Loading...
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