearing shall be held hereon on the this 21st day of May, 2002 at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21st day of May, 2002. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Mary Oster - Orci 10 -Des open space.doc Page 4 Attachment A Property & Legal Description Zoning Natural Features Acres Evaluation of Criteria 1) Lots 1-4, Block Natural Area Wetlands, 1.1 This parcel clearly 1, Vail Meadows Preservation Floodplain, meets the criteria by Filing 2 and water being bodies environmentally sensitive (wetlands) and also in a natural hazard area (100 ear floodplain) Lots 15& 16, Block Natural Area Waterfall, 4.85 This site meets the 1, Bighorn Preservation undisturbed criteria. The site is in Subdivision alpine a high hazard debris Addition 2 meadow, flow and rockfall multiple hazard area, and is in natural a moderate hazards. avalanche hazard zone. There is also a waterfall on the site which is used for ice climbin in the winter. MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager RE: Town Manager's Report DATE: May 21, 2002 BRECKENRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL The Breckenridge Town Council will be holding a strategic planning retreat in Vail on June 7t" and 8t". Mayor Sam Mamula would like for the two groups of elected officials to have dinner on Friday, June 7t". This will be a very good opportunity for you to meet your colleagues in Breckenridge who, as you are aware, share many of our problems and challenges. Please let me know if you can attend this dinner. UPCOMING ITEMS: June 4, 2002, Work Session Strategic Planning: - I-70 impact: the biggest issue over which we have the least control: concentrate on what we CAN control. • Short term vs, long term • Monorail Site visit to Dauphinais Mosely (Matterhorn) Special Events Commission Interviews June 4, 2002, Evening Meeting Appeal of DRB denial of Dauphinais-Mosely Residence Special Events Commission Appointments June 18, 2002, Work Session Strategic Planning: Keep a close eye on private and redevelopment projects. July 2, 2002, Work Session Strategic Planning: Continue development of relationships not only with VRI but w/other constituency groups. • Set up meeting(s) TOWN OF VAIL (,y Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www ci. vail. co. us May 16, 2002 Mike Coughlin 140 E. 19th Ave. Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203-1035 RE: Development Plan for Middle Creek Village Dear Mike, On May 13, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board reviewed the revised development plan for Middle Creek. Unfortunately, not all of the members were present, but the following summarizes the comments and concerns of those in attendance: 1. Building A seems reminiscent of the previous design for Middle Creek. Explore incorporating Building A into the main building, either physically or with bridges or other types of connectors; or consider changing the character of Building A to be more compatible with the main building. 2. The East and West sides of the building need to be broken down further. Incorporate shed roofs to the sides or hipped roofs to bring down the mass of the building. 3. Some of the roof forms remain very long and linear. Consider breaking up the roof forms more. 4. Look at the articulation and connection from the plaza to existing open space. 5. Consider snow shedding, particularly with regards to the inner courtyard. 6. This is a progressive solution to a housing challenge and the Board members are enthusiastic about the changes. Currently, Middle Creek is not scheduled for any additional meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board. Please make your submittals based on the published submittal deadlines and Middle Creek will be scheduled accordingly. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2369. Sincerely, ~~ / , Allison Ochs, AICP Planner II Town of Vail ~~ RECYCLEDPAPER MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 13, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a joint worksession with the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission, to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs I. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSESSION On April 8,.2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board held a joint worksession to review plans for the .Middle Creek Housing Development, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. / to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. At this worksession, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board provided specific direction to the applicant regarding the proposed design of Middle Creek. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board provided the following summary of their concerns: As proposed, the bulk and mass does not relate to the site, nor is there a relationship or a hierarchy of buildings on the site. 2: As proposed, the surface parking and amount of asphalt is excessive. The resolution to this issue will not- involve a reduction in the parking requirement, nor will screening the surface parking be acceptable. The applicant left the meeting on April 8, 2002, feeling like they had the direction they needed to proceed with a revamped design of Middle Creek. Revised conceptual plans were submitted to the Department of Community Development and meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board were scheduled. On April 22, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed conceptual plans for the re-designed Middle Creek: Their comments included the following: rox~N o~ ynrL ''~ .r 1. Generally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was supportive of the change in design. 2. The massing needs to be broken down on the east and west sides of the structure. 3. It was stated that that more units could be added on the east side of the building to reduce the mass of the building. 4. There were concerns expressed regarding the livability of the project and ensuring that the new design would be attractive to the public and the residents of the .project. 5. There is a need to ensure that this project reflects the quality of the community, given its prime location in town. On -May 1, 2002, the Design Review Board reviewed conceptual plans for the re- designed Middle Creek. Their comments included the following: 1. The underground parking is a positive addition, helping greatly to minimize site disturbance. 2. The project is taking on a better presence and identity of its own. 3. Look more at the A Building, specifically with regards to its height and relationship to the Frontage Rd. 4. The plaza and courtyard concept is good and will provide benefits to the residents of the project. The purpose of the joint worksession today is to allow -each board to make comments on the design of Middle Creek so that the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board can hear each others' point of view; to provide the applicant with direction to move forward; and to identify potential red flag issues of the project. II. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION IN THE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT The purpose of today's worksession is to provide direction to the applicant regarding the proposed revisions they have made to the development plan. As this project is located in the Housing zone district, the criteria for evaluation have been ..provided below: 12-61-13: Development Standards /Criteria for Evaluation: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development p/an responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. 2 .' C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated -with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. III. NEXT STEPS Middle Creek will be applying for a final plat of the subdivision sometime in the .next few weeks. Preliminary plat approval expires on September 24, 2002. The applicant will be entering the design phase for the current proposal and will return to both :Boards once plans have been .further developed. Middle Creek will not be .scheduled for meetings until the Community Development Department has received more complete plans. 3 Site Organization Diagram ~~ ~~ ~~\\ ,~` ~ ~ ~~~ i~ ~ ~T / 1 i. , 'rn~~~ _` Middle Creek affordable Housing Development Pfan ~ , ~ ; 26 April 2002 Vail, Colorado (<~ SKAw; .~ w Couc~r & Co~~r Irrc. ~~ ~~ ~ •. `~ .~ ' ~ ~F ~~~~ 4 ' ~ i ~ __ ~- i ~` i i ~ ~ ° `til + Conceptual Stacking Diagrams ~.n 1M1.t LWK '~ ~P... lr~- f'% Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development Plan i Vail, Colorado ~ws~. a 26 April 2002 COUGHLIN & COMPANY INC. SKAW`` Conceptual North-South and East-West Sections Section 1 ~o}a~ b k ~ s_ ---~-~ -'~V~"- ~---- 4 ~_ t ~~1TA~~-T--7-- T'~ , .. `1\` 3 I du„~... ~~ -(- 3~ ~° S ''~7'~R +,~ Section 2 Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development Plan 26 April 2002 Vail, Colorado ~,~/ COUGHL,IN c4L COMPANY INC. ~I ,i,gr ~-m Model Photos k i. ~~_ ~S ~ ~~~i I 9 Example of Potential Character Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development Plan Vail, Colorado CQUGHI.IN & CoIvtPANY Iivc. View Looking west 26 April 2002 s„xaw ~ ~. MINUTES WORK SESSION MEETING VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 9:00 A. M. Tuesday, April 23, 2002 Vail Golf Clubhouse, Seasons at the Green Restaurant 1778 Vail Valley Drive MEMBERS PRESENT Hermann Staufer, Ross Davis, Tom Saalfeld, Nancy Stevens, Chris Moffet STAFF PRESENT Piet Pieters, Bob Trautz, Jean McGuey, Tom Gaylord, Diane Johnson, Lisa Isom, Wendy Cheff, Randy Houseman, Mike Ortiz, Jim Myers, Jim Sanders, Jim Heber and David Ward TOV MEMBERS PRESENT None OTHERS PRESENT Geraldine Haldner (Vail Daily) Don Rogers (Vail Daily), Nino Licciardi and Peter Cook. CALL TO ORDER Hermann Staufer called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. VARIANCE REPORT Bob Trautz reported on the first Variance Report for 2002. There is currently an unfavorable variance of $126,000. Some of this is due to Dobson expenses that should have been in 2001 but were pushed to this year. The rest are timing differences. Operating variances are unfavorable in Outdoors due to the Bubble, as some expenses were not anticipated. $10,000 of expected revenue for Dobson has not been received at this time. Sports variance is $10,000 above last year due to excellent sponsorship efforts. Golf Branch is favorable mostly because Maintenance budget has not been spent. Most things look good and are on target. The first tax payment was received in March, a smaller payment is expected in April, and about $600,000 is expected in May. STAFF INPUT Piet Pieters commented on the fact that this was the last meeting for this Board. Complimented the Board on creating an opportunity to be progressive, and to focus on loyalty and integrity. This group provided never-ending support to the staff and always held the best interests of the VRD taxpayer and the community to heart. During this tenure, VRD progxams expanded 30%. Introduced David Ward, new head coach for Gymnastics. Bob Trautz stated that he was looking at having a good year. Very aware of budgets, and expects them to be met in every program. Jim Myers -Golf Maintenance is working on getting things in order. .Fairways and tee boxes have been aerified and are now being seeded. Covers are on the back nine greens and will be moved to the front nine today. Course cleanup is finished. In general is pleased with the greens, only has one small damaged spot on #5. Irrigation system is functioning. Hot spots on the greens are mainly because of wind. t Hermann stated that the Board will not push to open as quickly as he (Jim) can because the state of the course in mid-summer is more important than an early opening. He then inquired about the driving range and Piet replied that there is still some sanding and sodding to be done on the range, and Jim said that he is preparing to open it the same day as the course. Jim Heber thanked all staff for helping in packing up the Dome yesterday. Dobson will be closing on Monday until June 1 S` for maintenance, and to finish some construction work that was not done last fall. The schedule for the summer includes ADP for ten days, Bob Johnson Hockey Camp, Summer Skating School and some Hispanic events. Wendy Cheff reported that she will be receiving the Running Race and Mountain Bike brochures and posters soon. Registration forms have been set up on the web site. These forms can be downloaded and faxed or mailed in. Will be doing a Concierge Mixer at the Golf Course on May 10t1i from 2-5 p.m. Mike Ortiz stated that he is doing active registration for the bike and running races. Softball signups are full. Hoops will end on May 11, and Little League will be starting on 20`h. Joel has done an outstanding job on coordinating softball, High Country Hoops and Little League. Heather Bernard will start tomorrow as a new coordinator, and will be handling softball and the Mountain Bike races. First bike race is May 22°d, first running race is May 25`t' and softball starts June 3rd. Tom Gaylord said that the Nature Center is hosting school groups right now. His emphasis will be in strengthening existing programs by using more volunteers. This will allow additional programs. Ken will be doing some special programs on a contract basis. Thanked the Board for their support of the Nature Center. Jim Sanders is doing spring projects, cleaning up fields, etc. Leagues are scheduled to start the end of May, but people are using the fields now. On May 7`h the Austria soccer team is coming to town and this will be the first real game. Tennis nets are up on the hard courts at Golden Peak and Booth Falls. The clay courts will be a little later. There are no scheduled events on Red Sandstone at this time. The field has to be leveled, and sprinklers and sod installed. Might be useable by mid-June. Diane Johnson said that March is always busy for them, but just maintaining now, doing weekend operations only, but processing a lot of registrations for Camp Vail. 75-80% of forms coming in are off the web site. A high percentage of Youth Services programs are already filled. Skatepark will move from Minturn next week and the Town will again install and does a great job. However, money is needed to get things started -such as purchasing Iumber, coordinating volunteers, etc. Goal is to have ready by Memorial Day, but hoping it will be before that. Last year it cost $11,000 to put up, mostly for labor and supplies. Very few volunteers showed up last year, and this lack means that money goes into paying a crew that should go into steel, lumber and tools. 2 Randy Houseman thanked the Board and Piet for encouraging him, and backing the changes that needed to be made in golf. Is waiting for Jim Myers to get the go-ahead to open. Currently scheduled for May 15th, but may be able to open a few days earlier. Working on getting the shop ready, Sean has staff starting on May 1St and Howard will start issuing passes on May 1 Sc also. Group reservations have been strong all winter. Shawn Carlson will be back on staff as soon as the Dome is completely finished up. Tom Saalfeld said that he appreciated the marketing that has been done this year, it is a necessary item these days. Randy agreed and complimented Wendy and Lisa on the marketing program that they put together. David Ward, new Gymnastics Director, has been involved in teaching gymnastics since the late 1980's and is working on the transition from the former Director. Feels things are going well. There are 160 families enrolled at the moment and currently enrolling about three new students per week. At capacity in the teen and pre-school groups, and about 70% in other age groups. Boy's classes in the younger age groups are about 95% full, and about 40% full in the older age groups. BOARD INPUT Hermann commented that this is the last time, this Board will meet as a group. Nanc said that she hopes to be back, as it has been a great learning experience for her and for her children. Thanked the VRD for allowing her to gain knowledge and to teach her children about volunteering. Inquired about the status of the Bubble for next year. Piet responded that there is a meeting scheduled with Town of Vail Council on May 7th, (later changed to May 2151) Ross stated that he was contacted by the organizers of the Vail Founders Reunion, and they have asked if they could be considered "Honorary Citizens" of Vail for golfing on Saturday, September 2151. This is a reunion of people who started Vail, it will be good to offer them the IocaI's daily rate and show them how the golf course has evolved. Tom Saalfeld asked for a discussion on the De-Brucing amendment on the ballot. Bob replied that it is the same as the one the Town did last November. It does not raise taxes, but removes the 5.5% limitation. Because property values have gone up for the last couple of years, the VRD has had to give back a temporary credit. It will allow the VRD to collect all of the taxes to which they are entitled. Ross added that it is important to get tax revenues up to the allowable level because of the increase in cost of services. Tom then stated that this was something that everyone should vote for. Chris said that it has been an honor and privilege to work with the quality of the people on the Board and Staff . Complimented everyone on being dedicated and hard working, and a real pleasure to work with. Hermann summed up the meeting by thanking Piet for his kind words, and for the wonderful people surrounding him. After 9/11, Piet had to trim staff but the Board insisted, because none knew what the economy would do. Thanks to the rest of the staff for picking up the slack. To Chris -sorry that she is not running again as she brought knowledge and an ability to look at both sides of the coin, and come back with a solution, and also worked hard on Gymnastics. 3 To Nancy -good luck, and appreciation for the hard work on many programs. To Ross -good luck and has no idea where he stores all those numbers! Piet added that Ross has had 100% attendance for eight years. ADJOURNMENT Chris motioned to adjourn at 9:45 a.m., and Ross seconded. Approved unanimously. ~.~ -, ,%' _ i dean McCue ,Administrative Assis nt ~~-- j/02 BOD/4-23-02 minutes.doc 4 ~r MINUTES REGULAR MEETING VAIL PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT d/b/a VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 9:00 A.M. Tuesday, Apri19, 2002 Vail Golf Clubhouse, Seasons at the Green Restaurant 1778 Vail Valley Drive MEMBERS PRESENT Hermann Staufer, Ross Davis, Tom Saalfeld, Chris Moffet, Nancy Stevens STAFF PRESENT Piet Pieters, Bob Trautz, Wendy Cheff, Lisa Isom, Mike Ortiz, Jim Myers, Jim Heber, Diane Johnson, Randy Houseman, Sean Riley TOV MEMBERS PRESENT Diana Donovan OTHERS PRESENT Kevin Dieghan, Peter Cook, Nino Licciardi, TJ Connors, Warren Graboyes, Steve Simonett CALL TO ORDER Hermann Staufer called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. PUBLIC INPUT NOT ON AGENDA TJ Connors commented on a letter written by Bob Trautz to Bob McLaurin. TJ wondered if the Board had even seen the letter so he passed out a copy to each member. He noted in the letter that the total expenditures for Dobson Arena were $3.5 million. He asked what the true final numbers would be. Bob answered that except for a few punch list items, that would be the total cost of the project. TJ then commented that in the letter, Bob was asking the TOV for $2.6 million or 75% of the total cost of the project. TJ then asked why the VRD would be asking the TOV for reimbursement for a project started over 18 months ago. Piet responded that 4 years ago, the VRD approached the TOV with the Dobson project and held several meetings afterward to keep the lines of communication open. Herman, Piet and Mayor Kurz also held meetings. Herman added that the VRD Board and TOV Council at the time, 4 years ago, made the decision with the information they had then. If Dobson had closed, it would have had a negative impact on the entire town. Over the 25+ years Dobson has been around, codes have changed. Something needed ~. to be done and there seems to always be changes that occur from the original plan when a renovation takes place. TJ confirmed that he was a developer and understands changes in construction projects. His concern was that if the VRD was going to use $2.6 million of someone else's money, wouldn't one need some kind of approval for that? Nancy then responded that as the project progressed, new developments occurred. Arts in Public Places added some requirements, the TOV had some new requirements, etc. Dobson Arena also needed to fulfill requirements for special events. Some of the income generated by special events keeps hockey and skating fees reasonable. The VRD didn't go to a mill levy since we were in a good financial state and could borrow the funds. A couple of weeks ago we had a great meeting with the TOV who agreed that we are all in the recreation business. One Council member even agreed that the TOV should pay the VRD for some of the Dobson renovation costs. The VRD doesn't own any buildings so we need to continue a positive working relationship with the TOV. Herman thanked TJ for his input and stated that we are all in the same place. RETT funds could even be an option. Peter Cook commented that after reading the letter from Bob Trautz to Bob McLaurin he was confused. He asked if the Town was responsible for fixing the ice. Piet responded no, that the VRD is responsible for the refrigeration system. Peter then asked if the VRD had received information that the Town would give the VRD money. Piet again responded no, that the VRD is involved in several projects with the TOV. Herman stated that the VRD has over 17 years left in a lease with the Town. The VRD and TOV represent the same people. According to the lease, the Town is in charge of capital improvements and the VRD is responsible for managing and maintaining the facilities. Ross stated that there have been on-going conversations between the TOV and the VRD to release RETT funds for recreational buildings. The Town has been resistant. Whatever the original project was, there are always changes. You might be made to build sidewalks, roads, etc. The VRD had no choice but to move ahead with Dobson. The TOV changed occupancy levels. This has been going on for 6 years. When Steve Simonett was on the Board, he voted "yes" on Dobson but when he left, we were faced 2 with having kids play roller hockey on concrete. We had only one other alternative, go turn in the keys to Dobson. Peter than stated the VRD could have just fixed the ice and told the Town to fix everything else. Nancy said that Dobson wouldn't have made enough money just on ice time. Piet commented that the VRD did try and just replace the ice but were told we could not without additional changes. Ross then said Dobson changed from a ground floor to a basement facility with changes to fire codes. The VRD has spent over $2 million on the golf course in the past 6 years and Dobson was running on a deficit budget as funds were shifted from Dobson to improve the golf course. The VRD simply shifted funds back to Dobson with this project. Herman stated that we cannot second-guess what was done in the past but let's look at the positives and move forward, and thanked everyone for their input. Nino stated that the VRD needs to add pressure to Vail Resorts to help fund amulti-purpose facility. He also added that we need to work together and not focus on everyone having a side agenda. Chris added that the VRD needed to start working with the Town and Vail Resorts on Lionshead. Diana Donovan encouraged the Council to watch this meeting on Channel 5. She also stated that the TOV voted against refunding the VRD for the Dobson project. Herman then commented that the VRD will have to work harder at changing their minds. Peter asked if the VRD could supply a list of improvements to the golf course and Piet stated he would e-mail it to Peter. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ross moved to approve the minutes from 3/12/02 and 3/26/02 Chris seconded. BOARD MEMBER INPUT Tom thought the golf newsletter was great. Ross congratulated Jim Myers on his efforts of maintaining the golf course and for doing all that he can do to get the course ready. ADJOURNMENT Ross motioned to adjourn at 9:32 and move into executive session. Nancy seconded. ~.~ ~ _,~ - _s.~ ~ ~~ `' "Ross I~fiv`is, Jr., etary j/02 BOD/4-9-02 es.doc Wendy Chef, IVlarke~ir~`Di They make hood infill-and they make hood economic sense. `Building monster houses in traditional neighborhoods in city and subairb is consistent with the old urbanism, which mixed incomes and building types, "says these proponents. onster houses are easy to hate. Their critics say they pro- mote sprawl and exclusivity.They give them unflatter- ing labels like McMansions and Starter Castles.We are not among those crit- ics. We believe that monster houses, used as infill housing, represent an enormous invest- ment opportunity for many older suburbs and that they can ultimately result in less sprawl. Although definitions of "monster home" are necessarily subjective, there's no doubt that Americans are building larger and larger houses. According to the 2000 census, me- dian house size increased in the last decade from 5.2 rooms to 5.8 rooms. The percentage of homes with eight or more rooms climbed to 14.6 percent from 13.2 percent, and the number of such homes jumped from 13.5 million to 17 million. The Census Survey of Construction also shows that the average new home jumped from 1,500 square feet in 1970 to 2,266 square feet in 2000. The median size of a new home climbed from 1,385 square feet in 1970 to 2,057 by 2000. According to data collected by the National Association of Home Build- ers, only seven percent of new houses ex- ceeded 3,000 square feet in 1984;. by 2000, the figure stood at 18 percent. Monster houses appear throughout the coun- try, but are more commonly found in major metropolitan areas and in some resort com- munities. They appear most frequently in older parts of high-growth areas, in growth- restrictedmetropolitan areas, in mature neigh- borhoods with cache, and inhigh-tech belts. (Continued on page 26) ~~,~ 25 Houses? I ®~ By Mark L. Hinshaw, FAICP A corn~nendable example of smart grov~Ttli~ I don't think so. P h Y ,. .-~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~ i <:~ zx.» ~~ 1E1~~? t ~~l ~ ~ axe i ~ s an observer of cities and emerging public policy, I am bothered to see behavior that is environmentally and socially irresponsible be- ing repackaged under the smart growth label. Putting on that label gives builders and homeowners alike an excuse for continuing current practices that waste land, energy, and materials. The home building industry has always professed that it is only building what "the market" wants. Personally, I have never .~ - -- ---- _ ~ k '. z __ _. Tl~e eig6it Green ~` ~ ~-.==p , ~ Avenue Cottages zzz ~~" ~ Shoreline, ~ ~: , r ~ ~ ~~ [~ashirzgton, occupya ~ ~~ ~~~{ }~ ~. ~ `_ ,~~ site originally platted ~ ~,~: ~~ 1. ~~° ~4'~' -' i1Tif1:;7!ffl 111 ~ ~ .' for four monster .h ~~ :~*~~~~-- ~ ~ r ~,*~ houses. Designed 67, architcctRoss Chapin, -~~~ ~ they were built by ' developer jim Soules a~ ++~ ~ , 7~ ~ ~ under the czty s ~ ,, ;~,~~ ' ~ i~a?zovative cottage ' ~_ ~~., ~~~,,.~ ~:<~ ~- , 4 ~,~_t, houszzag ordinance. '~ ~ {. `~ The diagrams below v~, k ° ' show how it was done. ~~ ~~::~ ~, ~~ '~'' '..:-:N~~ f found it especially revealing that people who can afford big houses prefer big houses. And will all this new construction produce abetter community. According to the "invis- ible hand" theory of 18th century economist Adam Smith,. individuals acting in their own self-interest will produce a beneficial collec- tive result. But surely by now, with the de- bacles of e-commerce, devalued stock options and Enron, the poverty of that theory has been thoroughly exposed. I have no beef with folks who want to live in big houses. I have friends who have bought (Continued on page 27) r~ ~ J~~~I ~ ~ `~ 26 Planning May 2002 (Continued from page 24) Many of these houses are built in estab- lished communities. For the new residents, the attraction is the neighborhood's mature landscaping, the local stores within walking distance, the schools' track record. Buyers value these amenities so much that they buy older houses, tear them down, and put up larger ones at great expense. For some, infill is also a chance to avoid living under the thumb of a homeowners asso- ciation, where strict covenants regulate building design and homeowner behavior. In contrast, infill monster homes are typically built on fee- simple lots, which provide homeowners maxi- mum freedom. Proponents of building big ar- gue that placing size restrictions on new houses may reduce property values. Take another look It's just these infill projects that spur most of the protests. Longtime residents charge that the oversized houses will change the neighborhood's look and feel. Their mass will overwhelm the smaller houses on the block and reduce the supply of relatively affordable housing units. Others note that out-of--scale houses can result in loss of community character and increase neighbors' property taxes. Existing infrastructure may not be able to handle the larger houses. Also, they say, the new houses rob the neighborhood of open space and de- stroy significant vistas. Preservation activists decry the fact that historic houses are being torn down when they could easily have been restored. We suggest that the critics should take another look. On balance we find that the positives of monster houses outweigh the nega- tives. Monster houses are a sound way of promoting reinvestment in older suburbs and of making use of existing infrastructure. In many cases, they are replacing obsolete or rundown housing. New construction is likely to increase neighbors' property values and contributes to the community's stability. Most important, new infill development in existing communities is environmentally sounder and less sprawl-producing than building on the fringe of the metropolitan area. New development allows older, built-out munici- palities to capture sorely needed new invest- ment. As Minnesota state senator Myron Orfield has shown, many mature suburbs are in poor financial shape, especially compared to the newer, more far-flung suburbs. But older sub- urbs have one key comparative advantage: They offer a sense of place. That's why there is often pressure to find building sites for up- scale housing. Older suburbs are often either fully built- out, orhave only scattered small sites available for development. If most residential develop- menttook place from the 1920s to 1950s, the houses are probably too small by current tastes to attract higher income households. Typi- cally, houses in older suburbs average just over 1,000 square feet and lack basic features such as garages and family rooms. In the 1950s, Levittown-style tract houses represented the good life (about 800 square Older s~r,brcrbs that resist monster hUmes c~tcld heeorne~ fi~scul sinkholes. feet), the way a solid station wagon once defined middle-class affluence. But over the past half-century, standards have changed dra- matically. Many people now expect luxuries that were once reserved forthe rich. This new "super-sized American dream" includes fully loaded SUVs and, yes, monster houses. Older suburbs that resist monster homes are in danger of becoming fiscal sinkholes- places where taxes keep going up while ser- vices decline. Many of the suburbs developed just after World War II are especially vulner- able because most of their revenue comes from residential property takes. Monster houses offer the opportunity to infuse revenue-stag- nant towns with boosted eatables. Cx•eative. compromises A quick tour through the older suburbs turns up lots of communities where large and small houses are mixed in the same neighborhood, even the same block. In the cities, it's easy to find blocks that began with modest townhouses and then suddenly included big (or even mon- ster) houses. Building monster houses in tra- ditional neighborhoods in city and suburb is consistent with the old urbanism, which mixed incomes and building types. Planners must find ways to compromise between the interests of those who want to build monster houses and neighborhoods that resist them. Both homeowners and commu- nities can benefit from such a compromise. There are some important regional varia- tions in lot and house types, which mean that monster home design and zoning'innovations need to be locally adapted. For example, house lots on the East Coast are generally larger than ones in the West and have less lot coverage. The West is also more grid and has less foliage. That means that it may be harder to hide a monster home on a typical western lot. In such places, designers need to be more sensitive to the possibility of overwhelming neighbors. A Midwestern example of creative compro- mise is Naperville, Illinois, a suburb of Chi- cago. The city worked with residents to de- velop aguidebook meant to sensitize would-be monster homebuilders and property owners to their neighborhood's character and promi- nent features, including typical house size. To ensure maximum flexibility; Naperville uses no formulas to determine lot coverage, and the guidebook fits existing zoning codes. The idea is to have the developer and the prospective teardown homeowner consider the neighbor- hoodcontext inwhich they are building. In contrast, Cresskill, New Jersey, north of New York Ciry on the west side of the Hudson River, earlier this year enacted specific size requirements, limiting house coverage in most of the town to 20 percent of the lot. A blessing in disguise Ordinances such as Cresskill's typically reflect intense pressure from local homeowners to control monster house construction. The prob- lem is that such stopgap measures may solve the immediate problem but often create more burdensome regulations for all, not just mon- ster home builders. Residents seeking to add more modest extensions to their houses may now confront strict regulatory barriers that perhaps could compel them to move to bigger quarters elsewhere. On the whole, monster houses built in older suburbs are consistent with smart growth, a practice that promotes infill over greenfield development. Buyers of large, new, infill houses are actually promoting this policy-although often not consciously. If frustrated in their attempts to live in established neighborhoods, such consumers will likely build. their big houses in new suburbs that chew up open space and contribute to sprawl. Thus, despite the stigma, monster houses may prove a blessing for older suburbs. Plan- ners and architects should consider monster houses a redevelopment tool and work on methods to help communities better manage their placement and design. If planners can- not quite come to love monster homes, per- haps they can at least recognize their potential for bolstering communities. Robert Lang directs the Virginia Tech's Metropoli- tanInstitute in Alexandria, Virginia. Karen Danielsen is a housing policy economist For the National Asso- ciation of Home Builders. .~ zz !Continued. fona page 25) generously sized lots in verdant suburbs where the scale and bulk of their house is entirely appropriate. But inflicting massively over- sized structures on neighborhoods that have an established pattern of small houses on small lots is the epitome of public rudeness. So some folks would like to move into an established neighborhood, with mature trees and convenience stores close at hand? That's fine, but it shouldn't mean that they get to do so by doing violence to an existing neighborhood. Moreover, this phenomenon is really the domain (to make a pun) of a relatively small sector of the population: the recently wealthy, people who likely made their fortune during the wild and reckless '90s. These folks want it not both ways, but all ways. A big house (probably with several big cars). A cool neigh- borhoodwith hip shops and cafes. Proximity to work. And a nice mature streetscape. «ho's bu3>ing? Communities should not be catering to this kind of nouveau riche excess. Instead, they should be finding ways to accommodate the populations that are truly representative of .our emerging demographic composition: singles, single-parent households, seniors, and young couples on modest incomes. The 2000 census confirmed fhe trend al- ready evident in the 1990 census that these segments of the population, are the fastest grov~~in~ not the DINKs (double income/ no kids couples) who want monster homes. Right now, such groups comprise fully 50 percent of the American population; in an- other 10 years they will be 60 percent. These households do not want, and often cannot afford, Huge houses. What they seek is exactly the opposite-modest, low-cost places to live that offer privacy, style, and efficiency. Rather than caving into builders and buyers who want bloated houses, cities should be revising their codes to allow for smaller houses. Ten years ago, Vancouver, British Colum- bia,sensing asimilar demographic shift among Canadians, began to revise its codes. It se- lected acouple ofolder, inner-city, suburban- sryleneighborhoods to take part in a program that would encourage reinvestment, preserva- tion, and affordable housing. A new zoning bylaw allows ovtmers of older homes to con- vert aportion of the existing structure into a second dwelling unit, sometimes called an "accessory dwelling unit." But Vancouver did not stop there. The homeowner also would be allowed to build two additional dwellings in the rear yard. Because it is hard to add much more develop- ment into an already occupied 6,000 lot, the new dwellings had to be small and, therefore, relatively affordable. The added density could be gained only if the homeowner agreed to preserve the older house and to bring it up to code, and to maintain the front yard in the same mature condition as all the other yards along the street. The result has been spectacular. Merely by changing codes to reflect the needs of a chang- ing population, the city accomplished mul- tiple objectives. Land was more effectively used. New people were added to the taeigh- ~~~trnae ~Zcler- rreiglrUorhads . could irrcleed, berre fr"t frond i,rz fill clevelol~rnent. Brct that doesn't mean we should insert . . lights, Soules has kept the sales prices close to that of the average new home in the metro- politan region. He accomplished this by mak- ing more efficient use of the property and eschewing the excessively large floor areas found in typical "builder homes." Architect Ross Chapin worked with Soules to design houses that draw their inspiration from handcrafted cabins and the modest, but gracious dwellings that we associate with small towns and traditional streets. The deftly pro- portionedhouses feel like a small village. They fit comfortably into a surrounding neighbor- hood of older, detached homes. Soules and Chapin also managed to incor- porate into the development a number of features that reflect principles and techniques of "green building." Again, this is the type of development .that truly deserves to be called smart growth. • jarring new hur'ldinbs. A better way borhood, thereby supporting local businesses as well as public transit. The neighborhood was reinvigorated. And the needs of diverse households were met. All without expending a single dollar of public funds. This is a fine example of smart growth in its truest form. But one need notlookto Canada for models ofsmart growth. In Shoreline, Washington, just north of Seattle, innovative development began to take place almost immediately after the city adopted a thoughtful "cottage housing" ordi- nance. Across the street from a community college, developer Jim Soules recently completed a development consisting of eight small houses on property that had been previously platted for four expensive "faux chateaux." Each of the eight houses is less than 1,000 square feet. They all face a gorgeously land- scaped green and share access to a "commons house" designed for parties and personal projects. Although only recently completed, most of the houses have already been sold- this in a do~mmarket period with lots of available hous- ing. They are being sold exactly to the-types of people the census identified: singles, single parents, young couples, and semi-retireds. Despite including many amenities such as hardwood flooring, custom cabinets, and sky- APA's newly adopted "Policy Guide on Smart. Growth." stesses the importance ofprotecting a community's distinctive character and pre- serving asense of place. See APA's website, www.planning.org/policyguides/ smartgrowth.htm. Sotne older suburban neighborhoods could indeed benefit from infill development. But that doesn't mean we should insert jarring new buildings into the older setting. A better approach is to craft a simple set of standards to ensure that everyone benefits- not just the newcomers. For example, com- munities could apply the well-used regulatory tool of floor area ratio to single-family lots. I would suggest that an FAR of .5 is more than ample for most neighborhoods. In other words, to put up a 5,000-square-foot house, the ho- meowner or developer would have to find a 10,000-square-foot lot. There's another way to ensure compatibil- ity between older homes and newer ones. That is for cities to adopt guidelines that address qualitative design elements, ranging from tree preservation to minimum roof pitch. In Bozeman, Montana, for example, a design review board evaluates new and renovated single-family houses within designated "con- servation districts" to make sure that the new construction maintains neighborhood char- acter and value. Such approaches reflect the tenets ofsmart growth. They encourage infill development that meets multiple community goals: neigh- borhood preservation, compact land-use pat- terns, and housing affordability. Trying to associate monster homes with this growing movement may be a clever marketing ploy, but smart growth it is not. Mark Hinshaw is a principal and urban design direc- tor of LMN Architects in Seattle. He writes a regular column on archirecture and planning for the Seattle Times. Tnu~v~F vArL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 www ci. vail. co. us MEMORANDUM To: Town Council Members Planning and Environmental Board Members Design Review Board Members From: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk RE: Joint Orientation Meeting on May 28, 2002 Date: May 14, 2002 The Town of Vail is hosting a joint orientation meeting for the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board. This meeting will take place on Tuesday, May 28, 2002 in the Town of Vail Town Council Chambers from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon with all board members. There will be a one hour break for lunch (provided by the Town of Vail). Then from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. there will be a Town Council Workshop to assess and establish strategies that were brought up at the morning orientation session. It is very important that each of you schedule, if at all possible, to attend this meeting. Please contact Mary Caster at 479-2106 to confirm your attendance at this orientation session no later than May 24, 2002. Thank you all very much and I look forward to seeing you there! F:\twnclerk\wpfiles\COUNCIL\MEMO OF JOINT ORIENT MTG WITH TC PEC DRB 052802.doc ~~s, RECYCLEDPAPER i TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Orientation workshop for members of the • Planning and Environmental Commission • Design Review Board • Town Council ORIENTATION WORKSHOP May 28; 9:00 AM - 12:00 Noon 1. Objectives: Upon completion of this orientation workshop, the participants will have: a. Defined the function of each group and their relationships and respective responsibilities in setting leadership direction and implementing policy for the Town of Vail b. Reviewed the basic and legal fundamentals essential to "conducting the public's business" as members of our respective groups: • clarification of our powers and authority as defined by statute, town charter and ordinances. • The Colorado Open Meeting Law. • conflict of interests. • rules of procedure for meetings. • open records • quasi judicial vs. legislative issues and decisions. • "legal" as contrasted to integrity(ethics) • decisions: findings of fact, good records. • common pitfalls encountered in carrying out our duties and responsibilities. c. Clarified the Town Council's leadership vision, priorities, and expectations as they define the working relationship among the Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board. d. Defined the participant's expectations about the relationship among the three groups. 2. Agenda 9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions Carl Neu 9:10 AM Fundamentals of Success as Key Town Boards: Part I -Legal and Procedural Factors Matt Mire and Carl Neu 10:15 AM Fundamentals of Success: Part 2 -Our Performance as Key Community Leaders and Officials. Carl Neu 11:00 AM Leadership Vision, Priorities and Expectations: the working relationships among the three groups. Carl Neu, Council members, board and commission members. 12:00 Noon Conclusion TOWN COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 28; 1:00 - 2:30 PM 1. Objectives: Upon completion of this workshop the town council members will have: a. Assessed, and established strategies for addressing, any issues raised by the participants during the Orientation Workshop pertaining to the functions and working relationships among the Council, Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board. b. Identified specific items the council wishes to address relative to enhancing its performance and Vail's governing body. 2. Agenda -Open dialogue Council members, Carl Neu, Matt Mire