HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1110 PEC
1"HiS ITEM MAY AFFEC7 YC}UR PF2t7PEF2TY
F'UE3l.IC NCJTICE
NUTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Pianning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
~ Vail wili hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November 10, 9997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn of Vail Murticipal Building. ln
consideration of:
A request far remadeling, upgrading and an addition to an existing residence, utilizing the 250
C7rdinance, located at 224 F'orest Rd./ Block 7, Lot 11-B, Vail Village F'irst Filing.
Applicant: Forest Road Trust (Keith Sarrruels, Trustee), represented by Kafhy Langenwalter,
PeeClLangenwaiter Architects, l_t..C
Planner: George Ruther
A request for an addition to and the rernodel of an existing residence, utilizing the 250
C3rdinance, located at 1944A Sunburst Drivei Lot 21A, Vail VaNey 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Beth Ann B. Findell, represen#ed by Archis#ructure One
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession on a major amerrdment to SDC? #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a
revisiort tp #he development plan for the Glen Lyon Office Building site, located at 1000 S.
Frontage Rd. WestJLot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glert Lyon Office Building Partnership, represen#ed by Gordon Pierce, AIA
Pianner: Dorrtinic MaurielloAn appeaf of an adminisfrative decision regarding geolagie hazards section at Vail GolfcQUrse
Townhomes, Unit 80, located a# 1592 Golf Terrace/Vail Golfcourse Townhomes.
~ Appellant: S#ephen DawdCe, represented by Bill Sargenf
Planner; Dominic Mauriello
Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plan - Discussion and recommendation.
Staff: Susan Cannelly
An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) Th,e staff's classificafion of #he #hird and fourkh floors
as "eating and drinking establishmen#s"; 2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking-Requirements
Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay-
in-lieu) - appellant disputes the calculation of fhe number af parking spaces required; and 3)
The requirement that the applican# signthe pay-in-Fieu prorrfissary nate personafly and that aDeed of 7rust be fifed on the property; located at The Vail Uillage C(ub, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellan#: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - G1enn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike MoNica/Tom Moorhead
The applications and infarmation about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the praject planner's office located at the Town of Vail Comrnunity
Development Departrnent, 75 South Frontage Raad.
Sign language in#erpretatinn available upan reques# with 24 hour notification. Piease ca11479-
21'14 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Cammunity Development Qepartrnent
~ Published October 24, 1997 in the Vail Trai1.
~7ow~v~~t~~r~
~
Agenda }ast revised 1 l/OS 4pni
~ PLAh1NIlUG AND ENVIRC3NMENTAL CC}MMISSIC7N
Monday, Navember 10, 1997
AGENDR
Pro1ect Orien#ation /LUNCH - Cammunity develoament Department 12:30 pm
MEfUIBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 1.15 pm
1. Boath Falls - 3094 Booth Fa11s Court
2. Findell - 1944 A Sunburst Drive
3. Samuels - 224 Forest Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the pEC hearing extends un#if 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 8:30 p.m.
~ Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. Rn appeal of #hree staff interpretatians: 1) The staff's classification of the third and fourkh
f{oors as "eating and drinking estabiishments"; 2) Section 18,52.100 G, Parking~-
Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay-in-Ifeu) - appeliant dispufes #he calculatian of the number of
parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay-irt-lieu
pramissary note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the proper#y; Iocated af
TheVail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Biock 2, Vaii Vtilage 1st Pilir?g.
Appellan#: Riva Ridge Par#ners I.LC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margret#a B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica7Tom Maorhead
2. To approve, deny, ar modify an Environmental tmpact Report for the proposed Booth
Falls Townhomes rockfaH mi#igation wail, Iocated at 3094 Booth Falis Courk/Lot 1, E31ock
2, Vaii Village 12th,
Applicant: Booth Falls Cando Association
Planner: Russ Forrest
3. A request for an addi#ian #o and the remodel of an existing residence, utilizing the 250
CJrdinance, lacated at 1944A Sunburst nrivel Lo# 21 A, Vail Valley 3rd Fiiing,
Applicant: Beth Ann B. FindelC, represented by Archistructure One
~ Planner: George Ruther *VAIL
row,v1
t\gcnda last revised 11 l05 4pm
4. A request for remodeling, upgrading and an addi#ion #o an existing residence, utilizing the
250 Urdinance, located at 224 Forest RdJ Block 7, Lot 11-13, Vai1 Viilage First Filing.
Applicant: Forest Road Trust (Kei#h Samuels, Trustee), represented by Ka#hy ~
Langenwalter, PeeULangenwalfer Architecta, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
5. Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan - Discussinn and recommendation,
Staff: Susan Connelly
6. A request for a major exterior altera#ion and a variance from Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), ta allow for cnns#ruction of a parking garage at The Lianshead Inn, located at
705 S. Frontage Rd./ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant. Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce
F'lanner. Dominic Mauriello
TAC3LED UNTIL NOVEMBEF2 24, 1997
7. An appeal of an administrative decision regarding genlogic hazards section at Vail
Galfcourse Tawnhames, Unit 60, located a# 1592 Golfi Terrace/Vail Golfcourse
Townhomes.
Appellan#: Stephen Dnwdle, repre$ented by Bill 5argent
F'lanner: Dominic Mauriello
WITNDRAWN 8Y APPL.ICANT
8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to ailaw for the cons#ruction of the ~
Alpine Garden Education Center, {ocated at 620 Vail Vai1ey DrivefTract A, Vaii Viilage 7#h
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen F'ritch
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDF`2AWN
9 Infarmation Update:
n Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plan: PEC invited to join Council on Tuesday,
Navember 25#h, 8:30 am departure for bus taur of River Run development and
affordable housing in Keystone. Please R.S.V.P. to Suzanne Silverkhorne at 479-
2115 by Friday, November 21, 1997.
10. Approvai of C)c#ober 27, 1997 rninutes.
The appiications and in#ormafion about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office haurs in the project p1anner's office laeated at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Raad.
Sign language interpretation availa6le upon request with 24 haur notifica#ion. Please ca11479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Departmen# ~
Published November 7, 1997 in the VailTrai1.
2
~
Agenda Iast cevised 1 I!i l l lam
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRC?NMENTAL CtJMM1SSItJN
Monday, November 10, 1997
F1NAL AGENDA
Project Qrientation iLUNCH - Community Development Department 12.30 pm
MEMBERS WRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Greg Moffet Diane Golden
Greg Amsden Ann Bishop
Gaien Aasland
Gene Uselton (left at 3:00 pm)
John Schofield
Site Visits : 1;15 pm
1. BoothFalls - 3094 Booth Faiis Caurt
2. Findeil - 1944 R Sunburst C7rive
3. Samuels - 224 Fores# Road
Driver: George
iVOTE: 1f the PEC hearing e>ctends unti18:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6'30 p.m.
Public Hearina - Tawn Council Chambers 2t00 p.m.
1. fin appeal of three staff interpretations; 1) The staff's classification of the third and fourth
ffoors as "eating and drirtking establishments"; 2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking-
Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay-in_-1ieu)-° appellant disputes the calculatian af the number of
parking spaces required, and 3) The requirement fhat the applicant sign the pay-in-lieu
promissory note personaily and that a Deed of Trus# be filed on the property; Incated at
The Vail Viliage C3ub, 333 Bridge Street, Lo# C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Appellant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margret#a B. Parks
Staff; Mhke Mo(IicalTom MoorheadSEE ATTACHED
2. Toapprove, deny, or modify an Environrnental Impact ReporE for the proposed C3ooth
Falls Tawnhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot 1, Bloek
2, Vail Village 12th. AppGcant: Booth Fa(ls Condo Association
~ Planner; Russ Forres#
MOTION: Greg Arnsden 5EC4ND: John Schafield VC7TE: 4-0
1
~
Agcnda 3ast rcvesed 1 i131 l 1 am
AF'PRC)VECJ WITH G1NE RECC7MMENDATIC3N.
1 . That the DRB look at rnaximizing the safety orr the west end of the wall and ga ~
high rather #han s#ep up in #hat ioca#ion.
3. A request for an addition ta and the remodei of an existing residence, utilizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1944A Sunburst Drive/ Lot 21A, Vail Vafley 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Beth Ann B. Findell, represented by Archistructure One
i'lanner: George Ruther
MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VC?TE: 3-0-1 (Greg Amsden
abstained)
APPROVED W1TW 4 C+dNDITIONS (and 1 suggestion: that evergreens begiven
considerafion in the landscapeplan):
1. That the appiicant submit a signed Geologic Hazard Acknowledgement Form tn
the Town af Vaif Community CJevelopment, prior to the issuance of a building
permit, idemn'r#ying the Town of Vail of any damage caused to the property by the
hazards.
2. Tha# the applicant plant an apprapriate number of new trees prior to requesting a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy far the addition tn rnitiga#e the loss of
vegetation resuiting from the cqns#ruction of the additinn. The number of new
trees to be planted shall be determined by the PEC. The !'EC determined tha# 76
caliper inches of tree shall be planted. The planting plan shall be approved by the
DRB. ~
3. That the Town of Vail Public Works Department review and approve the propased
grading plan and the proposed driveway access prior #o the applicant's request
being reviewed by the Town af Vail Design Review Board.
4. That the appiicarit amend the site plan and landscape plan and incorporate the
hazard mitigation propased by the Cansuiting Geolflgist prior to the applicant's
request being reviewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board
4. A request-for remodeling, upgrading-and_an addition #o.an existing_residence, utilizing#he
250 Ordinance, Iocated a# 224 Forest Rd.t Block 7, Lot 11-8, Vai1 t/iNage First Filing.
Applicant: Forest Road Tru$t (Keith Samuels, Trustee), represented by Kathy
Langenwalter, PeellLangenwalter Architects, LI_C
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION`Greg Amsden SECflND: Galen Aasland VOTE; 4-0
APPROVED W1TH TWO AMLNCJED CC}NDITICINS.
1. That prior to the issuance of a Temparary Certificate of c?ccupancy for the
addition, the applicant plant a minimum af eight caliper irrches of Aspen
trees nn the prnper#y -
TDW4YAM
2. That the applicant bring the outdvor lighting nn the praperty into
compHance with the Outdoor Lighting 4rdinance of the Towrr of Vail prior to the ~
issuance of a building permit far the addition,
2
fi *
Agenda last revtsed 11Ji 1 i lam
~ 5. Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plan - Discussian and recommendation.
Staff: Susan Connelly
iNlTHDFtAWN
6. A request far a major exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead lnn, (acated at
705 S. Frontage Rd.l Laf 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: Lionshead InnLLC, represented by Wi~lliam Pierce Planner: Dominic Maurieilo
TABL:ED UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 1997
7. An appeal of an administrative decisian regarding geologic hazards section at Uail
Golfcourse Townhomes, Unit 60, lacated at 1592 Golf TerracelVail Galfcourse
Townhomes,
Appeflanfi Stephen Dowdle, represented by Bill Sargent
Planner: Domiriic Mauriello
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
~ 8, A reques# for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the constr'uction af the
Alpine Garden Educa#ian Center, located at 620 Vail Valley DrivelTract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Appiican#: Vail Alpine Garden F'ounda#ion, represented by Helen Fri#eh
Pianner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
9 Information Update:
n Lionshead Redevelopment Mas#er Pian: PEC invited to join Cauncil on Tuesday,
November 25th, 8:30 am departure for bus tour of River Run development and
affordable housing in Keys#one. Piease R.S.V.P. ta Suzanne Siiverthorne at 479-
2115 by Friday, November 21, 1997.
10. Approval of October 27, 9997 minutes.
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 1997
The appGcatians and informatian about the proposals are available for public irtspection durin,g
regular affice hours in #he project planner's office located at the Town of UaiiCommurtity
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interptetation available upon requestwith 24 hour notifrca#ion. Please call479-2114 voice or 479-235G
~ TDD for infiormation.
Community Deveiopment Department
n
~
k
MEMflRANDllM
TO: Vail Town Cauncil ~
fRUM: Mike Mollica, Assis#ant director of Communi#y Developmen#
dRTE: Navember 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Vai1 Village Club AppealOn November 10, 1997, the Planning and Environmentai Commissian (PEC) passed three separate
motions, refiating ta the appellant's appeal af three staf# interpre#ations.
1. John Scho#ield made a mo#ion which was appraved unanimously by a vote af 4-0 to modify
the staff's ciassificatican of use for the three fax rooms in the Vail Viliage Club. The PEC felt
that fhe fax raoms should be classified as "office" use and not "eating and drinking
establishments,,, for parking calculation purposes.
2. Greg Amsden made a motion tha# was approved by a vote of 4-0, which upheld the staff's
parlcing calculat+ons, utilizing the 32:996 tatal parking spaces required, less the
mcadifications made regarding the fax rooms in rno#ion #1.
3. Greg Moffet made a motion that passed by a unanimous vote of 4-0, whieh overturned the
requirement fihat the applieant sign #he pay-in-lieu promissary note personally and that a
deed of trust be filed on the praperty. The Planning & Environmentafi Gommission felt that
the appellant shouid only be required to sign the promissory note, with a fiive-year ~
amortizatian period, per the existing zoning ordinance. The PEC also believed that it is
reasonable for the Tawn to require both Glenn Heelan and Margretfa B. Parks to sign the
promissory note.
Pursuant to Motion #1 above, the staff has recalculated the parking pay-in-lieu fee as fallows:
11111187 - Per PEC, change the use classificatian of fax roams (3rd flaor) from "eating & drinking
establishment" to "ofifice° = 69 square feet total.
0 Eating & drinking establishments = 69/15/8 - 0.575 ( 1 parking spacel8seats)
• Office = 69/250 = 0r276 ( 1 parking space/250 sq. ft,)
0.299 parking spaces
11l10197 a Per staff merno to fhe PEC.
Grand total - 32.996 parking spaces pay-in-lieu
_ 0.299
New grartd total = 32:697 -
x $ 16,333.38
$534,052.53
~
f:\everyane\counc+ftemas\wclub.n1 1 ~
~
MEMt7RANDUM
~ TO: Planning and Environmentai Gammission .
FROM:. Community Development Departrnent
_ DATE: November 10, 1997 -
- SUBJECT: An appeal of three staff lnterpretations; 1} The staff's classification of the third and -
fourth fioors as "eating and drinking establishrnents"; 2) Section 18.52.1 UO C,
Parking-Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Section
18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay-in-lieu) - appellant disputes the cafculatinn of
the number of parking spaces required; and' 3} The requirement that the
appiicant sign the pay-in-(aeu pramissory note personally and that a deed of Trust
be filed on the property; located at The Vail Village Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C,
Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Appeliant: Riva Ridge Partners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margret#a B. Parks
Staff: M'rke MollicalTom Moorhead
1. SCIBJECT PRC?PERI"Y
The Vai( Village Club is located at 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st
~ Filing. This building was fiormerly referred to as Cyrano's.
11. MANNING and ENVIRC3NMENTAL GOMMISSION JURISC?ICTI6N
Pursuant to Seetion 18.66.030 B,1 - Appeal of Administra#ive Actions; Authority, the
Pianning and Environmentaf Commission has the authori#y ta hear and decide appeals
#rom any decis+on, deterrnination or interpretation by any Town o# Vail administrative
official:with respect td the provisions o# the Zoning Code. III. PRtZCEDURAL CRITERIA Fl7R APPEALS .
pursuant to Sections 18.66.030 B, 2 and 3- Appeal of Administrative Actions; Initiation
and procedures, there are three basic criteria for an adequate appeat: standing of the
appeliant; adequacy of the notice of appeal; and timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A. St8ndirtg of the A,ppetlarlt
The appetlant has standing to appeal #he staff's decisions related to the
construction of the Vail Village Club. Ftiva Ridge Partners LLC is the developer of
the building and the iessee. The owner of the property is Margretta B. Parks.
B. Adeauacy of the Notice of Anneal
The applicatian for this appeal was filed by Glenn Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners
~
1
. ~
. TowN Of vna
M
7"A
LLC) ara September 15, 1997. The application has been deterrnined to be
complete by the Qepartment of Community Deveiapment.
C. , Tirneliness af the Notio o# App~al, ~
The Administration 5ection of the Town's Zaning Code (18.66,030- B, 3-
Procedures) states the fallowing:
"A written notice of appeal rnust be file.d with the Director of Comrnuni#y.
Development or with the department renderir+g the decision, determirration
or interpretation wtithin ten caiendar days of the decision becomirig final. If • -
the last day for fiiing an appeai falls on a Sa#urday, Sunday or a Town of
.
Vail observed holiday, the las# day for fiiling an appeai shall be extended ta
the next business day. The Administrator's decision sha(I become final at
the next Planning and Environmental Cdmmission (PEC) meetirrg,
following the Administrator's decisian, unless the decision is called-up and
modified by the Board or Commission."
On Oc#ober 13, 1997, the staff recommended that the Planning & Environmenta}
_ Gommission reject the appeNants appeal. The statf believed fihat the appellants
did not file a timely appeaf, and therefore the appeal had no basis. The staffi
recommendation was that the Pianning and Environmenta! Comrnision reject the
appeilants appeai and that the PEC firrd that #he appeal was not #iled in a timely
manner, as required by Section 18.66,030 B, 3- Appeal of Administrative Actions,
Pracedures.
t7n Oc#ober 13, 1997, the Planning & Environmental Gamrnission passed a ~
mat?an (by a vote of 4-2, with Bishop and GoIden opposed) that the appeal nat `be
considered valid due the timeliness issue,
On October 14, 1997, the Tflwn Council, during the PEC Report, ca1led-up this
item for review. On October 21, 1997, #he 1'own Council (by a vote of 4-2, w'rth Ford and Kurtz
opposed) overturned #he PEC deeision an #he timeliness issue and remanded the
appeal back to the PEC.
1V. NATURE OF THE APPEAL~
On September 15, 1997, Glenr? Heelan (Riva Ridge Partners LLG) and Margretta B.
Parks submitted formal appeals to the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development. The nature of the appeals are generally described below, and a copy of
the Appeal Farm is attached as E7chibit A.
The appellant is appealing the following three staff interpretations:
1) The staf#'s classification of the third and fourCh floors as "eating and drinking
establishments";
~
2
X, J
~
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking-Requirements Schedule (Eating & drinking
Establishments) and Section 18.52.160, Exemptions (parking pay-in-lieu) -
~ appeilant disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required, and
3) The requirement that the applicant sign the pay-in-lieu promissory nate
personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property iocated at The Vail
Viilage Club, 333 Bridge 5treet, Lat C, B(ack 2, Vai1 Village 1st Filing.
The appellant's statements as to the specific nature af the appeals are attached as
Exhibi# B, and include two letkers from Mr. Glenn. Heelan to Mr. Mike MoIlica (dated
September 15, 1997 and July 1, 1997) and a ietker dated Jufy 30, 1997 from Mr. Eric
• fiargersen, with Holiey, Albertson & Palk, P. C to Mr. Mike Mallica. ,
V. REQUIRED ACTIt?N
UphoMdlOuerturn/Modify the three staff interpretations.
Aceording to Sectian 18.66,030 B, 5 Appeal of Administrative Actions - Findings, "the
planning and Environmental Commission shall on aN appeals make specific findings af
fact based directly on the particular evidence presented ta it. These findings of fact must
_ support conclusions that the standards and canditions imposed by the requirements af
this title have ar have not been met.,,
The appellant is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Gommission review the
fnNowing ihree staff interpretations:
~ 1} The sta#f's elassificatian of the third and fourth floors as "°eating and drinking
estab6ishments".
Backgraund;
+ C7n Septernber 21, 1995, Jim Curnutte, then Senior Planner for the Totirvn, wrote the
fotlowing to Mr. Glenn Weeian; . ° .
"As yau know, a"priuate club" is` not listed as a permitted or conditinnal use in the
Commercial Core 1 Zpne District. Staff has determined, however, that yaur`
proposed use is "similar" ta two of the "eatirag and drinking establishments" listed
as conditional uses (above the second floor) in the CC1 Zone District. These
uses are "cocktai( lounges and bars" and "restaurants:" Far your infiorrna#ion,
these wilt also be the categories used to determine the parking requirernent
for the club," (emphasis added)
A copy of this let#er is attached to this rnemorandum as Exhibit C.
On November 27, 1895, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
request for a conditiona{ use permit to allow #or a °`qUaSI-pUbIIC CIUb" in the Cornmercial
Core 1 Zone District. The club was proposed to be located an the third and #ourth floors
of the Cyrano's Bu[Iding. It should be noted that the staff inemorandum to #he f'lanning .
and Environmental Cammission contained language identical to that contained in the
~
3
~
'w
September 21, 19951etter from Jim Curnutte to Gierrn Heeian. A capy of this staff
memorandurn is inciuded as Exhibit D.
Sta#fi Res.ponse. ~
Agai:n, the sta#f's classification of use (to operate aquasi<pubiic ciub) on the #hird and
fourth floors of the structure, was made as eariy as September 1995. Further, during the
- staf# and the PEC's review of the conditional use perrnit for the quasi-public club
(Navember 1995), bath the sta## and the PEC determined that the quasi-pubiic club was
_ similar in na#ure to "eating and drinking estabiishments,,, as identified in Section .
18.52.100 C, 5 of the Town Zoning Code.
The staff continues to believe fihat "eating and drinking establishments" is the appropriate
desCgnation for the quasi-public club use.
2) Section 18.52.100 C, Parking-Requirements Schedule (specifiically, Eating & Drinking
Establi5hments) and Seetion 18.52.160, Exernptions (parking pay-in-lieu) - appellant
disputes the calculation of the number of parking spaces required,
. Back round.
• On March 26, 1996, an appllcation for a building permit to construct the Vai( Village Club
was made to the Tawn of Vaif's Department of Community Development. The staf#'s
initial calculations for the parking pay-in-lieu requirement was determined during Iate
March of 1996, utilazing the building permit drawings submitted by Semple Brown
Rnberts, Architects, dated March 18, 1996. ~
* A June 21, 1996 letter from Glenn Heelan to Mike Mallica, Assistant director of
Community Qevelapment (attached as Exhibit E), in part, states:
"Pursuant ta our previous conversations, it is my understanding and agreement
that #he parking pay-in-lieu fees currently esCimated at $457,334.64 as established
bY.Cammunity bevelapment, in accordance with the p[ans and specificatians
submitted by Riva Ridge Partners, L.LC,,thaf indicate comptetion of the third and
fourth floors as a quasi-public cCub; will be paid over five years with the fi.rst
payment due and payabie at the time a Tempvrary of Gertificate of Occupancy is
i5sued,,,
On Juiy 24, 1996, a building permit was issued for the cons#ruction of the Vail Viilage
Glub. ?his building permit included 13 conditions, Condition #3, which is relevanfi to this
appeal, reads as foflows.
„The parking pay-in-lieu fee shal{ be paid ta the Town prior to the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. See Glenr? Heelart's letter of June 21, 1996
to Mike Mollica, [Exhibit E] for details."
4 ~
- -
M
Staff Response:
~ Accarding to Section 18.52.100 C(Parking -Requirements Schedule), the uses in the Vail
. Village Glub include retaii stores (assesseti at 1.0 space per each 300 square #eet ofi net
fiioor area), ather professional and business offices (assessed at 1.0 space per each 250
square feet o# net flaor area) and eating arid drinking establishments (assessed at 1.0
space per each eight seats, based on seating capacity or Building Code occupancy
standards, whichever is more restrictive). Due ta the level ofi detail involved fn the staff's
parking analysis, the staff wili provide the 1/4" = 1' #loor pfans #or the Planning and
, Envirflnmental Commissian's reuiew at the hearing. 1n summary, the staff's calculations
are as follows: . .
Retail - 3,594 sq. ft. = 11.98 parking spaces
t?ffice - 94 sg, ft. = 0.376 parking spaces
RestaurantlClub - 5,717 sq. ft, - 47,64 arkinU spaces
Total = 59.996 parking spaces
-27 (arandfa#hered saacesl*
Grand Total 32.996 parking spaces pay-in-lieu
~ *Note: The 27 "grandfathered spaces" are those spaces which are considered
pre-existing, based upanthe prior uses in the old Cyrano's Suilding.
Therefore, 32.996 parking spaces x$16,333.38 results in a tatal parking pay-in-lieu
fee of $538,936.20. It shauld be nated that the $1 6,333.38 fee per parking space is the
1996 pay-in-lieu rate. Rlthough the pay-in-lieu fiee has yet to be paid for the Vail Village
Club, the Town, has agreed to apply the 1996 rate to this project. The 1997 rate is
$16,905.05. Note: the pay-1n-lieu fee was set by the Vail Town Council, pursuent to
Ordinance No. 1-0, Series af 1994: .
The appeClant had requested that the staff caiculate the parking requirernent #or the entire
structure based upon the Uniform Building Code's determination of occupant load.
Alth4ugh this is nof the staff's normal procedure for determining a structure's parking
requirement, we did camplete that analysis. An 'rndependent analysis was cornpleted by
Mr. Art Haagland, ICB4 Certified 8uflding Official. Mr. Hoagland has determined tha# the
occupan# load far the Vail Village Club is 483 persons. This figure does not include the
additional 10% allowance per Section 25.114, B of the Uniform Fire Code. This 10%
aliowance can be approved by the Fire Chief, uvhen additional exitfiacilifiies are provided.
Per the Tawn's parking requirement of 1,0 space per each 8 sea#s, 483 persons divided
by 8= 60.375 parking spaces. This is 0.379 spaces more than the staff calculation.
~ 5
Further, upon review of the Town's building permit file for the Vail Village Club, staff has
located an occupant load determinatian pravided by the appellant's architect, Semple
Brown Rflberts (Denver, Colorada). This analysis indicates art accupant load of 484 ~
persons. The Sempfe Brown Roberts anaiysis is attached as Exhib3# F.
3) The requirement that the appiicant sign #he pay-'rr?-1ieu pramissory note personaily and
tliat a Deed of T'rust be filed an the proper#y.
- - Staff Response: This issue will be addressed by Tom Moorhead, Town Attarney, at the I'fanning anti
Environmental Commission pubfic hearing.
Vi. Sl`AFF :RE flMMENQAT1{)N
Staff recommends #hat the Planning and Environmentai Cornmission uphold the three
staff interpretations that the appellant is contesting. In accordance with the informatian
presented in th'rs memorandum, and the exhibits attached hereta, staffi recommends that
the Pianning and Enviranmentai Cammission make the fallowing findings.
1. That the Gommunity Development Department staff, and the Planning and
Enuironmental Commission, have appropriately classified the quasi-public club,
located on the third and fourth floors af the Vail Village Club, as an "eating and
drinking establishment";
2. That the Community C}eveloprnent Department staff has appropriatelY applied ~
Section 18.52.100 C, Parking-Requirement 5chedule and Section 18.52.160,
Exemptions (parking pay-in-lieu) during their review of the building permit floar
plans far the Vail Village Club; and
3. , Thafi the Town Attorney has appropriately required the applicant ta sign the
parking pay-in-lieu promissory note personally and that a Qeed o# Trust be fiied on
- the praperty. -
F:\EvERvoNE\PEcwiEMos\97\vvcLuB.rv Ia
6 ~
~
,
Exhibit - A 3 Pages ,
j~i;,.
TO WN DF VAIL
APPEALS FORNt
R.EQUIRED FOR FTLTNG AN APPEAL OF A STA.FF, llESIGN i2EV1EW BOAFtD OR
' PLANNING ANb ENVIRC}NMENTAL COMMISSTl7N ACTION `
A. ACTIC,3N/DECISION BEING APPEAI.ED: A. The interpretation of Ord3.nance 18.52. 100 and
the subsequent calculation af the Parking Pay 3.n Lieu Fees of $571,341.6$ being
assessed against The Vail Village Club Building at 333 Bridge Street, Vail, Coloradna
B. The requirement that the Applicant sign the promissory nate personally and a
Deed of TrusC be filed on tlte property. C. The classf3:cation of the 3rd/4th £Ioors
C1.ub faciliCies as eating and drinking esCahlishments.
B. DATE t7F ACTION(UECISION: June 17, 1997 (Per Mike Mallica's leCCer)
NAME 4F BOARD C?R PERSON RENDERING THE L)ECISIC3NlI'AKING ACTION; M3ke Mollica,
Ass't Airectar of GommunitDevelo mentTom Moorhead Tawn AtCorne ~
Y P > > Y
D. NAME C?F AI'PELLANT(S): Riva Kidge Pzrtners LLG; Glenn M. Heelan; MargreC,ta B. Partes
MAILING ADL7RESS: P. 0. Bax 5770, Avon, CO 81620
PHYSICAL ADD'RESS TN VAIL: 333 Bridge Street PHONE: 949-6277
LEGAL DESCRIPTIC? OF APPELLANT'S PROPER`T`I' IN VAIL: Lat C, 131ock 2, Vail Village
lst Fi1in
E. S1GNATUREiSj:
~ Page l of 2
" ! .
.
F. T3ocs ihis appcal involvc aspccific parcel af land? ve s tfyes, plcase providc the following informarion: ~
arc you an adjaccnt propcrty owner? Yes no X
If no, give a detailed r,;:planation of haw you are an "aggrieved or adversely affectcdperson," "Aggricved or
adverseiy affected person" means any person who will suffer an advcrse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this title. 1`he alleged adverse interest may be shared in,comman with other rncmbers of the -
community at large, but shatl exceed in degree the general interest in community good shareti by a!1 persans. Glenn M. Heelan is the Applicant for the exteri.or al.terati.ons.
. ~
_ 12iva Rid e Partners LLC is the develo er af, the buildin and the Lessee
di the ropert from Maxgretta B. Parks under the Amended and Ttestatied
Lease Agreement.
Marp,r.etta 23. Parks is the awner of the ro erC .
o
G. I'rovide the namcs and addresses (both perstsn'S maiting addres5 and properry's physicai address in Vail) of al1 .
owncr.s of property which arc the subjcct of the appea( and atl adjaccnt praperty owners (including properties
, scparatcd by aright-flf-way, strea«i, or othcr intcrvcning barricrs). Also provide addresscd and stamped envelopes for
cach property owner on the tist. ~
H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise narizre of the appeal. Please cite specific code seckions havir?g
reicvancc to the action bcing appealed. ~
I. FEE: $0.00 .
Page 2 of 2 ~
W COPY
*VAILL
V TY t Y OS Sotitli 1'
ralttage IZotzd Departttierit of Cojttrttunity Devetaprnnrit
Yail, CoCoratlo81657 970-4 79-2138/479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
.TirIac 17, 1997
C;lcniiHccla«.
C:iiiarles I)avison - clo itivz Ridgc Partnc?•s. I-LC
I'.O. Box 577{)
Avon, CO 81 6247 RE; Vail Villagc G.lub - Parkiiag Attalysis
Dear Glcr7n artd Charlic:
Th~t* yoti toe sub?iiitti»g t,13c fina1 tioor pIansJscating pIaris tnr tlic VailVillagc Club. BaSed upon tIicsc
dracviaags, ihavc rccalculatcd thc parking pay-in-liCLi tec as foNows,
i. 12csttturantlC:lub 5,936 sq. tt. = 49.47 pt?rkii7gspaccs
2. i2ctili1 - 3.704 sq. 11 = 12.35 parkir3g spaccs
~ 3. 0 fficc - 39sq, ft. ib parkin.g,~Ijaccs
61.98 parking spaccs
- 2 Yr~~ ft#~cre~
Grand 'Cotnl 34.98 parking spaccs
Pcr your agrccnle;»t wit:ll Bob McT.auri11, "I`own Managcr, parkiitg spaecs wil( bc aSSCSSCd at a ratc of
S 16,333.38 pcr spacc (1996 pay-iii-3icti figurc). Thcrcforc, ihc granti tt~tal for thc Vaii Vi11agc Club is
$571,341,63.
As prcviotisly agrecc] to by I3ob McLauriai, a tci7-ycar rcpaynicnt pcriod will bc acccptabic to tllc Towil.
Shoulti tlzis bc your ticsircd cotrrsc af actioii, plctlsc lct us know so that wc can fitializc thc paperwark.
As always, sllo{ild you havc any qucstions, nr commcnts rcgarding any af tlle abovc, plcase fcel free to
contact nae directly at 479-2144. .
Sialccrcly, Mikc Mofrica
Assistant Dircctor of Conimunity Devclopment •
MMIlr
~ xc: I3ob Mcl.,aurin !
Totn Maoncead
Stcvc Thompso~i
ow~ RECYCL-PDPA!'ER
-
.
EXHIBIT B - 6 pages
4
t Septe221be2" 15, 1997 `Rrp
~
#
qF;,. ' •V ~y` 'r 7 ,
Mr. Mike M61lica DE~~. ~ t
DE~
~ Assistant Dizector of Communily Development '
Town of Vail
, 75 S. FrQntage Road .
r, Vail, Colorado 81657 . - -
RE. The Appeal of Staffs Interpretation of Ordinance 18.52, 100 and the
~ subsequent calculation of the Parking Pay in Lieu fees of $571,341.6$
Dear Mr. MoIlica,
~
Enclosed please find the completed appeals form required for filing an appeax of a
staff action. In reference to paragraph H of the appeals farm we submit the
` following:
~ .
~
• Riva Ridge Partners LLC, Glenn M. Heelan, and, Margretta B. Parks are appealing
staffs intezpretation and subsequent calculation of code section 18:52.100 and
18.52.160. Sta£fs interpretations have resulted in classifying the 3rd and 4th
Floors of The Vail Vi11age Club Building located at 333 Bridge Street as a public
eating and drinking establishment, with an accompanying assessment for pay in
`k- lieu parking fees in the amount of $571,341.68. Tn addition, staff has determined
„x that in order to defer payment of the pay in lieu fees by the use of a protnissary
note, they will require that Riva Ridge Partners LLC (the developer) and one of it's
t> managers guarantee the promissary note, and that aDeed of Trust be filed on the
pr°perty. - - -
As addressed in the attached correspondence, the applicant disputes the calculation
of the riumber of Parking spaces being assessed against the property, the
requirement that he sip-n persanally and a I7eed of Trust be filed on the praperty,
and questions whether in fact, the 3rd and 4th Flaors that have a conditional use of
a quasi-pubiic Club be classified as eating and drinking estabIishments.
qa'
" Pl se feel free ta call with any questions or additional requirements you rnay
,
hve ~
,l•
~ s1 1"ely +
5 A \
7-.~..../ ` ~ ,na, `
f w"..._.
e2111 M. Heeliill
x:<
July 1, 1997
Mr. Mike Mollica ~
Assistant Dixector of Cornmunaty Development
Tawn of Vaii . Sent Via Facsimile
Dear Mike, a
In nur rneetirlg yesterday, we discusseti our confusion pertaining ta the iafiguage ' of the zoning code relating to C)ff=Street Parking and Loading; specifically
"18.52, 100 Section C. Qther Uses 45" as it relates to Eating and ririnking
establishments. As I stated, we interpret the section to read how many actual seats
we have, as opposed to the building cc,de accupancy standarcis which are measured
by occupant load factors per square foot. At your sugg;estion T will ask Tom
Moarehead and my attorney to clarify the sectian.
If, after fiarther clarification, it is agreed that the number of seats and the resulting
parking fees are detemuned by the square footage af the various uses; then, we
srill have questions regarding the actual number of square feet being calculated,
• mostly as it pertains to the bar on the first flaar, and the Club areas on the third
and fourth floors. Therefore, we wauld appreciate the opporwrity to revisit the
parking requu-ements as soon as we are able to obtain the clarification £rom our ~
respective attameys. At that time, we will also provide the fnal "remarked„
drawings that represen# what is actually being built in the building.
I Iook d#o hearing from Mr. Moorehead and bringing this issue ta a close as
soo s po ible,
_ - Sin
enn M. Heelan
cc: Charles W. Davison
~
. ;
,
. .
C .
* t.
' r HOr.z.Ey, ALsErtTsox & POLx, P.C.
ArraicNtys Ar Lnw
DE3vvEx WMr OMcE PAnx
SutrE TQO, Buu.otMe 19
1667 +CoLe Bwo.
~ Gos.nEN, CoLnruuo 88401
GEORGE AI.AN f2C?LLEY PfiC1NE'(343) 233-7838
SCC}TT D. AL.IiE[tTSON 1 AX (303} 333-2$fiU
DENM3 B. POLK
1ET2IC E. Tt7RGEI25EN •
THOMAS A.1VA3SH .
' H(}WARD R. STL3NE
Ju1y 30, 1997
BY' TELECt3P.1 `ER AND F'.I.RSfi-GLA5S MA:IL
Mr, Mike Mallica
Assistant Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frnntage Road ,
Vail, Coloradca 81657
Re: The Vail Village Club, 298 Xanscsn Ranch
Road, Vail, Colarado (the "Property"`)
Dear Mr. Mgllica: ~ This firm represents Riva Ridge Partners LLC in connecticsn with the above-referenced matter. We are in receipt of a copy of
your June 17, 1997, lettez concerning the payment of fees i.n lieu
of parking for the redevel.opment of The Vail Village Club, The
purpose of this letter is to set forth our client's position with
regard ta those fees in lieu of parking. It is aur client's
position, based upon Chapter 18.52 of the Town of Vail Zaning
ordinance, that the Town has calculated an excessive fee in lieu of
parki.ng far the re-development of The_ Vail V'illage C1ub. Uur
_ analysis is based upon-the'folldwing: .
1. rt is our understanding that the Praperty was previously
a1located 27 parking spaces, as eomputecl pursuant to the Zoning
Urdinance. It is our further understanc3ing that aur client would
receive eredit for these pre-existing parking spaces in connection
with the re-develapment of the Property, and would be obligated to
pay only the difference between the number of parking spaces as
determinecl fcrr The Vail Village Club and the origirtal (in this
instance 27) parkznq spaces attributable to the Property. Based
upon our review of your June 17, 1997, letter, the Town has
followed this analysis as well. Thus, although this letter wi11
not cliscuss nur clientrs pasition on whether the Town is entit].eel
to collect any fees in lieu of parking, or the amount per space of
that fee, our client's primazy pasition in this letter is that the
Town has computed an excessive fee based upon the number of parkirig
spaces attributable to The Vai1 Vill.age Club as re-developed. .
~
c~? • ' `
. i,
i`
Mr. Mike Mollica
July 30, 1997
gage 2. ~
2. It appears that the fees in I.ieu of parking far The Vail
Vi.llage Club are set f'orth in 5 18,52.160.B, which provides in
relevant part:
Zn Commercial Care I and Commercial Care 11 property .
owners or applicants shall be required to contribute trs "
the Town Parking Fund, hereby estab3ished, for the
purpose csf ineeting the demand and xequirements for .
vehicle parking. At such time as any property owner or
other applicant prcaposes to develop or redevelap a parcel
of property within an exempt area which woul.d require
parking and/ar loading areas, the owner or applicant
shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter
required.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the Towra Council. 5. The parking f'ee to be paid by any owner or appl.icant ~
is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dol.lars
($15, OQO, 00) per space. This fee sha1.l be autramatical.ly
increased annually by the percentage the Cansumer PriGe
Index crf the Gity of Denver has increased over each .
successive year.
6. For adda.tl.csns ar enlargements of any existing
' building or change of use that woul.d increase the total
number of parking spaces required, an additional parking
fee will be" rec~ua.red only, fc~r such additiar~, enlargemer~t
or change and nat for the entire building ar use.
Zcsning CJrdinance § 18.52.160.B.
It is our understandi.ng that The Vail Village CYub is situated
within the Cammercia3 Core I area of the Tc,wn of Vail, and
according to the Zoning c3rdinance must contribute to the Tawn
Park.inq Fund. It does not appear that S 18,52.160.B fi.xes the
number of parking spaces which would be attributable to a re-
development. Therefore, we assume that the number of parking
spaces (used to determine the pay in l.ieu fee) is determined from
the specific parking requirement schedul.e set forth in § 18.52.100,
It is our understancling that The Vail Village Cl.ub wx1.Y be confineci
to some retail, personal service and repair shops, and some
restaurant/club, and a sma11 portion (under 1t3a square feet)
~
Mr. Mike Mollica
JLlIy 30, 1997
~ Page 3.
dediaated to office. According to § 18.52.100, parking spaces far
those uses are determined as follows :
C. Other Uses.
4, Ftetain Store, Personal .1.0 space per each 300
Services and Repair Shops feet of net floor spaee -
' S. Eating and Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per each 8 seatsi '
based an seati.ng capacity or
building code oacupancy
standards, w;-,ichaver is more
restrictive
S 18.52.100.C (emphasis added).
Under S 18.52.100.C., parking spaces required for retail use
are determined based upon ane space per 300 square feet of rtet.
floor space. For eating and drinking establishments, such as the:,:
club portion of The Vail Vi1l.age C1ub, the parking requirement is
1.0 spaee per each 8 seats, based rsn seating capacity or buil.ciing 4.
code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive; however,
it cioes not appear that this pravision permits the determination of
.
parking requirements based upon square feet of net flnor space, as
~ done for retail establ,ishments. This parking requirement appears
to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance to require off
street parking in the amount actually needed by the development.
This would explain why the Zaning 4rdinance determines riecessary
parking for a retail establishment based on net floor space, while
a restaurant use is based upon seating capacity. .
Based upon aur review, it appears, that the fee--in-lieu of
parking must be determined based upon the number of o£f street parking spaces which the TQwn cauld require pursuant to S 18.52.100
of the zoning ardinance. It is our understanding that The Vail
Village Glub and restaurants will 'have a maximum of 210 seats'
which is less than the maximum number permitted under the
applicable buil.ding code. Therefare, it taould appear that the
number of off-street parking spaces which cauld be required for the
restaurantJclub would be 26.25, i.e,, 210 divided by 8, rather than
49.47 as calcul.ated by the Town based upan net fl.ocar space. xt is
our client's position that the Zoning ardinance 2imits the fees in
lieu of parking to an amount equal ta the per spaee fee multiplied
by the number of parking spaces which could be required under S
18.52.100. Assuming the accuraGy of the Tawn's rtet floor space
calculations, it is our client's position that,the number of
parking spaces shauld be determined as follaws:
~
-
, '
:
Mr. Mike Mollica
JLi1y 30, 1997
F'age 4.
.
3. RestaurantjClub = 214 Seats = 26.25 Park.ing Spaces
2. Retail - 3,704 Square Feet = 12.35 Parking Spaces
3. ° Of fice = 39 Square Feet - 0.16 F'arkina Sp,aces
TO'TAL 38.76 Parking Spaces Mi.nus 27 (Grandfathered)
Net Tntal 11.76
Final].y, it is our clierst's position that assuming a parking
fee af $16, 333. 38 per space, the parking fee for The Vail Vil3.age
Club should be $192,080.55.
t7ur client requests that the Town reccansider its computatinn
of the fees zn lieu of parking and advise our client as to whether the Tawn will change its position fram your June 17, 1997, letter,"
that the parking fee for The Vail Va,1,l,age Club is $571, 341. &3,:~ '
rather than $192,080.55, as our cl.ient suggests. In this regard,:'
our c3ient wauld be available to discuss this matter with you at
greater length, if that would serve to clarify their positian on
the fees in lieu of parking. fihank yau far your attention ta this matter and yaur ~
professianal courtesies in this regard.
sincerely, _
HaLLE.Y, AI,BERTSQN'-& POLK,~E~ P. C.
Eric E. Torgerseri.
EETJdb
cc: Glenn M. Heelan
- ~
.,,..:mrr,,,.w,..,.._..._.. .
EXHIBIfi C - 2 PAGES
.
t~1
TV W1 Y O!' VAIL ~
*75 South Frontage Road Departrrrent of Cottr»zuniiy Developrr:erit
Yail,.Colorado 8I657 °
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-4 79-2452
. September 21, 1995 '
Mr, GZenn M. xeelan
P.U. Bcax 5770
Avan. CO 81620
RE. Applicatxon for a Conditional Use PermiG £or the Serrano's
Htzilding, Lot C, Block 2, Vail Vil].age lst Filing
Dear Mr. Heelan:
I have compl.eted a review of your recently submitted conditional
use permit application to operate a pxivat,e club on t'he third and
fourth floors of the Serrano's Buildiixg, Lot C, Block 2, Vai1
~ Vil1.age 1st fil.ing. Addit,ional in£armation inust be provided in
order far staff to ade revi eequest. Ple respor.d
to th~±;4r~s~i. a~~fg
•\r
- As you know, a"Priva; e Club" as not listed as a permitted
br conditional use in the Gammercial Coxe • I (CGI) zone
- distracl.. Staff has determined, hawever, that your proposed
- use is "s.imilaru to t;ao of the „eating and drinking
establislin7ents" listed as ranclitianal uses (abave rhe second
floar) in the CCI zone district. These uses are Cacktail
1.caunges and bars" and "restaurantsi". For your in£ormation,
these wi1l also be the categories used to determine the
parking requirement for the club,
n to te pa i cts o y pose use,
and as reguired in Sec n. 111 (3) of the Cflnditic>na? Use
Permit appl.ication rec1uirements, p1ease provide detailed floor
plans which indicate the l.ayout. of al1 proposed uses on the
third and faurth flnors o-4 the building.
- Yflur application states tha-L no exterior changes wi1.1 be
made tra the building. However, de-oending on the scope of the
food service element of your proposal, it would appear that
additional mechanical equipment may be necessary. P1ease
provs,de a detaiIed desoription of how private dinnex parties,
meetingJdining xooms, additional food ' pxep. areas, hars,
~ kitchens, etc. will be handied. REG`YGi.EIJ f'AFER .
~i
Mr. Glenn M. Heelan
Page 2
~
- In the Commarcial Core Z Zone District "meeting roo:ns" tnay
. be approved, as a conditianal use permit, only in the basement
or garden level and on the se-cond 1evel af a buil.ding. They
. are not al.lowed, as a permittecl. or conditional use, on the _
_ first flaor or street level ar on any level of a bui3.ding
, above the second flaor. It would appear from your appl-ication descriptian that Che meeting/dining rooms tai,ll be used sol.eZy
by club members, and therefore considered as accessory to the
functions of the clula. Hocvever, we mtast receive a more
detailed explanation of their intended use. The cl.ub members,
as a yroup, cannot rent the rooms to the general public.
-Hoca wi1.1 the area on the second floor of the building,
currently 1.abel.ed "The Private Club", be affected by yaur
proposed use?
_ Please provide a more detailed description of the "office
space fox building and club aperations" as descrYbed in your
application.
Rs mentianed previousl.y, staff helieves that additional infarmation
is necessary a.n ozder to ful.ly understand all possible impacts
assoca.atecl with your proposed conditional, use. In arder to stay on
schedule for the October 9, 1595, PEC meeting, please provide the
above requested xnfarmation no later than 5.00 p.ma, Monday, .
September 25, 1995.
SlI1CeT.'elyr
Jim Curnutte
Senior PIanner
cc: Mi}ce Moll.ica
Andy Knudtsen
~e
~
* . _ . ' EXHIBIT D -7 pages
MEM4RANDUM PLECOPY
~ TO: Planning and Environrnental Comrnission .
FROM: Comrnunity Develnpment department
DAfiE. Novernber 27, 1995
SUBJECT. A reque.st #or a Conditionai Use Permit to aifaw fior a"quas'r-pubiic ciub" in the ' Cornmercial Core 1 Zone District to be located on the 3rd and 4th floars of the
Serrano's Building locaied a# 298 Hansen Ranch RoadlLoi C, Biock 2, Vail Village
1 st Filing. .
ApPiicant: Margaret#a B. Parks, represented by Glen Heelan
Pianner. Jirn Curnutfe
t. BACKGROUN[J AND DESCaiPT1ON OF THF RECIUEST
Glen Heelan, on behai# of #he building awner, has requested PEC approvai of a Conditionai Use
Permit in order to construct a "quasi-pubiic cluEa" in the CQmmercial Core I(CC4) Zone District; to
be lacated on the 3rd and 4th floors of the recently approved new Serrana's Building, located at
298 Hansen Rarrch Road. The Tawn of Vail Municipal Code de#ines a quasi-public use
differently fram a use that is entirely private ar public. For the PEC's information, the code
defines these uses as follows:
~ - Private - "Private" means a use, area, properly or faciiity whieh is not public., (C7rd.
21(1994), § 5.)
- Public - "Pubiic" rneans a use, area, property or (aciiity which: '
A: Is awned and aperated by a governmental entity, and
funcEions or is avaitable for use by aIl persons whether with
ar withc-ut charge; or
S. 1s owned ar operated by a persQn or entity other than a
governmental entity, and fiunctions or is availabie foc use by
a44 persons without charge. (C3rd. 21(1994) § 6.) _
- Quasi-Public -"Quasi-public" rneans a use which is characterized by its availabi{ity to
the public, with or withaut cost, but which is coriducted by an entity,
organization-Lr erso ' not a go rnmental entity. (Ord. ~ ~94)
~
§ . 0.
A"quasi-pub?ic club" is not speci#icalfy fisCed as a permit#ed or conditional use in the CC1 Zone
Qistrict. Near the end of #he list of conditionai uses, however, is a statement which allows for
"additional uses determined to be similar to thepermitted and conditionai uses described above,,"
Staff has determined that the proposed quasi-pub4ic club is "similar" tn two of the eating and
drinking establishments listed as canditional uses (above the 2nd flaor) in the GC1 Zone District.
These uses are "cocktai( lounges and bars" and'"restaurartts." Since staf# has deterrnined that
these uses are similar to the proposed quas{-pubiic ciub, the applicant has proceeded to apply
fior a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff will use these categories in order to determine
the parking requirement for the club.
E:\evezyone\pac\memos\serranos.n27 1
~
yq e~,k3~d n more detai! in Section 1{ (Backgrnund) of #his mema, the praject deveSoper, G1er~
ls~(Neelan, recentiy receiver! PEC approval (March 13,1995) to demolish the existing SerYana's ~
8uilding and replace it with a new structure. The approved uses an the 3td floor ot the new
building include two oftices and a portion of a residentiaE condornlnium. The remainder af the
candominium would be lacated on the fourth floor o# the buiiding. The new concept is to use the
3rd and 4th floors exc3usively #of a quasi-public c{ub. The c#ub owners will be o(fering their
members not only the fradiiionaf ski storage (in the basernent), but aiso areas of cornfort and
refaxation together wiih an array of services. The applicant has ind+cated that club rnernbers
wauld have the ability to ski down to the base o# the rnounCain give,iheir skiis to the ski valek, .
and enter the club. Here they would have the luxury of takingoff their boots, sitting dawn by the `
, fiirepiace in a quiet a#mosphere to reiax in the comfort of their'"mountain iiving roorn.,' They might
` • enjoy the re#reshment af their choice, make a couple of phane calis, check the stock market,
send a#ax, hoid a meeting or host a dinner party ior their fiamily, #riends, or business associates.
!t is ar?ticipated that the 3rd floor of the building wnuld be used fior: •
A. Persanal lockers, steam rQOm and shawers {similar to a pr'svate golf club where
bags are stared elsewhere};
B. O#fice space for buitding and c(ub operations; .
C. Lounge area where members could have a drink, make a call, send a fax; and
D. Up ta three meeting andlor dining rooms. ,
, l`he 4th floor is anticipated to be the "living raom an #he mountain." This is an area where
mernbers couid sit by the fire and relax, meet with friends and farnily, have an appetizer artd a
drink. ~
This Conditional Use Permit request daes not inuolve a-n-y exterEar changes to the previouslY .
- approved building.
The original approval of the Serrano's redevel4pment included a restaurant and a"private club„
on the 2ncf floor of the buildir?g. The appficani has indicated that that partion o# the 2ndfioor
currently 4abeled as private club, wiil be used as additionai dining for the 2nd floor resiaurant.
Since this entire area was calculated as a restaurani for parking purpases, there uvill. be no
additional impacts associated with the prnpos:ed change in use.
P-acKGRourvo " .
On Macch 13, 1995, Glen Heefan, the project deve4oper, received PEC approval to demolish the
ex,sting Serrana's Building and replace it with a new structure. (Please see attachment #1, site .
plan, efevatinn drawings antl floor plans of the approved building). The building program
ineluded:
• Cnmmercia( uses and a paien#iat nightclub in the basemerit.
• Retaii uses on the 1 st f{oor. • Restaurant uses on the 2nd tloor.
• Two offices and a portion of a condominium on the 3rd #loar.
• The rernainder of the condorninium on the 4th #laor.
~
E:\everyone\qec\memos\8erranos.n27
In additeon ta these uses, waikway and landscape impravernents on the narih, east and souih
sides of the buiiding were approved, as we11 as a 2nd floor outdoor dining deck over the Hansen
~ Ranch Road right-o#-way.
To accarnplish the above described proposal, a CC! Majnr Exterior A4teration and the following
variances were required:
1. A setback variance for an 11-faot encroachment inta the 30-#aat stream
setback far Milf Creek (for the basement flaor only); .
2. A variance #or comrnon area af 78.9°ln (35%a is a1lowed by zoning). ;
Also, the #oliowing two canditional use permits were required:
1. An outdoor dining deck on the second f1oor; and
2. Of#ice space on the third floor.
The project was reviewed and ultimately approved by the Vai1 Town Councii and the tJesign
Review goard in the Spring of 1995.
Although the applicant had intended to dernalish the existing structuce and begin construct'son of
the new building in the spring of 1995, he was not able ta adhere to ihat schedule and
. demo3itionlconstructinn has been delayed until the spring of 1995. In the meantirne, the
appiicant has reconsidered the previauslY approved uses of the 3rd and 4th floors af #he '
building.
~ Qn Octaber 9, 1995, aworksession was held with the PEG to discuss this Conditional Use
° Permit request. At that time, the applicant had intended to have the club be a"private" club. The
PEG was no# receptive to the idea o# a private club in the Village and the negative precedent that
may set and directed the applicant to expiore other options. 1n response to that directian, the
applicant has amended the intended operations a# the club so that the club would now be open
ta the public (see attachrnent #2 #or floor plans of the ciub). The applicant has indicated that the
pubfic would.be abie to avaii themselves of a number ofi op#ions related to club services. For
exarnple, the public could rent ski lockers in the club on a seasonal basis, pay a daily, weekly or
rnonthly access fee to use a11, or a por#ian of, the club amenities, or pay a full membership fee
artd accompanying annua4 dues. The applicant has afso pointed out that the liquor license
associated with this club will be the same as those g'ran#ed to public restaurants and will not be a
private Iiquor license. .
Un Navember 13, 1995, the PEC tabled this applieation and requested that tkre Town Attomey
provide a wri##en opinian on #he applicant's right tn appiy for the requested Conditional Use
Permit. See attached copy of the 7own Attorney's response ta the PEC request.
131. CRITERIA Tfl BE U$ED IN EVAL..UA71NG THiS PRQF?+DSAI.
Uppn rev'sew of Sectian 18.60 -Conditianai Use Permits, the Cornmunity IJevelaprnent
Department recomrnends approvaf of the canditianai use perrnit based upon the following
factars:
~
folaverynne\pec\memos\serranps.n27 3
. ~ ~
A. nn idera ipn of F'actars.
1. Relafiansiiip and impacf of the use on the development crbjectives of ~
the Town.
$taff's RespQnse - Stafif is in support of the proposed use of the 3rd and
4th f4oors o# the Serrano's Buiiding as a quasi-public club. It wouid appear
that the club has the patential ta provide more activity and interest in the
• Viilage than would be provided by one residential dwelfing unit and two
_ office spaces. , Additionally, staff believes that the proposed Conditiona! Use Permit
request wauld serve to carry out the following goals, policies and
ab}ec#ives of the Vaif Village 11r1aster P{an:
2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new
c4rnmercial activity where compatibie with existing
land uses.
2.4.1 Poiicy. Commecciai in-fil( developrnent consistent with
established harizontal zorting regulations shall be
encauraged to provide activity generators,
accessible greenspaces, pubiic plazas, and
, streetscape improvements to the pedestrian
nelwork throughout the Village.
2.4.2 Po#icy: Activity that provides night life and evening ~
entertainment for both the gtrests and the
cammunity shall be encouraged. .
2.5 Qbjective; Encourage the continued upgradrng, renovation and
maintenance ofi existing fadging and camrnercial
facilities ta better serue the needs of aur guests,
In the CCI Zone DistricC, "meetfng rooms" may be approved, as a
Candifiona! Use, only in the basement or garden levei and on the 2nd ievel
of a building. They are not allowed, as a perrnitted or condationai use, on
the 1st floor ar street-levei or any level af a building above the 2nd floor.
Since the applicant's request includes the proposed use of a port'son of the
3rd fiaor far meeting and/or dining rooms, staff was cflncerned with
authorizing a use which is specifically prohibited vn th'rs fevei of a building
in the CCI Zone [7istrict. The applicant has responded to staff's concern
by comm9tting that the rneeting raoms will be used salely by ctiub
members, and therefare, can be considered as accessocy ta the functions
of the quasi-pub(ic club. The c4ub rnembers, as a group, wi11 not rent the .
roams to the general public.
2. 7he effect of the use on light and air, dis#ribution af populatian,
. transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recrea#ion
facilities, and other public facilities needs,
~
f:\everyane\pec\memos\serranas.n2`7 4
i . .
_t.
Sta#t Response - Staff believes that the proppsed change in use from
residential and office use to a quasi-pubiic club wili have no negative effect
~ on any of the above listed criteria.
3. Effect upon traffid with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safe.ty and convenience, traffic finw and control,
access, maneuverabflity, and remova{ of snow fram the street and .
parking areas.
, Staff R s~pQnse - Staff be{ieves that the proposed change in use from -
, residentlal and affice use to a quasi-pubiic ciub wili have na negative effect
an any af the above Iisted criteria.
4. Effect upon the character o# the area irt which the praposed use is to
be Iocated, including the scale and bulk o# the proposeti use in
relation to surraunding uses.
.5taff. Response - As mentioned previously, there wili be no external changes made in conjunc#ion with this proposed change in approved uses
af the 3rd and 4th fVoors of the Serrano's Buiiding. Therefore, ihere wiil be
no changes in the sca{e and bu{k of the building previousiy reviewed and
approved by the PEC, Town Courtcil and besign Review Board. With
regard to the change in use and its effeet on the character af the area,
staff believes that the praposed change from one large residential
condorniniurn unit and two srnall afifice spaces, #o a quasi-pubiic club,
could have the effect af providing more activity and therefore a livelier feel
~ to the Village, which is a goal of the 7own.
B. F„i_n_, d in
h PI nnin and Envir nmen ! mmi ian h il m k h f 1 win fin in
be#qre grantina ac nditional use permit>
- 1. That the propased location of the u.se is in accord with the purppses of the
- conditionaf use permic section of the zoning.code artd the purpflses of the
. district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed iocation of the use and the canditiQns under which it
wfluld be operated or maintained wouid not be detrimental to the public
hea!#h, safety, or we4fare or materially injuriaus to properties or
improvernents in the vicinity.
3. That the propased use wauld comply with each of the applicable
pravisions of the conditionai use permit sectian n# the zoning code,
C. Adiinl ri ri fr oni r inafCniinlU Prmi li in in -
lhg CC1 Zone Digrict
Ir? addition ta the standard Conditional Use Permit Crifieria and Findings listed in
~
f:\avaxyone\pec\memas\serzanos.n27 5
w'
paragraphs A and 8 above, appiications for a Condrtional Use Perrnit within the
CC 1 Zone District rnust address the follawing additional developrnent factor$:
1. Effects of vehicular traffir an Commercia! Core I C7istrict; ~
Staff_Basponse - The proposed change o# approved uses on the 3rd and
4th floars of the Serrano's Bui4ding, fram a dwelling unit and office space
_ • to a quasi-public c(ub, would not appear to have a negative effect on
vehicular traf€ic in the CC I Zone l7istrrct. The loading and delivery traffic .
• associated with #he ciub wi(i be accommodated by the same loading and -
. delivery vehicles associated with the restaurant already approved cm; the second levei of the building and should not resuit in additional traffic
impacts.
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 district;
Staff Response - The praposed change in use v+rould nat appear ta cause
a reductian, or increase, in vehicular traffic in the CCl Zane District.
' 3. Reduction of nanessential aff-street parking; $taff Respon-se - 7he proposed ehange in use woufd not reduce, or
increase non-essential off-street parking, 1"here 'ts currenfly no aff-street
park(ng associated with this property.
4. Control of delivery, pick-up and service vehicies;
Staf# Res,ponse - As mentioned in staff's response to criteria #1 above, ~
staff believes that there will be no increase in the rtumber of delivery, pick- .
up ar service vehicles associated with the proposed c(ub.
The foad and beverage elements assbciated with ihe club appear to be
minimal and can be accomrnodated through the deiiveries that would
already occur in relaiior? to the restaurant on the 2nd ievel.
e_ . 5. [3evelopment of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
' Stafif Respons~ - The proposed quasi-public club will have no effect,
posi#ive or negative, on public spaces far use by pedestrlans.
6. Gontinuance of the various comrnercial, residential, and public uses in
Commercial Core 1 Distrfct sQ as to rnaintain the existing character of the
area;
Strtff Re,,~pvnse - Staff believes that the proposed quasi-public club use
wouEd continue the various cammercial and public uses in the CC !Zone
Districk. Approval af the club wouid displace the previaus(y approved
dwelling unat #rorn the property, however, since the Serrano's Buifding
daes not currentiy have a dweHing unit in it, (only an approval for one large
condominium to be built), the prnposed club will not change the exi in
charaeter of #he area. 1n staff's opinion, the replacement of the approued
candorninium unit with a club is a positive change, as it would appear #o
, offer the opPartunity ta provide a rnare active anct iively #eei to the Village,
and to provide additional services and amenities for the Town"s guests. ~
f:\everyane\pec\m$mcrs\serranos.n37 6
`a . .
7. Controi quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design
in Cornrnercial Core 1 district so as to maintain the existing character of
the area;
~ Staff RespoaP - The applicant has stated that no exterior changes will be .
made ta the buildirig in association with the proposed ciub. Staff was
coneerned however, that depending on the scope of the fiood service
elernent of the private ciub; it may be necessary to add additional
_ mechanical equipment related to any new or expanded kitchen area. In response to this concern, the applicant has assured staff that all food .
preparation activities associated with the ciub wiN be handied.in the
kitchen of the restaurant, located on the 2nd f#oor of the buifding.
8. Efifects of noise, odac, dust, smoke, and other fiactors<on the environment
o# Cammercial Core ( District,
S--taff RpspQ.n_se - Staff believes that none of the elements lis#ed above will
be a concern related #a the propased club use of the 3rd and 4th f(aor, with
tI1G pOSSIbIe £XGeptiQn bf CtotSE3. fihis issue was a concern during the initiai
discussion of the buiid'rng`s redevelopment, related ta the possibie bar use
in the building. 7he solution to that discussion was that ndise levels will
be adequately addressed through the Town's existing noise ordinarrces,
and s#aff believes those measures are appropriate for the proposed club
as welL
IV. STAFF REC{)MMENDAT#ON
~ Upon review o# the Criteria and Findings outlined #ar review of Canditional Use Permit
applications in the CC1 Zone District, staff recomrnends approval of the applicant's request
for a quasi-public club on the 3rd and 4#h levels of the Serrana's Building. Staff
recommends that the fol#owing conditions be attached to the conditional use permit approval af
the ciub.
1. As mentioned previously, the original approval of the Serrano's redeveloprnent
applicatian included a Gondititinal Use Permit for two affice spaces an the 3rti'
. floar. With the club"s Conditianal Use Permit application, the on(y office use
occurring on the 3rd or 4#h floors wiN be offices used.by ernployees and staff for
"building and ciub nperations." `
The applicant has stated that this of#ice space will not be rented to outside
parties. The staff recommends that since the office Gonditional Use Permit
granted in the sprin o# 199 ionger sary it shaA be consider~ ull
~ a voi 0 e ap a1 of the n v" lub" C ition Us er
2. Once final floor plan drawings are provided #or staff review, a parking analysis wili
be performed in order to determine if there is an incrernental parking demand
associated with the prapased quasi-public club, as compared to the previously
approved commercial office and residential uses on the 3rd and 4th fevels of the
building. Upan cornpletion of the parking analysis, a parking pay-in-lieu fee may
be deterrnined. This fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a building perrnit for
the project.
Piease nate that, un ection 18,60,080 (Permit Approva ffeci) of e Tawn of Vail
~ Municipa,l Code, the approval shall iapse if construction is not cornmenced within two years of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued until campletion, ar if the use fior which the permit is
granted is not carnmenced within two years.
fs\everyone\Pec\memos\sesranrss.nl3 7
EXHIBIT ;E - 1 page
r: +
,
June 21, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
Assistant T3irect4r of Commuriry Z7eveloprnent
Tawn of Vail
' Dear Mik•
Pursuant to our previous canversations, it is my understanding and agreement that the
parking pay-in-lieu fees eurrentIy estirnated at $457,334.64 as established by Community
L`}evelopment in accordance wiih the plans and specificaticsns submitted by'Rava Ridge
Partners, LL+C that indicate completion of the third and faurth floors as a Quasi-Pubiic
Ctub, wiit be paid aver five years with the first paytnent due and payable at the time a
Temporary Cert if cate of Clccupancy is issued. r 'scus , To a ~
Buildin epartment has requested a ruting fr CBO with respect to certain aspects of
d flo ' n. t is my u andi that earlier today, I:3an Stanek received
infarmation from TCBC> t a requires a change of design to the third floor. I would like to
request that if the design alternatives warrant a reduction in the parking requirernents that
these reductions be reflected in the agreed upon parking pay-in-lieu fee.
It is a.lso my understanding that in the event Riva Ridge Pa.rtners LLC revises the current
' submission and changes the third and fourth floars to a residentia.l and office use"'the
aPPlicable park.ing pay-in-Iieu fee is curren#ly $179,657.18. It is a.lso my understanding
that this fee, if applicable, would be paid over five years with the first payment due at the
~:._.time ofthe Temporary Certificate of C3ccupancy.
.,ti Finally, in a discussian earlier today with Bab McI,,aurin, I requested that in the event the
. Town Council revises the pay_in-lieu fees or terms ofpayment such that the changes
would be beneficial to The Vail Viltage C1ub, that we be included in the changes for the
purposes of ca.lculating the appropr'rate fee andltir pay,ment schedule at the time the
x.' Temparary Certificate of 4ccupancy is issued. As I discusaed with Mr. McLaurin, we
beZieve that the long term econamic benefits to the fiorvn of Vail vis a vis the continuing
.
sales taates generated by a commerciat use ofthe #hird and fourth floors greatly outweigh
a residential use ofthe sarne space, yet the "penalties" imposed by the greater parking
requirements and fees of comrnerciat use may ultimately be the "final straw" that forces us
, to use the space as a residential condom.inium. I am hnpefitl that the Town Council also .
sees the lang term benefits 4f such an approach and chooses to znclude us in any
improvements to the current parking pay-in-lieu ordinance.
, .
j ~an p~ vide any further assistance, i can be reached at 949-b277,
ncer , _
,
Ienn M. Heelan
~
~E r~ P L ~ EXIiIBTT F~- 1 page
«
B
~ 3 R o w N
~ R 0 sE R rs
PROJECrINO. 7~1AIL YIL.LAG~ GLt1P>
r'~~!acD 1 t
DATE • ! th~t1, Cal /e.~~r-i~„ctt . ~ 3605.-~ - 2,00 - 2
6446to tCtI OGGL1PRr";+5 55 .
TELEcoN 0 ~t- r-LL09,
coNFEtt Q
v
~1 rca.. Q `i47U
MI~MO O ~ bar aretz.
CnC3
IrvFo
'>P- C'.t7AJ 0 3~ 66Z 's, R c~ r-ass
2,~ np-t s.-P.
PAxTIcIpaNTs back bar- . 20a
~ 6i11"A f 1,4:20 . 15
i~u~t~~~~ ~~up~lnt~5
5ras-,-, sA
j 2, o&1o n~+ -6d.
272 ~t DO
f}oun3e- ~ s.,~', 15 r~a
r.
r '-774~ ne-t sA
~ 1ounor- 974 e~,-P. . 15
cOPr:
~AP,nc»ANTs C1
PM. Cl ~TO?AL ~ O1= PAN7-5
~ ~ - - - _
oR+G.-rca tFNtPA.
~ILE C3 I
I
~ .
I
I
I
1406 larimer Square, Suite 200 Ph~ne 303-571-4137
i A Professioncf Corpotation
Denver, Colorac3o 80202 ~ oj'ArcHitecu ond Designers Fax 303-571-0903
7O7faL P.03
~ t
- -
f
ppppppp
;
~ MEMORANDlJM
TU: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRt7M: department of Community development
DATE: November 10, 1997
SUBJECT: To approve, deny, ar modtfy an Environmental Impact Report for the prc>posed
SoQth Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wal1, Iocated at 3094 Baoth Fails
CourtlLot 1, Block 2, Vail Viliage 12th Filing.
AppNcant: Baoth Fails Condo Associatian
Staff: Russeil Forrest
1. PUF3Pt}SE
The purpose of this hearing is to review and apprave, modi#y or deny, the Environmentai Impact
Report (EIR) for the creation ofi twti walls to mitigate the rockfall hazard on the property owned by
• the E3ooth Falls Condo Association. The primary wa11 is 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick.
The second waii, directly south of the road accessing the water tank, is 60 #t long, 8 ft high, and
10 ft thick. The EIR reviews the impacts associated with the proposed walls, the need for the
~ wail, and the alternatives considered in the design process.
(I. BACKGRC}UND
The Booth Falls Condominiums are Iacated in the Vail Village 12th Filing, which was piat#ed in
the Town of Vail in 1972. The Town of Vail issued building permits #or Units 1-3 on March 27,
1973. Today there are a tatal of 18 units in the complex. M 1984, 5chmueser and Associates
Inc. prepared the ofificiai Rockfall Hazard maps that were adopted by the Town of Vail. These
maps indicate that the Booth Fa11s Tawnhomes are in a high rockfalf hazard area along with
develapment to the southeast of the Townhomes, ln 1989 and 1990 after severai rock€ali
incidents, a rockfaii berm was created and financed through a Iocal improvement district. This
berm was nat extended to the west to protect the Booth Falis Townhomes because of the
proximity of the Forest Senrice Wilderness AreaBoundarY-
Un March 26, 1997, a 20' x 8' piece of the rnck face broke o#f the rock band above the Booth
Fails Townhomes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks. The largesfi rnck wen#
thrnugh the wa11 of Unit 14 and pushed a bed through the 1st filoor and into the basement area.
On March 27, 1997, staf# met a USFS team and Jonathon White of the Coiorado State
Ceoiogical Survey to determine the risk af additional rock#all incidents. Thrnugh further site
investigation and an analysis dane by the State Geologica] Survey, it was deterrnined that the
area was in a high rockfall hazard area which means rackfall incidents are likely. However, the
risk of a rockfall incident is no higher now than "usual" at this Iocation. It should alsa be noted
that rockfall incidents can occur at any time in the year. Rockfall incidents, unlike debris filow or
snow avalanches, are not limited to one season.
*VAIL
TDWN
~
On May 6th, 1997 a Council worksession was heid to review a report prepared by the Golarado
Geolagical Survey and to determine what should be dane ta mitigate the hazard. Cauncil
directed staff to assist the Homeowners Assflciationin determining a cost fior mitigation. Un July
7th, 1997, another worksession was held with Council to determine how this mitigation shouid be
funded and the process for completing the design and constructian nf the wali. it was decided
that the hnmeawners would finance #he construction of the wall themselves, The Town
committed up to $20,000 ta assist with the design of the wall. Siaff has alsa prepared the
attached EiR. It was originally hoped that construction could begin in 1997. However, due to
deiays in securing private financing and in the design process it appears that constructinn will not
begin until the spring o# 1998.
An engineering company, AK5 Engineering, has been retained by the Homeowners Association
to design the wali. The Colarada Gealogical Survey has agreed to review the propased wall and
the rockfall hazard on the site and provide a written repart on the adequacy of the design to the
Town of Vail.
11l. PFil7GES~a
The requirements for mitigating a geological hazard are outlined generally in Section 18.69 0# the
Town cade. The process for reviewing #his proposed project is outlined below;
1) PEC meeting to review the Environmental lmpact Report (an November 7oth):
This is an opportunity to identify any assaciated impacts of the wall and allow ~
residents to review the praposed plans.
2} Council review of proposed mitigation (on aecerriber 9fh): Since this projeet will
impact Town ofi Vaii land and land the Town will be acquiring from the Forest
Service, the Town Council must approve of the use on Tawn of Vail land. Aiso
the Town Council will need to approve, afiter the wall is constructed, any proposed
changes in the Town's hazard maps.
3) Fina/ flR8 review (on December l 7th): The DRB has reviewed the canceptual
plans and still needs to givefinal approval ofi the wal(. DRB will focus on the
appearance o# the wall, site ciisturbance, and landscaping.
4} After DRB Approval; Apply for Pub{ic Way, Grading, and E3uilding permits.
5) After the wall is constructed, the Homeowners can reguest a hearing with the
Town Council to present documentation firom a qtaalified engineerfgeologist that
the wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans arrd can request
a modificatian to #he Town hazard maps. If this request is made and appraved by
fhe Tawn Council, the Hameowners Assaciation property would still be identified
in a rockfall hazard area, but the mapswouid indicate that approvedmitigation
exists far the site and would refer to the site specific report. The associated
report would document ta what degree the hazard has been mitigated. It should
be noted that 100% mitigatian of a na#ural hazard, is in most cases, not possible.
5o it is impartant to refer to the site specific report which wauld accurately
describe the hazard, associated mitigation, and the degree of risk after the ~
mitigation is constructed.
2
, . _ .
„
~ This schedule will allow the Association ta have all appravals frorn the 7awn completed before
the end of the year. This shouid allow adequate time #or loan approval and construetion af the
waCl in the spring of 1998.
IV. S1'AFF REGC?MMENDATI+DN
Mitigation is needed to pratect the Booth Falls Hameowners frflm personal injury and ta prevent
further praperty damage. After reviewing the possible alternatives, staff believes that the
creation a# a wali would have the least impacts nn the site. 1n additinn, based on input #rom the
Colarado Geological Survey, a wall would provide the greatest level af protection to the
homeowners. Staffi recammends apprnval of the EIR with the condition that the mitigation
actions identified in the EIR are implemented.
~
~
f:leveryonelrusstrnemos\rockmmem2 3
. .ti, +
r~
~
Enviranmental impact Report
Rockfall Mitigation for the Booth Falls Condaminiums
November 7,1997
Prepared by> Russell Farrest
x~.,
~
1 ~
.f,_. . /
~ EnvirQnmental impact Report
Raekfali Mitigation for the Booth Falis Gandaminiums
1. Purpose:
The purpose o# this Environmental Impact Report is to identify and determine the magnitude af
any environmental impacts that rnay have a significan# impact. This EIR will aiso identify
rnitigation strategies fnr reducing the impact of any significant envirqnmental impacts. The EIR is
intended to ensure complete information on the environmental effects for the proposed project 'rs
available to the Town Council, the Planning and Enviranmentai Commission, and the general
public.
2. Background and Need far Action
As mentioned in the cover memo, the area in and around #he Booth Falls Townhomes haue been
subject to rackfaN incidents. When rflcks fall, it is rapid and without warning which can lead to
serious injury and damage to property. In 1989 and 1990 after severai rackfall incidents, a
rockfall berm was created and financed through a local improvement disteict. This berm was not
extended farther to the west ta pratect the Baoth Falls Townhornes because af the proximity of
the Forest Service Wilderness Area Boundary. At 11:20 p.m, on March 26, 1997 a2Ofit x 8ft
' piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Fails Townhomes. Units 14, 15,
16 were impacted by several large racks causing serinus property damage.
~ Residents have been advised nat to sleep on the first floor, due ta the possible danger of rockfall.
The Colorado Ceologicai Survey (CGS) has canfirmed the threat to residents and to property is
reai (See attachment 1). ln addition, the Tawrr has been advised thaf insurance for rockfall
incidents has been revoked for same of the units at the Condominiurns. Mitigation is required ta
reduce the risk of someone being hurt or even killed.
3. Praposed Ac#ion
The Colorado State Gefllogical Survey prepared a repart after the March 1997 rockfall incident
that describes #he nature of the risk and recommend parameters for choosing and designing
roekfall mitigation to prptect the Boathfalls Condominiums. The key design criteria was that a
"stout protection sys#em was needed" that cauld withstand a force of 5,000,000 ft-Ibs.
Registered Engineer, Suzzane Wohigemuth af AKS Engineering, was retained by the
Homeowners Association, AKS Engineering, in collaboration with the Co]orado Geological
5urvey, are proposing the following (See attachment 2):
* Greation of a 360 ft long, 12 ft high, and 12 ft thick wa11 appraximately 30 ft north of the
candominiums.
* Creation of a 60 ft. lang, 8ft. high, and 10 ft. thick wall directly south of the road
accessing the adjacenf water tank.
Both the CGS and AKS Engineering believe that this mitigation will stop up to a 7 foot in diameter
rock and 5,000,000 ft Ibs. Figure 1 shows the prnposed walls and the associated landscaping.
~
f;\everyonelruss4memolrackeir 2
Figure 1: Prapased Walls ~
; .t.:
~ .t "•'v ~ 1
- ' ' a .p~' + i ~ r _ -~j t i , H( Z_ ~ ' ,~F~~ r"-` { ~b•~•2 ~ ~
- • ' - ~ a ' ~,.t ~ f i } "„Ee , , y 1~NoM
NA~~
r s. k - • x~.~,E r ~.v ,~rf ~ , .
y-9 y~
- •«;,~T."" 3~~~aA~ y*r s ' ^ ~ ~ $rv~ s ~"M ~
~ ~ f 4p, w-, ~ ~ ~ - fi " ~`s~ tpa ~
~
s
t
A~,_
,5 {7r et~a T tr t,
a~" ~ ' .
1 ~'4 t t .~'s ~
~ La,,_ A ~ ~ , 5 x Tv tti-NI
K
.~:~h~.,~.Y.sa....,.-~.n,. '...t,.~.....,..,~ ~'.t.m."4.. 0,'t.,,~...l,-, L,.,,,,~:..r„e~,c..,,~?cz.ki,,.~r~~i~~~,}~t-w.i~5~i~`~".`Y~~~~~:M
. ~
4, Alternatives Considers
Various alternatives were considered in the report prepared by the Colorado Geologicai Sutvey
and by AKS Engineering. The foHowing are alternatives that were considered and reasons why
they were nat chosen as the pre#erred aiternative:
* Source Stabilization: This wou(d involve securing rocks onto the face with a system of
cables and boits. The benefit of this approach is na additional structures would be
required. Howeyer, it is very difficuit to secure all the rocks and this type of a
mitigation can be very diffiicult to maintain. In addition, the successfu) installation of
such a system can be very difficult.
* Rock Fence: An alterative that is used in Glenwood Canyon is large cabled fences. 1t
was concluded that such a fence could not be installed that wauld hold the size af
rocks that are possible to be released off the face above these townhomes.
* Berm. A berm could be constructed that would be similar to the existing berm an
Traet A. However, the slope above the Townhomes is significantly steeper than the
existing barm. The width of disturbance of the existing berm is approximately 50 feet.
Creating a berm above the Townhomes was cansidered. However, it wauld create a
much larger scar (approximately 154 ft wide) than the exis#ing berm due to the steep ~
slopes. Since this hiliside is a critical winter habitat for bighorn sheep, a loss of
f:\everyoneVusslmemoVockeir 3
~ cri#ical habi#a# would be expected i# a berm were to be constructed. 7he use of
USFS Wiidemess Area land may also be required if a berm were considered. Forest
Servic€: regulatians would prohibit the constructian of a berm in a Wildemess Area.
5, Affected Environment
5.1 Land Use & Zonina
The Booth Falls Townhomes are located on land zoned Low Densit}r Multi-Family, Tract A,
owned by the Town af Vail is zaned Natural Area Preservation Distric#. Parcel F directly north o#
the project area is zvned General Use. Parcel F is curren#ly awned by the Forest Senrice, but
will be conveyed to the Town as part of a pending (and exchange. USFS Iands to the north of
Tract A ace in the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area. The residential area to the south and east nf
the Townhomes is zoned Two-Famiiy Residential. There is currerrtly a rockfall berm on Traet A.
7`he Towr? Attorney has canc(uded that mitigatior? for gea{ogical hazards is not regulated by
permitted and conditiona( uses for a zone district but is regula#ed under 18.69, Hazard
Regulations, under the Zoning Cade (See Figure 2- Adjacent lands).
Figure 2: Adjacent Lands
' N~~ Patiff~'.
01x v 4 .~N 'M1 ~ ~ ~ . m
i m, y ,y r' 9'
'
~ra "1~;N
as. ~ ~ ~ k g~1,
< < Y ~5 d
s t ~ ~
~ Y~ ~ ; ~f~; ~-i ` ~_~;s~ ,~s ~a ' ~ ~ i~ d 4i : ~"j4~,~. ~R ~ta..~ ; ~ . v,_,t`" ,di v ,r , .
, .
l 1} !Yir ,.rWww,i~*n ir«i~ i. ,P. _ - •~W`Y844ii
5.1 Lc'It1d5Gape:
The area that will be impacted, speeificaHy the area within 120-130ft north of the Booth Falts
Gondominiums is predominantly moderately slaped hillside. Mature Aspens daminate the site:
Approximately 200 feet north of the condominiums the landscape transforms inta a steep (40%o+)
hillside with a grassy/shrub vegetative mix. There are two cliff bands above the candominiums.
The highest cliff band is a limestone depdsit, while the lawer cliff band is sandstone.
5.2 Natural Resources:
The closest water body is Booth Creek, which is a perineal stream fiowing ou# of the Eagles Nest
Wilrlerness Area, Boo#h Creek is approximately 400 yards to the west of fhe praject site. Air anrl
~ water resources in the area are excellent. The shrub and grass habitaf above the Aspen stand
adjacent to the condaminiums is critical win#er habitat for bighorn sheep. This area has been
f:\evetyoneVussVnemoVockeir 4
propased for a controlled burn to improve vegetatian for #he bighorn sheep. ~
5oils on the project site are coliuvial consisting of a sil# and gravel rnixture. Due to the steep
slopes above the project site, soil creep has been observed abave the project site. Debris flaw
in the Booth Creek area has been an issue, aithough the project area is not in a mapped debris
flow hazard area.
6. Environmental impacts and ProposedMitigation;
6.1 L„and Use Im a~ cts:
The propased wall wouid be located primarily on the Boothfalls Nomeawners pssociation
property. Nowever, the western most end of the wall and the west end o# the east wall would
extend anto Parcel F. There is currently an underground water tank and above ground water
treatment facility on the site. Given that the wall is required to protect the adjacent residential
area and that an existing berm exisis on Tract A, a waii would not be a significant impact to
adjacent land uses except #or a visual impact that is described beCow. The wali is located Iow
enough so that it is partial4y screened by the Townhomes and the mature Aspens in the area. It
shouldalso be acknowiedged that the Booth Creek trailhead is within 400 feet of the proposed
walls. The waCl will be visible from the trail. Nawever, the view of #he wall should be partially
, scceened by vegetation and topagraphy.
6.1 Water Reso urces
No wetlands ar o#her vvater bodies are directly adjacent to the project site. Booth Creek is to the ~
west of the proposed wall but should receiue no direct impact from the construc#ion o# the walL
There is the potential for sedimentation of drainage below the condominium site due ta the soil
disturbance that will occur as the result of the construction of the wall. Approximately 1,753
cubic yards of so'i( will be excavated from the sifeand temporality stored on #he siteadjacent to
the road. All but approximately 300 cubic yards of this rnaterial will be used for fill #or the wall.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts will be minimized by installing silt fences directly south o# #he
edge of disturbance for the project. In addition, sil# fences will be created around any temporary
stack piles of dirt. Silt fences will be inspected and maintained on a daily basis. In addition,
"bumper bars" will be constructed to remove dirt o#f of heavy equipment as they exit the site.
6.2 Air Resources
Dust from exposed dirt will be possible. A water tank wi41 be available on-site tn reduce dust
pt oblemsfiromconstruction. In addition, dieset fumes firom heavy equipment will be visible.
Diesel emission should not create any significant health hazard but could be a short-term
annoyance while heavy machinery is warming up.
6.3 Impacts to Flora and Fauna
No known endangered plant ar animal species exist an the site, Approximately 70-80 ma#ure
aspens will be remaved as the result of this wail. A landscape mitigation plan will result in
revegetattion of impaeted area with native grasses, 85 Aspens, 15 Colorado Spruce, 30
Junipers and a variety of shrubs.
The only potential for wildlife impacts is ifi a Bighnrn Sheep were to be cornered on the south side ~
of the wall by a dog. This could endanger an individual sheep if this occurred. Based on
discussions with the Division ofi Wildlife, there shouid be no significant irnpact to the 8ighvrn
f:\everyane\russ\memolrackeir 5
.
~ Sheep population, since they tend tn inhabit the grassylshrub area higher above the praject site.
No other wi#diife species should be irnpactedby this project.
6,4 Noise
Noise impacts will be primarily limited to the adjacent dweiling units. It is possible #o have BU+
DBA generated from the heavy equipment during constructinn of the wall. Constructinn would
be limited tn #he daylight hours. However, heauy equipment will be operated wi#hin 30 feet of
dwelling units which could create an annoyance during operation.
6,5 Vi ual Imnacts
A wall of this nature will have a visual impact. However, because the wall is close to the
buiidings, the visual impact will be primary felt by the residents that are being served by #he wall.
The wall will be vcsible #ram the North Frontage Road and #rom other residences in the
neighborhood (See Attachment 3). Visuai impacts are significantly mitigated by the close
proximity af the condominiums that wili shield most of the wail. 1n addition, the landscaping plan
will aIso heip soften the appearance of the watt. The calor of the wall is proposed to be-pewter
(gray). A description of the proposed biack materiai is included with Attachment 3. lt is
recommended that the Design Review Board review the color to ensure that it blends into the
landscape as much as passib#e.
~
~
f:\everyone\russMema\rockeir ~
~
AttaChmellt 1
ColaradQ Geological Survey Report ~
f:\everyoneUuss\trlemtrlrackeir ~
~
_''L MINI
'RU C+(~NA)o ~~T`~C~'N
Ni~-T
~`~'I'"OppS'Cl~
~r--.~~ecl fox
Colosado
°
~~AID~
C~
4
OG4GPA-
by
1on~*,an L`
e
~olorado G~~logica.l~ ~
1313 She~~'' s~eet> g0~203
~C3 ~167
Ph- 89~ 2174
(303)
~
Booth Creek Rockfall Report, Page i
~
CON'I'ENTS
Page
Introduction Z
March 26,1997 Rockfall Event 2
Hazard Assessment 4
Rockfall Mitigation Optians 6
Rockfall Aualysis and Design Criteria b
' Recaxnmendatians 7
Current and Future Actions $ ~
Appendix A. Booth Creek Rockfall Hazard .Area
by Bruce K. Stover
Appendix B. Rockfall Mitigation
by Jonathan L. White
List of Figures and Phatos.
Figuare #1 Site map and ldcation of March 26, 1997 rockfall. 3
Figure #2 Screen dump of CRSP slope profile 7
Photo #1 Booth Creek rockfall saurce area 4
Photo #2 Top Cliff rockfall source area 5
Photo--#3_ __Close-up of tap ciiff` source area 5
Phota #4 Location of proposed mitigation at Condos 8
Photo #5 Lower cliff above district ta be manitoxed 9
~
" . ~
Bnoth Fatls Itockfall Repdrt, Page 2
~ INTRflDUCTION
The Colorado Gealogical Survey has assisted the Town of Vaii in assessment of the rockfall
hazard at Booth Creek since May 1983, when a severe roekfall event occuxred there. Since then the
town and property awners in Vail Village Filing 12 formed a Geologic Hazard .A.batement District
(GHAD). The District has rnitigated much of the hazard by the canstruction of a ditch and berm on
the slope above the residential area. As far as the Survey knows, the ditch and berrrn con#`iguratian
has been 100% effective for rocks that continually fall from the clif:fs of t,he IvSinturn Formation. On
Nlarch 26, 1997, another very serious, potentially lethal, rockfa11 occurred that incurred substantial
damage to the Boath Falls Condominiums that exists to the west of the GHAD and outside the
protection envelope prouided by the diteh and berm. Under the auspices di the Critical Geologic
Ha.zards Response Program and our caneerns expressed in earlier invalvernent, the CGS catz assist
the Town of Vail in assessment ofthe hazard that the condomirdums bear, options for mitigation fnr
that portion of slope west of the ditch and berm fierminus, and design criteria fur said mitigation
systems. Included in this report are two appendices. Appendix A., Baoth Creek Roekfall Hazard
Area by Bruce Stover, is a report on the generai gealogY, geamorphalagy, and the mechanism of
rockfall for the Booth Creek site. Appendix B, Rockfall Mitigation, is a short paper on types of
zockfall mitigation systems that are available.
THE MARCH 26,1997 R0CKC"AT,,L ]EV'ENT
~ At X 1:20 p.zx7., a ledge of Minturn Formatzon limestdne at the highest exposed outcrop of the
upper cliff, just below the exposure of glacial til1, failed similariy ta that shown in Figure 3 of
Appendix A. The ledga dimensions that detaehed and toppled is raughiy 20' x 8' x 8'. As it fell, it
impacted and bxoke additianal rock blaeks from outcrops below. The rock mass bzoke apart as it
tumbled down the clzff: As it fell down the slope, the rock fragments randomly fanned out such that
the path of the rockfall formed a swath more than 500 feet across where they carne to xest. See
Figure # 1 of this report. The locatian of the rockfall source is shown by arrow in k'hoto 1 and #2
azzd the scar easily seen in Phota #3.
Approximately ane third ofthe swath of ralling rocks were retained by the ditch and berm.
See Figure #1, The remazning twa-thirds of the event carne to rest, scattered around the
condominiums. The condo strLzctuxes reeezved three rock impacts and several near misses. Rock
sizes ranged from 2 to 5' feet in average diameter. Surrounding the condos several items were also
damaged or destrayed, (i.e., sma.ll haul trailer, trampoline frame, small woodcn deck and chairs,
wood walkway). Of the three impacts, one was minar and the other two major. The minor impact
was from a -3 foot diameter rack that obviouslyhad slovved almost to a stop upon impacting the
westernmost condo structure. The rock came to rest3 aminously so, next to a large baulder fram an
earlier rockfall. A major impact, alsa abaut 3-4 feet in diameter at high velocity, had just missed the
ditch and berrn catchment. The rock impacted and smashed the corner of the easternmost condo,
snapped 4ff the side balcony support, and destroyed a trampoline frarne alang its path before corning
to rest in the subdivision below. The third arid warst impact was a 5} foot block that broadsided the
~ eastemnast condo. Suffieient rock velocity enabled the boulder to smash through the outside wall,
interior walls, and the floor, finally being caught in the crawispace below. Luckily the resident,
whose bedroom this rock smashed through, was not home at the tizne afthe rackf'all.
Bootlr Creek [tdckfall Iteport, l'aga 3
Booth Creek Rockfall Hazarcl A?rea ~
Vail, Calorado
r, Areal extent of rockfall impacts from
i rc f$~ 3i~, 11:20 pm, 3l26/97 event.
Rockfalt Source: L'[mestane~bed at highest
point of upper cliff. See companian photos
in report. Location not shown on town GIS
~ lilap.
.~ft489~ b~92.t3 ~
O
one inch = 200 feet
*
~
'~s,~
,a ?
~ ~Sk 1 zt gn '~a ~ v
'I`Ile berin was 1 00% effective fot° that
portiotl oE~tha 3/26/9~7 event that fa11 info it:
7k~ ~
'
~
. . x 395
'
. L.Q ~ . ~ ~ .
~
'p
E119.5 0 . . ~'h
y' 3z 8422.5
eaURr ~ X e421.5
x ` ' •
5t. x
Q310.6 ~
X ~
ATHt. ~ f1ElD . . 4 . . ~
X ~ . ~ ~
~ 6338.8 8339.8 (
rtA
X. i'MKM7G k $537~.0
~ .IS3J8.3 6336,a k • . ~
r" 6S",~6.V
t
O .J L.O. g3YA,S' .-..~r.,._. f 40. X
x X K 8132.5 3332:5
x ~ c
L' Igu1`e ttA. x ~ x dJ31.9 '
Rooth I'aIts Itcscklalltlepart,1'age4
The CGS made ati i3litial inspection of the sitc "C'htirsclay, Marcli 27, 1997. Our preliminary
~ assessment was that it appeared that tlle ledge hroke away relatively clean ancl the 17azard i•isk in no
greater or less than the day before the rockfall; wliic(i is to say that roclcFall caii occLir fram this
soiirce area anytitne. It was an our pi•eliniinary iiaspectioti of the ditcli ancl beeii7 wliere we
discovered thlt an eat•(ier rackfall event oceun-red, eitlie;r ca1•lier this year- ot• soiiictii7ie aiter tlle tawn
last cleaned the ditch oLZt. Several rocks (!~4 foot dititileter) hacl falletl and5 by litliology, caulc1 be
dififerentiatecl £rom the Marclx 26 event (satlclstone vs. limestoiie). T13is ?•oclCf`all c7ccurred witlYaut
ariyone's lctiowledge because the eiatire event was coiitained witliii3 the clitcll aa3dbei-tia, Friday,
Matc1128, 1997 an aerial recol-inaissance was candticted of the sotarce area a11c1 wliile the prelirninary
asse~sment has not charlged, we reiterate that ?•oclcfall of sirnilitr magnitucle will continue at fhis
site. Durilig this inspection we dicl see several loose i-ocks on the slopes a17ci roctc featut-es with
qitestionable tang-teriii stability.
HAZA12:D ASSESSIVZENT
In a ranking oI`a rackfall hazarcl the parameters are source area, a steep acLelei•ation zone,
proximity of strizctures to both, and histai•y af rack:fall iiitpzcts. In two aspects the coticioininium
lacation is worse thaia most of the special rlisirict to the east becactse the upper clif E is iiiare fiilly
exposed at this location (it is nlostly soil coverecl to the cast) aiicithe slope belween anci below the
, clifCs steepen where the slope curves aroiinci into 13ootli Ci-eclc Va1'ley. See 1'1ioto II1 and Tigure #l
map in Appenclix A.
~
T1ie r-nain source area
~
fC7r BOOth Fr'Ll}5
Condominiums is the ttpper
cliff. `Fhe exposed, lower
r!~
cliff of sandsione reduces Iza Y'~
heiglzt as it firencls to the ~rF
narfihwest. PlZOto lt7 and a
close-up phota #2 show the
~ ,~M•~,t.,-
extent oI' the uppez el%ff
wliere i# is i7ot soil covered, They reveal a benchy cliff of
beds oflimestone, thin shales,
ar?d minor sandstone. It is the
dense, harcl, gray limestone ~
that creates the ]argest
roclcfall boulc~ers ii~ the Bc~oth i
5~.
Cleek area. The repotl byB. P3iota #1. Baoth Ci-eek rackt`a11 source area. Natee?ilargeiiient aFupper cliff StOVBr i1z Appe1ldix Aexposure and corresponding rockfall sotzi•ce area, rioi•thwest of the ditch andpxovides ftirCher in-dep#h berrn ter-n,inlis.
discLission on the source areas. Pilotas #1 and #2 also show tl7e exposed shale slope, betvveen the
. cliffs, steepening to the left. The general lack of soil and vegetatioi3 suggests tlzat this slope is haider
~ and smootlzer, compai•ed with the right. A further clase-up, Photo #3, reveals limestone blocks,
pedestaIs, and leclges, defincd by the crisscrossing joint pattern, being uu7dermil7ed by the quicker-
ltuotiaFaiJs Rockfall Report, PageS
erociitig i1iterbecldeel sllale partings. Alsa in I']ioto 113 ax-e severa1 slurIIped aiid isalatedlimestone
bloclcs o~n the t-aek slope tliat liave tiat yet f311en, 'I'1ie historyof repoz°tecl rockfall events af Boafih ~
Creel< afilti the pliysical nattzre of`tlie slopc i1ierits our assessrneiit that, BoothFalls Cond~ominiums
is in a sevcre re>clcfiall hazarcious arca.
,
~'4~
i
..,y9
~ ' 4 #G
` '
n {f~r~t'~
3 zt~_
C T
1 1~~, 7~ * ~ W~~MIt "~~Yy'~~ ~q+^~q'"~ ~,~,j~, -~-k ~ ~ ° s~ ~ e
4 " . , ~ "f ~y~?~~~• N,i.. r K ~ : ~`4 ~ r lr,~. ~ ~~~µ'ry ~
; ~ . ' j.L""~-?y~~ 1-~ .~{~7' 3 .
f~ E
1~.'
. i. g{{ f~ 7 1~,+~ c` ~ °txj.~ ~''~t # ~~a fj i.t q il.~` i^ } , .
"it
~,y' s~,trF ,1"` j, { ~w• 5 [ P`. . . . ~
,~~.t s'i ,r.,~: .$s~ i?~~',~. 12~v:
I'11ota #2. Top eliff raclcfali sc,tirce area. While arrow marks IocaCiot7 oi`Marcli 26, 1997 rockfall.
rx
74.F ~ i eihte' a
{ ` {
x w ie. `4 r f
~
M,i p 1~,~,{, ID s~ ~ r ~ ~ vkr's'~ ,~u x • ~Ss ~ ,
~ -.a a Ii~p ~~.~~i~
S
1V
~
441 ~
3 { 4 1 3 f . 1 3t
Piioto #3. Ciose-up aerial view af source area. NoCe ledgy appearance with jaint defii7ed blocks ~
ujiclermined by erodiiTg shale partings. White arrow A marks scar f'roim March 26, 1997 rcrckfall. White
arrow B marks rock pedestal that was hit by rockfall and inay be destablized. Note laose biocks, marked
by black arrows.
Booth Fails Rockfali Repart, Page 6
~ RC1+CKI'A.LL MZTIGATIUN OPTIONS
Appendix B contains most of the recognized fozms of rockfall rnitigation and protection
devices comrnonly used. R.ockfall rnitigatzon is divided into two types: stabilization ofthe rock ma,ss
at the source area to prevent rocks from falling; and rackfall pzotection systems that acknowledge;
that rocks wi11 fall but structures or public areas are pratected from the impacts. At the Booth Creek
site stabilization ofthe rock mass at the source area is not being contemplated for several reasans.
They include:
1. The saurce area is in the USFS Eagles Nest W ildemess A.rea;
2. Source area stabilization at this site would need to caver a large area, be labor intensive,
require technical rock climbing skiils, and helicopters far rnabilization that would znalce the
project cost prohibitively high;
3. Source area stabilization conslruction activity wau]d present unacceptable risks that rock
could be inadvertently knocked down, by workers ar equiprnent, onto the residential areas.
Rockfall protection systems that will be considered at this site are ditch and berm
conf'igurations and impact barrier wall systems. Fences wiil not be considered because they can have
high maintena.nce cost and generally cann.ot withsta:nd high impact forces without being desirayed.
' RQCKT"AL,I, ANALYSIS and I}]ESYGN CRITERIA
~ Proper analysis of the hazard for design purpases zequires accurate slope geometry and a
determination of app:ropriate rockfall sizes. For the siope geometry we used inforrnation gained from
aur earlier investigation for the special district rnitigation, the Town of Va.il CrIS 1;2400 scale maps,
photos, and the USGS 1:24,000 scale map. For the rackfall size using the maximurn size boulder
that is fgund on site would be prudent. We used the Coiorado Rockfall Sirnulatian Program (CRSP)
ver. 3.Oa for our analysis. Four ta seven foot diameter boulders were modeled, and weight was
calculated using the unit weight of limestane. The analysis seemed ta bear out observable results
of rockfall in the area. Bounce heights were highest on the cl'zffs and at the transition to the lawer,
softer slopes the rocks begxn just ta roll. The critical design factor is the high impact energies
developed by these larger roaks. A screen dump is shown on Figure #2 of the CRST' program slope;
profile. An analysis point was chosen 30 feet upslape from the condominiums where the slope
breaks to a grade of 40°lo to 54%. In modeling xockfall with CRSP we arrived at the fallowing
bounce heights, iznpaet kinetic energies (K.E), and velacities at this analysis point.
RoCk Rock $ounce KE(max) KR(avg.) Vei.(max) Vel.(at!g.)
Size Weight ft. ft-ibs. ft-ibs ft/sec fk/sec
4` sphere 5058 3.0 1,040,000 800,600 98 83
5' sphere 9878 2.1 1,900,000 1,400,000 95 81
6' sphere 17069 2.0 3,Ot?flr000 2,300,4300 96 78
7' sphere 27105 1.7 4,600,(300 3,300,000 89 74
4'x1' cyi. 13272 1.7 2,500,000 1,700,000 93 74
5'x6' cyl. 17775 1.9 3,600,000 2,400,000 94 76
~ 6'x6' cyl. 25600 1.9 4,900,000 3,500,000 89 74
G'x7' cyl. 30000 1.8 5,700,000 3,700,000 90 72
13ooth Fnlts RockfallRzpori, Fage 7
:11
S
i
I
rrk
l
•
.
i i
Figure 2. Screen dump of GRSP pro-ram of Booth Creek-west side. Analysis point arrow is 30 feet above
= condominiums. Horizontal and vertical are not at the same scale.
RECOMM[ENDATIONS ~
The follawin; recammendations and design criteria are based onmacieled rfllling rocks
analyzed at 30 feet upslope from the condominiums, so are only valid at that point on the slope.
Mitigation design shouici not only insure that rockfall is contained but also t11e inYpact structure
remains sound and does not require castly reconstruction afterwards. Thc CGS recommends that
design eriteria for mitigaiion at the eondominiums should be capable ta withstand and retain a wflrst
case scenaria, which is believed to be a boulder in tlle bto 7 foat dianzeter ranbe. An examinatiori
af the source area; the most recent rockfall, arzd earlier research done by Stover and Cannon for work
tl7e CGS did in 198$ seems to confirm this scenarin. That translates to a rollinb rock with an i~rtpact
force af 5,000,000 ft-1bs at the anaiysis point. Besides withstanding the impact force the rnitigation
system wauld need to prevent any rock that encounters it fram clirnbing and overtopping, or
bouncing, over. The impact faee should be vertical and have an effectzve height that preven.ts
overtopping. Design height will be specifzc ta siting of the stnzcture. At the analysis point it should
be na less than 12. These design parameters da nat take into account smaller rock fragments that
separate from larger baulders. During inspection of the site following the March 26, 1997 event
there was evidence of smaller rncks snapping off the tops of Aspen trees, 25 feet high, near the
candos. These rock fragments do not reflect actual bounce heights but display the hi~h rotational
velocity of the rack and the centrifizgal farce actin~ o~i fragments as they detach. Options ta mitibate
these hi~hly random rc~ck fragrnents are izmited to moving the prc~tection system farther up the slt~pe
(which will change design criteria) or constructing a Iow capacity rockfall fence at the top of the
berrn or wall.
~
13oo1h Falls Ftncl:tit41 Rcport, I'age$
Q[11y a StQlit, pPQtE'.CtltJll system can be designed at the criteria stafed above. BoC11 •~z ` ` ~ ,
ditcll and berrn systems ancl
rliertial impact barTlet"s, ot' a
coiizbin1tion of botli, cati be desigiled for #lie sifie anci be cost
"3' •
effiective. Nd rockfal l fence on
the market can prdbably
vvithstatlc3 the irnpact farces that -Iryt~~w•~~'=~~.•
are be'rng contemplated. Tl-?e
roclcfall protection must be
designed to begin at the raatl 41
aCld eXtend tfs the SOL1tI1ea5t t0 a
point w1iere sttffcient overlap
exists with the existing berm
above, a lengtlz no less than 350 fi
feet. Rocks that skitt the edge of the top bet'm mt15t l7e caugl1t Phottt B4. Locatioii aFproposerl inipact barrier orberm sitc. Noteby the lower. See Phota #4. At accumtalation of racks in existii7g ditch. TI7e largest are 5 feet indiai-neter.
thc high itnpact velocifies znci
~ carresponciing impact forces botli ditcli and herni anci reinForced iitipact walls will i»ed ta be
carefulCy designed. Zn aclitcll ai7d beriii aption acaY•cftll look vvill be iieedeci to c(cCei-uiitae w(iethet
the berin afonly cotnpactecl soil wi11 hnve the slretigtll to witlistaird these 1or-ccs. 7'l}e eartlzen berm
may need tobe reinforced wifligcotextiles. A rockfalliz7lpact barrieioi- eartli wallwilliieec1 tqbe
reinforced vvitll geotextiles in lifts of $-12 inclics and lizive a wicitli rio less than 10 Ceet. We
rccotnmcnd that the Town of Vai1 retain the CCS for revicw of the initigation ctesigr? and our
approval be a canditran for design acceptance by the tirwn.
CURI2ENT AND FUTUR.E ACTIONS
14dverse or higllly variahle weatlier preveYited the t;GS fro~i-i cioing a site inspection ofthe
source area immediately after the Marci3 26 event. Later this spring we plail to conduct this sife
inspection where the failure csccurred and examine those impacted rockfeatures be~low tliat maybe
of qttestionable stability. DLiring our aerial inspection we aFso fottitd a rock feature above the speciaI
clistrict ditch and berm tl-izt may require long ternz monitoring. See I'l7oto ##5. While we believe this
feature will not be a tl7reat for many years it bears watching becarise af its size. Ii'this feature were
to fail the volume crf tlie fail wouid quiekiy overwlzelm the capacity of the ditch and overtop xt. We
will provide the Town oF Vail a supplemental repoi-t based an our field studies later this summer.
Far the interim, residents ofBootli Falls Gondominiurns who are conceriied abaut their safety
. can take pxecautrons to lessen tlleir exposure to rocktall lxazards, t-1s stated the larger i•ocks arc
~ basically roIling wllen tl-iey reach the condos. Tlie safest area in these ccrxidos presently is the topfloor on the side facing dnwnliill. The worst case rockfall inzpact can put a big liole tl-iraugh a
Bootli IAaIIs Rockfali Report, !'age 9
+ &
~
~
+3
y`A
~
* `R ~ "d.• p~~ ~
~'Y~ ~ ~11rc r ~ x~fi{~t~~:'.~q/ .a ~ ~,e
w
j t,dlk"~w,
~R."4~
f Nu-
.~..R~..w..
E'tiottr #S. Lower santlstone cliff above district ditch ancl benn. '1'he CC,S wi11 visit this
feattu-e this spYing and install iiioveiiient gauges Cor futur-e motiitor•ing.
strcicture anci possibly cotzdeinn it, but probably will not tear it ciowii. Oat- advice ta residents is tliat
t13ey rzot establish livipg areas where th»y speiici the bEi]k of their tinae, sucli as bedroams and tl-ic ~
sitting areas of living rooms, aglitrtsC tlieexterior wall lhar faces upslope. 13edrootns shotilclbe
moveci upstairs a7id/or beds placed against the wall Caciz3g downhill. Do a3ol place beds directly in
front ol, or belovv, winclows that #'itce Lip1ii11. 'I"he IIoiiie Owiiers Associxtioiiand 1own of Vail
should act qLiiekly so that tiiese stl-uettrresare protected fi•oizi the liext rockfall of simi]armagnitude.
~
,
~
~
~
~
395
~
,
.I.1oo1H CRELK .11~cKFA1.~L HA[mw .~~~REA
Bruce K. Stover
Calorado Geological Suxvey,1313 Sherman Street, Room 715, Denver, CO 80203
Residences sicuated at the base of the valley wall at the nnouth m thick clense, tiatd gray limestane unit resting above iG The
of Booth Crccek in Vail VaItey aze exposed tn varying degrces of limestone is jointed sn that subangular blocks (.5 x.6 x 1 m) con-
rockfall hazard (Figure 1), 'i'he haz.ard ranges from low Co tinnausly detachfrnm the beci and fall aff the slaping cliff edge.
' moderate for shvctures near the iimits of the xuuont zone an fihe These limesione blorks are commonly iuvolved in the mrrre fre-
valley floor, ta vezy high for some residences constructeci ia thc queniiy recurring eveats that can aften cause damage to struc-
lower part of the accelera.tian zane at the base of the cliffs. "Ihe turcs in the runout z.one.
area was developed prior to the time when Vait had ade.quate A thick shalc trnnit between the upper and Iower ctiffs has ~
geologic hazard maPPmB or wniug cc?mpleted. The roc;kfa11 weaWezed back #o a 68 percent slope. Tbe shale is saft, claYeY,
har.ard was thus not ideutified priar to devetapmenL and shaws evidence oflocalized slippage and small slape #'ailures
The groblem was invcstigated in detail after a major rockfall which probabty occtrr dnring intense zaimstQrms ar heavy snow
event in May 1983, caused serious ciamage ta several strudures. melt Wery suyall mud£laws appear to start on #his steep stope
In the years since the original hazard inve:stigadon vvas con- and spill ovez the lower clliff edge. They axc capable of disturb-
ducted, several more sigzuficant rackfall events have occnrred; ing or initiating roc.Yfalls if boulders happen to be in their patbs,
bou2clers have destroyed tunber patias and log retaining vwalLs, or are restitg near poinis of iniiial failure.
ciamaged exteriar walls, and smashed campletety through struc- Above t6is soft eroding sha2e is a thicker cI'rff-farming unit of
tures: causing considerable damage to interiars and furnis}ungs. the Robinson Timestone. This beci of dense, harri, gray liffie-
~ The town of Vail ancl affedeci property owners are current- stone varies fram iS to 10 m thick in the stuciy area and is the
lypursving a means and framewark for administering desig,n and source for the largest rockfall boulders encountered in the
constructian of protective rockfall structures and barriers iu an runout zone. The limestone txiuldezs that detach from the cliff
attempt to safeguard the residential area. are quite resistant and tend nat to break up or shatter on their
way dowaslope.'I"he largest boulders £ound in the runaut zone
Geaiogy of Rc?ckf'alI Source Areas appear to be derived from this upper cliff-£arnung limestone.
The shale-T~ npon wtuch the upper limestone ciiffs rest ns
Z'he geologic make-up of the cliffs atiave Vail Village F"'iling weak and by ertuion undercuts the nassive limestone ledgcs,
12 is shown diagrammatically %zt F'rgure 2. Sedimentary strata ex- creating pedestal-h-ce blocks which eventually tapple off iheir
posc:d' in the r,liffs are part of the Minturn Formation of Middle perches. The limestone is jointeci such that lblc>cks appraximaCe-
Pewisylvanzzan age, and inciude beds of sandstone, shale, grit, ly 3 m x 12 m x 12 m are separated fram the clliff aud tilt out-
conglomerate, and limestone. The beds strilce N85°W and dip ward taward the cliff edge. Tliianer beds within the limestane
15° to 18° inta the valley axis. The lower ctiff consists of shaley cliff produec more slabby blocks that, if not turaed onto their
saudstonebeds about 12 m thick resting on a weak, f~ssile, rapid- edges by chauce during the initial fall,.remain f1al=side dawn on
ly eroding black ta gray shale. The sayadstone unit kas two the steep slopes.
prominent joint sets strilcing N85°W and N550W. These joints An eraiing slape in p,laciai till rests directly above the ctiff-
combine to separate iarge slabs and de#'iste the cliff face angle fortning tapper limestane in the northem part of the srudy area. ~
visible from the valley be1ow. Above the sandsione is a soft, fri- The eroding slope periodiically sheds smoath, rounded granitic
able coarse sandy cong,lomeratic bed 1 m thick which weathers boulders which tumble down the cliff into tlie runout zane.
to a smooth raunded ledge and continually undercuts a 0.6 to 1 Other areas of this till farther east along the cliff appear reTative-
7 V _
1~ Il
r
~ *`~~.~f~ ' , f ~rf~
t ~ I a ~ ~
_ W - . - ~~r~ ' ~ ~Il{ JI i< t.. ~ '~,~1~' .
f'p . ~ ~ ~ J~ ~ 1~~~ ~ ~ t ~ 1 ~l d ~ f~ .
w , ~ / f ~ I f I, )j , i ~ + ~ /
t r %r~j ~ f ~f ~C l~~l ~ ~t_ "'~r~ * _.,.~..:1-`..- i.
(}tJC}
10~
..ill
'J y ^ r.•~.~r'•.~M' ' ~ ~ ~
, ; i f ,~j • ~ J.. ~ ' ` ~r"' . ~ .
/ 7 i y • • yC'Y---.... ~ / .,,g3 'r~ ~ .
l} ~ ' ,i'' ' ~ ~ -=•l\`` - -
j j r ~ r 4 a $t \ . ~ ~ ~n ~ ~.~5 ~ ` - ~ r ~ ~ ~ • ~ a
9?00
~,m~ ~ r ~1 ~ ~ ~I 7~ ~ . r~ ti~ ~ , t~J-~..~"~..~`;"A_` .
~ e^ z',.~'' O Y . t /t ? I !t y""".`v \ t, , ~ .
+k'-
, C" J ' ti ~ 1 ~ ``ti~'. f
1 ~ljl ~ t~}+~~~~ f~:~~~ ~ ~ ?y, .
t.* Vf.IY+ ~ r! f rJA~ ?,'%•''r`?'' ~ ~ '
~s,~
hoW
i ~,cd'~Gt~'`~5~ .S~~l"
oE stu es to but ~~~~~s
~4 is~ sE'a~~ ~s a,ticax?-
~ ;t ~ ~,r~t~
. dclu~&l~'~~ T°cks to ~'es~ ~ d~ S1~~t%on°and da a~',~~ uts
ades O~U Co3S ~~,y xo11 O+~
~~~,~at act~r~~ ~p;~~ tvs~ as sou~c~~ tono~o~~
a;1~s
~y stabl~, ~,~atzr,~~3 t° ~ .~~r vextical ~tox?e av,d~es ~ca~'~
~~1at~:e sy. ~;~~~tetuatt~i ~~r~ G'} ~ civ'~~~~ v~the~~~t~u~'-
t.h 'Y
lcs~r. s~.~P otl~er ~ac~~ ctiff c~~ ~,~'75 sx~) abc~ a~
~ A~ -~rg of ~ve~l s ~ ~ ~ elev~.tio~. of ar ~or~ ~ ~4,5 to 6 d til~ ~vtr~'a~ oxstt~ ~e
t at asy 15 t~~o~nt~e cotaseh ~~~~,Cy~d~%xs
slop~ ~entle slap~ ch star
~ deta v~z ~?d $aattet, b~loW {.V1~~~ sCeep tb$
~~~.~;ately 9,450 t°pP ~ p~°a~j~r~tio"~ vextica~ cl~~
~~~a:le 1~spo abt~v~*~ to m
"~tion p~~~ulclcxm aa~~ ° ~O~ d s1ab`°~
c~ C~ c+~ lo ~d r~k`1 0 ~,~ind~• ~vortical ~ $ ~
o1 ~ C a~?~;~~~os#
uLh~est S ~ an~~~°~ ta~?~ o~ ~oulders 1~~ og,ach fxc~~ 1oWeX G~ ~
`Tbe~teep .~~~t'~S~F`a~u? ~ h~,~°~'~1 ~ nt."~?~ slOpe rirtd%ca~lY ~,a off ~ ~tact p
s~e
ft (,~5~'~ abt~uaYe aita~ned ~ ,~ape c~f 5~3 p~xc~ ~ d bOund dowal°~T b-ut xem~ '
e~ ts averag, e~) on~ t~'e a'~ d,~ Uot shatte ~ b~1 ~e f~
i~
-al S?p~~ ~ ~ a ~;~xal o A,S PeTGz ffi~"LatPly . ~C~C~5~3.Ct.'~'J ~ ~ ~ ~~j~0 O~ I~SGY~~+
~
can Yre out ~~e ~ s~ P~ ~ Tbi~ ~T ~~ad U~' ~`n~, bcr~dexs''~ ~ri ~ ~ne. ~ xesCi~~ t
ca R~; Of ~e ,~,ey wa~ung Ospen ,,~e m~~ ts ~ x ti11 s1cs~ Gladec~ go'uo bc~'W
f°°t fauly sv'~
~ d'`nsio~. sn ~'Pp~ c
Qadeci xe~~;~a~: cliffs cnmo t° rest + T cli'F£ sheds $°u~
T
de~elopofallaz~S ~~am '~'e 1~ ° of th~
of rocks of 55 Forcent'~ 6~ ~ea.~o
~,~e. .ao slc~pes ~,nvxr,~
~~leration ~ ~,~%ately
B) ~;ut aud steeP~~ ~t can xexna~' at r~t °
of
Wadess
ERUOW GLACtAL TKL 397
~ a • p'.
{fCPCll.:
.
I}
V1.rJ1F~#.. a.'WVIl4E AJIEA . .
vr-f p~.r~ . ~'}F7M..G
•
1"K~i..EL.4Mt iOs7t74aJPG
. O.°' i~
. ~y,. ,s^-A„
N"". "0~.~?' "'~'ur. .
'v'~.~..r.~ .~.s+~~
r'r'.,r.i ..'s~.~~r '~+.."-°a." ~
"Y~.r..s y~-~„vu ~"""N..~+ ?'Y~y.. ?
` LC}MVER S1kkc3STONE ~ r---~
LEDGE
M . , , i. • Yr ~ -r.~
ZCLIFFSSANDSTONE
ACCELERA1'FdN Zf7tdE • ~ y~ - ~
Jr1~.L 1~ C~yt~n~~/~ ~ °`"--°.w..-'-°' ''v°v`
1..~~7w~~~~~t ~G~lii?~JIlR7 y '°...---'~`."""'e..-.~~~ '"'~„e.`""e..r-~ .r,?,,."' -~.r "r
' ' BEDS
..-r s~.M ...~-~p,..+ r..~.l. ...~"y ..M'
~+~1! ~~n~IVy~+,M VIY t~~ .,e,.r~~ yn .r;,,_.,. .•-`.r,,. ry ..--'s-,.,e r-
tirV#^a(4~~+Va-V~ r~ i°~,r..°.~--a 's°r-' ~.,---y ~r-~....-~~,,..
r"s °'~..r-,- ^°°"„y ~'"'..r~ -~n°-°"'° ~~w'" r~°~^ '~s?~ s
E1?`~.l7J1TR/f~
~ i1 ~ . ~ w°°~~ "'a ^""Y~"""..r ~ ~ "f~'°• "°y?' r •
RtlNOUI' ZONE ~ SLt7PES ~ ----.,M.= ---.d...-
RESIi}ENl"1AL ~ • ~ y.' - ° .y,~ -
~ry-~~~t~.~~t~~~+
t.. ,.e,u~ ,,.v..~ .r~ ..r--y,.,, r_...-•
....--~r,,,.,, r~,,,_ ..,-,uy_ ...d^r.,,. .?r,~, r-.~-~.....-•-e? r-
J(~~Vts i iJf1L+:J .4
~,/~~.D~~ERryS/ IN
If VW)J~\l1,7 ~ AL G r^~~"'-•
.
" ~ ~ D . ~ . • . ?.a-
F`igure 2, Geotogic diagram of compournd rack-fall slopes tu study area. Drawn to scale with no rverticsl e.xaggeratiau. Note dIp o[ ~
strata toward walley.
downslope which roll and fatl off the cIiifs. This till bifferential;weathcz-ingafshaleshasundercutthemareresis-
slope is considezed to be a part of the nppcr source tant overl}ing sandsiones or iimestoncs creacing a horizanCal
area, goove or overhang at the base of the c.liff wbich removres sup-
- port for the rocks ahove. Eventually, the overhangYng ledge be_
Rock!`aTt Mrchanisms cames incapable pf suPlSOrting its own weight, anr't falls or tap-
ples from the c1iff. If the overhanging slab has alieady detached
Several naturai geoiogic and topographic fadars +cambine to forna the clff along joints and is reszuag precariovslyan the sbale,
cause rockfalls from the cliEfs expased on the north valley wall undercutting and differential weathering accelerate the process
a#' Gore Creek in the study area. These fadqrs includc joint pat- which finally results in inevitable inPplinS of the slab. As the
terns, differentiai weathering afvarious rock types, dip of strata, Iarge sIabs topple anco the acceieration slopes telow, they uusual-
an.d the siape of cliffs and accelezatioa zones. ly shatter into tuany smaller boulder sized chuaks which ac-
celerate downslope to the runout zone. The-taPPlinB maY biS;
ger adjacr-nt wostable paTts o€ the cliff ta fall as we1L
Jaintiug and Differentaal Weathexiug of CIiff Faces
Dip a[Stt°atat and Topagraphy
roint patterns in the cliff forming rocks are causcd by stress -
relzef and physical properties of the resck. The joints so formed The dip of the roclc ledges making up the source area also
define pianar, vertical cliff faces aud act to separate Iarge sec- contributes [o resckfall along cliffs in the study area. I'he strata
tions of the eliffinto stabs atongjoinissubpara21e2 Co the cliff fam in the twa cliffs dip approximately 15 degrees inta the valley,
tJnce a stab has detaehed from the sedimentary bed, it begins to causing any loose stones, ccibbles, ar boulders on the ledges to
creep ouiwards owing to gravity and frost wedging in the jaints. inevitably move riown to the edge of the 16 m verticai ctiff.
The jointis widen with time, aud are often wedged farther apar[ Limestone blocks separated from their beds by jainting and
by tree roots, axd smaller rocks that fall izito the cracks formed weafhering creep down ioward the valley along these dipping
by the joi.nts. (Figure 3) bedrock surfaces (Figuxe 5). Rounded giaciai cabbles and gravel ~
. ,l
.........--r-
.
, . •
~ ~ ~ + +r~' • 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ r i . '1
• • r. ~ • ' ~r. S ~ ~rr.'~ ~ ~
_.T... .i ~~1.,,`,~, ~ • ~ . . ~ " , `t~ ` 4. ~ ~ ~
• ~ ,~j- ~ i
~ . • µ + ~ ` • • ~ R• .
~ ~ i ` . ~ , ~ ` ~ ` . _
'
~ • . . . a
. • ~ r
. . . ~....s.- ` • .
• • ~ ~
v...-- -°"~..,...y~ • .~k'^"'v..' .~,,,W„"' .r ~
~
a.- ....w"'~,.. ~ rr ---~-~~A,,,,,
.?'0 ,e„~ ~ t
, . 5. r-•-
~l ~rs w • ~ ~ ~ s +r ~ ~ • n+ • • 1 + "t~ a r r+` t d s
j~/ a + = w • ~ ? • 'a . ; . . s .+i ? i •
~ .s ~ . i • . + . ti.a.~• .
• s ? ~
~ w ? ~ ...,,.,,lol.~ Q : ~ • r"" i
l• ~ + y~n~qf~ i J~ ~ • ~ i i rr
~ ! / ) s ? rY
i V Y~..~'"` ,,,~,y
~r ~ a ~ ~ ! •+r~ .~.r + ° ~ ~ {i
.
~ • ' ~ ~ '
r'~ + • . r y~,,,,.. . . i •
~ j ~ ~r~y ~ ~ ~ ~
V
a,~,,, , { r----
r
0 ~ • •
. ~ : . . ~
y
Y ~
~ .
Flgnm 3. ToPpliug SWb-t'ailnme Saquwrr. L InttLat eliff coa6guratfon. 2. Diffemttal weathering oC soft shalc begius to undemut
massivc cliff forniing slabs. Joints ogen and widen duc to slape creep and #rost wcdging. 5prings issue from contact beneath r:lM
3. Unclemtting conttnnes. Jotnts rridea aad are wedged open by smaller rocks, causing stab to tilt ontwards. 4. Slab talls #mm ciiff
#`arx onto accrlera#iau sTrupes, bring.ing dawn averlying.roclcs. S. Siab tappl+es and shatters, showering ruaout zvne br:low vvi#h
bt>niclcrs, az?d exposing ne.w? dilt fam to erosion:
~
itMESroNE tEnGE
.e • ~ ~p , .r
0+ ~TILL . ` ' ~ •
. a- • • ~ •~r i . ' ' ;.,.._.-x ~ ~..a,:,i •
~ ~ .3._.r.
~ LIMESTONE • tl ~
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- ~SNALE
Figure 5, Slope crecp causing limestcrne blacks to mave down
beddiug planes and off lowei- cliff edge. Blocks axe generally Z
~~~~igure 4. Limestone slabs restiag on wealc shale pedestals, ft x 3 ft. This me~chyanism is responsible for'frequent rock falls
ppei` clifi source area. in the study area.
`f v
399
OLDER ROCKFALL BlJl1LDER FRESH R4CKFALL Bt)Ui,.DER
Itt+ICCCktSiST"EliT ~
DEPRESSIC?N N4 DEPRESSION LNSCOLORAI`OC1NSC
IN SC}It~
P1TTEt~ EDt3E3 EXPOSED
GRAMtTIC BOULQERS WEATHEREi)
IN TILL •
SURFACE .
SOIL PR4FlLE t xx. ~ ' : 3{•.'~•~; ~
r,,~,. j ,p~ •ti~ . ; i
-4'
~t • ~ ` . d
+ + p
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ • ' VtrFl.LllYflM
'r' a" • ' e>.`
~3. t t~. p.e .e
# # + 7ILL ~ ~ . , • i
~ ? .
.A ,
s~ s
~ d
L_:.~ + ~ • • ~ • ' • ~ ~s
~!~/~y~'
~ ? p ,
SEDT~./~?n
Figurc 6. Playsir,al differe.aces betveeen rockfall and gladally depositeti boalders Ln.runaut zoue. Rt?ckfall twulders arc aIt limWsiane
or sandstone, w2iila glacial lwulders am mostiy ronaded granjttte or nutamorphic lithnloglest. Nate #2at sail cxl`ists i~ellow rodrfall
ba>nlders, v~ltile if is absent beneath giactal boulders. ,
slough ddwn along the dip stopes and eventually fall into open direcdon radiating fram he poiat of initiaZ fall. The pattcra or
' cracks formeci by jaints, wedging slabs farther apart. traj(dory a given boulder cauld follow is so unpreciiaablt that
The glaciated walteys of Gore and Baath Creeks both possess it is nmpradicai to delineate individual hazard zonrs based an
reiatively ffat bottoms and steep nearly vertical sides. The slopes the physical conditians of various segmeatc oP the cliff foes. in
are so steep that anee a boulder or slab topples from the cliffs, the prescnt situadan, hazard zanes are more pracbieaUq rr.lateci ~
it usvally cannot come to rest until it reaches the lower foo#slopes to horizontal distaace fromGG the source areas, zanes'farther avway
Of t}18 Vi3Rey Wt11I. Ari CXaminattOn OEt}1C rilriOtlt ZOIIC SZtUYVS LhBtt ezpericncxng a sznaller prabability of being encompassod by a
large boulrlers aud slabs have travelled onto and acrass parGs of g'tven evenL 'T'his approach yields an approaXmately radial series
the valley floor due to the tremendous momentum they acquire of zoaes radiating out from the source area; the more scvere
in the accelcration zone. hazards ate obvioasly closest to the c]zffs. It shouid be poanteci
out, howcver, that any arca within the cxtent of the ronout zom
Factars Triggering Rockfalls is subject to some degree of rockfall hamd
Most df the rockfaiLs reparted in this area apgear to be re- Harrard Zoae Delineation
lated to alternating freeze-thaw canditions. Events have oc-
curred at night in winter, spring, and fall, after warm days of Varyin8 degrees of rockfall hazard sevcrity. caai be ap-
melting have introtinced xunoff into joints and fractures. UPon pro)iimated by examination of the nature and posiz'soas of
fre:eting, the ice expands in the cracks sufficiently to togple an bcyulders and slabs in the runout zone. Each large boulder was
unstable block. Some events have also occurred an the other side examined to determine several factors which wete uscd io ap- .
of che cycle, as sunshine thaws the frozen cliffs, releasing a pra)trmate the extent af the nraout zone, and esfimate thc time
precariously perched block or boulder. spans since each rackfall boulder came ta rest. These factors
are:
Hazard Classification and Zonatiou 1) Whether or nat a boulder was of rockfall origin or
glacially deposited. _
The rackfall hazard associated with geologic and 2) ~etherornotarackfall boulderwasrestingundis-
topographic conditions and the proxinity of dwellings as turbed in iCs original positic?n or had been maved by
described above is cansidered to be severe. The majority of large human adivities.
baulders found among structures in the runout z.one have fallen 3) The physieat nature of undisturbed rockfall boulders
from the cliffs. Fietd study indicates that the quesdon is not, with respect to basal contact, (resting on surface, ezn-
"Will significant rockfall accur?» , but rather, "What is the reCUr- bedded, partially covcreci, etc.) and lichen, moss, ~
rence interval between significant rockfall events?", and weathering patterns on exposed surfaces.
Acceleration slopes are so steep and smoath that racks 4) The camparative size distributions of boulders
#raversing them are fr.ee to deflect and skitter laterally in any vvithin the runoui zone.
t
. ' 400
Rock.f'ali Versus G1aciaI Origin of Boutders AdditianaIlp, the moss and lichen grovvih patterns, if any, are in-
consistent with the present orientations of the bouiders, indicat_
Tn order to determine ihe exient of the rockfall t°uuoui aone, ing that they havc been moved a#'ter the patterns were estab-
~ it is necessary to deternuue whetber boulders encc»untered lished. DiscoloratiazY..c oE the disturbed bouldez's caused by soil
belaw ihe cliffs in Vail V'Wage have fallen from one of the source contact can be observed on the sides ar tcrp of tliose wftich have
areas and cume Eo rest on the surface, or if tbeywere transptyrted been pushed over aud moved. The 6oulders nften leave trails or
in and deposited by ice or outwash during Pleistocene p,lacia- marks where they have been pushed aIong the grouuti, creating
tions. This disLinction can be made by camparing the character a sma12 berm of scraped up soil along one of thf,-ix basA edges.
of boutders found embedded im undistvrbed glacial deposits Ilndisturbed rockfall bdulders do not show £resh gouges or
with the limestone and saudstone boulders derived from the sccapes, have consistent lichen and moss grawih patterns, do not
cliffs (Figuxe 6). Glacially deposited boulders are mostly showsoil discolorations on theirsides or taps, and are 4ften sw-
roundeci to subrounded smooth granite or metamorphic racks raunded by young bushcs, aspen trees, nr natural vegetatian,
which are imbedded in the surroumd;ng glacial deposits. The ex- which has obviousiy nat beerr disturbed. The pcrsitions of these
posed surfaces af these bc3ulders aze almost totally cavered with totilders can be used tn more ac;curately groject the minzmunz
lichens and moss. The heavy Iichen cover and other well lirnits of the runaut zone, since they can bc inferred to have come
developed surface rock weat.hering £eatures such as pits and to rest in their presenl positions after falling from the cli£fs.
etched re2ief of iudividual mineral g,rains, suggest that these
bc>uIders have been in pla,ce for 20 to 40 thausand yeazs. The gta- Factars Used to Approximate Ages and Recurrence Yntervals
cially deposited cobbles and baulders are 85 to 90 percent of Major R:ackfali Events
granitic and metamarphzc rock types, and very few limescone ar
sandstone cobbles or boulders cau be found in the Ull. This is Certain characteristics exMbited by undisturbed rockfaN
due to the fact that the only source area where valtey gIaciers boutders and sfabs iu the rtmou# zone, suWst appro)cimate or
cauld scour and incorporate Iimestone bloeks is a narrow band re2ative tirne spans sinr.e ihey came to rest after falling, and give
of rock one mile czpstream from the ruuottt zone.'I`he extensive a rough estimate af the recurrence intervals between large slab-
upper basin which spawned the glaciers is composed flf failure events. The contact made by a boulder with the stxrface
Precambrian igneous and metamorphic litholagies, which suggests how lcang tkie rock has been xesting in it$ present poai-
make-np the vast majority of the rock types encountered in tili tinn. As the length af time increases, the rock will tend to press
deposits found in the rockfatl runout zaue. Tn contrast, large in#o the ground, and slope wash, sait creep, and fxost wedg.ng
~ boultlers and slabs of rockfall origin are angular or poorly will act to fli in azound the base of the rock with:soil materials.
rounded, rest direc.tly on the ground surface, cio not show an Rocks whictc have beeu sitting for long periods tend to be some-
equai amount nf weathering on alt expc7sec3 surfaces, and are al- what embetided in t2xe soi., and if mtrved, would reveal an inden-
most exclusively iivnestone or sandstona. A few granitic rockfall tation iu the ground. Rocl-.s whic}a have recently faUen rest
boulders are also preseaat, and are derived from till in the upper directly on the ground surface, and may lie on bzush or small
satuce area. These differences were used to map the Iocatians trees they have crushed beneath theni. One can push a stick
of large bonlders of rackfall origyin and determine tbe ap- beneatla the edges of such a rock in some places.
praximate limits of the runouC zone. Oldex rocks also have more consistent licben gcowth patterns
than recently maved racks whzch have deiached from the cliff.
Recentlymaved rocks maypossrss dif.ferentiallyweathered st# w
Disturbed Versus Undisturbed Rock#'all Boulderrs fac.es, as a result of their farJUer positions on the cliff: Tf thraw.
baulder acquired a surface weathering and ct>lor pattern wEtic
Once a specific boulder was identified as being of probable on the cli££s, it is unlike2y ta zall ta a stop in the same posi#aon,
rockffail origin, its pt>sitian on the faot slapes could be used to and the surfac.es which were previously agaims# the grcjzzand or
predid the nature and e)(tent of ttxe runout zone. A pzobiem with facing joints may still posscss a characteristic cotoratian coi-ay
using the ppvssitions of zockfall boulders'in the subdivision and trasting with older, exposed weathered surfaces. Conszderable
adjacent areas td deiineate the runout zoue is tha:t many have timeisnecessazyfornaturalweatheriugprocessestoremovethis
been disiurbed and moved fram fheir originat positions during ctiiscolaration and create a new uniform surface color on Lhe
develbpment and construction activities. Many of the baulders rack.
are tno large (sozne wezghiug up to 15 tons) to be moved easily,
even byheavy equipment, abd it is assumed that theywbre moved Distribu#ian oi Rockf`all Events
aniy a few feet to several tens of feet from their origiuai pasition
in arder to carry out construction of roads azad building founda- F.xamination of the source area and ruuaut zone reveaLs t'lat
tions. The accuracy of this assunaption is not easiIy determined, two basic fiypes af rockfall evenes take place uz the study a. c;a.
and the present positians af the clisturbed boutcters as indicators Thef~rst and most comrrson involves szual2er inc3ividual boulcitrs
of runout zone and , ha=d zone characteristics are not entirety geueraNy in the (O.S x 1 m) size range, vyhich detach f.-om
~ reiiable. sedimentary beds and eventually fali from the cliffs. "These falls
Disturrbed or transported rockffall boulders always showfres}r comznoniy involve scveral boulders, many of which are set in mt3-
gouges aud abrasittns caused by heavy earrth moving eqnipment. tion after being struck by the initial falling rock. T'his type of
401
~rinor rockfall is comman, and based on examination of the to determine the best places to site the protective struciurm
runout zone and.cliffs above, can be cxpected to occur everyone One apprnach would be to causiruci individual proteciive struc-
to three years. This is the type of rockfall which dceurred in the tures for each building within the ruunut zone. Alternatively,
lor~ evenks ofMay 1983, January 19$6, and September 1987, single large structure above the subdivision mighC provide Adamaging sevecal structures. Many rockfall events gu un- mnch protection asrd create less overall disEurbance to the arm
reported unless significant damage ta structures accurs. The structure would have to be carefully designed and con_
'I'he second type of roekfall is much less freqnent, bui of far structed ta be free draining and to prevent adverse snow or ice
greater danger and destructive pcrtential. Tt involves massive slab accumulations frozn forming abflve the protective barrier. Sitang
failures of the cliff faces, along joints which libarate large (4S x a community type protective strrtcture appears to be feasa~ble if
6 uz) siabs and (2S x 1S m) limestone boulders, showering them based an the detailed siting stutiies which would be neces,5ary ta
onto the acceteration slopes below. The nexx rockfall of this mag- determine the most suitable location. Tn either case, costs for
nitude will almosi certainly result in extensive damage or these structures are est.imated to be on the order of 0.75 to one
destruction to structures in the runout zone below. million dollars, and couId be higher. Unfariunately, these struc-
An imprecise preliminary estimate of recunencc intervals fnr tures wauld do little to prevent larger bnulders or slabs derived
these large slah-failure events, based on exa.minadon of the through toppiing failures from destroying structures in the
source area and undisturbeci rockfall boulders in the runout runout zone. The energies passessed by such slabs ar baulders
zane, is on the order of 40 to 100 years. Large baulders set in are simply too great to contain within the restrideci space avail-
motian during these events can travel through the runout zone able between the source areas and existiing residenr,es.
as far as the maximum probable limit. An estimate of the la,st oc-
' currence of this type of event, based an the freshest5 undisiurbeci e
' rockfall baulder in the nuiaut zone, and weathering patterns nn RE~'i'ERENCES _
the cliffs, is on the order of 40 to 60 yeaarss ago.
Poteutiat Solutions to Rockfall Hazards Mears, A.I.,1979, Colorado snow-avalauche azea studies and
guidelines for avalanche-hazard planning. Colorado
The feasibility of protective strudures and ottier preventive Geologieal Survey Spe+c%aI Publication 7,124 p.
measures were evalaated during the study. Rotiusoq C.S., and Associates, Geolog`rral Consultants, 1975,
' Smatler baulders commc,nl fa~ off the lower cliff couict Gealogic hazard maps for envirc~~nental and land_~ p~_
probably be arrested by proted7ve strudures built near the ning, Fag1e County, Colorado.
R~~, W.~'y et a1.,1974, Guidelines and criteria for ide~
lower acceleration zone t~n property within the platttx~ sub- cation and land-use cvntrois of geolagic hazard and miaeral
division.'Y"he structures must be capable of absorbing the cner- resource areas. Colorado Gealogical Survey Special
gies of one ton bouldars traveling at 50 mph, aitd wouid probab- Fublicatian 6,:146 p.
Iy involve energy absorbing matcr"sa3s hetd withia fimtfer or rock Sheltan, D.C., 1974, Rockfall: wariable$ which determine the
cribbing. Maintenance of the s#rucCures would be necesrtary each hazardw Unpublished repcyrt, Calorada Geological Survey
tiime a boulder is stopped, sinee the energy dissipaCion will Gealogic hazard fiies, Denver, Calorado.
damage or defor.m that part of the struchire invnlved. It is Tweto, Ogden, and Lovering, T.S., Z9'77, Geatogy of the Min-
probably nat feasible tt? build an azmoring wall or other type of turn 15-minttte Quadrangle, Eagte and Summit Counties,
structitre which attempts to arrest the baulders thraugh rigid Colorado: U.S. Geolog'ical Survey Professional Paper 956,
strength, due to the extremely high momentum rocks gam 96 P
through the acceleratian zone. fibe uugredictable paths and pat-
. terns followed by reseks skiCtering down slope makes it difficult
~
* T ~
~
APPENDIX B
~
~
a a .
RV t?KJ1.'ALL NU11GA11VN
Jonathau L. Whitc
Coiorado G-eaiagical Survey ~
IN'TRC7DUC7l'I(JN 4, Proximity of the structure requirung protec-
Rackfall is a gealogic hazard that is catastrophic tion to sauzce area and rockfall run-out zane;
in nature. For the znost part it is viewed as a nux- 5. Level of required rockfall protection (the
sance by highway maintenance personnel who aceeptable de-ree of risk),
are required to clean the debris off the roadway 6. Cost of the various mitigation aptians (can-
and periadically clean ont the fallen rocks with- structian, project managernent, and design);
'rn the roadside ditches. V1hen rockfall accurs in 7- Constructabzlity (mabilizatian difficulties,
pdpulated areas or areas frequented by peaple, eqniprnent access, and ather constraints);
lethal accidents can occur. 8. Future rnaintenance casts.
In general, rock#'a11 occurs where there is , For any public or private land use proposal,
souree of rock and a siope. Within the rock in steep slaping areas, the geologic hazard
mass, discontinuities (bedding planes, joints, investigatian shouid initially recognize thase
fractures, etc.) are locations where rock is prdrte physical #`actors listed above. If rockfail has
to move, and ulCimately, faii. Depentiing on the been identified as ahazard then a detailed rock-
spatial orientation of tihese planes of weakness, fall hazard analysis is warranted. The conclusion
failures occur when the driving forces, those of such analyses, in additian Ca the deternnina-
farces that cause movement, exceed the resisting tion of the factors above, must include:
forces. The siope must have a gradient $teep 1. An accurate determination of anticzpated
enough that rocks, once detached from bedrock, risk and frequency of rockfall at the loca-
can move and accelerate dawn the slape by slid- tion of the proposed land use, and; ~
ing, fa)ling, rollzng, andlor bouncing. Where the 2. Szte specific calculations of the velocities,
frequancy of natural rockfall events are consid- boundinb heights, and impact forces far the
ered unacceptable foz an area of propcrsed or ranbe of anticipated rockfall events.
current use, and avoidance is not an option, Unce aI1 physical characteristics and calcu-
there are techniques of mitigation that are avail_ Iated falling rock dynamics are deternuned then
able ta either reduce rockfall rates and prevent the appropriate engineering and design can be .
rocks from falling, or td pratect strnctures or compieted for mitigation of the rockfall threat.
areas af use from the threat.
There have been important technolagical ROCKFALL M1Z'IGA.TION
advancements in rockfall anaiysis arid mitigation 'j`ECIIN`IQjJES
techniques in the last several years. They The available teehniques in effective preventian
znclude roctcfall sitnulation software, rock and mitigation of rockfall, fall into two cate-
mechanics software, and research and develap- gories. One is stabiliza.tidn of the rock mass at
ment zn new, innovative mitigatian techniques. the saurce to prevent or reduce rockfall occur-
This paper emphasizes mitigation techniques. rences. 3'he oCher is the acceptance that haz-
There are.,many factars that influence a ardaus zockfall wi11 oc.cuur, but witl the place- selection and design of a mitigation systern to ment of protective devices to shield structures,
reduce or elimznate a rockfall hazard. They aI publ'zc areas, from the threat of zmpact. There
include: is a third category that, while not a farrn of miti-
l. The rock saurce (Iithology, stren~th, struc- gatran, is a method that can diminish the cata-
ture, and weatherability) and expected re- strophic nature af rockfail. It is rackfall warnin-
sultant fallen rock geometry (size and shape); and instrumentaticrn systems_ Systems, electrical
2. Slope geometry (toPograPhY); and mechanical, that either wiIl indicate that a ~
3. Slope material characteristics (slope surf'ace raGkfall event is imzninent, or has just occurred.
roughnes$, saftness, whether vegetafed or
basren);
28
StabWzation and Reinforcement the dowel accurs only if the rock mnves
~ Techniques that require in-situ or surficial treat- {slides} along the jainC plane. (See Figure
ments of the sloge to induce additional stability l.)
to the exposed rock mass are tezmed rock andlaz S. Rockbolts. Rockbohs are installed much
slope stabilization and reinforcement. Stabiliza- like dowels but are usually loaded or
tion can be accomplished by any combination of stzessed, which imparts a compressive force
the follawing: ramoving unstable rock features, ~ on the rock. The Ioading af the steei rod
reducing the drzving forces that cantribute to during the installation increases the shear
instability and ultimate failure, andlor increasirzg strength of the joznt or fzacture and pre-
the resisting forces (friction ar shear strength). vents movement, reinforcing the exposed
. 1. ScaTing (hand scaling, mechanical scal- rock mass. There are wide varieties of rock-
ing, and trim blasting). Scaling is the baits, ineluding znechanieal, groated, and
removal of loose and potentially unstable binary epoxy resin systems.
rock from a slope. On slopes of poar rock 6. Steel stzapping. Steel strapping, aisa called
conditions scaling is benerally viewed as a mine strapping, is a strip of steel that
continual maintenance procedure because bridges between offset rockbolts or dowels
the Ioase rock removed axposes the rock to support tt2e rock mass between them.
undemeath tp further weathering. 7. Anchared wire tnesh er cable nets. Fence
2. I:teduce slope grade. Laying a slope back wire or, depending on loading cziteria,
can prevent roclcs from faLIing frnm a cable nets are draped an a rock slope and
source area. anchored to ihe rock mass by the bearing
3. Dewater ar drain rock slope to reduce plates af rock dowels or rock balts. The
~ water pare pressures. The installation of anchor pattem is set so that the wize mesh
drainage holes in rock can reduce the pore or cable nets are.in continuous eanta.ct with
~ pressure zn rock fractures----one af Che dri- the rock face so that there is complete con-
ving forces znentioned abave. finement of the Ioose rock material. (See
4. Rack dowels. Rock dowels are steel rods Fib re 2.)
rhat are grouted "uz hoZes drilled in rock,
generally across a joint az fractuze in the
rock o£ aznfavorable arientation. It is a pas-
sive system in which loading or stressing of
ni:.'•~ik? •s;t5~':;#:y.';:2~5:~ ~tt2;?=.~`:::'
2<:i'u 'Y... ~ n<y'~ri::, .:.'•A1,
Nx
~:;"<,:a.;sx w-c r ~N ` :.a•. ~~:t:$.b^~`n
~.,_,4~y h}~~. ~:?....J::n+.
u~:r.,a»~ : ~'~•CY'r r i '~~.~C .
syc.G.~.~S ~1C1:9~f:• c"".~"/~~'i:i'~L$'.n
~v+3i i 'kK• f: ~ ' ~i }JY+ ' '~'~'iiW C R
±`:~:~fl`si .~`a{~"4~ \..i~~S4'i' i~ t~ . "~.t%+,`.~.C.`'i'`~ .f%vk+.~:%k ` ?>,S•yf}w•.,~~'d~
t`~r'~;~%'3~#~. `auti.i'f' ••~.~i":'v'~ ~::~~k'`'`~ ;:~C,uys;.~`
¢f,~`?i~ ? ti: 'h 'F"'~fi':~ n'_ }n~ Y~.• ~:$n:"''' -
,~.?'2~f • rYf ..:~'.fY~'
?H':Y'i>~~.. Y{ih~~ ~ , ~:iN~ ~iCY~:!+e.~h.b?Y?~M'~..1~
: 4,. ,l.>r •yg <ry+ . +t ; • ry.~':,4,:v 2%ti •J ~ ,
~z:L•~? ;ri;,ur.5~ .r'st v .~~:.?w:e a:<;`a:,:bsk'~" { ,'t .ti 4`•y.`'K~'~ :~z : ~~s
. ~ 4, :y,r,:a,:.,.: .,c;,i~+~ 7 $r.. •;'~Yy u^.iv'•+n.
:~:'.f fi„~:;:~ >f~`~`.' :'=A':~r`: ~y'~:•'.~,<';:~~`''~` f~~^+~'
i•, a~o"'" S rs>:
, ~v°.•,`r/., .,y.' .M'+`„'.,~ :yF..r.~:3~ n~ ~u..f~ z
j:l:~s+~~`l~'~:~f~yvS~~Yi:5~~5'~'rn,n, yt`,X•f~r:~: ::k':.1"'<S~,;µ4%^}A?F ~~r~.}r~~.~^
.~r,..,.. %+,'F.. ;vN :G:a.q>.~: ::~r,.';,},~:'.';~• .,.3..,;y~• •~;'fi~
? ~:31~' vtii~$.v?:~. ~ 'w, vve L^'y.~'n.:`./,'4v.~t•..j:...~}.+' ~'v~+ ~"n
•6: ' .'n~~ ;`fi'~ •7.~+
t.,{:,{ e:q''~M,V`'.gY..;~;,iv~:•:tt, r;. . , ye:i.'tip':..,.
v,:s... ,'i.,.''~%.`,{^~',..::..;' ~'X.::?•::a:•:• s.sh
i~i3`.•~:~:>%::`:a;... . ,v,:F.v~Y'
• ~31 ::n'f<:::;:+::Y i
n"oy
R.lf ~
~i'M'~ .
u~.
.+..x• '`~r'E`~:^:<~~ _
.vY.., •F • . d. _
uJ'?.^r ~V N :1~: ibMV••.
%`L~ .•u},:i ~}il•,::}}`vi : _ _ _
:''•'r., . .e.f.... _
.~L~ ..r....,....:.. . ,.~,s.. _ _ _
d.a•: C'/ k. .
' ,i'F.?:•• di'.Y~
'{~O'd ~T•. it.. . ~9.~i. :
vSr' .FS:. . .~'hNa. h!:n~•
} ~ :1''::':itfitt:; v'''• .
w'iy., v:.l~.:: v`'.`•?~^i `v'f t". :QS:+' ..!1c'. xY..i4...£,.:
i.:il:.r :L.t' ~ i4'•.~,'L'pi ri}:: i•:'f.!'ryy 'a~3'
%9.,`4:. <i:li^:''-i i`s ti.'iv,`•'"`' .:Y ..a. .nrb°.
;:~,1,:~`'.°,~. r ~ .t~~:t :':tixe,.:.y:.n:: . ..}Sb. r ~.,u't~G
w %n$"~'i•,~.,~:'?•i•%~.v.
. '~:N~.. +S • •`~O%~H.'~i ...u.J:"v'^:: .
NvS~^~~i:t.. `'~'i% .:i. ~iY.... .\.•~~+i.~,
..•yv ~ S ?a,~.,'+.a~':i~ ` i.:.: : :.''l.•s..
a ,•,u " y ' v.s..,~ . :.;~i.;..w:}a.4.., "~.c~~•yA:
;dir.' <s i ' iv.::..>:~ :•`o...... . ~ .
. » s.A
:~Tr v. % .l
M~
ya:..,<..; i:
%~rc: r.r.... .t v
: ..'•f:;: ~°:`r''~"i •.l.k. . ..t.±r..:..,.: , . M ..a: r
~+7A` .f .xc~"+~::. •
: .u . f
nl`viSS.. .:}Y?ti i"i.u..v'~is;u.. • ~'rc :}$i':+...., ~°i.
.'y'r~.: Sii`:'i:.•r:Y:%::l>:f:i~' n\..
. S•iRL::.:m?". •:av.
5~...
v iYyll.ii.:n••i:-:i,:;•,::
+%'`':Y?J:~i:vY:e ::ly:::;.'^<J ' .,~•y,~ ,
z... ; :
~:.c .
y np
nbrtX '
~ t.';%'
+'~i':< 'n\Y
%'::~•i•s .t.
.p..+~'T . \ .
+'~1.~.: '.,6......v.}.......:'$:~""<"l.•`
{
.K,... f
.
;;.;:s. ~''v,~r;;. >i~'• :M,9d'
'`•.'•S•:.
..o
}.f:i'~ •-.^.Lr ::.Y s<'~"
;«..;`:~?::2::';.~....~ : ..:.<)?s . ~~1£. ...z:'~.;•>. ..c'r' ~ :S$id;.. ..~^{.;?k~• : ~
. f.:..
..:n~•r:..-30;;?.::;'~.,.~ ^',a..:,,$
.~n4x. L !;•y,::~: ~i
.t ~a~
•R .
4 .u°•
h
. ..,sy.. ? ` , Ss.
•••xa.~.r
~,'v_•}'./:i~ i'+i:Q~t i,:K"v i?.IU+Y4l'~f~'.y`:¢ r {hp'h?~'.ry'~}. ~>*.~.,~.m~~~
•.,d•:. y~ ~ :i~•. :::•'l.•:;J .w.
. ~L ~•,i•+: . r . 5.
v. i'M ~is,?'n~\: X N'j a'.y,. ';t^ •
~
..n.: ,va. :ss ^.>bw ':'t:~'' .c::•'•.....
.4~ . vf t:•.t::~ h ~+i;5a
..k' .'.~i •iCt•. ~'i~l:i+e v~i . .+n}. .
r~. nrv ~ E
S:^.:
..a ~
w.Y.
v..t..
i..
~'~rr Lf.• .
~'~i' i. • /fi • ~ 4
. +.'M?~?:'• ' / :t~.~: i.\..i . 8t'.p f.. +1}.
k:'~+ ''i.i'~. +~'v. •W:^.
;
ai+G~'.: ..+f .4¢.:%'r vj:.• ..4.. ~h'.~Y~r~...
' :t'I... fr H'~'Yii ':2.:W: .r+} • u~iy„
~
.:~F?<v~ .:{U
...a/',,..i" v~...
~S . s.
~ i`y" v;tt
~:'.•'d.i
if~... .n,~ • iFtrr
n:"?' _
.A..n ..4
S%'~ ..~,,..~",eM'' y~ ::'^'^E;~do ~.r^s.•r1~ .
•'sv:- „s tf•
? :£...A ` N:.w...~ . :nt.
~ vt • :t~n
.".a•`.v
" •
~`:::i: 6
;~{,C:A'.:.i
.:~.i*:`•. t ~ •.~2..~•: • ' 7>'~
. .c.~'•`•:... ,,.f .
J?4t !k%
~5:^' 1..~r'r.'f•
a#
:I .u %i'l~ : :~~:ur:J•. . .r
. .?,•.Sa~~i~:o:. : •y,.,
>;:s.a~,~ss. Y . ~ ;::i~:y~'s: :..,N,, r.•..%~ •:~x..
~ ~>M.:..,~~..,n`"f... ..2.<;:c..~a~p~~~..i~,~:.'w~::<~~.. .<:i.'..~ „;4k... „c;. .~~'YP../
? ;u.+i ;6+.Y'1.'~... n~X•-
Figure 1. Rockbdts aud dawels. Figure 2. Anchared mesh ar nets.
29
8. Shatcrete. Shotcrate is the sptayed applica- installation requires the drillzng af deep
tion by compressed air of concrete on rock holes and the grouting of thick bundles of ~
or racky sail slopes for reinforcement and high-strength wire stzand, which are atta.ched
containment. Shotcrete appiicatzons can be to larpe load-bearing panels and then: stressed
strengttiened by t.he addition of nylon or (pulled) to a desired tensional load and
steel fibers to the concrete mixture, or the lncked off.
placement of a wire grid on the rock slope
prior to application. Weep holes are usually
drilled' into the shotcrete ta ensure that the
cantaineci material is free dtaining. (See .-Figure 3.)
~-0:•, ' ~a•
`f . .,~y.~r,.`"f
np'~r
-C1° •°Q E;{1.L3 T'La„ ~ gu `~'y ar~t ""a
p Q ~~Q r~. Y~ ~ 5 1~ i$:~•s' Y~`y
t ~ yA~. •tN:t ~4q
ON4~ ti1 8r.'•.;•7~7•,.'•%• ~"~k`~:%~~'.
'GZ J~
,~.''..a~~:~~
'3~'i: yr ~f~~;{~::f:', f ~'~w:'•; .
~p . ~y CJ p 4 p ~ U d..0 ~0
•D t> 4 c~ O c~ b p'~~;Qd O'`~ g~ g~ , s~.`'•?'~~~~~~w a~.,a~~'`~`: ~
::c0 O o c.~ b ~ cD f) O ~ ,.a'I., ""z. ~ ,~~j,,,,'p' t
} ` Y
fl`~ ~ ~7 I
t
``r..\~~"~,,t`~'•,. r~• . . • " ~ ;oo-,,~ s~:x
\ ^Rye Y.: ".~f,y•' r3a ~a.~'
n
f M~ .Y..,yrr} •c wetf.C/'~ ! '+(~.,9 4' f l~°'k~.~.~
`''...J'.Nl:;:;~N~:•.i~:,}4{('Ri(~'~} ''.kSLny- N.SvRMM W i . ..:9. iSJ:::?
. . P. . . . .
r.H
. . . 'v'~~ . . .
.
Figure 4. Anchored concrete Isuttrress.
, f
Figure 3. Shotcrete.
9. Buttresses. Buttresses are used wlaere over- i~~
hangzng or undermiued rock features .
become potentially unstable and require
passive restraint. Buttresses can be con- .
structed fzom many types of material. For
concrete buttresses, rock dawels are gener-
ally installed into surrounding competent Figure 5. Cable lashing. .
rock to anchor the buttress in place. (See
Figure 4.) :
10.Cable lashings. Cable lashing is the wrap- . Rockfall Protection I3evices ping of high capaciry cables around a When stabilizatian of rock slapes is not practicaX
potentially unstable rock feature. The and suff`~cier~t roam exists, protective devices or
cables are then attach~d to anchars {rock structures caz~ be cc~nstructed ta shield areas frt~m
dowels} installed in adjacent conrtpetent rackfall impact.
zock. (See Figure 5.) 1. Fences. Rockfall fences corne in a variety af
11. Ground Anchors. Grnund anchozs are styles and capacities. They tend to become ~
generally used to prevent large, potential less effective and are datnaged if not
1andslide-type failures zn heavily weathered, ~ destroyed by iarger rockfali events. (See
fractured rock and rocky soils.l"heir Figure 6.)
30
- - - -
+ c ~
R«IM,v.t. 4. Earthen berms. Berrns ate elongated
~ mounds of fiII, commonly useci in associa-
~ tion with ditches to increase the effective
«JrrCRop height and catchrnent of the pratection
o~ device. (See Figure 7.)
5. Hanging fences, nets, arxd other attenua.
TALUS tian devices. In well-defined rockfall chutes
FAT7 \
1 in steeper rock slope areas it is possible to
~ anchor cables ta span the chute and hang
` fence znesh, cable netting, or rock attenua-
tion elements. Rocks that xoll and bounce
~`i~ure 6~ I2ockf'alI ~enee. down the chute impact these devices, which
2. Ditches. Ditchas excavated into slopes can attenuates (reduces) the rnck velocity. (See
~'igure 9.)
pravide excellent rockfall prc~tection. Care xs needed in analysis and design to insure that
bounding rocks cannot span the ditch width.
(See Figure 7.) GEOSYMM-M
3. Impact barriers and rvalls. Irnpact barzier
and wa11s can he made from many types of FncaM
material, frozn f~ll mechanically stabilizeti by aFM)M;°, s°n ~
geatextiles, rc~ck gabion baskets, timber, .
steel, concrete, or even haybales. ffighway
departments commonly use Jersey barriers
an raadsides to contain smaller fallin- rock ~
~ in the ditch. "T'he inertial systems, able to - ~
absorb the forces of mornez~tu~m af the mav- ~oknwav xoc~ctW
ing rock, have higher capacities, without .
Figure S. Mechanically stabilized bacT~f'zl) barrier.
costly impact
c~tnag~, catnpared to more
rigid systems. (See Fib re 8-)
~
~
~ .
~
Figure 7. Rockfall ditch and berm.
31
i 3
R«K AVUIl)A.N+CE--
ovrcRop T'HE 100 PERCENT SOLUTT+l7N
RflC,KFAI3..
cHM There is ane more mitigation rnethod that is nei-
~ ~ srACKM rMs ther a stabilizationlreinforcement systern nor pro-
, ox PoUs HUNG teciion system. It is srrongly rectizrLmended at ~
_~aM rasLE
l locations where rockfall 'hazards are very severe, ~
xcsczc f \ and/ar risks very high. Mitigation designs pra ;
ourc~..oP posed in such azeas may not afford the necessary
C ~
Ievel of protection. Bear zn mind that no rockfall
, mztigatian is 100 percent guaranteed, even in
mild rock€all hazard zones. Avoidance is excel-
Figure 9a Tire impact attenuator. lent mitigation and must be considered where cir-
cnrnstances warrant. Any pzofessional in rockfall
6. Draped mesh ar netting. Draped mesh is analysis and mitigatidn (as with any geologic
sirnilar to the sta.bilization technique hazard) must, at times, inform developers, plan-
anchared mesh but is only aCtached to the ners, and the public that a prtiposed land use is
rock slope at the top. Rocks frozn the slope incompatible with the site conditions.
are still able to faii but the mesh drape lceeps SUGG,ESTED'READING
the rock fragment next to the siape where
they safely •`dribble" out below to a catch- Federal Highway Ar~ministzatian, 1989, Rock
r.-.vnt ditch or accumulate as sznall detrital slopes: design, excavation,: and stabilization;
f~ns. (See Figure lfl.) publication FHVVA-TS-$9-U45, prepared by
Golder and Assnciates, Seattle, Washington,
funded by the Federal Highway Adminis-
• t,::..:.. tration, U.S. Department of Transportation. ~
McLean Vir ini Reseazch Develoment
, ~ ~ = P y
and Technoingy, Tumer-Fairbank Hi„hway
::~r:.;>.....
Researeh Center, [373] , p.
~,hway Administration, 1994, Rockfall
Federai Hia
hazard mitigation methods> ParticiPant work-
r
baok: Publication FHVJA-SA-93-085, pre-
pared for the Federal Highway Administra-
x
tian, U.S. Department of Transportatipn
~ uY
Publication bY SNI International Resources,
Inc.: Washingtan, D.C., Natianal Hiahway
h
hY
}
R•. Nn~Jr
Tnstitute (NHI Course 13219)> [357] p.
} $
T
Y
. f.t
';yt~a~`n `kk''fti ~'+;~Mli:::";:;;;#;:: ":;:Fij
Hambiey, A.F., ed., 1991, Association of
~L.'G~'yJ f ~'?34irv h;fv .
Engineering ~`'realcrgists, 34th annual meet-
H, :,;..~c.~J.•w %
?"CY.'..~~k+7~~.,'^~ ~1+`vr'v;b:?'•`ri$F. ~}j +i} fM'`~i.S
ing, Chica2y(~a> Illinois> Sept. 29-Oct. 4, 199 1,
Praceedings, natianal symposium, highway
and railroad slope maintenasace: Association
YyK
of Engineering Gealagists, 180 p.-
y~y~_r~ ,r,/I,nr':~~ i i~:}::: .i!y.'i,' - u~ %'L!•`':~n4:n i: }i:', . .
Y",• t~ M' R v``"~ '~;~=°~;:u~.'~.~ Hoek7 Evert, l and Bra'(J) John5 1981> Rock slope
o.~~.
v>•~4':Y.!i!iHi'i'~:~~~:~i~•:v,ATY1:~:iyi,N,~+r,~~ vi.,~u,..,.,~.vN::..:} ..,:.:v.
engineering, (rev. 3rd ed,); L.andon, U.K., The
Figure 10. Draped mesh. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 358 p.
Pfeiffer, T.J., et al., I995, Colarado rockfall simu-
7. Rock sheds and tunnels. Rock sheds and lation program, version 3:0a. Colorada
tunnels are mentioned here only because Departnnent of Transportatian Publication ~
they are used mostly for transportation corri- CT70T DTD-ED3-CSM-89-28. Available
dors. They have little or no applicaCian in frbm. Colorado Geological Survey Miscell-
most types of land use. aneous Infnrmation Series 39, diskette, 60 p.
32
A
1
Attachment 2
n~~ring
Report from AK~` pngr.
~
~ fi:\everyone\russ\cnemalrnckeir
, ,
AKS Engineers & Associates, Inc.
7612 East Pondero;sn Drive
Parker, Colorada 80134
{303) $41-7115 ~
Oc#ober 2, 1997
Mr. Jerry Greven
P. O. Box 3577
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re. Rock Fall Evaluation and Proposed Rock Fall Mitigation Measures, Boath Fa1ls
Condominiums, Vaii, Colorado
kKS Project No. 97-031
A.KS Engineers & Associates, 1nc. has compieted an engineering evaluation of the rockfall
assessmen#s performed far the BQflth Falis Gondominiums: The purpose of this evaluation
was to confirm praposed mitigation mea$ures arid obtain data for design of.a system to
help protect the condominiums and other pubGc areas adjacen# to fhe condominiums fram
the rockfall impacts.
Follawing the March 26, 1997 rackfall event involving several large rocks, 2 to 5 feet in ~
diameter, The Golorado Gefllogic Survey (CGS) perforrned a site visit and a Rackfall
Assessment in which CGS evaluated rackfall sources and mitiga#ion options, and
performed rockfall analysis. The results o# the evaluation, presented 'rn a report prepared
for the Town of Vail, were the foflowing:
b The source was the limestone cliff in the USFS Eagles Nesf Wilderness Area.
* Source area stabilization would present unacceptable risk and would be too costly.
• The worst case scenario was the impact from a bouider approximately 6 to 7 feet in .
diameter.
• The impact face af the mitigatian measure should be vertical' and at ieast 12 fieet in
height
• The length of the mitigation measure should not be less than 350 feet long and should
overlap the existing rockfall berm.
Based on the CGS information, :current topographic maps and soil data provided by
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical inc. dated Sep#ember 30, 1997 AKS ufilized the
ColoradaRackfail Simulation Program (CRSP) to perform the analysiswith various sized
rocks on wails in different locations. Paragon Engineering Consultants,lnc. provided civil
engineering design, inciuding grading considerations on the resuiting analysis. A
sumrnary of our analysis and ealculations including our recommendations is provided in
this report. ~
- -
AKS Engineers & Associates Inc.
~ Rockfall Mitigafiion
Booth Falls Condominiums
Vaii, Colorada
DESlGN CRI1"ERlA AND Rl7CKFALL ANALYSIS:
The primary goal of this rockfall mitigation system is to remove the hazards of rockfall'
from the conciominiums and residents of the Booth Falis Candominiums. in canjunction
with this primary gaal are considerations regarding the location of the system
(effectiveness), the constructability of the mitigation systern, (loca`ticrn), distruption of
surrounding area and visual impacts of the system on fhe homeowners,
Desiqn Criteria and Considerations:
To accomplish the primary goal crf mitigation AKS utilized CRSF' to model the po#entiai
rockfall even#s. As a"Jumping Off Point " to begin the modeiing and #o pravide lagical
data to the rnodel the following parameters were eonsidered.
i CGS' recammendatians for a vertical impact face approximately 12 feet in height and
10 feet in width and #he relatiuely close proximity to the condominiums (30 feet from
the condorninium closest to the source, _ see topographic map attached),
• The most current tapagraphic map available cif #he entire area (provided by #he
homeowners) indicates that slopes near the condominiums begin to flatten to a slope
~ of 1.5-teet horizvntally to 1:0-fvat vertically (1.51-1: 1V) which aIlows rocks to ra1C and
not bounce. it is aCso accessible for construction and will rninimize cut and fili
quantities and thereby minimize the disruptidn to the vegetation.
* The source area was the limestone cliff above the condominiurns.
• Rock size was limited fio the size of those observed at the candnminiums and larger,
a range of approximately 3 ta 7 feet in diarneter and i# was assumed that the rack did'
ntit change during rockfalL
• Parameters for surface raughness, tangential coefficients, and narmal coefficien#s
were taken #rom the CRSP guidelines and cansidered the cartdition of the slopes at
various #imes of the year and when rock fa11 most likely occurs, (Spring). 1"he
ealcu(ations incfuding fhe parameters utilized are attached.
Roc4cfa0 Analysis: . The initial rockfall analysis was perForrned an #wo analysis points along the proposed
alignment of the main waH (1) the area closes# to the source, the _easternmast
candominium, and (2) the westemmas# condorninium without the wall in place tp assess
bounce height af various rack sizes along the slope. The wall was Iocated based cin
minimal baunce heights. As shown on the drawings the praposed wa11 overlaps the
berm on the east and extends to the road on the west. Once the location a# the wall was
established the remaining analysis was performed ta assess the wall height with regard
~ to bounce height
2
. AK5 Engineers & Associu#es Tnc.
RockfaH Mitigation ~
Booth Falls Condominiums
Vail, Colarado
and the potential rock climb fram ratational veiacity. Each rock of different diameters
was rolled 100 tirnes. A secand wall of the system south of the water tank area was
similarly evaluated. Typical cross-sectians for both waiis are shciwn in figures No, 3,2
and No. 3.
~ Pst
~
~r.,.
M'
I
~
~
. _ ~
Figure Na. 1: Typical crnss-section at easternmost condominium.
r
;
~
# .
~
,
Figure No. 2: Typical Gross-section at westernmast condominiums. ~
3
z
AK5 Engineers & Associates Tnc.
Rackfail Mitig:ation
~Booth Fails Condominirams
Vail, Colarado
~ t sa
,
{
i
:
f
I
1
Pill
.
, . :
`
~ Figure No. 3: Typical cross-section near the water tank area.
Additionally, the analyses were performed an varying soil conditions based on the
weather conditions and time of year. For example, a fairly heavy snowfall would present
similar conditions as sdft wet soil in spring and eariy summer, and frozen snow#ess
conditions are similar to hat dry summer canditions. The additional anaiyses are also
attached.
Slope S#abilitv Analvsis;
, In addition to the rackfall analysis slope stabiGty ana{ysis was perfarmed on the
proposed new grades and wall sectian. A camputer program for slope stability analysis
incorporating geogrid reinforcement published by the Tensar Corporation was utilized.
This program is based on #he Simplified Bishops equation #or circuiar slip surfaces. The
input da#a including soil strength parameters, sail boundary location; ioading conditions,
and phreatic surface locations were obtained #rom the soil repdrt. This program was
ufilized because of the ability to add reinforcing geogrid as needed, and was run to
simulate a po#ential deep failuce. Additionally, the program was run with "forced failure"
circles to simulate a faifure close to the base of the wail. Input data and numerical
results of the analysis are attached.
RESULTS t7F ANALYSIS:
In general the results of the rackfall analysis of the primary wa}I indicates that the
location and height of the wall are appropfiate for the anticipated conditions. Moving the
~ wall closer to the source area resulted in greater wall heights due #o greater baunce
4
_ z
AKS Engineers & Associates Znc.
Rockfatl Mitigatian ~
Boath Falls Condominiums
Vail, Calorado
height of the rack. AdditiQnally loca#ing the wall closer to the source created more
disturbance of the vegetation, increased the amaunt of excavation, and created
concerns abnut infringing on #he wifderness area. A summary of the results is pravided
in Yable A.
Table A- Summary of Rockfall analysis Resuits.
X-Sectian Wafl Height Rock size Rocks Ralled Rocks Stopped
. . } :....,.:r h..
.
ti > n
....::.,;•.:.x{.;•
'ti.Ki:d`:?:i•. .J. Y {
V
.:tv
1v: ~::~i~:i... nv.nv . •j~, k
.A::.v...:•.iis•.: ..:x`::.Y.:: . _ e....o....v.:. . . v.......
,y r..;:: <;.a:: .
'~:?i+; $.:,i:•i'
. . a::S:
>
•'.".::'t:i::::wt....>.
::~K'•:
. . . .
. h . r:~:t~;};:C,:t{?:. ::1 .1 ....t . . . r . .
1/all 3 12-Ff?et 3-FT. ~phE?C'e 100 100
7-FT. Sphere 100 100
. 4X6-FT. Cyl. 100 100
6X7-FT. Cyf. 100 100
Vai14 12-Feet 3-FT. Sphere 100 100
7-FT. Sphere 100 100
- 4X6-FT. CyS 100 100
6X7-FT. CyL 100 100
, Vaii 58-Foot 7,FT. Sphere 100 100
4X6-FT. Cy!_ 100 100
Results of the slape stability analysis indicated tha# the slopes were stable at the ~
praposed grade af 1.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical {H:V} for deep failure belaw #he waN. The
safety factor for deep fiailure was 3.06 with the minimum being 1.5 fnr slopes that are nat
reinforced. For a shaVlow faitiure that was farced to intersect the wall the safety factor
was 1.48 with the mirtimum being 1.3 for reinfarced slapes.
Additionally based on the driving force required to fail the wall and siope in a shailow
failufe mode is the wall and slope wi(l resist appraximately 7,000 Kip-Ft along the
computer predicted failure plane. Gonctusions:
Based on the rackfall analysis and the siope stability analysis the wails at the location
and heights shouid proposed should pravide sufficient rockfail proteetion far the
residents of the Booth F'a1Vs Condominiums.
The 12-foot wall closest to the narthernmast candominiums wil{ retain 7-#00# in diameter
boulders and smaller rack fragments that may separate #rom the wall providing those
racks are no#_fragment sized, Uccurrence and pathways of fragment sized rocks that
become projectiles cannot be predicted or modeted within the parameters of this study.
The close prnximity of the wall to the condominiums ailows for the retention of larger
baulders wi#hout buiiding an excessively high wall. This location also as well as
providing a stabie slope ta construct a wall and access for rock removal appears to be
the least disruptive to the natural vege#ation.
. ~
s
~
AKS Engineers & Associafies Tnc.
~ Ftockfail Mitigation
Booth Falls Cortdominiums
Vai1, Colorado
The 8-foat wall south of the City of Vaii water tank wiil provide rockfail protection for the
residents lacated south of fhe parking Iot. 7 his wall will retain a 74oot in diarrreter
boulder and smaller rocks except fragments. As the condorniniums located snuth of the
parking lot is further than 30 feet from the wall damage to the condorniniums from
fragments were not considered a problem.
Ftecommendations;
Based on the information provided in this tepflrt and on case studie$ of other rockfall
studies the wall closest to #he source area should be approximately 12 feet in height and
12 feet in width at the base and be constructed with a vertical 'smpact face. The wall
south of the water tank should be at least 8 feet in height and 10 feet in width at the base
and be canstructed with a vertical impac# face. A11 walls should be reinforced interrtaily
wi#h structural geogrid. The irnpact face is constructed out of rnaterials that can be
repaired if ruptured during impact such as structural wire forms combined with an elastic
dampening material such as tires. Materials such as modular block, ti;mber and concrete
will shatter pn impact and will be difficult tn repair. Gabions are not recommended
because of probiems with pbtential instability and ruptute.
Additiona{!y materials utilized in the wall should be free draining and granular materials
nat subject to freezelthaw conditions. The taps of the waifs and pianters may confiain
~ topsoil to provide a basis for vegetation.
As the area around both walls wik( require vegetation and landscaping after constcucfiion,
it is recommended that the tops of the walls be planted with bushes or rafher materials
which may help retain small shards of rock that may be released at impact. The planting
of #rees on #he top flf the wall is nat recommended because of poten#ial root interference
with the geogrid.
Rttached are constructian drawings that refiect the recommendations provided in this
report, For canstruction these drawings wiiJ be cambined with a drainage report,
faridscaping drawings, and specificaiion far construction under a separate cover.
These walls have been analyzed for the specific eriteria provided above. Variatians of
these eriteria should be reviewed by the AKS and Paragfln Engineering and re-analyzed
as necessarY-
We are available to discuss the detafls of this analysis with you. Please cali should further
corrsultafiion be required.
_ `do RE GfF*E'~p~ .
SincerelY,
.
. y. ~
AKS Engineers As o i tes, c*f,5 CC;
25 0
Jonathan Whife - CGS
.0•.O!6',Russell Forrest- Tawn of Vaif
~ 5 anne K. c~Y~lger~nuth, E. ~i~~~l, At~~~`
P inctipal
.
6
Attachment 3 ~
Visual Analysis of Rockfall Mitigation Walls
View from Booth Falls Rd & Frontage - Shows Existing Berm & Approximate location of wall
~~4r
Y ( 5 Y y lk ; *„f
Z
Y.
3
'„m:. . 4 ,s:i•,;k'oi~ •::1v;.~:.
y~~t.
~j~ ..Y. , ~4 { t
~ia~.
.}~Yf~C"
~~~,$~r~v
g.~~1~~,~;v, Y~ ~}G'-~ ~ 1~~'~h~~~~<.ra.,n' ..1r.t~..a;i,•: F• ' nJ yt 'J`JS~~M1e .
~ Rs~+~~'~i~~,i:~`'`,•Z:;w' 'els`; `.~°,y~.~',.'~Yi,
„~4:e"~: ;<~p,.z, c:.. Lrp;n,.?;4,,,,,~ :~;~,;%.t;y:+,~a:a~a;•~o ra~a<?f`.j .r.~'..%vti,~~,=„~``x?
'r~7R'~ .
y '~W
Lookin ; to the South from the East End of the Wall
4 ;r $~1LC t 5 4h 1 ~ ~y}$' y J "l 1 y ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~4~ i ~7~ f. ' ~'t i ~7u i ~ f ,:4 y,)
) l
f . a.
~ cr=
T~¥
~v"s
a~~ay...
Pg
~'~`y,~
!n'~SZS~q,~'f
~
- ' `g.~~,?~,::~~.. • as.~."~t2~ T. y s. ~ . , , . ,
~ ~"r~~ ! , t"'Y'il"~~~~{"~ ,M - ,x'~„~`~'•m.
y ~ { ~ • E ~
&Y . u
~ Simulation of wa11 alignmetit looking towards the west
•~u:;~~:r~;~~ *
a; r~~,x.~a .
'aw. w* ::;1'. ° ~~..::::4~',.+~:~~"~~'~.:y,a, ,A v:.;,i..~ •.~3~?~
~f n:.~,~<:, ~~s;~s?~t~'~r: •,.~3.r.,`-.~~Y~`n„..~~?`.` k+ m;;~.;'~,":(d~. 1,>~~~.~.a..~,,,,<'~z,k.:t..
-r~~~'w~5:~:~''s,;:~
y~`c
`ai~.n•.. rs.~,:.c:~ ~y~e~f',~`~~3 F~== ~t z .~.:~d:Y;,:';';;;u7;.,,~ ;;~.i
?;x ...w~.3, 4. ~''~y~,.,~ '~.."~~,;;3.;~~~ , ~ .
x~r~:''~?J~i~.Y`+"-~~j k .J- r 's"i•y _ ns~. . ~,;Y..Nfr~~ ¢,s:•.,., ,:iy'q:;:;'V's:~';.,~ ,4 t e_',{
~~;y+"5k
avsbe~~
~,;P'.' ~ J ~ r,~. t ?~F '~'!~1' ~ `'Gz:,.~. 7S~.y¢...};~..p~,•gx ~>,,.:+.'?lx;.` _
''w` ~~e . i ~ y~~{ µ $~~py','~"~r•~>4:~ucY~y''~i'x.4~t~t°-~e.~r
~ i'a'~ `iw".,'Y~f~r,•:'-3i . '
ti ;•x~~,° ~'r~'~ ~"t ,~k~~k
Y. 35
Yp y:~ iaM ~}".~E ~ k ;7~ ~ ~ ~ x'~ ~f~~p:~, t~"'~"°~ ~ 'M)e.
g 4bx .~.w~P` '
y.-`~,
~,^~,a 3,~w°,.z.<' ~ r ~ ?'~,~'t ~ o
r
~Y°• ~s ~,~i ~ ;
f,4'
Y ~ h
- -
~ ~ i, •+€n. , p - - . x ~ ~ 1'r r4"°°.`_g, X7 4'~~' .
' View from area sauth of'access road to Water I'ank
dR +:+7~iM k 'd"sF•N~~%10." MY,.~4
da i, a ~a.... ;¢Sr~.:~,: t ~'.xr.I','$ru;~ vy :pv~+mty;p~~,., ~ W°3 ~~a . r ~ur
~1 Y - •U~' j~y"S ,~a ~ ~ ~ ~"~~'~'ik+,~ X Y '~r ~ p.
-.7 i.~.,~.
y~ .ti:~ ~i., ','~'AMr.=''~~'• .1 ~w.~~dt'~j i b;~~~;~.,~,~~.~;~ q '
_ _ r' .ir~„hd ~5.e~.,~y'•
~ ti,~ C rt • i~~ $j~~ '~ht~ <
~i~p5• &~'.~.L~d:-:~i"`1t''1._.. ~ ~{~i9~b"''~,
"i.
v`~',=,b;S~.X~,~e;:;,'..-
,~N t
y:~~;l;i;k.,a'i~=~ :~'a. ;y"' a'..~r'*'., £
c,r ~
~a
4~ t~.,~nii
~t'~;?~ .'u~~+
~
3t
'~-t,1n.
.~'s~§•~ ~ h~'~YV+s.i> r'h' 4~c~aW~' ti$ ~la 4"C,• ~'%w,
'
~~..~.~~..','tYyJ9°".:r'?e~4~~t,..7,~~~„..~~yr~Z"r~
2411 s~ "~1 ~ 'k' ~,`^?"qiq~t
~ ~ ~.rs
~.<_>:.~=~,~~t~
t~, ~ ~ ~ ~n'•~'''"C. ~<~^~~.~'r`~' s~ .'t^. ynr .'~Y^
;~,R r.~„ ~4 .c: ~r~"'x`~i
~"~,"z:
~~'a<"a*.c~9:~~~~~,-,~°:k.t~..>'~a•.;,,."wtn~1o.a.~~
~
k ~
"1'ho p~ltolller! "\11clior ('iI alt~ss
III A
- ~.~Sysirm fr('Err-~, Iaiunicip;rlitit, ti, couua1ies,
l)OTti~afi(~ Int-p C'tJlilllit'I't'ki~p1'ttjt'(':{,ettll i-17(, <tt3v<<tlla~gos 4i('iradit~io~nal (-~Ist~ ~in phice, l,irllbor <iairl crib wal(s ---17ut.
wifill a voarY i1lt{3ortilllt dif'forence.
Cntei•Ioddltg li{rs or #ocalc5rti <lr.t,
lnolded into evt~ry Anchur 1)iautlontl,
A1ic;17a1- Vertica ait(l Ancllol, Vertica 1?ra
segniental ilnit. The lips ancl locators
airtoinaticallygui(le eacll new cc3uiyse
Poi"/ritft,rl ,rlte, St, l,iiiiisPanrl, r1(r~ttt~.iofrt. ~e.r!tr3ii,~,~ rl u~`/~ur• ~'et~tii~7.rtr,rr~/3t f~t~c• rrrtll~. I11t0 })laCB. Th2y e115UM j)C'bj)CI' ttIlgtl-
1,uFri"nim,zd by 11»(l)0Y 131nck Cnm/aau).
merit ancl setback,,Ancl~lnast inlpor-
WHIEE O'fiWERS Aucl<oi' roirumas firiril.v cummittetl to 1-'
DESIGN 13LOCKS, WE tailt ofa,1l-j'heyeliminate the ile~~d I`or
CREATE SYSTEMS. mi iiii{~~+;r<<1oi1 dosi,+;n pliilusiiphy. A
~pl~ns, ciips, arld mortrzr.
lflliiwlihd~v, wh;i1 Inm1lors Iiu,si iti phil„k;npli.v 1I1,1I imi wal,~prodticcs ~
(ho sum o1'ilw Autl lwhY tIumlily 1docks,knl ('ii(lifiila,;sulut,ir>ns,
JJJ,
P tlt . ~ "t ~ :k ; j ~
~•a ~ t, ~ ~ { nt~ ~,l
Y u
;
~ n
`
iV
~
~ ~ ~y~ . . ,k' ~qyi~fW{•pe~ :
.j t
4 Y
.
,
~ ` .
~
.
. . .
,
~ .
1k'itl) the nse of geosynthetii tI flchur Ditairvrul 'j irrtt~P-,rl r<<rr fl ir~ljw t i,rtitrr aud r1 ucF1or tl ruhor Uenitw Pf~i h~rs orte of lhereij~~ jorcer~~e~ttJ, tl~ti/~or Di~rr~laitcl !i(~ ~xutr;~u,rttctllyrlelii c~ sa r~uz~k, ~t~rnr~rf~rr~ reprrreiat~rl tmixs raft l~tr~~ert fr~otpri~~ta ttt the inrlirsoy. Arttl*
iait Gerlesigraed t~o attairr rrrrif~rnr selback, 10tli ru) pirr3. c& ill ki-contGntetl irt thethe »tassivefitre rlelivES3 afi¢roxrirtalely
vh•tually airy height, rlifis or t1to>ttzr: Vrirt~ ins~talltrtiort, artp Sytrnre,foot of watll arvet.
02276tANC'
BuyLine 6935
GOBD IVEWS Ft?R
JiRCHtTEC?S, ENCs1NEERS AND
CONTRACI'C#R5, ALIKE. _
~
' ~
r~on~ z~t,sign frcec3om, to ertdu~in(;
~
perfol~~~ianct~, ko ease of installation ` ` 'U
t11'chit£'Cts, GCI ~itit'Ct's atit~ co11tCaGl~(3t's ~ '11`' ~S,t ~ ` ~ ~ ~,..~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~,,G~•t~'",.l"~""~~ 1 :.r> ~~'.:c.~Y., ,+~"~1a ~~c~
~ ~1~ ~~~el~i?~~ tla~, Ai7ehor Pinless
n ~g jS~ .1 h I c C ti:v a i t F3~.
LL.E'• a 9 Y~. i fy YI~ ~~~~i Yq!;)1~~y,?!y~ 4 d~# N t [ ~ ~~~t ig.
.'yS~:LIII S1Ill~)I~jC2lCl't t)8 b{.`~1t. It'S c`l I'(`,iltjV
4 1~ ~
soltttioii fo?- residentia1 sites, commci•-
~M~~
cial projrcts, park5, sea ancl chanriel
walls, golf coLlrses atlrl highiway depart- ~
nwnts. Anchor cot7forms Go virtLial[y
tillytvall C(lllfigCit'ation, IGdeliVelTs ,1tlllkIrI l,r:ilm. 110r„1, (,.r!,,',,trll" (,.rri",,:I!{.~Ilwr,lr , l::, .'w. A);,Urm`d anrzl~~Ih'~it~3' ~tl'll~.l izl'n ~k
filfil{10 'cLCI(1 MkI& Clll'V(~'S, 90' G'fll`flt',l;`i,
:111r1 IIw (~;irl~hlmw~and
Ati(l it rises fi-o1i7 t4'h;11;s r\nwhm- unFlssuw w,l1fE-ol, rm-k frwt>mnnbi11t'toono 1'ool, f)ur(l(,i,st~~geosyntlietically
111ling,'1'Iw<y roqliir(~ lillh, ;w(vili llw NOalmiiitullr, it::
,
, . ~
f t ~ .4.
1•;iG.ii41 i ' r.k ~R{t .
4, ~ u~p
`lG, t { C~ } } ip 4 ~e~
~
t ~
; •1
„ .
~ b d
i, , .
~n°~iectPro,tintj~l~y't`~ttt'd ithtarlity~surrrlrr~;l~r~t~lt~~rlur.r. t3niltr1t°r1ir~~Lwr1+~~-~t~rr~" Che r~ tnlvirLirtrz~dSeries
~e~r ar rnstr~tlations reqiairirrg verties~l tral! ~iirr113 /n•eserte l~r,:rl - f+,~~ ezr~/.3 cro~rr_4~Ifr u~~s
cr~trt..l e.~~lrrrrt~~ly t,~ ~~l~et
trizxlrnwn wallheighG.r, teilhtn dttd that trteaytt trl,lle tnvI17*1t4' ~~~u~>r~~ ali;rtrrt~~rt the rltwondj of cr,utmtl'tial ft7ll
M'itiifnal apare. ~
.t«ztrott.
and cents clif~~rertte, Whl a ~ , birtter 11-afliaitj,
.)nlritni,r(:mnttj.
ANCHt)R DlAMIOND+°:
~a ~SJt7~t'Mli. {et'Ili,-
SETt'INGTHE
STANDARD FQR DESIGIN
IFREED!DM EASE OF
IN5~',~kUiiONr ANp~
ENDURING BEAtI"r`lY,
*Anc7ior Dia2nond s tlletic, 1,611Forco«tcnf,,
no-iaeed foi,
i-ntegrctZ reur- lip automat- ~
icttCly clelivers cc qzcick, ~ ,C,
11IC,I121I11C'tll`t1tW('}1_
uniforrn setback. iitentsorniorta~~
, No morlrzx No pins. fioctluse oF Aiichot-'s
Irstccllcction couldn'tbe easier:
integrai lil) at, loctltor,
• StrccigItt ancl beveled As rt result, F1iichor
splits, itaake it easy to THE B'E#lUTY OF segil7cnLal LIt1its
cnrastritct curves, 90° pRBVEN EP1GINEERiNG
PRINC1PLES, ~ ,.irtitnre !wnnmnent crosioti cot1tt-ol ttnd
cornerstcnd teirtzces. rI'hta tlticli ,iill(,sti S\;tilt~iia is s~~ I~~ t~ ~iti ~in aestllt~tic rtltet~iiriti~~~~ tt~
~~r I
~IIigh q2cnlzty cot2crete ~~uFn~~,~~<~1 it~~~ly s?jo~~t-(iv~d tG~~~~li~i~ii~il
fr,t;wtl oil Ewtwen ell,ifiiiec'i•i~~'o prillriI,loti
zUOra't deterzoraIe lzke
traditz0ntt1 mcctet'2aIS. t1i'\'('1o1w(1 I'ur se~o;iiicnhll rvimuin,o; \t,ills.
Nt?T JUST
EO5YN~'HI~TIGS AN~
* ~~zs2L~r_pCtss~Cldes~ig?2 `I'Ii~~ {rIlL'si~•,al ~rl'~~poi'lii~;; ul~ihi' C
IiVTEGRAYED 5Y5WM.
,~'1ex26212ty 2nclztdesopCion- \\,;IIIs~\-sleiii Ivsiti(-(li(, It>,iil:ti iinlmsw(l nil '
czl sCe~c~nc~ cc~,n ~units. (;t,()~\,n1 Ircl.it; rcirtft>rc~;irlclit* i5?io~
lfle tilrnclure 17y Illl' rvhiiiir(l st,il.
1~qdr;ill,\, rwet1e(1for Aiit,lroe mtiis ti4) i,tj
• 7'e nat2trrcl, roclcfacc Ilt ciI5(,s wIwrv iiw wG>i,i,4l1
lGxtLG7'2anylCG'YdGGs a?2y ,ti,In, ll,,?r1t,,,,-N,i« N.nx, 'lrA,h,fr,vllrri+igi~~n~r~irOi~~urrun//JC1e%r/fnt:t~r,
fI (ir w,ill i~lu~~~ Iml pnwi(le
lan(lscape plan:
tinl~l~i~~i~~ril ~~i~;;i:~;1,~rr~•~~ <i!;,riti~;i h;
*Anchor Diayrtond's
,m)i) forves; (li(, ti~r o('
rugged beauty anly gets
~
b~tte~•w2tyt~ime.~~td2~ ~;t't~s~~iallinii~~ rrinl~~rrr~~it~~n~l
•~~3,~~ . . ~
7't
neverneecls7rtaintenance. wttif)ilizes Il~(, Arwhoi-
* AprQVen perfonrner . I)iti~mon(l, Attc11or (w
fo7°evenjthingfrnm f1iwlaoi- iczt {'n) \\-a11 lo
modest borders, to
i0;l~[.
towering geosynthetzc , reinforced walds Alz({ mvi1 wilti gctas,~,ii-
g .~ry f ~N
. t . . . . . . . . . . , . . ~ . . .
Y
I
- d . /
~rrY L
v
~ X ' . . . . . .
Anchorllva AnchorDiantond A)zchm - 1)ium uri d AnchbrVer'GicaP7'o
Cap Step
(I>ernlod .sltnwyt
,e ) (f3eveGed shoivn)
' U22761ANC
BuyLine 6935
ANt;H{QR '1/kR"[`ICA"i1 ! ANa VERTICA PROVt
IT'5 B1C"'s, IT'S PINLESS.
A1+1D 1T TAKES TALL WALLS
i"O NEW ~HEIGH1'S 1NlTH
A 40
BATTER.
. a S , ~r~ {,~.~~~~y~~~dp~>~' ~ E 1 J ' • Netlt"l2
?1G''Y't2Gal7'2S6
f('t't,, tl{)G4'E',Gt'l AI1( tPIIi Iaelps conserve vczluable
4 k ~ ~ ( t 4; ~ }
Vert,ica I'ro walls (-.t>> II,r real estctte; Alsomeans
l('<SS exCClUfltZ3l( .
, ~
~)f btlllf, f,{) Gl ) ?Yi).A1- f ~ tt '~1lyt~~x t ti ~~4 ~ . ~
Iwlt{,ly S1X f8t't,
~llb2')2A nCrh1)r LOQILtoI"
P; G'ns
r. ~ ~ 2Gf~b'.S EftiS~~ pil2g71i?32P72t
p
~t„ ettlt~ 51d1I5, Td I l('['
fCYlfllt)2 tl'tGtOylbCttic SBtbaCk-.
' WtIII5 ft)~JUiM g('0;iV{3'
d~tiwtic rcill('orceTawrll • T~a.~Artcitor• i~e~r~l~crc
(~~)tItltlctrtltt s~~t~i~as c~i~ r-i';(~f•()t~, ttzsts an rt S'er2es 2spinCes,s and that
as cleterltflrte(f I)y x(}ttuli('ie(l rjz~;ilwor Ili ,V t71'geoarids tin(l ,(;t~(flexli:Ies. Al17ytakes itts'Gallation q2cick
wltlitioii, sj)eci~il tl(~sigii ltavc titel Wtl5i{o ttncd efficier2G. Siwh rls wall go{aliie1 r•y, tii,ii, w;iler, s1 rciF~;l.}~ t;riLeriil <<wl I~~~~~o fw{<<i se(ec;tetl~-Series iitcltr.ctcs
5tis•elcal•ge, 4~~<ltli~~gs ~rrr({ lwrf+,nwuwe --I)y Ai~;lat,i• f~~r tts{~ kt~iLll t~lac ttt~r•ee 2t~~t~its,p~l~2a,sctzps
` tr~~ar~ rr~rr~~~~r~.~ f~r•
~tl5i~ itl<ly tir~tcr-11aillf~ I fit~ i~s~<<tl f(~r :\11clrm. I)iaintind ;iiid ?\mlaur V'erlictt grect/r~r dt;sigtiattcZ
syallel:ic, jvislforv(a11wili. seri~~~~s ~V;111 8yti(,enws. c~~rasf,~~rrctir~tr fix~~~t~'o~tn3
~ Aaw}ltai, ~Uall Sysleiaii, ariin,o,'
lu Mc . S1»01m. 1)irrwnlad •[li;gtr, qrtalr,'1,y ct3ncrele
il)tlt~lwiitleltL l'm,ili! it's, r111rl,-1 itr=ht»' l iv-ltra/l r"i'/i01 /'I{, rl(wi(/11 wtr1t'1 (lelert,or[ttl;l21ie
+41Gllttt2/b)PaFofoJt4 Cn11tl"111) t!'tldljdl)nt7lit1,Ct,tet`itLlS.
~trrrr~rrrrl,w.lr,rr~~,j~.~tx•i~r~fir~ttl,~I~i-
a~
~w~;q~c~, l'11~.41/ll~~r~'!. e! ['~/IYf'l,tiO
ff,
l~711~ •'~'~G('7bC2j"Ct~f'tll, 4`QC~GfCLC~'
j
lu(irlirr(I rmir/ilrmi.~. rS/I rlrr/r.i in IarGtrre erahanccs (ttkt
lrtradsccz~~e plccn.
r/irrrrlr,.~~irpi nirtttttttGs2.~
~ preliwiwrrrf m»!, jiw o.slinialit2g •R'uggecl bea2cty only gels
better~ 2vi,~lt Gi~~rae. And it
~ ~~ar,r~~~.s~~:s n~~t,r/. ,~1rtirr~l ~~r~•oject never needs maintenanee.
condiliorls tcill r'trr;1 (cncl final cle&ign sjiorrlrt I~r31~~r, j'ar~necl 1~y °E '~er,t~ z~72it ~r~vides
appraxzmately one square
a rcgisteretl crr,</bwer: foot of face:coverage.
~
;
fi
Anchar I/erZica fl ricIror ti,rlicn f/rtl/'/tigft Attcizot, {'erlica Ancyavr G'ertictz
(I3evelec~ shawra) (b'Cr~(-lcrl ,s/rOrrw) ('Orrier Cap
-
MEMORANDUM
~ TO: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: {7epartmen# of Gommur?ity Developmer?t
aATE: November 10, 1997
SUBJECT. A request for an addiCion to and the remodel of an existing residence, utilizing the
250 4rdinance, located at 1944A 5unburst Drive/ Lot 21A, Vail VaIley 3rd Filing,
Applicant: Beth Ann B. Findell, represented by Gregory Register
Planner: Gearge Ruther
li BACKCaROUND ANLi DIESCFtIPTION t?F TNE REQIJESl"
ln 1985, the Vail Town GounciV approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter
(1$.71) of the Vail Municipal Cade, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter
ailaws for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA} ta be added to a
dwelling (beyand #he maximum ailowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the
Additional' GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading af existing dweNings
uni#s, which have been in existence for a period af at least five years, by permitting up #o twa
hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit.
~ The applicant is proposing to add an approximately 965 square foot residential addition to the
existing residence located at 1944A Sunburs# Drive. The add'rtion includes a new 597 square faot
garage, a new front entry, a faurth bedroom nn the upper level of the home and a relocated
driveway. In addition to the interior changes, two new dormers will be added to the east and north
sides of the hause to increase the ceiling height in the living room. Two new wooden decks and a
patio are alsp praposed around the exterior of the building. A total of 241 square #eet of the 250
square faot allowance wiH be used by the applicant.
11, ZCaNING ANALY51~
Lot Size: 21,911 square#eet
Zoning: PrimaryJSecondary Residential
Hazards: High hazard rockfail; rnoderaCehazard debris flcrw; possbleavalanchecnfluencezoneAHowed/Required Existin F'ro op sed
GRFA: 5,291 sq, ft. 4,0$2 sq. ft. 5,047 sq, ft.
Prirrxary: 3,340 sq. fit * 2,366 sq. ft, 3,331 sq. ft. (9 sq: ft. rerriajning)
Secondary: 2,201 sq. #t.** 1,800 sq. ft. N/C
Site Coverage: 4,3$2 sq. fit. 2,05$ sq. ft. 2,752 sq. ft.
Neight: 33` 32' 32'
~
j
Parking: 3spaces 3 spaces No Ghange
* includes 425 Credit and 260 Additianal GF3FA ~
" Inclwdes 425 Gredit
11l. CRITERIA AND F1NDINGa
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Cammunity Develdpment Department
recommends approvat of the reques# fior additianal GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Be#ore acting on an applicatian for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environrnentai
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the praposed use:
1. Ef#ect upon the existin t_opogra.phy, vec,~,~tation, drainage and existina
structures.
Staff believes that the proposed addition wilf have pos'ttive effects upon the
existing struc#ure and will on1y have minimal, if any, negative effects upan
the existing vegetation on the property. Staff daes not believe there will be
any noticeable effect upon topography or drainage.
t The proposed addition will up-date an older structure an Sunburst Drive, Ih
recent years, many of the existing residences in the vicinity of the applicant`s
property have undergone improvements. Staff believes the proposed ~
impravements will be in keeping with the neighborhood and the communit}r
Approximately 17 trees (approximately 76 caliper inches) will need to be
removed as a result of the praposed addi#ion. The°tree removai is
nessecitated by the relocati'nn o# the driveway and the construction of #he
garage. Staff believes #hat the tree Ioss can be mitigated through the
planting of new trees. The number of new trees shall be deterrrtined by the
PEC and based, in part, upon the amount of ca(iper inches of trees removed:
2, irnpact an adiacent roperties.
The addition should not adversely affect uiews, light or air enjoyed bY
adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additians will not have
a signi#icant impact on adjacent properties. The facade improvements will
enhance this property and the s#ructure wiil be mare compatible with the
surrounding structures.
The applicant's property is located in a geologically sensitive area.
According to the Official Towrr af Vail Hazard Maps, the property is impacted
by high hazard rackfiall, moderate hazard debris flow and possibie snaw
avaianche influence. A hazard report prepared by Nick Larnpiris, Consulting
Geologist, indicates that mitigation of the hazards is necessary. The hazard
report further indicates that the proposed mitigation wi11 NOT increase the
hazard to other properties, structures, publac rights-of-way, streets,
easernents, utilities, faeilities or other properties o# any kind. A copy af the
hazard report has been attached for reference. ~
2
~ 3. Com I~ iance with the Tawrt's zoning reauirements and a,.pplicable
development standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Mun#cipaF Code requires that any
dwelling unit forwhich an addition is propased shalE be required to meetthe
Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set fiorth in Chapter 18:54 of the Vail
Municipal Code. AdditiflnaHy, befare any additional GRFA may be permitted
in accordance with G'hapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance
and upkeep of the existing single family or two farnily dweiling and site,
including landseaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design
Review Guidelines. These standards inciude Iandscaping, undergrounding
of utili#ies, driveway paving and general maintenance of the proper#y.
Upon review of the applicant's request, the staff has determined that the
proposai is in complaance with the Tawn's zoning requirements and
applicable deveiopment standards. The s[aff would like to point out that a
letter was received from Heiga & Warren Pulis, 1979 Sunburst Drive,
requesting that the Design RevEew Baard be directed to take a ciose look at
the landscaping on the applicant's tot. The Pulis' feel thatthe landscaping
along Sunburst is iN-kept and wish to see the new owner (applicant) clean-up
that area.
B. FInd1t1qS:
The Planning and Environrnenta! Commission shali make the foilowing findings befiore
~ granting approvai for Additionai GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA wouid not negatively
effiect existing topography, vegetatian, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negat"tvely
impact adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all
Town zaning requirements and applicable development standarcis.
IV. STAFF RECOMIMENDATION
The Community Development Departm-ent staff recommends approval af the request for a 250 to
allow for a residential addition at 1944 A SunburstlLot 21 A, Vail Valley Third Filing.
Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of this request, staff would recommend that the
approvai carry with it, the following condifions.
1. That the appiican# submit a signed Geologic Hazard Acknawledgement Form to the Town of
Vail Community Development, prior to thefssuance of a building permit, idemnifying the
Town of Vail of any damage caused to the property by the hazards.
2. That the applicant plant an appropriate number of new trees prior to requesting a
~ Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the addition to mitigate #he loss of vegetation
resulting from the construction o# the addition. The number ofi new trees to be pianted shall
3
be determined by the PEC.
3. That the Town of Vail Public Works C3epartment review and approve the proposed grading ~
plan and fihe proposed driveway acces5 prior to the appliCant's request being reviewed by
the Town af Vail C7esign Review Baard.
4. That the applicant amend the site plan and landscape plan and incorporate the `hazard
mitigatian proposed by the Consulting Gealagist prior to the applicant's request being
reviewed by the Town o# Vai1 Design Review Board
The staff would further recommend that the PEC make the following findings:
1. That the granting nfi the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing
topography, vegetatiorr, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting o# the recfuested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact
adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with aN Town zoning
requirernents and applicable development standards.
F:\everyonetpe6memosUapp.871
~
~
4
l ~w. _ t_r-c~a. ar~.~r.+vP^Y1~~~! ¦ ` o~t
rar
- \d ,~G"«~F. Fcuf'wt G
--,CV C»cr..
~ ` / . \ . • rh~ ~ ~~4 'rJ °Y'h~ lMf.1'~~ _ 4 e ~ s ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ f", wMasa.K t,~ ~ ~t,t l...i "`L^""+t- C ~.~.rw~R~"
~ / ( ` \i~ ~ ~ \ \4 hCA'C50M4rtC C~~+++~C _ !+f
~ { ~5.0~ ~ ? ~ ` UEwI ~b".W.LS~L[L1*~R. L.:bL
^Gt
R
4
• . ~ f 'd `\a / t t ~ r.,.r c..,.c., ~ ~v
• ~ . / ~ ~ . ~ \ ~ ~4 `ti S O hy
• ~ ~ ` •~t ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ m -
~
y Y ` \ ~ / ~ ! ~ .
~`t •i~ . _ ~ ~ _ . L. ~ . ` ~ ~ f
~ . . ~ ,
J~ a~ . 1t . . [1 • t a . . t ' ._._.y 'rTs` z /
a w~.
1 t .~I f l ~
pS Q : , t ! ~ ~ ~ u • ~ 7 t . f- _ ' ~ q ' _ ' '
~ . 'Jr ~ rJCrE' ~^c*~ WRa+aYafawt:'~+.W: ~ . . f,rs,r .eo. . ` sr^t ~v«.ti. •.Q u..~r+wa wwr a.t~ri . . .
} ees.~.~+ .t
4+~
~ Hl
~ . " ' _ _
. ~ k
~ : e~t
~ G.saear f ~ ~ ~~w¢ ~RnE
F} :
I~ ~M.er t t
~ c
ti _ ~ _~f-c •
k . i ~ aw«. ~ ~ _
T
_ ~ ~ _
Fe
"~`~e
~f ~ ~ ? O ~ ' F~! ~
~ t {{4•t _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~1'~_"~~ . ~ 1 . ~ ~4'., _ _ 1
e~r~o G F l
; ? : ~ .
0 . .~a~o f .(f j ' C
rnm
` . E: . .
A2
~.s ~ v<• r- ° ~ _ _
~ ~ .
•
ra¦
G a
I' ~ wwo.w
p4 * roa~r~ .
~ Q /1Yrr
~ ~1:4 ~ iwwlYlHL ~<I ? '
K ~
4AJN~ ~ _ G'4'O
E
~ ~ •
zz g
a - - ~
~
94'x tE~~-O ~ ~ ~ :
LM~JA ~ t ~
' -3 ~ yc}Je
• iF . ~ ~
k4=I F ~ 1
• ~ ~ `
f
~1~.~
_ - - y, f' - ` ef i ~o y ^ar.YV~Y+f ~I+M+J
,
~
~ ~
, tp• isfar~~q`r
rr¦
f ~
f ~ - -
~ ~
~ ~ .
, ~ ~
I ~ I( If
(
_ ~ • t_ , _...J, - ~ i z
~ ~ ~ z s
~ E 6.y„~}T.FM. +tD trttrif.t,~ faff ~ ~00
I
Ev
Ck
- ~ I
~ ~tr wtx ~t_ f
...-Qt J ~ ~ .
/
.a..r cwe+ssa ....c.. ' '---X~ • .
. .-a .
~
A4
•o
t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. .d..,
AR(~tSTItU{~NYE
• - ORl
:es
..~•~t c. y-4o- F7 :
< J >
f
~r
IG-e Z s
_~E----
_ Cz
-a - ~
~'t - -
. '~fhJ'f"t^4 ~.4cJ'tGs.t ~l I~
4
Ul
rt
• \ ~ ~ 4~ f ~ ~`~y
.
.
y
-
sr~lm~-
1'
...r • f
,
~a.s-r a~i`?.a'~ j r.ia~-rrr e~~~..--MO..t ~ A5
Nicl7olas Lampiris, 1'h.D.
C014SUl,7iN0 tiEOlOGiST
P.C3. bOX 7_
SIL'f, CC7LC111AU0 U 1652
(303) 076-5400 (24 11OurIs) ~
~eptentber 20j 093
Greg Amsclen . 200 Bridqe Street
Vai.l CA E31657
RE:e t-lazard C:val.uation, L.ot 21, tJail Ua1leyy, 3rd F=iliny
DEtaY" Mt°'. AtTi3detl:
I visited the 7bove referencer1 lrat, wii:h homo, in V~.~i.l rec4ent.l.y
T V Y' pl! 1po.~''i es C) f !:3 gE'_ C7 lC] giL. h4``~ w. ti Y" d eY allI C`i i:, iCI i`i y E? S(, .h5. C l. G1 lly aC.J ] l.
pertains tcr roc:4:. •fr7l1 arici debra.a fl.aw potei7tia1. Fls yuu know
boi:h o•F thesc tiaHart:1s ar-e shuwn by the 1'own raf Vail's rrraps as
affec;ting thi:s property. w,now avalariche is a1so a Pol-.enl.ial
' ha..ard sauth of the >ite. You Iiave asIted rrre to ev~.~lua1e this
hazarc1 as wel.1 ancl rt al thougi7 I do r7u#: speci87. ize i n snowr
avalanche stuclios, Xam Invcalvec.i :lr`? many artd uften arr1 u5ocl as t:ho
e>cper-t in trtiat fa elcl. There•Fore I have al ro yi ven rrry opini ur1 a5
ta th;t s h az ~,-~rd «
My general findi.nym are that; #:ho •first twra hrizarcJn are indepc1
presertt and th~.~t t:r?oy should be rrii.tigated an effectively
pr~~~ihle. The s•k:eep hil:l zi. c:le wel :l b~.~hi nc1 the home a, s t~eavi. l. y
foresteci. Wii:h respec:i: to the mocierate debras f1ow ha: ar•ct, x5ee
evidence abavo the hame of materi~.~l coming with3.r7 20 feet of the
homet bt,tt the w~st unit is rnrar°e expu~yd« 1-he i:ofi.aogr-~.~phy is al. scr
uomewh~t favor~.-~b]. e i r7 that ther-e in a br-ea1; i: n tt-~~ slope whi. ct-i
resu1ts i.n ver-y yeni:lo i:errain ai: t17e st.tb.iec:i: lui:. Ther-ry ar•e a
number caf bou:lders rae~.-~r the rear- u•F the hcaErae (i.ric:lic:~.atiny thal:
there h~.~s been sar?fe raclti fal. l act3. v%1:y at the si te) .
I do no#: beli. eve that a lar-c~e mnaw aval anch~ ~apabJ~ ~ of s~.~r ious
d~structian is 1 i ke1 y at thi s si te. 1'he niax n chu1:.e is wel 1 tu
the east arrd the maps by Mears s17ow art "avaJ.ar3che xnfXuence tuns''
well behi,ne1 1:he hcame. Tl~~~ pruposecl rriitiyati.ora {:o •follow shoul,cJ
holp to protec:t tt7e home, altha"ytt only tietara, wfl. raws appe~.-~r- to tap
a real i sta. c threGai: to i:he home.
Because c~f the ~.~bove ci ted f ~,-~ctor> I bex ieve x t woul d be pcrs5ibl ~
to impr'ove i:tte s,ii:uai:fon s1ynificantly with sorne macix•Cxcal;ior7s tn
, the rear of tt7o si9;e« fany larye racl::s ~.-~vallable coulc1 be
pcrsitianed 1:a fur•m a barr'i~er acruss i.ho r-ear ufi Lho bi.iiZcJirrg
site. Tt7e wa1X ra•F rncks (ar ~ wa1l ar bpr-rn) shcruld be ~.7t 1eas•1. ~
faur fae1: h:tgh an the uphi,ll. (south) side and tnay r.orrt~,-~in ciir"t
betweer? the baulders for- cohes1 on, ac3ded taul k, anc] foiw the
potentia1 •Fdr vegetatian i•F thai: xs desired.
~
~
Ttte w~.~ll at`tuuld be plac:ec1 nra ~.~n tca ~.~•f•Fcarti inamimuun pr-u1.ect:lt:sn.
'lyhu pai:'kern shoul d tae desi ynecJ i:u stap or defl. ect al .l three rrF
the patenti r:rl gr°avi ty reX atec1 t'i~.~t; arcls. 'I"he stre:riqth uf the wal .t
shauld t~e a1: 1G~.ys1. 300 pauncls per square •forat:. :Ct wuu1d laa
acSvantayeuu~ to inc:lucJe a wel.l ciraineci swale on the soui:h si.rJe rrF
the wall ta aid in catchii7y rriraL-erial whzch may roach t:.17e site,
including e"c:ess nnow th~,~t cou1rJ rni.nimi~e the of•('ectiver~Rsr:a ol~
the wal l.
Becauze af the haward regui ati nns af the `Cown of Vr,x 1, c:ar~.~ must
be Laken to riu#: z ncrer:~~e the 17~.~: ard i,ra a nei ghbur Uy yuue.
attem~~~ at mi i:i, gatz on. `C`he prGapnr-ty tlues ;t xe :i n R yeo:l c?gic:al: l: y
sensi,tive area, bui: 1:his tnit:tgat:i.un will noi: incr-ease the tiazarci
to o•rher F}rnperty, or t:,tr-uc:tures, or to putal ic r-i ylii.5-of-way,
ro~,~ds, strcuL-5, r~.~raomeni:m, t.itilii:ies ur •faciliLles ar oi:hor-
pruporti es of ~.ariy Isi. rirJ. x•f ther~ ~~~e fur-ther quesi:i. urf5, p:lease
cantact me.
Ni.cholas Lampiris
~ t':.or~~sulf:ing [.yeralogist.
,
~ .
e,
MEMQRANDUM
~ TO: Planning and Environmental Cammissian
FROM: nepartment o# Communify Development
L7ATE: November 10, 1997
SUBJECT: A reques# for remodeling, upgrading and an additian to an existing residence,
utilizing the 250 Ordinance, Iocated at 224 Forest ad./ Block 7, Lot 11-8, Vaii Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Forest Road Trust (Keith Samuels, Trustee), represented by Kathy
Langenwaiter, PeeliLangenwalter Architects, LLC
Planner. George Ru#her
1. BACI{t`aRC7UND AN1D DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter
(18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled °Additional Gross Residentiai Floor Area." This Chapter
aNows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a
dweliing (beyond the maximum a1lowance), provided certain criteria are met. 7he purpase of the
Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings
units, which have been in existence far a period o# at leas# #ive years, by permitting up to two
~ hundred fifty {250} square feet of GRFA ta be added to a dwelling unit.
The applicant is proposing to add an approximately 594 square foot residen#ial atidition to the
existing residence located at 224 Forest Raad. The addi#ion includes a new interior stairway, an
enlarged dining raom, a new breakfast nook and a new guest ropm on the upper levei of the home.
In addition to the in#erior changes, a new wooden deck 'ts also proposed on the exterior of the upper
level of the home. The deck wiil be on the south side of the building and will not be visible from
Forest Road.
II. Zt}NING ANALY51S
The primary unit on this prflperky has recently been demolished and is yet to be rebuilt. The owner
of the primary unit is Mr. John Krediet, Mr. Krediet has a Design Review Board applicationpending
with the Town of Vail. The Zoning Analysis below assumes no other deve{opment on the property
other than the applicant's secondary residence.
Address: 224 Forest Fioad
Lot Size: 22,661 square feet
Zoning: PrimarylSecandary Residential
1 V Y~lY OF YtS1/~ ~
~ l+l
1
- -
Development
Standards Allowed Existincr proposeti
GRFA: 2,466 sq. ft.* 1,861 sq, ft. 2,455 sq. ft. ~
{Secondary Unit
only}
Site Goverage: 4,382 sq. ft. 1,080 sq. ft. 1,314 sq. ft.
Height: 33' 27' 27'
Parking: 3 spaces 3 spaces No Change
The GRFA figure includes the 425 sq. ft, credit and the 250 Additional GRFA
111. CIRITERIA AND FINC71NG5
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRF'A, the Gommunity Development Department
recommends approval of the request far additionai GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an applieation for additionai GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shail consider the fioliowing factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upan the existing topoqraphy, veqetatian draina,ge and existing
$tructures.
Staff believes that the proposed addition wifl have positive effects upon the ~
existing structure as the addition will up-date an older building in VaiL In
recent years, many of the existing residences in the vicinity af the applicant's
property have undergone remadels or demolrebuiids. Staff believes the
proposed improvemen#s will be in keeping with the Forest Raad
neighborhood and the community.
One, two-stemmed Aspen wili be removed as a resuit af the proposed
addition. The tree removal is nessecitatsd by the construetion of the new
interior stairway. Staff believes the proposed tree loss shouid be mitigated
through the planting of a mir?imum of eight caliper inches of Aspen trees an
the site. The lacation of the new trees shtiuld be generally in the location of
the tree which is being removed.
Staff does nat believe there will be any noticeable effect upon topography or
drainage.
2. Impact an ad.macent proDerties.
The addition should not adversely effect views, light or air enjoyed by
adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions wili not have
a significant impact on adjacent properties. The facade improvements will
enhance this praperty and the structure will be more compatible with the
surrounding structures. As mentioned previously in this memnrandum, the
primary residence on the applicant's lot has recent(y been demolished and a
new residence is pending DRB review. ~
2
3. om li nce with #he Tawn' zonin r uir m n s and a li 1~
~ deveiaoment standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipa! Code requires that any
dweiling unit for which an addition is propased shall be required to meet the
Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Ghapter 18.54 of the Vail
Municipal Cade. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted
in accardance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance
and upkeep of the existing single family ar two family dwelling and site,
including {andscaping, to determine whether they camply with the Design
Review Guidelines. These standards inciude landscaping, undergrounding
of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property.
Upon review of the applicant's request, the staff has determined that the
proposal is in compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and
applicable development standards.
B. Findin s:
The Pianning and Environmen#al Commission shall make the following findings before
granting approval for Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFR would not negatively
~ irnpact adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with a11
Town zoning requirements and applicab[e development standards.
IV. STAFF RECUMMENpA'TION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the request far a 250 tn
allow for a residential addition at 224 Forest RoadlLot 11 -B, Block 7, VailViNage First Filing.
Should the PEG choose to grant an approval of this request, staff wauld further reeommend that the
PEC place the following conditions on the approval and make the following fiindings:
Conditions:
1 . That prior to the issuance o# a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the addition,
the applicant plant a minimum of eight caliper inches of Aspen treas on the proper#y
in the general locatian of the one, multi-stem tree to be removed as a result of the
canstruction of the addition.
2. That the applicant bring the outdoor ligh#ing on the property into compliance with the
Outdoor Lighting flrdinance of the Tnwn of Vail prior to the issuance of a bui4ciing
permit for the addition.
~
3
Findings:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing ~
topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA wi11 not negatively impact
adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additionai GRFA wi11 comply with all Town zoning
requirements and appiicable development standards.
~
4 ~
m T ~
~
~
'
~
I
15R_RS~,,,SAC1C 'i 40
~z ~x st x Qii°A e.+im
~ V ycwr€t f
2.
ax zs . °
( `rse
Z
Lu es. xr ~ ~
23 ia 29
U i = E K x 3 TZ5 b~ n4. v3 30 ~
Q~ a~ it} Y Ff N ~ A 1! q ~
y
~
:5
,r~. 4 > ~ K ts t2r w~ £T ..~y {
' v7 ~ u1 Q >x rn ~ YttLINi~ tlfif4P 116
~ Q t,~ ^ FL. e
~
~ Q
2
F.~SITkG.'vSPEN rx, i 9
~ZTa
6280 EY~STVN6 ~ Ti
Tih(BEtY i 68 u~
Iw ~
44AEt -~4'~
Z
~ t omA.ymaa
~~~o *L: ~ C,11 ~
4
ytA9I
~ 8276 ~Y - ~ ~
\ f ~ GOtiCRE'E L &260
. REFNTttNC'
6EGKF50~'- t ~ 5& ~
~~'fiM&ER k - - ~
WaA.! { * 1 . 56
O~ 0~~ 3TRUG1'jRE ~ I '~t ~ ~ ~ ~
PR' >
AL°"`g
fr-J g
\ ~ct~ - ~ ~R I
Q
~ l 1-0 T't4-A~~~ ~
_
P~qNSEA
~f
~isnrrc
A,g.165` S 4. 1o k
$254 1 fANC~tEte il~~~' ~ B250
~ (wx,LL s R=637 }a = --...---~-T~
i
, ` PARKSNG LiNE ~ ~ - - i
, 4ROPERTY
CJ«~~ ~~N. 1 r'
~y t4}.62~
10' A= ~ 4
4xfi17._
~ ~ ~ ~ R=837.40' A=62.57`
~ PHONE C .
P_ -t arrgenwa4€er #rChit 4 . -
~ O~ SAMUELSAC7LTIT(C3hI oavid µam FEei.ni,+, xa4hYLaz,4ena-«.Ru
gpX
aZdp v? 224 FOREST RQAD P.O. 6ox 5202 Vail, Gaforada 6165$ data j-~ Z
_ t0T 11-6, BCCSCK 7, Fele 970-476-4506 Faz 470.476-4572
~
E~GE oF ` VAil YILE.4GE FtRST P!ClMQ. . Project
D T6V~'N OP YAtk., GOLQKAQO Crawn K.(, FORE~JT ~~}~1 st:ee! csf
'
;
(
k EXtSTtNG BUILDEritG
I ~
~ I
( aurcoixG ABavE ~
CQNCRE'FE ftETFUNING WAE.t i
Dx FaYeR
~ pN ~ i 9REAKfAST \ ( DEGK t
RoaM
-r~-'~--~
` KI'fCHEN
- E ~ + ---r:-_. -
LL;-
t-; uF - \ ExrsrINc SutLatxc UP- ~
SKt !
'7=41 STORftGE DN
Dlk1NG
EN7RY j I - wOOD L
DN f
II
EXtSTING BUlLDING
-
L +
- -
~ LOWER LEYEL PLAN t~a°=~•-a- ~ PNAIN LEVEL PLAN 5t4"?4'-0~
NOTE: SHA6E6AREAtNDICATESNEWCQNS7RUCTtf}N. NOTE: SHApEDARFAEFtE}tCA7ESNEWCONSTRUCTiQN.
pgPilt ^zn4env,°ttrr ArehitectS..L,LC.
SAMUELS Af?DITION n>~arna~e«Gara K.;nyLi,Q-an~r.ni.A-
224 FOREST ROAD PA. 8oX 1202 Vail, Co#orado 8 1658 Qkf~ r0, ,
LOT it-B, BLOCK 7, 7ala 9T0-476~506 fax 470-478•45T2 ~
VAIL VPLikGE FtRST FiItNG, prajett ~
TptS'N OP VAtL, COCQRADO drawn ~L
~ ~ ot ~ .
~
~ -
EXIsTirtc sutLn[NG
~
S DEGK
i
i
(
f ~
~ CiUEST SUITE
l ttOOF ~
f ~ / I
C}N ~ ~
~ ~ , ' - ~
€~wrt~rt~s
£LO5ET
1 ~
~ BU1LQlNG 9ELOW C
I 4
E t
~
-f-----,-
~ uaPER LEvELF'LAN_ ir~-=,•~- i
~ NOTE: SHADHO AREk INC}ICAtES NEW GCJNSTRUGTI6N. r
DrvdFSarkPec7.hkA Kz~yUngenwattet.A.4h. '
SAIC[~*~}Cp ~.+uLL.J h ){DRyIT7~y`r
~.J {5,/FS
224 FOREST aOAD P.CJ. Bax 1202 Vait, Colosada 81658 ca~• C~J. Z ~r
L074f-6,8C.OCK1, 'Cete9TQ-475-C566 Fax974-476-4572c.~J~~ ~
VAtl.YILL1cGE ffkSF FtLIN.h.,
T6WN (.7P YAfC. COLORASI6 Cr2wn
sheet aC
'
- -
-~~~SHING«
i
zx wooQ FASCV:
-sXS POST
• zxt2 Tsttu
•s""i - - -
veaTicAt sIarxa
srucca
. - - EXISTf,VG GRAt)E
~ EAST ELEVA7fOhi ~ta-•z~.o- ~ ~J NORTH ELEVATIC3N
~ - ~ ~
~ - ~
. .K... FtNlSNGRA4E
BEYON6
-
• ' _
ATION_ ~-0-
.
~ VYEST ELEVATft7N
i- i- pg~gpqenwefter ArchRect~ L l C
SAMUELS AI7DITIQN aawwxunk aeztwA~. ~mYL~,3e,,o.yr,~G.wu
224 FOREST ROAb P.Q. 8oz 4202 Vail, Cofarada 81658 date [0-2 '~1~
lOT 71•B, BL6CK F, : Teie 970-478-4565 F'ax 97IX-4TEe572 . R~~.~~.
VAlL VttLAflE FkRST FiL4NG,. draw~ ~I. ' ~
T6WN OF VAIL, C040RA€}Q
~ ~ ~ S11CC1 0~ d
~ MEMoRANDUM
TO: TowN couNClL
PLANNING AND ENVIRC}NMENTAL CC)MMISSION
F124M: LIO.NSHEAD MASTER PLAN TEAM
DATE. NOVEMBER 10, 1997
RE: LTONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MA.STER PLAN STAGE THItEE:
WCIRKSESSION DISCUSSION OF CIRCUL.ATION ISSUES
This memo provides the framework for the discussion to occur in the PEC worksession on
November 10 and the Town Council worksession on November 11. In sutnmary, this is the
continuation af the series of in-depth explaratians of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan/
Stage Three analysis of alternative master plan concepts. This pas-ticular discussion focuses on
circulation issues.
• Orle of the six Lionshead Community Policy 4bjectives is "Improved Access and Circulation"
"The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and
through Lionshead." In fact, circulation is one of the six most critical elements in designing and
~ implementing a redeveiopment master plan that will achieve both community policy objectives and
privatc investment objectives. (The other ci-itical elements are retail viability/location, visual
connectians to nature and the mountain, urban fozm, and two implementation items: phasing and
incentives. Each of these elements vvill be explored in more detail in future meetings.)
Circulation issues were addressed by the PEC at its meeting an October 13, during which the
PEC reaeted to 13 of 14 elements of the conceptual Master Plan framework. A list ofthe 14
elements presented and the PEC's recommended actions on each is attached to this memorandum.
The elements abaut which the PEC requested mare information include:
* The Pedestrian Circulation Framework
* The Transit Circulation Framework
The PEC on 4ctober 13 did not address the 14th element Improved Connection betweeen
Lionshead and Vail Village. These three items will be addressed at the November 10 PEC
worksession and the November 11 Council worksession in three cantexts.
I."Must do's" action required to solve/ameliorate existing probiems,
(E.g., relieve congestion on East Lionshead Gircle).
2"Want to's" praaotive actions to achieve cornmunity objectives,
(E.g., realign the South Frontage Road ta create a new development opportunity).
~ 3. Timing how improvements might be phased aver time,
(What to do befare the 1999 Slci Championships, what comes next, what flows fram
ilAaly eLc.). ~
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS
ABOUT LYONSHEAD 12EDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLANNING
The Problem Staternent, the six Lianshead Communiry Policy Objectives, and the Pracess Ground
Rules guiding the Lionshead Redevelapment Master Plan efforts were adopted by the fiown.
Council on November 4, 1996 ane year ago. In the past 12 months, substantial work has been
completed with substantial community input to understand the issues and the apportunities
and to begin to frame conceptual alternatives to achieve the desired results. Another way to
define "the desired results" is:
WHAT IS OUR BASIC 1V1ISSION?
{WHY DU A REDEVELt}PMENT MASTER PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD'?)
TO CREATE A SUCESSFUL TWO-SEASON RESORT 1N LIONSBEAI3
WHY?
(1) to help Lionshead be more successf.rl within Vail, and
(2) to help THE VAIL RESCJRT AND COMNfiLJNITY be more successful vis-a-vis
Down Valley, Whistler, et al, and non-mountain aptions (fnr vacatians, primary ~
residences, and second homes)
WHY NOW?
* VA INVESTMENT DOLLARS/DECISI()N TO REDEVELOP THE CORE SITE COULD
CHANGE AND GO ELSEWHERE.
* NEED TO DIVERSIFY FROM 100% SKIER MARKET 1NT0 TWO-SEASON ECUNOMY.
* NEED TO STRENGTHEN! ENHANCE SALES TAX BASE
* NEED TO STRENGTHEN/ ENHANCE PROPERTY TAX BASE
* NEED TO STRENGTHENI ENHANCE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX BASE (RETT),
PARTICULARLY IF THE REVENUES MAY BE SPLIT BETWEEN OPEN SPACE
AND AFF4RDABLE HUUSIN~''r NEEDS
* DOWN VALLEY RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL (LrNDER C(JNSTRUCTION OR
APPROVED) C4ULD SAP dUR GUESTS, RESIDENTS, RETAIL
CUNSITMERS AND WOR.KERS.
~
* THE CLTRRENT REAL ESTATE IvrARKET WON'T/CAN'T LAST FOREVER
~ * THE 1999 WC)RLD ALPINE SKI CHAMPIONSHIPS WILL MAKE VAIL
HIGHLY VISIBLE AND DESIRABLE.
* AFFORDABLE HOUSING OP'Pt3RTUNITTES ! ! !
F: everyonelsusan/lionhead/n 1097.memo
~
~
L10NSHEAb REDEVELOPMENT IVIASTER PLAN
Planning and Environmental Commission Comments ~
October 13, 1997 Meeting
The Planning and Environmental Commission (CTseiton absent) reviewed graphics and text
explaining 13 af the 14 elements of the Master Plan fi•atnework and acted as follaws.
1. Figure 3 Public View Corridors and Natural Enviranment Connections
(Reminder of the 1ocations of the five public view carridors previously designated
by the Town Council and upportunities for enhancement of naiural connections)
* Recommended APPRfJVAL to inciude in Mastsr P1an (6 - 0)
2. Figure 4 Real Estate Opportunity Areas
(Identification of known develnpment and redevelopment opportunities
* Recommended APPROVAL to include in N[aster Plan with additional natation
that this list of appottunity areas is not an exclusive list and tbat, in fact, there may
be additional deveiopment or redevelopment opportunities, including development
pursuant to capping of I-74 (5-0-1, Ann Bishop abstained)
3. Figure S Pnblic Lands Upportunity Areas
(identification of enhancement opportunities on pubtic lands; overlaps somewhat
with Natural Envii-onment Connect`rons) ~
* Recomxnended APPROVAL to inciude in Master Plan with addition of I-70 air
rights as an opportunity, incorpoxation of the public portians of Tracts C and D,
ana incoiporatian of the north side of the stream tract west of Forest Road
(5-0-1, Ann Bishop abstained)
4, Figure G Locals Haasing Opportunrty Areas (identification of possible locations)
* Recommended APPR+C)VAL to include in Master Plan with addition of I-70 air
rights as possible apportunity area {4-0-1 (Greg Amsdon left the meeting and Ann
Bishop abstained)
5. Figure 7 Land Use Framework lliagram
(identification of focus af redevelopment and development areas)
* Recommended APPROVAL tn include in Master Plan with re-working af the
exact hub titles and "shapes" (570)
6. Figure 9 Pedestrian Circulation Framework
(proposed new "Main Street through the heart of Lionshead)
* NO ACTION: Linked to Transit Frarnework discussion.
More analysis and discussion required.
f \everyonelpec\agendas1101347.1h ~
k k
7. Figure 10 Modified Service and Lodging Access
~ (new skier drop-off and regional bus stop, realignment of South Frontage Road,
and modificatibns to existing vehicular circulation on East Lionshead Circlc)
* Recommended APPR(JVAL to include in Master Plan with addition oF IDobson
Ice Arena dsop-off and ciarificatian of re-aligned South Frontage Road "jog" (5-0)
8. Figure 11 Loading and Delivery Components
(identifieation of locations for loading and delivery functions that reduce or
eliminate conflicts with petlestrians and other vehicles)
* Recommended APPROVAL to include in Master Plan {5-0}
9. Figare 12 Parking Opportunity Areas
(identification of locations for possible additional parking)
* Recommended APPRO"VAL to include in Master Plan with "employee and
dedicated use" stricken fiom label on the "West End" parking location (5-0)
10. Transit Framework Discussion Figures 13 -17
Figure 13 Transit Framework t)ption A- Existing Condition
Figure 14 Transit Framework Option B- Modifiied Existing Condition
Figure 15 Transit Frarnework Option C- Central Spine
Figure 16 Lionshead "Central Spine" Transit Options
* Nt? ACTI0N. Requires additional analysis o# bene#its and costs.
~ 11. Figure 18 Pedestrzan Gateways
(locatzons for creation of significant pedestrian arrival points into Lionshead)
* Recommended APPROVAL to inciude in Master Plan with additian to twn
locations to the #hree recommended, at the east end af the study area and on the
far west end (5-0)
12. Figure 19 Vehicular Circulation Gateways
(locations for creation of significant vehioular arrival points into Lionshead)
* Rccommended APPROVAL to include in Master P1an (5-0)
13. Figure 20 Lionshead Care Corridors, Intersections and Public Gathering Places
(opPor-tunities for enhanced retail and public gathering spaces)
* Nt) ACTIC?N
14, (No graphic) Improved Connection between Lionshead and Vail Village
* NOT DISCUSSED, NO ACTION. ~ fleveryone\peclagendas\101397.1h
A
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS5ION
November 10, 1997
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT;
Greg Moffet Diane Goiden Mike MoNica
Greg Amsden Ann Bishop George Ruther
Galen Aasiand Russ Fnrrest
John Schofield Tom Moorhead
Gene Uselton (lefit at 3;00 pm) Judy Rod(guez
IPublic Hearina 2:00 p.rrti.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Maffet at 2:00 p.m.
1. An appeal of three staff interpretations: 1) The staff's elassification di the third and fourth
ffoors as "eating and drinking establishments"; 2) Sectinn 18.52.100 C, Parking-
Requirements Schedule (Eating & Drinking Establishments) and Sec#ion 18.52.150,
Exempfions (parking pay-in-lieu) - appellartt disputes the calcula#ion of the number af
parking spaces required; and 3) The requirement #hat the applicant sign the pay-in-lieu
promissory note personally and that a Deed of Trust be filed on the property; located at
The Vail ViNage Club, 333 Bridge Street, Lot C, Block 2, Vaii Village 1 st Filing.
AppeNant: Riva Ridge Par#ners LLC - Glenn M. Heelan; Margretta B. Parks
Staff: Mike Mollica/Tom Moorhead
(See transcription attached)
2. To approve, deny, or modify an Environmentai Impact Report for the proposed Baath
Falls Tawnhomes rockfail mitigation wal(, located at 3094 Booth Fa11s CourtlLat 1, Block
2, Vail Village 12th.
Applicant: Booth Falls Condo Association
Planner: Russ Forrest
Russ Forrest gave an overview o# the staff inemo and the Environmentai Impact Report and
requested that the PEC de#ermine if ail the impacts had been identified.
Suzanne Wohl Gemuth said that options other than the 12' vertica! wall were explored. 5uzanne
said thaf berms weren't feasible and that research was done at the USGS Library. She said that
modular wa11s were fairly attractive and reminded #he PEC that the nbjective was to redirect the
racks or s#op them. She said they wanted to maintain the same grades sa as ta not disrupt the
hillside. She said she recornmended bushes on top; rather than teees.
Pianning and Environmental Commission
10 3vlinutes
November 10, 1997 1
T'UWNO
*Ya
jrw3
Jonathan Whi#e said he had done mechanicaily stabie wall work in Glenwood Canyan. He said
that a rockfall fence was very sxpensive and wouldn't affard the same protection. He said that a
12' wall would exceed the protection of what the existing berm curren#ly provides. He said he
had reviewed the design and believes this wouid afford 100% protection. He said there was a
problem with the DRB's design of stepping, as #here needed to be a suitable amount af overlap.
He said that it was important that the 12' wail be a protection wall, not an architectural wall. He
said the wall could be repaired very easily and the road needed #a be graded down, as i# was 3'
higher than where the wall started.
Galen Aasland suggested an 8' wall dawn by #he road.
Jonathan White said i# was doable,
Greg Maffet asked if they were cornfortable with the adequacy nf the wail.
Janathon White #hen showed the PEC where the wall would be at full height.
Suzanne Wohl Gamu#h sairi, as a deterrent to climbers, pianter boxes wnuld be p(anted with
thorny things,
Greg Moffet said he was seeking assurance that, in terms ofi the overlap of the walis, would this
be the 90°/b-100°/a solution and what about #he rocks going through the gaps.
, Jonathan White said rocks going through the gaps would be very remote, but #hat risk would
increase if it was stepped.
Greg Moffet asked Russ if it was out of the PEG purview to design the wail.
Russ Forrest said the PEC needed to give parameters ta the DRB.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There was nane.
Galen Aasland said that aesthetically, he didn't want the wall straight up, but would like some half
berms on the frant side.
John Schofield asked about the long term impacts of rebuilding the wall or with cleaning behind
the waH.
Russ Forrest said there needed to be a 12' corridor for heavy equipment.
John 5chofield asked if the road wauld be rebuilt ta grade and how often it would need ta be
cleaned out.
Russ Forres# said abaut once a ysar.
John Schofield suggested, since it would be in the Tt7V, that it would make a good recreation -
ciimbing wafil.
Russ Forrest said there would be a liabili#y and safety issue and besides, there weren't a lat of
kids living in the wall neighbarhood.
2
Jonathon Whi#e sugges#ed a gate for safety reasons, rather than an open road.
Greg Maffet asked if the public had any comments.
Susan Fritz, aBoath Fails resident far 30 years, said her kids had climbed the cliffs all the time.
Suzanne Woh1 Gemuth said it would be difficuit fpr graffiti. She said that the back side was a 4
gage wire form fhat was very repairable and that they tried to keep the back mainfenance free.
Janathon White stated that the wafis had been tested.
Greg Amsden had no comments.
Greg Maffet recommended that the DRB look at maximizing the safe#y on the west end of #he
wall and ga high, rather than step up.
Gerry Grevin, a Booth Falls resident, said this was a bunker mentality and that stepping up the
Booth Fa11s trailhead would create more probiems. He thought the visual impact would be fairiy
minimal and that the wa11 was fairiy welf blocked with vegetation in the summer.
Greg Amsden made a motian in aceordartce with the staff inemo, with the additianal
recommendation of Greg Moffet, that the QRB look at maximizing the safety an the west end of
the wall and go high, rather than step up in that lacation.
John Schofield seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
3. A requesf for an additian to and the remodel o# an existing residence, utiiizing the 250
Ordinance, located at 1944A 5unburst Drive/ Lot 21A, Vail Val4ey 3rd Fi4ing.
Applicant: Beth Ann B. Findeil, represented by Archistructure One
Pianner: Gearge Ruther
George Ruther asked Tom Moorhead about a Quorum af 3-0-1, if a PEC member abstained.
Tom Moorhead said there wauid sti11 be a quotum.
Greg Amsden recused himse(f, as he was presently representing the awner of the praperty.
George Ruther gave an overview af the staff inema and recommended an amendment #a the
condition to save same of the aspens.
Gregory Register, representing the applicant, said he wanted tQ keep it the way it was, as it was
sa close ta the forest and therefore, didn't require that recommendation.
Ga(en Aasland asked about Gondition #2.
George Ruther said staff had nof made a recommendation based on the number af trees being
removed. Instead, staff was recommending that the PEC make a determination.
John Schofield had no comments.
3
Greg Moffet said he wouid li#ce to see a 1:1 tree mitiga#ion plan and #hat he had no problem with
where the replaced trees were located, however, he encouraged f}exibility with evergreens.
John Schofield made a motion for appraval in accordance with the staff inerrto wifh 4 conditions,
with the additianal suggestifln that evergreens b€ given consideration in the landscape plan.
Galen Aasiand secanded the motion.
The motion passed by a vate af 3-0-1, with Greg Amsden abstaining.
4. A request for remodeling, upgrading and an addition to an existing residence, utilizing the
250 (Jrdinance, located at 224 Forest RdJ Biock 7, Lot 11-B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant; Forest Road Trust (Keith Samuels, Trustee), represented by Kathy
Langenwalter, Peel/Langenwalter Architects, LLC
Planner: George Ruther
Gearge Ruther gave an overview af the staff inemo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Kathy Langenwalter, representing the applicant, asked where #he multi-stem aspens were.
George Ruther said the tree was located in the area af the proposed construction.
Kathy Langenwalter said the appiican# didn't want 4-2" calliper trees, as it was a very small
space. She said the owner was upgrading the property and didn't want to shade their prnperty
that much.
Greg Maffet said, regarding Condi#ian #2, #hat staff was in the process of amending the Lighting
Ordinance.
There were no comments from the Commissioners.
Greg Moffet had no additionai comments.
Greg Rmsden made a motion in accordance with the staff inemo.
Galen Rasiand seconded the mation.
Greg Moffet suggested an amendment to the motion to require fhe trees be plan#ed anywhere on
the lot, rather than a specific lacation.
Greg Amsden amended his motion to include Greg Mo#fet's amendment.
Galen Aasland seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vnte of 4-0.
4
5. Lionshead Redeveloprrrenf Master P(an - Discussion and recommendation.
S#aff: Susan Cannelly
WITMDRAWN
Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that Susan Cannelly withdrsw the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan discussion.
6. R request for a majar exteriar alteration and a variance firorn Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage a# The Lionshead inn, locafed at
705 S. Frantage Rd./ Lot 'i, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: L.ionshead Inn LLG, represented by William Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 1997
John Schofield made a motion tn table item #6 until November 24, 1997.
Gaien Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
7. Rn appeal of an administrative decisian regarding geologic hazards sec4ion at Vail
Goifcourse Townhomes, Unit 60, lacated at 1592 Golf TerracelVail Golfcourse
Tawnhomes.
Rppellant: 8tephen Dawdle, represented by BiN Sargent
Planner. Dominic Mauriello
WITNDR,AWN BY APPLICANT
8. A request for a final review of a conditionai use permif, ta aNow fnr the canstruction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley DrivetTract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Faundation, represented by Helen Fritch
f'lanner; George Ruther
WITHDRAWN
9 Information Update.
n Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan: PEC invited to join Council an Tuesday,
November 25th, 8:30 am departure for bas tour of River Run deveiapment and
affordable housing in Keystane. Please R.S.V.P. to Suzanne Silverthorne at 479-
2115 bg+ Friday, November 21, 1997.
10, Appraval of actober 27, 1997 minutes.
Greg Moffet said there were not enough PEC members present ta apprave the minutes.
5
Galen Aas{and made a motion to table the minutes untii November 24, 1997.
John Schofield seconded the motian.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
Galen Aasland made a motion ta adjourn the meeting.
John Schofield seconded the motian.
The motion passed by a uote of 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm.
6
~
VAIL PLANNING AND EN't7II20NMENTAL CC3MMISSION
.APPEAS, HEARING
I3UVEMBER 10, 1997
2s00 P.M.
PEG CC7MMISSIONEF2S :
MR. G12EG MOFFET, CHAIRMAN
MR. GALEN AASLAND
MR. GREG PaMSDEN
~ Ivil2. J'OHN SCHOFIELD
MR o GENE I75ELTON
STAFFo
MR, MIKE MOLr,ICA, MRa TUM NtQQRHEAD
APPELLANT :
RIVA RIDGE PARTNERS, MR. GLENN HEELAN,
MR « CHAR.LES L1AVI50N
~
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-II00-261-4818
-
2
~ INDEX
JIM CURNUTTE:
Direct Examination by Mr. Aloorhead..s.......Page 7
Crdss-Examination }ay Appellant ,..v..........Page 22
Reclirect Examinata.on by Mr. Moorhead. . .e....Page 25
Recross-Examinatican by AppelZant.s.,....,...Page 28
Reclirect Examinata.on by Mra Moorhead......t.Page 44
MIKE IvIOLLICA:
D.irect Exa.znination by Mr e Moorhead o o...... Page 29
Cross-Examinat.ion by Appellant....sso.......Page 38
Appellant's Case .............>,.............Page 45
~
EXI3IBITS
Identi.f.ied
Exhilait A..»...a.o.....«..« 30
Exhi.bit Co.....................aoe.e,... 11
Exhibit De...,e....m,.e..e.....o....e... 13
Ex+biSJit E r s s • • • • • s • e s • • • ? s • • • ? ? • ? e s e • r • • 25,30
dax11iJJit t,T a • e • • • • • • • s • s • o • • • • • • • e • r r .e ? • • 16,23
Exj11.bit 11• • • a • • ? r • • • • • • • s • s .s r e a • • s • • • 38,4$
Exhibit I.s...........< .............o 41,44
Exhibit i ...a....o......... . 44
Exhibit K..e..o...e...,.ae..o........ 8., 44
~
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
N4VEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIL7GE AI'PEAL HEARTNG Pages 3- 6
P.4GE 3 PAGE 5
i°I'hereupan: i as to whether or not thaY was the final calcutarion
~ 2 MR. MOFMT: The first item on the Agenda is 2 that they have refened it hack to the Planning and
3 Riva Ridge Partners LLCa Applicants and Tom 3 Env"rronmentai Commissian, not belr'eving fhat a
4 Moorhead and Mike Mollica for Staff. 4 final decision had been rendexed as of June, that
5 NiR. Mt10RHBAD: This item is an appeal of three 5 shonld stand in the way af the Planning and
6 staff interpreTations and the issues are autlined 6 Environmentai Commissiun hearing, all the facts and
7 ' in #he Memorandum thaf was prepared by Mike 7 aircumscances that perfain here.
8 Moltfca. Tt is to the Pianning and Environmenta] 8 In the presentation, the first person that
9 Commission from the Comrnuniry Development 9 we're going to call witl be Jim Cumutte. 7im
10 Department and as we proceed today, we'?I 10 Curnutte is presentty with the Summit County
li essentiatty be fpliawing that Memorandum and its ii Planning L3epartment. He was previously with the
12 attachrnents. 12 fiorva of Vait Cammnniry Devetopment I3epartrnent and
13 Yon witl natice that there is a Caurt Reporter 13 Jim was the individual who first caleulated the
14 present today. That is Mr. Etandy Slane of Summit 14 par&ing pay-in-lieu and the classification of the
15 Reporting. He has agreed to be present taday to 15 third and fourYh flaars of earing and drinking
16 transcr`rbe tflese proceedings. The anly difference tG establishments. Jim will review for you the plans
17 between a tape recarder and Randy is that a tape 17 that he had reviewed, fIe will teli qou about his
18 recorder can't leY you knaw wiien it's not taking 1$ convarsations with C31enn Heetan and Y believe that
19 down what is being said. Randy can advise us if 14 he witi xender an opinion that Mr. Heetan clearly
20 he's having difCeulty fotlowing the tesrimony or 20 understood what the nature of #he classifiaation of
21 if people are talking an top af one another, and T 21 the third and fourth floors was and as well as
22 hava given Raudy fuli anthority to send ofF flares, 22 having a clear understanding as to how the
23 waive flags or do whatevex is necessary to make 23 pay-in-lieu was arrived at.
24 sure we're conducring this praceeding in a manner 24 After hearing thaY tesrimony T beifeve that
25 that allows him to proper(q Yake the notes 25 wili establish in the dune, 1996 letter to Tvfike
~
PACqB 4 PAGE 6
1 necessary for the transcriprion. 1 Mo113ca dtafted and signed tsy {31enn Heelan when fie
2 By the way of introducrion, there are actuaUy 2 says, I understand and agree as to the ta4a1 amaunt
3 three issnes that are before the i'lanning and 3 the parking pay-in-lieu that that, in Fact, was the
4 Environmental Cammission taday. Those ara the 4 circumstance at that time.
5 Stafrs elassificatipn af the tkird and fonrth 5 As to the current calcularion, you wili then
6 tloors as eating and drinking establishmcnts; twa, 6 hear tastimony frorn Mike Moltiaa. Mike Mallica
7 Secrion 18.52.100 C, parking, requiremenfs 7 wil( explain to you how the curreat caiculation has
8 scheduLa, eating and drinking establishments and 8 been made and will paint ouY same af the
4 Secdon 18.52.160 exemprions parking pay-in-lien 9 difFerences that result in a higher ealculation
10 anci that Riva Ridge Partners d'rsputes the 10 that was axrivefl at by Tim Curnutte.
11 caleulaCion of thc nurnber of parking spaces 11 Finally, as to the third and ftnal issue as to
12 required and three, the requirement that the 12 what, if any, security is required, i think that
13 applicant sign the promissoty note persanally and 13 vvili basioally be an understanding af what the law
14 that a deed of trust be fited on the properry, 14 in Colorado is that pertains #a a promissory note,
15 These are fihe issues as they have been set forth in 15 the fact that that is a generic term and the terms
lb the Appeal ihat was filed by Riva Ridge Partneas. 16 $nd candirions T believe are inherent writhin the
17 Yon may remember this matter has come before 17 7'own of Vait'x authority to enter into agreements
18 the Piannfng and Environrnental Commission in a TS that will essentially secura that payment will be
19 - previous rneeting. At that time it was determined 19 made in the futura.
20 that the Apgeat was nat tirnely filad based upon 20 Sa unless th€re are any questions, we're ready
21 their appealing of a letter from Mike Mallica that 21 to praceed and to cali Jirn Curnutte. The thiag
22 was dated in June of 1997. That matter was 22 that I would suggest, Greg, is thaC after Jim
~ 23 reviewad by the Tawn Council. 'Phe Tdwn Council, 23 Curnutte testifies that, if Mr. f3eelan, Yhe
24 paraphrasing what occurred, T was presant at that 24 Appellants, have any qnestions that they be given
25 maering, believed that there were enough quesrions 25 the opportunity to ask quesrians at that rime
SUMMIT REPCIRTING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 46$-9415
TdO'SIEMBER 10§ 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 7 - 10 J
PAC`iE 7 PACaE 9
1 befora we proceeci ta the next wimess. 1 there?
2 MR. MOFFET: L.et me asle you to step back far a 2 IvfR, CLJItNUM: I was a Senior Planner. ~
3 secund and answer a broader quesdon for us. Given 3 MR. l4iOOI2HEAA: Ancf as a Senior Planner, how
4 this is an appeai af a StafF decision specific with 4 long were you 'uvith the 'I"own?
5 parking and we basically have two parries to this 5 MR. CURNt7'ITE: I believe it was abaut three
6 actian, Staff and Riva Riclge, is it we need ta b and a half years.
? soticiY publfa inpnt because this ix pretry 7 MR. M{5t?RT3EAU. As a Senior Flanner, did you
8 strictty quasi-judiciat? $ have an opportunity ot occasion to work on an
9 MR. MC7CIRHBAD: That will be up to you, but I 9 applicarion whiah was filed by Riva Ridge Partners?
lU think basicaliy it's np to the parrias, either the 10 I'au may also know it as Serrano's.
11 Tawn of Vafl or to tha Applicant to calt wimesses. 11 MR. CURNU'i"I'E: Yes. Y was the Pianner.
12 Pubiic input is something that's appropriate for 12 MR. MOORHEAA: Wanld you describe for the
13 legisiative matters, but this is clearly a 13 Ptanning Cpmmission, Ivlr. Cumutte, when you first
14 quasi-judiciat matter. ld gat invalved in that paxticular praject and what
15 Wc'd ask 3im Curnutte to step forward and have 15 your job duries were in relarion to it?
16 a seat at the tabie where the plans are located. 16 MR. CURNUTT'E: When I first got involved7
19 7im, wauld yrau state yaur name and spelt yaur ]T MR. MQORHEAU: TTh-huh.
18 tast name, ptease7 18 MR. CURNU7'TE: Well, I was actuatly invoived
19 MR. +CURNUTTE: My name is Ji1n Curnutte, 19 with ths Appticants bafore they evetr made their
20 C-u-r-n-u-t-t-e, 20 applicatian in tsrms of kind of a preapptication
21 MR. MOOitHEAl?: Jim, how arc you presently 21 conversarion with Staff to determine what the
22 empioyed? 22 appropriate proaess wouid be for them to attempt to
23 MR. CLTitNUTTE: I work for the Surnmit County 23 proceed to have this private club in what was the
24 Plannittg Departrnent. 24 Serrana's Buitding.
25 MR. AiI00RHEAD: And ira what capaci4y do you 25 MR. MpaltHEAD: t3ne mament. Jim is tooking
~
PAGL S PAGE 10
t wark for Summi# County? 1 aver his shoulder to look at me which is narixrxi,
2 MR. CURNUTTE: T am the Iviasager of Currenz 2 so Prn going to mave over here.
3 Planning. 3 And could you give a descriprion of what that
4 MR. MO{1RHEAD: And as tha Managar of Current 4 project was described to you to be?
5 Pianning, what are your job duries on a day to day 5 MR. CURNUTTE: Wella tet's see. It was
6 basis? b already approvad as one t2zing and Andy Canuttc
7 MR. CURNUTTE: To handle the current planning 7 (phonetic), Senior Pianner, ha?rdled that project.
8 workload, the applicatibns in for reviaw by the 8 That was the tear down and rebuild af the building,
9 Planning Commissian ar Bnard of Counry 9 itself. And my involvement was handling what
10 Comm9s$ioners, to deal wifh the pnblie quesriuns id uirimately turned out to be a condirional use
11 and so on. 11 request to amend the previous approved, recently
12 MR. M()ORHEAD: Wfzat's your eflucarianal 12 given approval to the thirfl and fonrth floors.
13 backgronnd that quatifies you for that pasitian? 13 f}riginally, it was propased to be a private olub.
14 MR. CURNUT7'E: I"m crazy I guess. I have got 14 MR. MCIORHL'AD: And what were the
15 a Bacheinr's Degree in Conservation and I have 15 considerations that were mafle pursuant ta that
16 about ten years of experience as a Alanner. 16 change in the plans?
17 MR. MOt?RHEAD: Prior to accepdng that 17 MR. CU1tNUTTE: Well, originatly my first take
18 posirian with Summit Caunty, where were you 18 on the qnesNon was whether a private cluh aould be
19 emplayed? 19 proposed oe the third $nd #ourth floars in a CCi
20 MR. CURNUTTE: R.t the fiown of VaiL 20 Zone Distr`rct and the answer was na That was ngt
21 MR. MOORHBAtJ: And where were you emptayefl Zl specifically listed as an aitowe8 use in that Zone
22 w[th the Town of Vaii? 22 District. However, at the requesY of the ~
23 MR. CURNUTTE: In the Communiry i)evelopment 23 Applicant, T took iC to kind of a discussion with
24 Deparrinent. 24 the 1'lanning Staff. The Pianning Staff I beheve
25 MR. MOORHEAD: And what posirion did yau hold 25 sti11 meets ance a week to talk about issues and
SUMMI'C REPOI2TING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9425
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RNA RIDGE AI'PEAL HBARiNG Pages 11 a 14
PAGE tt PAGE 13
1 projecis that each of the individuat planners are 1 bullet item there in my letter, khe letter says the
~ 2 handling. And I believe I had a convetsarian with 2 fallowing informatian must be provided in order for
3 the resf ofi the planners abont the proposed use and 3 Staff to adequately review pour request. Please
& haw, if there was anyway it caulfl be praposed under 4 respond to the following. fihe first kind af item
5 any sorx of scenario. And the answer was that it 5 does deal with what you asked.
b wras cletermined to be very simitar to the earing and b MR. MOORHEAD: Okap. And direcring your
7' drinkzng estabtishments Cfiat were listed as a 7 attenrian fa the end of that first 9tem, pqn
8 eonditionai use in CCl and therefora, I gat back to 8 idenrified there thaC thesa are also the categories
9 the Applicants and said, yes. You can apply far a 9 that will he used ta determine #he parking
10 condiriona[ use. Staff is going to take the 10 requirement far the club; is thaT correct?
11 inCerpretarion that yan're veay sirnilar to two of 11 MR. GURNUTTE: Yes. T made Chat ciear at the
12 the types af earing and drinking estahiishments in 12 dme.
13 CCl. 'T'hat's restaurants I beliave and hars and 13 MIt, MOORHEAD: Jim, I'd thendirect youz
14 lonngas. And we feel that your praposed private 14 attention to Bxhibit D in that same Memo and ask if
15 ciub is very similar to that. So yes, you can gp 15 you wouid identify that particular docnment?
16 ahead and apply far a conditional use permit under 16 MR. GURNU'i"PE: That was the StafF Report to
17 that scenario. 17 the Planning and EnviranmenCal Cornmissiun that I
18 MR. MOORHEAD: Who did yau relay that 18 wrote for the cansiderarion of the condirianal use
19 infarmarian to? Da pou remember? 19 germit,
20 MR. CURNUTT'E: Ta Gtenn fleelan and passibly, 20 MR. MOORHEAD: And does this document atso
23 Charlie Davison. 21 estabtish #hat the Staff will use the categories of
22 MIi.. MOORHEAD: Was it affer that thaf a 22 cacktait lounges and bars and resta'urants in ordcr
23 condiNonai use permi#, in faet, was submitted for 23 to determine the parking requirement for the clnb?
24 tha use that you just described? 24 MR. CURNU'T'!"E: Yes.
25 MR. CTJt2Nt3T"TE: Yes, 25 MR. MOORHEAD: And this Mernorandum vtras
~
PAGE 12 PAGE 1d
1 MIS. MOORHEAD: Jim, I ask you to Iook at i submitted ta the Planning and Environmental
2 Exhibit C in the Staff Memorandum. And I beiieve 2 Commission?
3 that that is a two page letter dated Septembar 3 MR. CURNUTCE: Yes, it was.
4 21st, 1995; is that correct? 4 MR. MOORHEAD: I'd also direct your attenrion
5 tbiR. CLJRNU'I"TE: Yes, 5 ta Page 9 of that document nnder Staff
6 MR. MOORHEAD: And cautd you identiFy that 6 Recommendation and ask yau what, if any,
7 particutar document? 7 recommendation Yhe StafF had in regard to the
8 Mlt. CURNtJT"TE: That was a letter to Ivtr. Glenn S parking analysis?
9 Heelan from mysetf canceming his application far 9 Mlt. CURNLJTTE: Well, what you're referring ta
lU ehe canditional use permzt that we just ta2ked 10 on Page 7 I assnme is under the StafP
11 about. 1 t Recommendation where we recommended apprpval and
12 iJiR. MOORHEAD: And was this teitar written 12 there were two condirions, the secand candition of
13 aiter the applicatian hafl been subrnitted? 13 which points out the fact that since we were not
14 ivllt. CLTRNUT"I'E: Yes. This would have been my 14 provided with hard drawings of the uses an the
iS first ictter that would haue gone out to the iS third and faurth floor at the rime it wenf Chrough
16 App(icant after an $pplication was submitted ta let 16 conditional nse permit. °fhs condirian, the wording
17 him knaw whether or not the agpticarion was 17 of the condirion, the point nf that is that when we
18 complete rrr whather or not addirional infarmation 1$ got essentially buitding permit applications in onr
19 needed to he provided before it could go to a 19 ofiice with hard line drawings, construcrion
20 public hearing. 20 dr$wings, at that time the Planning Staff will
21 MR MOORHEAD: And did the letter in anyway 21 determine what the parking paym€nt fee would be,
22 describe what the uses were that wauld be 22 MR. MOORHEAD: Did you ever have an
~ 23 considered an the thirfl and fourfh floar pf the 23 apportuniry or did you ever reeeive such hard line
24 establishment? 24 drawings that en$bled yau to calentate tha parking
25 MR. CURNU1`CE: Yes. On Page 1, the first 25 pay-in-lieu fee?
svMMrT REPORTING 1 ~na 261-4818 (gro) 468-9415
NC7VEMBEFt 10, 1997 RIVA RtDGE APl'EAL HEARTN .~''i Pages 15 - 18
PAGE 15 PAGE 17
1 MR. CURNU°ITE: As part of tha conditional use 1 looking at an the sheet is iaoks tike five
2 permit review? 2 categories; floor area, CrItF'A, cornmerciai or retait ~
3 MR. MOORHEAD: Xes. 3 mostty in this case, common areas, offioa and
4 MR. CLIRNLiTTE: T don't believe so. T think 4 restaurants and then, the assaciated parking space
5 they were preconceptual at that point. 5 requiremant associated vcith each one of those. In
6 MR. MOORHEAD: 'GVhen was the first rirne that 6 other words, there was no GRFA in the building, so
7 you received pIans adequate to calculate a parking 7 there were not parking spaces associated with that.
8 pay-inalieu fee? 8 For commerciai, there was 3,707 square feet af
9 MR. CLJRNUTTE: WcEi, I actually don't know 9 commercial divided by 300. You necd to provide one
10 what the mdnth was, buY ik was sometime aft$r the 10 parking spact far every 300 feet of commereiai,
11 approval, buf before a building permit was issued. 11 'Y'haC comes to 12.4 parking spaces and sa on.
12 I think it was in the Spring of '96. 12 ltestaurant I betieve is the one wa're mostty
13 Mlt. MOORHEAD: And there are some plans in 13 talking about today, so the private elub or what
14 front of you. Are thosa the ptans that you 14 turned out to be the qaasi-pubiic ctub or Vail
15 reviewed to calculate the parking pay-in-lieu fee? 15 Village Club falls in that category of 4,978
16 MR. CURNtJTTE: Yes. 16 divided by 15 divided by 8. ThaYs how we
17 MR. MOORHEAD: And could you describe for the i7 calcu[ated the parking requirement for the ciub.
1$ Ptanning Commission just what review you performed t$ And it also included, I think there was some
19 and haw you ealcuCated that parricutar parking 19 restauranC on the second flnar as wetl and that
20 pay-in-lieu fee? 20 camc ta 41 and a half spaces.
21 MR. CdUFLNUT'fE: Weli, what i did is with kind 21 MR. MOORHEAD: Did you ever have an
22 of different rnarkers, highlighters, T aut(ined the 22 opportunity to provide this informatian to
23 various differenf types af uses; retaii, cpmrnon, 23 ktx. Gienn Heelan?
24 Yhe restaurant use. And T#hink there was a fpurth 24 MR. CLTRNUI"1'~E: Yes. We went over these
25 category, but I'm not positive. And so kind af 25 numbers several dnnes.
~
PAGE 16 PAGE t 8
1 generally outlined those areas and then, I 1 IvIR. MOORHEAD: Could you explain just what
2 calculatad the square footage area o# aach of thase Z that exchange was and the information that you
3 areas and put the totals down, pnt individual area 3 provided to Glenn?
4 on the sheet here anci then, totaled it up un the 4 MR. CURidUT'7`E: Weil, mastlp it was Glenn
5 taottarn and utfimately, T tptaled every flaor on the 5 certainty was ineerested in knowing what his fee
6 building to get a tatal for the whole buitding. 6 was going ta be, so he was eery interested in haw I
7 MR, MOORHEAD: Jim, Pm going to hand you what 7 calculated those numbers. As a rnatter of fact,
8 I have marked up in the upper right eomer as 8 disputed how I caicnlated the numbers in certain
9 Exhibit F. Excuse me. T`here was an F. Make that 4 areas. Not necessarily disputed, but quesNoned
td G. Can you identify that partiautar document? 10 whether or not that en#ry like arca should really
11 Mit. CURNUTIB: Yes, 1'his is the toeal for the il be caunted. You're not into the club untiC you
12 enrire buitding of each of xhe areas that I 12 walk past this point. 5o there was a lo# of give
13 salculated in order to determine the parking 13 and take abaut where tha tines should he and where
14 pay-ia-lieu fee. 14 they shouldn't be. You can see where I didn't
1S MR. MOORHEAD: Would yau explain ta the 15 count the air lock hert and mechanical over there,
16 Planning and Environmental Comcnissian just thc 16 those kind of things where T probably had
17 significance of these numbers and haw yau arrived i'F originaliy counted certain areas, the vesribulas
18 at thear using the pians as yau think is 18 and then, there was discussions back and farth.
19 appropriate? 19 Anci I remembet gaing again baok to the Planning
20 MTt. CURNLT7"TE: Well, in terms of signifieance, 20 Staff to talk about issues. You know, Glenn would
21 obviously, the significanee is that these numbers 21 npt like us to count the fireplace, so shouid we
22 wonld determine the fee at whatever the fee was at 22 reaily connt the fireplace. Yan can't sit in the
23 the rima, $16,Qa0 per space. 3a it was pretty 23 fiireplace. Shduld that be part of the restaurant ~
24 significant as to haw I came ta the final figures 24 area? Where do you draw the line between the
25 that I cama to here. And again, what you're 25 hallway and the ctub portion? And sa there was a
SUMMiT REPt7RTINta 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9425
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE AI'PEA.L HEARING Pages 19 - 22
PAt3E 19 PAGE 22
i lot of that going an. I go to the Staff and agree 1 off'ice space on the third flaor. And so there were
~ 2 or didn't agree. And I get baok to Glenn and 2 really two scenarios Yhat were approved for the
3 Charlie about w"hather we agreed or not and here"s 3 building all along.
d where I'm going to draw the tine. 4 MR. MOPJRHEAD: Okay. Based on yaur persona2
5 MCt. Mt?C}RFi'EAD: Over how tong a period of time, 5 cantact with Gtenn 'Eleelan and based an your
6 Jim, da you think these conversarians took place? 6 experience in the Cammunity T3evatopment 13epartmenT,
7" 2viR. CLTRNUT7'E?: Qh, it's tough to guess 7 do yau have an apinion as to whether ar nrat Cslenn
$ exactly. Probably, at least a month. Maybe two. 8 Heetan understood the ciassificatian o# the third
9 MR. MO{7ItHEAi): Haw muny meerings da yon thin 9 and fourth floors as eafing and drinking
10 you had personally with Glenn face to face and 10 estabiishments?
11 during the course of these discussions? 11 MR. CURNtTM: Yes.
12 MR. C'CTRNU'I"TE: I wvouid say at least> two. 12 MR. MOORHEAD: Did he ever came to you with a
13 Possibiy, three. But T feel pretty comfortable 13 suggestion that they would be similar Ca eating and
14 saying there were at teast, two meetings where we 94 drinking establishments?
15 went aver the numbers. 15 MR. CUR13U't"M: Weil, like I said, I think
15 Mli. MQORY-iEAD: How many telephone 15 originatly, you know, going way back to the very
17 convarsations did ytau have with him during that 17 beginning befor$ an application was even submitted,
18 period af rirne? 18 I bel'reve he came to the StafF with an idea of a
19 MR. CURNUM: Maybe only two. Again, in 19 private alub and was told a private ctub was not an
20 response to I wiil go check with StaBf, we'll see 20 ailowed or condirianal use in CCI, at least an
21 what we're going to do about that and then, I'm 21 Chose ievels of building and I believe it was his
22 sure I called, yes. oe'e're not gning to count the 22 suggestipn, weit, isn't it very simitar to some of
23 fireplace, but vve're going to count whatever. 23 those other uses Pm seeing in there? Conldn't you
24 MR. MOORHEAD: At anyYime did yon became 24 go talk to Staff and see if yau can determine it's
25 involved in a discussion as to whether or not 25 similar and therefore, T could be abie to appiq far
~ PAGE 20 PAGE 22
1 payment would be required ac the rima af the i a condirianal use permit. Cltherwise, his otaly
2 buiiding gerrnit or whethar it wauid be put ofF 2 option was to amend tke cade and T dan't think ha
3 unril the issuing of a temporary certificate of 3 wanted to go through that rime and effort to da
4 occupancy? 4 that first. And so yes, t think it was his
S MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I don't know exactiy how 5 suggesdon originaily and Staff agread. And once
b invoived 1 was, but that quesrion came up while I b we agreed and totd h9m he can proceed that he made
? was working at the Town af Vail. And i don't 7 an agplicatian for the conditianal use permiC.
8 remember what process we went through to change 8 Mtt. M0012HEAD; So he actuatly praceeded with
9 that, But the pxaeedure in plaee ai ihe rime was 9 an application far a cnnd'rtional use permit far the
to that everyone pays their parking pay-in-iieu fee lU third and fourth ttoars to be established as eating
11 before they get a huilding perrnit and for this 11 and drinking estabiishrnents; is that correct?
12 projece it was delaped until a TCa or a CO was 12 MR. CURNU"I"i'E: I guess. Yas. He actually
13 reqnested, anfl T don't think I had a lot to Qa with 13 made ae application ariginalty far a private club
14 that decision, but. 14 and we determined it was similar to other eating
15 MR M(70RI3EAD: L7o you remember whether or n iS and drinking estabiishmants listed in the CCT Zone
16 part af that discussian concerned whether or not it 16 L7istriet. it later was determined that a private
17 would actualiq be built out as a olub similar to a 17 ciub was not something that the Planning Commission
18 restanrant and bar or whether it woulci be built ont 18 wanted to see in the Vitiage, so the appiication
19 as residenriat? 19 was amended to be a quasi-public club.
20 MR. CUR13U'1"1`B: Yes. A,s 1 re.call, rigtst up 20 MR. MQC)RHEAD: 'I'hank you. I have na further
21 until the iast minutes ar maybe nntil I left the 21 questions at this time.
22 Towa af Vail, thers was still this, yott know, the 22 MR. MOFF"LT: Thanles, Tam. Gtenn, da yon have
~ 23 owmers or appliaants or whatever, T2iva Ridge was 23 aay qaest+ons?
24 debating whether to go the club route or to ga the 24 MR, HEELAN: 7ust a coupte questions at this
25 ariginal appraval which was one residenca with some 25 rirne.
SUMMIT REPORTING 1800 261-4$18 (9°70) 468-9415
NOS7ER+iBER 10, 1997 i2IVA ItIDGE API'EAL HEARING Pa$es 23 - 26
PAGE 23 PAGB 25
2 Jim, when did you leave the emplayment of the i MR. CLTRNUTTE: With 4hat decision?
2 7'own af Vail? 2 A+IR.. 1?AVISON: Uh-Auh. ~
9 MR. CURNU"T`TE: I think it was Iune 17th I 3 MR. CURNUT't°E: Boy, T can't recall whether
4 believe of - 4 that was Bob McLaurin or che Gauncil because agaitt
5 MR. HE'I-AN: '96? S it was diffesent than it had normally been done.
6 MR. CURNU'I"TE: '96. 6 MR. UAVI30N: Bnt in your reealleefion that
7 MR.HEELAN: You sYated here todap that when 7 waa appravedY
8 we went thraugh the process that there really $ MR. CURNU'i"I'S; Yas.
4 weren't firm plans and srilt even some conceptuai 9 MR. i3AViSON: Okay.
10 question as ta how we're going to finish 10 MR. MOFEtiT: Anything eLse from you gentiemen?
19 MR. CU12NUTTE: "VVVhether you were going ea 11 MR. HEELAPt: No. Thank you.
12 residentia( and 12 MR. IvIOt)12HEAD; I have a follow-up based on
13 MR. HEELAN: Whether we're going ta have 13 that quesrian.
14 residentiat $t the top two floors? 14 MR. MOFFET: Please.
tS MR. CURNU'ITE: I asked far hard line plans of 15 MR. MOORHEAD: Jim, I direct yaur attentian to
16 the club. lb ExhibiY E wtrich is attached to fhe memo which as a
17 MR. HEELAN: Uh-huh. 17 letter dated Jnne 21st, 1396 to Mike tvtollica from
18 MR. CURNU'i"I'E: And you said unrii we feet 18 Glenn Heelan, i3o you see that before you?
19 comfortahle they're going to apprave the club, T 19 MR. CURNUTY'E: Yes.
20 don°t want ta go to the expense of that. So yes, 20 MR. IvTC)C1Rf3EAD; And in that tetter the first
21 that was concep#ual at that t'rme. 21 sentence indicates, pursuant to our previaus
22 MR. HEELAN: In our meetings that you Yalked 22 conversarions, it is my understanding and agreement
23 absut per the Town's questions, do you ever recall 23 that the parking pay-in-lieu fees currentiy
24 us quesrioning the Board based an seats? 24 estimated at $457,334.56 as established by
25 MR. CURNtJM: Na, I dan't. 25 Community T3evelopment in accosdance with the plans
.
PAGE 24 PAGE 26
1 MR. HEBLAN: T refer pau to the baek of 1 and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
2 Exhibit C's where we had seat caicularians and there 2 Parfiers, Limited Liability Company that indicate
3 are some qnesrions of hdw rnafiy numbex of spaces we 3 completion af the third and fourth flaors as a
4 should have and whether that shoulfl be based on 4 quasi-pnb(ic club will be paid over five years with
5 sea#s? 5 the first payment due and payabte at the time a
6 MR. CTJItNU'CTE: I don't recall whetker we had 6 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Da
'l that discnssian, but I certainly did do a 7 yon see that sentence?
8 calcularion based on seats becausc the cofle 8 MR. CURNU'T'TE: Yes.
9 required what are the mast restrictive or the 9 MR. MOORHEAI): That calcularion of the
10 requzrernent is the one used, so I did Che 10 $457,000, is that based upon yoat calcntation?
11 calcutatian. 11 MR. CURNU'I"TE: Yes. That rnatches. As you ean
12 MR. HEELAN: i think if we're going into the 12 see, that matches my nurnbers exactiy.
13 issue of restrictive and the nature of what the 13 MR. MOQRHEAD: And that was a caiculatian that
14 code reads taday in terms of a lengthy discussion, 74 was made based upon the square faotage af the
15 I would contead in our canversahons yve certainty 15 facility; is that correct?
16 discussed the seats because we had lots of 16 MR. CUItNUT1'E: Yes.
17 discussions abont it at that time. 17 MR. MC30RHEAD: And that was not a calculation
18 MR. DAVISC?t3: One other quesrion. You 18 that was based upon any seat plan, is that correct?
19 menrianed that basically there had been a 19 MR CURIttUTTE: That's right.
20 discussion an postponing up until the CC? whataver 20 MR. MOORHEAD: So that was afinal
21 the payment - 21 determinarian that yau had made as af the time that
22 MR. AiClORHE1LD: Right. 22 you concluded your caiculation ofi the parking
23 MTi, DAVISC3N: On pay-in-lieu, You mentioned 23 pay-in-lieu; is that correct? ~
24 that you had sornething to do, but yau were rcaliy 24 MR. CURNLTTTE; Iras,
25 na# invaived. Can you tell us who was invaived? 25 MR. MOORHEAi): And thete was some discnssion
SUMMIT REPOR'TING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
Nt)VEIvIBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HBARING Pages 27 - 34
PAGE 27 PAGE 29
1 irt regard to the caicutation of a seat plan. You t MR DAVISON: By restrictive, you said right
~ 2 indicateci Yhat you had made same calcuiarion based 2 now thak it was whichever was
3 upan seats; is that correct? 3 MR, CLTRhTUTTE: More rastrictive.
4 MR. CURNLJ'TTE: `1'es• 4 MR. LbAVISON: And what was the definition?
5 MR, ivlC?C3RHEAD: And what was yonr reason for S MT2. HBELAId; What was yous definition of that,
6 daing that? b Jim?
7' MR. CITRNUTTE: Again, because the cnde says 7 MR. CURNUTTE: T'he ane that woutd have the
8 that the parking xequiretnent far a restauranT or an $ highest parkiag demand.
4 eating and drinking establishment is either 9 MR. HEELAN: L?emanda
t{} accarding to the LJBC requirements or on a per seat 10 M12. i3AVISON: Uemand in Yerms of number of
11 basis. I believe iYs one parking space for every 11 parking spaces?
12 eight seats a?ad you do the twp and then, you go 12 MR. CUt2NU'1"CEs The number of pasking spaces
13 with the ane that's the most restrictiee. So I 13 that would be reqnired.
14 probably had eo do it both ways which I did here ta 14 Mit. I7AVTSON: For money?
15 see what the numbers woutd be and it looks like the 15 Mlt. CURNU`I"TE: Yes, if you were going ta paq
16 resnlts of my catcniarions wonld be 37 according ta 16 the park-in-lieu fee, yes,
17 the seating way af doing it and 2$ accordfng to the 17 MR, MOFFET: Thank you.
18 ather way of daing it. So that's the ane that's 18 MR. MpOItHEAD: Mike ivloliiea, if you could have
19 mare restrictive anfl so that's the one they used. 19 a seat over here if you wauidn't mind?
20 MI2. MpC}TtHBAD: When you use the tetm rnore 20 Mike, it's my understanding that you
21 restricrive, what flid fhat term mean to you as you 21 personstiy have prepared the Mernorandum to the
22 administraCed the 'I'awn of Vaii Cofle in this regxrd? 22 I'ianning and Envirunmental Commissipn that they're
23 MR. CURNUT"TE: Weli, essentially, the nne that 23 cansidering today; is that conect7
24 would cause the highest parking raquirement. 24 MR. MpLLTCA: "Yes, it is.
25 MR. MOORfiEAD: And is that cansistent with how 25 MR. MC}OR14EAD: And that iviemorandum is based
~
PACiE 28 PAGE 30
1 you had calculated parking requirements throughout 1 upon pour actual experience with this particular
2 yonr career with the Town of Vaii? 2 praposai pr appeal as it now wauld properly be
3 MR• CURNuTTE: Z'es. 3 idenrified and yaur knowledge nf the parking
4 IvYR. MOORHBAD. And was it yonr undersYanding 4 pay-in-lieu issue, is that carrect?
5 th$t was haw thc entire Staff interpretefl and 5 MI2. MOLLICA: That is eorrect.
6 administered that particular provision of the Code? 6 Mit. MOORHBAD: A faw things just real quickly,
7 MR. CLTIiNU7`T'E: Yes. 7 kind af housekeeping iEems to make eertain r+ve get
8 MR. MOORHEAD: t7kay. Nothing further. S these items praperly identified. I'd like tn
9 MR. MOFFE'C: Thank yau, Tom. Anything eise? 9 direat yonr attendon to Exhibit A af thcs
10 Recrass basically? lU Memorandum. And if you could descn'be rea( quickiy
11 Mi2. DAVISON: Basically, just ta furCher il for the Planning and Environrnental Camrnissian just
12 understand in terms of the seadng calcutarions, 12 what that dooument is?
13 what they were based on in terms of btneprints that 13 MR. MQLLICA: Exhibit A consists of 3 pages.
14 yatt aatually had that represented the seating 14 Pages 1 and 2 are the actuai appeat form that was
75 itself, ox eaiculaHans on fhe formuta, itself? 15 eompleted and signed by G1enn Hce]an. And the
16 MR. CURNU'T1'S: I'm sorry. 16 final page is a tettcr that I wrote to Gtenn Heelan
17 MR IaAWTSQN: In cather words, I don't think 17 dated June 17th of 1997 indicaring the parking
18 that there were any seaCiag as speeifi¢ seating at 18 calcularion and associated fee far the payan-liau.
19 that rime. 19 MR. MC)ORTiEAD: ivTike, I'd like ta direct yaur
20 MR. CURNUT"1`E: Right. That's a verp gaod 20 attentibn to Bxhibit E. Can you identify that
21 question. Haw did T come up with these numbers? 21 parricular docuraent?
22 Oh, it says esrimate on here. d think since I 22 MR. MOLLICA: Exhibit B is a letter from Glenn
~ 23 difln't tsave an actual searing plan, I must have 23 Haelan ta me dated lune 21st, 1996. This was a
24 tried to guess a typical how many sats you could 24 letter that I raquested Gienn Heelan paavide sa
25 have fit in these various areas. 25 that we had a very ctear understanding as ta the
SUMMIT REPORTING - 1 800 2614818 (970) 468-9415
NOVE1vfBER 10, 1991 I2IVA RTDCiE API'EAL HEARITV(."x 1'ages 31 - 34
PAGE 31 1'AGE 33
1 pay-in-lieu requirement prior to rny issuing the t MR MOLLICA: No.
2 buiiding permit for the project. 2 MR. MOORHEAD: Axe fheq required to have any ~
3 MR. MC?ORHEAD: And was it your understanding 3 seats at alt?
4 that the building permit was to be issued without 4 MR. MOLLICA: No.
S the parking pay-in-lieu baing paid prior ta its S MR. MfOORHEAD: Is it fair ta say th$t a
6 issuance? 6 seating pian is compietely discterionary bq the
7 MR. MOLLICA: Xes. 7 operatar of a facilit}r of this nature?
8 MR. Iv10C?RREAD: And was it your understanding $ MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
9 that the parking pay-in-lieu would then be paid 9 Mti, MOORHBAD: Are there same instanoes where
lU prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of 10 we have fixed seating pians7
11 accupancy? 11 M12. MOLLICA: There are some instances, yes.
12 MR. MpLL.TCA. Thae is eorrect. 12 MR. MQORHEAD: And what would those be like7
13 MR. M(?pT2HEAD: Has a temporary eertificate of 13 IvIR. MOLLICA: Qne immediate exampie wonld be
14 occupancy been issned far this property? 14 Mcilonalds where they have fixed seating. These
15 MR. MOLLICA: No. 15 seats are actuaily bolted ta the floor.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Mike, in ragarfl to your lettex It MR. MOORHEAI): Was there any fixed seating in
17 in which of Juna 17th, 1946, excuse me, 1997 which 17 chis parficular pian when it was submifCed?
18 you state the calcutaNon af the parking 18 MR. MOLLICA: Y belaeve there was perhaps one
14 pay-in-lieu fee. Coutd you tcit the Pianning and 19 bpoth which had fixed searing, but overall, no.
20 Environmental Cnmmissian just how pou arrived at 20 MR. M40RHEAU: And there was no particntar
21 t6at calculation7 21 reqnirernent that there be fixed seating; is that
22 MR. MOLLICA: Certainly, '1'ozn. Very siinilar 22 correct?
23 methodology that dim Cumntte used tcr determine his 23 MR. MOLLICA: "That is correct.
24 ealcularion. T reviewed the pians and ufilized 24 MR, MOORHBAD: Based on your caiculafion, what
25 three, separate categories, restauranUclub use, 25 is the most restrictive or more restricrive
~
PAGE 32 PAGE 34
1 retail cornmercial use and thirdlyro t)ffiCe U5e. Y calculation in this partioular instanee?
2 Common area daes not have a parking requirement 2 MY2. MOLLICA: .4s it relates to the restaurant
3 associated with it, SO I dTd riOt lltII1ZC tI1St. 3 and ctub use?
4 Going through the revised floar plans, T ealculated 4 IvIR. MOORHEAD: Yes.
S the square foatages and using the appropriate 5 MR. MOLLICA: It would be a calcutation thaY
6 nnmbers, carne up with the required p$rking spaces 6 invoived the square footage analysis.
7 fhat are indicated ia thds par6cular tetcer. I 7 MR. MOORHEAI?; And is thaY consistent wwith
8 wauld paint out that at this tirne it was the first 8 idenrifying that as the parking pay-in-lieu
9 time that I had tha opportunity of viewing $ 9 requirement, is that consistent with how the Tawn
10 seating plan for the Vaii Viilage Club and also 10 of Vail Community Develaprnent Department has
il analyzed the parking as it related to nucnbecs of ii administered the parking pay-in-lieu and the
12 seats as well. 12 parking reqnirements for comrnerciai establishments
13 MR. MOqRHBAD; Could you describe what that 13 in the Town of Vail?
14 seating plan is and how it was arrived at to the 14 1viR. MOLLICA: Yes.
15 bes# af yaur knawledge? iS MR. IvIUt7RHEAD: Subsequent to your letter of
16 MR. MOLLICA: Prior to appraximately, June of 16 Jnne 17th, 1997 did you ever have an occasian ta
17 '97 I had not seen a seating plan for the club. As 17 have any meetings with C,lenn Heelan and Charlie
18 you know, restanranYS and lounges typieally have a 18 Davison in regard to youa calculations and
19 seating plan. IYs a floor plan that iqdicates 19 findings?
20 tabie taeations and number of seats. And at that 20 MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
21 rime the searing ptan was dxopged otf at my office 21 MR. MQQRHEAI): And approximafely, when did
22 and I analyzed that plan accordingly. 22 thase occur by?
23 MR. MOORHEAD: Is there anp regulation 23 MR. MOLLICA: 'Chose wonid have occuned ~
24 conceming a rcquirement for a cercain number uf 24 beiween April and June.
25 seats in this parriaular estabtsshrnent? 25 Mlt. IviOQRHEATJ: Akay. And what was the r$asp
SLTIvIMTT REi'ORTTNG 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
NQVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIl3GE APPEAL HEARING Pages 35 - 38
PACE 35 PAGB 37
1 fat those meedngs? i calculation ofi the accnpancy load of this
~ 2 MR. MOLLICA: Those were rneerings that were 2 parricular establishment?
3 cailed by Glenn Heelan because Glenn wanted to 3 MR. MOLLiCA: Yes, he did.
4 discuss this, the Staff's calculation for tha 4 tviR. MOORHEAD: And what vaas his aaiculatian?
5 pay-in-lieu and had some specific questians about 5 Haw daes it campare to the calculation that yau
b certain areas that may ar may not have baen 5 made for the purposes of determining the parking
7' included. 7 pay-in-lieu requiramenC?
$ MR. MOO12HEAU: Did yau, in fact, cneet vwith him $ MR. MOLLICAa Art`s calculation in summary
9 and make any revisions in your calcutarions? 4 would require rnore parking spaces than the
14 MR. MC3LLICAt Yes, t did. 10 calculation perfarmed by Staff.
ti MR, MQORHEAD: Okay. And what wexe the natu 11 MR. MOQ[tHEAD: And is this something that we
12 of the ravisians that yau madc in ealculations? 12 nocmally wili flo when we're making a determinatian
13 MR. MpLIdICA: The naYure of the revisians were 13 of parking pay-ie-lieu?
rtA made basi¢ailq becanse certain changes had occurred 14 MR. Mt)LLTCA: Absolutaly noY.
15 during the canstruction of the buitding. Far 15 MR. 1vTt3ORHEAD: Why did ybn do it in this
16 example, on che tower level there's an area that 16 particular circumstance?
17 was iniriaily thought Co ba an office. it was 17 MR ivIULLICA: We were making every attempt ta
18 labeled as an office and it was catcnlatad as an i$ work with Mr. Heatan to try to tesolve the
19 office as far as the pay-in-lien is concerned. 19 pay-in-lieu issue. We agreed to have Art do that
24 During the aonstntcrion G2enn reali2ed that tixat 20 work at the Tovan's expensc so that ws had a clear
21 spaee was toa small to be an offiea and 21 undersCanding af what the Unifarm Buitfling Goda
22 subsequenzly converted it to a storage roorn for the 22 woutd require in terms of occupant load.
23 resCaurant. At Qlann's request we then modified 23 MR, MC?t7ItHEAD: And is Che Unifonm Building
24 the pay-in-lieu catculatzons to back that office 24 Code what you used to make yonr determinatian af
25 space aut af the fee. 25 the parking pay-in-lieu requirement?
~ PAGE 36 PAGE 38
1 iv1R. MOC}RHEAD: And did yau actually visit tha 1 MR. MOt,LICA: Parrially.
2 site ta verify thaf information? 2 MR. MflORHEAt7: And in what manners is it a
3 MR. Mt1LLTCA: Yes, I did. 3 tool that yon usecl to make a determinadon?
4 MR. Mt?4RI-IEA73: And what, if any, other 4 Mit. MaL[.ICA: As it reIates ta rastanrants and
5 adjnstmenYs were macia in your caicularian? 5 eating estahlishments, the Staff urilizes fhe
6 Mlt. MCILLICA: There was other adjustments made G Unifarm Bnitding Code Tabie 33a ta deCermine
'I in #he lawer Ievet af the plan or lower level of 7 occupant laad factar and that's whera thc 15, the
8 the structiure. An asea that was inifiallp to be a 8 45 square foot number comes into play that 3im
9 ski tuning facility, that tflat space was then 9 described earlier.
117 changed to a storage roam #ar the ski storage 10 MR. MO!URHEAD: And did Art actuaity give yau a
11 faciifty. And we made tfie maflificatiori again. Ail 11 document which summarizes his caicularion7
12 the modificarinns that were made reciviced the 12 MR. Nit)LLTCA. Yes, he did.
13 requirement nuXrber csf spaces. 13 MR. MOARHBAA: If I could get a copy of that
14 MR. MOUTLHEAD: And had you ever asked Art 14 from you, we wauld request that that be deemed
I5 Haagland ta aiso da a calculation of occupancy 15 Bxhibit H faz the purpose of tAis hearing. T have
16 ioads on this parcicutar establishment7 16 no further quesrions for Mike at this rime.
17 MR. M(3LL.ICA: Yes, I did. 17 Thanks.
18 MR. MO('3RHBAD: First of ali, would you tell 18 MR. MdFFET: Thanks, Tom. Gtenn, questians
19 the Planning and Enviranmental Cammission just wha 19 for Mike?
20 Art Hoagland is? 24 MR. HEBLAN: Mike, you menrioned that you
21 CvIR. MC?i,.LTCA: Art Hoagiand is a Building 21 didn'Y have adequate seating plans with tespect ta
22 Ittspect4r who has many, manp years af experienee 22 this nnYil T dmpped thern ofE in 3une af '97?
~ 23 behind him. He currently is empiayed as a Gontract 23 MR. iviOLLICA: That's aorreet.
24 Building Inspcctor with the 'T'own af Vail. 24 N112, HEBLAN: These are dated 611l96. 'Chese
25 IvIR. MQ012HBAD: And did he prc+vide to yau a 25 were searing plans used by xim Curnutte, so I think
SLIMMiT REPCJRTING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 46&9415
Ai(7VEMBER 10, 1997 I2IVA RIDGE APPEAL. HEARTNCz Pages 39 - 42
FAGE 34 PAGB 41
1 they were available and I think they ware discnssed 1 additional quasCions, Tom?
2 with Jim Curnutte. I wanted to make sure it was in 2 MFL. M(30RHEAiJ: No. The third remaining issue ~
3 the record thess were av$itable and paxt of the 3 invalves the requirement foa security on the
4 Building Code set that we subrnitted in June af '96. 4 granring of a period of time within which to pap
5 MR. MQLLTCA. Ts that a question? 5 this particular parking pay-in-lieu. And in paur
6 Mit. HEELAN: No. I just asked if they were 6 packet - T dsn't know if it's in your packet. I
7 available. You stated, drd you noti sEate that in 9 haee a letter that P11 make copies of and provifle
8 7une of '97 you didn't have access to searing 8 to the Commissian as Exhfbit T which has attached
9 plans? 4 to it a proposed promissory nate whiah was 10 MR. MOLLTCA: Yes. T did state thats lU deveEoped for tfle purpose of securing Yhe payment
11 Iv1R. HEELAN: Were these not in the Buitding 11 of this particutar parking pay-in-tieu if it's to
12 Depamnent? 12 be paid over rime. C?ur '[`own of Vail Code cnakes
13 Mit. MOLLICA: To my knowledge, no, 13 referenee to a promissory note being signed for the
14 MR. HEEL.AN: Then haw did Jim Cumutte - 14 extension of allowing thc parking pay-in-lieu to be
15 maybe I should eall Jim back to determine the dates 15 paid aver a period of rime.
16 on the seating pians thaf he had here from item 16 A promissdrX note is nat described in the'Cown
17 2.4, 2.5. 17 af Vail Ordinances. A promissory ante is descrihed
18 Mlt. It+IOLL.ICA: Yguess you wiil have to ask i$ in the Colorado Revised Statutes and is a generic
19 Jim. 19 term and a promissory note is essenrially an
20 MR. HBELAN: Qkay. 20 agreement to pay in the TuCUre. And there's no
21 MR. 1vIQFFE;T: Anything else? 21 r€quirement in the Calorado Revised Statutes ar in
22 MR. DAVISON: Yau were mentioning that there's 22 the Town af Vail Mnnieipal Code as to what the
23 been some revisions. Obvioasly, that was an 23 appropriate condirions are tvith a ptomissory note.
24 involved situatian. There were some revisions to 24 IYs a generic term and I do not believc that
25 the actual number of spaces? Yes or no? 25 there's anything within the Town of Vail Municipal
~
PAGE 40 FAGE 42
1 MR. Mpi,LICA; yes. There were revisaons, i Code that would limit the abitity of the Tgwn to
2 TviR. DAVI30N: You mentianed that those ware 2 require adequate secnrity far the ailowance of an
3 really by adaprittg some of the changes that were 3 applicant to pay a substantiat arnaunt af money over
4 requested by us for you to analyze? 4 a period of time. The 'T'own Council upon the
S MR. IetpLLICA: I believe they alI were, 5 application af the Vail Tawn Manager granted the
6 Charlie. 6 authority to the Town AlIanager in this parricalar
7 MR. DAVISON: Wouid you say that the flrst fi instance and in all instanoes thaY have a
$ nnmber, that was an esrimate at that fime of 8 substanrial, parking payain-lieu fae to extend it
4 457,000 and your ftrst estimate to 571,000, what 9 for a greater than five year period of time. And
IU were those revisions based on, to ga up to 571? 10 the reasan that permission was granted was becanse
11 MR. MCfLLTCA: There were no revisions that It there has been a significant increase in the amount
12 were based upon that. My analysis was a review af 12 of the parking pay-in-lieu fee. It has been
13 yanr building permit set. 13 increased from a lawtr figure up to $16,000. And
14 Mti. DAVTSBN: But it was a revision7 14 there had not been a change in the Code consistent
15 MIt, MOLLICA: I don't have any knowledge of 15 with that increase in the parking pay in-lieu, sd
tb thaT. 15 the Code continues aud tnday conrinues to require a
17 MR. DAVISON. And furfher from that there were 17 paytnent w%thin live years. And w'rth the Iarger
1$ erwq, additional changes of thase amaunts? 18 snms of maney that can he generated as we're seeing
14 IvIIt. MQi..LTCA: That's correct. 19 in this paeticular case, it might not be reasanable
20 MR. DAVISCJN: VVith one down to 547 to the 20 to require payment within five years. And for that
21 current one pf 5387 21 reason, the Vail Town Gouncil granted authority to
22 MR, tvIOY.LICAY I don°t have that in frant of 22 the '`own Manager to extend it over a longer period ~
23 m+e, but that sounds right. 23 of rime up to ten ycars. And that infarmarion was
24 Mlt. DAVISt?N. Thank yau. 24 reflected in a leteer to Glenn Heelan from the Town
25 MR. MOFFET: Thank you. I3o yau haee any 25 Manager and I witl to have get that date far you
SUMMiT REPOR"['IIr3G 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468=9415
NUVEMBEIt iQ, 1997 RNA RII?~'rE APk'EAL HEARING Pages 43 - 46
PAGB 43 1'AGE 45
1 and make a copy of that letter. i don't knaw that 1 there a searing p1an that you had the opportunity
~ 2 it's within your packet right now. 2 to review in the past?
3 MR Mt?T•"FETa Excuse me, 1'orn. Let mc interrugt 3 MT2. GIJT2NU Cl'E: Yes.
4 for a seGOnd. I want the record ta reflect thaY 4 1vtR. MOUTtHEAD: And how do you know that you
S Gtenn TJseitan is leaving. He has a previous 5 reviewed it in the past?
6 engagemenk. Thank yau. 6 MR. Ct3RNL3'I`TE: This is my writing, each of the
7' MR. MOC3RIiEAD. Qkay< 7 numbers an here.
$ MR, USELTt)N: Thank yau. 8 MR. MOORHEAD: Was that the seating plan that
9 MR, MOO22HEAD: And I will hava both of those 4 you considered when you were calculadng the
10 items markeci as an Exhibit and available for yonr 10 parking pay-in-lien fae?
11 consideration. il IvIR. CURNt3TTE: It looks like it is because T
12 iviR. tv%OFFET: Tnm, I'm sorry. Did you say you 12 am just looking at ane page here. On tha second
13 were going to get us a copy of that section of the 13 level it laoks like the totai is 112 seats. That's
34 ordinance? 14 what is in #his chart. Withaut laoking at the
15 MTt. MOORHEAI?; Yes. 15 other sheets, I woutd say yes. `T'his is what T used
lb Mit. MdFEET: t)kay. °Phank you. And does that 16 ta carne up with these numbers.
17 conclude yaur presentarion? 17 MTt. iviOt}itHLAD: Great. Thank you very much.
18 MR. Mt}OI2HEAL3: Yes, it daes. 18 MR. MC?FFE'I': 't'hanks, Iirn. I assnme there were
19 tvIIL, MOFE'ET: Teti you what, befare we ga ta 19 no more quesrions, Glenn7
20 the Appellants' prssentarian, let's take a shart 20 Mit. HEELAN. I dan't think so, Greg.
21 break. We're gaing to be here for awhile and 21 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Go ahead.
22 readjaum in about five to seven minntes. Thank 22 M12. HBELAN: I didn't say far the record. I'm
23 ypu_ 23 Glenn Heel$n representing Ttiva Ridge Partners, LLC
24 (Wheraupon, we were off the record) 24 and one of the managers of that entiry.
25 MR. MOFMT: Ws're back on the record. For 25 First, I'd like to thank you a11 for the
~
pA('~„E q¢ 1'AGE 46
t the record, our quorum cbnsists af Cornmissioners 1 apporrixniry ta finally present aur 8ppeal ta you
2 Schofieid, Amsden, Aasland and MofEet. And now, 2 this afternaon. Nat realizing we were preparin8
3 The Appellant. 3 for a deposition type interview if you wilt, we had
4 M12. MOORHEAD: Qne matter if I cautd very 4 a muah more casual and nannal approach I suspect.
S qnickly7 Bxeuse me. I did provide fo the 5 'I`his Appeat is probably difFerent in nature,
6 Cornmission and to the Court iteparter copias af 6 but consists of one of interpretarian. 4Ve believe
Z Exhibit H whieh is the calcularion by Art Haagland; 7 and hopefully you wiii also believe thera was a
$ Exhibit I, a letter dazed November 18th to 8 valid reason for this Appeal agd the eorrect steps
9 Mr. Gienn Heelan ftam Mike Iviolli¢a, Er¢hibit 7 which 9 can be ta{cen as a rasnit. We're not here to
10 is a letter from mysetf to Glenn Heelan with a 10 discuss whether the ordinance of pay-in-lieu is
11 pxnmissory note attache,d and IC whieh is the eopy of 11 right or wrong. And we're not here to diseuss if
12 the Town af Vait Code in regard Yo Commercial T and 12 ffie amount for parking has increased toa much and
13 Commerciat II parking pay-in-lieu requirements. 13 whethar it's toa hfgh or not. 'l`his issue has been
14 °I"here was an issue raised an the quesrioning 14 discussed in the past and even Yhough the ordinance
15 of Mike Moilica by Glenn Heelan in regard to a 15 had not been changed for some#ime and it's been
16 searing plan. And if I could recall Jim Curnukte 16 over a year since a revision was first discussed,
17 for one ar two quesrions, we cauid establish what 17 we're sure that it wiii be bronght np by other
18 that seating plan was and whether ar not he had 18 oancerned aitizens.
19 seen it, 19 What we're heie for is to aonvince you that
20 MR. MQFFETc Welcome back, Jim. 20 what we're requesring is a fair and correct
21 MR. CURNUI'TE: Thar,k you. 21 interpretarion of the or8inance as it was written
22 MR. MOFFET. T assume you want C..rlenn to ask 22 and how it should be applied. We're not asking for
~ 23 the qussfian of 7im here7 23 variances. We're not asking you to deviate fi'an?
24 MR. MC!{)RHEAD: I can ask 7im. 24 the ordinances.
25 Jim, as you look at khase plans again now, is 25 ia the past the parking pay-in-tieu fee
SUMMTT REP012T1NC 1800 2614818 (970) 468-9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 12TVA RIDGB APPEAL HEARIIVG I'ages 47 - 50
FACE 47 PAGE 49
1 caiculations have always bean done like this, 't'he 1 the size of the event. But this daesn'Y happen in
2 normal praeedura as you learned earlier today, as 2 a fine dining restaurant, mnch less in a ~
3 we went thraugh earlier today, you start with 3 qnasi-ppbIic club ambiance. Sa what was the
4 blueprints, the occupancy standarda and you get 4 fntent, but to anticipate which one o# both
S Staff's inYerpratation of the facts. LTp to naw 5 measurements was more restricrive, rnare realisric
b every Staff calculation had been dane before the 6 toward its real use and more realistic to the real
7 building permit. Staff would receivc the 7 impaot of additipnal seats creating additional
8 blueprints and by the accupancy standards, based on $ parking demands.
9 square faotage and calculates a parking fea based 9 It's logical that the demands for park'rng is
10 on those ocenpancy standards. Ilnfortunately or 10 created by drinking and eating establishments based
91 fortunatetp, it was agreed r+ery early on that due 11 an the number af seats in that estabtishment. In
12 to the fact we had not decided if we wese going to 12 our case, that number of eeats is rnare restrictive
13 finish the building as residential or as 13 than the Staff's caleularians based on building
14 cammerciai, we all agreed to wait until the TGA to 14 occupancy standards. We believe we're being
15 reach a final decision in reference to the finai 15 overtaxed. We believe that the intent of the Cade
16 amount and terms of payment. Whether it was a goad 16 was an either or siriaarion. It was meant to
17 or bad decisi4n is realty irrelevant at this point. 17 anricipate that searing could be more restricrive.
18 The issue is that we aii agreed to dn it in this 18 We beiieve that Stafi's calaulafian and
19 very unique way. And in fact, we are unique. 19 interpretatians are unitateral to the Town treasnry
ZU We're tha only product that's being judged or can 20 and not to the intent of the ardinance as written.
21 be judged as a finished pradnct. We're ncat looking 21 Our appeal to you is far aur real searing
22 at blueprints, lsut loalcing at reality. We're 22 capacity Ya be recognized. We have 210 seats.
23 uniqne in that we betieve we are the onlp product 23 Staff's interpretation which is dane by Building
24 in which searing is rnare restricrive than the 24 Code occupancy standards reflccts 3$1 seats.
25 occupancy standards. Typically, a restanrant faces 25 LeYs ga to a chart in 4erms of haw that
~
PAGE 48 PAGE SO
1 attempts to cram every seat pessible inta the 1 shakes aut in terms of the fees. Tf you toak at
2 available space. QVe have also tried to maximize 2 the chart on the board, based on the accupancq
3 our seats, but due to the physicai canfigurarian af 3 standards measured by square footage, the
4 tfie building and the ambianee required, it's nat 4 restaurant club wauld require 47.64 parking spaces.
5 physically passible to have enaugh seats to reach 5 Thi$ is on the right-hand side af the chart. The
6 the 381 seats that the Staff has catcntated under 6 total lauilding wauld requira 59996 spaces. We all
7 the space requirements. We're not here to judge, 7 agrea that we're grandfathered 27 spaces for the
$ but to apply the atdinances as was written and 8 ald bnitding. Therefore, based on oceupancy
9 respecring the intenrion of how it was writYen, an 9 standards, it's 32.996 ar $53$,916.20. Based on
10 honest intelieciuai approach to the intent and not 10 the actuat number of seats that could he fitted in
11 a rubber starnp to the wap it's always been done. 11 the estab[ishment, the restaurant clixb wpuld only
12 The Tawn Councii that approved this ordinance 12 regnire 26.25. The total for the whote building is
13 must have had the restriative nature af seadng in 13 38.76. Once again, we'ra gran8fathered 27.
14 mind. Just ask yoursetves why was the langtaage 14 Taxable spaces would be 11.76, so we'd have
15 inclnded in the firs# piace. Wonid it be to iS $192,080.55 in fees. VVe don't blarne Staff. 'Chere
16 differentiate a convention center from a fine 16 are 300 and some odd thonsand reasons to calculate
17 dining restanranY or from a cafeteria, a McDonalds, 17 it their way.
18 a theater ar a quasi-pubiic club7 AIl of these l$ What this means in aur mind is that we're only
19 bnsinesses have different use ahjecrives as to how 19 laoking far a fair and honest treatment by
20 to use the space. Thereforc, different parking 20 recagnizing the real seating capaciry. And yan
Zl imgacts. Therefore, dxfferent parking space 21 foiks are now the judges of that interprstariun.
22 calcutations. I submit to you that maybe a 22 And before we canrinue with the rost of the ~
23 eanvenrion center shauld be calculated using the 23 Appeal, we fiope we brought a sense of logic into
24 building accnpancy standards. Their seat'rng 24 this process. We'd like to answer any queshons or
25 configurarion can change dramatically depending an 25 any observaYions and any ccrmments before we
SUMMTT REFORTINC, 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
IriOVEMBEit 10, 1997 RdVA RIDtiE APPEAL HEARTNG Pages 51 - 54
PACiB 51 PAGB 53
i praceed? Any questions at al!? 1 MR. MOFFET. John, anything etse?
~ 2 MR. MQFFET: John, whq don't we start with 2 MR. SCH(JFrEt,D: No.
3 pou? 3 MR. ivfOFFLxT: Greg?
4 MR. SCTi4FTELD: Gtenn, is there any legat 4 MR. AMSDEN; Tt's evident that design affeces
S reason that woutfl prevent you from urilizing the S searing in any kind of €aring establishrnent. Yau
6 space fgr full occupancy loads in the future? b have selected a pattern of a center istanfl bar
7' MR. HEELAN: Yes. "D"hhere is potendal, and 7 which daes, in fact, creata cirauiaf'ron pro6lems
8 jusf to digress for a minnte Tohn, when we got fhe 8 from an ar¢hitecturat standpoint. It atso oreaYes
9 revised numbers fram the Tawn in there June, et al 9 less seating than canld be done there. Wh&t you
14 letters, thereafter, the June 17th letter heing t0 just sCated earliee T dcrn't beiieve apptigs here,
21 571,000, and we did meet with the Town and we did ii Glenn, depanding on what you piek far your dasign,
12 try to resoive thi$ with StafF. Then we want 12 if you put a bar in the center of a space, yon're
13 throngh the process af evan taking them to the 13 going to create a circutatary situation which
14 building to see why the differences between whaf 14 limits the amonnt of seariag you can put in that
15 the maximum number of seats we cmuld really get in 15 spaee. I believs that same af the design ereates
16 there and why we were sa far apart if you will. We 16 some of the seadng situarion you have.
11 were Yrying to figure out whp there was some 17 MR, HEELAN: Greg, can you point ont wh€re
18 discrepancp versus the number af seats versus what 18 #hat centsr bar is? I don't think khere is one.
19 they were saying you could have. Whcn we walked 19 MR. AMSDEN: Seconfl and third floor there's
20 through the building, because of '88 issues and a 20 center bars. In fact, on the #ap there's centet
21 variety, this Code was adopted in 1978 I believe or 21 bars.
22 1974. Building codes have changed. The parking 22 MR. HBELAN: Second level plan, you know tha
23 rcquirement cade, I think it vtras adopted in that 23 kitchen is in the mid8le?
24 rirne, This is a small site. T'here aee building 24 MR. AMSDEN: That also creates -
25 code issues. We have a Ibt nf carridors in this 25 MR. HEELAN: Because of the design criYeria of
~
PAGE52 PAG7E 54
1 building. We were tald that wasn't apprupriate in t the buildin$, you're right, but in addirion ta
2 terms ta try to figure out how to get to the space. 2 that, thete were certain physical constraints. We
3 We couldn't put mara seats that wauld aliow us to 3 cauldn't da anything else with venrila#ion and
4 flaw thxough the spaee, atherwise we're gding to 4 things because af the low flaor ta ceiting heights
S have fire issues. So the best answer I can give 5 of ihe building. Believe me, we ttied every which
6 you, we triad to max"smize our searing capacity for 6 way with the architects that wa retained to try Co
7 the kind of establishmant we have and that's all we 7 figure out better uses of the space. If you will
8 can put in there, ,And we inviYe anybAdy and we 8 notice even ia rny June 21st, 1996 letter, it
9 have invited the CBUneil and invited Staff to walk 9 anricipates ehanges being made because of TCBQ
10 through the bnilding and coant them. It's vary 10 issues that created less usable space ftom our
11 obvious once you get into the building. I don't 11 perspeadve. We have been trying to maximize the
12 know if I answered your quesrion or not? 12 interiar use of the space which is rypicai putfitsg
13 MR. SCt-ipFIE?L,Ly; No, 13 their kitchens and things in the center, so they're
14 MTt. HB'ELAN: I didn't7 14 not taking window space, et oetera.
IS MFt. 3CHQFIELp: Let me rephrase it. You at IS MR. AMS1}EN: The secand questiob I have for
16 ieast if I understand were aware there are physical 16 you ragards the process you're going #hrough right
17 constraints? lfi maw or at least, the argnmenT you have been
18 MR. FIEELAN: ThaPs correct. 18 presenking. Yau have bean in this pracess qnite
19 MTt. SCHOFIELD: My quesridn is, are there any 19 sametime in this building. You have gdne thrpugh
24 legal ceanstraints, buiiding cadc, et cetera that 20 the review process with the Piantting Department
21 wonid prevent you from increasing the number of 21 aver a two year period. Why was this argumenY not
22 seats up to the maximum? 22 being presented during the condirional usc process
~ 23 MR, HEBLAN. I wouldn't be qualified to answer 23 after you received - what you're daing is bringing
24 that question. 24 us an argument after a eondiYional use process pan
25 MR, SCI-iOFCCELD: Thank you. 25 went through and was granCed a canditionai use on
SUMMIT ItEPC3RTING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RII»E APPEAL HEARING Pages 55 - 58
F'At"iE+ 55 PAGE 57
1 the building and you come to the tail end at yaur 1 So we had a series of ineerings to try to
2 buitding permit making an argument of this nature. 2 discuss these issues and to reatly go through them ~
3 I'm nat quite following the consistency there, why 3 and try to fignre aut why we were so fat apart mnd
4 yon wouidn't have done it in the building if you 4 try to, T think everybodq tried to be reasonable un
S had a quesrion about parking or the ampunt of S the issua, but we wete just an apposite sides of
6 parking fee, et cetera"? Because the parking fees 6 the coin in terms af how we thaught. We reaIly do
7 were always on the tabta as being big numbers. 3 believe Chat Yhe togic of the Code is vety ciaar.
8 MR. HEELAN: We're nat disputing they're big & It says whichever is rnore restricrive. Well, it's
9 numbers whether we're right or wrong. Okay. Let's 9 impassible to Mava it mtsre restricrive other than
10 just go back to the pracess of how this evaived. 10 based on seats because you can't have more seats
11 In November af'95 i betieve we got a canditional 11 than accupancy. If you reaci the Code, it says
12 use permit or somewhere thereabauts the en8 of '95 12 whichever is more restricrive. In fact, I went to
13 that would allow us to then cansider using this top 13 three, differert law firms trying to find out if I
14 rivo f(aors af cummercial spaae. We then proceeded 14 was alt goafy, have 4hem giue me interpretarions.
15 with designs #a try to create an aiternarive either iS In your packets we have one. I inctuded one af
16 way because we don't know at that rime whether ur 16 them. And at the enci of them they say it's not
17 not a elub operatian was going to be economically 19 impossibCe fox this Code to be 'rnterpreted any
1$ feasable for the spaae. As you knuw, most every 18 other way. Whiohever is more restricrive which
19 building in this spaae has residenriat on the tap 19 means yon got less seats than accupancy, it's less
20 fCoors. We were trying to figure out whether or 20 restricrive. You can't have rnora seats Yhan
21 not it was going to be economicalty feasible to try 21 accnpancy can be allowed. So thaYs the only way
22 to da this c1nb. Okay. And then, we rnet wiYh 3im 22 to be interpreted.
23 Curnutte as you heard him tell yau several times to 23 I have been trying to resolve this issue.
24 discuss the possibilities of the various oprions 24 Okay. We're saying laok at thc building. if you
25 and discussians with regard to the parking fee and 25 can see a way that we can change the whale ambianee
~
PAGE 56 PAGB S$
1 we talked abaut seats. We talked about square 1 and pue in more seats, then iook at it that way,
2 footage, And then, Jim teft. About that time Mike 2 buY we Can't.
3 Moltica came o,n to the scene and then, the 3 MR. AMSI)EN: Tn our past history here in the
4 transitian in between the tirne Jirn left and we tvere 4 Town of Vail with every appiicant thaYs corne in
5 trying to geY onr building permzt, at fhat point in 5 for a restaurant, it's absoIutely oppasite to what
6 time Mike asked me to write him a letter which gave 6 yon'xe talking about. You're the first one that
7 them an esrirnate csf what thase fees were going to 7 comes up and says this Code is diffecent. Every
8 be at that time, realizing there were going to be $ applicant we have had thaYs been braught in, they
9 changes, realizing we didn't know how we were gning 9 have been approached the same way, Mike?
10 to finish that building at this rime. 10 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
11 So the pracess was an evolving ane in terms of 11 MR. AMSDEN: Ifind iY hard that you're saying
12 the amount of the fee, Greg. And then, we were a 12 that the Code says ona thing and we have a
13 dead issnee 1'he anly thing we agreed to at that 13 canfusing Code when every applicant that's came
14 rime, at the rime of TCC7 we wouid determine it. So 14 thraugh the Town, peopte have been here many, many
15 in Jnne, we were anticipating a TC4 sametimc Juty 15 years and have restaurants for years and years have
16 or August, July hapefully for $t least part of the 16 ereated it the same way. Tha#'s why this is such a
i'I buitding and thcn, we then went to Mike and askad 17 new twist or curve bali, at least for ma here.
18 for him to re?new the p[ans and to let's finalize 18 MR. HEELAN: I can tetl yau most restauranrs
19 the parking fees. And since that time iC's been an 19 try to cram in the mosY seats Yhey can. Tt points
20 argurnent. And we have gotten three, different 20 out code costs -
21 ealcnlations since that time; two in August and 27 MI2. AMSDEN: I dan't find that in the process
22 October lst I believe. And every tirne that T have 22 at aiL What happens, rnast restaneateurs do,n't ~
23 to tell you it was a totaI shoek when we gat the 23 have to pay a parking fee and thep tend to quate
24 one that said it's $571,006. Why did it go np 24 iess seats in their plans than they have aatually
25 $125';000? G4'e didn't know. 25 put on.
SUMMIT REPC)RTING 1$00 261-481$ (970) 468-9415
NOVEMBIER 10, 1997 RIVA RIDCrE APPEAL HEARING Pages 59 - 62
.
pAGE ss PAGE 61
1 MR. HEELAN: I'd like you to take a video or 1 at the pian ar did the interior layout change? i7a
~ 2 whatever else - 2 you know what caused that leap?
3 MR. MOFFET: C?ne at a rime. 3 MR. MOLLTCA. I have never actually gone back
4 MR. HEELAN: I'm sorry, Greg, 4 and taken a look at that, Greg. Jim Curnutte's
5 MR. AMSDEN: It comes ta a monetary situarion 5 piaas axe in ftont of ynu. I have the plans that
b where rnost appiicants look at what that parking fee 6 were given to me by filenn. 1'on can call it a fresh
7' is, the more restrictive is money ouY af their 7 laok, but I went thxough an independent analysis.
8 pockets and that's what they consider more $ Based an our codes that's the number I came up
4 restrierive. In my years thaYs what I'va seen and 9 with, 't'haYs the number we're using, i have not •
10 that's why I am a little b'rt confused when I hear 14 gone back and compared it ta Jim L'urnutte's older
11 just a diffarent approaeh to it. 11 pians.
12 MR. HBBLAI3. Let me just read, if i may, 12 MR. IvIOFFE'T: JusY FYI. 1'he analysis we have
13 there's a letter inciuded in the package I gave 13 from Curnutte gives us the same numbex that was
14 Y°u• 14 agreed in the Jurte 21st, 1996 letter, fihey are
25 MR. iviC?FFEfi. If it's the letter from the iS idenricai. That's $457,334.
15 connset in Gotden, C,lenn. Yon dan't need to read 16 MR. HEELANT: That was an estimate at that
17 it. It's in the record. 17 time. Tn answer to your quesrian, Grag, the
18 MR. FiEELAi3. T'm sorry, 18 building envelope did nat changa.
19 MR. MCJFFET: Tf it's the letter from Holley, 19 M12. MOFFET: Actually, T wanted from Mike -
20 Albertson af Boulder, you don't need to read 'a#, 20 MR. MpLLICA: 'T'here were changes made to the
22 Tt's in the record. 21 building that rela#ed ta UBC requirernents, yau
22 MR. HEELAN: It states it daes not appear that 22 know, for the Building Code requirements. perhaps
23 this provision permits the determination of parking 23 thaYs what triggered the change in the parking
24 requiTements based upon square feet and net fiaar 24 fae. Again, we have both sets of drawings here and
25 space as done for retail establishments. This 25 if you'd like, we"II compara tham.
~
PAGE 60 PAGE 62
1 p$rking requirement appears to be cansistent with 1 MR. MOFE'ET. T don't need to da that now.
2 the intent of #he Ordinance to require off sCreet Z There is a significant change in the fee.
3 parking in thc amount aatually ne€ded by the 3 MR. AMSAENs T can clariFy that.
4 develapment. This ivoutd explain why the zoning 4 MR. MOFFET: Please.
5 ardinance determines necessary parking for a retaii 5 MR. AMSi78N; The square footage shown on the
6 establishmcnt based on net flaor space, while a G June 17th, '97 letter frarn Mike Mollica to Glenn
7 restaurant use is based on seating capacity. 7 had 5936 square fect showing around the club.
8 MR. 1viC3FFE'T: Just so we're clear far the 8 Curnntte's analysis was 4478 leaving a 958 square
9 record, you paid for that apin3on; tI1tI YDU AOtT 4 foat differential. All T can see in the
10 MR. HEEt,AN: Yes, I difl. 10 differential betweer? Mike's analysis and Jim's was
11 MR. ]wIOFFET: C)kay, Thank yau. 11 the ofi"ice spaae was oonsiderahiy reduaed by 250,
12 MR. HEELAN: But as my Counsel. 12 effecYivelp a 250 square foat ireductian of ofi'ice
13 MR. MOFFET: Greg, any other - 13 space. We take Chat afif 958, there's sriCl about
14 MR. AMSDEN: Na other issues. 14 700 square feet on there that`s more on yaur
15 MR. MC?F'H'ET: Galen, questions primarily on 15 analysis that was nat shown on Curnutte's analysis.
16 this issua? 16 I had the same quesrion abont where did that oome
17 MR. AASLAND: I have no questipns at this 17 from.
18 ttme• 1$ MR. MQFF"Efi; Thanks. Glenn, ws're on Itettt #2
19 MR. Mt}FEET. Let me hit a few first far Mike 19 here of this Appeal as far as T ean tell whieh
20 Moilica. Mike, on the assnmpdon that the building 20 relates to the caIculation of the number of patking
21 envelape didn't expand between June, 196 and the 21 spaces. Is there a reason we skipped #1 whiah is
22 rnosY recent ronnd pf attempts to nail down the 22 the ciassification of third and fourth floors as
~ 23 price fnr the pay-in-lieu payment, it jumped from 23 earing and drinking establishments?
24 ron$hly $457,334 up into the north of the $500,000 24 MR. HSELAN: These aren't the correcY built
25 range, Was #hat jusc remeasnrement or a fresh look 25 floar pians ff you vviU. Just loaking at three and
SUMMiT REP012TINCi 1800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
NOVEIe+iBER 10, 1997 RIVA RIT3GE APPEAL HEARING Pages 63 - 66
.
PAGE 63 PA!'.sE 65
2 faur, the disputed calculation with respect to that t t+6R. I3EELAN: I think Counsel by the very fact
2 was minor. We're tatking abant some of these areas 2 we're back here has said thare's same discrepancy ~
3 as offices. That's alt we`re saying. Some of Yhe 3 in terms of the interpretatian of that Cetter.
4 areas wete designated ofiices, not earing and 4 MR. MOFFET: Okay. That conclufles my
5 drinking. We're npt dispuring thc e(ub and third 5 qnestians an Item #2. Yau want to talk about Item
6 and fourth level should be used as sirnitar uses. 6 #3? Staff, i.c. Tom Moorhead has already given us
7 MR. MOFFET: Your Appeal, so i understatsd it, 7 his snmmary of the Staff's pasirion on that.
8 your Appeat ppint numlaer one is basicaliy on how 8 1viR. HE$LAN: 3ust T'd like to come back to my
9 the plans are being read, not that the primary use 9 last comment in ytay mind before wa go onta three.
10 an the third and fourth floors is, in fact, earing tb It's und$rstandalsle to me the viewing of the
11 and drinking estabtishments; is that accurate? 91 grecedent issues here. In fact, that was ane of
12 MR. HEELAN: That is correct. 12 the issues that drove ns ta try to find a
13 MR. MQFFET: °That means we got atmost two of 13 comprornise w'rth the Staff in tcrms of how they
14 them out of fhe way now. This is a plus. I am at 14 measurcd, cnnsidering whaY we're dealing with as a
15 a loss. I'm kind of like Gxeg. T have been on the 15 physical reality. And iYs unfortunate I think
16 Planning Gbrnrnissian as long as he has. I'tta caming 16 tAat we have to view this as a precedeat acrion
17 up pn foup years now I think and I have never in a 17 because wa're realiy in a unique situarion in the
18 pay-in-lieu situatian seeu the law applied so that 18 first place. How many resfaurants are there pn the
19 it minimizad rather than maximixed the pay-in-lien 19 fourth flaar of a buiiding in this Town? Ts this
20 payment due fram an applicant. T'm ctearly open ta 20 really a restaurxnt? N4, it's nat. IC's a cinb.
21 evidence to Yhe contrary, but as far as I can telF, 21 How many quasi-pubtic clubs are in this Tawn?
22 the entzre precedent fails on the side of 22 None. Anci I gness I woutd laok at it and say, this
23 maximizing the payments from the applicant. 'fhe 23 isn't preaedent. This is a uniqua siCUation, a
24 intent of people wha raad along in 1974 is not for 24 reatity, There isn't a club an thc third and
25 me to decide. We haven't gat minntes from the 25 faurth ftoor that daesn't serve a lot of fiaod. It
~
PACE 64 PAGE 66
1 Councii meeting. We haven't got any evidence as to 1 does sert+e same food, but it's not $ restaurant as
2 what the Council members meant when they put this 2 you wauld go into the [ted Lipn. Tt doesn't create
3 law in plaCe. T'll grant you that an attamey can 3 a parking demand that a xestaurant creates. It
4 read this both ways. T went to the same schaals 4 doesn't have that kind of seats in order to be able
S and I can read it both ways, too. All Y can rely 5 to do that. And it always seemed ta me very
6 on is the way the precedent is and I have none 6 logical that t1Ze parking code designed to determine
7 sited to me here that wnuld lead rne to believe thaf 7 what the derixand was based on usc and that wauld
$ Staff's interpreYation of that }aravision of the 8 drive the demand. We shouid help pay for that
4 Code is anything but the accurate interprctarion. 9 parking structure, if necassary and we have nev€t
10 The other issue and, Glenna Pm open 10 disputed that. But fram a pragrnatic situarian, we
11 serrously. If you have gof some precedent for me, 11 don't have the number of seats to drive the dersxand
12 help me out, but I don't have any. I d9dn't tktink 12 that would require 50, 54 sorne spaees or whatever
13 of a singte incident when it's worked the other 13 thc calcularion is. 'Chat's really what our
14 way. Tf yau don't like Yhe way the cnde is 14 posidan vvas on this. We betievs the Cnde was
15 written, vve're nnfortunately not the people ta taik 15 written to uccammodaEa that, to anYicipate it. And
16 to. V6'e weren't elected. We dan't get ta write 16 in fact, we doza't have a cafeteria. We don't have
17 Iaw. fihat's the bottom line. The other issue is 19 a conventinn osnter. '9Ve dan't have a 381 seat
18 and I just want Yo confirm this June 21st, 1996 i$ restaurant. So iYs unfortunate that it's being
19 letter to Mike Moliica signed by ydu. I mean, 19 viawed that way, bnt let"s go onto #3.
20 that's a legii letter. We're noY dispuring that 20 Number 3 is with regard to the deed of trust
21 that is [egit; correct? 21 and the promissary note. Let's if we may for a
22 MR, kIEELAN: We may disagree as to the 22 minnte just read the ordinanee. The exisring
23 interpretation of that lctter, but flid T write that 23 ordinance says the awner ar the applicant has the ~
24 le#ter, yes, 24 optian of paying the total parking fee at the rime
25 MR. MQPFET: I meaa - 25 of the building permit. T'CO was agreed to by all
SUMMiT REPORTING 1 800 261-4$1$ (970) 468-9415
NOVEMBEP+. 10, 1997 RIVA R.It)C'iE AFPE.AL HEARiI'3G I'ages 67 - 70
x
PAGE 67 PAGE 64
1 of us, ar paying ovet afive year periofl. That's l hsld to a standard other than the cane that is part
2 the ardinanoe, I don't think there's anq quesdons 2 of the Code? And T guess we feel and yau wilt find
~ 3 in terms of how to interpret it. At teast, I hope 3 carrespondence in there, fat samerime we have been
4 ehere isn't. d trying to campiy with that in arder to get this
5 And it also says in #hat same sectian, iff the 5 building open. We have paid a2ready 10% of one of
6 owner or appticant doas choose to pay the fee over 5 the numbers that they calcutated which vvas $571,000
7' a period of rirne, ha or she shalt be required to 7 and affered to pay the ather 10% and sign a
$ sign a pramissory note which describes the totat $ promissory nate so that we could obtain the 1`Cq.
9 fee due, khe schedule af payments and the interest 9 And sa we're being penaliaed by the delay when in
10 due. Promissory note forms are avaitabie at the 10 fact, we have tried to cornply.
11 ofFices af Gommunity Development. 11 MR. MOF`EET: Okay.
12 For somerime we have attempted to compiy with 12 M12. HEELAN: 1 fhink that's all I have with
13 that ordinance. However, we're being requited to 13 respect to that issue.
14 give a deed of trust secnring the note and personai 14 MR. MQFFET: 'Thanks. Gsntletnen, ariy questions
15 guarantees on the nute. I guess I don't understand 1S oa this issue? John?
16 tivhy we're tseing held to a dxSfarent stanflard than 16 iv712. SCHOFTELD: 'T'om, if you could perhaps just
17 the ardinance reads. 17 give us spme elaboration on the, bettar term,
28 Tn yaur package, i have pravided you a t$ negariations that took place which provided for the
13 pt4missary note that we obtained ftom Community 19 variance from the Code of live years up to ten
20 Development. And in fact, before the nofe was then 20 ysat's and quotes invoived in thaY and what
21 given by '!°om Moorhexd, was revised by Tom, I 21 canditions were placed upcsn that variance?
22 prov9fled it to him whan he asked ma abaut it. 22 MR. MQORHBAD: Yes. Due to the significant
23 MR. MOFFET: Sorry, +G1enn. What Exhibit is 23 difference between tha parking pay-in-tieu if the
24 that? 24 praperty vvas devet,oped as it presentty has been
25 MR. HEBLAN: tf you wiil go to #5 whieh is on 25 developed with a quasi-putslio etub facility an the
~
PAGE 6$ PAGE70
1 mine, an orange tag. It's the second frorn the last 1 third and faurth ftoor, and what the parking
2 or next to the last. Yi says, Riva Itidge, it's 2 pay-in-lieu fee wouid be i# it was daveloped as a
3 inappropraate for Staff to require persana! 3 residentiat condominiurn, the request was made thaC
4 guarantees $nd a deed o€ trust. Tt"s the second to 4 thep not be required to pay the parking pay-in-tieu
5 the tast section. We atl looking at that7 We go 5 at bnilding permit, bat rather to have that parking
6 to the next page which is the Code, itsel£, it says 5 pay-in-lieu heid ofF until the temporary
7 that we choasa, this is what we just read to the 7 certificate of occupancy. At the same time that
8 bpard what the Code itself says. And the next une 8 that discussian was taking place, there also was
9 is the form of the promissory note that was 9 recagnirion that the parking pay-in-lien fee had
10 ptovisled to me by the oft'ices of Community 10 been significantly raised from what it previously
11 Devetopment ansi then, a lettex, a fax rnemorandum if 11 had been to what now resutts in a$16,UUt}, plus
12 yau wili, fax transmissinn aover sheet to Torn per 12 parking pay-in-lieu for eaah space that's
23 aur discussion and a copy of the nate. 13 generated. Ancl it was rapresented by Gletsn Heelan
14 So my quesrion reatly becomes or my 14 to Bob McLaurin that because of tihat, it was
15 observarian reaily becomes is that we think 15 unreasonable to finance it aver afive yesr pariod
16 whatever the fee is determinad to be that we should 16 of rime and he was in general asking for whatever
17 have tha ability to pay 20%'a down, sign a promissory 17 relief Bob could offer in regard to thaf payment.
1$ note and pay it over fiva years at 10% interest. 18 Bab MeLaurin then went to the Town Councit anfl
19 That's what the Code reads. 'Iwice Staff has 19 suggested in general that it's agpropriate that the
20 pxesented to Town Council a new ardinance asking 20 parking pay-in-lieu fee be ailowed to be paid over
21 for the permissian of cieeds af trust and other 21 a longer period of rime consistent with good
22 Cypes of security. Bath times the Town Counoil has 22 business pracriaes. And that alsa consistent with
~ 23 tabled that ordinance. Ati this mament it wuu[d 23 goad bnsiness pracNces, there be adequate security
24 seem to me it is at besC qraestionable whethet or 24 and Council gave Bab McLaurin that authority. And
25 npt it will €ver get thraagh. Sa why are we being 25 there has never been any considerarian by Bab
SUMMTfi REI'CiRTTNfi 1$00 261-4818 (974) 468-9415
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA ItII7GE APPEAL HEARING Pages 71 -'74
~
PAGE 71 I'AGE 73
1 McLaurin Yo atlowing this significant a figure to 1 available to the office nf Community Developmant ta
2 be paid over a periad of rime without adeguate 2 be sornething that coulfl not be changeei or modified ~
3 security. And that was what was representad to 3 at anytime?
4 Tawn CounaiL And that is what has cantinnally 4 MR. MdQRHBAL7: Not that I coutd ever find.
5 baen offered to this Agplicant. If iY wishes to 5 MR. MOFEE?T: John, anyfhing ctse"?
6 extend it over a period of time, that there have to 6 MR. SCH(JFfELD: No.
7 be adequate secnrity given. ? MR. ivtdFF'ET: Greg?
8 In the otdinance att it cfescribea is a 8 MR. t#MSDEN: Frorn the security standpoint, I
9 promissoty nate, 1'rornissory nate is s generia 9 can't see anyone lending enoneyy, whather iYs a
10 term. Every morigage in the State of Cotorado is 10 Tocal ar commercial bank or otherwise that would
11 also seeured by a promissory note and the 11 nat require some kind of security with this surn af
12 pramissory note describes a separate security 12 money. And some of the qnestibns I have, Crlenn,
13 agreement and that's consistcnt with whaf is in the 13 currently, the Riva Ridge LL.C, 3s the owner of the
14 Colotado 12evised Statutes. It's consistent tivith ld properry part of that LLC?
15 general business pracrices. T believe fhat it's 15 MR. HEELAN: tdn. We do not own the property.
16 inherant in the Town of Vail's power to do business 16 We're just thc lessee. We don't have the right to
17 that it require whatever security is necessary to 17 grant the deed of trust.
18 adequatety assure th$t the payment wili ba made. 18 M12. AMSDEN: So the Town if they were to Yake
19 The first time I ever saw the promissory note 19 just the promissory note, exppsure-wise would be
20 that Gienn Heelan believes he has a right ta enter 20 greatiy exposed in the sensa that yon're a tenant
21 into was a promissory notc that was signed by Lonis 21 af that praperty and if you ware to ever default ar
22 Federman (phonefic) for the L'Ostello Building 22 if the landiard vvauld ever terminata that lease,
23 which $90,040 has never paid. That promissory note 23 the Town would basically have na recourse
24 daes not create a tien an the property. It creaYes 24 whatsoever an that parking fee.
25 absolutely no guarantee that the "Town of Vaii wili 25 MR. MOFFET: Is that a questian?
~
PAGE 72 PAGE 74
1 ever be paid. 3 MR. AMSL7EN: No. That's fact in my real
2 As legal advisor to the fiown of Vaii, I 2 estate knowledge. Those are my only comments right
3 believe that iYs a violadan of the Town's 3 now,
4 ftduciary obiigarion to the people in this Town to 4 MR. MQF'FET: Okay. TEianks. Caaten?
S exYend credit in the $rea of $400,000 withaut S MR. AASLAND: Thc first question is for 'C'om.
6 requiring sarne kind of adequate secnrity. I 6 As the Town sees fit, daes tha Town as a matter of
7 believe that's good business practice and thus far 7 course ohange forms, i.e. building permit
8 that has been agreed to by the Tawn Manager aad 8 applicatiun farrns or oYher forms throughout rime in
9 that's why the promissory note that you see before 4 the Town?
tU you has been ofFered. 10 MR. MOURHEADa Regularly.
11 And I wouid submit to you that therc's 11 MR. AASLAND: Glenn, if, in fact, we rule in a
12 absolutely no pravision in the Town of Vait Code or 12 manner that you win, eventually you have to pay.
13 in the Colorado 12evised Sta#ures that suggests that 43 Ttiis is over ten years. If qou're atlowed to pay,
14 a prpmissory note means that it should not be 14 if yon chooss to instead of paying ana fee far a
15 secured or eannot be secured by other security 15 parking fee, but in fact, you cboose ta do that
16 agreements and deeds af trust. 16 over ten years? Tf, in fact, yau do pay this, by
17 MR. AMSDBN: 1'om, I might ask - I dbn't know 17 signing this form how are yoa unfairly penalized as
i$ if Mike is here. He's not. Have we used this five 18 opposed ta signing the form -
19 year prdmissory note with any of the parking 19 MR. HEELAN: If I understand your qnesdon,
20 pay-in-[ieus in the past where peopia have psid it? 20 Galen, ycsur quesdon is that haw am I being
21 MR. MOpRHEAI3: That I'm not sure. The aniy 21 unfairly penalized by requiring a deed of trust2
22 one that Pm aware of is ths ane that was unpaid. 22 MR. AASLANA: If in your presentarion r'm ~
23 MR. SCHOFtELD; Tom, is there anything in the 23 going to have to sign this form ancl by daing that
24 Code or the Statutes that would construe the 24 yon're going to be unfairly penatized -
25 promissory nota that's referred to in the Code 25 MR. HEELAN: We have ofFered ta sign a
SLTMMiT REPCJRTTNG 1 800 261-481$ (970) 458-9415
~
Nl'7VEMBER 10, 2997 RIVA RIL)GE APPEAL HEARINfia Pages 75 - 7$
k
PAGE 75 PAGE 77
1 promissary note that was given to us by the Tawn of 1 caveat on xop of what the ordinance says of a
2 Vail as part of the Code, the Community 2 persanai sigtrature. They want to go beyand that.
~ 3 Development. IC states in the Code that we read on 3 T-Iow ganeric is sornething? Tt's interpretation
4 the board that the form of tha promissary note 4 a1$a.
5 would ha provided by Commnnity Develapment. We S MR.. NtOFFET; Thank ynu. This atay seem
b obtained that form. VJe relied an that form. There b basicalty extrema, but what's the definitian of an
7' was na mention of a deed of trust. We don°t have a 7 appticant as used in the Cade pravisian in
8 right to get a deed af tnlst. It changed our wttole 8 Commerciat Core I, Commeraia! Core TT. 'Praperiy
9 perspecriwt an this thing significantiy. We're not 9 oWners or applicants shall be required to
if} in a posirion to give you a dced of trust. We 14 cantribute to the 7'own parking lot. 't`om, is a
11 don't have that legai right. Wc're just a tenant. 11 tenant appropriate as an appticant here?
12 We're just asking for compliance with the Code. 12 MR. MOORHEAD: I'll defer to Mike MotGca, but
13 Cade says we have the right to sign afive year 13 I wouid imagine the property owner as welt as Gienn
14 promissory nate. The Code says we aan paq it over 14 Reelan very well cpuid be the applicant in this
YS five years at 10% interest. We're asking for iS parricular projccC, 7rut I"il defep ic+ Mike Motlica.
16 compliance wiCh the Code. We have offered to 15 MR. MOULTGAa Ti1e Applicant has been {31enn
17 comply wich the Cade, 17 Heelan, Charles Daviszsn as well as tviargaretta
18 MR. AASLAND: Uo you think the Town has a 18 Parks, the Property Owner, They're the Applieant.
19 right ftom rirne to time to change its farms2 19 Mlt. MOFFET: So we have tbe owncr and the
20 MR, HEELANt Not after they have given us the 24 Appiicant here, at least one of the atpplicants is
21 promissory note that we relied on, no. Zi aiso the owner?
22 tvfR. MpFFF-Tt Anything etse, Galen? 22 MR. MALLICA. That's righC.
23 MR. HEEi.ANs Tt's like changing the rules in 23 MR. HEELAN: I don't beliave tHat's accuraCe.
24 the middte, Galen. 24 MR. MOFFET: Evarything I have ever seen.
25 MR. MC1FFFT: Greg, do yan have any other 25 Once again -
~
PAGE 76 PAGE 78
t questions ar comments? 1 Mit. HEELAN: It's aiways been Itiva Ridge
2 MR. AMSDENt Crlenn, T understand the part 2 partnars with me -
3 about deeds of trust, yau not owning the property, 3 MR. MAFFE'T': Anything T ever saw as the
4 but wHat is yaur objecrion to signing personaliy? 4 Applicant has Riva Ridge Partners, yau and
5 MR. HEBLAN: T have alrea8y offered to includa 5 Mrs. Parks. We'd have to go back and look at att
6 that abcsut a manth ago. 6 the stuff, but that's rny reaaliecrion.
7 MI2, AMSDEN: Sa that's been agreed upan? 7 MR. HEET..AirI: On the Appeal issue, I think
8 MR MOFFET. It's on the table it sounds like. 8 yaa're right in terms of fha condit9onal use
9 MR, HEE,LAN: That wasn't acceptabie to the 4 permit.
10 Town. 10 MR. M(JFFET: Nowember 27, 1995, the Appiicant,
11 Mtt, MpFE`ET; Ghartey, if yflu wanY to taik, you 11 MargaxetCa Parks represented by Glenn &ieetan.
12 have to come up to the microphone. 12 MR. HBELAN. Whexe is that?
13 MR. DAVISON: My name is Charies Davison for 13 MR. MOFFET: That witt be Exhibit 13, Planning
94 the recard. I think that was oi'fered. I think the 14 and Bnvironmental Commissida Memorandum, Novecnber
iS comment in terms af over genalized was that we 15 27, 1995. That's with 7im Curnutte. There was one
16 actuatty have given everything that the ardinanae 16 prior to that. I thinir my first PBC rneeting where
17 wanted and an tap of that, Glenn Heetan wanted to 17 I remember specifically - I dbn't knaw why. I
1$ s'sgn personally, t}ur request is to have onr i$ rernember that's hcrw the Applicanf was speiled out.
19 grandfathered spaces given to us in order to be 19 MR. MQLLICA: T was going to point out that
20 apen. We have an operadan thaYs grandfathered in 20 Exhibit A which is the Appeals Farm, that's the
21 terms of the restaurant and the bar and we have 21 hearing we're having here today, is based upon that
22 baen heid in that sense hastage with changing ather 22 appiicatian. Narne af Appellant, Riva Ridge
~ 23 ruies in the middle af the game. And that's why 23 Partners, Lt.C, Glenn Healan, Margarerta Parks, that
24 the comment of not being over penalized cornes 24 was filled out by Gienn Heelan,
ZS abou#. And the fact that there has heen even a 25 MR. HBELAN: We aiso agree that the Appiicant
SUMMIT RIEPOI2TING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
Nt7VEMBER 10, 1997 RNA RIDGE APP'EAL I-iEARTNG Pages 79 - 82
w
PAGE 79 pAGB 81
1 in this case is also Margaretta Partis. t MR. MOTTET: Pm tiving bp the sword and dying
2 MR. MOFEET: My question is, guess mp 2 by the sword. We don't have any precedents. ~
3 assertion as the finder of fact here is that the 3 Unfortunately, I wonld rety on a Cade provisian ta
4 Appiioant includes individuatly, Margaretta Parks. 4 grant the chief execuriue the $bility to use his
5 Now, be that as it may, actually before that, iet 5 discretion to vary feom expressed cades. However,
6 me ask another question of 7'am, is there a section 6 I'll say thac I betieve the Appiieant includes
3 in the ordinances, in the Town Ordinance which 7 Margaretta Parks and I would require her, in my
8 permits tha Town Manager, that clearly p,ermits thc 8 juclgment that means she's got To sign. T'm nat
4 Town Manager's discrerian in this matter ar do we 9 talking about a deed af trusY, but in my judgment
10 have a poorly written, code section? IQ that means she daes have to parsonatly sign the
11 MR. MOORHEAD: I dan`t fhink yan havs a poorly it pramissory note. You signed the Crve year
12 written, code secrian. A11 of the 'i'own's contracts 12 pramissory note with the Applicant, i.e. Riva Ridge
13 and agreements are antered ir?to by the Town Martaget 13 ParMers, yourself and Margaretta Parks. Granted
14 and those contracts and agreements are negotiated 14 Pm ane vote, here pou go. That's done. If
15 and eustomized pursuant to the business deal that 15 however you want to vary an inch from the expressed
16 is being ciane at thaY time. Sa the,re's nothing 16 terms of the Cade, i.e. yoa don't want an
17 that specifically states the Town Manager shall 17 appIicant, speaific applicant to sign -
18 enter into the foliowing agreements under the 18 tvlR. HEELAN: I want tcz go ten years, whatever.
19 foltowing form because it changes constantly avery 19 MR. MQFFEfi: At thae point T think everything
20 rime we enter inta a contract. 20 is on tha tabte and a deed of mist is a fair anci
21 MR. MOFFEfi: I understand. There's a 21 reasanable thing fior the Town to ask for. If rve're
22 pravisian in the ordinance that says the Town 22 going to ga strictly lay the tanguage here on the
23 Manager has his discretion to use his prudent, best 23 page, I feei harnstrung. I thinlc as a Town we have
24 jndgment in handling the business affairs of the 24 to do what thc taw says we have to do and rather
25 Town? ZS than infer and basically da atl the sYuff I suggesf
~
PAGE $ti PAGE 82
1 IvIR. MOORHEAD: I think thaYs inherant of 1 that we nat do on the last issue.
2 being the chief judiaial officer af this 2 In fact, why don't we kind of go ta the twa
3 corporation. t7ne thing I'd like to point out. Tt 3 parties for finat camments and Then, we'll
4 had been indicated to me by Glenn it was impossible 4 hopefully render something. Mike for the Town?
5 for them ta get Margaretta Parks to sign a deed of S MIt. MOLLICA: For the reeord, we do have the
6 trust and we found a titte eornpany and faund that 6 original applicarion for the aondirianal use
7 Margaretta Parks has, in fact, entered into a deed 7 permit. I have it here in ftont of ine. It was
8 of trust to secure a loan for this particntar 8 faxed ta the Town an Sapternber ll, 1995. Glenn
9 project. 9 Heelan was listed as the Applicant. The Owner's
10 MR. Mt)FFET: T'm not thinking of the deed of 10 signature, appears William Whiteford (phaneric)
11 trust, but I'il get there in a second. 11 signed fmr Margaretta Parks and he indicated he had
12 MR.. I3EELAN: Let me clariFy that comment, Tam. 12 the powes of attorney to da that and we also have
13 What I said Margaretta Parks at this dme was 13 that attaehed to the Applicarion.
14 unwilling ta give a deed of trust to us for this 14 Mit, HEEI.AN: Gould you reiterate? The
15 parking fee. She did enter into daeds of trust 15 applicant was who?
16 granted for the construcrion phase which is typical 16 MR. MpLLICA: Margaretta B. Parks. William
17 and carnmon, but this is not a construction 17 Wlaiteford signed for iviargaretta Parks.
18 Y6IUnYBTY I08i1. It's an rnvoluntary tax. Bven 18 MR. HEELAN: Wha was the Appiicant?
14 when Aresiden# Clittton passed a tax inarease, he 19 MR. MOLLICA: Glenn Heelan. As is standard
20 gave people threc years to pay it. 20 prescedure, we do not process applioations uniess we
21 MR. MOFE'ET: Thank yon, Glenn. 'i"he other 21 have a signature from the praperty owner.
22 quesrian is da we have a setable precedent nf the 22 MR. HEELAN: If we aere apptying that to the ~
23 Town requinng a deed af trust to secure this 23 Coda, the Applicant is Glenn Heetan and therefare,
24 obligarion in other instances? 24 the prornissory note shonl8 be able to be signed by
25 MR. MOORHEAD: Not that Pm awarc of. 25 myself. ,
SUMMtT REPpRTINt; 1 $00 261-4$18 (970) 468-9415
Y
NOVEMBE,R 10, 1997 RNA RIDGE APPEAL HEt#RING Pages $3 • 86
~
PAGE $3 PAGE 85
1 MR. MOFFE'T`: That's not how I read the paper 1 was made and that thase decisions are over one
~ 2 trail here, Glenn. 2 year-old.
3 MR. HEET.AN: Let me reiterate. He just 3 MR. MOFFET: bkay. Glenn?
4 clarified that the Applicant in this issue is me. 4 M12. HEELAN: BeFore T intraduce Chris Parks,
5 Ts that carrect7 S I'll reaterate our positian. Riva Ridge Partners
6 MR. MOFFET: You came in here in November af 6 betieves that Staff has inCerpreted Sections
7' 1997 with a docnment that T read, that I sat here 7 1$.52.14() C, parking requiremenks-schedute and
8 and read and granted you a condidnnal rise permit 8 1$.52.160 Exemptions, parking pay-in-lieu
9 on that, said that 9 incorrectiy. Secrion 18.52.100 staYes off street
10 MR. HEELANc Wait a minute. 7'he conditional 10 parking requirements shali be determined in
11 use pemit was in '95. 11 accordatice with the fioltowing sche8ule; C, other
12 MR. MOFF"ET: '95. T'm sorry, 12 uses, 5, earing and drinking establishments, ane
13 MR. HBELAN: What does that Applicarion say? 13 space per each 8 seats, based on searing capacity
ld MR. Mt}FFET: Tt says 14 and building cade occupancy standards, whichever is
15 MR. HEELAN: The one by Mrke Mollica? 15 more restrictive. Riva Ridge believes that the
ib MR. MC?]FFET: t didn't see that. I'm telling 16 calculation far the eating and drinking
17 you what I saw, 17 estabiishrnent spaces should be 6ased on seating
18 MR. HEELAN: i fhink, Greg, what I'rn say%ng 18 capaeity. Ttiva Ridge has stated it witl have a
19 the farmat Appiicant h$s always been me. 'That's my 19 maximum af 210 seats which is rnore restrictive #han
ZO point. The legai paper trail ia the Applicant is 20 the maximmm number permitted under the applicabte
21 t`ilenn Heeian and I have offered to sign this 21 building code,
22 promassory note botb as a manager of Riva RiBge and 22 In addition, Itiva Itidge Partners betieves that
23 as myselF personaily, the guarantee. 23 it is inappropriate for Staff ta require persanal
24 MR. MOFFET: And my point and I arn not going 24 guarantees on the pramissory aote and fot StafF to
25 ta argue cvith you. This is whera T come down on ZS requixe a deed of ttust be filed on the property.
~
PAGE$4 PAGB 86
1 this issae. The dacuments that have been presented 1 Cade Section 18.52.160 Exemptions Section B.7
2 to me on sevaral different occasions as a 2 states the owner or applicant has the opkion of
3 Cammissioner in this fnrum hava said Appiicant. 3 paying the totai parking fee at the rime of the
4 Margaretta B. Parks, represenYed by {",lenn Heelan. 4 building permit or paying aver a fivc year period.
5 Naw, you have eome up and taiked to me on several 5 Fnrther it states in Paragraph 2, if the owner ar
6 occasions on this issue, Gtenn, and you have nevet 6 applicant daes choose to pay the fee aver a period
7 cotrected this. Tt's been piain as the nose on 7 0# rime, he or she shali be required tc? sign a
8 everybody's face that's what 1'm relying on. $ gromissary note which describes the totat #ee dne,
9 Let's ga back. Any further clasing comments 9 the schedute of payments and the interest dne.
10 on thu issue; NTike or 7'om? 10 Promissary note #orms are avatlable at the offices
ii MR. T-TEBLAN: We have one final comanent. 11 of Cammunity bevelopment= Riva Ridge obCained the
12 MR. MQFFET: We'13 get to it. 12 auttharized form af promissory note from Commun9ty
13 MR. HEELAN; Okay. 13 I}evelopment, a capy of which is enclased for your
14 MR. MOQRHEAD: 'Chc anty thing I•it say, I 14 raference which does not requ9re persanal
15 believe the Staff secommendations set farth the 15 guarantees or deeds of trust. Staff and Appiieanf
16 three issues to be determined. in rsgard to thg 16 did discuss a 10 year payment plan in various
17 issue in which the classificatian af the praperty 17 meerings, copies enclased. Hpwever, 12iva 12idg$ and
1$ of third and fourth floor eating and drinking 1s SYafF h$ve reached agreernent an this issue and Riva
19 establishments, that decision was made as of 19 Ridge believes it shauld be governed by the
20 December 21st, 1945 and eherefare is not now 20 ordinance in existenee at the rime of appiicat'ron,
Zl subject to Adppeal. Likewise, I tirink based upon 21 ttnless the Town and Riva Ridge mutuaity agree
22 the testimony of lim Curnutte it was clear when 22 othetwise. ,4nd that's ali I have to say, but I
~ 23 Cxlenn wrote the letter in June af 1946 expressly 23 think Chris Parks has a letter that he woutd like
24 agreeing to the catculatian that he was weil aware 24 to give you and then, add a few comrnants,
25 and agteed ta the mantter in which tha caicutarion 25 MR. MbFE`ET: Thank you.
SUMMI'I' REPt1I2TING 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
Y
NOVEMBER 14, 1997 ItIVA RtDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 87 -90
.
PAGB 87 PACiE 89
1 MR. PARKS. FOP YIie iCCOttI, T am Chris Parks ] dcinking establishments. '1'here's a smali affice
2 and atang with my Brother, William 9Vhiteford, we 2 that's tocated an the third floar I believe that's ~
3 have been in this process for my Mother. She's 3 caiculated as office space.
4 always been the Owner, not applicant. The Code 4 MR. SCHQFIELD: Question. Based on that then,
5 says applicant or awner. t'ilenn is the Applicant in 5 Mike, I assnme you haci alassifie8 that as a portion
6 ehis case. And that's all ? have to say an that 6 of the 94 sqnare feet of off"ice space and is nat
7 issue. ? included in the 5717 square feet of restaurant?
$ This is a tetter written by my Brother and it 8 MR. MOLL,ICA; That's conect.
9 states our positian. And T would say that in 9 MR. SCHOFdEL.l7: And secpnd quesrisn, aur -
10 iurther memorandums thcre should be an owner slat lU Appeai is if I read everything properlp based upon
11 on the Town Memorandurn instead of appiicant. Thaf 11 your letter of June 19th, 1997 which reflects
12 shoutd be separated as such. 'i'hank you. 12 slightiy different numbers than Page 5 of the cnema
13 M12. IvIOFFET: Thank you, I would suggest to my 13 an Yhe AppeaL Woutd qau elaborate on tha#?
14 fellow Commfssioners that we break this down into 14 MR. MOI.LTCA: There were some modiflcarions
iS three vates becanse we hava gat three issues. And 15 that were made ta the structure between June 17th
16 as far as I have been able tn tell far what ie's 16 of '47 and when this Appeal was filed. What is
11 wort2t, I can't figtzra out why we're even wrestting 47 preseneed in tha Merrtorandum is the most up-to-date
1$ with the ftrst issue. Beeause I think everybody 18 analysis of what is xctually on #his site.
19 agrees that the third and fonrth flaors are eating 19 MR, SCHQFTELD: And far the recotd, I guess
20 and drinking estabtishtnents. Mayba T'm wrong 20 Pd make sure that everyhodp understands that the
21 there, buC I would suggest if wa get a morion that 21 StafF Memo appears to be more favarable to the
22 we move on each of the three gornts separately. 22 AppeilanT than daes the Jnne 17th, 1997 letter.
23 MR. SGHdFIELU: Perhaps T make a suggestion on 23 MI2. HEELAN. Are yon saying that maybe
24 that that Chere appeaxs ta be no disagreement on #i 24 ctarify far me, Jahn. What is the final number?
25 that the third and fourth flaors are ciassified as 25 Mlt. SCHOFTELI3: Wa have to make a
~
PAGE88 PACsE 90
1 an eating and drinking establishment. If we can 1 determinarion based an your Appeai. Hovvever, it
2 get the parties to sripulate to that, perhaps we Z appears that the Staff has for sarne reason modified
3 can eliminate that from our discussion. 3 those numbers very slightly and in a directian
4 MR. Mt}FFEfi: Glenn, that's your Appeal. As 4 which T am sure you wi11 be pleased with.
S far as T can keil just ftom the brief question and 5 MR. HEELAN: T'here have baen threa, different
6 answer you and I hafl, you don't dispute that the 6 caiculations. June 17th reflects a fee of
7 third and fourth floars of the building are an 7 $571,341.63. September 15tb reflects a fee of
8 eating and drinking establishment; is that $ $571,341.68. And October Ist reflects a fee of
9 accurata? 9 $538,936.20. Is that the one you're speaking of?
10 MR. HEELAN. There are aniy certain areas that 14 IvITt. SCHOFfELI). T'hat's cotrect.
] 1 we thought should be ctassified. We discussed that 11 MR. FiEBLAN: Yes.
12 certain areas di that third and fourth floor should 12 MR. Mt7LLTCA: E,+aeh analysis was reques#ed by
13 be considered office space, which the generai use 13 Staff due to each request of the Applicant due to
14 of the remaining part of the area is in icids earing 14 the modi6cations the Applicant made to the
15 and drinking establishments as per the Cade reads. 1S structtue. The $53$,936.20 is the final number.
16 MR. MOFFET: YvYaybe what we need to do is 16 MR. MOFFET; Stili begs a quesrion in my mind
17 determine whether - aetuaity, tet me ask Staff, 17 and I'cn trying to couch perhaps a potentiai rnation
18 Was it Staff's pnsition because it appears ta be t$ for somebody ta make. That on Ttem 1 on ths
14 that the enkire third and faurth floor are an 14 Staffs olassificarion of the third and fourth
20 eadng and drinking esfablishment and does that 20 floors as eadng and eirinking establishments, that
21 permit the breaking oat of types of space within 21 StafPs alass'rficadon be upheid as qualified by
22 the eating and drinking establishrnent which in 22 the standard class exclusion and separate
23 terms generata different parking requiremcarts2 23 ctassification of the areas within those floors as ~
24 MR. MOLLICA: No. The majority of iha third 24 4hings other than earing and drinking
25 and fanrth floors are c(assified as earing and 25 estabtishmants. I mean rs that, John, does that go
SUMMIT REPOR'1'ING 1 $t}Q 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
~
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 RIVA RTDGE APFEAI. HEARING Pages 91 - 94
~
PAGE 91 PAGE 93
1 to where you're thinking? i reflect a reduorion in that square faotage nurnber
~ 2 MR. SCHOFIELD: Yes. My thinking is based on 2 for the three fax rooms and game raom as thep're
3 testimony vve have heard. Item #1, classifioadon 3 pomayed on the finat plans for tfie bni[ding
4 appears ta be withaut dispute earing and drittking 4 permit appticarion.
5 establishment with the exception of a small area 5 MR. MOFFE'I`: t'lkay. So let rne make sure 1
6 whieh was excluded far office space. 6 understand the rnorion. We're hoiding the Staff
7' MR. HEELAN: As T menrioned before, these 7 with modificarion
8 aren't #he correct final plats. Mike has them I 8 MR. SCHOFTELIl: That's correct.
9 betieve. There are sdme areas that we thought were 4 MR. MOFFET: i3n we have a secand?
10 office spaces. There's at? offiae. There are 10 MR, AMSDEN: I will second the rnotian.
11 severai bnsiness and fax rooms that ara not part af it MR. Mt'JFFET: Second by Greg Amsden. Any
12 the earing and drinking estabtishmen#s, 12 furYher discussian7
13 MR. AMSi?BN: Thase have all been figured in 13 MR. AA$LAND: The poot raom you'ae talking
14 the oi'fice - 14 abouC, is that a billiarcl roam where someone could
15 MR. HEEL,AN: No, they have nat Sorne af them 15 bny a dtink?
16 I believe they have. They're minar amonnts, but 16 MR. I-€BELAN: Tt's not a billiard raam. We're
17 there are fax and basiaess service raoms whiah are 17 not requesring that be changed. Just the kids
18 specifloaity used with computers and stufF like. 18 office and the fax room.
19 Thare are no bars and anyth'rng else that wa thought 19 MR 5CHAFIELD: I wouid then madify my matian
20 shoutd be classified as afi"ice space. There's a 20 ta inclnde the pool room in the resta:nrant
21 kids affice that has computer games in it for kids 21 calcularian, but ta exciuda thc fax rooms.
22 thaY has no earing and drinking. Those are nse 22 MR. AASLAND: And exclude the children's room.
23 faetors that shouid be calculated as offiee space. 23 MR. MOFFET; The children's game raam.
24 MR. SCHt)FlELD: Mike, it's yonr tesrimony 24 MR. 3CIiOFtELD: Included.
25 these areas have been excluded from tha earing and 25 MR. ML)FFET: Haid on. So let me make sure I
~
PACsE 92 PAGE 94
1 drinking ctassificarion? 1 understand. "Yau're now modifying the xnofion sa
2 MR. MOLL'fCA. Na. There's an ofCce space 2 that we're uphotding Staff, but we're exctuding the
3 that has tseen excluded. There are three fax rooms 3 fax roarns aniy?
4 as T understand it that are availabla for the usa 4 MR. SCHdFCELD: ThaYs carrect.
5 of the mernbers of the cluh to send a fax whiie 5 MR. MQFFE'i': `T'hat's #he amendment. Greg, you
6 they're enjoying the ciub. 'fhose three fax rooms 6 second that amendment?
7 as small as they maybe have been ineluded in the 7 MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
8 Vail Vitlaga Clnb eating and clrinking establishm+ent 8 MR. MOFFETc Any futther discussion? Al!
9 category. Tn addidan, there's m poot room that is 9 thase in favor2
10 considered a game xoom thraugh the UBC. That's 10 MR. SCHCIFCELD: Aye.
11 atso inctuded as earing and drinkiag establishment. 11 MR. AASLAND: Ays.
12 Additianatty, there's agame room that's availabte 12 MR. AMSDEN: Aye.
13 for kids as Glenn has stated. 't'hat has heen 13 MR. MAFFET: Aye. That marion passes
14 inclndeQ as earing and drinking establishment. 14 unanirnausly, Naw, we're onto Staff's catculation
is MR. SCHOFTEI.D: Woutd it be comect to assume IS of the nnmber of parking spaces required.
16 that these roams are accessory aases to #he 16 MR. AMSI7EN: We aannot determine that number
27 restaurant club situs6on7 17 right now I don't believe because now they'ra going
t& MR. MC3LLTCA: Not in mq mind, no. 18 ta dednct the amoant of spaces out oF Yhose roorns,
19 MR. SCHOFTBLT>: Looking far a rnotion? 19 correct, Crom that, so there will be a new parking
20 MR. MQFFET: 'C?iat would be what I'm laoking 20 caieulation betaw the one that indicates the
21 for, John, on item - 21 538,436. We can state that nurnbex less those
22 MR. SCHOFILaLt). Mr. Chairman, based upon the 22 deduedans.
~ 23 testimany we receivad, T would inave that we modity 23 MR. SCHOFIELD: I don't think we can perhaps
24 the StafF's elassifiearion o€ the third and fourth 24 detecmine the number here as fae as the square
25 floors as eatin$ and drinking establishments to 25 footage, but we can determine the ipkerpretatiaa of
SUMMIT REPC7RTiNG 1800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
i
NC}VEMBEtt 10, 1997 IttVA TtIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 95 - 98
4
PAGE 95 PAGE 47
1 the Code as far as mtssC restricrive and then, allow 1 M'R. MOFFET: Please.
2 che 3taff to recaIculata the square footage that we 2 IvlR. AA3LAND: Just for the xecord, that the ~
3 have requested be tak€n off. 3 32.496 recognizes Yhe 27 grandfathered spaoes
4 MR. MOFFET: So for instance, John, yon cauld 4 already.
5 move that ta uphold Staff cansistent with a b1in8 5 MR. MOFFET: Paint of alarificarion, yes, i
6 methodolagy resulring in a nnmber or resulting in 6 don't think yau need an amendment. That's a point
7 the agreement of the 7nne 21st, 1996 tetter from 7 af clarificarion of the grandfathered spaces. So
$ Glenn Heelan that was alsa reflected on the 8 acknowledged?
9 exhibits we got from Jim Curnntte, jusf endorsing 9 MR. AMSI)BN: Ackaowledged. 10 that methodolagy? 10 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussian?
11 MR. SCHOFIELD: Methadolagy, yes. 11 MR. SCHQFtELD: Not disGussion, i'aint af
12 MR. MOFFET: dkay. 12 clari6catian. I think tha record shoutd refiect
13 MR. AIvISL2EN: Why would yau reference Jim 13 this Comrnissiofi is npholfling the previous Staff
14 Curnutte? 14 interpretarion of most restricrive in the Code to
15 MT2. MOFFET: Because it was actually an agread 15 mean the maxirnum number of seats that witl be
16 to number at one point in rime, C,reg. We have got ib atloweda not necessarilp the plan of those seats.
17 a letter here that characterizes that as an 17 NIR. MOFFET: Does that reflect your
18 agreement signed by the fiown. 18 understanding in making the morion, Greg?
19 IviR. HEET.AN: Yaur agreement, 457 - 19 MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
20 MR. MOFFET: I'm saying T agree to that 20 IvIR. MOFFET: Any further discussian7 Ail.
21 methodology. If xhe plans changed frorn idavember 6, 21 those in favor?
22 1996, it would have to apply tha same methodolagy 22 NIR. AMSDEN: Aye.
23 that was applied at the titne. 23 M12. AASLANA: Ayc.
24 MR. AMSbEl3. `Che methodology was applied to 24 MR. SCHC?FTEd,D: Aye.
25 the 536,936 number, Let's adopt that to changing 25 MR. MOFFET: Aye. Passes unanimously. Ttem
~
PAf3E 96 PAGB 98
1 the 1 #3 is the requirement that the Appiicant sign a
2 MT2. MOFFET: A,re yau making a morion? 2 pay-in-lieu procnissory note personally and a deed
3 MR. AMSDBN. Not rnaking a motion. Does that 3 af trust be filed on tfie property, i think we're
4 make sensc to you? 4 all reading it d9fferently. If I can pass the
5 MR. MOFFET: Yes. 5 chair to yau, Greg, for a second, i'll try a
6 MTZ. AMSDEN: pkay. I'ou want rne to make a 6 motion.
7 motion? 7 MR. AM3DEN: Go for it.
8 MR MOFFET: Please. S MR, MOFF'ET. Okay. Y would rnove that we over
9 MR. AMSDEN. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a 9 turn the Staff requirement that Applicanfs sign a
10 morion thaf in regaPd to the parking requirernents 10 pay-in-(ieu promissory note persanatly and that a
it and tbe ealculadon of the number crf parking spaaes ii deed of tnist be filed on the property, but rather
12 required that we ntilize the number of spaces, the 12 that per the orflinance, the Appiicant and the
13 32.996 parking spaees to detarmine the 538,936.20 13 Applicants as defined in the paper trait which
14 figure, lesa the changes that were made in the 14 includes Glenn Aeelan, personallp and Margare#ta
15 ilrst motian regarding this and thay will be 13 Parks, personally sign only a prornissary noee with
16 deductions from this, and we let Staff fignre those 16 no deed of trust because that's nat required in the
17 deductions dn the square footage of the areas that 17 Code. Greg's chairing while T tnake a rnofion. 270
18 were excIuded fram the eaCing and drinking 18 you want to ask far a secoed7
19 establishment on the third and fourth flaar, the 19 MI2. AMSDEPI: L3o we have a second to that
20 fax rooms. 20 motion?
21 MR. MOFFET: That was a nice, clear matian. 21 MR. AA3LAND: 1 woutd second it. And one
22 Do we have a second? 22 comment abont that. This is for the five year now
23 MR. SCHOFMLI): Second. 23 that we're talking abaat7 ~
24 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion? 24 MR. MOFFET: Tt's the sttaight, five year nate
25 MR. AASLAND: One question i thought of. 25 as expressly provided for in tha Ordinance and
StTMMIT REPURTINC", 1 800 261-4818 (970) 468-9415
a
NOVEM$BR 10, 1497 RNA RIL7C?E APPEAL HEARtNG 1'ages 99 - 102
~
FAGE99 PACE 101
i Yhat's all I'rn going for here is my reading of the 1 like Yo review the applicaticsn that Mike Mollica
~ 2 plain Ianguage of the Ordinanoe and the ptain 2 read for the record.
3 language af the paper trail. 3 Mtt, MOFF'ET_ I'm sorry. Yan are chairing
4 ivfR. AASLAI3Ia: 3o can you add that to your - 4 this.
5 MR. MOFFE?T: It's a point af clarification. 5 MR. AMSDBN: I th2nk it's a critical vate. I
6 MR. ,t1ASLANA: As a paint of clarificarion, 6 would like to hear their side of this just because
7' it's the five year note we're taiking about? 7 it's an issne. And go ahead.
S MR. MQFFET: Corract. 8 MR. HBELAN: Can Iborrovv the application that
9 MR. AASLAND: T'li secand that. 9 was made for the conditional use permit that you
10 MR. AMSDEN: Any other questrons? There's a 10 read fram far the record earlier?
11 matiott on the floor. Ati in favor7 il This is an sppiicarion #or aondirios?a1 nse
12 MR. HEELAN, i'd like to make a comment and 12 permit. And the procedure says, this states #his
13 quesCian far 't`am Moorhead, With respect to Yhe 13 grocedure is required for any prajec# to obtain a
14 legal naYUxe of the paper traii, what govarns the 14 cvndirional use perrnit. 'Chis appiicarian wiii nnt
15 Staff memos c,r the appiiaarion, itself? 1S be accepted until ait informarion is subrnitted. A
16 MR. MQOgtI3EAA: E'd say that this Board has the 16 name af appiicants. C'iterrn Heelan agrees, et
17 authority as finder af fact to consider both and I 17 cetera. NTame af ownex, Margaretta Parks. Narne af
18 will leave it at that, i$ applicant's representarive, NA, not appiicabte.
29 MR. HEELAN: So what you're saying is the 19 So i guess what I'm saying to you is that the
20 forcnal appiicafion that we completed evan thaugh it 20 formal, Iegai ttail fihat we helieve on #his
21 may be the StafF memo subseqnently foliowing that 21 appficarion is me as Applioant and Margaretta B.
22 forrnal applicarion whioh rnay have misstated points 22 Parks as t3wner, nat as appliaant.
23 of fact from the applicarion can be interpreted at 23 MR. MOFFE'I`: Glenn, thank yon and let ma ask a
24 will by this Board? 24 quesdon.
25 MR. MQORHBAD: Not at will. Tt's interpteted 25 MR. AM3i?BN: T want to reference somefihing in
~
PAGE 104 PAGE 102
i ia retation fa the prdinance in relation to the 1 the Code in regard to paymenY. The owner or
2 evidence presented. Applicarion says owner and 2 apptiaant has the opt9an of paying the total
3 ssppiicanT and I think it was clear that the 3 parking fee at the rime of building permit or
4 evidence is the owner rnus4 be listed as an A paying over a five year peripd and it goes anto
5 applicant. That's always been required. Mika S discuss flther issues and then, the seconct paragraph
6 Motlica testified to that that in every instanee G 4n the same #7 says if the owner or appiicant. It
7 the awner is also an applicant. 7 does nat say owner and/or applicant. It does not
8 MR. HEBLAN: Cou1d T sce the appticarion, 8 say awrter and applieant. Tt says if owner or
9 please? 9 applicant does ohoose to pay the fee aver a geriad
10 Mit• Mt)ORHBAD: Acazaily, as a point ta ihe id of time, he or she shali be required ta sig,n a
11 Board, once yau have gone ta rnotion, yau don't have ifl promissory note thaY shows the tatal fee due,
12 fo take anymare aomment frorn ariy party, 12 schednte af payments and interest, et cetera.
13 MR. MC)FFE'T; Cali the quesrion if poxi want. 13 MR. HEELAN: We fie[ieve thaC I shauld have the
14 11+t12. AMSDEN: 1'm gaing to go ahead and run 14 right ta sign the promissory nate with 20% down and
15 this through. 15 receive aur TCO by the Code. Thank yau.
16 MR. DAVISCJN: Jrast riva points of referenoe. I 16 MR. AMSDEI+T: We have a matian on the floor.
17 think the chaasge of chairmanship, and far the 17 All in favQr?
1$ record, was made after the morian was made, not 18 MI2, MOETET: Aye.
19 before. 19 M12. SCkTC}FIELD: Aye.
ZU MR. MOFFET: No, i# was nat, Chaslie. T told Zb MR. AASLAND: Aye.
21 Greg I wouid like to txtaka a morion and I asked if 21 MR. AMSDEN: All against? Aye. The mofion
22 he would chair while I did that. We've got a Conrt 22 passes three to one.
23 Repnrtex here. We asn read it back if you'd like. 23 MR. ivIC7FEET: 7'Gank you.
~ 24 Do you want us to7 24 MR. HEELANe Can I ask ybu to read back the
25 MR. TTBBLAT3: No. That's fine. But T would 25 motion sa T understand wkat we've got here?
SUMMIT REPC3RTING 1 8f}0 261-4818 (970) 468-4415
~
NQVEM13ER 10, 1991 RIVA RIDGE APPEAL HEARING Pages 103 a 104
~
PAGE 103
1 (Whcreupon, the Morion was read baek by the
2 Court Reporter) ~
3 MR. HEBLAN: That says whatever is papar
& tra91. `E'he legal paper trail says I am the
5 appIicant and I can sign it.
b MR. Mt'3FE'ET: 'T`fie mntian was passcd as read.
7 Riva Ridge Fartners, Gienn I-Ieelan, Margaratta Parks
8 can sign the promissoty note. T`here's ncs
9 requirement for a deed of trust. It's the five „
10 year promissory note as specified in the Code
11 MR. i3LELAN: So the discussion we had
12 subsequetst Co the morion andfpr appiioant or owner
13 is ireelevant?
14 MR. AMSDEN. I just read that pr'ror to fhe
15 vote beeause I wanted tha Commission to understand
16 it.
17 MR. HBELAN: Sa in order for us 4a get a TCQ,
18 whaY yau're saying is we have to have thrree
19 signatures on the promissory note; Margaretta,
20 Glenn, Riva Ridge Partners and put down 20%a over a
21 five year periad of time?
22 MR. MOFF"Efi: That's what my mation reflected,
23 yas7
24 MR. HP-ELAN: Whatever that fee was ulrimatety
25 deCennined?
~
PAGE 104
1 MR. MOFFET: Exactly<
2 MR. AASLAND: Absent to paying the fee at one
3 rime if yau want, also.
4 MR. AMSDEN: I vwill turnover the chair to Greg
5 Moifet.
6 MR. MOFFET: 'i'hank you. I think we have
7 exhausted this issue and it's time again far a
$ break and we'tl come back and gat to the rast af
9 the agenda. Thank you.
10 (Whereupan, this Hearing conaluded at
11 4:45 P.Ivt.)
12 - - oQa
13
14
15
16
17
1&
19
20
2]
22 ~
23
24
25
SUMMIT REPORTTNG 1800 261-4818 (970) 46$-9415
.
„ . .
~ - f
~ ~ . . d ~;s;; ,
~ ~
COPY
~
VAIL PLANNTNG AND ENVIRpNMENTAL COMMISSION
APPEAL HEARING
NOVEMBER 10, 1997
z:oo P.M.
PEC COMMISSIONERS:
MR. GREG MOFFET, CHAIRN[AN
MR. GALEN AASLAND
~ MR. GREG AMSDEN
MR. JOHN SCHOFIEL]J
MR. CENE USELTON
STAE'F:
MR. MIKE MOLLIGA, MR. TOM MC30RHEAI3
APFELLANT:
RIVA I2IDGE PARTNERS, MR. GLENN HEELAN,
MR a GHARI,ES DAVISC3N
~
SUMMIT REPOR'I`ING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
2
~
INDEX
JIM CUR.Nt7TTE :
Direct Examinati.on by Mr. Moorhead.......... Page 7
Cross-Examination by Appellant.......... ....Page 22
Redirect Examinati.on by Mr. Moarhead........ Page 25
Recross-Examination by Appell.ant......... ...page 28
Redirect Examination by Mr. Moarhead........ Page 44
MIKE M{)LLICA:
Direct Examination by Mr. Moorhead.......... Page 29
Cross-Examinati.on by Appe1lant ..............Pa.ge 3$
~ A.C"t"el.4anL 's l+a:3e Y • s .i • • • i .e • s • r a a • a w r s.Cage 45
.GXH.LB.1..1. S
Identified
Exhibit A............................... 30
Exhibit C............................. 11
Exhibit D 13
Exhibit E 25,30
Exhibit G 16,23
Exhibit H 38,44
Exha.bit I 41,44
Exhibi.t J 44
~ Exhibit K 44
SUMMTT REPQRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481'8
3
~
1 Thereupon :
2 MR. MC7FFET: The first item on the Agenda is
3 12iva Ridge Partners LLC, Applicants and Tom
4 Moarhead and Mike Mollica for Staff.
5 MR. MOORHEAD: This item is an appeal of three
6 staff interpretations and the zssues are outlined
7 in the Memarandum that was prepared by Mike
8 Mollica. It is to the Planning and Env,a:ronmental
9 Camma.ssion from the Commun.ity Devel.apment
10 Department and as we praceed today, we'1,1
11 essentially be follawing that Memorandum and its
12 attachments.
~ 13 Yau wi.ll nnt.i.ce that there i.s a Court Reporter
14 present today. That is Mr. Randy Slane af Summit
15 Reporting. He has agreed to be present taday ta
16 transcribe these praceeclings. The onl.y di.fference
17 between a tape recorder and Randy is tha.t a tape
18 recorcler can`t let you know when it's not taking
19 down what is being sai.d. Randy can advise us if
20 he's having difficulty following the testimany or
21 if people are talking on top of one another, and I
22 have qiven Randy full authority to send off fl.ares,
23 waa:ve flags car dn whatever is necessary to make
24 sure we're conducting this praceedi.ng in a manner
~ 25 that allows him to properly take the notes
SUMMIT REPORTTNfi
(970) 468-9415
1--800-261-4818
4
~
1 necessary for the transcriptian.
2 By the way of introductian, there are actually
3 three xssues that are before the Planni.ng and
4 Environmental Commission today, Those are the
5 Staff's classif.ication of the third and fourth
6 flaors as eating and drinking establ,ishments; tcvo,
7 Section 18.52.100 C, parking, requirements
8 schedule, eating and drinking establa.shments and
9 Section 1$.52.160 exemptions parking pay-in-lieu
10 and that Riva Ridge Partners disputes the
11 calculation of the number of parki.ng spaces
12 required and three, the requirement that the
~ 13 applicant sign the promi.ssory note personally and
14 that a deed af trust be fil.ed on the property.
15 These are the issues as they have been set forth in
16 the Appeal that urras filed by Riva Ridge Partners.
17 Yau may remember this matter has come before
18 the Planning and Enviranmental Cammissian in a
19 previous meeting. At that time it was determined
20 that the Appeal was not timely filed based upon
21 their appealing of a letter from Mike Mollica that
22 was dated in June of 1997. That matter was
23 reviewed by the Town Council. The Town Council,
24 paraphrasing what bccurred, T was present at that
~ 25 meeting, believed that there were enough questions
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
5
~
1 as to whether or not that xaas the final calculation
2 that they have referred it back to the Planna.ng and.
3 Envi.ronmental Commissian, not believing tha.t a
4 final d.ecision had been rendered as of June, that
5 should stand .in the way of the Plann,ing a;nd
6 Envi.ronmental. Commission h,earing, all the facts and
7 circumstances that pertain here.
8 2n the presentati.on, the first person tha.t
9 we' re going to ca11 w.a.1.1 be Jim Curnutte. Jim
10 Curnutte is presently with the Summit County
11 Plann.ing Department. He was previ.ously wi.th the
12 Town of Vail. Community Develapment Department and
~ 13 Jim was the individual who first calcul.ated the
14 parking pay-in-lieu and the classi.fication of the
15 third and fraurth floors of eating anci dri.nking
16 establishments. Jim will review for you the plans
17 that he had reviewed. He will tell you about his
1s contrersations with G1.enn Heelan and I beiieve that
19 he wi].l render an opininn that Mr. Heelart c1.ea,rZy
20 unclerstood what the nature of th,e classificati.on of
21 the third and fourth floors was and as raell as
22 having a clear understand.i.ng as to haw the
23 pay-in-lieu was arrived at.
24 After hearing that testimony I be].ieve that
~ 25 will establish in the June, 1996 letter to Mike
SUMMIT REPaRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
6
~
1 Mollica drafted and signed by Glenn Hee2an when he
2 says, I understand and agree as to the total amount
3 the parkxng pay-i.n-lieu that that, in fact, was the
4 c.ircumstance at that time.
5 As to the current cal.culation, you will then
6 hear testimony from Mike Mollica. Mike Mallica
7 wil3 explain tca you haw the current calcula.tion has
8 been made and will point out some of the
9 differenees that result in a h.igher calculation
10 that was arrived at by Jim Curnutte.
12 FinaIly, as to the third and final issue as to
12 what, if any, security is requireda I think that
~ 13 wi.7.1 basically be an understanding of what the 1aw
14 in Col.orado is that pextai.ns to a promissory note.
15 the facit that that a.s a generic term and the terms
16 ancT conditi.ons I believe are inherent within the
17 Town af Vail."s autharity to enter a.nto agreements
18 that wi11 essentially secure that payment will be
19 made in the future.
20 Sca unless thexe are any quest.ions, we're ready
21 to proceed and to cal7: Jim Curnutte. The thing
22 that Iwould suggest, Greg, is that after ,7i.m
23 Curnutte testifies that, if Nir. Heelan, the
24 Appellan,ts, have any questions th.at they be qiven
~ 25 the oppoxtunity to ask questions at that time
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
7
~
1 before we proceed to the next witness.
2 MR. MaFFET: Let me ask you to step back for a
3 second and answer a broader questian for us. Ga.ven
4 this is an appeal af a Staff decisi.on speci.fi.c w.ith
5 parking and we basically have two parties to thi.s
6 action, Staff and Riva Ridge, is it we need to
7 soZicit public input because this is pretty
8 strictly quasi-judicial?
9 MR. MOORHEAD : That will be up to yau d but I
10 th.ink basically i.t' s up to the part,ies, either the
11 Town of Vail ar to the Applicant to cail rrritnesses.
12 Public a.nput is sometha.ng that' s appropr.iate for
13 legislative matters, but this a.s clearly a
14 quasi-judicial matter.
15 We' d ask Jim Curnutte to step forward and have
16 a seat at the table where the plans are located.
17 Jim, would you state ycaur name and spell your
18 last name, please?
19 MR. CURNUTTE. My name is Jim Curnutte,
20 C-u-r-n--u-t-t-e.
21 MR. M04RHEAD: Jim, how are you presently
22 employed?
23 MR, CURNUTTE: I work for the Summit County
24 Pl.anning Department.
25 MR. MOt7RHEAD: And in what capacity do you
SUMMIT REPt7RTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
$
~
1 wark for Summa.t County?
2 MR. CURNUTTE: Zam the Mana.ger caf Cu.rrent
3 Planning.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: And as the Manager of Current
5 Planning, what are yflur job duties on a day ta day
6 basis?
7 MR. CURNUTfiE z Ta handle the current pl.anning
8 workload, the applications in for review by the
9 planning Commissian or Board of County
10 Commissioners, to deal with the public questions
11 and so an.
12 MR. MC3C7RHEAD s What' s your educational
~ 13 background that qualifies you for that pasitian?
14 MR. CURNUTTE: I'm crazy I guess. I have gflt
15 aBache2or°s Degree in Conservation and I have
16 abaut ten years af experience as a Planner.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: Priar to accepting that
18 position with Summit County, where were you
19 employed?
20 MR, CURNUTTE: At the Town of Va.il.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: And where were you emplnyed,
22 with the Tawn of Vail?
23 MR. CURNUTTE: In the Communi,ty Development
24 Department.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD: And what position did you hold
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4818
9
~
1 there?
2 MR. CT7RNUTTE: I was a Senior Planner.
3 MR. MOORHEAD: And as a Senior Planner, how
4 long were you with the Town?
5 MR. CURNUTTE: I believe .it was about three
6 and a hal.f years.
7 MR. MOORHEAD: As a Sen.ior Planner, did you
8 have an opportunity or occasion ta work on an
9 appl.icat.ion which was fi.led by Ra.va Ridge Partners?
10 You may al.so ltnow it as Serrano' s.
11 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I was the Flanner.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: Wauld you descri.be for the
~ 13 Planning Commission, Mr. Curnutte, when you first
14 got .introlved in that particul.ar project and what
15 your job duties were in relatian to .it?
16 MR. CURNUTTE: When Ifirst got involved?
17 MF2. MOORHEAD o Uh°huh.
18 MFt. CURNUTTE: Well, I was actual.lX invalved
19 with the App].iaants before they even made their
20 application i.n term5 of kind of a preappli.cation
21 conversation with Staff ta determine what the
22 appropriate process would be for them to attempt to
23 proceecl to have this private club in what was the
24 Serrano's Buiiding.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD: One moznent. Ji,m is 1,ooking
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
10
~
1 over his shoulder to look at me which is natural,
2 so I'm going ta move over here.
3 And cauld yau give a description of what that
4 project was described to you to be?
5 MR. CURNUTTE. Wel1, let's see. It was
6 already approved as one thing and Andy Canutte
7 (phflnet1C), Senior Planner, handled that project.
8 That was the tear down and rebuild of the building,
9 itself, And my involvement was handling what
10 ultimately turned out ta be a conditinnal use
11 request to amend the previous approvedr recently
12 given approval ta the third and fourth floors.
~ 13 Originally, it was proposed to be a private club.
14 MR. MOORHEAD: And what werethe
15 considerations that were made pursuant to that
16 change in the plans?
17 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, tiriginally my first take
18 an the question was whether a private club could be
19 proposed an the third and fourth flaors in aCCl
20 2one District and the answer was no. That was not
21 specifically listed as an a1lowed use in that Zone
22 District, However, at the request of the
23 Applicant, T took it to kind of a discussion with
24 the Planning Staff. The Planning Staff I believe
~ 25 still meets once a week to talk about issues and
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4$1$
11
~
1 projects that each of the individual planners are
2 handling. And I believe I had a canversatian with
3 the rest of the planners about the proposed use and
4 how, if there was anyway it could be praposed under
5 any sart of scenario. And the answer was that it
6 was determined to be very similar to the eating and
7 drinking establishments that were listed as a
8 conditional use in CC1 and therefore, I gat back ta
9 the Applicants and said, yes. You can apply for a
10 canditianal use. Staff is going to take the
11 interpretatian that you're very similar to two nf
12 the types of eating and drinking establishments in
~ 13 CC1. That's restaurants I believe and bars and
14 loungesa And we feel that your proposed pxivate
15 club is very similar to that. So yes, you can go
16 ahead and apply for a conditional use perctit under
17 that scenario.
18 MR. MOORHEAD: Who did you re1ay that
19 information to? Da yau remember?
20 MR. CURNUTTE: To Glenn Heelan and possibly,
21 Charlie Davison.
22 MR. MOORHEAb: Was it after that that a
23 conditional use permit, in fact, was submitted for
24 the use that ynu just described?
~ 25 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes,
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
.
12
~
1 MR. MOORHEADs Jim, I ask you to look at
2 Exhibit C in the Staff Memorandum. And I believe
3 that that is a two page letter dated September
4 21st, 1995; is that correct?
5 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
6 MR. MOORHEAD: And cauld you identify that
7 particular document?
8 MR. CURNUTTE: That was a letter to Mr. Glenn
9 Heelan from myself concerning his application far
10 the canditional use permit that we just talked
11 about.
12 MR. MOORHEAD. And was this letter written
~ 13 after the application had been submitted?
14 M12. CURNUTTE: Yes. This would have been my
15 first ietter that would have gone out to the
16 Applicant after an applicatian was submitted to let
17 him know whether or not the application was
18 complete ar whether or not additional information
19 needed to be provided before it could go to a
20 public hearing.
21 MR. MOORHEAn: And did the letter in anyway
22 describe what the uses were that would be
23 aonsidered an the third and faurth floor of the
24 establishment?
~ 25 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. On Page 1, the first
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
13
~
1 bullet item there in my letter, the Zetter says the
2 following infarmatifln must be provided in order for
3 Staff to adequately review yaur request. Please
4 respond ta the follawing. The first kind of item
5 does deal with what you asked.
6 MR. MOORHEAD: Okay. And directing your
7 attentian to the end of that first item, you
8 identified there that these are also the categaries
9 that will be used ta determine the parking
10 requirement for the c1ub; is that correct?
11 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. I made that clear at the
12 tzme.
~ 13 MR. M(30RHEAD s J.i.m, I' d then direct yaur
14 attenta.on to Exh.ibit D i,n th;at same Memo and ask if
15 you would identi.fy that particul.ar document?
16 MR. CURNUT2'E s That c,ras the Staff 12eport to
17 the Planning and Env.ironmental Commi.ssion that 1
18 wrote for the consideratian af the conditional use
19 permit.
20 MR. MOORHEAD: And does this dacument a.lso
21 establish that the Staff wi1,l use the ca.tegor3.es of
22 cocktail Iounges and bars and restaurants in order
23 ta determine the parking requirement for the ciub?
24 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD a And this Memoranclum was
SUMMIT REPC3RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
14
~
1 submitted to the Planning and Environmental
2 Commissian?
3 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes, it was.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: I'd also d.irect your attent.ion
5 to page 7 of that document under Staf f
6 Recammendation and ask you what, i.f an.y,
7 recommendati.on the Staff had in regarrl ta the
8 parking analysis?
9 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, what you're referring to
lfl on Page 7 I assume is under the Staff
11 Recommendatian where we recommended approval and
12 there were two condi.tions, the second candition of
~ 13 which points out the fact that since we were not
14 provided with hard dracuings of the uses on the
15 third and fourth floor at the time it went thraugh
16 conditional use permit. The condition, the wordin+g
17 of the canditian, the point of that is that when we
18 got essenta.all.y building permit applications in our
19 office with hard line dzawings, construction
20 draw.ings, at that time the Planning Staff will
21 determine what the parking payment fee cvould be.
22 MR. MOORHEAD: Di.d you ever have an
23 opportunity or d.i.d you ever xeceive such hard line
24 drawings that enabled you to calcuiate the parking
~ 25 pay-in-la.eu fee?
SUMMTT REPiJRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800--261-4818
15
~
1 MR. CURNUTTE: As part of the conditional use
2 permit review?
3 MR. MOQRHEAD: Yes.
4 MR. CURNUTTE: I don't believe so. S think
5 they were preconceptual at that point.
6 MR. MOORHEAD: When was the first time that
7 you received plans adequate to calculate a parking
8 pay-in-lieu fee?
9 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, I actually don't knaw
10 wha-t the month was, but it was sometime after the
11 approval, but before a buxld.ing perm.it was issued.
12 1 think it was in the Spring of '96.
~ 13 MR. Mat7RFiEADt Ancl there are sQme plans in
14 front of you. Are those the plans that yau
15 revi.ewed ta calculate the parking pay-in-l.ieu fee?
16 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: And cauld you describe for the
18 Planni,ng Gommissican just what review you performed
19 and how you cal.culated that part.icular parking
20 pay-in-lieu fee?
21 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, what I did is with kind
22 af different markers, highlighters, I outlined the
23 various different types of uses, retai.lp oomman,
24 the restaurant use. And I think there was a fourth
~ 25 aategory, but I'zn not positive. And so kind af
SUMMIT REPC}RTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
16
~
1 generally outlined thase areas and then, T
2 calculated the square footage area af each af those
3 areas and put the tatals down, put individual area
4 on the sheet here and then, totaled it up an the
5 battam and ultimately, I totaled every floor an the
6 building to get a total for the whole building.
7 MR, MOORHEAD: Jim, Z'm going to hand you what
8 S have marked up in the upper right corner as
9 Exhibit F. Excuse me. There was an F. Make that
10 G. Can yQU identify that particular document?
11 MR. CURNUTTEs Yes. This is the totaZ for the
12 entire building af each of the axeas that I
~ 13 calculated in order to determine the parking
14 pay-in-lieu fee.
15 MR. MOORHEAD: Would you explain to the
16 planning and Environmental Cammission just the
17 significance of these numbers and haw you arrived
18 at them using the plans as you think is
19 apprapriate?
20 MR. CURNUT2E: Well, in terms of significance,
22 abviously, the significance is that these numbers
22 would determine the fee at whatever the fee was at
23 the time, $16,000 per space. So it was pretty
24 significant as to how T came to the final figures
~ 25 that I came to here. And again, what you're
sumMzT REPoRmING
(970) 468--9415
1-800-261-4818
17
~
1 looking at on the sheet is loaks like five
2 categaries; floor axea, GRFA, commercial or retail
3 mostly in this case, common areas, affice and
4 restaurants and then, the associated parking space
5 requirement associated with each one of those. In
6 other words, there was no GRFA in the huilding, sa
7 there were not parking spaces assacxated with that.
8 Far commercial, there was 3,707 sguare feet of
9 commercial divided by 300. You need to provide one
10 parking space for every 300 feet of commercial.
71 That comes ta 12.4 parkirig spaces and so on.
12 Restaurant T believe is the one we're mostly
~ 13 talking abQUt today, so the private club or what
14 turned out to be the quasi-public club or Vail
15 Village Club falls in that category of 4,978
16 divided by 15 divided by 8. That's how we
17 calculated the parking requirement far the club.
18 And it also included, I think there was some
19 restaurant on the second floor as well and that
20 came to 41 and a half spaces.
21 MR. MOORHEADs Did yau ever have an
22 opportunity to provide this information to
23 Mr. Glenn Heelan?
24 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. We went over these
~ 25 numbers several times.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
18
~
1 MR. MOORHEAD: Could you explain just what
2 that exchange was and the information that you
3 provided to Glenn?
4 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, mostly it was Glenn
5 certainly was interested in knowing what his fee
6 was going ta be, so he was very interested in how I
7 calculated thase numbers. As a matter nf fact,
$ disputed how Icalculated the numbers in certain
9 areas. Not necessarily disputedr but questiQned
10 whether or not that entry like area should really
11 be countedb You're not into the club until you
12 walk past this point. So there was a lot of give
~ 13 and take about where the lines should be and where
14 they shouldn't be. You can see where I didn't
15 count the air lock here and mechanical aver there,
16 those kind of things where I prabably had
17 originally counted certain areas, the vestibuZes
18 and then, there was discussians back and forth.
19 And T remember gaing again back ta the Planning
20 Staff ta talk about issues. Ypu knaw, Glenn would
21 nat like us ta aount the fireplace, so should we
22 really caunt the fireplace. You can't sit in the
23 fireplace. Should that be part of the restaurant
24 area? Where do you draw the line between the
~ 25 hallway and the club portion? And so there was a
SUMMIT REPORTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
19
~
1 lot of that going on. I ga to the Staff and agree
2 ar didn't agree. And I get back to G1enn and
3 Charlie about whether we agreed or not and here's
4 where I'm going to draw the line.
5 MR. MOORHEAD: Over how long aperiod of time,
6 Jim, do you think these conversations toak place?
7 MR. CURNUTTE; Oh, it's taugh to guess
8 exactly. Probably, at least a month. Maybe twa.
9 MR. MOORHEADt How many meetings do you think
10 you had personally with Glenn face to face and
11 during the course of these discussions?
12 MR. CURNUTTE; I would say at least, two.
~ 13 Possibly, three. But I feel pretty comfartable
14 saying there were at least, twa meetings where we
15 went over the numbers.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Haw many telephone
17 conversatians did you have with him during that
18 pexiod af time?
19 MR, CURNUTTE: Maybe only two. Again, in
20 response to I will go check with Staff, we'll see
21 what we're gaing to do about that and then, I'm
22 sure T called, yes. We're not gning to count the
23 fireplace, but we're gaing to count whatever.
24 MR. MOORHEAD: At anytime did you become
~ 25 involved in a discussian as ta whether or not
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1=800-261-4$18
20
~
1 payment would be required at the time of the
2 building permit or whether it would be put off
3 until the issuing of a temporary certificate of
4 occupancy?
5 MR. CURNUTTE; Yes. I don°t knaw exactly how
6 involved I was, but that questian came up while I
7 was working at the Town of Vail. And T don't
8 remember what process we went through to chanqe
9 that. But the pracedure in place at the time was
10 that everyone pays their parking pay-in-lieu fee
11 before they get a building permit and far this
12 project it was delayed until a TCO ar a CQ was
~ 13 requested, and I don't think I had a lot tfl do with
14 that decision, but.
15 MR. MQORHEAD: Do you remember whether or nat
16 part of that discussion concerned whether or not it
17 would actually be buiit out as a club similar to a
18 restaurant and bar or whether it would be buiit out
19 as residential?
20 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. As I recall, right up
21 until the last minutes ar maybe until I left the
22 Tawn of Vail, there was still this, you know, the
23 owners or applicants or whatever, Riva Ridge was
24 debating whether to go the club route or to go the
~ 25 original approval which was ane residence with some
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4$18
21
~
1 office space on the third flaor. And so there were
2 really two scenarios that were approved for the
3 building all alang.
4 MR. MaORHEAD; Okay. Based on ypur personal
5 contact with Glenn Heelan and based on your
6 experience in the Community Development Department,
7 do yau have an opinion as td whether or nat Glenn
8 Heelan understaod the classification of the third
9 and fourth floors as eating and drinking
10 establishments?
11 MR, CURNUTTE: Yes.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: Did he ever come to you with a
~ 13 suggestion that they would be similar ta eating and
14 drinking establishments?
15 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, like I said, Ithink
16 originally, you know, going way back to the very
17 beginning befare an application was even submitted,
18 I believe he came to the Staff with an idea af a
19 private club and was told a private club was nat an
20 allowed or conditional use in CC3, at least on
21 those levels of building and I believe it was his
22 suggestion, well, isn't it very similar to some of
23 those other uses I'm seeing in there? Couldn't yau
24 go talk to Staff and see if you can determine zt's
~ 25 similar and therefore, I could be able to apply for
SUMMIT REPORTING
{970} 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
22
~
1 a conditional use permit. atherwise, his only
2 option was to amend the code and I don't think he
3 wanted to gn through that time and effort to do
4 that first. And sa yes, I think it was his
5 suggestion originally and Staff agreed. And once
6 we agreed and to1d him he can praceed that he made
7 an application for the conditianal use permit.
8 MR. MO4RHEAD. So he actually proceeded with
9 an applicatian far a conditional use permit far the
10 third and fourth flaors to be established as eating
11 and drinking establishments; is that carrect?
12 MR. CURNUTTEa I guess. Yes. He actually
~ 13 made an applioation originally for a private club
14 and we determined it was similar to other eating
15 and drinking establishments listed in the CCI Zone
16 District. St later was determined that a private
17 club was not something that the Planning Cflmmission
18 wanted to see in the Village, so the applicatian
19 was amended to be a quasi-public club.
20 MR. MOORHEAD: Thank you. I have no further
21 questions at this time.
22 MR. MOFFET. Thanks, Tom. G1enn, do you have
23 any questions?
24 MR. HEELAN: Just a couple questions at this
~ 25 time.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
23
~
1 Jim, when did you leave the employment af the
2 Town of Vail?
3 MR. CURNUTTE. I think it was June 17th 1
4 believe of
5 MR. HEELAN: 196?
6 MR. CURNUTTE: 196.
7 MR. HEELAN: You stated here taday that when
8 we went through the process that there rea11y
9 weren't firm plans and still even some conceptua.l
10 quest,ian as to how 1we're gaing to finish
11 MR.. CURNUTTE: Whether you were going to
12 residential and
~ l3 MR. HEELAN: Tnihether we're going to have
14 resident.ial at the top two f].oars?
15 MR. CURNUTTE « I asked far harcl 7.i.ne plans of
16 the c1.ub.
17 MR, HEELAN: Uh-huh.
1$ MR. CURNUTTE: Ancl you said until we feel
19 comfortable they' re go.ing to appxave the club, I
20 dan't want to go to the expense of that. So yes,
21 tha.t was conceptual at that time.
22 MR. HEET,AN: In our meetings that you talked.
23 about per the Town's questi.ans, do you ever recall
24 us questiani.ng the Board based on seats?
~ 25 MR a CUFtNUTTE : No, Idan `t.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
24
~
l MR. HEELAN: I refer you to the back of
2 Exhibit G where we had seat calculatians and there
3 are some questions of how many number af spaces we
4 should have and whether that shauld be based on
5 seats?
6 MR. CURNUTTE. I don't recall whether we had
7 that discussian, but I certainly did do a
8 calculation based on seats because the code
9 required what are the most restrictive or the
10 requirement is the one used, so S did the
11 calculation.
12 MR. HEELAN: I think if we're going into the
~ 13 issue of restriative and the nature of what the
14 code reads today in terms af a lengthy discussion,
15 I wauld contend in our conversatidns we certainly
16 discussed the seats because we had lots of
17 discussions about it at that time.
18 MR. DAVISON: One other question. You
19 mentioned that basically there had been a
20 discussion on postponing up unti1 the Cfl whatever
21 the payment
22 MR, MOORHEAD: Right.
23 MR. DAVISON: On pay-in-lieu. You mentianed
24 that you had something to do, but you were really
~ 25 not involved. Can you te11 us wha was involved?
St7NIMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
25
~
1 MR. CURNUTTE: With that decision?
2 MR. DAVISON: Uh-huh.
3 MR. CURNUTTE: Bay, Icari't recall whether
4 that was Bab McLaurin or the Council because again
5 it was different than it had normally been dQne.
6 MR. DAVISON: But in your recollectian that
7 was approved?
8 MR> CURNUTTEe Yes.
9 MR. DAVISON: Okay.
10 MR. MOFFET: Anything else from you gentlemen?
11 MR. HEELAN: No. Thank ynu.
12 MR. MbdRHEADs I have a follaw-up based on
~ 13 that questian.
14 MR. MOFFET: Please.
15 MR. MOdRHEAD: Jim, I direct your attention to
16 Exhibit E which is attached to the memo which is a
17 letter dated June 21st, 1996 to Mike Mallica from
18 Glenn Heelan. Do you see that before you?
19 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
20 MR. MOORHEAD: And in that letter the first
21 sentence indicates, pursuant to our previous
22 conversations, it is my understanding and agreement
23 that the parking pay-in-lieu fees currently
24 estimated at $457,334.56 as established by
~ 25 Community Development in accordance with the plans
SUMMTm REPaRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
26
~
1 and specifications submitted by Riva Ridge
2 Partners, Limited Liability Campany that indicate
3 completion of the thixd and fourth floors as a
4 quasi-public club will be paid over five years with
5 the first payment due and payable at the time a
6 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Do
7 you see that sentence?
8 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: That aaleulation of the
10 $457,000, is that based upon yQUr caZculation?
11 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes. That matches. As you can
12 see, that matches my numbers exactly.
13 MR. MOORHEADs And that was a calculation that
14 was made based upon the square foQtage af the
15 faaiiity, is that correct?
16 MR. CURNUTTEz Yes.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: And that was not a calculation
18 that was based upon any seat plan; is that correet?
19 MR. CURNUTTE: That's right.
20 MR, MOORHEADs So that was a final
21 determination that you had made as ot the time that
22 you cancluded your calculation af the parking
23 pay-in-lieu; is that correct?
24 MR. CURNUTTE. Yes.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD: And there was some discussion
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800w261-4818
27
~
1 in regard tti the calculatibn of a seat p1an. You
2 indicated that you had made some calculation based
3 upon seats; is that correct?
4 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
5 MR. MOORHEAD. And what was your reasan far
6 doing that?
7 MRa CURNUTTE: Again, because the code says
8 that the parking requirement fflr a restaurant or an
9 eating and drinking establishment is either
10 accarding to the UBC requirements or on a per seat
11 basis. I believe it's one parking space for every
12 eight seats and you do the two and then, you gn
~ 13 with the ane that's the mast restrictive. So I
14 pxabably had ta do it bath ways which T did here to
15 see what the numbers would be and it looks like the
16 results of my calculations would be 37 according ta
17 the seating way of daing it and 28 according to the
18 other way of dning it. 5o that's the one that's
19 more restrictive and so that's the one they used.
24 MR. MOORHEAD; When you use the terrn more
21 restrictive, what did that term mean to you as you
22 administrated the Town of Vail Code in this regard?
23 MR. CURNUTTE: Well, essentially, the one that
24 would cause the highest parking requirement.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD: And is that eonsistent with how
SUMMIT REPQRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
28
~
1 yau had calculated parking requirements throughout
2 ynur career with the Town of Vail?
3 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
4 MR. MOORHEADt And was it yaur und.erstanding
5 that was how the entire Staff i:nterpreted and
6 adm.ini.stered that particular pxova.si.can of the Code?
7 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
8 MR. MOORHEAD : C?kay. . Nothing further.
9 MR. MOFFET: Thank you, Tom. Anything el.se7
10 Recrass basically?
11 NiR. DAVISdN; Basically, just to further
12 understand in terms of the seating calculations,
~ 13 what they were based on in terms af blueprints that
14 you actually had that representecT the seating
15 itself, or calculations on the formula, itself2
16 MR. CURNUTTE: I'm sorry.
17 MR. DAVISUNt In ather words, I don't think
18 that there were any seating as specific seating at
19 that time.
20 MR. CtTRNUTTE : Right. Tha.t ' s a very gond
21 question. How d.id I come up with these numbers?
22 Oh, i.t says estimate on here. I think since I
23 didn't have an actual seating plan, S must have
24 tri.ed ta guess a typi.cal how many sets you could
~ 25 have fit in these vari+aus areas.
SUMMI'I' REPt7RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800--261-481$
29
~
1 MR. DAVISdN: By restrictive, you said right
2 now that it was whi.chever was
3 MR. CURNiTTTE: Mare restrictive.
4 M12. DAVISONs And what was the definitian?
5 MR. HEELAN: What was your clefi,nition of that,
6 Jim?
7 MR. CURNUTTE: The one that would have the
8 highest parking demand.
9 MR. HEELAN: Demand.
10 MR. DAVTS(7N: Demand in texms of number caf
11 parking spaces?
12 MR. CURNUTTE: The number of parking spaces
~ 13 that would be required.
14 MR. DAVISON: For money?
15 MR. CUFtNUTTE : Yes r.if yau were go,ing to pay
16 the park-in-lieu fee, yes.
17 MR. MOFFET: Thank you.
18 MR. Mdt7RHEAD: Mike Molli.ca, if you cauld have
19 a seat over here if you wouldn't mind?
24 Ma.ke, it's my understanding that you
21 persanally have prepared the Memorandum to the
22 Planning and Enviranmental Commission that they're
23 considering today; is that carrect?
24 MR. MOLLICA: Yes, it is.
~ 25 MR. Mt}ORHEAD» And that Memora.ndum is based
SUMMIT REPt7RTING
(970) 46$-5415
1--800-261-4818
30
~
1 upon your actual experience with this particular
2 propasal or appeal as it now would properiy be
3 identified and your knowledge of the parking
4 pay-in-lieu issue; is that correct?
5 MR. MOLLICA» That is correct.
6 MR. MOORHEAD: A few things just real quickly,
7 kind of housekeeping items to make certain we get
8 these items properly idsntified. I`d like to
9 direct your attention to Exhibit Aof the
10 Memorandum. And if yau could describe real quickly
11 for the Planning and Environmental Commission just
12 what that document is?
~ 13 MR. MOLLICA: Exhibit A consists of 3 pages.
14 Pages 1 and 2 are the actual appeal farm that was
15 completed and signed by G1enn Heelan. And the
16 final page is a letter that I wrote to Glenn Heelan
17 dated June 17th of 1997 indicating the parking
18 calculation and associated fee for the pay-in-lieu.
19 MR. MOORHEAD: Mike, I'd like to direct your
24 attention ta Exhibit E. Can you identify that
21 particular document?
22 MR. MOLLZCA: Exhibit E is a letter from Glenn
23 Heelan to me dated June 21st, 1996. This was a
24 letter that I requested Glenn Heelan prnvide so
~ 25 that we had a very clear understanding as to the
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
31
~
1 pay-in-lieu requirement prior to my issuing the
2 building permi,t far the project.
3 MR. MOORHEAD: And was it your understand,in:g
4 that the building permit was to be issued wi.thout
a the parking pay-in-li.eu being paid prior to its
6 issuance?
7 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
8 MR. MOORHEAL?. And was it your understancling
9 that the parking pay-in-lieu would then be pai.d
10 pr.ior ta the issuance of a temparary certifa.cate af
11 occupancy?
12 MR. MOLLICA: That is correct.
~ 13 MR. MOQRHEAD: Has a temporary certificate of
14 accupancy been issued for this property?
15 MR. MOLLICA: No.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Mike, in regard ta your letter
17 in cvhi.ch of June 17th, 1996, excuse me, 1997 which
18 you state the calculation of the parking
19 pay-in-lieu fee. Cou1d you te11 the Planning and
20 Environmenta.l Commi.ssion just hocv you arrived at
21 that calculation?
22 MR. MOLLICA: Certainly, Tom. Very sa.milar
23 methodalogy that Jim Curnutte used ta determine his
24 calculation. I reviewed the plans and uta.li.zed
~ 25 three, sepaxate categories; restauxantlclub use,
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
32
~
1 retail commercial use and thirdly, office use.
2 Common area does nat have a parking requirement
3 associated with it, so rdid not utilize that.
4 Going thraugh the revised floor plans, I calculated
5 the square footages and using the appropriate
6 numbers, came up with the required parking spaces
7 that are indicated in this particular lettez. I
8 would point out that at this time it was the first
9 time that I had the opportunity of viewing a
10 seating plan far the Vai1 Village Club and also
11 analyzed the parking as it related to numbers of
12 seats as well.
~ 13 MR. MOORHEADs Could you describe what that
14 seating plan is and how it was arrived at to the
15 best of your knowledge?
16 MR. MaLLICA: Prior to appraximately, June af
17 "97 I had not seen a seating plan for the club. As
1$ yau know, restaurants and lounges typically have a
19 seating plan. It's a floar plan that indicates
20 tab1e locatians and number of seats. And at that
21 time the seating plan was dropped off at my office
22 and T analyzed that plan accordrngly.
23 MR. MOaRHEAD: Is there any regulation
24 cancerning a requixement for a certain number of
~ 25 seats in this particular establishment?
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46e-9415
1-800-261-4818
33
~
1 MR. MOLLIGA: No.
2 MR. MOORHEAD: Are they required to have any
3 seats at all?
4 MR. MOLLICA: No.
5 MR. MOORHEAD: Is it fair to say that a
6 seating plan is campletely discretionary by the
7 operator of a facility of this nature?
8 MR. MflLL ICA.: Yes.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: Are there some instances c,rhere
10 we have fixed seating plans?
11 MR. MOLLICA: There are some instances, yes.
12 MR. MOORHEAD: And what would those be la.ke?
~ 13 MR, MOLLICA: One immediate example would be
14 McDcanal.ds where they have fixed seating. These
15 seats are actually balted to the floor.
16 MR. MOORHEAD: Was there any fi.xed seating in
17 thi.s particular plan when .it was subm.itted?
18 MR. MULL3CA: I believe there was perhaps one
19 booth which had fixed seating, but overall, no«
20 MR. MOORHEAD: And there was no particular
21 requirement that there be fixed seating; is that
22 correct?
23 MR. MOLLICA: That is correct.
24 MR. MOORHEAD: Based on ynur aalculation, what
~ 25 is the most restrictive or more restrictive
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
34
~
1 calculation in this particular instance?
2 MR. MOLLICA: As it relates to the restaurant
3 and club use?
4 MR. MOORHEAD: YeS.
5 MR. MOLLICA: It would be a calculatinn that
6 involved the square faatage analysis.
7 MR. MOORHEAD: And is that consistent with
8 identifying that as the parking pay-in-Zieu
9 requirement, is that consistent with how the Town
10 af Vail Community Development Department has
11 administered the parking pay-in-lieu and the
12 parking requirements far cammercial establishments
~ 13 in the Town af Vail?
14 MR. MOLLICA: Yes.
15 MR. MaORHEAD: Subsequent to yaur letter of
16 June 37tht 1997 did you ever have an occasion to
17 have any meetings with G1enn Heelan and Charlie
18 Davison in regard to your calculatians and
19 findings?
20 MR. MOLLICA: Yes, I did.
21 MR. MOORHEAD: And apgroximately, when did
22 those occur by?
23 MR. MOLLSCA: Those would have accurred
24 between April and June.
~ 25 MR. MOORHEAD» Okay. And what was the reason
SUMMTT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
35
~
1 for those meetings7
2 MR. MOLLICA« Those were meetings that were
3 called by Glenn Heelan because Glenn wanted to
4 discuss this, the Staff's calculation far the
5 pay-in-lieu and had some specific questions about
6 certain areas that may or may not have been
7 included.
8 MR. MQORHEADt Did you, in fact, meet with him
9 and make any revisions in your calculations?
10 MR. MOLLTCAt Yes, I did.
11 MR. MOORHEADs Okaye And what were the nature
12 of the revisions that you made in calculations?
~ 13 MR. MOZLICA: The nature of the revisians were
14 made basically beaause certain changes had occurred
15 during the construction of the building. For
16 example, an the lower level there's an area that
17 was initially thought to be an office. It was
18 labeled as an flffice and it was calculated as an
19 office as far as the pay-in-lieu is concerned.
20 During the canstruction Glenn realized that that
21 space was too small ta be an office and
22 subsequently converted it to a storage room for the
23 restaurant. At Glenn's request we then modified
24 the pay-in-lieu calculations to back that office
~ 25 space out of the fee.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
36
~
1 MR, MOORHEAD. And did you actually visit the
2 site to verify that information?
3 MR. MOLLYCA: Yes, Tdid.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: And what, if any, other
5 adjustments were made in your calculation?
6 MR. MaLLICAs There was other adjustments made
7 in the lower Ievel af the plan or lawer level a£
$ the structure. An area that was initially to be a
9 ski tuning facility, that that space was then
10 changed to a starage room for the ski storage
11 facility. And we made the modification again. A11
12 the modifications that ware made reduced the
~ 13 require t number of spaces.
14 MR. MOORHEADs And had you ever asked Art
15 Hoagiand ta also do a calculation of flccupancy
16 loads on this particular establishment?
17 MR. MOLLTCA: Yes, Idid.
18 MR. MOORHEAD: First af all, would you te11
19 the Planning and Enviranmental Comunission just who
20 Art Hnagland is?
21 MR. MOLLICA: Art Hoagland is aBuilding
22 Inspector who has many, many years of experience
23 behind him. He currently is employed as a Contract
24 Building 3nspector with the Town of Vail.
~ 25 MR. MOaRHEADe And did he provide to you a
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
37
~
1 calculation of the occupancy load of this
2 particular establishment?
3 MR. MOZLICA. Yes, he did.
4 MR, MOORHEAD: And what was his calculatian?
5 How does it compare to the calculation that you
6 made for the purpases of determining the parking
7 pay-in-lieu requirement?
8 MR. MOLLICA: Art's calculation in summary
9 would require more parking spaces than the
ld calculation perfQrmed by Staff.
ll MR. MOORHEAD: And is this sornething that we
12 normally wili do when we're making a determination
~ 13 of parkinq pay-in-lieu?
14 MR. MQLLICA: Absolutely nota
15 MR. MOORHEAD: Why did you do it in this
16 particular circumstance?
17 MR. MOLLICA: We were making every attempt ta
18 work with Mr. Heelan to try ta resolve the
19 pay-in-lieu issue. We agreed to have Art do that
20 work at the Tflwn"s expense so that we had a clear
21 understanding of what the Uniform Building Code
22 would require in terms af occupant load.
23 MR. MOORHEAD. And is the Uniform Building
24 Cade what yau used to make your determination of
~ 25 the parkinq pay-in-lieu requirement?
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-$00-261-4818
3$
~
1 MR. MdLZICA: Partially.
2 MR. MOORHEAD: And in what manners is it a
3 tool that you used to make a determination?
4 MR. MOLLIGAe As it relates to restaurants and
5 eating establishments, the Staff utilizes the
6 Uniform Building Code Table 33a to determine
7 occupant laad factor and that's where the 15, the
8 15 square foot number comes into play that Jim
9 described earlier.
10 MR. MOORHEAD: And did Art actually give yau a
11 dncument which summarizes his calcuLation7
12 MR. MbLLICA; Yes, he did.
~ 13 MR. MOORHEAD: If z aould get a copy of that
14 from you, we would request that that be deemed
15 Exhibit H for the purpase of this hearing. I have
16 nn further questions for Mike at this time.
17 Thanks.
18 MR. MOEFET: Thanks, Tom. Glenn, questions
19 for Mike?
20 MR. HEELAN: Mike, you mentioned that you
21 didn't have adequate seating plans with respect to
22 this until I drapped them off in June of 197?
23 MR. MOLLICA: That's correct.
24 MR. HEELAN: These are dated 6/1/96. These
~ 25 were seating plans used by Jim Cuxnutte, so I think
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
39
~
I they were available and I think they were discussed
2 with Jim Curnutte. I wanted to make sure it was in
3 the reaord these were available and part of the
4 Building Code set that we submitted in June af 196.
5 MR, MOLLICA: Is that a question?
6 MR. HEELAN: No. I just asked if they were
7 available. You stated, did you nat state that in
8 June of 197 you didn't have access to seating
9 plans?
14 MR. MOLLICA: Yes. I did state that.
11 MR. HEELAN: Were these not in the Building
12 Department?
~ 13 MR. MOLLICA: To my knowledge, noa
14 MRa HEELAN: Then how did Jim Curnutte
15 maybe I should ca11 Jim back ta determine the dates
16 on the seating plans that he had here from Item
17 2.4, 2,5.
18 MR. MOLLICA: I guess yau wi11 have to ask
19 Jim.
20 MR. HEELAN: Okay.
21 MR. MOFFET: Anything else?
22 MR. DAVISON: Yau were mentianing that there's
23 been some revisions. Obviausly, that was an
24 involved situation. There were some revisians ta
~ 25 the actual number of spaces? Yes or no?
SUMMIT REgORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4$18
40
~
1 MR. MOLLICA: Yes. There were revisions.
2 MR. DAVISON: Yau mentioned that those were
3 really by adapting same of the changes that wexe
4 requested by us for you to analyze?
5 MR. MOLLICA: I believe they all were,
6 Charlie.
7 MR. DAVISON: Would you say that the first
8 number, that was an estimate at that time of
9 457,000 and your first estimate ta 571,000r what
10 were those revisions based sn, to go up to 571?
11 MR. MOLLICA: There were no revisions that
12 were based upon that. My analysis was a review of
~ 13 your building permit set.
14 MR. DAVISON: But it was a revisian?
15 MR. MaLLICA: 1 don"t have any knowledge af
16 that.
17 MR. DAVISON: And further fram that there were
18 two, additional changes of those amounts?
19 MR. MOZLICA: That`s correct.
20 MR. DAVISON: With ane down to 547 to the
21 current one of 538?
22 MR. MOLLICA: I don't have that in front of
23 me, but that sounds right.
24 MR. DAVISQN< Thank you.
25 MR. MOFFET: Thank you. Do you have any
~
SUMMIT REPQRTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
41
~
1 additional questions, Tam?
2 MR. MdaRHEAD: No. Thethird remaining issue
3 involves the requirement for security on the
4 granting of a period of time within which to pay
5 this particular parking pay-in-lieu. And in your
6 paaket T don't know if it's in your packet. I
? have a letter that I'l1 make copies af and provide
8 to the Commission as Exhibit I which has attached
9 to it a proposed promissary note which was
10 developed for the purpose of securing the payment
11 of this particular parking pay-in-lieu if it's ta
12 be paid over time. Our Town of Vail Cade makes
~ 13 reference to a promissaxy nate being signed for the
14 extensian of allawing the parking pay-in-lieu to be
15 paid over a period of time.
16 A promissory note is not described in the Town
17 of Vail Ordinances. A pxomissory note is described
18 in the Caiorada Revised Statutes and is a generic
19 term and apromissory nate is essentially an
20 agreement to pay in the future. And there's na
21 requirement in the Cfllorado Revised Statutes or in
22 the Town of Vail Municipal CQde as to what the
23 appropriate conditians are with a promissory nate.
24 It's a generic term and I do not believe that
~ 25 there's anything within the Town af Vail Municipal
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
42
~
1 Code that wauld limit the ability of the Tawn ta
2 require adequate security for the allawance of an
3 applicant to pay asubstantial amount of maney over
4 a period of time. The Town Council upon the
5 application af the Vai1 Town Manager granted the
6 autharity ta the Town Manager in this particular
? instance and in all instances that have a
8 substantial, parking pay-in-lieu fee to extend it
9 for a greater than five year period of time. And
10 the reason that permission was granted was because
11 there has been a significant increase in the amount
12 of the parking pay-in-lieu fee. It has been
~ 13 increased from a lower figure up to $16,000. And
14 there had not been achange in the Gode consistent
15 with that increase in the parking pay-in-lieu, so
16 the Code cantinues and today continues to require a
17 payment within five years. And with the larger
18 sums of money that can be generated as we're seeing
19 in this partiaular case, it might not be reasonable
20 to require payment within five years. And for that
21 reason, the Vail Town Cauncil granted authority to
22 the Tawn Manager to extend it over a longer period
23 of time up to ten years. And that information was
24 reflected in a letter to Glenn Heelan frnm the Town
~ 25 Manager and I will to have get that date for you
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
43
~
1 and make a cnpy of that letter. I don't know that
2 it's within your packet right naw,
3 MR. MOFFETs Excuse me, Tom. Let me interrupt
4 fdr a second. I want the record to reflect that
5 Glenn Useiton is leaving. He has a previous
6 engagement. Thank you,
7 MR. MOORHEAD: Okay.
8 MR. USELTON: Thank you.
9 MR. MOORHEAD: And I wi13 have both of thnse
10 items marked as an Exhibit and available far your
11 consideration.
12 MR. MOFFET: Tom, I'm sorry. Did you say yau
~ 13 were going to get us a copy of that section af the
14 ordinance?
15 MR. MOdRHEAD: Yes.
16 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Thank you. And daes that
17 conclude your presentatian?
1$ MR. MOORHEAD« Yes, it does.
19 MR. MOFFET: Tell you what, before we ga to
20 the Appellants' presentation, 1et's take a short
21 break. We're going to be here for awhile and
22 readjaurn in about five to seven minutes. Thank
23 you.
24 (Whereupan, we were aff the record)
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: We`re back on the record. Far
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
44
~
1 the record, our quorum cansists af Commissianers
2 SGhofield, Amsden, Aasland and Moffet. And now,
3 the Appellant.
4 MR. MOdRHEAD: One matter if I could very
5 quickly? Excuse me. I did provide to the
6 Commissian and to the Court Reporter copies of
7 Exhibit H which is the calculation by Art Hoagland;
8 Exhibit I, a letter dated November 18th ta
9 Mr. Glenn Heelan from Mike Mollica; Exhibit J which
10 is a 1etter from myself to Glenn Heelan with a
11 promissory note attached and K which is the copy of
12 the Town of Vail Code in regard to Commercial Iand
~ 13 Commercial IZ parking pay-in-lieu requirements.
14 There was an issue raised on the questioning
15 of Mike Mollica by Glenn Heelan in regard to a
16 seating plan. And if I could recall Jim Curnutte
17 for one or two questions, we could establish what
18 that seating plan was and whether or nat he had
19 seen it.
20 MR. MQFFET: Welcome back, Jim.
21 MR. CURNUmTE: Thank you.
22 MR. MOFFETs 3 assume you want Glenn to ask
23 the question af Jim here?
24 MR. MOORHEAD: I can ask Jim.
~ 25 Jim, as you look at those plans again now, is
SUMMIT REPORTING
{970} 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
45
~
1 there a seating plan that you had the opportunity
2 to review in the past?
3 MR. CURNUTTE: Yes.
4 MR. MOORHEAD: And how da yau know that you
5 reviewed it in the past?
6 MR. CURNUTTEs This is my writing, each of the
7 numbers on here.
8 MR. MOORHEAD. Was that the seating plan that
9 yau considered v,7hen you were calculating the
14 parking pay-in=lieu fee?
11 NTR. CURNUTTE : It looks like it is because I
12 am just look.ing at ane page here. On the second
~ 13 1eve1 .it loaks li3ce the total is 112 seats. That's
14 what is in this chart. Without looking at the
15 ather sheets, I would say yes. This is what z used
16 to come up with these numbers.
17 MR. MOORHEAD: Great. Thank you very much.
18 MR. MOFEET: Thanks, Jim. I assume there wexe
19 na more questions, Glenn?
20 MR. HEELAN: I don't think so, Greg.
21 MR. MQFFET : Olr,ay. . Ga ahead.
22 MFt. HEELAN: I didn't say tor the record. I'm
23 Glenn Iieelan representing Riva Ridge Partners, LLC
24 and one of the managers af that entity.
~ 25 First, I'd li,ke to thank you a.ll for the
SUMMIT REPC}RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261--4818
46
~
1 opportunity ta finally present our appeal to you
2 this afternaan. Not realizing we were preparing
3 far a deposition type interview if you will, we had
4 a much more casual and narmal appraach I suspect.
5 This Appeal is probab3y different in nature,
6 but consists of one of interpretatian. We believe
7 and hapefully yau will also believe there was a
8 valid reason for this Appeal and the correct steps
9 can be taken as a result. We're not here ta
IQ discuss whether the ordinance of pay-in-lieu is
11 right ar wrong. And we're nat here to diseuss if
12 the amaunt for parkinq has increased too much and
~ 13 whether it's too high or not< This issue has been
14 discussed in the past and even though the ardinance
15 had not been changed for sometime and it's been
16 over a year since a revision was first discussed,
13 we're sure that it will be brought up by ather
18 concerned citizens.
19 What we're here for is to convince you that
20 what we're requesting is a fair and correct
21 interpretation of the ordinance as it was written
22 and how it should be applied. We're not asking for
23 variances. We`re not asking you to deviate from
24 the ordinanaes.
~ 25 Sn the past the parking pay-xn-lieu fee
SUMMIT REPORTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
47
~
1 calculations have always been done like this. The
2 normal procedure as you learned earlier today, as
3 we went thraugh earlier today, you start with
4 blueprints, the occupancy standards and you get
5 Staff's interpretation of the facts. Up ta naw
6 every Staff calculation had been done before the
7 building permit. Staff would receive the
8 blueprints and by the occupancy standards, based an
9 square footage and calculates a parking fee based
10 on those occupancy standards. Unfortunately or
11 fortunately, it was agreed very early on that due
12 ta the fact we had not decided if we were going to
~ 13 finish the building as residential or as
14 commercial, we all agreed to wait until the TCO to
15 reach a final decision in reference to the final
16 amount and terms of paymente whether it was a good
17 or bad decision is really irrelevant at this point.
18 The issue is that we all agreed to do it in this
19 very unique way. And in fact, we are unique.
20 We're the only product that's being judged or can
21 be judged as a finished product. We're not looking
22 at blueprints, but looking at reality. We're
23 uriique in that we believe we are the only praduct
24 in which seating is more restrictive than the
~ 25 ocaupancy standards. Typically, a restaurant faces
SUMMIZ' REPC7RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4$18
4$
~
1 attempts ta cram every seat possible anto the
2 available space. We have also tried to maximize
3 aur seats, but due ta the physical configuration of
4 the building and the aznbiance required, it's not
5 physically possible to have enough seats to reach
6 the 381 seats that the Staff has calculated under
7 the space requirements. We're nat here to judge,
8 but to apply the ordinances as was written and
9 respecting the intention of how it was written, an
10 honest intellectual approach to the intent and nat
11 a rubber stamp to the way it's always been done.
12 The Town Council that approved this ordinance
13 must have had the xestrictive nature of seating in
14 mind. Just ask yourselves why was the language
15 included in the first place. Wauld it be to
16 differentiate a canvention center fram a fine
17 dining restaurant or from a cafeteria, a McDonalds,
18 a theater or a quasi-public club? All of these
19 businesses have different use objectives as to haw
20 to use the space. Therefore, different parking
21 impacts. Therefare, different parking space
22 calculations. I submit to you that maybe a
23 convention center should be calculated usinq the
24 building occupancy standards. Their seating
~ 25 configuration can change dramatically depending on
SUMMIT REPaRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
49
~
1 the size of the event. But this doesn't happen in
2 a fine dining restaurant, much 1ess in a
3 quasi-public club ambiance. So what was the
4 intent, but to anticipate which one of both
5 measurements was more restrictive, more realistic
6 toward its real use and more realistic ta the real
7 impact of additional seats creating additional
8 parking demands.
9 It's 1agical that the demands for parking is
10 created by drinking and eating establishments based
11 on the number of seats in that establishment. In
12 our case, that number of seats is more restrictive
~ 13 than the Staff's calculations based on building
14 occupancy standards. We believe we're being
15 overtaxed. We believe that the intent of the Code
16 was an either or situation. It was meant to
17 anticipate that seating could be more restrictive.
18 We believe that 5taff's calculation and
19 interpretations are unilateral to the Town treasury
20 and not to the intent nf the ardinance as written.
21 Our appeal to you is for our real seating
22 capacity to be recagnized. We have 210 seats.
23 Statf's interpretatian which is dane by Building
24 Code occupancy standards reflects 381 seats.
~ 25 Let's go to a chart in terms af how that
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4$18
50
~
1 shakes aut in terms of the fees. if you look at
2 the chart on the baard, based on the occupancy
3 standards measured by square faotage, the
4 restaurant club wauld require 47.64 parking spaces.
5 This is nn the right-hand side of the chart. The
6 total building would require 59,996 spaces. We all
7 agree that we're grandfathered 27 spaces for the
8 o1d building. Therefore, based on accupancy
9 standards, it's 32.996 or $538,916.20. Based on
10 the actual number of seats that could be fitted in
11 the establishment, the restaurant club would only
12 require 26.25. The total for the whale building is
13 38.76• OnCH again, we're grandfathered 27.
14 2axable spaces would be 11.76, so we'd have
15 $192,080.55 in fees. We don't blame Staff. There
16 are 300 and same odd thousand reasons to calculate
17 it their way.
18 What this means in our mind is that we're only
19 laaking for a fair and honest treatment by
20 recognizing the real seating capacity. And you
21 falks are now the judges of that interpretationy
22 And before we continue with the rest of the
23 Appeal, we hope we brought asense of logic into
24 this process. We'd like to answer any questions ar
~ 25 any pbservations and any camments befare we
SUMMIT REPORTING
(974) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
51
~
1 proceed? Any questions at all?
2 MR. MOFFET: John, why don't we start with
3 you?
4 MR. SCHOFSELp: Glenn, is there any legal
5 reason that tvould prevent you from utili.zing the
6 space for fu11 accupancy laads in the future?
7 MR. HEELAN: Yes. There is potential, and
8 just to digress fpr a mi.nute Jahn, when we got the
9 revised numbers from the Town in there June, et al
10 letters, thereafter, the June 17th letter being
11 571,000, and we did meet with the Town and we did
12 try to resolve this with Staff. Then we went
~ 13 through the process af even taking them to the
14 building to see why the +differences between what
15 the maximum number af seats we coul.d real.ly get in
16 there and why we were so far apart if you wi.I1.. We
17 were trying to figure aut why theare was some
18 discrepancy versus the number of seats versus what
19 they were saying you could have. When we wa:lked
20 through the building, because of '88 issues and a
21 variety, this Code was adQpted in 1978 I bel.ieve or
22 1974, Building codes have changed. The parking
23 reqtzirement code, I think it was adopted in that
24 ti.me. This is a small site. There are building
~ 25 code issues. We have alot csf corri,dors in this
SUMMST REPORTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
52
~
1 building, We were told that wasn"t appropriate in
2 terms to try ta figure out how to get to the space.
3 We couldn't put mnre seats that would allow us to
4 flow through the space, otherwise we're going ta
5 have fire issues. So the best answer Z can give
6 you, we tried to maximize oux seating capacity for
7 the kind of establishment we have and that's all we
8 can put in there. And we invite anybady and we
9 have invited the Council and invited Staff to walk
10 thraugh the building and count them. It's very
11 obvious once you get intfl the building. I dan't
12 knaw if Ianswered yaur question or nat?
~ 13 MR. SCHOFIELD; Na.
14 MR. HEELAN: I didn't?
15 MR. SCHOFIELDa Let me rephrase it. You at
16 least if I understand were aware there are physical
37 constraints?
18 MR. HEELAN: That's oarrect.
19 MR. SCHOFIELDt My question is, are there any
20 legal constraints, building code, et cetera that
21 would prevent you from increasing the number of
22 seats up to the max'zmum?
23 MR. HEELAN: I wouldn't be qualified to answer
24 that question.
~ 25 MR. SCHOFIELD•. Thank you.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
53
~
1 MR« MOFFET~ Johna anything else?
2 MR.SCHDFIELD: No.
3 MR. MOFFET; Greg?
4 MR. AMSDEN: It's evident that design affects
5 seating in any kind of eating establishment. You
6 have selected a pattern of a center island bar
7 which does, in fact, create circulatian problems
8 from an architectural standpoint. It also creates
9 less seating than cauld be done there. What yau
10 just stated earlier l don't believe applies here,
11 Glenn, depending on what you pick for your design,
12 if yau put a bar in the center of a space, you're
~ 13 gaing to create a circulatory situatian which
14 limits the amount of seating you can put in that
15 space. I believe that some of the design creates
16 some of the seating situation yau have.
17 MR. HEELAN: Greg, can you point out where
18 that center bar is? T don't thirik there is onew
19 MA. AMSDEN: Second and third flonr there's
20 center bars. In fact, on the top there's center
21 bars.
22 MR. HEELAN: Seaond level p1an, you know the
23 kitchen is in the middle?
24 MR. AMSDEN: That also creates
~ 25 MR. HEELAN: Because of the design criteria of
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
54
to l the building. YQU're right, but in addition to
2 that, there were certain physical constraints. We
3 couldn't do anything else with ventilation and
4 things because of the 1ow floar to ceiling heights
5 af the building. Believe me, we tried every which
6 way with the architects that we retained ta try to
7 figure out better uses of the space. If you will
8 natice even in my June 21st, 1996 letter, it
9 anticipates changes being made because af TCBO
10 issues that created less usable space from our
11 perspective. We have been trying to maximize the
12 interior use of the space which is typical putting
~ 13 their kitchens and things in the center, so they're
34 not taking window space, et cetera.
15 MR. AMSDEN: The second question I have for
16 you regards the process you're going thraugh right
17 now or at least, the argument you have been
18 presenting. You have been in this process quite
19 sometime in this building. You have gone thraugh
20 the review pxocess with the Planning Department
21 over a two year perind. Why was this argument not
22 being presented duri,ng the conditianal use prcaaess
23 after yau received what you're doa.ng is bringing
24 us an argument after a aonditional use process you
~ 25 went through and was granted a cQndit,ianal use on
SUM.MIT REPURTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4818
55
~
1 the building and yau come to the tail end at your
2 building permit making an argument of this nature.
3 I'm not quite follawing the consistency there, why
4 y4u wouldn't have done it in the building if you
5 had a question abaut parking or the amount of
6 parking feer et cetera? Because the parking fees
? were always on the table as being big numbers.
8 MR. HEELAN: We're not disputing they're big
9 numbers whether we're right or wrong. Okay. Let's
10 just go back to the process of haw this evolved.
11 In November of '95 1 believe we got a conditional
12 use permit or somewhere thereabnuts the end of 195
~ 13 that would allow us ta then consider using this top
14 two tloars of cammerczal space. We then proceeded
15 with designs to try to create an alternative either
16 way bacause we dan't know at that time whether or
17 not a club aperation was going to be econamica3ly
18 feasible for the space. As you know, most every
19 building in this space has residential on the tap
20 floprs. We were trying to figure aut whether or
21 not it was gaing to be economically feasible to try
22 to do this club. okay. And then, we met with Jim
23 Curnutte as you heard him tell you several times to
24 discuss the possibilities af the various optians
~ 25 and discussions with regard to the parking fee and
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4$1$
56
~
1 we talked about seats. We talked about square
2 faotage. And then, Jim left. About that time Mike
3 Mollica came on to the scene and then, the
4 transition in between the time Jim 1eft and we were
5 trying to get our buildinq permit, at that point in
6 time Mike asked me to write him a letter which gave
7 them an estimate of what those fees were going to
8 be at that time, realizing there were going to be
9 changes, realizing we didn't know how we were going
10 to finish that building at this time.
11 So the process was an evolving one in terms of
12 the amount of the fee, Greg. And then, we were a
~ 13 dead issue. The only thing we agreed ta at that
14 time, at the time af TCO we would determine it. Sa
15 in June, we were anticipating a TCQ sametime July
16 or August, Juiy hapefuily for at least part of the
17 building and then, we then went to Mike and asked
18 far him ta review the plans and ta let's finalize
19 the parking feese And since that time it's been an
20 argument. And we have gotten three, different
21 calculations since that time; two in August and
22 October 1st I believe. And every time that I have
23 to tell you it was a total shock when we got the
24 ane that said it's $571,000. Why did it go up
~ 25 $125,000? We didn't know.
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
{970} 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
57
~
1 So we had a series of meetings tn try to
2 discuss these issues and to really go thraugh them
3 and try to figure out why we were sa far apart and
4 try to, I think everybody tried to be reasonable on
5 the issue, but we were just on oppflsite sides af
6 the cain in terms af how we thought. We really do
7 believe that the logic af the Code is uery clear.
8 It says whichever is more restrictive. Wel1, it's
9 impossible to have it more restrictive other than
10 based on seats because yau can't have more seats
ll than occupancy. If you read the Code, it says
12 whichever is more restrictive. In fact, I went to
~ 13 three, different law firms trying to find out if =
14 was a11 gaofy, have them give me interpretations.
15 In your packets we have nne. I included one of
16 them, And at the end of them they say it's not
17 impossible far this Code to be interpreted any
18 other way. Whichever is more restrictive which
19 means you got less seats than occupancy, it's less
20 restrictive. You can't have more seats than
21 occupancy can be allowed. So that's the only way
22 to be interpreted.
23 I have been trying ta resolve this issue.
24 Okay. We're saying 1ook at the building. If you
~ 25 can see a way that we can change the whole ambiance
SUMMIT REPORTIliG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
5$
~
1 and put in znore seats, then look at it that way,
2 but we aan"t.
3 MR. AMSDEN; Tn our past history here ,in the
4 Town af Va.i1 with every applicant that's come in
5 for a restaurant, .it's absolutely oppasite to what
6 yau're talking about. You're the first one that
7 cames up an.d says this Code a.s different. Every
8 applicant we have had that's been brought in, they
9 have been approached the same way, Mike?
10 t"lR? 1°lO.I..IJJ.L, 4As iet`J •
11 MR. AMSDENs I find it hard that you"re saying
12 that the Code says one thing and we have a
~ 13 confusing Code when every appli.cant that's came
14 through the Town, people have heen here many, many
15 years and have restaurants for years and years have
16 treated it the same way. That's why this is such a
17 new tw.ist or curve bal1, at least far me here.
1$ MR. HEELAN: Ican tell you most restaurants
19 try to cram in the most seats they can. It pai.nts
20 out c+ade costs
21 MR. AMSDEN; I don't fa.nd that in the process
22 at al].. What happens, most restaurateurs don't
23 have to pay a parking fee a.nd they tend to quote
24 less seats in theyr plans than they have actually
~ 25 put on.
SUMMIT REPt}RTTNG
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
59
~
1 MR. HEELAN: I'd like you to take a video or
2 whatever else
3 MR. MOFFET: One at a time.
4 MR. HEELAN: I'm sorry, Greg.
5 MR, AMSDEN: It comes to a monetary situation
6 where most applicants look at what that parking fee
7 is, the more restrictive is money out of their
8 packets and that's what they consider more
9 restrictive. In my years that's what I've seen and
10 that's why I am a little bit confused when I hear
11 just a different approach to it.
12 MR. HEELAN: Let me just read, if I may,
~ 13 there's a letter included in the package I gave
14 yau.
15 MR. MUFFET: If it's the letter from the
16 eounsel in Golden, Glenn. You dan't neecl to read
17 it. It's in the record.
18 MR. HEELANs I'm sorry.
19 MR. MOFFET: If it's the letter fram Hcalley,
20 Albertson of Boulder, you don " t need ta read ,it.
21 It' s i.n the reaord.
22 MR. HEELAN: It states i.t does n:ot appear that
23 this provisican permits the determi.natian of parking
24 requirements based upon square feet and net f1oor
~ 25 space as dcane for retail establ,ishments. This
SUMMZT REPURTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
60
10
1 park.ing requirement appears to be cansi.stent with
2 the intent of the ardinance to require off street
3 parking .in the amount actually needed by the
4 development. This would explain why the zoning
5 ordinance determines necessary parking for a retail
6 establishment based on net floar space, whi1e a
7 restaurant use is based on seating capacity.
8 MR. MOFFET: Just sa we're cl,ear for the
9 recard, you pa.id far that api.n.ion, dicl yout nnt?
10 MR. HEELANs Yes, I did.
11 MR. Mt}FFET: Okay. Thank you.
12 MR. HEELAN: But as my Counsel.
~ 13 MR. MOFFET: Greg, any other
14 MR. .AMSDENc No other issues.
15 MR. MOFFET: Galen, questians prinnarily on
16 this issue?
17 MR. AASLAND: I have na questions at th.a.s
18 time.
19 MR. MOFFET: Let me hit a few first for Mi.ke
20 Mallica. Mike, on the assumpti.an that the building
21 envelope didn't expand between June, 196 and the
22 most recent round of attempts to nail d:own the
23 price for the pay-in-lieu payment, it jumped from
24 roughly $457,334 up into the north of the $500,000
~ 25 range, Was that just remeasurement or afresh loQk
SUMMTT REPORTING
{974} 46$-9415
1--$00-261-481$
61
~
1 at the plan or did the interior layout change? Do
2 you know what caused that leap?
3 MR. MOLLZCA: I have never actually gone back
4 and taken a laok at that, Greg. Jim Curnutte's
5 plans are in frgnt of you. I have the plans that
6 were given to me by Glenn. You can ca11 it a fresh
7 1oak, but I went through an independent analyszs.
8 Based on our codes that's the number I came up
9 with. That's the number we're using. I have not
10 gone back and compared it to Jim Curnutte's older
11 plans.
12 MR. MOFFET: Just FYI. The analysis we have
~ 13 from Curnutte gives us the same number that was
14 agreed in the June 21st, 1996 letter. They are
15 identical. That's $457,334.
16 MR. HEELAN: That was an estimate at that
17 time. In answer td your question, Greg, the
18 building envelope did not change.
19 MR. MOFFET: Actually, I wanted from Mike
20 MR. MaLLICAt There were changes made ta the
21 building that related to UBC requirements, you
22 knaw, fflr the Building Cflde requirements. Perhaps
23 that's what triggered the change in the parking
24 fee. Again, we have both sets of drawings here and
~ 25 if you'd like, we'll compaze thema
SLTMMZT REPQRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
62
~
1 MR. MOFFET: Z don't need to do that notnr.
2 There is a significant chan+ge i.n the fee.
3 MR. AMSDEN. I can clari.fy that.
4 MR. MOFFET: Please.
5 MR, AMSDEN: The square £ootage shown on the
6 June 17th, 197 letter fram Mike Mollica to G1enn
7 had 5936 square feet showing araund the club.
8 Curnutte's analysis was 4978 leaving a 958 square
9 faot different.ial. All I can see i,n the
10 differential between Mike's analysis and Jim"s was
11 the office space was considerahly reduced by 250,
12 effecti.vely a 250 square faot reduction caf office
13 space. We take that off 958, there's sti.ll about
14 700 square feet on there that' s more on your
15 analysis that was not shawn an Curnu-tte' s analysi.s.
16 I had the same question about where clid that come
17 from.
18 MR. MOFFET: Th.anks. Glenn, we're tin Item #2
19 here of this Appeal as far as z can tel.l whi.ch
20 rel.ates to the calculation of the number of parking
21 spaces. Is there a reason we skipped #1 wh.ich zs
22 the classification of third and fourth fl,oors as
23 eating and drinking establishments?
24 MR. HEELAN: Thase aren't the correct buil.t
~ 25 f1oor plans if you will. Just looking at three and
SUMMIT R,EPORTING
{970} 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
63
~
1 four, the disputed calculation with respect to that
2 was minflr. We're talking about some of these axeas
3 as offices. That's all we're saying. Same af the
4 areas were designated offices, not eating and
5 drinking. We're not disputing the club and third
6 and fourth level should be used as similax uses.
? MR, MOFFET: Your Appeal, sa T understand it,
8 your Appeal point number one is basically on how
9 the plans are being readp nat that the primary use
10 on the third and faurth flaors is, in fact, eating
11 and drinking establishments; is that accurate?
12 MR. HEELAN: That is corxect.
~ 13 MR. MOFFETe That means we got almast two of
14 them out flf the way now. This is a pluse I am at
15 a loss. I'm kind of like Greg. I have been on the
16 Planning Commission as long as he has. I'm coming
17 up on four years now I think and I have never in a
l$ pay-in-lieu situation seen the law applied sa that
19 xt minimized rather than maximized the pay-in-lieu
20 payment due from an applicant. T'm clearly open to
21 evidence ta the contrary, but as far as I can te11,
22 the entire precedent falls on the side of
23 maximizing the payments £ram the applicant. The
24 intent of peaple who road along in 1974 is not for
~ 25 me to decide. We haven't got minutes from the
SUMMIT REPORTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800~261-4818
54
~
1 Council meeting. We haven°t got any evidence as to
2 what the Council members meant when they put this
3 law in place. I"l1 grant you that an attorney can
4 read this both ways. I went to the same schaols
5 and S can read it both ways, tQO. A1l 1can rely
6 on is the way the precedent is and I have none
7 sited to me here that would lead me to believe that
8 Staff's interpretation of that pravision af the
9 Code is anything but the accurate interpretatian.
10 The other issue and, Glenn, I"m open
11 seriously. If you have got same precedent far me,
12 help me flut, but Z dan't have any. I didn't think
~ 13 of a single incident when it's worked the other
14 way. If yau dan't like the way the cade is
15 written, we're unfartunately nat the people to talk
16 toa We weren't e1ected« We don't get to write
17 law. That's the bottom line. The other issue is
18 and 3 just want to canfirm this June 21st, 1996
19 1etter to Mike Mo3lica signed by yau. I mean,
20 that's a legit letter. We're not disputing that
21 that is 1egit; carrect?
22 MR. HEELAN: We may disagree as to the
23 interpretation of that letter, but did I write that
24 letter, yes.
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: I mean
SUMMIT REPflRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
65
40
1 MR: HEELAN: T think Caunsel by the very fact
2 we're back here has said there's some discrepancy
3 in terms of the interpretation of that letter.
4 MR. MOFFET: Okay. That cancludes my
5 questions on Item #2. You want to talk about Item
6 #3? Staff, i.e. Tom Maorhead has already given us
7 his summary of the Staff's position on that.
g MR. HEELAN: Just I'd like to come back to my
9 last comment in my mind before we go onto three.
10 It's understandable tfl me the viewing of the
11 precedent issues heze. In fact, that was one of
12 the issues that drove us to try to find a
~ 13 compromise with the Staff in terms of haw they
14 measured, considering what we're dealing with as a
15 physical xeality. And it's unfortunate I think
16 that we have to view this as a precedent action
17 because we°re really in a unique situation in the
18 first place. How many restaurants are there on the
19 fourth floor of a building in this Town? Is this
20 really a restaurant7 No, it's not. It's a club.
21 How many quasi-public clubs are in this Town?
22 None. And Z guess T would look at it and say, this
23 isn't precedent. This is a unique situation, a
24 reality. There isn't a club on the third and
~ 25 fourth flnor that daesn't serve a lot of food. It
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4$1$
66
~
1 does serve some food, but it's not a restaurant as
2 you would go into the Red Lion. It daesn't create
3 a parking demand that a xastaurant createsa It
4 doesn't have that kind of seats in order to be able
5 ta do that. And it always seemed ta me very
6 logica1 that the parking code designed to determine
7 what the demand was based on use and that would
8 drive the demand. We shauld help pay for that
9 parking structure, if necessary and we have never
10 disputed that. But fram a pragmatic sitnation, we
11 don't have the number of seats to drive the demand
12 that would require 50, 50 some spaces ar whatever
~ 13 the calculation is. That's really what our
14 positian was on this. We believe the Code was
15 written to aecommodate that, to anticipate it. And
16 in fact, we don't have a cafeteria. We don't have
17 a convention center. We don't have a 381 seat
18 restaurant. Sa it's unfartunate that it's being
19 viewed that wayd but let's go onto #3.
20 Number 3 is with regard to the deed of trust
21 and the promissory note. Let's if we may for a
22 minute just read the ordinance. The existing
23 ordinance says the owner or the applicant has the
24 optian of paying the total parking fee at the time
~ 25 of the building permit. TCO was agreed to by al1
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
67
~
1 of us, or paying aver a five year period. That's
2 the ordinance. I don't think there's any questions
3 in terms of how to interpret it. At least, Ihope
4 there isn't.
5 And it also says in that same section, if the
6 owner or applicant daes choase to pay the fee over
7 a period of time, he or she shall be required to
$ sign a promissory note which describes the total
9 fee due, the schedule of payments and the interest
10 due. Promissory note fnrms are available at the
11 offices of Community Development.
12 For sometime we have attempted to camply with
~ 13 that ordinance. However, we're being required ta
14 give adeed of trust securing the note and personal
15 guarantees nn the note. I guess Idan"t understand
16 why we're being held to a different standard than
17 the ordinance reads.
18 In your package, S have proviaed you a
19 promissory note that we obtained from Community
20 Development. And in fact, before the note was then
21 given by Tom Moorhead, was revised by Tom, I
22 provided it to him when he asked me about it.
23 MR. MOFFET« Sorry, Glenn. What Exhibit is
24 that?
~ 25 MR. HEELAN: If you will go to #5 which is on
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
68
~
1 mine, an orange tag. It's the second fram the last
2 or next to the last. It says, Riva Ridge, it's
3 inapprapriate for Staff to require pexsonal
4 guarantees and a deed of trust. It's the second to
5 the last section. We all loaking at that7 We go
6 to the next page which is the Code, itself, it says
7 that we chaose, this is what we just read to the
8 board what the Code itselt says. And the next one
9 is the farm of the promissary note that was
10 provided to me hy the offices of Community
11 Development and then, a letter, a fax memorandum if
12 you will, fax transmission caver sheet to Tom per
~ 13 our discussian and a copy of the note.
14 So my question really becomes or my
15 abseruation really becomes is that we think
16 whatever the fee is determined to be that we should
17 have the ability to pay 20% down, sign aptomissary
18 note and pay it over five years at 10% interest.
19 That's what the Code reads. Twice Staff has
20 presented ta Tawn Council a new ardinance asking
21 for the permission af deeds of txust and other
22 types of security. Both times the Town Cauncil has
23 tabled that ordinance. At this moment it would
24 seem to me it is at best questionable whether or
~ 25 not it will ever get through. So why are we being
SUMMTT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-481$
69
~
1 held to a standard other than the one that is part
2 of the Code? And I guess we feel and you will find
3 correspandence in there, for sametime we have been
4 trying to comply with that in arder to get thas
5 building apen. We have paid already 10% of one of
6 the numbers that they calculated which was $571,000
7 and offered to pay the other 10% and sign a
8 promissory note so that we could obtain the TCO.
9 And so we're being penalized by the delay when in
10 fact, we have tried to comply.
11 MR, MOFFETe Okay.
12 MR. HEELAN: I think that's all I have with
~ 13 respect to that issue.
14 MR, MOFFET; Thanks. Gentlemen, any questions
15 on this issue7 John?
16 MR. SCHOFIELD: Tom, if you could perhaps just
17 give us some elaboration on the, better term,
18 negotiations that taok place which prflvided for the
19 variance from the Code of five years up to ten
20 years and quotes invalved in that and what
21 conditions were placed upon that variance7
22 MR. MOORHEADs Yes. Due to the significant
23 difference between the parking pay-in-lieu if the
24 property was develflped as it presently has been
~ 25 developed with aquasi-public club facility an the
SUMMIT REPORTING
(930) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
70
~
l third and fourth floor, and what the parking
2 pay-yn-lieu fee wnuld be if it was develaped as a
3 residential condominium, the request was made that
4 they not be required to pay the parking pay-in-lieu
5 at building permit, but rather to have that parking
6 pay-in-lieu held aff until the temporary
? certificate of occupanay. At the same time that
8 that discussion was taking place, there also was
9 recognition that the parkzng pay-in-lieu fee had
10 been significantly raised from what it previously
11 had been to what now results in a$16,000, plus
12 parking pay-in-lieu for each space that's
~ 13 generated. And it was repxesented by Glenn Heelan
14 to Bob McLaurin that because of that, it was
15 unreasonable to finanee it over a five year period
16 of time and he was in general asking for whatever
17 relief Bob could affer in regard to that payment.
18 Bob McLaurin then went to the Town Council and
19 suggested in general that it's appropriate that the
20 parking pay-in-lieu fee be allowed to be paid over
21 a longer period of time consistent with goad
22 business practices. And that alsa consistent with
23 good business practices, there be adequate security
24 and Council gave Bob McLaurin that authority. And
~ 25 there has never been any consideration by Bob
SUMMIT REPORTING
{970} 468-9415
1-$00-261-4818
71
~
1 McLaurin to a1lowing this significant a figure to
2 be paid over a period of time without adequate
3 security. And that was what was represented to
4 Tawn Council. And that is what has continually
5 been offered ta this Applicant. If it wishes to
6 extend it over a period of time, that there have to
7 be adequate security given,
8 Tn the ordinance al1 it describes is a
9 promissory note. Promissory note Ys a generic
10 term. Every martgage in the State nf Colorado is
11 also secured by a promissory note and the
12 pramissory note describes aseparate security
~ 13 agreement and that's consistent with what is in the
14 Colorado Revised Statutes. It's consistent with
15 general business practices. I believe that it's
16 inherent in the Town of Vail's power tfl do business
17 that it require whatever security is necessary to
18 adequately assure that the payment will be made.
19 The first time Iever saw the promissary note
20 that GIenn Heelan believes he has a right to enter
21 into was a promissary note that was signed by Louis
22 Federman (phonetic) for the L'Ostello Building
23 which $90d000 has never paid. That promissory note
24 daes not create a lien on the property. It creates
~ 25 absolutely no guarantee that the Town of Vail will
SUMMIT REPORTSNG
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-263-4818
72
~
1 ever be paid.
2 As legal advisor ta the Town of Vail, I
3 believe that it's a violation of the Town's
4 fiduciary obligation t4 the people in this Tocvn ta
5 extend credit in the area of $400,000 without
6 requiring some kind af adequate security. 3
7 believe that's gaod business practice and thus far
8 that has been agreed to by the Town Manager and
9 that's why the promissory note that you see before
10 yau has been offered.
11 And I would submit to you that there's
12 absalutely no provision in the Town of Vai1 Code or
~ 13 in the Colorado Revised 8tatutes that suggests that
14 a promissory note means that it should not be
15 seaured or cannot be secured by other security
16 agreements and deeds of trust.
17 MR. AMSDEN: Tam, I might ask I don`t know
18 if Mike is here. He's not. Have we used this five
19 year promissory note with any of the parking
20 pay-in-lieus in the past where peaple have paid it?
21 MR. MaORHEAD: That Z'm not sure, 2he only
22 ane that I'm aware of is the one that was unpaid.
23 MR. SCHOFIELD: Tom, is there anything in the
24 Code or the Statutes that would cpnstrue the
~ 25 promissory note that's referred to in the Code
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-481$
73
~
1 available to the office of Community Development to
2 be something that could not be changed ox madified
3 at anytime?
4 MR. MOORHEAD: Not that I cou1d ever find.
5 MR. MOFFET; John, anything else?
6 MR. SCHOFrELD: Na.
7 MR. MOFFE2: Greg?
8 MR. AMSDEN. From the seeurity standpaint, I
9 can't see anyone lending money, whether it's a
10 loca1 or commercial bank or otherwise that would
11 not require some kind of security with this sum of
12 money, And some of the questions I have, Glenn,
~ 13 currently, the Riva Ridge LLC, is the owner of the
14 property part of that LLC?
15 MR. HEELANs No. We d4 not own the property.
16 We're just the lessee. We don't have the right ta
17 grant the deed of trust.
18 MR. AMSDEN: So the Town if they were to take
19 just the promissory note, exposure-wise wouid be
20 greatly exposed in the sense that you're a tenant
21 of that property and if you were to ever default or
22 if the landlord would ever terminate that lease,
23 the Town would basically have no recnurse
24 whatsoever on that parking fee.
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: Is that a question?
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
74
1 MR. AMSbEN: No, That's fact in my real
2 estate knowledge. Those are my anly cominents right
3 now.
4 MR. MOFFET: Okay. Thanks. Galen?
5 MR. AASLANDs The first questian is for Tom.
6 As the Town sees fit, does the Town as a matter of
7 course change forms, i.e. bui3ding permit
8 application forms ar other forms throughout time in
9 the Town?
10 MR. MOORHEAD: Regularly.
11 MR. AASLAND: Glenn, if, in fact, we ru1e in a
12 manner that you win, eventually you have to pay.
~ 13 This is aver ten years. If you're allowed to pay,
14 if you chaose to instead pf paying one fee far a
15 parking fee, but in fact, yau choose ta do that
16 over ten years? If, in fact, you do pay this, by
17 signing this form how are you unfairly penalized as
18 opposed to signing the form
19 MR. HEELAN: If I understand your question,
20 Galen, your question is that how am I being
21 unfairly penalized by requiring a deed of trust?
22 MR. AASL.P,NDs If in yaur presentation I'm
23 going to have to sign this form and by doing that
24 you're going to be unfairly penalized
~ 25 MR. HEELAN: We have offered to sign a
SUMMTT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
75
~
1 pramissory note that was given to us by the Town of
2 Vail as part of the Code, the Community
3 Development. It states in the Code that we read on
4 the board that the form of the promissory note
5 would be provided by Community Development. We
6 obtained that form. We relied on that foxm« There
7 was no mention of a deed of trust. We don't have a
$ right to get a deed of trust. zt changed our whole
9 perspective on this thing significantly. We're not
10 in a pasition to give you a deed of trust. We
11 don"t have that legal right. We're just a tenant.
12 We're just asking for camplxance with the Code.
~ 13 Code says we have the right to sign a five year
14 pramissory nate. The Code says we can pay it over
15 five years at 10% interest. We're asking for
16 compliance with the Code. We have affered to
17 comply with the Code.
18 MR. AABLAND: Do you think the Town has a
19 right fram time to time to change its forms?
20 MR. HEELAN: Not after they have given us the
21 pramissory nate that we relied on, no.
22 MR. MOFFET: Anything else, Galen?
23 MR. HEELAN: It`s like changing the rules in
24 the middle, Galen.
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: Greg, do you have any other
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4$18
76
~
1 questions or comments?
2 MR. AMSDEN: Glenn, I understand the part
3 abaut deeds af trust, you nat awning the property,
4 but what is your objection to si.gni.ng personally?
5 MR. HEELAN. I haue al.ready offered to ,in,clude
6 that about a month ago.
7 MR. AMSDENc Sa that's been agreed upon?
$ MR. MOFFET: Tt's on the table a.t sounds like.
9 MF2. HEELAN: That wasn't acceptable to the
10 Town.
11 MR. MOFFETt Charley, if you want to talk, yau
12 ha.ve tca come up to the mi.crophone.
~ 13 MR. DAVISON: My name is Charles Dav.ison for
14 -the record, I think that was offered. T th:ink the
15 comment in terms of over pena.l.ized iwas that we
16 actually have given everything that the ordinance
17 wanted and on top of that, Glenn Heelan uranted ta
18 sign personally. Qur request is to have ou.r
19 grandfathered spaces given to us in order to be
20 open. We have an opezation that' s grandfathered i.n
21 terms af the restaurant and the bar and we have
22 been held in that sense hostage with ehanging other
23 rules in the middle of the game. And that's why
24 the comment of nat being over penalized ccames
~ 25 about. And the fact that there has been even a
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
77
~
1 caveat on top af what the ordinance says of a
2 personal signature. They want to go beyond that.
3 How generic is sQmething? It's interpretation
4 a1so.
5 MR. MdFFETt Thank you. This may seem
6 hasically extreme, but what's the definition of an
7 applicant as used in the Cade provision in
$ Commercial Core I, CommerciaZ Core II. Property
9 owners or applicants shall be required to
10 contribute to the Town parking lat. Tom, is a
11 tenant appropriate as an applicant here?
12 MR, MOaRHEAD: I'll defer to Mike Mo13ica, but
~ 13 1 would imagine the praperty owner as well as Glenn
14 Heelan very well could be the applicant in this
15 particular project, but I'Il defex to Mike Mollica,
16 MR. MOLLTCA: The Applicant has been G1enn
17 Heelan, Charles Davison as well as Margaretta
18 Parks, the Property Owner. They're the Applicant,
19 MR. MOFFET: Sa we have the owner and the
20 Applicant here, at least one of the applicants is
21 also the owner?
22 MR. MOLLICA: That's right.
23 MR. HEELAN: I don't believe that's accurate.
24 MR. MaFFET: Everything I have ever seen.
~ 25 Once again
SUMMTT REPORTZNG
(970) 46$-9415
1-$00-261-481$
7$
~
l MR. HEELANs It's always been Riva Ridge
2 Partners with me
3 MR. MOFFET: Anything T ever saw as the
4 Applicant has Riva Ridge Partners, yau and
5 Mrs. Parks. We'd haue to go back and look at all
6 the stuff, but that's my recollection.
7 MR. HEELAN: On the Appeal issue, Ithink
8 you're right in terms of the Conditional use
9 permit.
10 MR. MOFFET: November 27, 1995, the Applicant,
11 Margaretta Parks represented by Glenn Heelan.
12 MR, HEELAN: Where is that?
~ 13 MR, MOFFET: That will be Exhibit D, Planning
14 and Environmental Commission Memorandum, Navember
15 27, 1995. That's with Jim Curnutte« There was one
16 prior to that. I think my first PEC meeting where
17 I remember specifically I don't know why. I
18 remember that's how the Applicant was spelled out.
19 MR. MOLLICA: 2 was gaing ta point out that
20 Exhibit A which is the Appeals Form, that's the
21 hearing we're having here today, is based upon that
22 application. Name of Appellant, Riva Ridge
23 Partners, LLG, Glenn Heelan, Margaretta Parks, that
24 was filled out by Glenn Heelan.
~ 25 MRa HEELANs We also agree that the Applicant
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1=800-261-4818
79
~
1 in this case is also Margaretta Parks.
2 MR. MOFFET: My questian ist guess my
3 assertian as the finder af fact here is that the
4 Applicant includes individually, Margaxetta Parks.
5 Now, be that as it may, actually before that, let
6 me ask anather question of Tam. Is there a section
7 in the ardinances, in the Town Ordinance which
8 permits the Town Manager, that clearly permits the
9 Tawn Manager's discretion in this matter or da we
10 have a poorly written, code section?
11 MR. MOORHEAD: I don't think you have a poorly
12 written, cade sectian. All of the Town's contracts
~ 13 and agreements are entered into by the Town Manager
14 and those contracts and agreements are negotiated
15 and customized pursuant ta the business deal that
16 is being done at that time. So there's nothing
17 that specifically states the Town Manager shall
18 enter into the following agreements under the
19 following form because it changes constantly every
20 time we enter into a contract.
21 MR. MOFFET: I understand. There's a
22 provision in the ordinance that says the Town
23 Manager has his discretion ta use his prudent, best
24 judgment in handling the busiriess affairs of the
~ 25 Town?
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
80
~
1 MR. MbORHEAD: Tthink that's inherent of
2 being the chief judicial officer of this
3 corporation. One thing T'd Zike to point out. It
4 had been indicated to me by Glenn it was impossible
5 for them to get Margaretta Parks to sign a deed of
6 trust and we found a tit3e company and found that
7 Margaretta Parks has, in fact, entered inta a deed
8 of trust to secure a loan for this particular
9 project.
10 MR. MOFFET: I'm not thinking of the deed of
11 trust, but I'll get there in a second.
12 MR. HEELAN; Let me clarify that comment, Tom.
~ 13 What I said Margaretta Parks at this time was
14 unwilling to give adeed of trust to us for this
15 parking fee. She did enter intn deeds of trust
16 granted for the canstruction phase which is typical
17 and common, but this is not a construction
18 valuntary loari. 2t's an involuntary tax. Even
19 when President C1inton passed a tax increase, he
20 gave people three years to pay it.
21 MR. MOFFET: Thank you, Glenn. The other
22 questian is do we have a setable precedent of the
23 Town requiring a deed af trust to secure this
24 obligation in other instances?
~ 25 MR. MOaRHEAD: Ngt that I'm aware af.
SUMMIT REPdRTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800=261-4818
~
1 MR. MOFFET: Z'm living by the sward and dying
2 by the sword. We don't have any precedents-.
3 Unfortunately, I would rely on a Code pravision to
4 grant the chief executive the ability to use his
5 discretion to vary from expressed codes. However,
6 I'll say that I believe the Applicant includes
? Margaretta Parks and I would require her, in my
8 judgment that means she's got to sign. I'm nat
9 talking about a deed of trust, but in my judgment
10 that means she does have to personally sign the
11 promissory note. You signed the five year
12 promissory note with the Applicant, i.e. Riva Ridge
~ 13 Partners, yourself and Margaretta Parks. Granted
14 T`m one vote, here you go. That's done. If
15 however you want to vary an inch fxom the expressed
16 terms of the Code, i.e. you don't want an
17 applicant, specific applicant to sign
18 MR. HEELAN: I want to go ten years, whatever.
19 MR. MOFFET: At that point I think everything
20 is on the table and a deed of trust is a fair and
21 reasanable thing far the Town ta ask for. If we're
22 going to go strictly by the language here on the
23 page, I feel hamstrung. I think as a Town we have
24 to do what the law says we have to da and rather
~ 25 than infer and basically do all the stuff I suggest
suMMIT REpoRTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-840-261-4818
82
40
1 that we nat do an the last issue.
2 In fact, why don't we kind of go to the two
3 parties for final cflmments and then, we'll
4 hopefully render samething. Mike for the Town?
5 MR. MOLLICAa For the record, we do have the
6 original application for the canditional use
7 permit. I have it here in front of me. It was
8 faxed ta the Town on September 11, 1995. Glenn
9 Heelan was listed as the Applicant. The Owner's
10 signature, appears William Whiteford {phonetic}
11 signed for Margaretta Parks and he indicated he had
12 the pawer af attorney to da that and we also have
~ 13 that attached to the Application.
14 MR. HEELAN: Cauld you reiterate2 The
15 applicant was who?
16 MR. MOLLICA: Margaretta B. Parks. Wi11iam
17 Whiteford signed for Margaretta Parks.
18 MR. HEELAN: Who was the AppZicant?
19 NlR. MOLLICA: Glenn Heelan. As is standard
20 procedure, we do not pracess applications unless we
21 have a signature from the praperty pwner.
22 MR. HEELAN: If we were applying that to the
23 Code, the Applicant is Glenn Heelan and thezefore,
24 the promissory note should be able ta be signed by
~ 25 myself.
SUMMIT REPORTTNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
$3
~
1 MR. MUFFET . That ' s not how I read the paper
2 trail here, Glenn.
3 MR. HEELANs Let me rei.terate. He just
4 clarified that ths Applicant i,n this issue is me.
5 Is that correct?
6 MR. MOFFET: Yau came in here in November of
7 1997 with a dflcument that I read, that S sat here
8 and read and granted you a conditianal use perma.t
9 on that, said that
10 MR. HEELAN: GVai,t a minute. The condit,iona3.
1:1 use permit was in 195.
12 MR. MOFFET: 195. T'm sorry,
~ 13 MR. HEELAN: What does that Application say?
14 MR. MOFFET: It says
15 MR. HEELAN: The one by Mike Mollica?
16 MR. MOFFET: I didn't see that. I'm tel7.ing
17 you cvhat T saw.
18 MR. HEEL.AN: Ithink, Greg, what I'm saying
19 the formal Applicant has al.ways been me. That's my
20 point. The lega1 paper tarail is the Appl.i.cant a.s
21 Glenn Heelan and I have offered to sign this
22 pramissory note both as a manager of Riva Ri.dge and
23 as myself personally, the guarantee.
24 MR. MOFFET c And my paint and Iam not going
~ 25 to argue with yau. This is where I come down an
SUMMIT REPORTZNG
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4818
84
~
1 this issue. The documents that have been presented
2 to me on several different occasions as a
3 Commi.ssioner in this forum have said Applicantz
4 Margaretta B. Parks, represented by Glenn Heelan.
5 Now, yau have came up and talked to me on several.
6 occasions on this issue, Glenn, and you have never
7 corrected this. It's been plai.n as the nose an
8 everybody's face that's what s'm relying pn.
9 Let's go back. Any further closing comments
10 on this issue; Mike or Tom?
11 MR. HEEI,AN. We have one final comment.
12 MR, MOFEET: We ` 1, l get to it.
~ 13 MR. HEEL.AN : Okay.
14 MFt. MOnRHEAD s The only thing I' 11 say, I
15 believe the Staff recnmmendati.ons set forth the
16 three issues to be determined. In regard to the
17 issue in which the classificat.ion af the property
18 of third and fourth floar eating and drinking
19 establ.ishments, that decision was made as of
20 December 21st, 1995 and therefore is nat now
21 subject to Appeal. Likewise, I think based upon
22 the testimony of Jim Curnutte it wa.s c1ear when
23 Glenn wrote the letter in June of 1996 expressly
24 agreeing ta the calculation that he was well aware
~ 25 and agreeci to the manner in which the calcul.ation
SUMMIT REPt)RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
85
~
1 was made and that thase decisions are over one
2 year-old.
3 MR. MOFFET: Okay. G1enn?
4 MR. HEELAN: Before I introduce Chris Parks,
5 I'11 reiterate our position. Riva Ridge Partners
6 believes that Staff has interpreted Sections
? 18.52.100 C, parking requirements-schedule and
8 18.52.160 Exemptions, parking pay-in-lieu
9 incarrectly. Section 18.52.100 states off street
10 parking requirements shall be determined in
11 accordance with the following schedule; C, other
12 uses, 5, eating and drinking establishments, one
~ 13 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity
14 and building code occupancy standards, whichever is
15 mare restriotive. Riva Ridge believes that the
16 calculation far the eating and drinking
17 establishment spaces should be based on seating
18 capacity. Riva Ridge has stated it will have a
19 maximum of 210 seats which is more restrictive than
20 the maximum number permitted under the applicable
21 building cade.
22 Zn addition, Riva Ridge Partners believes that
23 it is inappropriate for Staff to require persQnal
24 guarantees on the promissory note and for Staff to
~ 25 require a deed of trust be filed an the property.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
86
~
l Code Section 18.52.160 Exemptions Section B.7
2 states the owner or applicant has the aption of
3 paying the tatal parking fee at the time af the
4 building permit or paying over a five year perzod.
5 Further it states in Paragraph 2, if the owner ar
6 apPlicant does choose to pay the fee over a period
7 of time, he or she shall be required to sign a
8 promissary note which describes the total fee due,
9 the schedule af payments and the interest due,
10 Promissory note forms are available at the affiaes
11 of Cammunity Develapment. Riva Ridge obtained the
12 authorized form of promissory note fram Community
~ 13 Development, a copy of which is enclosed for your
14 reference which does not require personal
35 guarantees or deeds of trust. Staff and Appliaant
16 did discuss a 10 year payment plan in various
17 meetings, copies enclosed. However, Riva Ridge and
18 Staff have reached agreement on this issue and Riva
19 Ridge believes it should be governed by the
24 ordinance in existence at the time of application,
21 unless the Town and Riva Ridge mutually agree
22 otherwise. And that's all I have to say, but 1
23 think Chris Parks has a letter that he would like
24 tn give you and then, add a few comments.
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: Thank you.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
87
~
l MR. PARKS: For the record, I am Chris Parks
2 and along with my Brother, William Whiteford, we
3 have been in this process for my Mother. She' s
4 always been the Owner, not applicant. The Code
5 says appla.cant or owner. G1.enn is the Appl.icant in
6 this case. And that°s all I have to say on that
7 issue.
8 This is a letter written by my Brotnex and it
9 states our position. And 3 would say that a.n
10 further memorandums there should be an owner slot
11 on the Town Memorandum instead of applicant. That
12 should be separated as such. Thank you.
~ 13 MR. MOFE'ET: Thank you, I would suggest to my
14 fellow Commi.ssioners that we break this down .into
15 three votes because we have gat three issues. And
16 as far as I have been abl,e to tell for what it's
17 worth, I can't figure aut why we're even wrestling
18 with the first issue. Because I think everybady
19 agrees that the third and faurth floars are eating
20 and drinking establishments. Maybe I`m wrong
21 there, but I wauld suggest if we get a motion that
22 we move on each af the three points separately.
23 MR. SCHOFIEZDe Perhaps S malce a suggestipn on
24 that that there appears to be no disagreement on #1
~ 25 that the third and fourth floors are elassa.fiecl as
SUMMTT REPC3RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
88
~
1 an eating and drinking establishment. If we can
2 get the parties to st.ipulate to that, perhaps we
3 can el.iminate that from our cliscussion.
4 MR. MC?FFET: Glenn, that's your Appea1. As
5 far as I can tell just from the hrief question and
6 answer you and I had, you don't di.spute that the
7 third and faurth floors of the building a.re an
8 eating and drinking establ.ishmen,t; is that
9 accurate?
10 MR. HEELAN. There are only ceartain areas that
11 we thought should be classified.. We discussed that
12 certain areas of that third and fourth floor shauld
~ 13 be cansiderect office space, which the general use
14 of the remaining part of the area is in kids eati.ng
15 and drinking establishments as per the Code reads.
16 MR. MdFFET: Maybe what rae need to do ,is
17 determine whether actual3y, let me ask Staff.
18 Was .it Staff's pasition because it appears to be
19 that the entire third and fourth floor are an
20 eating and drin.k.i.ng establishment and daes that
21 permit the breaking out of types of space within
22 the eati.ng and drinking establishment which in
23 terms generate different parking requirements?
24 MR. MOLLICA: No. The majority af the third
~ 25 and fourth flaars are classified as eating ancl
SUMMIT REPOR'~1`ING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
89
~
1 drinking establishments« There's a sma11 affice
2 that's located on the third floor I believe that's
3 calculated as office space.
4 MR. SCHaFIELD: Question. Based on that then,
5 Mike, I assume you had classified that as a partion
6 of the 94 square feet of affice space and is not
7 included in the 5717 square feet of restaurant?
8 MR. MC7LLICA: That's correct.
9 MR. SCHdFIELD: And second question, aur
10 Appeal i.s if I read everything praperly base+d upon
11 your letter of June 17th, 1997 whi.ch refl.ects
12 slightly diffc:rent numbers than Page 5 of the memo
~ 13 on the Appeal. Wauld you elaborate an that?
14 MR. MOLLICA: There were some modificatians
15 that were made to the structure between June 17th
16 of '97 and when this Appeal was filed. What is
17 presented in the Memorandum is the most up-to-date
18 analysis of what is a:ctually on tha:s site.
19 MR. SCHOFIELD: And for the record, I guess
20 T'd make sure that everybody uzxderstand:s that the
21 Staff Memo appears to be mare favorable to the
22 Appellant than does the June 17th, 1997 letter.
23 MR. HEELAN: Are you saying that maybe
24 clarify for me, Jahn. What is the fi.nal number?
~ 25 MR. SCHOFIELD: We have tp make a
SUMMIT ftEPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
90
~
1 determination based on your Appeal. However, it
2 appears that the Staff has for some reason modified
3 those numbers very slightly and in a direction
4 which I am sure you wi11 be pleased with.
5 MR. HEELAN: There have been three, different
6 calculations. June 17th reflects a fee of
7 $571,341.63. September 15th reflects a fee of
8 $571,341.68. And Octaber 1st reflects afee of
9 $538,936.20. Is that the one yau're speaking af?
10 MR. SCHOFIELD: That's carrect.
11 MR. HEELAN: Yes.
12 MR. MOLLICA: Each anal.ysa.s was u ed by
~ 13 Staff due ta each request of the Applicant due to
14 the modificatians the Appl.icant made to the
15 structure. The $538,936.20 is the final number.
16 MR. MOFFET: Still begs a questifln in my mind
17 and I'm trying to couch perhaps a potential motion
18 for samebady to make. That on Item 1 on the
19 Staff' s classification of the third an,d faurth
20 floors as eating and dxinking establishments, that
21 Staff' s classificati.can be uphelcl as qualified by
22 the standard class exclusion and separate
23 classi,f.ication of the a.reas wa.thin those flaors as
24 things other than eating and drinking
~ 25 establishments. I mean is that, John, does that go
SUMMIT REPC}RTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
91
~
1 to where you're thinking?
2 MR. 5CHOFIELD: Yes. My thinking is based on
3 testzmony we have heard. Item #1, classificatian
4 appears to be without dispute eating and drinking
5 establishment with the exceptinn of a small area
6 which was excluded for affice space.
7 MR. HEELAN: As I mentianed before, these
8 aren't the correct final plats. Mike has them I
9 believe. There are some areas that we thought were
10 office spaces. There's an office. There are
11 several business and fax rooms that are not part of
12 the eating and drinking establishments.
~ 13 MR. AMSDENt Those have all been figured in
14 the office
15 MR. HEELAN: No, they have not. Some of them
16 T believe they have. They're minor amounts, but
17 there are fax and business service rooms which are
18 specifically used with computers and stuff Tike.
19 There are no bars and anything else that we thought
20 shauld be classified as office space. There's a
21 kids affice that has computer games in it for kids
22 that has no eating and drinking. Those are use
23 factors that should be calculated as oftice space.
24 MR. SCHOFIELD: Mike, it's your testimony
~ 25 these areas have been excluded from the eating and
5UMMIT REPORTING
(970) 45$-9415
1-$00-261-4818
92
~
1 drinking classification7
2 MR. MOLLZCA: Na. There' s an office spa.ce
3 that has been excluded. There are three fax raoms
4 as T understand it th.at are available for the use
5 of the members af the club to send a fax tahile
6 they're enjoyi.ng the club. Those three fax rooms
7 as small as they ma e have been included a.n the
$ Vail Village Club eating an,d drinking esta:bla.shment
9 category. In ad.di.tion, there' s a pool room that is
10 cons.idered a game room thrqugh the UBC. That"s
11 alsa inal.uded as eating and drinki.ng establishment.
12 Additionally, there's a game room that's available
~ 13 for ki.ds as Glenn has stated. That has been
14 included as eatinq and drink:ing establishment.
15 MR. SCHOFIELDs Would .it be carrect to assume
16 that these roams are accessory uses to the
17 restaurant club situatian?
18 MR. MOLLICA« Nat in my mind, naa
19 MR. SCH(3FIELD s Looki.ng for a motion?
20 MR. MUFFET: That would be what I'm looking
21 far, John, an item
22 MR. SCHOFIELDt Mr. Chairman, based upon the
23 testimany we received, I would move that we znodify
24 the Staff's classification of the third and fourth
~ 25 floors as eating and drinka,ng establishments to
SUMMIT REPC}RTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818
93
~
1 reflect a reductiori in that square footage numher
2 for the three fax rooms and game raom as they're
3 portrayed an the final plans for the building
4 permit application.
5 MR. MaFFET: Okay. So 1et me make sure I
6 understand the motion. We're holding the Staff
7 with modification
8 MR. SCHOFIELD: That's correct.
9 MR. MOFFET: Do we have a second?
10 MR. AMSDENs I will second the motian.
11 MR. MaFFETz Second by Greg Ansden, Any
12 further discussian?
~ 13 MR. AASLAND: The pool room you're ta1king
14 aboutr is that a billiard roam where someone cauld
15 buy a drink2
16 MR. HEELFN: Tt`s not abilliard room. We*re
17 not requesting that be changed. Just the kids
18 office and the fax room.
19 MR. SCHOFIELD: 3 wauld then modify my motion
20 ta include the paol roQm in the restaurant
21 calculation, but to exclude the fax rooms.
22 MR. AASLAND: And exclude the children's room.
23 MR. MOFFET: The children's game room.
24 MR. SCHOFIELD« Included.
~ 25 MR. MOFFET: Hold on. So let me make sure I
SUMMIT REPORTrNG
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-481$
94
~
1 understand. You ° re naw mod.ifying the mation sa,
2 that we're uphalding Staff, but we're e~cluding the
3 fax roams only?
4 MR. SCHOFIELD s Tha'G'" s correct.
5 MR. MOFFET t 'I'hat' s the amendment. Greg, yoU
6 second that amendment?
7 MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
8 MFt. MOFFET: Any further discussion? All
9 thase in favor?
10 MR. scxaFZEzn: Aye.
11 MR. AASLAND: Aye.
12 MFt. AMS DEN : Aye.
~ 13 It+IR. MdFFET: Ayee That mation passes
14 unanimously. Now, we'xe onta Staf£'s calculation
15 af the number of parking spaces required,
16 MR. AMSDEN: We cannot determine that number
17 right now I don't believe because now they're going
18 to deduct the amount af spaces out af thase rooms,
19 correct, from that, so there will be a new parking
20 calculati.on below the flne that indicates the
21 538,936. We can state that number less those
22 deducti.ons.
23 MR. SCHOFZELD: I don't think we can perhaps
24 cletermine the number here as far as the square
~ 25 footage, but we can determine the interpretation of
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
95
~
1 the Code as far as most restrictive and then, allow
2 the Staff to recalculate the square footage that we
3 have requested be taken off.
4 MR. MOFFET: So for instance, John, you could
5 move that to uphold Staff consistent with a blind
6 methodology resulting in a number or resulting in
7 the agreement of the June 21st, 1996 letter from
8 Glenn Heelan that was also reflected on the
9 exhibits we got fram Jim Curnutte, just endorsing
10 that methadology?
ll MR. SCHOFIELD: Methodology, yes,
12 MR. MOFFET; Okay.
~ 13 MR. AMSDEN: Why would you reference Jim
14 Curnutte?
15 MR. MOFFET: Secause it was actually an agreed
16 to number at one point in time, Greg. We have gat
17 a letter here that characterizes that as an
18 agreement signed by the Town.
19 MR. HEELAN: Yaur agreement, 457
24 MR. MOFFET: I'm saying I agree to that
21 methodology. If the plans changed from November 6,
22 1996, it would have to apply the same methodology
23 that was applied at the time.
24 MR. AMSDENs The methodoldgy was applied to
~ 25 the 536,936 number. Let's adopt that ta changing
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
96
~
1 the
2 MR. MOFFEm: Are you mak.a.ng a mot,ion?
3 MR. AMSDENs Not maki.ng a motion. Does that
4 make sense ta you?
5 MR. MOFFET: Yes.
6 MR. AMSDEN: (3kay. You want me to make a
7 motion?
$ MR. MOFFETt Please.
9 MR. AMSDENz Mr. Chairman, I''.d like to malce a
10 motz.on that in regard to the parking requirenxents
11 and; the cal.culation of the number of parka.ng spaces
12 required; that we utilize the number of spaces, the
~ 13 32.996 parking spaces to d,etermine the 538,936.2t7
14 figure, less the changes that were made in the
15 first motion regards.ng this and they wi1.1 be
16 deductian,s from this, and we 1.et Staff figutre thase
17 deductions on the square footac}e of the areas that
18 were excl.uded from tha eating and drinki.ng
19 establ.ishment on the thi.rd and fc,urth floor, the
20 fax rooms.
21 MR. MOFFET: That was a nice, clear motian.
22 Da we have a seaond?
23 M12. SCHOFIELD; Second.
24 MR. MUFFET: Any further discussian?
~ 25 MR. AASLAND: C7ne quest,ion I thought of.
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
97
~
1 MR. MOFFET: P1ease.
2 MRb AASLADID: Just for the recard, that the
3 32.996 recognizes the 27 grandfathered spaces
4 already.
5 MR. MOFFET: Point of clarificatson, yes. I
6 don't think yau need an amendment. That's a point
? of clarificatian of the grandfathered spaces. 50
8 acknowledged?
9 MR. AMSDEN: Acknowledged.
10 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussion?
11 MR. SCHOFIELD: Not discussion. Point of
12 clarification. I think the record should reflect
~ 13 this Cammission is upholding the previous Staff
14 interpretation of mast restrictive in the Code to
15 mean the ma.ximum number of seats ~~at rai11 lae
16 allowed, not` necessarily the plan of those sea.ts.
17 MR. MOFFET: Does that refleat your
18 understanding in maki.ng the motion, Greg?
19 MR. AMSDEN: Yes.
20 MR. MOFFET: Any further discussi.on? AI1
21 those i.n favor?
22 1'lRs 211"LSL.fEltl i 1"iyea
23 NiR. AASLAND: Ayee
24 MRa SCHOFTELD; Aye.
~ 25 MRa MOFFET: Aye. Passes unanimously. Item
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$00-261-4818
9$
~
1 #3 is the requirement that the Applicant sign a
2 pay-in-lieu promissory note persanally and a deed
3 0f trust be fi1ed on the prc?perty. S think we're
4 all reading it differently. If I can pass the
5 chaxr to you, Greg, for a secand, r' 11. try a
6 motion.
7 MR. AMSL}ENt Go tor it.
$ MR. MaFFET : akay. . I would move tha.t we over
9 turn the Staff requirement that Applicant~ sign a
10 pay-in-la.eu praznissory note personally and' that a
11 deed c~f trust be filed on the property, but rather
12 that per the ordinance, tlae Appl.i+cant and the
~ 13 Applicants as defined in the paper traa.l wh,ich
14 includes Glenn Heelan, person.al1y and Nargaretta
15 Farks, personal,ly sign on1y a pronrnissory note with
16 no deed of trust; becau,se that' s not required in the
17 Code, Greg's chairing while I make a matian. Do
18 you want to ask for a second?
19 MR. AMSDEN: Do we have a second to that
20 m.at.ion?
21 MR, AASLAND: I would secnnd it. And one
22 comment abaut that. This is for the five year now
23 that we're talki.ng about?
24 MR. M0FFET; It' s the stra.i,ght, f i.ve year note
~ 25 as expressly provided far in the Ordi.nance and
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$--9415
1-800-261-4818
99
~
1 that' sa11 I° m goi.ng for here is my reada.ng of the
2 plain languaqe of the Ordinance and the plain
3 language af the paper tra.il,
4 MR. AASLAND: So can you add that to your
5 MR. MOFFET: It's a point of clarification.
6 MR. AASLAND: As a poi.nt of clarificatian,
7 it' s the five year note we' re ta3.king about?
8 MR. MC3FFET t Correct.
9 MR. AASLAND: T'll second that,
10 MR. AMSDEN: Any other questions"? There's a
11 matian on the floor. A11 ,in favor?
12 MR. HEELAN: I'd like to make a comment and
~ 13 question for Tom Moorheadf With respect ta the
14 legal nature of the paper trail, what governs the
15 Staff inemos or the application, itself?
16 MR. MOORHEAD: I'd say that this Board ha~ the
17 autharity as finder of fact to cansider both and I
18 will leave it at that.
19 MR. HEELAN: So what you're saying a.s the
20 forznal application that we completed even though it
21 may be the Staff memo subsequently following that
22 formal application which may have misstated po.ints
23 0f fact from the application can be interpreted at
24 will by this Board?
~ 25 MR. MOORKEAD: Not at wi.l.l. It' s i.nterpreted
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
100
~
1 in relation tn the ordinance in relation to the
2 evidence presented. Application says awner and
3 applicant and I think it was clear that the
4 evidence is the owner must be listed as an
5 applicant. That's always been required. Mike
6 Mollica testified to that that in every instance
7 the owner is also an applicant.
$ MR. HEELAN; Could I see the application,
9 please?
10 MR. MOORHEAD: Actually, as a point to the
11 Board, once ynu have gone ta motion, you don't have
12 to take anymore aomment from any party.
~ 13 MR. MOFFET: Call the question if yau want.
14 MR. AMSDENs I'm going ta go ahead and run
15 this thraugh.
16 MR. DAVISQN: Just two points of reference, z
17 think the change of chairmanship, and for the
18 record, was made after the mation was made, not
19 befare.
20 MR. MOFFET. It1o, i.t was not, Ghaxlie. Z told.
21 Greg I would like to make a motion and I asked if
22 ha would ahair while S did that. We've got a Caurt
23 Reporter here. We can read i.t back if you'd like.
24 Da you want us to?
40 25 MR. HEELAN: No. That's fine. Sut I wbtxld
SL7MM.IT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-$04-261--4818
10 1
~
1 like to review the applicat,ion that Mike Mol.lica
2 read for the record.
3 MR. MOFFET: I'm sorry. You are chaz.ring
4 this.
5 MFt. AMSI3EN: I think it's a cr;a.tical vote. I
6 would like ta hear their side af this just because
7 it's an issue. And go ahead.
8 MR. HEELANt Can I borxow the application that
9 was made for the cond.iti.onal use permit that you
14 read fram far the record earl.iers
11 This is an applicatian for conditional use
12 permit. And the procedure says, this states this
~ 13 procedure is required for any project to obtain a
14 conditional use permit. This application will not
15 be accepted unt.il all information is submitted. A
16 name of applicants. Glenn Heelan agrees, et
17 cetera. Name of awner, Margaretta Parks. Name of
18 appli.cant's regresentative, NA, not appl.a,cable.
19 So T guess what I'm saying to you is that the
2{} formal, legai trail that we believe on this
21 application is me as Appiicant and Margaretta B.
22 Parks as Owner, not as applicant.
23 MR, MOFFETt Glenn, thank you and let me ask a
24 question.
~ 25 MR. A+iSDEN: I want to reference something in
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
102
~
1 the Code in regard to payment. The owner or
2 applicant has the option of paying the total
3 parking fee at the time of building permit ar
4 paying over afive year period and it goes onto
5 discuss other issues and then, the second paragraph
6 in the same #7 says if the owner or applicant. It
7 does not say owner and/or applicant. It does not
8 say owner and applicant. It says if awner or
9 applicant daes choose to pay the fee ouer a period
10 0£ time, he or she shall be required to sign a
11 pramissory note that shows the total fee due,
12 schedule of payments and interest, et cetera.
~ 13 MR. HEELAN; We believe that T should have the
14 right to sign the promissory note with 20% down and
15 receive our TCO by the Cade. Thank you.
16 MR. AMSDENt We have a motion qn the flgbr.
17 All in favar?
1$ MR= MOFFET: Aye.
19 MR. SCHOFSELD: Aye.
20 MR. AASI,AND: Aye.
21 NIR. AMSDEN: Al1 against? Aye. The motion
22 passes three to one.
23 MR. MOFFE'I" : Thank ydu.
24 MR. HEELAN: Can Iask you ta read laac'k the
~ 25 mation sa I understand what we've got here?
SUMMIT REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
103
~
1 (Whereupon, the Motion was read back by the
2 Court Reporter)
3 MR. HEELAN: That says whatever is paper
4 trail. The legal paper trail says I am the
5 applicant and I can sign it.
6 MR. MQFFET: The motion was passed as read.
7 Riva Ridge Partners, Glenn Heelan, Margaretta Parks
8 can sign the promissory note. There's no
9 requirement for a deed of trust. It's the five
10 year promissory note as specified in the Cade
11 MR. HEELAN: So the discussion we had
12 subsequent to the motion andlor applicant or owner
~ 13 is irrelevant?
14 MR, AMSDEN: T just read that prior to the
15 vote because T wanted the Commission to understand
16 it.
17 MR. HEELANt So in arderfar us ta get a TCfl,
18 what you're saying is we have to have three
19 signatures on the promissory note; Margarettar
20 Glenn, Riva Ridge Partners and put down 20% over a
21 five year period of time?
22 MR. MOFFETz That's what my mation reflected,
23 yes?
24 MR. HEELAN: Whatever that fee was ultimately
~ 25 determined?
SUMM3T REPORTING
(970) 468-9415
1-800-261-4818
104
~
1 MR. MOFFET: Exactly.
2 MR. AASLAND: Absent ta paying the fee at one
3 time if you want, also.
4 MR. AMSDENt I will turnnver the chair to Greg
5 Moffet.
6 MR. MOFFET: Thank youa I think we have
7 exhausted this issue and it's time again for a
8 break and we"11 come back and get to the rest of
9 the agenda. Thank yau.
10 {Whereupan, this Hearing concluded at
11 4:45 P.M«}
12 - - _ 000 - - -
~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
24
21
22
23
24
~ 25
StJMMIT REPORTING
(970) 46$--9415
1-800-26I-4818
105
is
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLflRADO)
COUNTY OF SUMMIT)
I, RANDY A. SLANE, Professional. Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of
Colorado, dd hereby certify that Pages 3 thrc,ugh 104
are a t:rue and accurate transcription af my stenotype
notes taken on November 10, 1997, before the Vail
Planning and Environmental Conucnission at the Town af
Vail, 75 South Frantage Road, Vail, Colarada £31657.
,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, T have aff.ixed my
si.gnature and seal this 18th day df Navember, 1997.
~ My commission expires August n, 20 .
t
RAN Y A. SLANE
SUMMIT REP012TING
~
SUMMIT REPC?RTING
(970) 46$-9415
1-800-261-4818