Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-03 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 12:30 P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. Council lunch will begin at 12:00 noon. Public comments on work session items may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update. (15 min.) 2. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of the First reading of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2009, an ordinance amending Chapter 5 -1, Public Nuisances, to minimize the potential negative affects of construction work lighting, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (15 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify, or deny Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2009, on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On October 21, 2008, the Town Council reviewed Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2008, an ordinance amending the Town's outdoor lighting regulations. During the public comment portion of the Council's hearing, concerns were raised about the impacts of construction lighting. In part, the ordinance addressed construction site lighting for access, egress, etc.; however, neither the Town's previous lighting regulations nor Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2008, specifically addressed lighting for construction work activities. The Council therefore instructed Staff to update their work plan to include proposing options for addressing the potential negative affects of construction work lighting. Staff prepared options for the Council to consider and on January 2, 2009, the Council directed Staff to draft amendments to the Town's nuisance regulations to minimize the potential negative affects of construction work lighting. The proposed amendments 1 have been drafted to meet the goals of being understandable, enforceable, and to reduce the potential negative affects of construction lighting on neighboring properties. However, the proposed amendments are not intended to prohibit nighttime construction activities. Staff believes the proposed Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2009, accomplishes these goals by requiring construction work lighting to be directed away from neighboring properties and to be turned off once the related work activities have ended. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2009, on first reading. 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update. (15 min.) Stream Tract Update. 4. ITEMITOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (20 min.) 5. ITEMITOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6- 402(4)(b)(0- to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, and to discuss personnel matters, including the review of Town Council direct reports (60 min.) 6. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (2:35 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 BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2009 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 26, 2009 O 1:00pm MW OV TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Kurz Sarah Robinson - Paladino Susie Tjossem Bill Pierce I Rollie Kjesbo David Viele Scott Proper Site Visits: 1. Ever Vail, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West Commissioner Robinson - Paladino departed at 2:00 upon return from the site visit. 45 Minutes 1. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12 -61 -8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12- 10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Tabled to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Nicole Peterson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. i Commissioner Proper stated that when it comes to private development, the Town seems to require as much parking as possible. However, it seems that in this situation, it seems inconsistent. Commissioner Pierce stated that it is beneficial to allow a parking reduction to reduce the cost of affordable housing and to allow for spending elsewhere, on other amenities. Commissioner Viele is not in favor of this because the Town has done a good job managing this on an ad hoc basis with the current regulations. The PEC has been able. to make reasonable and rational exemptions from the parking code, and to depart from that would be a mistake. The type of employee housing varies, and the requirements would be very different. Example is Solar Vail versus Chamonix, with each project having very different needs. Commissioner Kjesbo agrees with Commissioner Viele. Chamonix and Timber Ridge are very different products, and have very different needs for parking. Allowing the PEC to review each request is important. At Solar Vail, the requirement was reduced, but it is important to review on case -by -case basis. Page 1 t Commissioner Pierce stated that there is a delicate balance between what is necessary and what can be done. There needs to be guidelines so the developer knows how many spaces he needs to have on site. There might be room for flexibility that addresses the needs of the project. Does this apply on top of the mixed use reduction? Nicole Peterson and Warren Campbell responded that there is a mixed use reduction in the Town Code, but it would not apply unless a mix of uses was proposed. Commissioner Tjossem stated that there are many different housing products, so this may not be appropriate. She noted that Steamboat and Telluride allowed for 50 -100% reduction. Commissioner Kurz stated that it is important to provide guidelines, but to allow each developer to create their own plan, and wants the PEC to review parking plans. Nina Timm, TOV Housing Coordinator, stated that the Housing District has flexibility around parking requirements and transit needs for developers to utilize, but there is no predictability. Timm stated that the goal of the text amendments would allow for predictability in the process of reduced parking requirements while meeting transit needs on site. She stated that the Commission shouldn't focus on rental vs. ownership, because housing products can change form, with for -sale units becoming rental properties and vice versa. She referenced the proposed amendment that includes a provision to only allow the parking reduction for projects over 20DU /acre. Peterson stated that the proposed parking reduction applies only to projects with density over 20 DU /acre, based on research that revealed that vehicle trips and vehicle ownership decreased significantly with density over 20DU /acre. Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came up during Timber Ridge, with developers wanting to have an understanding of the criteria. Timm responded that developers want to understand their parking requirement early on, and with the current process, they do not know. She went on to describe the Middle Creek project negotiations, and stated that they were a good candidate for a parking reduction, however they were un- successful under the current standards, and were confused by the current requirements. Commissioner Pierce asked for the distances, is it as the crow flies, or what? Peterson responded that the proximity proposed in the amendment, is measured from the front door or primary entrance of the furthest building from the bus stop or commercial job core. Timm added that there was a need to understand the transit needs of employees. Commissioner Viele asked for clarification on parking requirements today. Peterson responded by explaining the current Chapter 12 -10 requirements as follows: In Schedule A (within Vail Village or Lionshead) the requirement is 1.4 per dwelling unit. In Schedule B (everything outside Vail Village or Lionshead, which includes all 4 Housing District properties) the requirement is based on the size of the dwelling unit as follows: <500sf = 1.5 per DU, 500- 2,OOOsf = 2 per DU and >2,OOOsf = 2.5 per DU. Kaye Ferry, member of the public, stated that in Middle Creek, they were required to do all ms now that there is too much parking. The tragedy required parking, and it see p g g y of Middle Creek q p 9, was that building the parking made the project more expensive. To make it more affordable, Page 2 parking needs to be reduced. To price ourselves out of the market will be a mistake. The Town is not asking for the variance to give themselves something special, but on the basis of reality. Commissioner Proper commented that the Town gets these reductions, but developers do not. Campbell responded by clarifying that there is a parking reduction that is available to all property in the Town, under Section 12- 10 -20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code. Ferry continued that the Staff needs to be able to give the reduction without going to the PEC. Commissioner Pierce stated that back in the day, he had five cars. Things have changed. Commissioner Tjossem asked if it would be possible for a range of reduction. Commissioner Viele stated with Solar Vail, the PEC was good with helping allow the reduction. At the Vail Commons project, the parking is a mess and people park all over the place. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, stated that on a staff level, the discussion revolved around gearing this towards for -rent projects versus for -sale projects. This will not apply to Chamonix because the requirement applies to projects with 20DU /acre or more. The requirements would allow that if you meet the requirements and standards, you can then have the reduction. Other communities have fallen short by focusing on the parking need, and not the transportation need. If you don't get the transportation need correct, the parking will never be right. Commissioner Proper commented that if the Town Council chooses to do so, they could allow employee housing but not allow cars on site. He said he now understands the issue greater and would vote for it. Commissioner Kurz stated it would be dangerous to not allow employers to do parking plans like private shuttle service, etc. He believes the parking reduction should allow flexibility and be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Viele stated that if its density driven, there are no districts except the Core districts, and they should be commensurate with Housing. I Peterson asked if the Commission would be more comfortable if there were more options for the developers. Commissioner Pierce said that predictability is positive. Timm suggested a 'wild card' option to allow more reduction if a developer provides a different new concept for transit and parking. Commissioner Kurz added that there could be a more cost effective solution that would reduce the need for parking. However, if predictability is the goal, he's not sure that additional guidelines for van -pool or car -share programs are appropriate, but it seems better than nothing. Commissioner Proper said that this does not preclude asking for a variance. Page 3 30 Minutes 2. A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12 -7H -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the property known as the "North Day Lot ", with a multiple unit employee housing project, located at 600 West Lionshead Circle /Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080009) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 6 -0 -0 60 Minutes 3. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail' (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell /George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. He concluded by stating that this is a work session to keep the PEC informed as to the progress of the development Tom Miller, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, gave a power point presentation highlighting several issues such as building setbacks, South Frontage Road re- alignment, and reduction of retaining wall height and length. Miller stated that the developer does not intend to build to the property line and to the maximum height allowed; instead the developer will continue to study the context and appropriate setbacks and height for the buildings will be reviewed as part of the major exterior alteration review process. Gary Wordley, of Landworks, representing the applicant, explained several changes made to a new design entitled Option 5, which incorporated many of the comments heard from the Commission and Council There was no public comment. Commissioner Kurz asked for clarification on why no buildings were shown in the cross - sections depicted in Option 5. Was it because the buildings were pulling back? Gary Wordley explained that because Option 5 was recent and include numerous changes, the architects were going to have to go back to the drawing board as all the building placements will change. Michael Brekka, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, stated that the focus of the work session today is the Frontage Road re- alignment. He asked for feedback on the placement of the Simba Run roundabout, and the retaining wall design /height —16 to 18 feet at the highest points adjacent to the Simba Run underpass, with the majority of the walls under six feet. Page 4 Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, stated that Public Works agrees with the need for the roundabout on the south side and would like to see the roundabout built with the development, however he understands that many approvals are required. He concluded by stating that Staff has not had an opportunity to review the presented Option 5, but generally believes it is moving in the right direction. Commissioner Pierce stated that, on the site visit, it was evident that the snow plow throws snow approximately 30 feet off the edge of pavement on the Interstate, and wondered if there is adequate space in the proposal so that snow would not land on the relocated South frontage Road? Tom Kassmel stated that there may be instances when snow does indeed reach the relocated Frontage Road if the CDOT plow trucks are moving fast enough. Commissioner Pierce stated concern about snow storage, and perhaps we could move the South Frontage Road to the south so there is not snow removal overlap between CDOT and the Town. He stated that the overlap should be considered as snow from 1 -70 would be plowed onto the relocated South Frontage Road and vise - versa. As proposed the snow from the Interstate could land on parked cars along the relocated South Frontage Road and that would not be a positive thing. Tom Miller, spoke to the parking issue along the north side of the relocated South Frontage Road, he believes the development will mitigate the need for Frontage Road parking. Commissioner Pierce recognized the physical facts of the snow plowing, and saw the conflict between the chain up location in East Vail and the South Frontage Road in that location. He recognizes the effort to reduce the retaining wall height and length; however, he believes that the South Frontage Road should be further separated from the highway to address both the snow removal overlap and retaining wall issue. Michael Brekka referenced the site plan and discussed the separation distance. Commissioner Viele asked what is driving the second west bound lane? Tom Kassmel responded that it is a TOV request, to allow space for bike lane and /or parking if needed, or a by -pass lane in the event of an accident or roadway construction. The Town will be bound by a median and wall on the north side, we needed a certain amount of width for snow. The lane was not a CDOT requirement. Commissioner Viele asked what is required by CDOT if the lane were removed? Tom Kassmel responded that a six -foot shoulder is required then there would likely be curb and gutter and a drainage swale. Commissioner Kurz commented that without knowing what building setbacks are being contemplated it is difficult to visualize the road section; however, it seems there has been good progress made since the last hearing. Commissioner Tjossem stated that she spent some time since the last hearing going around the community to look at other retaining walls in preparation. She stated that she found several locations throughout the greater community (included the county and other municipalities) where there were aesthetically please tall and long retaining walls and was less opposed to the wall heights, after looking at Valley examples. They can be done well. Her concern is the amount of Page 5 a pavement that runs down the Valley. How can the proposed road section reduce the asphalt and gain landscaping? Commissioner Kjesbo confirmed that the developer stands to gain approximately 4.5 acres out of the realignment of the South Frontage Road? Michael Brekka stated that there was a net increase; however, the applicant would be paying a fair market value based upon appraisal performed by CDOT. Commissioner Kjesbo stated that since there is a substantial gain in land, it would be warranted to move the South Frontage Road approximately 12 feet further south to eliminate even more retaining walls and snow plow removal conflicts. There would still be a resulting increase in land. Commissioner Viele, believes the amount of asphalt is excessive, especially compared to other resort communities. He requested that the applicant and Town reconsider the amount of asphalt. Commissioner Proper stated that the progress is positive. He believes there are systematic in- efficiencies with the design; however, he feels the developer is responding to the Commission's comments. 5 Minutes 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080074) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 Minutes 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII -B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub -area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed -use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive /Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1 (a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 6 -0 -0 6. Approval of January 12, 2009 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6 -0 -0 7. Information Update Code Rewrite Process, Rachel Friede 8. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Proper VOTE: 6 -0 -0 Page 6 z The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 23, 2009, in the Vail Daily. i I Page 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING January 21, 2009 TO O Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 2:00pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas Pete Dunning Tom DuBois Brian Gillette Libby Plante SITE VISITS 2:30pm 1. Story Residence, 3230 Katsos Ranch Road 2. Dyroff Residence, 1451 Buffehr Creek Road PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 :00pm 1. Landmark Condominiums DR8090002 / 5 minutes Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (third story windows to doors with railings) 610 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 4 -0 -0 2. Story Residence DRB080619 / 20 minutes Bill Conceptual review of a new two - family dwelling and Type II EHU 3230 Katsos Ranch Road /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 12 Applicant: Ray Story ACTION: Conceptual review, no vote 3. Dyroff Residence DRB090009 / 20 minutes Rachel Conceptual Review for an addition and a new single family residence 1451 Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 6, Cliffside Applicant: Matt Dyroff, represented by Coburn Development ACTION: Conceptual review, no vote I STAFF APPROVALS Ski Valet DRB080620 Rachel Final review of a sign 616 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Ski Valet, represented by Tom Neyens Page 1 Gunslinger Residence DRB080625 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (address monument) 1249 & 1251 Westhaven Circle /Lot 35B, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Avalanche Property Maintenance & Services Inc Cook Residence DRB080626 Nicole Final review of changes to approved plans (bedroom, windows, spiral staircase) 1537 Spring Hill Court/Lot 13, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1 Applicant: New Spring Hill Lane LLC, represented by Scott S. Turnipseed, AIA Boillot Residence DRB090003 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (exterior light) 303 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 1, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Boillot Family II, LLC, represented by Snowdon Hopkins Architects Rams Horn Lodge DRB090005 Warren Final review of changes to approved plans (extension of DRB080012) 416 Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Rams Horn Lodge The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notificatibn. Please call 479 - 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 2 r 1 ORDINANCE NO. 4 SERIES 2009 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 -1, PUBLIC NUISANCES, TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE AFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK LIGHTING, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the nighttime operation of construction work lighting directed at adjacent properties and right -of -ways creates a public nuisance; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the nighttime operation of construction work lighting after the associated construction activities have ceased creates a public nuisance; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines the provisions of Chapter 5 -1, Public Nuisance, Vail Town Code, must be amended to address the potential negative affects of construction work lighting; and, WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting these regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 . Chapter 5 -1, Public Nuisances, of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended in part as follows (text to be deleted is in StFikethFg gh , text that is to be added is bold, and sections of text that are not amended have been omitted) 5 -1 -11: CONSTRUCTION WORK LIGHTING: The purpose of this section is to minimize the possible negative affects of construction work lighting on adjacent properties within the town. A. All artificial light sources operated for the purpose of illuminating construction work activities shall be directed internally to the development site toward the specific construction work area or on -site objects intended to be illuminated. Any artificial light sources operating between sunset and sunrise for the purpose of illuminating construction work activities directed at an adjacent property or public way within the town shall be deemed a public nuisance. B. All artificial light sources operated for the purpose of illuminating construction work activities shall cease operation once the associated construction activities have ceased. Any artificial light source operating between sunset and sunrise for the purpose of illuminating construction work activities that remains in operation after the associated construction activities have ceased shall be deemed a public nuisance. C. This section shall not apply to lighting required for identifying hazards or illuminating road construction. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, first reading D. This section shall not apply to any outdoor lighting otherwise regulated by Section 14 -10 -7, Outdoor Lighting, Vail Town Code. 5- 14412: CREATION OF NUISANCE PROHIBITED: No person shall perform any act or acts constituting a nuisance under sections 5 -1 -2 through 5 -1 -x011 of this chapter nor shall any person create, keep, maintain, or allow or cause to be created, kept, maintained or to exist any nuisance set forth in sections 5 -1 -2 through 5- 1-4811 of this chapter within the town. 5- 1- 4-213: INVESTIGATION; ABATEMENT NOTICE: The town council or any person specifically authorized by the council shall investigate into every public nuisance within the town, and the town council shall have the power to deliver a request for abatement to any person in control of any public nuisance. Any request for abatement delivered by the town council shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the nuisance or nuisances which are to be abated and shall specify a reasonable time within which such nuisance or nuisances are to be abated. It is the duty of any person in control of any public nuisance within the town to abate the nuisance upon receiving a request for abatement from the town council within the time specified in the request. 5 -1- 4-314: ABATEMENT PROCEDURE: In addition to or in place of proceeding under section 5 -1-4 -2 13 of this chapter against any person who is believed to have violated or to be violating any of the provisions of this chapter, the town council may direct the town attorney to bring an action in the municipal court for the town to abate and restrain any nuisance set forth in sections 5 -1- 2 through 5 -1-49 11 of this chapter within the town; provided, that any action to abate and restrain any such nuisance shall operate as a bar to any subsequent proceedings under section 5 -14-2 13 of this chapter for the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter where the violation occurred prior to the action to abate or restrain the nuisance, and no testimony given by the defendant at any hearing in an action to abate or restrain the nuisance shall be admissible against such person in any proceeding under section 5- 142 13 of this chapter instituted for any violation of the provisions of this Chapter occurring subsequent to the hearing. 5 -1 -4415: CIVIL REMEDY NOT PRECLUDED: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any private person from bringing any action, seeking any remedy or taking any step with respect to any nuisance set forth in sections 5 -1 -2 through 5 -1-49 11 of this chapter as that person may be authorized or permitted to bring, seek, or take under state law. 5-1-4-516: VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be punished as provided in section 1 -4 -1 of this code; provided, that each separate act in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or each and every day or portion thereof during which any separate act in violation of this chapter is committed, continued, or permitted, shall be deemed a separate offense. 2 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2009, first reading Section 2 . 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 3 . 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 4 . The amendment of any provision of the 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 or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5 . All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are 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 3 rd day of February, 2009 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 17 day of February, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor Attest: i Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 3 Ordinance No. 1 ; Series of 2009, first reading 6a.63,09 w5 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 3 2009 Contact: George Ruther, 479 -2145 Community Development Director VAIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FOR 2008 LEVELS OFF (Vail)- -The Town of Vail processed 1,180 building permits in 2008, exceeding $308 million in valuation, but marking the end of five consecutive years of record- breaking valuations. The 2008 number represents the third highest year for construction. The highest number was set in 2007 with $496 million in permit valuations. The 2008 construction valuation was down 38 percent compared to the 2007 record. Also in 2008, 74 Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and 628 Design Review Board (DRB) development applications were reviewed by the town's boards and commissions. Major projects reviewed and approved in 2008 included Lion Square Lodge and Landmark. The number of 2008 development applications was down 15 percent compared to submittals in 2007. Community Development Director George Ruther says the office has been seeing fewer applications for major projects and new residences, with a focus on smaller remodels and repairs. For example, of the 628 DRB applications last year, 72 were for removal of dead or dying trees caused by the pine beetle infestation. "There's definitely been a change in the order of magnitude with these applications," said Ruther. More than 8,200 building inspections took place in 2008 to ensure compliance with the town's building codes. That compares with approximately 10,500 inspections completed within the town in 2007. So far in 2009, the town is on pace to complete half as many inspections as it did a year ago. According to Ruther, the decrease in building inspection requests is likely the result of the successful completion of major redevelopment projects such as Manor Vail, Mountain View Residences and the Chalets at Mountain Plaza as well as a decrease in the number of new building permits approved in the second half of 2008. Year to date figures tracked by the department indicate the slowdown of activity as seen in 2008 will continue into 2009. With the pace of construction much more manageable for the department these days, Ruther says the department has reprioritized its workload and will focus on a myriad of projects that have been pushed back for the past five or six years. The Community Development work plan for 2009 includes creation of green building code standards, streamlining the development review process, updating the town code to conform with the 2009 international building codes and implementing recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Vail Strategic Employee Housing and Environmental Sustainability plans. In addition, the department will spend considerable time with the ongoing development review of the Ever Vail project submitted by Vail Resorts Development Co. For more information about the Community Development Department and Vail's construction activity, contact Ruther at 479 -2145.