Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Vail Town Council Minutes, October - December MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING October 1, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 1, 1996, in the Council Chambers of tail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston f Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Long time Vail resident Anthony Aiello said he was concerned about there not being a requirement in the Town of Vail to hold a workman's compensation or liability insurance policy to shovel snow from roofs. He also expressed frustration regarding the 's winter season snow dump policies, and asked Council to keep the playing fields and open space at ord Park. Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer invited Mr. Aiello to attend one of two public meetings scheduled for October 2 and 3, to share the latest draft of the new management plan for Ford Park. Item number two on the agenda was a presentation of the preliminary plans for the West Vail Interchange. Public Works Director Larry Grafel asked Council for approval to proceed with the design process for the construction of two roundabouts at the West Vail Interchange. Larry then introduced CDOT Highway Commissioner Bernie Buescher and Director of Transportation Bob Moston, who were present to preview the preliminary plans, CDOT being a potential funding partner for the project. Larry further stated that following extensive public process and staff analysis, the roundabouts were chosen as the best alternative for addressing safety and traffic delay issues at the West Vail Interchange. Engineering consultant Dick Bauman of MK Centennial Engineering presented a proposed construction design and three phase, 18-month construction schedule in detail. He provided a preliminary cost estimate for the project of $5.5 million, and discussed a variety of impacts a project of this magnitude would have on the community. He said the first phase of the project could begin in April, 97, commencing with street work on Chamonix. Such work could impact passage to and firom the gas stations, but those businesses should be accessible by Memorial Day, he said, then workers would begin reconstruction of the highway ramps on the south side of I-70 and building retaining walls. The Marriott bridge would then be reconstructed, which would require construction of a temporary bridge. This phase of the project would be the most , ti onsuming, Dick explained, extending from June through the end of November. Paul Kuhn of Winston and A~5bc9ates Landscape Architects presented draft designs of the landscape plan and requested feedback and ideas from Council members. Larry said the Town had spent approximately $60,000 to date in engineering analysis and recommendations. Paul Johnston moved to approve Larry's request to proceed through the design process, with money budgeted for surveying, design and permits not to exceed $400,000. Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was a review of the proposed development plan for Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3, (Vail Point Phase lll, 1894 Lionsridge Loop} as required by an Annexation Agreement of 1979. Town Planner George Ruttier presented the item and reviewed an October 1, 1996 PEC memo. He explained the development plan was required to be approved by the Town Council according to a 1979 Annexation Agreement annexing Lot 27 into the Town of Vail. Adjacent property owner and Appellant, Phyllis Mango said she realized the project was in compliance with guidelines and had no problem with the front setback variance, but felt the plan as submitted did not fit in with surrounding homes, and that the project proposed excessive density in a small area. Greg Moffet explained how the PEC decision had been reached, and stated that absent the variance request, grounds for an appeal did not exist. Steve Gensler, owner of the property said the parties had been working together and that he anticipated an agreement to be reached directly. He said he had been under the impression Ms. Mango was going to request the appeal be withdrawn. George then stated that staff recommended proceeding with the hearing on the appeal, and Mayor Armor requested the ap ellant proceed with the appeal. R ord then moved to uphold the August 26, 1996 decision of the PEC granting approval of a 12' front set ack variance with conditions, and read the following findings: 1) That the Town of Vail PEC held a public hearing on the requested front setback variance in accordance with Chapter 18.66 Administration and Chapter 18.62 Variances, and has made the appropriate Vail Town Council Evening Moeling Minutes October 1, 1996 ' + ~ findings pursuant to Section 18.62.060 Criteria and Findings of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 2) That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade have been met. 3) That the proposed development plan for Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3, has been approved by • the Town of Vail PEC and is in compliance with Section 18.18.010 Purpose, Medium Density Multi- Family Zone District of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Sybill Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 7-0. Next, Council members reviewed the proposed development plan for the site, as required by the Annexation Agreement. Discussen proceeded regarding the fact that no employee housing was being included in the plan. E'aul Johnston moved to approve the development plan as proposed and Sybil! seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed, 5-2. Mayor Armour and Kevin Foley voting in opposition because of the lack of employee housing units on the site. Item number four on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin reminded council members of the October 29 meeting at 5:30 with the Breckenridge Town Council. Bob said he would be attending the lCMA conference and would leave on Thursday, October 3, and stated that he and Bob Armour were registered for the CAST meeting scheduled for October 17 & 18. Kevin Foley expressed his concern regarding bicycle traffic in Dowd Junction and questioned whether it would be paved before winter. Larry Grafel stated the surface would be rideable, but that engineers on the project wanted to wait until spring to pave, ensuring the integrity of the fnished surface. I~Johnston informed fellow council members of a meeting on the Berry Creek Fifth Filing, scheduled for later in the week, and asked whether there was an interest in housing on the site. Some members of Council ' expressed an interest in building somewhere closer to Vail. Council members complimented Fire Chief Dick Duran and the Vail Fire Department for the outstanding job performed by the department in handling the recent blaze at the Wall Street Building. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:55 p.m. . Respe fully submitted, R~bert W. Armour, Mayor A~ T: Holly cCutchean, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Cckober 4, 1996 TOWN OF VAIL .South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2.100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY October 2, 1996 Contact: Holly McCutcheon, 479-2136 Town Clerk's Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR OCTOBER 1 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour (excused himself at 3:30 p.m. due to illness), Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Site Visit Council members visited the site at 1894 Lionsridge LooplLot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase III) in preparation for the evening meeting. An appeal was filed by an adjacent property owner of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision which granted approval of a request for a front setback variance, allowing construction of four triplex buildings. For mare information, contact George Rather in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --West Vai! Interchange recommendation to design and construct roundabouts at the West Vail Interchange. Public Works Director Larry Grafel introduced preliminary plans proposed for the construction and design of two roundabouts at the West Vail Interchange. Council members would be asked for their approval at the evening meeting to move forward with design plans, an estimated cost of $400,000. After extensive public input and staff analysis, the roundabouts were chosen as the best alternative for implementing improvements at the West Vail In#erchange. Engineering consultant Dick Bauman of MK Centennial Engineering presented the proposed construction design and the three phase cons#ruction schedule, provided preliminary cost estimates, and discussed impacts the project would have on the community. Paul Kuhn of Winston and Associates Landscape Architects presented draft designs of the landscape plan and requested feedback and ideas from Council members. If approved, construction of the roundabouts could take 18 months and cost $5.5 million, with funding sources still to be determined. For more information contact Larry Grafel at 479-2173. Also, see the evening session briefs later in this release. -more- RECYCLEDPAPER --Amplified Sound Update. Encouraged by the residentialllodging and business communities efforts to work together, Council extended Amplified Sound Permits which are due to expire October 9 until April 1, 1997. The extension will allow for further evaluation of the issue.. In December of 1994, Council suspended the issuance of new permits, but allowed previously held permits to continue to be in effect through 1995 pending the examination of the Town's Amplified Sound Ordinance and enforcement of that ordinance. Then on April 9, '1996, the Town Council voted 6-1 to permit the Town's amplified sound permits to remain in effect for six months and continue discussion as to whether amplified sound permits should remain or be discontinued in the future. Meetings have been held to discuss the issue and possible solutions to problems presented. Jim Lamont, of the East Village Homeowners Association presented recommendations, as did local business owner Jack Curtin; Attorney for the Red Lion, Jay Peterson; and Gasthof Gramshammer's attorney, David Tanzer. Staff will continue to evaluate the amplification issues, while continuing rigid enforcement, and will continue to facilitate discussion between affected entities. For more information contact Tom Moorhead at 479-2107. --Request for Funding for Turn it Up, Vail by Vail Village and Lionshead Merchants Association. Council approved a $3,000 contribution to Turn it Up, Vail, a new program introduced by the merchants to motivate and increase employee service levels. As part of the Town's contribution, 50 Town of Vail Employees will attend the sessions at no charge. Organizers of the program, Rob Levine, Susan Harvey, and Kay Ferry, expressed the importance of customer service and the need to equate good customer service with Vail. Other contributors fio date include NOVUS and 1stBank of Vail. For more information contact Rob Levine at 476-2471. . --Information Update Environmental Health Officer Russell Forest provided an update regarding a review of the Town's GRFA legislation. A public involvement process is scheduled to begin within.2 - 3 weeks, and recommendations will be brought to Council for alternatives to regulate and control the bulk and mass of structures built in Vail. Surveys sent to 8 different resorts are forthcoming and, once received, will be distributed to council members for review. For mare information, contact Russell Forrest at 479-2146. Town Manager Bob McLaurin informed Counci! members of upcoming budget presentations scheduled from each department on November 5 and November 12. The budget being reviewed next month is a program based, 2-year policy oriented budget. The November 5 work session will begin at 12:00 noon and the November 12 work session will start at 2:00 p.m. For more information, contact Bob McLaurin at 479-2105. -more- l Next, Council approved a request from the Colorado Ski Museum to change a previously approved $600 donation of a corporate table to a blue parking pass, the . difference going toward the annual dinner. --Council reports: 5ybill Navas gave an update on the Northwest Council of Governments meeting. She said representatives discussed nutrition and aging and the impact on regional ability to deliver products to senior citizens. --Other Ludwig Kurz stated that Vail Associates, Inc., was starting a new guest service initiative and would be spending between $1 and $2 million on the program. He also said the company's IPO should be effective by Christmas and that all 5 resorts should be merged, also by that date. Further, the gondola towers in Lionshead are to be set on Thursday and should be up and running by Thanksgiving. Paul Johnston asked for an update of the Serrano's construction project and a time line for when the crane would be removed. Bob McLaurin agreed to address the issues, and stated that Larry Grafel meets weekly with the contractor. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Long time Vail resident Anthony Aiello said he was concerned about there not being a requirement in the Town of Vail to hold a workman's compensation or liability insurance policy to shovel snow from roofs. He also expressed frustration regarding the Town's winter season snow dump policies, and asked Council to keep the playing fields and open space at Ford Park. --West Vaii Interchange Council approved unanimously, 7-0, a request from Public Works Director Larry Grafel to proceed with the design jarocess for the construction of two roundabouts at the West Vail Interchange. Following extensive public process and staff analysis, the roundabout was acitizen-preferred alternative for improvements to the West Vail Interchange. Money budgeted for surveying, design & permit process is not to exceed $400,000. The . Town has already spent approximately $60,000 to date in engineering analysis and recommendations. Engineering consultant Dick Bauman of MK Centennial Engineering presented the proposed construction design, and the three phase construction schedule, provided preliminary cost estimates, and discussed impacts the project would have on the community. Paul Kuhn of Winston and Associates Landscape Architects presented draft designs of the landscape plan and requested -more- 3 feedback and ideas from Council members. If approved, construction of the roundabouts could take 18 months and cost $5.5 million. CDOT Highway . Commissioner Bernie Buescher and Director of Transportation Bob Moston were presen# to preview the proposed project. CDT is a potential funding partner for the project. For more information contact Public Works Director Larry Grafel at 479-2173. --Appeal by an adjacent property owner of a PEC decision granting approval of a request for a front setback variance for construction of four triplex buildings at 1894 Lionsridge. Following a site visit at an earlier work session, Council members unanimously voted to uphold a PEC decision allowing a front setback variance with conditions set forth by staff. For more information, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Review of the proposed development plan for L27, B2, Lionsridge Filing #3 as required by an Annexation Agreement of 1979. The Council voted, 5-2 (Armour and Foley against) to approve with conditions a development plan for Vail Point Phase III, located at 1984 Lionsridge Laop. The development plan was required to be approved by a 1979 Annexation Agreement . annexing Lot 27 into the Town of Vail. Mayor Armour and Councilman Foley voted against the approval because of the lack of an employee housing unit on the site. For more information, contact Town of Vail Planner George Ruther at 479-2145. --Other Kevin Foley expressed his concern regarding bicycle traffic in Dowd Junction and questioned whether it would be paved before winter. Larry Grafel stated the surFace would be rideable, but that engineers on the project want to wait until spring to pave to ensure the integrity of the finished surface. Paul Johnston informed fellow council members of a meeting on the Berry Creek Fifth . Filing this week and asked whether there was an interest in housing on the site. Some members of Council expressed an interest in building something closer #o Vail. Council members complimented Fire Chief Dick Duran and the Vail Fire Department for the outstanding job performed by the department in handling the recent blaze at the Wall Street Building. -more- 4 s UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS • October 8 Work Session Vail Commons Package Tour DRB Review Discussion on Changing Municipal Election Date October 7 5 Work Session PEC Review Joint Presentation by vail Village and Lionshead Merchants Associations October 95 Evening Meefing Lionshead Redevelopment Review of Ford Park Conceptual Master Plan October 22 Work Session DRB Review # # # 5 b MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING October 15, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vai[ Town Council was held an Tuesday, October 15, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the„Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob Mcl_aurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Lew Meskimen requested Council provide port-a-potties at the East Vail park because, he said, the restrooms were closed and the park was getting a lot of usage. Lew suggested that contractors removing snow from roofs be licensed and required to carry liability insurance. Further, he stated that construction at Vaii Commons has blocked entrances to Safeway and Vail dos Shone and requested the Town begin a notification process, including signage. Ite~number two on the agenda was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 199&, first reading of an ordinance correcting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, rezoning a parcel of property legally described as Tract C, Vail Village Seven#h Filing from General Use District to PrimarylSecondary Residential District. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Town Planner Dirk Mason presented the item and explained that the purpose of the ordinance was to correct a typographical error in the original ordinance. It was referenced erroneously as the "First Filing" rather than the "Seventh Filing" which is correct. The staff recommendation was to approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1996 on first reading. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the Ordinance with a second from Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was a review of the Ford Park Conceptual Management Plan. Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer ,and George Rather presented the preliminary plan for the management of Ford Park and asked Counci! for their comments and feedback. Pam explained that an extensive public process had been completed and that input had been received from stakeholder, focus groups and the public. Further, that several issues, concerns and solutions had been identified. Proposed improvements included enhanced shuttle bus service, streamwalk enrichment (lighting, landscaping, grade improvements, and signage}, enhancing existing entrances, design and construction of a central route into the park, new walkways, signage, trash enclosures, delivery access, Nature Center walking path, improve playground to meet safety standards, Streamwalk to Lionshead, Frontage Road vehicular access, landscaping and paving of parking lot. V~pine Gardens Director, Helen Fritch presented an overview of a proposed education center to be located at the ccer field parking lot. Joe Stauffer discussed summer parking and scheduling for conflicting uses. He proposed a fee for close in parking and encouraged use of the streamwalk to access the park, and discussed the original intent when the park was first purchased. Tom Steinberg was unsupportive of any additional parking regardless of whether or not it was underground, and further stated that paving was long overdue. He stressed no further urbanization should occur and suggested improved signing could solve many problems. Ross Davis questioned overlapping events, general management of the park, and made some parking recommendations. He also suggested further substantial changes to the park be put to a vote of the people. Flo Steinberg expressed her feeling that parking should be left as is, and requested Council not make a decision on the Alpine Garden proposal until more definitive plans were presented. Comments were also heard from Herman Staufer, Bart Cuomo, Jim Lamont, Lew Meskimen, and Justin Kirkland. In response to public comment and the presentation from staff the following comments from Council were forming. Kevin stated access remains an issue off the Frontage Road and agreed with all of the proposed improvements in the Primary Action Plan. In regard to the education center, Kevin felt the soccer field was a good site, that it should be landscaped, buried, etc. and should have a parking component. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meating Minutes October 15, 1896 Y+ ti Ludwig Kurz stated that he would Pike to explore closing the Frontage Road in order to park cars when there are multiple events in the park and although the non-profit suggestion for monetary and charging and charging for close in parking was an interesting idea, he thought there could be a police issue as far as enforcement. In regard to the education center, the soccer field is a potentially good site but there should be no net loss of parking and in fac#, with an additional structure, there should be a gain. P~Johnston agreed with both of the former Council members stating the education center site at the soccer field m sense, but he was interested in working with the non-profit groups to manage close in parking, but he felt the streamwalk completion from Ford Park to Lionshead was extraneous and should be eliminated. Rob Ford agreed with the former comments and again supported positioning the education center in the soccer field parking lot. Mike Jewett agreed with the location of the education center in the soccer field parking lot, but was against non- profits "taxing" citizens for the use of a public area. He encouraged better use of the VTRC for parking and strongly encouraged legislation requiring that all leases should be adopted by ordinance so that they can be referred back to the people when future Councils get out of fine and make decisions that are not in the public interest. Sybill Navas agreed the education center was sited well in the soccer field parking lot and encouraged zoning the park to provide a sacrosanct environment. She also had concerns about access and stated there is still some confusion about whether parking in Fard Park should be park parking or skier parking or a combination of both. She further stated there should be exclusive use of the VTRC in providing parking and we should get rid of all parking currently provided at the park and turn that parking lot into something more aesthetic and pleasing. She to agreed with Paul Johnston that the streamwalk completion from Ford Park to Lionshead was extraneous to this process and should be removed and that we should concentrate on using Vail Valley Drive for additional parking andlor for access through a pedestrian sidewalk. She agreed the 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. vehicle delivery to the park was un orkable and rather than #aking on a management role in scheduling overlapping events, cautioned that with coon sense and courtesy, better coordination could be worked out in the park. Bob Armour concluded the comments by stating he wanted to See Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1973, the origination ordinance for condemnation of this parcel amended to reflect current uses and expectations for the park. Parking is an issue he stated, but should be managed through signs and also encouraged saving even additional parking for the elderly, handicapped and vehicles that are required for special events. He encouraged paving the surface of the lot and maybe even using RETT funds to do so. In regard to the education center, he felt the soccer field was an appropria#e site, again with no net loss of parking. Agenda item number four was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated that the library chute road project was on time and would be completed by the time the snow flies. Also the TRC was likewise on time and should be ready for public access by Thanksgiving. Dowd Junction was moving along and he said in regard to the Safeway entrance confusion, this has turned into a larger project than anticipated, it is the storm sewer project as well as preparation for the additional lane that will run to the south of Safeway and Vail dos Shone. The contractor is working very hard to make sure the project is complete. The final item of his report was to remind Council that Vail Tomorrow is scheduled far the next two meetings on November 1st and 2nd. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, Rdbert W. Armour, Mayor ff~/JC Holl~ll cCrr+utcheon,:.Town Clerk Y Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.? i 2 Vail Town Coundl evening Heeling Minutes Octoder 15, 1886 MEMORANDUM. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUB3ECT: A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on~a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS. The property, located at 845 Rcd Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a Special Development District. The current zoning; is General Use District. The proposed zoning is Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). The new zoning would increase the development potential, as the existing zoning limits the uses to public types of uses. The applicants include the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District}, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The District owns approximately three-quarters of the land area under consideration. The Forest Service currently owns one-quarter of the land area. The Town and Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer their portion to the Town, as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement {LOAA). The site. is currently vacant, as the farmer water treatment and storage.plant has been removed recently. If the request is approved, the applicants will construct seventeen condominiums. The dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There will be 7one-bedroom, Stwo-bedroom, and Sthree-bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will have .its owa one-car garage, with the exception of one three-bedroom unit, which will have a two-car garage. ' The primary reason the applicants are proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed record of the future development potential, which will eliminate questions about future development potential of the property. The SDD is a helpful tool to obtain answers to questions about the potential development impacts from the rezoning of the property. In addition to that primary purpose, there is one deviation from the Zoning Code, which would either require a variance or be allowed via the SDD approval. 1 F:kveryonclpeclmemneleandatone.o28 The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road and the interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town Zoning Code limits the height to three feet. The wal! exceeds that allowable height by 1 foot and this is a deviation from the code. . Upon completion of the LOAA, the Town will have title to the northern-most portion of the development site, The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association {HOA) can be created. Upon establishment ofan HOA, the Town and the District will transfer ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated far the project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the development ageement between the District and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 25°/a of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions). The purpose for this is to defray the costs and lower the purchase price for the future homeowners. At this time, it is anticipated that 100% of the units will be deed restricted. The deed restriction will be similar to that used for Vail Commons, which restricts the sale to local employees. After construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town and tike District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates selling the dwelling units to its employees, the District will both sell and retain ownership of some of its units to rent to its employees. More discussion of the proposed unit ownership will be provided later in the memo. 2 F:levoryaaelpeclmemoslaaadato~w.o26 ZONING ANALYSY~ Staff has provided a Zoning Analysis of the groposed project, as it cotnpares to the MDMF standards: Zoning; General Use District (GU} Proposed Zoning: Medium-Density/Multiple Family {NOME) w/ Special Development District (SOD} Lot Size: l .bo acres or 64,887.66 sq. ft. Buildable lot area: 54, 140 sq. ft. AllawedlMDM>r Prnnosed Density 22 d.u.s 17 d.u.s Height: 35' 35' GRFA: 18,449 sq. ft. 16,275 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 20' SideJSide 20' 20' Rear: 20' 20' Site Coverage: 31,449 sq. R. 12,029 sq. R. or 45 % or 17% Reaulred Prnnosed Landscaping: 20,966 sq. (t. 36,450 sq. ft. or 30% yr 52 Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces required proposed Percent enclosed: SO% of 53% enclosed required parking (17) (1&~ III, SUMMARY OF DISCIISSION FROM PEC WORKSI~SS~ON ON ,~F,PTFIVIBER. 9.1..996 Below are the list of questions raised at the previous PEC worksession. Staff has grouped them into categories of general issues and specific items relating to the project. 1. is the SDD the appropriate tool to use for the review of this ~,~~~,osal? Staff believes that the SDD is the most appropriate process to use in this case, because it requires the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request far a change in zoning. For clarification, the proposed devel.,~,~~.ent densities fall below those allowed under the NIDMF 3 zoning. The proposed levels ofdcnsity will become the new cap and any future request for expansions will trigger a major SDD amendment. A major SDD amendment must be approved by Town Counci] with two readings, after a recommendation by 1'EC. Though the SDD process allows requests which exceed the limits of the underlying zoning, the standards are referenced and used as a "yard stick" to ensure that proposals are consistent with surrounding properties. Furthermore, the process is such that interested parties and adjacent property owners will have ample opportunity to give input an the requests. 2. Is affordable hauling an appropriate use ofthe land? Ys it appropriate to transfer land from the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail for affordable housing? The Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement {LOAA}provides fox a comprehensive transfer of land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land an the perimeter of the Town overlaps into the jurisdiction of both entities. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different properties between the two entities to create awin-win situation. As part of this effort, several parameters were laid out for the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include: "1. That there will be na National Forest Service lands within the municipal limits of the Tawn of Vail, 2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary of the Tawn of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies share in the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or eliminated. 3. That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes, such as open space, employee housing (per the Town of Vail employee housing ordinance), recreation or far the resolution of unauthorized uses." The LOAA was approved by the Town Council on May 17, 1994. Staff relies on it as the most authoritative document concerning the transfer of land f'i~~„ the Forest Service to the Town of Vail. The third paragraph above clearly calls for employee housing as a recommended use for LOAA parcels, such as the one under consideration. 3. Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market? Staff has identified three sectors of the residential market, which the Town is trying to serve based on needs of the community: the permanent resident, the year-round renter, and the seasonal renter. The size, scale, and location of this site lends itself best to the permanent resident looking 4 Y purchase a home, One of the concerns is that the "affordability" could be lost, after the first sale. A deed restriction, similar to that used with the Vail Comrnons development, will also be used with this development and the restriction will limit the resale value to an appreciation of three percent per year. In addition to the three percent per year which individuals can realize at time of resale, other costs can be added to the resale price. For example, if the Homeowner's Association assesses each unit owner for reroofing, residing, additional landscaping, paving, etc., one hundred percent of the assessment can be added to the resale price, allowing the owner to recoup costs attributed to maintenance. The deed restrictions have been written in such a way to preserve the affardabie purchase price, while allowing residents to invest in the upkeep of their homes. The deed restrictions run in perpetuity, eliminating any risk of losing the initial subsidy to a future homeowner. 4. Should the dwelling units be made available to the residents throughout the community? Yes, staff believes that all residents should be able to participate in a lottery according to criteria which reflects the needs of the community. Staff recommends that there be three tiers: • Critical employees working for the Town/District (to be determined by each organization); • Other employees working for the Town/District (to be allocated as determined by each organization}; and . Other community residentslemployces (to be allocated by Town of Vail /District}. In response to the point made about Tawn employees having an unfair advantage over other community residents, there are two issues to consider: the Town provides a service to the community and staffing the Town enables the delivery of services to the cornrnunity. It is not an us/them issue, we arc in this together. Secondly, the Town and District are trying to lead by example by creating affordable housing for their employees, to encourage other employers to do the same. 5. How can the Town and District ensure that the units are used by employees of the Tawn and District in the future? Staff believes it is primarily an issue of priority-- we would like to see critical employees of the two organizations housed as the top priority. With that goal in mind, the Town and District will establish reciprocal 1st and 2nd rights of refusal for all 17 dwelling units in the development. This will allow the employees at the top of the lottery criteria list to be housed. However, if other employees own. the units, we have still accomplished the goal of providing employee housing. As indicated in the lottery criteria list, other residents of the community will have an opportunity to buy homes in this development, if the supply is not exhausted by employees in the higher priority categories. Staff believes it would beheavy-handed to require a sale and then evict a local who chooses to work far a different employer in the valley. Regardless of employment location, the ~eed restrictions require that residents work an average of 30 hours per week at businesses which are located in Eagle County. 5 r b. What has been the precedent for roads which cross private property? Staff researched two other properties where this situation has occurred. At the time of redevelopment, the Town required easements to accommodate the existing alignment of the pavement, but did not require dedication of that portion of the site as right-of--way. As the land continued to be held as private property, the Town allowed the area in the easement to be used in the calculation of GRFA and other development standards. This is also consistent with the way the Town treats other easements {such as utility and drainage easements}, concerning the calculation ofdevelapment standards. Specific items relating to the development proposal, 1. Insure that any wetlands to be disturbed are mitigated adequately. After walking the site with Russ Forrest, the Town Environmental Planner and Nicole Ripley, a wetland consultant, staff understands that the Corps of Engineers must be notified of the activity on-site. The consultant will assess the wetland qualities of the site, review the development plans, and determine the potential area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands. The consultant has recommended that an area equivalent to that of the disturbance be replanted on the north and south ends of the site, as mitigation for areas being impacted. The applicant understands that the northern and southern ends of the site must be planted with nursery grown stack, matching the willow species currently on-site. The specific area of rcvegetatian has yet to be determined, but will be determined prior to the first reading of the ordinance by Town Council. Neither the consultant or the Town's environmental planner believe that the characteristics ofthe site, or the magnitude of the proposed development, will warrant other mitigation requirements than those described above. 2. Architecture In the discussions about the architecture at the previous PEC worksession, the PEC and DRB members were roughly split as to the appropriateness of flat roofs. After reviewing the colored renderings, the Board members had a greater appreciation for the quality of the proposed development, specifically the amount of variety within the massing, or as described in the hearing, . the "wedding cake effect." Staff believes that from the range of comments on the flat roofs, the best analysis of them is summarized as follows: flat roofs can be the most efficient and are appreciated by design professionals. Designs which incorporate flat roofs can be very high quality (and in fact are better than the design of Vail Commons). However, the public will not appreciate the good architecture and will perceive the project as a stack of boxes. Furthermore, this image will convey "public housing." G The applicable criteria in the Zoning Code is found in the Design Review Section aad the SDD criteria. The SDD calls for compatibility with the surrounding properties. In this case, the surrounding properties have either pitched roofs or a combination of flat with shed roofs. The DRB criteria are more specif c and state that: The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in twelve feet. However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. • Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the elements are encouraged. • The guidelines also call for snow shedding to be minimized in pedestrian areas, It should also be noted that although flat roofs may be appreciated far their simplicity, flat roofs are an often cited attribute of Lionshead which the community is trying to move away from. Another issue raised by the PEC was the need to break-up the siding material with areas of stucco. Both the flat roof issue and the stucco issue have not been addressed since the previous PEC/DRB worksession. 3. Consolidate curb cuts. The project has been re-engineered so that bath Braaktree, Sandstone Pazk and the proposed project are served by one curbcut. The applicants are willing to provide permanent access easements for the neighboring developments. 4. Add a staircase ta_thc north end of the site to access the Town of Vail bus stop. The applicant has been concerned that providing a staircase from the development to the bus stop across the street could be seen as a discriminatory act, against disabled individuals. Staff has researched the issue with the Town attorney, as well as with Vail Associates staff who deal with ADA issues regularly. Since the elevation difference at this corner ofthe site is approximately 16 feet, a ramp connecting the development to the upper road would be aver 200 feet long. Given the tough requirements of the topography and the law, a connection at this location cannot be provided. t 5. Add landscaping along Red Sandstone Road. The Town has alight-distance standard for intersections between driveways and roads, such as Red Sandstone Road. The area falling within a triangle of 10 feet by 250 feet must remain free of vegetation which could block the sight of oncoming traffic. Notwithstanding this requirement, staff believes that additional landscaping must be planted along Red Sandstone Road. Previously, 7 there were 8 spruce and 8 shrubs in this area, Since the worksession, the applicant has added plant material so that there is now a total of 13 spruce, 3 cottonwoods and 8 shrubs in the area. However ,staff believes that additional buffering is needed. Staff recommends adding ~ spruce and S shrubs in the area that extends south from the largest group of landscaping. The applicant has agreed to plant this area, as long as the finished grade is such that landscaping can be planted in the area, 6. Provide a sidewalk along Red sandstone Road. There is not sufficient room, given the retaining required, for a sidewalk. At the end of the worksession on September 9, 1996, the FEC concluded that given the site constraints, additional landscaping was a higher priority than a sidewalk. 7. Provide a streamwalk. After studying the site, staff believes that the connection from a potential streamwalk to the road above is not workable. As discussed above, the elevation difference at the base of the upper road is significantly higher than the stream. Given the relatively short length of walkway and the steep climb required around the creek culverts, a streamwalk does not appear to be a component that. could readily be included in the development. A compromise solution may be to have the applicant provide apedestrian/fisherman's easement along the creek. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed that would not be workable. 8. Provide additional snow storage. The snow storage areas are now 30% of the total pavement area. Staff believes the increase in this area, which has been made since the warksession, adequately provides for storage areas, 9. Parking far the three bedroom units. Increasing the size of the garages for the three bedroom units would require a redesign of the whole project. However, in order to address the concerns of the PEC and to ensure that the three bedroom units are adequately served, the applicant has suggested that a guest space be reserved for each three bedroom unit. 14. Pedestrian access from within the garages. Pedestrian doors have been added to the garages which have some portion of exterior wall. In several cases, the way the buildings have been notched, provided junk enough of an exterior wall 8 s to include a door. However, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior exposure to add a pedestrian door. . 1 1. Overhead utilities. The applicant has committed to removing the existing overhead utilities. Far clarifcation purposes, staff understands that the existing two poles on site will be removed and the existing service will terminate at the pole located immediately north of the Sandstone Park building. 12. Details. The durnpster will be enclosed, to improve the quality of the entrance area of the development. The sod areas between the buildings have been expanded, to provide additional turf area for the residents to use. The sod will be easier to maintain than "native vegetation," particularly since the new areas between the buildings will connect the sod from the front and back. IV. EVALi3ATION OF THE REZONING REOIIEST The criteria, the Town has used in the past, to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below: A, Is the request in confornnity with the Land Use Plan? The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3 - 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Pian calls for the following type of developments in areas with this designation: "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre." The buildable area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed devel.,~,~~~ent will consist of 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71 d.u./ac. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that this calculation is based on buildable site area, net total site area. Additionally, the requested zoning of Medium Density Multi-Family Residential allows for up to 18 dwelling units per buildable acre. B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property? The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is no longer needed by the District. The site is surrounded by rights-of way and roads, utilities, infrastructure, and residential condominium and townhouse developments. Staffbelieves that because the area has developed over time as a residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow residential development, in order to be compatible with adjacent land uses. 9 C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community? Staff believes that the development of this site as affordable pausing will increase the viability of our community. Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's annual community survey as a top priority, for reasons of economic stability as well as the desire to increase the sense of community. Though interest runs high, locating sites which can accommodate affordable housing is difficulf. Housing at this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of the Town. D. Does the proposed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the proposed development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the surrounding properties, which is shown below: Project lone District/ Parcel ~lllts Gross Density Permitted Density Si7.e ldu/ael Potato Patch Club RC, 6/ac 10 acres 44 4.4 5andstnne Park LDMF, 9/ac 1.54 16 10.3 Brnoktree MDMF, ]$/ac 1.23 acres 48 22,0 Cotton wood Park LDMF, 9/ac .69 acres 7 10.1 Aspen tree MDMF, 18/ac .49 acres 15 30,6 Sandstone Creek Club LDMF, 9/aa 5.9 acres 84 14,2 Sun Vai! MDMF, l $/ac 4.91 acres 60 12.2 Breakaway Wcst MDMF, 18/ac 1.87 acres 54 2$.8 SnowLion/SnowFox MDMF, 18/ac 1.36 acres 42 30,g Telemark MDMF, 18/ac .96 acres 18 15,7 Homestake MDMF, 18/ac i.36 acres 66 48.5 Lionsmane MDMF, 18/ae 1.04 acres 37 35.5 Vail Village 9th 2-Family 3.39 acres 24 (potential) 7.0 Parcel A Genera! Use 5.7 sores 0 0 The gross density of the proposed development is l 0.6 dwelling units per acre. { 17 units/ 1.6044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of the densities in the area. E. Suitability of the proposed zoning. Staff believes that the proposed zoning is suitable for this site. The development allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals. regarding tpe supply ofaffardably priced homes. The development will be in line with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density, l0 a Y V. EVALUATION OF THE SPE~'I~L DE ~~.npME Below are the nine criteria used to evaluate Special Development District proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all successful, However, staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the ' project. Specifically, staff is concerned about the flat roofs. The surrounding developments in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none exclusively have flat roofs. Many have a combination of flat and pitched roofs. For example, Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs. Brooktree has a combination of a mansard-type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at relatively shallow slopes. Staffbelieves that one of the significant elements in each of the surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives architectural character to the development, as it creates a shadow line, breaks up the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public. • Staff does not want to discount the overall quality of the proposed design. However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, immediately adjacent to the project to the west. Of particular concern to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly visible from. the surrounding area. The elevation at the corner of Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Dzave is approximately 2 - 3 feet higher than the elevation of the second story roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staffbelievesthat the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the surrounding devel~y~~~ent. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the rezoning request; the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and will be lower than the surrounding devel„t,.~.ents in the area. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposed development exceeds the Zoning Cade requirement regarding the total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces. 11 i i w Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) calls for a density on this site ranging front 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13.1 dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above, " under the rezoning discussion. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which this Special Development District is proposed. The only hazard affecting this site is the 140~year floodplain. All improvements, grading, and disturbance will be located outside of the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community. The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this development. In the site planning development, the 3U' stream centerline setback standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian corridor and the development. There is one location where same ofthe existing vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the development; has stated that the District will transplant vegetation during the constxuction processor will replace it with new plant material, matching the existing species. G. A curcuIation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Driveways have been aligned so that the Red Sandstone, Brooktree, and . Sandstone Park developments will all be sharing the same access onto Red Sandstone Road. Easements will be provided to maintain this access in the future, The point of intersection with Red Sandstone Road has bean located at a paint where visibility is the greatest, as Red Sandstone Road winds its way up to Potato Patch. Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the existing sidewalk along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this development. 12 t Originally, staff and the PEC requested that a pedestrian connection be provided from this project up to Red Sandstone Road, above the development. Unfortunately, the ADA laws are such that providing a staircase without a second • accessible route cannot be done. An important detail relating to circulation is the areas for snow storage. Snow will be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of the drive. Snow storage areas have been increased, as discussed above. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Staff requests that the applicant buffer the project more from adjacent properties, particularly along Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very steep slope in this area, plus retaining walls, which limits the plantable area. However, staffbelieves more trees and shrubs should be added, per the comments •made earlier in the memo. Staff also requests that the existing vegetation be preserved. The large spruce (24 inch caliper) on the north west corner of the site is proposed to be preserved. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of this Special Development District. At this time, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single phase. If for any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the transfer of ownership of the northernmost part of the state, the District will proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings. A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into one lot. Though the zoning cadc definition allows parcels adjacent to one another to be considered as one lot, ultimately the development area must be replatted as a condominium rnap. As part of that process, the land will eventually be platted as a single lot. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead utility lines will be buried. Staff understands that two poles will be removed and the existing overhead lines eliminated back to the existing pole adjacent to the Sandstone Park Condominium Building. i3 1 t VI. ~T~FF REC''(I~TInN Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Development District and Rezoning with two conditions. We believe the applicant has been responsive to a majority of the issues and . has designed a quality product which will help meet the community's housing needs. However, staff believes that the architectural character, and landscape screening, of the project could meet the SDD criteria better than the current design. As a result, staffrecamumends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1) That the applicant modify the architectural character ofthe project by incorporating a mixture of flat roofs and shed roofs into the design, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town Council. 2) That the applicant add additional trees and shrubs (4 spruce and 5 shrubs) to the area of the site adjacent to Red Sandstone Road, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Tawn Council. • i e 7. A request for a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 I=HU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Liansridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, the U.S. Forest Service & the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff memo. Andy explained the Zoning Analysis and stated that the overall project conformed with the proposed zoning. He stated that the SDD component did not provide a blank check, since any future modifications would have to go through Council. He stated that staff believed that a combination of #lat and pitched roofs was preferred. He said that staff was recommending approval with two conditions. Tam Braun said the building design had been changed and all the issues had been addressed. Tom stated that the design guidelines allow for a variety of roof forms. He then said this proposal was within the realms and that there were untold benefits associated with flat roofs. Jim Morter said that the project had to be affordable and well designed, because it was in a neighborhood that was well designed. He said that a myriad of decisions influenced the design of the roof tops and explained that he was not trying to be uncooperative, but the final design included flat roofs. He then said that the mast important goal was to accomplish all the goals. He went on to say that canopies were added to give a level of sophistication and shadow lines. Jim said that stucco wainscoting made the building look worse by giving it a checkerboard look. He said there were two patterns of wood siding provided. Jim said if the public perceived this as a stack of boxes, then he told the PEC to take a look at Savoy Vi11as. He also said that Timber Ridge had sloping roofs and looked worse than Savoy Vlllas, and gave the impression of employee housing. Greg Maffet asked for any public comment. Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, said that Joe Staufer had asked him to raise some concerns. Jirp said that Joe Staufer didn't like flat roofs, but that he felt the change in design added a flair. Jim said that Joe thought it added a Taas feel. However, it could be more exciting with stucco. Jim said he thought it stingy to say the sidewalk can't go up and around the site. He then asked Andy how much rental housing the Town owns. Andy Knudtsen stated that the Town owned the Town Manager's home and two other units. Jirn Lamont said the biggest demand was for rentable units. He said that the district could take the revenues and leave. if it was public property, then the Town should meet the demand. Jim said the issue on the table was that if the units are sold, the buyer should be selected through a lottery. Jim stated that the pubNc would not be pleased that the first two tiers of this project would go to the TOV workers, since it was on public property. Jim advised use of the lottery. Jim also noted that the housing director was involved in the regulatory process. Jim said we needed to make it clear that the housing director should sit with the advocates, as the appearance was that of a conflict of interest. Greg Mo#fet asked for any other public comment. There was Wane. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ~ ~ October 28, 1996 r r Gene Uselton questioned the perpetual deed restrictions. Gene asked if the sloping roofs were added, would the snow shedding be better. Andy Knudtsen said roof pitches could be designed in such a way that snow shed problems could be eliminated. As an alternative, snow fences could be added. Gene Uselton said he had a hard time guessing what this project would look like and asked if the PEC was making a recommendation to the Town Council at this worksession. Greg Amsden said an 5DD was not appropriate for this site. He said that staff was recommending an SDD in order to limit the GRFA, which was a misuse of the SDD. He then suggested that it could be construed as employee housing. He went on to say that it did not conform and was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood due to the flat roofs. Greg stated that affordability was not driving this project. Greg said that the wood siding did no# fly with him. Greg felt that vertical with horizontal siding was shown and he would like to see a lower maintenance product. He then asked about the landscaping. Greg also asked what the typical occupancy of the 3-bedroom unit would be. Greg Amsden thought every garage would have one car parked outside. He said that the project should be palatable and not allow outdoor parking on Sandstone Rd. He also expressed disappointment that no one shows up at the PEC meetings to offer any input. Tom Braun stated that 30 letters were sent out far notification to adjacent property owners earlier in the review process. Galen Aasland suggested tabling this item. Galen felt an SDD for employee housing was wrong, but that MDMF was needed. Galen felt it needed to be made compatible with existing neighborhoods. He said he would like to see more written information about the improvements that could be done in the future. He suggested capping development at a certain level. Galen said that interior improvements could work against the long term employee housing concept. Galen would like to see a mostly stucco exterior. Galen agreed with Jim's comment about looking at this like any other applicant. Galen also advised that, from the public aspect, we should be careful about the Town representing itself. Galen would like to see this item tabled. Diane Golden thought the housing should go to critical TOV employees. She also said she didn't remember the PEC saying vegetation was more important than the sidewalk. Jim Marter explained that he raised a question to the PEC at the very end of the worksession, whether landscaping or a sidewalk was more important along Red Sandstone Road. Diane Golden also stated that the PEC forced a home in East Vail to remove sod and replace it with bluegrass. Andy Knudtsen showed, according to the renderings, where the wetland mitigation was to happen. Diane Golden stated that she Piked the design of Savoy Villa. She said that architects say there are benefits to flat roofs and so therefore, she was not afraid to go with the expert's opfnlon. She stated that she was thrilled to see employee housing incorporated into a neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28, 1996 ~ 6 4 Henry Pratt commended Galen on his eloquence and also agreed with Greg Amsden's point of view. Andy Knudtsen stated that the rezoning and 5DD have been linked together. Henr Pratt said he would rather have Council have the final word and therefore, the SDD Y process was a good one. Henry Pratt reminded everyone that we need families here, as seasonal workers are going to be hauled out at the Public Works site. Jim Morter said there were 46 parking spaces; 1 S in garages and 28 exterior. He said 38 spaces were all that were required. Henry Pratt said that assigning more parking to the 3-bedroom units would reduce guest spaces. Henry asked how were people going to get to the bustop. He said a liability issue exists with falling. Henry said that something needed to be done to address the sidewalk, even though Henry would pre#er landscaping. Greg Moffet said he had no problem with the use of the SDD process and that this project should be decided by elected officials. He stated that the Town's employee housing was going to be on public property and that we require ourselves to have housing on our land, as a private owner has a house on private land. Greg said that he didn't mind flat roofs. He felt, regarding the ramp issue, that a stair case needed to be put in. Greg said that this climate was harsh on wood and though it is more expensive, he wanted stucco. Greg was in favor of this project as long as further exterior considerations were given to the exterior finish. Pat Dauphinais stated that the plan was set and not only was it well thought out, but well designed. He said to do this within a budget where constraints were difficult. Pat said they were not interested in design by committee. He felt that the fisherman easement was too tight. He asked for a favorable vote to go to Council. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval with the condition that 4 spruce and 5 shrubs be added to the landscaping area along Red Sandstone Road. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. Galen Aasland asked if adding stucco to the outside could be included in the motion. Gene Uselton said they have not violated code and would not amend his condition. Greg Moffet asked for any further discussion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2, with Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland voting against it. 8. A discussion item regarding vehicle storageltransportation related businesses in commercial zone districts. Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the memo, asking the PEC for ideas on how to. treat this and also to give thought on when does it became industrial use. He said however, that this was a use that was needed. He said that Tim Ewals of Airport Shuttle, had concerns he wanted the Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 28,1996 George Ruttier stated that the Johnson's residence on Mill Creek Circle required bonding when they were transplanting trees. Greg Amsden said he was not excited about this proposal, since it was a very noticeable house. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval for Lot 36. which included a second condition requiring a bond, so that if trees die within two growing seasons, the tree well would be filled in and new trees would be planted. John Schofield seconded the motion. Gene Uselton asked for an amendment to Henry's motion, changing it to Lot 37. Henry Pratt amended the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5, A request for a joint worksessiors with the DRB and PEC far a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1 Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Forest Service Planner: Andy Knudtsen • Greg Moffet welcomed Brent Alm, Clark Brittain and Ted Hingst, the DRB members present for this worksession. Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the request and explained that the three parties involved have aU signed the applications necessary to get the plan going. The primary purpose of the SDD was to answer neighbor's questions regarding future development. 1 QQ% of the units will be deed restricted. The District and Town of Vail employees are the target market. Density is much less than what the Zone District allows, as shown on the Zoning Analysis in the memo. Another important component is the LOAA, which Andy explained. He explained that this was an effort to get a clean boundary and to create sites for employee housing. Andy stated that this was a high priority for economic stability and also that the provision of affordable housing would help the viability of the community. Andy said that the proposed density is below other sites and that suitability is consistent with the context. Staff expressed concern about the architectural design and wanted to hear from both Boards and the neighborhood, regarding architectural compatibility. A roof overhang and a pitched roof would break up the mass. He said that since the corner of the road is higher, the flat roofs would be very visible where the road divides. Andy proceeded to go over the discussion issues. He stated that there are arguments both pro and con for two curbcuts, but staff would look at the safest and what would meet the most needs. Andy went over the landscaping and stated that there may be an opportunity to get more landscaping in the area, while stilt preserving the existing landscaping. • Greg Moffet said two areas to focus on were the landscaping and the architecture. He stated the need for the public to comment on these issues. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 199b 4 Tam Braun explainer{ that the district had this land available and had taken a leadership tale in proposing the project. Tom stated that they were trying to create an opportunity for families, by rezoning from General Use to Special Development District. He then showed renderings of the project. He explained that the range of densities was staggering in this neighborhood. He explained the densities of surrounding properties and that they were proposing 10.6 on a gross basis, so this project was at the low end. If they didn't do the SDD rezoning, they could come back and da a full site coverage, maximum height etc. Tom stated that the SDD process provided a safeguard. Flat roofs were an issue but Tom deferred to Jim Matter. He did mention that there were a number of flat roofs in the neighborhood. The precedent has been established, such as Simba Run, etc. He mentioned that the road is still under further study to see how to slow the speed of traffic before the blind spat. He said that they were extending the retaining wall to get trees between the road and the buildings. It is tough to find trees that wiA do well nn this site. He stated that the development standards were within the standards of the Town. Garages were oversized in order to provide storage, as well as cars. To bring all this in at an affordable level was a challenge. Tom introduced Jim Matter, Pat Dauphinais and Gerry Roberts. Jim Morter said the first thing to be considered was scale. The kindest scale for the site was to have 4 smaller buildings. For the footprint and the bulk, Jim felt the smaller size worked. Jim stated he was proposing seven 1-bedrooms, five 2-bedrooms and five 3- bedrooms. This project would be state of the art for accessibility and usability. Jim asked for questions. He wanted to take this out of the typical genre of affordable housing. The shadow pattern gave animation to the buildings, as opposed to blocks of buildings. There were one, two and three stories all mixed in. The neighbors in Potato Patch, when looking dawn, would see a wedding cake effect. Jim stated there would be 24 flat roofs with a lot of stair stepping. The functional reason for flat roofs was to eliminate snow dumping. It would be easier to shed snow where people are nat. Flat roofs made it easier to contain winter problems. The second reason for flat roofs was that the mass would appear smaller with flat roofs. The third reason was to provide visual interest with a stair-step design. Roof penetrations, such as vents (since there will be na fireplaces), would have all the items clustered together. This has given Jim the opportunity to form a sculpture within the project. Jim stated that he would like to ask both Boards to have an open mind, when it comes to the flat roof issue. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Jim Lamont, speaking on_behalf of Ralph Davis of Action Vail, stated that the focus should be on the principles. The manner that it was brought forward Last spring caused anguish. It was brought to the attention of Action Vaii. The homeowners made every effort to calm everyone. Action Vai! has always said that public open space, if transferred, should be retained as open space. Jim had questions for Tom Braun regarding the status of the driveway options and designating it as a permanent easement. Jirn also wanted to know what other avenue Brooktree had for access. Tom Braun said that it is not yet a permanent easement, but that it was a passibility. Jim Lamont asked if the access could be shared. i~ Tam Braun said that a new access, to the south of the proposed driveway, was being considered. Jim Lamont asked Tom Braun if the right-of-way on Red Sandstone was dedicated. Planning and >:nviranmental Commission Minutes Septembc;r 9, 1996 8 Tom Braun said it could be dedicated. Jim Lamont asked about the 100-year floodplain. Jim stated that this was public property and the current problems needed to be resolved. Jirn stated that when the Lionsridge area was annexed, the land use pattern was predetermined. Jim stated that there was a need to take a hard look at the stream right-of-way. He asked, "Are we taking a public piece of property and turning it into a private piece of property?" The public deserves a sidewalk and access to the stream. He mentioned that when he was on the Board, he found that there is never a benefit, when the public has been denied. if the units go up for a lottery, that would be fine, but all the citizens of the Town should have a chance. It is wrong to have the people benefiting from it that were judging and reviewing it. However, Jim could see the first preference being given to emergency personnel. Bob McLaurin disagreed with a couple of issues. The first was the land exchange. Bob had been criticized #or using this parcel. There was a net gain of money to the Forest Service, which exceeded the value, resulting in no net loss to the Forest Service. The land was to be used for housing for Town of Vail employees. When people call 911, far example, one wouldn't get an answer it employees are not able to live nearby. Bob said there was not one single fireman who lives in the Town of Vai{ and only two police officers that live in the Tawn of Vail. It was clearly irresponsible for the Town of Vail to not move in this direction. This housing development would be filled with critical employees, with the remainder going to lottery for the leftover units. This project would provide an opportunity for police officer's families to be hers. The Town of Vail would like to exercise a right of first refusal. Bob said that the Town had an obligation to provide the services and was having a harder time competing with areas that have a less expensive cost • of living. With all due respect to Jim, the Town should have done this i0 to 15 years ago. As the Town's long term employees start to retire, the Town needs to start to take pro-active measures now. Jim Lamont said in response to his good friend Bob, that the minute these public units were sold to the private sector, there would be a problem when the employees leave the job. The public interest needed to be protected. Priorities should be given to emergency personnel first. After requesting that the density be lowered, Jim stated that this should be rented to emergency personal and include public access to the creek. Bob Mct_aurin said rentals would not work for the majority of the work farce. in order for occupants to receive tax deductible benefits, the project had to be owner occupied. Ralph Davis said that Bob hit the nail on the head. He also would hate to call 911 and find no one there. Ralph stated that the units should not be sold and that rental rates should be below market rental rates. He said the rent should be less than what it would cast to awn. This project might just fit the need for emergency personal. Pat Dauphinais, representing the Water and Sanitation District, stated that this would have a public benefit . Employees living on the other side of Dowd Junction can't respond to emergencies like a local resident could . There would be a first right of first refusal. The Water District would maintain first right of-refusal on all-the units. Though the~Water District can't commit to housing only emergency personnel, this housing would be available to Water District personnel, police, fire and hospital personnel. The public interest would be well served. Even though land is being transferred from the public to the private sector, it would still serve the community. Even though they would be sold, the Water District would have the right of first refusal. Planning and Environmental Cotnmissinn Minutes ~ September 9, 1996 Henry Pratt asked if it would be possible for the Town to have 2nd right of refusal on the Water District units? Pat Dauphinais said that was a great idea and would dovetail that in. Henry Pratt stated that conceivably, there could eventually be no Town of Vail employees living in these units. Bob McLaurin said a sale could be forced, via the deed restrictions, far violations to the policy. ' Pat Dauphinais said deed restrictions would be conditions of the SDD. Bab McLaurin stated that he didn't want alt the Town of Vail workers living together. Jim Lamont stated that we need the Town Manager to explain how this will work. Bob McLaurin stated that the Town is pursuing rentals on the Public Works site and an other properties. He stated that it was essential to maintain the community's economic viability and that it would be problematic in the future, if this problem is not dealt with now. Pat Dauphinais said the Water Board felt a responsibility to the public. Pat said that the current proposal was the most positive thing to be done with that ground. The benefits would far exceed the short term public lass, by shutting down the neighborhood dog toilet, The Water District no longer needs the plant on-site. The public good will be served better by far with this project. Jim Lamont stated that there would be a need for a sidewalk; that the creek be recognized as a recreational amenity, and dedicated as a public access easement; that the Town should require the dedication of some open space, to be consistent with other projects. He summarized by saying that the public should get something back. Greg Moffet asked far other public comments. There was none. Starting with the DRB: Clark Brittain said he responded favorably to the design. The presentation reinforced his feeling about the design. E=ach building, as a modular sculpture, was very appealing. When looking down on the buildings from the road, a better vantage point is possible and the differences would be accentuated. Clark said that the project is going in the right direction. Ted Hingst thought the design was a good way to avoid cubes. Ted still had a problem with the flat roe#s. He suggested perhaps false fronting was a solution. He was, however, looking forward to seeing the project develop, Brent Alm thanked Jim Morten and the PEC for letting the DRB have a chance to make comments at this schematic level. He stated that there needs to be more landscaping an the east side. Also, Brent said that to break the ~ 7 units into four buildings was a good idea. The architecture was simple and straiglitfarward. Brent was~rlot opposed to flat roofs, but would Pike to see shed roofs added to soften the design. The stacked design was helpful. It was Important to see the renderings. The use of materials with two di#ferent types of sidings and slight color variations was best. Jim Morten stated that the intent was to rase subtle variations. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 ~.0 Brent Alm suggested using some stucco within some of the siding masses . He said that he was looking forward to seeing more on the project. • Galen Aasland said that there was a hardship concerning the retaining wall on Red Sandstone Road and that the height of it was acceptable. He believed the SDD took away the trust from the public. Laken thought it should be zoned MDMF without the SDD. Galen liked the flat roofs and thought the massing had Integrity. He thought it was too homogenous and boring with one color. He Tilt Gale gfelgthat anoneacar garage wou denotd ervea he geedsdfoathe 3 b Broom units and Beta that the 3-bedroom units needed more than none-car garage. Jim Morter stated that some of the 3-bedroom units had two-car garages. Galen Aasland said he would like to see the project embrace the creek better and that the property across the road should be addressed. Galen felt that this project had significant public benefit. He felt also that people that were able to buy were better off than paying rent and the right of first refusal with the second right of refusal was a good idea. Diane Golden thanked the Water District. Responding to Galen's comments about the SDD, she said that the public interest was better protected with the SDD. Diane felt that the breakup of the buildings was very good. Henry Pratt said Jim Lamont had brought up some macro issues, compared to the flat roofs. • Henry felt that it was important for the units to be owner-occupied. There was a need to insure thak emergency personnel be housed at this site. He felt that it would be counter-productive for employees to have to sell. Henry said that we need to find a position somewhere between Jim Lamont and the Town Manager. Henry Pratt believed that the architecture was far superior to the Commons. But, he also stated that Lionshead was going away from flat roofs, towards a more European style . This project deeded shed roofs, and overhangs with more detail Henry stated that fiat roofs were clearly more efficient in this town, and that it was a goad choice from his perspective; however, subject to criticism. Henry said that to satisfy the public perception, the designed needed to break up the boxes. "In layman's terms, he expressed concern that the public would equate stacked boxes with public housing. Henry Pratt said to deed back open space was a good idea; however, the space was not an adequate size. A public path along the creek could be done within the 30' setback. It might be a compromise to open it to the public, but it would get used and appreciated. Henry questioned the amount of space allocated for snow storage. From his years at Pitkin, he stated that snow piles can get to be 25' high. He didn't have a feel for curbcuts and felt that could be left up to the Town to handle. Henry agreed with Jim Lamont about the sidewalks. Sidewalks encouraged people to walk to the bus stop. The path along the creek would enable Broaktree.residents to cut across and use the bus stop. Trees were needed to provide privacy. Trees would put the project into its own enclave. Henry disagreed with Galen regarding the SDD: An 5DD would provide the vehicle necessary for a minor degree of down zoning. John Schofield said that as this project progresses, he would like to have more information on the floodplain and also a public path along the stream. A common access with the adjacent property owners would be preferable. John said that he was not a big fare of #lat roofs and would like to see some sloped roofs and a mix of siding materials. Planning and l;nvironmental Commission " Minutes 1 ~ September 9, 1996 Y f Gene Uselton agreed with Henry regarding the appropriateness of the SDD. Admitting that he is a sucker far a good sales pitch, he complimented ,Jim Morter on his four point argument in favor of the flat roofs and indicated that he was convinced. He expressed the opinion that, givers the quality of the proposed project, the economic values of surrounding properties would be maintained or enhanced. Greg Amsden reminded everyone that this was highly visible as one drove past it to Piney Lake. Greg said he would like to see sloped roofs. Greg didn't want local people to have to deal with the maintenance that cedar siding would require. To be able to live affordably, the project needed to be built using another material. Greg also felt it needed to be oriented with north/south views. The eastlwest views looked out onto traffic and also Potato Patch. Greg felt it must have two-car garages for the 3-bedroom units. He asked if utilities and gas fireplaces " would be provided. He said that there was not a necessity for an SDD. He said that, since there was no cap on an SDD project, he would like to see the GRFA limit set in stone. He would also like to see a greater setback to protect the willows, etc. To dedicate open space on a site this tight would be hard, but perhaps the south end of the site would be passible. The color elevations looked great on the renderings, but he expressed concern that renderings were not accurate. The trees in particular, were an inaccurate depiction. He said to picture It without the trees. This architecture had to stand alone for the next 15 years until the trees grew to a height represented in the renderings. Greg Moffet wanted to compliment the development team on the professional presentation. Jim Lamont had raised some valid concerns. This worksession was the context far these concerns to be raised. Greg was delighted that this was aimed in the direction of family housing. Greg felt that owned was better than rented. Greg was in agreement that the SDD was the appropriate mechanism for this. In response to the Town Manager's concerns, Greg said that when the PEC reviewed the Public Worsts site, it required housing. This was a step in the right direction In addressing that issue. Greg agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the materials used and the cost of future maintenance. Greg agreed with Henry on the landscaping issue. Greg liked the design and had no problem with it. Jim Lamont said the East Village Homeowner's Association favored this zone district. The time that has elapsed far the public right-of-way was well beyond the prescriptive rights. That portion not owned by the Town should be dedicated to the Town of Vaii. Greg Moffet asked if the proposed MDMF zone district was an upzoning. Andy Knudtsen said, yes. He further stated that this project was treated no differently than others. He felt the GRFA was low enough so that the right of way concerns would be a moot issue. Tom Braun summarized all the comments. He stated that everyone was comforkable with the SDD, with the exception of Greg Amsden and Galen Aasland. The vehicular circulation to be worked out by the Town Engineer. He said that they would look at the stream access corridor and study the building orientation with more landscaping between the road and the project. The Army Corp had no interest~in -the small area of wetlands. Torn said that Russ Forest will walk it with him. . Andy Knudtsen stated that an Environmental Impact analysis had been done. Tom Braun thought that dedicating open space was fairly unique far this type of project, but that he would look into it, as weA as the fiat roofs. Planning and f:nviranmental Commission Minutes September 9, i 99fi 12 1 Greg Moffet said the SDD stated a complete review was to go to the DRB and he thanked the presenters. Jim Morter asked if there was one priority given the constraiants of the right-of-way. The PEC said landscaping. Jirn Morter said that public safety would dictate the road right-of-way issues. Pat Dauphinais said the original concept was to get the best passible product for the least , money. Greg Moffet suggested that the applicants talk to Jeff Bowen regarding having trees donated for this project from Trees far Vail. 6. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton said staff has had more and more requests from hotel operators who wanted banners to welcome conferences, etc. Staff has had to deny these requests, because They don't meet the sign code, but perhaps to promote conferences coming to Vail, we should take another . look at the request. This would require a policy change and a change to the sign code. Staff was looking to receive some direction from the PEC. Greg Moffet stated, for the record, that he might have a potential conflict of interest, since he was in the business. If anyone had a problem with him participating in this discussion, please say so. Jahn Schofield said, in his dealing with Ski Club activities, any over the counter situations to speed up the process was goad. Mike Moliica said special event banners were already allowed. John Schofield suggested incorporating all banners into one policy. Gene Uselton said he enjoyed seeing banners on Bridge Street. The down side was that there would be banners everywhere. Lauren Waterton stated that special events were those that benefitted the community and banners are allowed for those events. Mike Mollica suggested pursuing Option No: 2 in the memo. Our current policy is subject to staff Interpretation and staff would recommend codification. Greg Moffet asked if Gorton's had special events? Lauren Waterton yes, but this discussion was in reference to' hotels at this point. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 13 September 9, 1996 'MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING November 5, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, in the Council Chambers of th~ail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Volunteer Maxine Miller updated Council members on the progress made during the Vail Tomorrow conference held the past weekend. 185 participants were presented with 11 goals, placed into small groups, and asked to identify thane goals which should receive tap priority, she said. Consensus was reached and the top #our items on the immediate action fist included: Natural and Built E nment, Affordable Housing, Building Community and Regional Cooperation. Mayor Armour commended thd~ involved in the program. Participant Monica Benderley thanked Council for taking the first steps necessary to implement the Vail Tomorrow process. Next, Vail resident Gordon Crown encouraged the Town to provide better lighting on the bike path on N. Frontage Road between Timber Ridge and the pedestrian overpass. He said visibility problems on the path lead to an almost fatal accident back in September, and stressed the importance of improved lighting. Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of October 1 and 15, 1996. B. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance correcting Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1995, rezoning a parcel of property legally described as Tract C, Vail Village Seventh Filing from General Use District to PrimarylSecondary Residential District. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve the Consent Agenda. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was a review of the proposed Master Planning process for the Lionshead R~velopment project. Town of Vail Community Development Director, Susan Connelly presented the item and pr ed the following background: On June 4, 1996, Dave Corbin of Vail Associates Real Estate Group, ("VARE") presented a proposal to Council for a joint study of redevelopment opportunities in Lionshead. Since then, a team composed of town staff, representatives of VARE, and professional consultants have regularly met to analyze problems and opportunities in Lionshead and has come up with a master planning process which includes: {1) Problem/Opportunity Statement (2) Policy Objectives (3} Master Planning Scope of Work (4) Community Participation Plan (5) Master Plan Process Schedule {6) The Process Ground Rules {7} Proposed collaboration, including cost-sharing, with Vail Associates (Budget) and authorization of the Town Manager to execute: (1) Contract for Professional Services between Town of Vail and Design Workshop, Inc. (2} A letter agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates regarding the Master Planning collaboration, including cost sharing Cqq~~il was asked to consider approval of the processes as listed above, including the authorization of a $300,000 ex~iditure (one-half of the $600,000 budget) to move forward with the planning process. VARE committed to funding the remaining $300,000. $400,000 will be used for master planning and $200,000 far financial analysis. Town Manager Bob Mct_aurin expressed his desire to move forward with the process, stating it was a tremendous opportunity for the Town to address an issue that had long been neglected. As the discussion continued, Council 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes November 5, 1996 members Mike Jewett and Kevin 1=oley recommended waiting two weeks to allow the community time to hear about the proposal and to give members of the community the opportunity to voice their opinions. They were also hesitant, they said because the budget had yet to be adopted. McLat~rin and Connelly pointed out that significant public input had already been given, and that those involved had unanimously supported the Lionshead redevelopment process. Community Relations Officer, Suzanne Silverthorne said those involved in the participation process included the "usual suspects" as well as a list of stakeholders in the Lianshead area presentation from Lionshead merchants, the community at large, and Vail Village merchants. Mayor Armour reminded those in attendance that the redevelopment of Lionshead had been on the agenda of past councils for many years, and reiterated the proposal was tremendous opportunity #ar all involved which should be taken advantage of., Dave Corbin told Council members that the Town's initial investment of $300,000 was only a fraction of the amount that would go into the project, and encouraged the Council to move forward expeditiously. David Kenney of Design Workshop, Inc., informed Council of the process his company had proposed as consultant for the project and said his company would complete a database which could be utilized by the Town aver and over again. Council members acknowledged the magnitude of the project and clarified Vail Associates' role as a catalyst and a partner having no more outcome advantages than any other interests involved in the process. Rob Levine, General Manager of the Antler's Lodge in Lionshead and a representative of the Lianshead Merchant's Association, urged Council to move forward with the process, stating that the priority of the Lionshead Master plan had increased each year since he was first elected to Council in 1989. Jim f ont of the East Village Homeowners Association asked that the study area be enlarged to include key transp nation and pedestrian corridors, and for communication directly with individual property owners throughout the process. Rob Fard moved to approve the proposed master planning process for the Lionshead redevelopment, as recommended by staff, and the motion was seconded by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2, Kevin Foley and Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Rob then moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into a contract for professional services between Town of Vail and Design Workshop, Inc.; and to execute a letter agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates regarding the Master Planning collaboration, including cost sharing, as recommended by staff, pending review by Council. Paul seconded the motion and a vote was then taken which passed, 5-2, Kevin and Mike voting in opposition. Agenda item number four was Ordinance No, 21, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance to designate 14 properties located in the Town of Vail as open space as provided in Article 13, Section 13.11 of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest presented the item and gave the following background: A Charter Amendment, which created a process to "freeze open space uses," was approved by the Vail Voters in November of 1995. The Open Space BoarTrustees met on June 13th and 17th of 1996 to develop and decide on a list of properties far designation. The mittee unanimously agreed to the properties identified in Attachment A of the November 5, 1996 memo to Council. In July, the Vail Tawn Council met to review the list of 14 properties and directed staff to move forward with the necessary survey work and to prepare an ordinance to designate the properties as open space. The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance 21, Series of 1996. Russell explained that all 14 parcels, approximately 382 acres, were owned by the Town and were zoned appropriately as open space. Jim Lamont thanked Council for the action taken in designating the properties as permanent open space. Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996 on first reading and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number five was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Special District No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. The applicant, Vail Apartment, Inc. (Owner of Unit 5) was represented by Steve Riden. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruher presented the item and reminded Council of a site visit on September 17, and their decision at that evening's meeting to table the item untik such time as the applicant could provide Community Development with an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Association, and that the illegal, neon illumination on the directory sign located on the west side of the Gateway Building, be removed and brought into compliance with the original DRB approval. George then informed Cour~embers that approval had been received as evidenced by a letter dated September 30, 1996 from Norman R. Helwi ,and further that the illegal directory sign had been disconnected. Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, on first reading, and the motion was seconded by Sybill. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Sixth on the agenda was a report from the Tawn Manager. Bob McLaurin said the LibrarylDobsan Arena chute 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes November 5, 1996 r `construction project would be completed on Friday, November 8, 1996. Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer informed Council members of Vail's 30 year birthday celebration to be held in conjunction with the opening of the newly renovated Transportation Center. She said the event had been scheduled for Friday, December 6, which coincides with the World Cup and Crystal Ball, and encouraged all to mark their calendars for the 1:00 p.m. ribbon cutting ceremony. T~e being no further business ~a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:40 p.m. Respectf submitted, y~? Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Hally`McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) • 3 Veil Town Council evening MaelEng M{nutes November 3, 1596 j~ 'OWN OF YArL ~ South Frontage Road ~l, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-21 S7 MEDIA ADVISORY November 6, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NOVEMBER 5 Work Session Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett*, Johnston, Kurz, Navas Arrived late --Award for Excellence in Athletics, Education or the Arts After hearing a presentation by John Garnsey of the Vail Valley Foundation, the Council voted 6-0 to approve $5,000 in council contingency to provide seed money for a grant program to help sponsor local individuals who excel in sports and possibly other endeavors. Garnsey said the Vail Valiey Foundation would serve as a facilitator to launch the effort. The foundation and Beaver Creek Resort Company have agreed to support the program, each pledging $10,000. A commission will be formed with representation from each of the funding partners to award the grants. Garnsey said support also has been requested from the.Town of Avon and Vail Associates. --Response to Vail Village Merchants request re: Vail Valley Marketing Board Funding The Council voted 5-1 (Foley against) to approve a series of modifications to the annual contract between the town and the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau (VVTCB} for marketing, special events and operation of the visitors centers. The action occurred after Frank Johnson, VVTCB president, appeared before the Council and asked for support to: 1 }Continue the Town of Vail's practice of appointing qualified individuals to the Vail Valiey Marketing Board (regardless of residency). Two seats will be up for appointment at the end of the year. 2} Continue to invest 100 percent of the town's business license fees to the Vail Valley Marketing Board (as opposed #o a split requested by a committee of Vail . Village merchants}. 3} Amend the contract between the VVTCB and TOV to include: VVTCB coordination of selection of the Vaii Commission on Special Events and Activities. As amended, the commission would include the VVTCB's director of special events as chairman, plus representation from the Village Merchants Association, Lionshead Merchants Association, Vail Town Council, Vaif Recreation District, Vail Valley Foundation and Vail Associates. The contract also clarifies the commission's focus: to coordinate and implement an event underwriting program to encourage the expansion of existing events and the (more} i~~ RECYCLED PAPER TOV Highligh#s1Add 1 development of new events within the Vail Town limits, with long term marketing potential. A third amendment to the contract develops an "Events Support" #und within the VVTCB structure. . During discussion from the audience, Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn criticized Johnson for not sharing the proposal with the Village merchants beforehand. He asked the Council to delay its decision until Kaye Ferry of the Village Merchant Association could attend an upcoming meeting. --Review of Capital Improvements Program During an overview of the 1997-98 budget (refer to news release issued 11-5), the Council asked for more time to review the capital improvements program. The request followed a discussion on the status of the proposed water district-town affordable housing development on Red Sandstone Road. The 17-unit development, in partnership with the water and sanitation distrlct, is intended to house critical employees for both the water district and the Town of Vail. The proposed budget recommends a $1.3 million pass-through to finance construction, with the money being repaid to the town through the sale of the deed-restricted units to those individual property owners. But several Council members wondered if the town would be better off renting the units to critical employees rather than selling them. In that case, the capital improvements budget would need to be increased by $1.3 million, or other projects deferred. The . Council will continue its discussion on the issue at the Nov. 12 work session. --Discussion of Open Space Ordinance In preparation far the evening meeting, the Council reviewed an ordinance that would place 1A~ town-owned properties in a designated open space status in accordance with a charter amendment approved by Vail voters last November. The properties, totaling 382 acres, represent one-third of the Town of Vail-owned open space land holdings. Properties placed in the designated status will remain as open space in perpetuity unless Vail voters decide otherwise. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association encouraged the town to consider other parcels for the designation as phase two of the process. --Lionshead Master Planning Community Development Director Susan Connelly presented a brief overview of the Lionshead Master Planning Process recommendation which was forwarded to the Council at its evening meeting. (See evening meeting briefs). --Council Reports Mayor Bob Armour reported on his activities, including attendance at board meetings for the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau and the Colorado Association of Ski Towns, in addition to his participation in the Vail Tomorrow outreach meetings with part- time residents in Denver, Chicago and New Yark. Kevin Foley commended Christine Anderson and others in the town's Finance Department for developing a mail and phone. order system for the purchase of parking passes and coupons, while Paul Johnston commended the Fire Department for (more) TOV HighlightslAdd 2 suppression of the latest fire at Village Center. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Maxine Miller, a member of the Vail Tomorrow coordinating group, presented an update on the community conference held Nov. 1 and 2. Now that four goal areas have been prioritized for action, she said there is a sense of excitement building in the community with concrete ideas to facilitate the goals. The conference attracted more than 185: participants, she said, with more than 100 of them volunteering to work on action teams. Afso, more than 600 ideas were brainstormed at the conference. Also speaking yesterday was Monica Benderly, another member of the Vail Tomorrow coordinating group. Benderly thanked the Town Council for taking the initiative to help facilitate the process. Mayor Bob Armour acknowledged the positive response he's received by bath full-time and part-time residents. He said outreach visits to Denver, Chicago and New York had been extremely well received by Vail's second homeowners in those cities. Next, Gordon Crown appeared before the Council to ask for assistance in getting lights installed on the recreation path between Timber Ridge and the pedestrian bridge. He noted the serious pedestrian-bicycle accident that occurred earlier this year and encouraged the town to improve the situation. Town Manager Bab McLaurin said he was aware of Brown's concerns and was looking into the matter. --Lionshead Redevelopment, Proposed Master Planning Process The Council voted 5-2 (Jewett and Foley against} to begin a 10-month-long master . planning process for redevelopment in Lionshead. In voting against the action, Jewett and.Foley had asked to postpone the vote for two weeks to talk with constituents. In voting to move ahead, Councilmember Sybill Navas noted the planning process is based on talking to constituents. Yesterday's action authorized the town to cost-share the $600,000 process ($400,000 master planning and $200,000 financial analysis) through apublic-private partnership with Vail Associates picking up half the cost. The appropriation is included in the 1997-98 proposed budget presented to the Town Council this week. In approving the action, Council members acknowledged the magnitude of the project, clarified Vail Associates' role as a catalyst and as a partner (having no more outcome advantages than any other interests involved in the process), reaffirmed its commitment to involve the community in each step of the process, clarified the appropriateness of contracting with the firm Design Workshop, Inc. for professional services, and reviewed a framework for the project, including a problem statement, policy objectives and process ground rules. The scope of the work will involve five stages, each with its own community involvement process, products and decision points. During discussion #rom the audience, Rob Levine, representing the- Antler's Lodge and Lionshead Merchant's Association, encouraged the Council to move forward with the planning process, noting the work had been on the town's "radar screen" since 1989. Jim Lamont of the East Vlllage Hgmeowners Association asked the study area to be enlarged to include key transportation and pedestrian corridors, in (more) TOV HighlightslAdd 3 addition to communicating directly with individual property owners throughout the process. Once in place, the master plan will serve as a framework for decision-making on specific development and redevelopment proposals for ail private and public lands in Lionshead. A redevelopment concept presented in June by Vail Associates has served as a catalyst for the master plan. For a detailed copy of the master planning process proposal, please contact Suzanne Sllverthorn at 479-2115. --Open Space Ordinance The Council voted 7-0 to approve an ordinance on first reading to designate 14 town- owned properties into a special open space classification. The classification, created by voter-approval of a Charter amendment last November, protects those properties in perpetuity unless designated otherwise by a townwide vote. The properties, 382 in all, represent one-third of the town's land holdings. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. --Vail Gateway Building Special Development District The Council voted 7 to 0 to approve on first reading an ordinance amending the Vaif Gateway Special Development District. The amendment allows for an exterior addition of 460 square feet to Condominium Unit No. 5. For more information, contact George Ru#her in the Community Developmen# Department at 479-2145. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS November 12 Work Session Capital improvements and RETT BudgetlDepartmental Budget Presentations Employee Recognition for 10, 15 and 20 Years of Service Vail Commons Second Lottery Policy Discussion re: For Sale vs. Rental at Red Sandstone U.S. Forest Service Exchange (Executive Session} November 19 Work Session Site Visit, Campisi Appeal Site Visit and Discussion, Re: Red Sandstone Housing Amendment Discussion re: Ordinance No. 18, SDD #5, Savoy Villas Discussion Ordinance No. 22, Test Amendment to CC2 Zone District November 19 Evenina Meetina Second Reading Ordinance No. 17, SDD #21 Amendment Second Reading Ordinance No. 21, Designated Open Space First Reading Ordinance No. 20, Red Sandstone Rezoning First Reading Ordinance No. 18, SDD #5 Amendment First Reading Ordinance No. 22, CC2 Zone District Amendment First Reading Ordinance No. 23, 1997-98 Budget First Reading Ordinance No. 24, SDD Red Sandstone Campisi Appeal # # # MEMORANDUM, ~1 ~~r~ TO: Planning and Environmental Camrnissian FROM: Community Development DATE: November 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 (savoy VillaslSimba RunNail Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development loco#ed at 1230 Lions Ridge Loap and described as follows: That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereofi recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Goioradv, Clerk and Recorder, described as ioNaws: Beginning at the mast southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; i} N03°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2} N12°50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) Nil°56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, depaRing said westerly line, S13° 16'03 W 157.26 feet; thence S76°43`57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13° f 6'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24°44'57"E 52.3$ feet; 2) S52°50'29"W 272.50 feet to the Paint of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or Tess; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37°09'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 #eet, a central angle of 10°49'06", and a chord that bears N42° 13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3} N36°4$'48" E 201.36 feet; 4} 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°08'12", and a chord that bears N37°52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, G1erk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) 521 °51'28"W 69.94 feet; 2} S17°56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3} S12"50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4} SD3°33'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.48 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Maurieilo 1. PROJECT INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment to modify the approved development plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Savoy Villas, located in Phase II, Development Area l3, in Special Development District #5 (Simba RunNail Run). The property is located at 1230 Lions Ridge r Loop and is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frontage Road to the south, Simba Run to the east, and Lions Ridge Loop to the north. 1 r II. BACKGROUND Ordinance #6, Series of 1978, originally established SDD #5 and set the parameters for the development of the Vail Run Building. Ordinance #29, Series of 1977, amended and expanded the SDD to include the addition of 6.3 acres immediately to the west of Vail Run and divided the SDD into what is now known as Development Area A {Vail Run) and Development Area B (Simba RunlSavoy Villas). The development standards for both areas were specifically stipulated in this ordinance. SDD #5 was further modified by the passage of Ordinance #33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance #24, Series of 1986. On August 17, 1993, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #16, Series af.1993. This ordinance significantly modified the approved development plan far the western portion, ar what is now known as Phase il, of Development Area B. The original development plan for the Phase it portion of the Simba Run development included one large building. This building was designed to be similar to the existing Simba Run buildings (Phase l}, which are located immediately tv the east. These buildings were approximately 260 feet in length and approximately 250 feet in width. The original project was designed to take access off of Lions Ridge Loop (one curb cut} and included a fairly large surface parking area, as well as one level of underground (structured) parking. The 1993 amendment included a series of six smaller buildings know as Savoy Villas (Phases 1, 2, and 3}. The proposal included 4 four-plex buildings and one four unit employee housing building, all of which took access off of Lions Ridge Loop to the north. The sixth building was a tri-plex, taking access from the existing Simba Run driveway adjacent to the North Frontage Road. The parking for the project was almost equally divided between enclosed parking and surface parking. On the northern bench of this site, each condominium was proposed to have a one-car garage, and on the lower, or southern part of this site, each condominium would have had atwo-car garage. Architecturally, the design was very similar to that of the existing Simba Run project, although smaller in scale. Upon approval of Ordinance #16, Series of 1993, the remaining number of dwelling units and GRFA on the property was reduced to zero for the entire Development Area B. Also included in Ordinance #16, Series of 1983, was a requirement to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. The 1993 amendment originally consisted of nineteen condominium units and four deed- restricted employee housing units. The application was later modified at the Town Council review in order to allow for one additional dwelling unit and to permanently deed-restrict three existing condominium units {Units 2207, 2401, and 2402) in the Simba Run development (Phase I) as Type III employee housing units. in exchange for the permanent restriction of these three units, the Council agreed to release the existing employee housing restrictions on three additional dwelling units in Simba Run (Units 1201, 1205 and 2205), which although they were required to be employee housing units, had deed restrictions which would soon expire, allowing them to become free-market dwelling units. 2 t SDD #5 was most recently amended in 1995 by Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995. That amendment provided the following changes: • Relo~atian of One Condominium Unit -The 1993 SDD amendment was approved by the PEC with a total of nineteen dwelling units. However, when the project was reviewed by the Town Council, a twentieth unit was approved. This dwelling unit was added to Building #5 of Savoy Villas (Phase 2). .Relocation of Tw(~ Died-Restrict d Employee Housin Units -The applicant agreed to deed restrict 5 existing dwelling units as Type III EHUs in Simba Run and deed restrict . two dwelling units in Building #5, Savoy Villas (Phase 2}. The~deed restrictions on the 5 units in Simba Run have now been executed and recorded. .Reduction in Office Area -The 1993 approved development plan included a 1,302 square foot office space located on the entire lower level of the employee housing building (Building #5). The applicant amended the plan in order to relocate one of the two remaining employee housing units in Building #5, thereby reducing the size of the office space to 686 square feet. sRelocation of Triplex Driveway -The 1993 approved development plan showed that the proposed driveway access to the three townhouse units on the lower bench of the site was originaAy proposed via the existing Simba Run curb cut off of the North Frontage Road. The amended plan modified the development plan, providing a new curb cut adjacent to the western property line to be used solely for the three dwelling units. .Reduction in Surface Parkino Spaces -The 1993 approved development plan showed a seven space, unenclased, parking area between the easternmost four-plex (Building #4} and Building #5. As a result of the transfer of two employee housing units from Building #5 to the Simba Run Building and the relocation of the "twentieth" condominium unit to the upper bench, which includes atwo-car garage, there was a net reduction in the parking requirement. Three unenclosed parking spaces were eliminated on the property. • Relocation of the Pedestrian Pats? -The 1993 approved development plan shows that the pedestrian path traverses the Phase II property from the north (between Building #5 and Building #4} to a point midway down the property to the south, at which time it then crosses onto the Simba Run property. The approved plan also called for the bike path . adjacent to the North 1=rontage Road to be realigned to accommodate the proposed driveway to the triplex. The amended plan provided a pedestrian path between Building # 3 and Building #4, south to the bike path along the North Frontage Road. .Changes to the Architectural Character of Buildings #5 and #6, -The architectural character of the buildings was slightly modified. 3 r III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECLEST Currently Buiidings #1 and #2 are constructed on the site. Design Review approval has been given for Building #3 and #4 and they will be developed according to the 1995 plan, which remains unchanged for this portion of the site. Building #5, under the 1995 plan and 5DD ordinance, contained 3 units, 2 of which were EHUs. The plan also included a 686 sq. ft. office space for the condominium association and a 466 sq. ft. two-car garage for the free-market unit. At the October 14, 1996 PEC meeting, the PEC recommended that the applicant modify the proposed plan to provide a three bedroom EHU and two enclosed garage spaces. The applicant has provided the recommended changes. As discussed with the PEC, the proposed plan adds an additional fbor to the building for a total of four stories, one of which is substantially below grade. Additionally, the building envelope is expanded slightly from the 1995 approval, with the addition of 126 sq. ft. of site coverage. The number of enciosed parking spaces now remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. However, the percentage of enclosed parking in Savoy Villas has been reduced, due to the increase in the surface spaces on-site, from 52% (24 spaces) in 1995 to 49% (24 spaces} in 1996. The proposed modification to the 1995 approved plans includes an increase in the number offree-market units and GRFA in Savoy Villas, by adding 1,308 sq. ft. of GRFA and one additional unit to Building #5 in Phase 2, for a total of 21 units for the entire project. Building #5 will now contain 2free-market units and 2 Type III EHUs. One EHU will contain 600 sq. ft. of GRFA and the other EHU is a three bedroom unit containing 1,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 2 free-market units will contain at total of 2,427 sq. ft. of GRFA. Common area stairways contain 414 sq. ft. of #loor area (not included as GRFA). Therefore, this structure will contain 4,327 sq, ft. of GRFA total. The parking required for these 4 units is 8 parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required far each free-market unit, 3 spaces are required for the three bedroom EHU, and 1 parking space is required for the one bedroom EHU (since this EHU is 800 sq. ft. or less in GRFA}. The proposed plan provides 6 surface spaces and 2 enclosed parking spaces for Building #5. The pedestrian path required for the development by the previous approval has been relocated between Buildings #2 and #3 and connects with the driveway proposed for Phase 3 (Building #6). The floor plans show a deck which extends into the 10' utility easement along the east property dine. The applicant has indicated that they will pursue an encroachment agreement to allow the third level deck, but if they are unsuccessful at obtaining such agreements from all utility companies, and the Town of Vail, they will remove the proposed deck. The remainder of the plan remains unchanged from the previous approval. The 1995 ordinance has many specific requirements with respect to the phasing of the development, the recordation of the pedestrian, bike path (public access}, and drainage easements, the timing of the recordation of EHU restrictions, and the final approval of the access to the North Frontage Road by CDOT and the Town Engineer. 4 !V. ZONING ANALYSIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for Savoy Villas, located in Development Area B of Sirnba Ruri. Zoning: 5DD #5 (with no underlying zoning} Lot area: i.56 acres or 67,953.6 sq. ft. Overall Savov VIllas 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Standard 20 units 21 units +1 unit Units (free-market): EHUs ~ 2 units 2 units n!c 33,449 s ft. 34,274 sq. ft. +825 sq. ft. GRFA (free-market): q' 1.900 sa. ft. +483 sa. ft. GRFA (EWUs1: 1;417 sa_ ft. +1,308 sq. ft. GRFA (total): 34,866 sq. ft. 36,174 sq. ft. +3 s aces Parking: 24 spaces 52%} 24 spaces (49%) p Enclosed parking: P ( Site Coverage: 16,921 sq. ft. (25%} 17,047 sq. ft. (25%) +126 sq. ft. Phase 1. Savov Villas lSuiidinas #1 and #2 as constructed) Standard 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Units (free-market}: $ units 8 units nle EWUs 0 units 0 units nlc GRFA (free-market}: 13,272 sq. ft. nlc nlc Parking: 16 spaces nlc nlc Enclosed parking: 8 spaces (50%) nlc n/c Site Coverage: 6,060 sq. ft. n/c nIc Phase 2_ Savov Viltas IBulldinas #3. #4. and #51 ' 1995 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Standard Units (free-market}: 9 units 10 units +1 unit EWUs 2 units 2 units nlc GRFA (free-market}: 14,874 sq. ft. 15,699 sq. ft. +825 sq. ft. GRFA fEHUsI: 1.417 sa. ft. 1.900 sa. ft. +483 sa. ft. GRFA (total): 16,291 sq. ft. 17,599 sq. ft. +1,308 sq. ft. Parkin 21 spaces 24 spaces +3 spaces g~ 10 s aces (42%} Enclosed parking: 10 spaces (48%) P Site Coverage: 7,550 sq. ft. 7,676 sq. ft. +126 sq. ft. 5 Y Phase 3. Savov Villas (Bu#Itflna #fi1 Standard 1895 Plan 1996 Plan Chanae Units (free-market): 3 units 3 units nlc . EHUs 0 units 0 units nlc GRFA (free-market): 5,303 sq, ft. n/c nlc Parking: 9 spaces nlc nlc Enclosed parking: 6 spaces (66.6%) nlc nlc Site Coverage: 3,311 sq. ft. nlc n/c V. ANALYSIS OF THE OVERALL DENSITY FOR SDD #5 Dev. Area A (Nall Runk Dev. Area B (Samba Runt Dev. Area B (Savoy Vim Total for 3D~,~5 Max. GRFA {(ree-market Units): 43,440 sq. ft. 91,572 sq. ft. 34,274 sq. h. 169,846 sq. ft. Max. GRFA (EHU Units): 0 sa. ft. 3.836 sa. ft. 1.900 sa. ft. 5.736 sa. h. ' Total GRFA: 43,000 aq. ft. 95,41}$ aq. ft. 36,174 eq, ft. '174,582 eq. ft. Max. # of Units (free-market); 55 units 90 units 21 units 166 units Max, # of Units (EHUs); 0 units 5 units 2 units 7 units Total lJnits: 55 units 95 units 23 units 173 units • 6 VI. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL. As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of the special development district is to: . encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; #o improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as sta#ed in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property.included in the special development district." The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD amendment proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The staff believes that the applicant has done a reasonable jab with the overall site planning of the project to insure that the project meets this criterion. Staff believes that the proposed modifications to the approved plan are minor with respect to the overall project. The proposal does not change the orientation of the buildings. The plan slightly increases the site coverage of Building #5, increases the bulk and mass of Building #5 by adding an addi#ional story to the building, and increases the height of Building #5 to ~6' (an 8' increase). However, staf# does not believe the increase in building height, bulk and mass, or site coverage will have a negative effect on adjacen# properties. Staff does have a concern, however, with the architectural quality of the north elevation far Building #5. Specifically, the proposed bay windows on this elevation have a "tacked on" appearance which appears incompatible with the architecture of the remainder of this structure and adjacent structures within Savoy Villas. Staff believes this elevation (particularly the fenestration) needs to be redesigned to correct this issue. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. It is staff's position that the approved residential use of this site, and the proposed amendment, is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The proposed density on Savoy Villas (number of units) is being increased by one free-market dwelling unit, as a result of this amendment request. The resulting density of twenty-one free-market units and two deed restricted employee housing units is compatible with the High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on . this property. 7 J C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposal for Savoy Villas provides 49 total parking spaces, 24 (49%) of which are enclosed garage spaces. The 1995 plan provided 46 total parking spaces for Savoy Villas, 24 (52%) of which were enclosed garage spaces. The number of parking spaces has been increased by 3 spaces. The original SDD ordinance required $5% of the parking on the entire site (Savoy Villas, Simba Run and Vail Run} to be enclosed parking. The 1995 approval allowed a deviation ' to this requirement, allowing 84.~i% to be enclosed. This request wiill allow an overall percentage of enclosed spaces, to total required spaces, of 84.2%. Staff believes the change in enclosed parking is minimal and therefore meets this criterion. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. 1. The Tawn of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density Residential (HDR}. High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as folbws: "The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutionallpubfic uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities." The overall density of Savoy Villas is 13.5 unitslacre {excluding the 2 EHUs}. The overall density of SDD #5 is approximately 18.8 unitslacre (excluding the 7 EHUs}. 2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (in-fill areas}. Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.3 Affordable employee hauling should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Tawn of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 8 Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Gaa15.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The staff believes chat the proposed amendment to the approved development plan is incompliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Savoy Villas is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. The applicant's geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has reviewed the 1993 approved development plan and has stated that the harming along Lions Ridge Loop (south side), combined with internal mitigation for the two eastern-most buildings, is sufficient to mitigate the rockfall hazard. The proposed amendment to the approved development plan should not have major effects on the previously approved rockfall mitigation plan for the property, however, an updated hazard report is required prior to the issuance of a building permit far Building #5. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a #unctional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The landscaping is slightly impacted due to the additional surface parking space being provided. However, the landscaping on the balance of the site remains the same. Overall, staff believes that the landscaping plan generally provides adequate screening and green space throughout the site. G. A circulation system designed far both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. ~P planlVehicular Access. The proposed access to the site remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. Pedestrian Access. As mentioned previously, the ordinance which approved the existing development plan includes a condition that the applicant construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property, in order to allow for continued pedestrian access from the Lions • Ridge Loap area down to the North Frontage Road. The proposed pedestrian path is relocated slightly by this request. 9 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize - and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that since Building #5 is increasing in height, that the proposed landscaping adjacent to this building needs to improved in order to break up the mass of the building. Specifically, the 5 evergreens proposed to the south of the building and the 3 evergreens north of the structure (aN proposed at 6' - B') should be increased in size to ~ 2' - 14' in height. Also, the number and size of Aspens in this area should be increased to further break up to mass of the building. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved phasing plan far the project. The construction of the buildings an the Savoy Villas property will occur in three phases. Phase I consists of the two condominium buildings {eight dwelling units) located an the northwest corner of the site (construction completed). Phase ll consists of 2 four-plea buildings {Buildings #3 and #4} which have been approved based on the 1995 plan, and Building #5 which contains 2 EHUs and 2free-market units. The final phase of the project consists of the three townhomes {Building #6) located on the lower bench of the property. Staff believes that the previously approved phasing plan for the Savoy Villas project is acceptable. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special Development District No. 5, subject to the following conditions indicates previous condition found in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995): "'1. The applicant provide an update to the hazard report for the property prior to obtaining a Building Permit for Building #5 of Savoy Villas. *2. The Tawn shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Building #4 or Building #5 (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan} until such time as Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and deed restrictions have been issued for both of the "Type lll" E.HU units in Building #5. *3. The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and will arrange for the grant of a public access easement to the Town of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of any TCO far any of the Phase 11 condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan}. *4. The applicant shall obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit for the proposed triplex driveway prior to the Town's issuance of any building or grading permits for the three townhomes {Building #6, Phase 3, Savoy Villas) i located on the lower bench of the development. 10 *5. The applicant shall grant to the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the Site between the proposed Building #5 and Building #4. The developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy #ar units in the Phase 11 Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). ~6. The applicant shall provide a bike path easement far any portion of the existing bike path located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be executed • ~ and Submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer before the Town wiN release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy far units in the Phase II Condominiums {according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan}. "7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units in Phase 3 of Savoy Villas, the applicant will receive final approval from the Town of Vail Engineer regarding driveway location and drainage plans in Phase 3. 8. The building elevations for Building #5 are not approved and must be approved by the Design Review Board. g. The applicant shall increase the size of the 8 evergreens adjacent to Building #5 to 12' - 14' in height and shaA add additional Aspens of 3" - 4" caliper subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 10. The applicant shalt provide executed encroachment agreements for all relevant utility companies and the Town of Vail far the deck encroachment in the 10' utility easement along the east property line or shall eliminate the deck encroachment, prior to submitting the project for review by the Design Review Board. With the addition of the conditions above, staff believes that the proposed modifications to the previously approved plan comply with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. faeveryonelpeclmemoslsavoy.rt i 11 _ . ~ ~ T ~a ~ k ' ..f ' ` ~ ~ / 'n `fi U' fI hL i. 1 I ~ I~ ~ \ V . I' AIr I y ti " ~ t ` ~ e 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ s . ~ ~ ` 1 rT '~t~ . ' ~ Nun y, ~ ` ~o \ 'i: aRZa,~4 ~ o~~ ~ ; ~ ~ yr_ \ Q Q ~{O z f G ~ . . j . ~ ~ ~ o s, ~8~~~~ ids ~ ~ ~ V_ ~ i~ j ~ seas a~ z ~ ~ I, y' ~ a ~ • - . r ~9 r` II ~ rl W.~ny ~ _7 ~ , ~~1 4 r ~ A ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ t~ ,.r ~ ~ Pr 'I t gib ` ~ ~ n ~ t %I ~ y~ r r ~ ~F 11 ~ ~i.' - . t 1_M - ~ t ~ b { d.~~ ~ l ~ 4 ~1 1 y ~ 4 a\ s 1 ~ ~ ~ ! a \ \ r _ ~ 1 ~ ~ r '1 .b ~ ~ ~ C v \ ~ ~ I _ ) W I ` ~ ~ d3' ~ ~ 1' , ,rte ~ l `p 1 1 ~I I ~ 1. - ' °a~ 'y~ 11 is ~ ~ ~ C 1 ~ { ~ Ri .apt ~ \ ~ ~ rte` \ r I ~ o, l ~ 4 @ I ~.~::o, 1 r 4n _ d - ty ~ ~ cr ` ~ 'o ' ~ .4, a i 1 T ~ ~ ~ I i' - ~ ~l ~ ~ A a 1~` i J i i l b 1 11 5 i f ! ~ I n~ / - ~ t_ Z rf t r i f fl 1. x. I- a ~ _ ~ ~ x 1~~ ~ . k ~ u u ~ 0 ~ ~a$ •~J \ a ~ ~ a s x ti r~ N~ 7 Q ~ ~ i I Q ~ _ rrr rL _ r ~ p T 1 O i o 3 V \ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ r 4 b ' d'~ V{~i 1 ry~ ~ ~ _ u- -r ~ * ~ t d. j w~ • ~ i ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ uti ~ f L ~ ~ ; 3.) 1 ~ i ~ h ' IF W ~ is v ~ ~ C, ~O• •O I ~i _ 1 } ~ ~ 5. . y I F . ~ ~ a t t I ~ _ - ~ ~n • I i ; ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ . -a , N 'J V 3 i _W 1 8 o~~.~ Hr ~ ~ 1 0 z 51 ~ ~ >u ~ 4~ r o-,tz ~ p ~ y A I! ~i ~ ~ o~ l' O N `^a J Q 'I- , ~ i I ~ U !4 I, ~ ~ ~I I 1 ~ ~ - , ' ~ I 1 ! I 1 , I it ~I ~ ~ I ~I 1 r ~ - r 1V1 1 i ~ ~i j 1 i I ~ ~ y. - .ay..; I I V I ~I .l 3 NI:IR.n i I ~ o ms's Y ~I E I I i r~ I 1 4 ~h c ~:ml'~I i ~ w ~ \ ^ ~ •Q: - ~ ~ ~i- ~ ~ ~ i I - ~ I ~ ilj~I _ I=... _ ' .'1 ,S s h.. If I. 1 ~I I I 0t i{ ~I r I - i(~ ~ JE ;r ! .S~ { 7 f. JI ~ ,~,~F c~. i N v 7i,' Iff I S yc J . . ~ ~ 1 ~ i n ~~r ACV ~ ~ 0.,4 Z ~1 e~ ~ ~ ~ ..J Z W ~ ~ ~ ? ~ Q a ~ v y[ ~M r9l ¢ ~ U ~ g$ ti ~ OC Z a aE a p X .7~ . l ~ _ W IA n ~ O . i ~ a w ~ C:~ r ~,11 ~ y 1 a ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 f~ ~ 1 aaaaaa ~ ' ~ r-- ~~x I ,1 ~ 7 ~ 3' I ~A~Vi' ~ ~1 N' r.. i': .t..® N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t N ~ i p. p p' nJ ~ •a ~ ~ ~O~ 7~ .1 ' n 7 i 1~ ~ ~ + ~ L' _i 1 ~j ~ _ ! y, J`I 7_"' o: f ~ r-~;7 ~ ~v ~ l.- I S Tom' ;T i ~ ~ ~ ~E l i ~ ~ ~ ~~a ! ~ ~ g~ ~ ~ U 'J ~ i I t i ~ ~ I I w ~~bb i ~ ~ i i~ -C ? , ~ " ~ ~1 ~ ~ II ~ 1 I ~ i ~ , I, . , . r • 1 ° ~ s r Y ~ L Y ~ ~ ? s~ ~ ~ ~ y • ~ ~ ~ ,7 -.H -...w-- ~o S.. ,-ter q-~i. / ~ 1~ ~ x ! `1. .o > ~ 3c y ~ - c - y,z ~ ,o.,i , p-,i ~ „P.i ~ . ~~E .O"?. A ,MZ .9yC i 0 ~ ~ Y • ~ o W ` ~ 1_ n N o r I i f !'}~L' T ~ y~ ~ ~ m~ B -a 4 •3444GI4 w~ I _ ~ ~ ~ - ~ r~ ; E ~ l 1 ~~j I ~II'1' It O I .,1 . ~ ~l to o: si o 1 i~ . T~ f ~ 1 s ~N ~ I i I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~-~i I I I ~ti i i! 1 j 1~ ~ I ~ I ~~I-~ ~=i.i ~ ~ I l ~ ~ j: ' V ~a - u.. Y I _ ~ } ~ Q I ~i I w1 a . E ~ L ~..,,1 ` ~i.! ~ r Ir ~ i p ~ ~ ~ t~l II ll 1 ~ li i - ---1 ~ o 3 ~ I ~ ~ ~ li ~ I; ~ ~ ;1 ~ r I ~ oo ! ~ I[.!U OI I ~ N: ii I Y ~ ] U r~ Q ~ w ~ ~ -"o a ~ ~ ~ ~Q Nµ ~ > Q V 4 ..O-.f.L ~ Nj~ ~ M~ i ~4 ~ ~ I y ~ /r n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i I ~ ~ ~ ; ~~~~I~~~ a ` ~ QG4444 1 ~ - - I 1 _ _ ~ ~ 1 ! m ! a ~ ~ I I 3 ; , ~ I ~ r ~ ~I _ r~ ~ I _ ~ I I II I I I ~ ~ ~ i _ ~ LL ~ f I ~ I ~ Q I ~ ~ ~ ~ } I 1 ;rj I i ~ ~ + f ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ! I i - g I ~ y J s _ 1 ~ ~ F~ I O 'il°,il ,i ! _ : ~I ~ w ~ ~ I I ~I~ v~l~ r ~ ~ ~7 I I S ~ ~ ,ti a a rI! ~ ~ I 1 r p ~ or ~ ~ ° - ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ I t~ ! ~ ff N~ f I ~ ~ W iti' 4q7 J ~ ~ ~ ~ • tY~ w o i a 7 a ~ a /N } ° ~ ~ • r k ~ ~ I - - Illy'; Ifi 11~11`'~I I~..~I~• t 'i ;jli~ i ~ Q I o~ I t., i.; I (I IIII~I i I ~ ; i i .li ' is i Illlj~l~ Ill ~ ~ , ~ ~ Q ' .ii ~ ' it } ; I I ..~IIi ~ zi N j I iI=i; { li 1; ~ (o; l t~ll. 1 ~ i Ili ' I I fill ~ I h- ;i~';' i ~ !li i i l a f ' lil ~ R 7I ~ I 'l:l!,lil°II II i•I I I I ' .p ' I ,.j IIIiI; II i I I ~i ~ ~ I ~ i - Isl ;I ' k I f. ' 'i. 'i 1. ~ 'i~''li::i ~ ~ O 'i,'a r~ ~:'i: i III' I > ...li i ' ' .II y i'~1lII~`I~-.: '.I'i 1 I~ III lh ~ I' I ~ ;..u 11 -,I'' I i• I ~ CGGiG4< ;II ,ll i~: i ~ i~ II , ii i~ I~;,ai~li i ~ I i Ir~~ll ~i~lll~ll i.~i~ . .VIII I I l .::..::~:li' ~ l f u d V~ 1 ' ; '.II {il, ~ I Ili liillllliltllll i ~ I II I~ I :I~,,~.'., ;p~~ ~ ~ ~~Il~lil ~ 4 ll ~ i I ~ ~ I{ III ' i„ I I f ; ll 1:13 I ~aiall } 'I• I ~ I i it I I ,i ;'L?'Iii i1 ~l i! l , I H I l , ~ i ~ ~ ~ i . i ` ~ I' ~ ;1 I Illiilill`;. , is ~ I , I ~ :i'ii' ~iil~ I , ! i I I I V`4: ~ ' j'I I ..F ~ !!I I ~ ~ ~ I ~ll~if il'~~1111 i ,1 ;I~I IE I : ~ l r I { ' I ~ ~ ~i l'I ~ rlilll~ i 1 ~ . I ~ 111 ~'I;~::~!;~I ; i`I i I' I I ~ I,'1 s 1f . I , , I f i` . i ' I, I III r + I ,III ai' s i'111 fill l II' 11 f II I a I,~~.ii;'i ~ I; ~ ~ ~I i i I i I 1i~~; i ?''f il' 11111!glsli II I 11 I ; i I ~ ~ ' I ~ ~ JI e ill li l'll I I~' i ]]IIil I I y - I I i:, ~i I!iI II1 EqE(( I; iIL.I I~ li, it ~ i I'I, I' it E'' ~I it i ~ F ~ •.I II ~i' I 1 ' I ''II ~ ~l I 11''iil! iii ' .III jI ' f~ I ti It' I I Y it I ,4.,u'I, i 'il ~rl' I''.#I1I'~II! III :ilr I ~I I I III i ~ .I ~ I ' 'Ill~il.i II~I~I I . I I ~ 'I i,i I 1 ' I .I I ~ ~ i a I ii I,I,~ i l 'm I! ~I I i I 1 11 it I •i! I ! Ili l I I -1 Z I I I i i; I I,.- it -1 t _i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ .n.ty .laE j 99..it:t I .'u •.S ; ,J :a ~ ~J d ~ Q~ b ~ ~R~ I I ~ 4 J ,!Z .i ;S L I ,Oyol ~ ~ ' I-___ ' .RS•.7 1 .4~'1 ~ ~I 1N 5tO11 :l O,l 1i ~ a~ , s ,I _ _ ~ O o . ; ~ rrI - 3= I -,._._.0 iS i ~ x ~ ,~iLl ita;a ' i - I ~ n~ .~n~ ~ ,r~W'7 /i1 ~ .V,s ~ Jhlet I-a:a . - ti t 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ i A ~ . ~ . o ~ o ~ a i r s. T" . - t s ;[`..'r 8 _ I 1--~L_.. i -r 3r ~ ~ I ~Y ~ ' ; . _ _ . a ~ ~ ~ 3: `~'"`fit . ~ - ~ b @ o 1 w i ~ ~ Vt~ ~V5 ~I .rr ~ :+-r t 1 - t Q iiNj~'• I4 j~'IJ t ~ _ t ~ ~ .I ~ t I ~ i r L C o rY ,z t C~ i 1R ~ 1. L OI i ~ ~ a . I. o 0 ~ .zf .'h7'.L7 ,MAlyr 3R ,.,rte I - • ~ 1 J ' ~ ~ ~ 6~a~ ~ ~ ~ t - ~ t --:-z L_O1 I i ` I O ~ ~ ~ j ' _ _ . ~ ~ r ! ~ F__ ~ I ~ y , i _ - ~ rLS~S - ~ ~ .7fii ~ '.:1«5nL ~t~. ,L'A ~:Pa ~ .Tn'v .i~trt ? Z . ~ a- on - - a-.. _ ~ t ~ i © (L ~ 9 ~ ~ ! ~ . i f .r ~.i ..SL ,O.9: ; ~ ~ i11s~ d F~:L 1 ~ ~ 7 O : i ~ ! a<:o<•~o 4 : ~ j .]7u ~I I i :T ' i-) ~ ~s~:91 l ..O-_: .St{ni i I ~ .iii :SZ I ~ ~ ~ i I ~,s:c I.s,?:L~.n~ i I ' ~ ~ I ~ i 1~ ~ i I . I~r ® © ~ O - 9 f I i I I I~ I i b i l I I IL - Y' ~ 3 ~ ~ 11 i x I f a.t ~ I• ~ T e I s,.~~:: I: ~ x I i+ di5 .s.l ;SL \ i i O ~ i E o o ob .,i I ~cl ~ ~~r~ ; i, 1 ~ ~ a: ; _ f~ , y ~ a !I~! li j ,r,t ;mot ;x ~ .+~~.,t i , f ~ a I. $ ~ ~ 3 d i u i ~ I~ 1 0 ~JIbIJ~ fk q It ~ O° i v:ii i - ~ i - • 0 ~ ~ ~ a I .H~._.~.ts ~I s = C ~ a f r+-o- ~ ~ z - ? . 'r - , _ 3,9:Lf + N f i+ I i~! 1 : ~ ~ i ~I ' J Y. ~'I 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ c ~ Q r ~L-.4. A;S: j ~ a ~ ~ Z ~ Ali ~ 'III ;EIS i I,,,iI~ ~ Ul I ; I ~ ~ ~Ilj ~ ~ 1 I ~i~~~ I ~ L~:~'~ il~~.;';3;,;,~~~~;~i 111 ICI ~ ~ ;I;!' :~'EII~ I ~ U, , , III,,. Z Q .3 i 3;E~,in ~ i I H I ~ i f I 1 W ~i ~f i lji~3ll ~ ;'ilfjl'~ ! 'f`! i`'l~i~#I ~~~~Ii . i:..~~;:f , ~~I II I~ tl'I~ i 't~l ~ s I~ I ! ' II ~ II I H H W I I fi i ~ I ~ ~ I EI € Ch • I I ~ ~ ry~i z ° ;,IIf ~ z o ~ 3i I i IillEll II~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~I ~I~' E, I f i~ .~I~I I II I II ~ ~ o i ~ o ~ ~ ~ 1 1 • E i ~I { ~I 3I~i Memorandum TO: Town Council FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner Susan Connelly, Community Development Director DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Summary of issues concerning the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development Thrcc Kcv Decision Points, I. Is the proposed zone district appropriate? * Compatible with surrounding densities? * Consistent with Land Use Plan? * Neighborhood opposition at PEC? * Meets rezoning criteria, as discussed in staff memo? • iI. Is the requested Special Development District appropriate? * Achieves purpose of an SDD, i.e. flexibility and documentation? * Proposed development falls below allowed maximums of the Medium Density Multi-Family zone district? * SDD documents the details of the future development now, prior to approval of the "up-zoning" provides certainty? III, How important are the architectural details, relative to achievement of the objective of locals housing? * The two Planning commission members who voted against the project did so based on concerns about the architecture, not based on the overall merits of the project. One person attended the PEC meeting to express concern about the project, but primarily focused on policy issues, not architectural elements. Alrcadv decided I. On November 12, 1996, the Council concluded that the 5 units which the Town controls will be sold to employees who work for the Town-- three critical and two non-critical employees. F:everyonelAndy196_ ~nemosltedsand.nl9 } MEMORANDUM ~TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJECT: An appea! of a variance denial made toy the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742_g Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, VaillPotato Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented l7y Kerry Wallace Planner: Dorriinic Mauriello SUBJECT PROPERTY Campisi project. Located at 742-B Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, Vaill Potato Patch, Second Filing. li. STANDING OF APPELLANT ~taff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of he subject property. III. BACKGROUND The appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-car garage nn the subject property. This duplex currently cnntains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20%} and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%} of site coverage. The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes}: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the . PrimarylSecandary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed (the PEC specifically added this provision to the findings recommended by staffj. 3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the speci#ied regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential district. 1 This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance far a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1988, a request far 500 sq. ft. o#GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance. The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over an GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure also currently encroaches into bath side setbacks. This is apre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal. IV. NATURE QF THE APPEAL The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the site coverage variance. The appellants have provided additions! justification far the variance which is attached. The appellants have also provided additional justification of how they will suffer practical difficulties andlor unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted (provided in attached materials). Staff has summarized their statements below: a. The appellants will have insufficient parking for parking their awn vehicles and far guests. The house will ba restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage fora 3,386 sq. ft. house. The Zoning Code allows up to 600 sq. ft. of garage space per unit. There is insufficient parking for the housa, and snow storage in the winter months precludes parking in the driveway. Staff response: The driveway, as it currently exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces. The proposed garage does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage of the home and the existing garage space. The entire home (both dwellings} contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit). This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is the responsibility of the homeowner and snow can be stored or removed from the site fn a variety of ways in order to maintain parking on-site. b. The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the property. Staff response: While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage. 2 c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence, particularly far storage of recreational equipment. Staff response: In July of 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a major remodel to the ' exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide additional srorage space. On September 12, 1988, a DRB approval was given in conjunction with a 250 request to construct a storage area, labeled "Bike Storage" on the first level of this structure {see attached elevation and floor plan}. The storage area was 250 sq. ft. As part of the 1996 DRB approvals, this storage area was eliminated and converted to living area. It appears that the lack of storage area on this property is a self imposed situation. d. The variance would correct the serious security problem which exists for the owner of Unit A. Staff response: The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home. This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry to the home and according to the owner, people often come to this door, The staff understands the security issue with this doorway. However, the proposed garage addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from . approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now da not meet the E3uilding Code requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as well as hand rails. Staff and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria far granting a variance. V. REQUIRED AC71ON Upholdl0~erturnlMadify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance. The Town Counci! is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below: 5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it., These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met. ~urther, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the PEC denial of this variance, the Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the granting of a variance: A. Consideration of 1"actors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 3 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve cornpatibiiity and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Town Council shall make the follnwina findings h~f~r~ nra.ntina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance wilt not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one ar mare of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. Thero are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Vi. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the fallowing findings: 1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning} have not been rnet. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, ar conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone. !n addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed. 4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners a# other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential district. f aevo ryo ne~peclmamolcampisi. n t 9 Charlie Alexander said tftat this was a permanent structure. Charlie also said that Vail Associates owned the land and if they determined that the land could be better used, then that's ~t would happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease. Dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the approval, which would allow for the conditional use permit to be called-up, if the Lionshead Master Flan suggested an alternative rise. Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal. Diane Golden said it wi11 be made more attractive than it is now. It was a nice addition to Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something to do. Henry Pratt stated that it was a good location. Henry addressed the complaints from Units #206 and #306 and said that Garfinke!'s Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat on their privacy than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie and the bank, as long as the PFC can call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term. Greg Moffet was in favor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from this operation. Greg was in favor of a longer term, to give Charlie an incentive to spend mare money on the site to enhance the property. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with tha addition of coed condition that if the Lionshead Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the a~roval could be subject to a call-up. Greg Moffet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit. Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period of time. Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work. Charlie Alexander said, yes. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed by a vote of 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present for this item). 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow far the construction of a one-car garage, located at 742 Sandy LanelLot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Mauriello ~~nic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending denial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Planning anc! I;nviromnenSal Commission tvlinutcs 3 Scptemt~er 23, 1996 Kerry Wallace, the attorney on behalf of Jeri Carr~pisi, staled that the owner of the other haft of the duplex, E3ci1y Guffy, was here. Kerry stated that the lack of storage and the odd floor plan, with little ar nn closet space within the residence presented a hardship, in particular, in relation to the starago of recreatinnal goads. The present Iwo-car garage is eat ertiough. She stated that the applicant had a problem with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests. Kerry went on to stoic that the Campisi's have significantly improved the property since purchasing it and that the new garage would furtf}er improve the: site. The proposed garage was as small as the architect could possibly make it and the architect assured them that it would not encroach into any of the setbacks. Right now there existed a drainage problem and by raising up the front of the new proposed garage, this drainage problem would be corrected. There was also an existing security issue for Betty Guffy, since the door to her unit went past the bathroom, This security issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to state that this property was an eyesore, until tf~e Campisis made same changes. There are a number of 2 and 3-car garages in the area, so this rectuest was not asking anytf~ing out of the ordinary. Grog Moffet asked far any public comments. Betty Guffy stated that she has owned the other' half of the duplex for 5 years, which is the upper third of the house. Betty stated that the Campisis are the perfect neighbors and have certainly fit the mold as neighbors that shr: would have chosen to jointly improve the property, Soth neighbors agreed on tf~e stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage problem with this new proposed addition. When tf~~e Campisis unit was reeled short term, i}~cre were a number of probfr.rns. F3etty stated that she lived along anti security was a problem, Betty stated tt7rrt ~0 sq. ft. over the allowori silo roveraga is Gr r7tiir~or overage. Greg MoffeC asked for any other public comments. Joe 5tar.rfer stated that he lived at 7~t6 Sancfy t_anc. Joe was in favor of this request and said that it would riot negatively affect any property owners. Under the safety, welfare and health finding, Joe stated that the security issue was the reason and the right to grant this variance. It was a dark neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. Jon stated that whE;n he was gone, 13ctty Guffy was all alone on the black. He stated that granting this variance would give someone a better place to live. Joe said he saw na conceivable reason not to grant this variance. DalTIInIC Maurieflo stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the applicant had just removed the farmer storage space, which was used to stare snowmobiles, and had created living area out of it, sa therefore, tho result was a lack of storage. Betty Guffy stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request. Galen Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was. Dominic Mauriella said f300 sq, ft, and that it toad one garage space far each owner. Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is aver ~ 5,OD0 sq. ft., Galen doesn't think the size of the lot was the problem and therefore there was no justification for a site coverage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the security issue. Galen was somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough storage, when in fact, the remodel that was happening rig>~t now, did away with the storage. He stated that the owners, with the remodel, have created some of their own conditions and hardships. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 23, 1)96 ~ Betty Guffy said that any staircase wot.ild be buried in snow. She stated chat both skies of the house were short an closets. Betty stated that she uses part of the garage for storage for her .season clothes. She also stated that the existing entry door was ugly. Diane Golden asked where the snow will be put? Dominic Mauriello stated that snow storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of solutions for the door. Betty Guffy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and entrance was the best plan and from the franc of the house, Phis looks like the way it was meant to be. It seems silly to pay $28,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not da the addition. Henry Pratt told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky to have owners like the Campisis who take pride irl their ownership. Henry felt that identifying where the front door was less important than the security issue, He stated that they are entitled to a garage, but without the variance. This garage had no impact on the neighbors and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance, if there was a hardship. John Schofield agreed with Henry. John staked that tt~e door was in a lousy location. John tended to agree with Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket, while parked out in the street. g Amsden said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage probiern ~en tttie house was first built; it happened with the expansion. The lack of storage doesn't hold an argument. A small deck would justify the safety concern. There were na justifiable reasons to go over site coverages. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was coaxed-out over what was permitted. There was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk that could have been used for storage. The storage problem-has been self-created. Greg said he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege. Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was? Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft. Greg Moffet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none. Greg Amsden made a motiort far denial, per the staf# memo and he added that the hardships were self-imposed. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. ~len Aasland said the lot was over i 5,004 sq. ft. If it was under that size, it might be different. Henry Pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design. Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it would still involve a site coverage issue. Planning and finvironmental Commission Minutes 5 September 23, 199b Greg Moffet asked staff if a carport was proposed, would it then not be Gf~f=A? Mike Monica said that could possibly be a staff approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on #iow the carport was designed. The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. A request far an exterior addition to a master M~edroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 8026 Potato PatchlLot Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toamo Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLBD UNTiL OCTOBBR ~4, 1996 5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in freezer, located at 536 West Lionshead Mall/l..ot 5, f3Eock Vail Lionshead tst Filing. Applicank: Mitch Garfinkel Planner: George Rather WITHDRAWN lllllllllll 8. Information Update Mike Monica had no information update. 7. Approval of September 9, i 998 minutes Miko Monica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item ~f5 in the minutes. Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 919198. Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 919196 minutes. The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. . The motion passed unanimously by a vote of {3-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:f)0 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 6 w rF r rr~ t MEMORANDUM, ~TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: 5epternber 23, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one-car garage, located at 742 Sandy i_anellWot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Mauriepo BACKGROUND AND DESGRIPTfON OF THE REQUEST, The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request wouldlsdor 31664.6 sq. ft~l{2W5°/°/, }site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20%} and the propnsa This duplex was approved by the DR8 in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as .originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA {as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, i 979, a dEnsity variance fora 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC basee uestf ford1500 sqt ft. of GRFA wastapproved~under the 250 Ordinance. September 21, 19$S, a q The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure als nd tion and iscnot affected by the proposal cks This is apre-existing nonconforming co The applicant's justifcation for the site coverage variance request is that this addition will not negatively affect adjacent properties, as adjacent properties have two and three car garages. See attached letter for greater detail. 1 [I. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: PrimarylSecondary Residential Llse: fJuplex residence Lot Size; 17,019 sq. ft. {entire site) Standard Allowed Existino rocosed Slte Coverage: 3,403.8 sq. h. (70%) 3,366.6 sq. h. (19.8%) 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.59'°) Landscape area: 10,21 i.4 sq. ft. (60%) i 1,330.4 sq. ft. {66.5%) n/c GRFA: 3,951.9 sq. ft. 4,502.8 sq. ft. nlc wltwo 250's: 4,451.9 sq. ft. A,502.6 sq, ft, n/c Setbacks: Front: 20' 30' nlc Sides; 15` 10' & 13.58' n/c Rear: 15` 36' n/c Parking: 5 required 6 (2 enclosed) 6 (3 enclosed) IIl. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.06D, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denia[ of the requested site coverage variance. The recommendation for denial is basod on the following factors: . A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that while the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and while other structures in the area have two and three car garages, there has been no indication of any physical hardship which would justify approving the requested variance. Other structures in area have two and three car garages and still comply with the site coverage requirements. Essentially, this owner enjoys a larger house at the expense of reduced garage area. Staff believes the grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and . enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or • to attain the object[ves of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff befeves that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other lots in the area or this zone district. Other . sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage requirements. f ,leveryanelpaclmemoslcampisl.923 2 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of the building which may have a negative effect on the light and air of neighboring properties. D, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findina~ before granting a variance:, 1, That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or n7aterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary • physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. ry, STAFF RECOMMENDATION. The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's variance request subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of specia! privilege inconsistent with the (imitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2, There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primaryl5econdary Residential zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential district. f:leveryonelpecUn emoslcam pisi.923 3 ~D ~ _ C ~-C i~~ ~ ~ l _y , 4 ~ ` ~ - i ~'i I ~ ~/If , / y 1, ~~~,yl~! I' FF ~yy ~ ~ 'II~II~'ll1 l~ ~ ~ ifs; y ~ ` fi ~ .r n ~i . r ' t. ~ r11 a~ ~ i ~~t / ~ y ~ f~ : ~ ~aQ r ~ ~ \ ' y ~ ~ O ~~8 ~ ~ F y ~ Z °aR ti /y ~ 3 C/1 / ' \ ~ ~ r $ ~ ° w o O u z "d V7 I ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ! ! ~ t.0. la+awo A.a caWd' ll®o ~ i 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~.~~~~ The Campxsi Addaition ~ T~~,~S6 ~i RM 1 ~~~,o« ~ ~ g g I I ` Potato Patch--Lot 3 Second Filing i va, colanan ROSFAISON M11-[.ER IF.kRk~, ARCtITCF.CI'S. pc r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ • ~ I i ~ II'''y r ~ r l ~ ~r • ~ ~ I a ~ ~ 'I I~ 11 1 l ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ fir-- , ! `k' t3 ~ ~ ~,7 ~:~1 ,j ~ j~ a !,~'r f i ~ i ; i; 'Ik ~ i~ ~ ~ j rii, =,j j ; L i Ij1 ~ i ~ ~ i l1 ~ I L~ ~ _ ICI 'j I L ~ k ' 11 ~ ~ ~ i I ~ I,_~~ ~ ~ ' ` E ~ I j ~ ~ I; i ~ I ;I. j i ~ .I i, • / i;``l,~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ f. Ij 11 f I I l ~I• ' i ~ I~~'.I ~ } i ~ 'rl /~I ~ ~ ~5 ~ j ~ / , { I ~ ill ~ ! ; j ~ f7 ~ , 6 I If: I a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ to ] ~ ~i ~ 3 i ! I I ~ , ; f ~ ~ I ~ ~ rA ~,m A..., a+,~. ~~o • 6 ~ i a . d3 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ T'he Campisi Adc~~io~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I'atato Faxh-T.ot 3 S~cand F~i~g ~ i I I ! l I I va a~.b rxoHPS rsaay y~t~ ~uxsu .~c~ , d... , ~ Pr. TOTAL F' . 02 S !`u j?, I I f I ~ I n ~ ~ _ ~~s. - ~1 . ~INIniG fZIY~ • ~ - I 1 ~ ~ W . ~ c ~ ~ - ~ i - - ~ . ~ ~ - 1 i ~r.'~11111L`~ t~1SCE z ~i'. F7- I u~ . ~ 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ _ ~ ~ i i . ~t~~ ~ t~ ~ ~ i ~ . ~ ~ ~ t 6 ~ . ~ ~ X 1996 t~Pr~r~~.~r..s r~rz:~1 REQUIRED FOR FILING :1N APPEAL OF A ST:~FF, DESIGN RE1'IE1~' BO.-~RD OR PLANtiING .4tiD ENV1RO~ti:11EN'I'AL C011:~9ISSION .-1CTION A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: Denial of request for a site coverage variance to allow far aone-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ Tat 3, Vail, Potato Patch 2nd filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Secta.on its.Y.~.utiu DI: ~i1e Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage which provides that a residence as not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of a total site area. The.tequested site coverage variance was for 2b0.$ sq, ft. for construction a£ the garage, f3. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: September 23, 1996 . C. NAI\9E OF BOARD OR PER50N RENDERING THIJ DECfSIONCI~AKING ACTIOti: Planning and Environmental Commission D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Charles P. Campisi and Geri Campisi AiAILING ADDRESS: 1146 Sandstone Drive,' Vail, CO 81657 PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL747-B Sandy Lane, Vail, CO 476--55$6 ,PHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OFAPPELI.ANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominiums according to the Condominium Man recorded ?(arch 4, 19$0 in Book 299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondaminium Declaration recorded *':arch 4, 1980 in P,ook 299 at Page 59G.,_ ~'~~~n*,- 1 n ~a'te_Df CalDrado. E• SIGNATURE(S): ~ - herry H. Walla as ACtorn~y~arid"TZepresentative of Charles and Geri ' t va an Walla e (,ampas~. ~'.8. ~ x Avon, ~o: 8120 (970) 949-4200 I'a~e I of 2 F DUOS this appeal invol~'e a specific par~cl of land? I'es If }~es, p{case pro~~idc the follow•in;~ information: • ~~ou an adjacent property o~ti~~cr:' 1'cs no x If no, give a detailed explanation of how you arc are "ag~;rie~•ed or adversely affected person." ",ags~r-ie~'ed or adversely affected person" means any person who «'il i suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alieged adverse interest may be shared in common ~~~ith other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in decree the general interest in con~rmunity good shared by all persons. The appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as they are the owners of the property in question and the persons requesting the site coverage variance ca~jrh was denied. The strict interpreta_t_zo_n of the specified regulation in this case will result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship to the appellants as at the present time there is available only one 300 sq. ft. single car garage space for the appellants'3,3bb.b sq. ft. residence. There is insuff- . icient parking space for the appellants' okn vehicles without taking into consideration visiting friends and family. Parking is not available upon the street or surrounding areas There is also insufficient storage area particularly as the single cae garage is fully utilized far parking purposes. There also exists a drainage problem in that the area in ~,~hich the new garage would be located ~,lnnPS toward the residence and i.ater flows dirECtly into a maior wall of t;13e 5EE ATTACHELI SHEET G . Pro~~ide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all owners of property ~a~hich are the subject of the appea! and all adjacent property owners (including properties separated by a right-of-~vay, stream, or other intervertirtg batriers). '.lso pro~~ide addressed and stamped envelopes for each property owrter on the list. i-i. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. I. FE)?: 50.00 . " Pale 2 of ? Contin~~~tion of Section F of Appeal of Denial of Site Co`~erage Variance for Charles and Geri Camnisi building, The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the proposed garage will correct the drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. ):n addition, the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious security prohIen~ in that the general public has access to her emergency egress which Ieads to her master bedroom and batlu•oom, The proposed garage wil! correct this problem for the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane who is Betty Guffey, ACCOMPANYII~'G INFORI~fATION FOR APPEAL OF PLANNII\'G AND E1VyIRONMENTAL COi~~4~ISSION ACTION REGARDII\'G SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR 7~2B SANDY LANE, VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SECTION H NATURE OF APPEAL I. Background Information The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site coverage variance for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.(}90 of the Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage. Said section of the Code provides that a residence is not to exceed 20% of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be 260.8 square feet for the purposes of constructing a 300 square foot one car garage upon the property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.$ square feet {20%) and the proposed - variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet {21.5%). The property pis a duplex which currently contains two enclosed garage spaces and the Appellants requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex has use of one 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300 square foot single car garage space fora 3,366.6 square foot residence. The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied. II. Finding of the Planning and Environmental Commission The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23, 1996 meeting denied the Appellants' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single car garage addition based on the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the • same district; 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the primary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self-imposed; and 3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the primary/secondary residential district. III. ~t is Appellants Position that Granting of the Variance will not Constitute a grant of a Special Privilege and that there are Practical Difficulties and/or Hardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Variance is not Granted. The specific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is § 18.62.054 of Title 1 S of the Town Cade of Vail also known as the "zoning Title." § 18.62A60 specifically provides that before acting on a variance application the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section A. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinities; 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary ko achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public Facilities and utilities, and public safety; and 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposer! variance. The Planning Commission is also to make the following findings before granting a variance: Section B, i. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classifed in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and G:ICA.+W"[SIIACCOhiP.DOC 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: • a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title; b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district." The Appellants shall initially address the requirements of Section "A" of the Zoning Title §1$.62.4b0: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses avd structures in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the other structures in the vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to three car garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage addition will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Staff specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and that other structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of an adjacent neighboring property, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage variance will negatively impact neighboring properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniforaty of treatment upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The grant of the minimal site coverage variance requested by the Appellants is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title § 18.44.130 addresses gross residential floor area ("GRFA") and addresses how GRFA is calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. §18.0~.130A(1) specifically provides, "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following area shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA; 1. Enclosed garages from up to 300 square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code." The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parking requirements in particular off street parking, The purpose of this title is to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, and loading facilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Title requires a certain amount of off street parking for all new facilities. 18.52.100 requires that off street parking be determined in accordance with the following schedule "A": if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet or more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. The Appellants' property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 square foot garage space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for their dwelling unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit that are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off street parking for the Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting Family members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they are requesting the variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the Appellants. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the street onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking purposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal site coverage variance for construction of the 300 square foot single car garage addition.. The possibility of on street parking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal to park upon the streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need full access to the streets in order to sufficiently clear them of snow build up. The requested site coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title. 3. The effect of the requested variance of light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. It is the Appellants position that the variance will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation- and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a positive affect upon these factors as it will allow far additional off street parking so that vehicles G:ICAMHSM000MP.DOC will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was no evidence presented to support a different finding on ibis issue. For the foregoing reasons .it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be granted far the following reasons: k. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities; and 3. The variance is warranted far the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title; b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties andlor unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted. a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage fora 3,366 square foot residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their own vehicles andlar parking for their guests and family members. This is a practical difficulty andlor an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there if no in particular as there is no available on street parking., The Tawn of Vail Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for each residence. In particular 1$.52.100{A) requires that a 2000 square foot or larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and would be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vail for parking an the street. In addition the Town of Vail Code specifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 300 square feet per vehicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the GRFA far a residence. Yt is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to provide a 3,366 square fact residence to have the capability of having at least 600 square feet of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the Appellants' should be proposed variance be granted. G:1CAMi'i5MCCOMP.DOC b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will correct a serious drainage problem upon the property which will need to be corrected regardless of whether the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive resolution of the drainage problem and will benefit neighboring properties in the area because it will increase the value of the property. c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence particularly for storage of recreational equipment. d. The variance would also correct the serious security problem that exists for the owner of the other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado, who is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty Guffey. b. The strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges egjoyed by the owners of other properties in the sane district. Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least fi00 square feet of enclosed garage space per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been constructed within the site coverage requirements, it does not alleviate the fact that the Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants should be able to construct an additional 30Q square foot enclosed parking space upon their property to allow for off street parking. • .-1FFID.~'~~IT O~ I3ETT1' GLFFEI' CO'~i)?S ti0«', the :'~fiiant, Betty Guffey, ha~'ing personal knot~'ledge of the follo~~~ing facts and b21ng duly ctt~orn anger oath ]leretry testifies as follows: 1. That 1 and the otvner of real property located in the To~t'n of Vail; Cotltlty of Eagle, State of Colorado kno~~'n as Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. Tllat I am a member of the Condominiulll Association for Lot ~'ai1, Potato Patcll, Second Filing Condominium. Tott~n of Vail, Caunty7 of L-agle, State of Colorado ~;~hich is comprised of Unit 7-~?-A 2nd ; -1•'--13 Sand)f Lane, Vail. Colorado {"Condominium association"). 3. That the Condonlinium Association is comprised of my unit and unit 7~2-8 Sanely Large. Vail, Colorado «'h1Ch 15 0~~'ned by Charles Campisi and Geri Campisi (hereinafter referred to as the "Canlpisi's"). 4. That ~t'ith Illy express pennissiorl and int'ol~~enletlt the Campisi's ha~~e requested a •ariance froth the To~~~n of Fail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to their unit. The COI1s[ruC[30n Ot said single car garage ~t>ill not in any «'ay negati~°ely impact upon other St11SCrllC25 ll1 llle \~iCrnrt)~ ,i~ 1110~t strucrares arz residential homes, including c~~ndominium antis «'ith garanes. ~ That the nara~-e audition that the Campisi`s hate requested a ~~ariance for from the Tott~n of ~~ail is necess.,n~ f~~r a Inlnlb2r of reasons: There is significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in ~~•hich the new garage twill be located slopes to«'ard the residence and tt~ater flott's directly, into a major t~'all of the building, the construction of the Rarage tt~ill resolve this drainage problem «°hile at the same time significantly impro~'ing the property. B. That at the present [ime ~t'ith the current configuration of the residence ~~-ithout the requested garage addition. there exists a significant security problem ~;~ith regard to my unit. The genera] public current])' has access to an emergency etoeih d0orren~ onfigurationtlofl 1~ my master bedroom and bath area. Unfortunately , due buildizlQ the General public often utilizes my emergency egress door as opposed to m)' main door • because it is the only' door readily t']slble froill the street. This is a c,iuse for concern for me because i cannot see ttho is zt the emergency' egress door until I am right before the door. This is not the case with my main entrance door as I can see the person at the door through a~indot;~s prior to opening the door. In addition packages and f3o«°er deliveries are often left mistakenly at nlt~ emergency egress doer and as I do not utilize that doer 1 do not locate the items often for days. 1 have retained a:l architect, '~1r. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner .architects in 'Fail. . to address. among other issu.s, the issue of the public access to my enlergenc)~ egress door so that 1 could he pmvid;:d tt~itll security. ]t ryas ultimately determined by ~1r. Pierce that there tt;t5 tt;iv t{1 pCOtlue 11':: ~L'Cll~sc'i.Urltt' due lt) deSl~~n ConSi1'alnts 117i1S the proaoszd Cara°_C l~ an excellent solution to n~v security problem. As such, [feel that the granting of the Variance to allow [Ize construction c!f the single car ~ara~e is necessary to pr~~vid~ me ~~~ith adequate . . security at my residence and 1 «~ill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other options are available to me. C. That in the 1~'inter months the To~a•n of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto the area ~~'h~re the new single car garage «~il[ be constructed thus malting such area unusable particularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car garage will pro~~ide a covered parking area }'ear round. Y G. For thz foregoing reasons the ors Hers of the property at 7-12 Sandy Lane constituted of myself and the Campisi's ~~~ill suffer a hardship if the ~~'ariance is not granted allowing for construction of [he proposed single car enrage. Further the Affiant sa}•eth nautrht. TY 1~F . i~ STATE OF COLORADO ) 5S. EAGLE COt+~TY ) Subserired and s«•orn to l,efore me this G~/1 d~~~ of S~ptemb~r, 1996, i~~~ BETTY GUFFE~'. `Fitness m~~ hand and oifi~ial sea'. ~~~~y~, A7y corrunission ex fires: ~~~r'~kl~'U 1? 1~ , L,, e • ~FFID.-~VIT OE GEIZI CA~IPISI Cp~gES ;~Tp~V, the Affant, being duly s«~orn under oath and having personal }so«~ledae of the folio«>ing facts hereby testifies as follo~~~s: 1. That I am the o~;•ner of real property located in the To~;'n of Vail, County of Eable, State of Colorado kno~~~n as 7-??-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. That I am a member of the Condominium ?.ssociation for Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominium, County of Eagle, State of Colorado «~hich is constituted of unit i~2-A and 7-I2-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado (the "Cando Association"). 3. Thzt the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and i~?-A Sandy Lanz, Nail, Colorado «'hich is o«•ned by Berry Guffey. • ~l. That my husband, Charles Campisi and myself have requested a Variance from the To~i'n of Vail for the purposz of constructing a single car garage addition.to our unit. The construction of such sirrle czr garage ~;'ill not in any ~~'ay negatively impact upon other structures in the vicinit}' a5 P.lt'`~t $tI"UCtllre5 are residential homes, including condominium unite, «•ith aarares. .i. That tl~e garage addition that «'e are requesting a Variance from the Town of Vail fCr is necessar}' for a number of reasons: There is a significant drainage problem upon the propert}' in th:.t the area in ~~'hich the ne«' garage will be located slopes to«'ard the residence and water floe's directly into a major ~~'al] of the building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and could be Very expensive to fix pursuant to bids that ha~'e been received. The construction of tl`te garage ~~~ill resol~'e this drainage problem «'hile at the same time significantly improving the property. B. That there exists Very little storage area .~-ithin our residence and the existing t~vo (2) car Garage is fully utilized for the parking of our t~;'o automobiles. .~s such, ~z'e • currently do not have any storage space particularly for our recreational equipment such a bicycles, golf clubs and ski equipment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there are no closets in the house to More the equipment, no space in the existing garage as it is used for parking our automobiles and it would be inappropriate to store said items outside as the}' could be stolen and it ~~'ould detract from the area to store goods in that manner. C. That ~i~e are unable to park an automobile on the street or elsee~~here on the lot in order to make storage space available in the existing garage as parking is not afloti~~ed upon the street, particularly in the 1Vinter months, and the area in ~~~hich the new garage «°ill be constructed is currently um~sable for parking purposes during the «'inter months as the To~~'n of ~9i20/Sd FRI Io:OS FA.C Vail snow removal ploz~•s large amou~yts of ssaow upon the space, )n addition, it is prcferable to have our car in covered parking during the winter months. p. That we also have frequent guests, including numerous family rT:em$trrs, and are utlable to provide a parking space for them when ihcy are visiting. This pozc-s a difficult problem again in iha winter months when the <naw p1ow5 aced the streets clear of parked vehicles to adequately plow tlae streets. S, That she proposed single car garagt will address all of the above referenced hardships in that it will provide for thz additlanal storage, it would provide a covescd parking space that 4 .viii be usable z]I year round and it will be a positive u;c of currently unusable spECe. ~ y 7. That the proposed' single car gat~gc will Constitu[e an improvement to tl'se l?mPertY , that will increase the value of [he residence and thus would be a positive effect upon the neibhborhood in general. 8. For the foregoing reasons tha a~~ners of the p;~operty at 7~2 Sandy L~.r,e which is consrin3ted of myself, my husband, Charles Campisi, and Betty Guffey will suffer a hardship if tl~+e Va[ianc.e is not granted fer tha ec~nsttvction of the proposed single car $2s::gz. Fut~lier the Affiant :a}•cth naught. {i 'I f / ~ I 1 GERI CAMPISI STATE OF COLORADO ss, EAGLE COUti`x~' ~ . Subscn~ui and s~.•crn. to before me this day oY September, 1995, by G)?RI r,~MPISI. Witness ray hand and official segl. by commission expires: ~ ~ ~ ; ( . :~~r~i~ - G:1CA.Ir4P 1SI1G ~ Rt.~ FF. (7't'F~ Mernora~dum TO: Town Council FROM: Andy Knudtsen, Senior Housing Policy Planner Susan Connelly, Community Development Director DATE: November 19, 1996 SUBJECT: Summary of issues concerning the Red Sandstone Employee Housing development Three Key Decision Point _ I . 1 s the proposed zone district appropriate? * Compatible with surrounding densities? * Consistent with Land Use Plan?. * Neighborhood opposition at PEC? * Meets rezoning criteria, as discussed in staff memo? II. is the requested Special Development District appropriate? * Achieves purpose of an SDD, i.e. flexibility and documentation? * Proposed development falls below allowed maximums of the Medium Density Mufti-Family zone district'? * SDD documents the details of the future development now, prior to approval of the "up-zoning" provides certainty`? III. How important are the architectural details, relative to achievement of the objective of locals housing? * The two Planning commission members who voted against the project did so based on concerns about the architecture, not based on the overall merits of the project. One person attended the PEC meeting to express concern about the project, but primarily focused on policy issues, not architectural elements. Already decided, I. On November 12, 1996, the Council concluded that the 5 units which the Town controls will be sold to employees wha work for the Town-- three critical and two non-critical employees. F:everyone~Andy196_memos~redsand.ni 9 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A request Far a rezoning from General Use to Medium Density Multi-family, and a request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow for the development of 17 EHU's, located on an unplatted parcel on a portion of Parcel A and part of Block D, Lionsridge Filing # 1. Applicants: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DEfiCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The property, located at 845 Red Sandstone Road, is under consideration for a rezoning and a Special Development District. The current zoning rs General Use District, The proposed Zoning is Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). The new zoning would increase the development potential, as the existing zoning limits the uses to public types of uses. The applicants include the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District}, the United States Forest Service and the Town of Vail. The District owns approximately three-quarters of the land area under consideration. The Farest Service currently owns one-quarter of the land area. The Town and Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer their portion to the Town, as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA). The site is currently vacant, as the former water treatment and storage plant has been removed recently. If the request is approved, the applicants will construct seventeen condominiums. The dwelling units will be located in four buildings, located along the Red Sandstone Creek. There will be 7one-bedroom, Stwo-bedroom, and Sthree-bedroom dwelling units. Each dwelling unit will have its own one-car garage, with the exception of one three-bedroom unit, which will have a two-car garage. . The primary reason the applicants are proposing an SDD at this time is to provide a detailed record of the future development potential, which will eliminate questions about future development potential of the property. The SDD is a helpful tool to obtain answers to questions about the potential development impacts from the rezoning of the property. In addition to that primary purpose, there is one deviation from the Zoning Code, which would either require a variance or be allowed via the SDD approval. 1 ~:leveiyone~+eclmentosl~andstone.o28 The applicant is proposing a 4-foot high retaining wall between the edge of Red Sandstone Road and the interior driveway. Due to the fact that this area is located in the front setback, the Town Zoning Cade limits the height to three feet. The wall exceeds that allowable height by 1 foot and this is a deviation from the code. Upon completion of the LOAA, the Town will have title to the northern-mast portion of the development site. The Town and the District will hold the land until a Homeowner's Association (HOA) can be created. Upon establishment of an HOA, the Town and the District will transfer ownership of all the land to the Association. There is no developer profit anticipated for the project. The sales price of the condominiums will be based on the cost of construction. In the development agreement between the District and the Town, there is an allowance for up to 2S"/" of the units to be sold as free-market dwelling units (i.e. no deed restrictions}. The purpose for this is to defray the costs and lower the purchase price for the future homeowners. At this time, it is anticipated that 1 QO"/o of the units will be deed restricted. The deed restriction will be similar to that used for Vaii Commons, which restricts the sale to local employees. After construction, it is anticipated that most of the homes will be owner occupied. The Town and the District will make the homes available to their employees. While the Town anticipates selling the dwelling units to its employees, the District will bath sell and retain ownership of some of its units to rent to its employees. Mare discussion of the proposed unit ownership will be provided later in the memo. F:leveryonolpeclmemoslsandstone.o28 II. ZONING ANALYSIS, • Staff has provided a Zoning Analysis of the proposed project, as it compares to the MDMF standards: Zoning: General Use District (GU) Proposed Zoning: Medium-DensitylMultiple Family (MDMF) w/ Special Development District (SDD) Lot Size: 1.60 acres or 69,887.66 sq. ft. Buildable lot area: 54, 140 sq. ft. Ailawed~IDMF Pronosed Density 22 d.us 17 d.us Height: 35' 35' G1zFA: 18,449 sq. fr. 16,275 sq. ft. Sethacks: l:ront: 24' 20' Side/5idc 20' 20' Rear: 20' 24' Site Coverage: 31,449 sq. 4. 12,029 sq. ft, nr 45 % or i 7% Rcouired Pronosed C.andscaping: 24,96b sq. ti. 36,450 sq. >t, ar 30% or 52 Parking: 34 spaces 44 spaces required proposed Percent enclosed: 50% of 53% enclosed required parking X17) llg) III. SUMMARY OF DISCU5SION FROM PEC WORKSESSION ON SEPTEMBER 9. 199b Below are the list of questions raised at the previous PEC worksession. Staff has grouped them . into categories of general issues and specific items relating to the project. 1. Is the SDD the appropriate tool to use for the review of this proposal? Staff believes that the SDD is the most appropriate process to use in this case, because it requires the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request far a change in zoning. Far clarification, the proposed development densities fall below those aliawed under the MDMF 3 zoning. The proposed levels ofdcnsity will become the new cap and any future request for expansions will trigger a major SDD amendment. A major SDD amendment must be approved by Town Council with two readings, after a recommendation by PEG. Though the SDD process allows requests which exceed the limits of the underlying zoning, the standards are referenced and used as a "yard stick" to ensure that proposals are consistent with surrounding properties. Furthermore, the process is such that interested parties and adjacent property owners will have ample opportunity to give input on the requests. 2. Is affordable housing an appropriate use of the land'? Is i# appropriate to transfer land from the United States Forest Service to the Town of Vail for affordable housing? The Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) provides for a comprehensive transfer of land between the Town of Vail and the Forest Service. Land on the perimeter of the Town overlaps into the jurisdiction of both entities. The LOAA is an effort to exchange different properties between the two entities to create awin-win situation. As part of this effort, several parameters were laid out far the use of the lands under consideration. Some of these include: "l . That there will be no National Forest Service lands within the municipal limits of the Town of Vail. 2. That the Forest Service survey, identify, and maintain a common boundary of the Town of Vail and the Forest Service and that both agencies share in the enforcement of regulations pertaining to the boundaries. The boundary has been simplified where possible, irregularities have been reduced or eliminated. 3, That all lands acquired by the Town of Vail are used for public purposes, such as open space, employee housing (per the Town of Vail employee housing ordinance), recreation or for the resolution of unauthorized uses." The LO~AA was approved by the Town Council an May 17, 1994. Staff relies on it as the most . ~ 'authoritative document concerning the transfer of land from the Forest Service to the Tawn of Vail. The third paragraph above clearly calls for employee housing as a recommended use far LOAA parcels, such as the one under consideration. 3. Should the development be targeted for the rental market or the ownership market? Staff has identified three sectors of the residential market, which the Town is trying to serve based on needs ofthc community: the permanent resident, the year-round renter, and the seasonal renter. The size, scale, and location of this site lends itself best to the permanent resident looking 4 purchase a home. One of the concerns is that the "affordability" could be lost, after the first sale. A decd restriction, similar to that used with the Vai] Commons development, will also be used with this development and the restriction will limit the resale value to an appreciation of three percent per year. In addition to the three percent per year which individuals can realize at time of resale, other costs can be added to the resale price. For example, if the Homeowner's Association assesses each unit owner for reroofing, residing, additional landscaping, paving, etc., one hundred percent of the assessment can be added to the resale price, allowing the owner to recoup costs attributed to maintenance. The deed restrictions have been written in such a way to preserve the affordable purchase price, while allowing residents to invest in the upkeep of their homes. The deed restrictions run in perpetuity, eliminating any risk of losing the initial subsidy to a future homeowner. 4. Should the dwelling units be made available to the residents throughout the community? Yes, staffbelievcs that all residents should be able to participate in a lottery according to criteria which reflects the needs of the community. Staff recommends that there be three tiers: • Critical employees working far the Town/District (to be determined by each organization); • Other employees working for the TawnlDistrict (to be allocated as determined by each organization); and Other community residents/employees (to be allocated by Town of Vail 1 District}. In response to the point made about Town employees having an unfair advantage over other community residents, there are two issues to consider: the Town provides a service to the community and staffing the Town enables the delivery of services to the community. It is not an us/them issue, we are in this together. Secondly, the Town and District are trying to lead by example by creating affordable housing for their employees, to encourage other employers to do the same. 5. How can the Town and District ensure that the units are used by employees of the Town and District in the future`? staff believes it is primarily an issue ofpriority-- we would like to see critical employees of the two organizations housed as the top priority. With that goal in mind, the Town and District will establish reciprocal 1st and 2nd rights of refusal far all 17 dwelling units in the development. This will allow the employees at the top of the lottery criteria list to be housed, However, if other employees own the units, we have still accomplished the goal of providing employee housing. As indicated in the lottery criteria list, other residents of the community will have an opportunity to buy homes in this development, if the supply is not exhausted by employees in the higher priority categories. Staff believes it would be heavy-handed to require a sale and then evict a local who chooses to work for a different employer in the valley. Regardless of employment location, the deed restrictions require that residents work an average of 30 hours per week at businesses which are located in Eagle County. 5 h. What has been the precedent for roads which cross private property'? Staff researched two other properties where this situation has occurred, At the time of redevelopment, tlic Town required casements to accommodate the existing alignment of the pavement, but did not require dedication of that portion of the site as right-of--way. As the land continued to be held as private property, the Town allowed the area in the easement to be used in the calculation of GRFA and other development standards. This is also consistent with the way the Town treats other casements (such as utility and drainage easements}, concerning the calculation ofdcvelopment standards. Specific items relating to the development proposal, 1. Insure that any wetlands to be disturbed are mitigated adequately. After walking the site with Russ Forrest, the Town Environmental Planner and Nicole Ripley, a wetland consultant, staff understands that the Corps of Engineers must be notified of the activity on-site, The consultant will assess the wetland qualities of the site, review the development plans, and determine the potential area of disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands. The consultant has recommended that an area equivalent to that of the disturbance be replanted on the north and south ends of the site, as mitigation for areas being impacted. The applicant understands that the northern and southern ends of the site must be planted with nursery grown stock, matching the willow species currently on-site. The specific area of revegetation has yet to be determined, but will be determined prior to the first reading of the ordinance by Town Council. Neither the consultant or the Town's environmental planner believe that the characteristics ofthe site, or the magnitude of the proposed development, will warrant other mitigation requirements than those described above. 2. Architecture Y ~7n~the discussions about the architecture at the previous PEC worksession, the PEC and DRB members were roughly split as to the appropriateness of flat roofs. After reviewing the colored renderings, the Board members had a greater appreciation far the quality of the proposed development, specifically the amount of variety within the massing, or as described in the hearing, the "wedding cake effect." Staff believes that from the range of comments on the flat roofs, the best analysis of them is summarized as follows: flat roofs can be the most efficient and arc appreciated by design professionals. Designs which incorporate flat roofs can be very high quality {and in fact are better than the design of Vail Commons}. However, the public will not appreciate the goad architecture and will perceive the project as a stack of boxes. Furthermore, this image will convey "public housing." 6 The applicable criteria in the Zoning Code is found in the Design Review Section and the SDD criteria. The SDD calls for compatibility with the surrounding properties. In this case, the i surrounding properties have either pitched roofs or a combination of flat with shed roofs. The DRB criteria are more specific and state that: • The majority of roof farms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet in twelve feet. However, other roof farms are allowed. Consideration of environmental and clinnatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, and solar exposure should be integral to the roof design. • Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter from the elements are encouraged. • The guidelines also call for snow shedding to be minimized in pedestrian areas. It should also be noted that although fiat roofs maybe appreciated for their simplicity, flat roofs are an often cited attribute of Lionshcad which the community is trying to move away from. Another issue raised by the PEC was the need to break-up the siding material with areas of stucco. Both the flat roof issue and the stucco issue have not been addressed since the previous PEC/DRB worksession. 3. Consolidate curb cuts. The project has been re-engineered sa that both Brooktree, Sandstone Park and the proposed project are served by one curbcut. The applicants are willing to provide permanent access easements for the neighboring developments. 4. Add a staircase to the north end of the site to access the Town of Vail bus stop. The applicant has been concerned that providing a staircase from the development to the bus stop across the street could be seen as a discriminatory act, against disabled individuals. Staff has 'researched the issue with the Town attorney, as well as with Vail Associates staff who deal with ADA issues regularly. Since the elevation difference at this corner of the site is approximately 16 feet, a ramp connecting the development to the upper road would be aver 200 feet Tong. Given the tough, requirements of the topography and the law, a connection at this location cannot be provided. 5. Add landscaping along Red Sandstone Road. The Tawn has alight-distance standard far intersections between driveways and roads, such as Red Sandstone Road. The area falling within a triangle of 10 feet by 250 feet must remain free of vegetation which could block the sight of oncoming traffic. Notwithstanding this requirement, staff believes that additional landscaping must be planted along Red Sandstone Road. Previously, 7 there were 8 spruce and 8 shrubs in this area. Since the worksession, the applicant has added plant material so that there is now a total of 13 spruce, 3 cottonwoods and S shrubs in the area, However ,staff believes that additional buffering is needed. Staff recommends adding 4 spruce and 5 shrubs in the area that extends south from the largest group of landscaping. The applicant has agreed to plant this area, as long as the finished grade is such that landscaping can be planted in the area. 6. Provide a sidewalk along Red sandstone Road. There is not suff dent room, given the retaining required, for a sidewalk. At the end of the worksession on September 9, 1996, the PEC concluded that given the site constraints, additional landscaping was a higher priority than a sidewalk. 7. Provide a streamwalk. After studying the site, staff believes that the connection from a potential streamwalk to the road above is not workable. As discussed above, the elevation difference at the base of the upper road is sitmifcantly higher than the stream. Given the relatively short length of walkway and the steep climb required around the creek culverts, a strcatnwalk does not appear to be a component that could readily be included in the development. A compromise solution may be to have the applicant provide apedestrian/fisherman's easement along the creak. This would allow creek access, without requiring a walkway to be constructed that would not be workable. 8. Provide additional snow storage. The snow storage areas are now 30% of the total pavement area. Staff believes the increase in this area, which has been made since the worksession, adequately provides fat storage areas. 9. Parking far the three bedroom units. Increasing the size of the garages for the three bedroom units would require a redesign of the whole project. However, in order to address the concerns of the FEC and to ensure that the three bedroom units are adequately served, the applicant has suggested that a guest space be reserved for each three bedroom unit. 10. Pedestrian access from within the garages. Pedestrian doors have been added to the garages which have some portion of exterior wall. In several cases, the way the buildings have been notched, provided just enough of an exterior wall S to include a door. However, one garage in each building does not have adequate exterior exposure to add a pedestrian door. 1 1. Overhead utilities. The applicant has committed to removing the existing overhead utilities. For clarification purposes, staff understands that the existing two poles on site will be removed and the existing service will terminate at the pole located immediately north of the Sandstone Park building. 12. Details. The dumpster will be enclosed, to improve the quality of the entrance area of the development. The sod areas between the buildings have been expanded, to provide additional turf area for the residents to use. The sod will be easier to maintain than "native vegetation," particularly since the new areas between the buildings will connect the sod from the fi~ut and back. iV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST, The criteria, the Town has used in the past, to evaluate rezoning requests are listed below: A. is the request in conformity with the Land Use Plan? The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates these parcels as Medium Density Residential (MDR), which translates to a density of 3 - 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Page 32 of the Land Use Plan calls for the following type of developments in areas with this designation: "The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with commons walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre." The buildable area of the combined sites is 1.24 acres. As the proposed development will consist of 17 dwelling units, the resulting density will be 13.71 d.u./ac. which is less than what the Land Use Plan prescribes. Please note that this calculation is based on buildable site area, not total site area. Additionally, the requested zoning of Medium Density Multi-Family Residential allows for up to l8 dwelling units per buildable acre. B. Have circumstances changed since the original zoning was placed on the property? The District has used the facility in the past for water treatment and storage. It is no longer needed by the District. The site is surrounded by rights-of way and roads, utilities, infrastructure, and residential condominium and townhouse developments. Staff believes that because the area has developed over time as a residential neighborhood, that it is reasonable to rezone this site to allow residential development, in order to be compatible with adjacent land uses. 9 C. Does the proposed zoning provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community'? Staff believes that the development of this site as affordable housing will increase the viability of our community, Affordable housing has been listed in the Town's annual community survey as a top priority, far reasons of economic stability as well as the desire to increase the sense of community, Though interest runs high, locating sites which can accommodate affordable housing is difficult. Housing at this location addresses the priorities of the community and enhances the viability of the Town. D. Dees the proposed zoning present a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The land uses on the surrounding properties are similar to the uses of the proposed development. The applicant has prepared an analysis of the densities of the surrounding properties, which is shown below; Froiect lane District) Parcel Uniis Grass Density Pertr?itted Density Size ldu/acl Potato Patch Club RC", 6/ac 1D acres 44 4.4 Sandstone Park LDMF, 9/ac 1.54 I6 1D.3 Rraoktree MDMF, 18/ac I.23 acres 48 22.0 Cotton wood Park LDMF, 9/ac .69 acres 7 i0.1 Aspen tree MDMF, 18/ac .49 acres 15 30,6 Sandstone Greek Club LDMF, 91ac 5.9 acres 84 14.2 Sun Vail MDMF, 18/ac 4.9.1 acres h0 12,2 Breakaway West MDMF, i8/ac 1.87 acres 54 28.8 SnowLionlSnowFox MDMF, 18/ac 1.36 acres 42 30.$ Telemark MDMF, 18/ac .96 acres 18 18,7 Homes[ake MDMF, 18/ac I.36 acres 66 48.5 Lionsmane MDMF, i8/ac L04 acres 37 35,5 Vail Village 9th 2-Family 3.39 acres 24 (potential) 7,0 Parcel A General Use 5.7 acres 0 0 The gross density of the proposed development is i U,6 dwelling units per acre. { 17 units/ 1,b044 gross acres = 10.6 du/ac) As such, it is well within the range of the densities in the area. E. Suitability of the proposed zoning. Staff believes that the proposed zoning is suitabIc for this site. The development allowed by the rezoning will allow the community to move towards its goals regarding the supply of affordably priced homes, The development will be in line with surrounding projects, concerning uses and density. 1Q V, EVALUATION OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOC'MENT DISTRCCT REQUEST. Below are the nine criteria used to evaluate Special Development District proposals: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties, relative to the architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the architectural scale, bulk and building height are all successful. However, staff is concerned about the identity and the character of the project. Specifically, staff is concerned about the flat roofs. The surrounding developments in the Sandstone area range in age and quality, and none exclusively have flat roofs. Many have a combination of flat and pitched roofs. For example, Sandstone Park has steeply pitched sheds and gables in conjunction with flat roofs. Brooktree has a combination of a mansard-type roof with a flat roof. Aspentree and Potato Patch Club both have built-up gravel roofs, which are pitched at relatively shallow slopes. Staff believes that one of the significant elements in each of the surrounding properties is the roof eave overhang. We believe that this gives architectural character to the development, as it creates a shadow line, breaks up the mass and bulk, and creates a character that is appreciated by the general public. • Staff does not want to discount the overall quality of the proposed design. However, we believe that the character should be modified by adding pitched roofs to the flat roofs in a way similar to Sandstone Park, irnrnediately adjacent to the project to the west. Of particular concern to staff is the height of the flat roofs relative to the road elevation surrounding the project. We believe that the roof areas will be highly visible from the surrounding area. The elevation at the corner of Red Sandstone Road and Potato Patch Drive is approximately 2 - 3 feet higher than the elevation of the second s#ory roofs. Since pedestrians and drivers on the road will be higher than the roof elevation, the flat roofs will have greater exposure. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff believes that the uses, activity and density will be compatible with the surrounding developmen#. As discussed above, under the evaluation of the rezoning request, the proposed density is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and will be lower than the surrounding developments in the area. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements, as outlined in Chapter 18.52. The proposed development exceeds the Zoning Code requirement regarding the total supply of parking spaces, as well as the supply of enclosed parking spaces. 11 Each of the condominiums will have its own oversized garage. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The Vail Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Flan} calls for a density on this site ranging from 3-14 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development, at 13. l dwelling units per buildable acre, is consistent with the Land Use Plan. A thorough analysis of the consistency with the Land Use Plan is provided above, under the rezoning discussion. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property an which this Special Development District is proposed. The only hazard affecting this site is the 100-year floodplain. All improvements, grading, and disturbance will be located outside of the floodplain. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development, responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of community. The site plan and building design have been developed to take full advantage of the open space area along Red Sandstone Creek. Each of the dwelling units will abut this corridor, which will increase the quality of life of the residents of this development. In the site planning development, the 30' stream centerline setback standard of the Town has been respected, providing a buffer between the riparian corridor and the development. There is one location where same of the existing vegetation will be removed. Tom Braun, the representative for the development, has stated that the District will transplant vegetation during the construction process ar will replace it with new plant material, matching the existing species. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Driveways have been aligned so that the Rcd Sandstone, Broaktree, and Sandstone Park developments will all be sharing the same access onto Red Sandstone Road. Easements will be provided to maintain this access in the future, The point of intersection with Red Sandstone Road has been located at a point where visibility is the greatest, as Red Sandstone Road winds its way up to Potato Patch. Concerning pedestrian circulation, staff has requested that the existing sidewalk along Red Sandstone Road be continued up to the entrance to this development. ]2 Qriginally, staff and the PFC requested that a pedestrian connection be provided from this project up to Ked Sandstone Road, above the development. Unfortunately, the ADA laws are such that providing a staircase without a second accessible route cannot be done. An important detail relating to cireuiarion is the areas for snow storage. Snow will be stored along the driveway, on the east side as well as at the northern end of the drive. Snow storage areas have been increased, as discussed above. H, Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space, in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views anal function. Staff requests that the applicant buffer the prof ect mare from adjacent properties, particularly along Red Sandstone Road. Staff understands that there is a very steep slope in this area, plus retaining walls, which limits the plantable area. However, staff believes more trees and shrubs should be added, per the comments ' made earlier in the memo. Staff also requests that the existing vegetation be preserved. The large spruce (24 inch caliper) on the north west corner of the site is proposed to be preserved. i 1, Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of this Special Development District. At this tirn.e, it is anticipated that the development would be completed in a single phase. if far any reason, the Forest Service and the Town cannot complete the transfer of ownership of the northernmost part of the state, the District will proceed ahead with construction of the first three buildings. A condition of approval will be to have the District resubdivide all the parcels into one lot. Though the zoning Cade definition allows parcels adjacent to one another to be considered as one lot, ultimately the development area must be replotted as a condominium map. As part of that process, the land will eventually be platted as a single Iat. As part of the initial phase, staff understands that the existing overhead utility lines will be buried. Staff understands that two pales will be removed and the existing overhead lines eliminated back to the existing pole adjacent to the Sandstone Park Condominium Building. l3 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Special Development District and Rezoning with two conditions. We believe the applicant ltas been responsive to a majority of the issues and has designed a quality product which will help meet the community's housing needs. However, staff believes that the architectural character, and landscape screening, of the project could meet the SDD criteria better than the current design. As a result, staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: l) That the applicant modify the architectural character of the project by incorporating a mixture of flat roofs and shed roofs into the design, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town Council. 2) That the applicant add additional trees and shrubs (4 spruce and 5 shrubs) to the area of the site adjacent to Red Sandstone Road, prior to first reading of the ordinance at Town COlI17c l1. 14 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING November 19, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 19, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the 1~111unicipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Jewett TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Hotly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Vail resident, Scotty McGowan expressed his concerns regarding uncontrolled, vicious dogs in town. Next, Sheiks Gramshammer of the Gasthof Gramshammer Lodge, addressed the Council about noise problems in the Village core, and was especially concerned with the 7:00 a.m. trash removal. She said trash removal that early in the mo~g was especially annoying to guests and suggested a later pickup of 8:00 a.m. Jo Stauffer of the Vail Village Inn said he supported Sheika's concerns, and stated that because of the mixed use buildings in the Village, it was important to be "liveable". On another mafiter, Mr. Staufer asked Council members to reconsider their decisions pertaining to the Red Sandstone housing project, stating it would be a mistake to put public lands to private ownership. He also indicated he did not appreciate the architecture of the project. Peter Franke, an employee of Gasthof Gramshammer then addressed Council regarding the early trash removal issue. In addition to an 8:00 a.m. pick up, Franke suggested back up beepers and diesel engines on the trucks be cut off to help alleviate noise, and asked that Checkpoint Charlie be staffed at night. Ray Parsons of BFI explained the trash removal process in the Village, and said he understood the concerns expressed by Gramshammer. However, he explained that in addition to coming up with a cost effective collection system, safety was his company's main issue. Larry Roman, facilities manager for BFI was also on hand to explain operations. , Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said he supported all parties who spoke on the trash removal issue. He said he was confident that short and long term solutions to the loading and delivery problems could be reached, and that everyone in the community should participate. Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Special District No. 21, the Vail Gateway Building, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Apartment, Inc., represented by Steve Riden. B. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance to designate 14 properties located in the Town of Vail as open space as provided in Article 13,~ Section 13.11 of the Charter of the Town of Vail, Colorado. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve the Consent Agenda, and Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996, first reading of the 1997 budget and financial plan, and consideration of a 1998 budget and financial plan. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson presented the item, stating that the annual appropriation Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996 will adopt the 1997 budget and approve the 1998 budget, and that staff recommendation was for approval of the Ordinance on first reading. Mayor Armour asked that staff look at the opportunity to add an additional firefighter position prior to second reading. Paul inquired about the number of community safety officers employed by the town. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin stated that currently there were four, but that additional officers would likely be needed once a new loading and delivery plan was adopted. Rob ord moved to approve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996 on first reading with a second from Sybill. Sybill then str the importance of an additional firefighter. Bob McLaurin said he would have information available at the November 26 work session as to the cost of the position. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996, first reacting of an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 1$.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in x' Vail Town Gcuncil Evening Meating Minutes Novamder 19, 1996 J regard thereto; and Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance rezoning three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 fio Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road. Senior Housing Planner, Andy Knudtsen presented the two ordinances and referred to an October 28, 1996 memorandum to the PEC. He explained that the zoning change was needed to move forward with a proposal initiated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in partnership with the Town of Vail and the U.S. Forest Service for a 17-unit affordable housing development. He said the water district was the owner ofthree-quarters of the property, while tE~orest Service awned one-quarter of the ]and, and that the town and Forest Service were negotiating a transfer to th town as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement. Andy further stated that the land use plan was consistent with the proposed use, and that the project was well within the range and consistent with what currently exists in the area. He mentioned that parking and loading areas were well within the requirements. The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996. Tom Braun of Braun & Associates, Pat Dauphanias of the Eagle River Water and 5anitatian District, and Jim Morter of Morter Architects presented a visual design of the project, answered questions, and provided an overview of the proposed site plan. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowner's Association questioned whether the units should al! be sold, and suggested keeping a portion of the units in the affordable housing pool. He requested the Water District's use of their units be similar be similar to that of the town's, as far as the number available for critical and non-critical employees, the rest being drawn for in a to#tery. He said housing was needed for all employees, not just those employed by the government. Additionally, Lamont said he would like to see additional sidewalks put in. Rob Ford complemented the Water District for its efforts in presenting an affordable housing project for the community. He said an excellent jab was done meeting the criteria and proposing the project, and suggested Council approve the project and move forward. He said he was confident the smaller details could then be worked out. Ro ord moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes as recommended by~wn Attorney, Tom Moorhead. Sybill seconded the motion, and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1996 was then discussed. Rob Ford stated the project met with all the design guidelines as required. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, with addition of language pertaining to deed restric#ion and streamwalk setbacks for the project. Rob Ford seconded the motion. Mayor Armour then complimented the project, pointing out that the setbacks had been met, and that parking and landscaping was greater than what was required for the project. Paul Johnston stated he couldn't vote in , #avor of the project because of concerns about the architectural design, in particular the flat roofs. A vote was then taken and passed, 5-1, Paul voting in opposition. Agenda item number five was An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one- cargarage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, VaillPotato Patch, Second Filing. Appetlants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace. Town Planner Dominic Mauriello informed the Council that the appellants requested the matter be continued to December 17, 1996. Rob moved to table the item until the December 17 evening meeting and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote wen taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Sixfh on the agenda was a report from the Tawn Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had nothing to add. Kevin Foley announced the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority had authorized $250,000 in transportation sales tax funds to help complete the Dowd Junction recreational path. He said approval was based on a recommendation by the Trails Committee, which reviews requests for matching funds. There being no further business a motion was made by Rob for adjournment. Kevin seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~7 Gar"" Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~~~M Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Nolly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes November 99, 1996 MEDIA ADVISORY November 20, 199fi Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR NOVEMBER 19 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Johnston*, Kurz, Navas"` *Attended site visit only --Site Visit/Campisi PEC Appeal The Council visited a Potato Patch site at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B in preparation for an appeal to be heard. at the evening meeting. However, the matter was continued to Dec. 17 at the request of the appellants. Charles and Geri Campisi are appealing a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow an additional one-car garage. Far more information, contact Dominic Mauriella in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Site Visit/Red Sandstone In preparation for the evening meeting, the Caunci! visited the site proposed for 17 affordable housing units by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in partnership with the Town of Vail. Please see evening meeting briefs far details. --Information Update Town Manager Bab McLaurin invited Council members to attend an open house on Dec. 6 to mark the town's 30th anniversary of incorporation and to celebrate the reopening of the Transportation Center. A ribbon cutting will take place at 1 p.m. at the Transportation Center. Mayor Bob Armour will assist. Also, McLaurin reminded Council members of the Turn It Up party scheduled for later in the evening. Other announcements from McLaurin included: an update on planning for the 99 World Alpine Ski Championships; an update on the Transportation Center remodel, which will be completed on Dec. 2; and an update on loading and delivery discussions, which will be rescheduled for Council consideration in the coming weeks. --Council Reports Kevin Foley, who represents the Council on Arts In Public Places, said the board is moving forward with its call for artists to solicit plans for Seibert Circle. He said the board is aware a# the council's concern for emergency vehicle access, a point reinforced earlier this year with the Wall Street Building fire. Also, Foley provided an update on the Eagle County Regional Transpartatian.Authority and the Trails Committee. A recommendation by the Committee to authorize $250,000 in transportation sales tax money to complete the Dowd Junction recreational path has been approved by the authority, Foley said. The Colorado Department of Transportation plans to widen Highway 6 next year with 8 ft. shoulders on each side of the road to improve the linkage between Vail and Eagle-Vail, he said. Rob Ford and Bob Armour reported on the latest meeting of the T4V-VA Community Task Force. The meeting included an update on mountain improvements, the upcoming holiday management plan and Vail Tomorrow. --Other Kevin Foley expressed concern about the town's handling of overflow cars along the Frontage Road this past weekend. Foley said he received complaints about the matter and was concerned that same of the cars were ticketed. Town Manager Bob Mcl_aurin agreed and said the town wasn't as prepared as it could have been and was working on improvements, including better signage. Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, encouraged the town to prepare for additional crowds this coming weekend and during Thanksgiving weekend. Bab Armour echoed Faley's concerns, saying last weekend's experience was not the kind of image Vail needs. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead indicated the amplified sound issue would be coming back to the Town Council for review and possible modification in February. In the meantime, he said the town clerk will continue to process new applications for permits until the matter is resolved. The issue has been controversial in the past due to nuisance complaints against some of the permit-holders by surrounding neighbors and businesses. For more information, contact Moorhead at 479-2107. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Scotty McGowan appeared before the Council and expressed concerns about vicious dogs in town. He suggested the need to educate newcomers about Vail's leash laws in the commercial core areas. Next, Sheika Gramshammer of the Gasthof Gramshammer Lodge, addressed the Council about noise problems in the Village core. In particular, Gramshammer said the 7 a.m. start for trash removal in the core is too noisy for sleeping guests. As a result, she said, it is becoming more difficult to run a hotel in the heart of Vail. Gramshammer said she would rather see trash removal begin at 8 a.m., noting that pedestrians and trash trucks should be able to co-exist. Also speaking was Joe Staufer of the Vail Village Inn, who supported Gramshammer's concerns. Because zoning in Vai1's commercial care advocates amixed-use, Staufer said it has to be "liveable". On another matter, Staufer asked the Council to consider his views during discussion of the Red Sandstone affordable housing project, which was heard later in the evening. Referring to the town's portion of the proposed 17-unit development, Staufer said it would be a mistake to put public land in private ownership. Instead, Staufer advocated keeping the town's units in a rental pool rather than selling them. He said the action would create a bad precedent for the future. In addition, Staufer said he and others did not appreciate the architecture of the project. Also appearing before the Council was Peter Franke, an employee of the Gasthof Gramshammer, who also complained about the trash delivery issue. Franke suggested eliminating the back-up beepers on the trucks and shutting off the diesel engines on delivery trucks to help reduce noise. He also agreed that pedestrians and trash trucks can co-exist with an 8 a.m. trash removal schedule. In addition, Franke asked that Checkpoint Charlie be staffed at night to control vehicular movement in and out of the Village. Next to speak was Roy Parsons of BFI. Parsons said he was sympathetic to the concerns expressed by Gramshammer. However, he said safety is the company's number-one issue. Parsons said the solution isn't an 8 a.m. adjustment, but rather placement of a compactor to limit the number of times a trash truck is needed to travel in the core. He said BFI was willing to work with the town and its customers to find a solution. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said he agreed with all concerns expressed during citizen participation. He said he remained confident that short and long-term solutions to the loading and delivery problems could be reached. He also described it as a community-wide problem, not a neighborhood problem, because of the economic impacts produced by businesses in the core. --Consent Agenda . The Council voted 6-0 to approve two ordinances an the consent agenda: one to amend the Vail Gateway Building Special Development District and another to designate 14 properties located in the Town of Vail in a special open space classification authorized by a charter amendment approved by voters cast November. --1997-98 Town of Vail Budget The Council voted 6-0 on first reading to adapt the 1997 budget and to approve the 1998 budget. During discussion, Bob Armour and Sybill Navas said they wanted to look at the possibility of adding a firefighter position before the ordinance comes up far second reading. With no increases in staff since 1982, Fire Chief Dick Duran has said the safety of his firefighters is being compromised due to multiple alarms and reduced availability of off-duty personnel. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he would generate a spreadsheet an the cost of the position for review at the Nov. 26 work session. Although the budget calls for elimination of 7.5 full-time equivalent positions {through attrition and/or reassignment), McLaurin said additional community safety officers will likely be needed once a new loading and delivery plan is adopted. For more information, contact Mcl_aurin at 479-2105. --Red SandstonelRezoning, Special Development District The Counci! voted 6-~ on first reading to approve an ordinance to rezone the property at 845 Red Sandstone Road from general use district to medium density multi-family. The zoning change is needed to move forward with a proposal initiated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District in partnership with the Town of Vail and U.S. Forest Service fora 17-unit affordable housing development. The water district owns three- quarters of the property, while the Forest Service currently awns one-quarter of the land. The town and Forest Service are currently in negotiations to transfer its portion to the town as part of the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement {LOAA). The transfer is expected to be completed in February. Also last night, the Council voted 5-1 (Johnston against) to approve a Special Development District (SDD) for the project. The SDD clarifies the development intentions far the property, requiring the specific design to be provided simultaneously with the request far a change in zoning. During an overview, Andy Knudtsen, the town's senior housing policy planner, noted the density for the proposed development is well within the range of surrounding densities, and that neighbors were generally supportive of the project. He also referred to the Council's decision an Nov. 12 that all five of the town-controlled units would be sold to T~V employees (three for critical life-saving and two far non-critical employees). During discussion, Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association asked the Council to use the SDD process to enable equal access for the housing units by the genera! public. He suggested the water district receive one-third of the units, the Town of Vail one-third, and the remaining third be available to the general public through a lottery similar to Vail Commons. Lamont said the spG# would address public policy concerns that stem from what he called the conversion of open space and the use of public lands for housing. In response, Pat Dauphinais, board member of the water district, said his board would be interested in pursuing a public lottery far any excess units once the board determines the number of units it will need. At this time, it is anticipated that all 17 of the units will be deed restricted with standards similar to Vail Commons deed restrictions. There is a provision that would allow for 25 percent of the units to be sold as "free market" uni#s to reduce the cost of the affordable housing, although the . applicants do not anticipate needing the subsidy. Additional provisions of the deed restriction which exceed the Vail Commons standards wil! allow the water district and the town to retain control of the units on a resale basis via reciprocal first and second rights of refusal. Paul Johnston voted against the SDD ordinance due to concerns about the project's architectural design, specifically the flat roofs. For additional details, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479- 24~0. --Campisi Appeal of Planning and Environment Commission Decision At the request of the appellants, the Council voted 6-D to table the matter to the Dec. 17 evening meeting. --Other Kevin Foley announced the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority has voted to authorize $250,000 in transportation sales tax funds to help complete the Dowd Junction recreational path. Foley said approval was based on a recommended by the Trails Committee, which reviews requests for matching funds. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS November 26 Wark Session PECIDRB Review GRFA Discussion December 3 Work Session Site Visit and Discussion of Ordinance 18, Savoy Villas Discussion of Supplemental Appropriations Motion to Modify Debris Flows on Bald Mountain Road Discussion of Ordinance Amending Section 18.22.030 Vail Commons Open House December 3 Evening Meeting First Reading Ordinance 18, Savoy Villas SDD First Reading Ordinance 22, Amendment to Section X8.22.030 First Reading Ordinance, Supplemental Appropriations Second Reading Ordinance 23, Budget Second Reading Ordinance 20 &.24, Red Sandstone SDD and Rezoning Resolution 21, Norwest Presention of Investment Report December 10 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Community Collaboration Fallow-up to Support TOV Critical Goals Council Executive Session TOWN OF VATL MEMORANDUM TO: Robert MCLaurin Council Members FROM: Judy Popeck DATE: November 21, 1996 RE: investment Report Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of October 31, 1996. A $500,000.00 FNMA was purchased on October 10, 1996 with a yield of 5.$805 maturing on June 10, 1998. A $850,000.00 FHLMC was purchased on October 31, 1996 with a yield of 5.340% maturing on November 20, 1996. A $1,150,000.00 FNMA was purchased on October 31, 1996 with a yield of 5.3405 maturing on November 26, 1996. A $2,500,000 FFC was purchased on October 31, 1996 with a yield of 5.3305 maturing on December 19, 1.996. The estimated average yield for the debt service fund was 6.87 and 5.62 for the pooled cash fund. Currently the yield curve for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are 5.01, 5.08, and 5.16 respectively. Please call me if you have any questions. Town of Vail, Colorado Investment Report Summary of Accounts and Investments For the Month Ending October 31, 1996 Balances Percentage 10/31/96 a# Total Money Market Accounts {see page 1 } Commercial Banks $2,268,790 13.79% Local Government Investment Pools $774,527 4.71 Money Market Funds $98,556 0.60% Total $3,141,873 19.10% Commercial Savings Banks & Loans Certificates of Deposit (see page 2} Eagle County Institutions O.DO% ther Colorado Institutions $198,000 $198,000 1.20% ~ationai Institutions 0.00% Total $198,000 $198,000 1.20% Percentage of Portfolio in Savings & Loans 0.00% U.S. Government Securities (see page 3) • Treasury Notes & Bills $2,466,595 15.00% GNMA's $57,649 0.35% U.S. Savings Bands $30,000 0.18%' Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds $10,552,880 64.16% Total $13,107',124 79.69% Total Portfolio $16,446,997 100.00% • Maturing Within 12 Months $13,802,334 83.92% Maturing Within 24 Months $1,583,729 9.63% Maturing After 24 Months $1,060,934 6.44% $16,446,997 100.00% 11/21/96 . invsmpp Page 2 Money Market Accounts as of October 31, 1996 --For the Month of October-- Institution Balances Type of Accounts - -High Low Average 10/31/96 COMMERCIAL BANK ACCOUNTS First Bank of VaiE -Operating Interest 4.920% 4.830% 4.850% ___-_=~___________~~~~==T=====___ $3,108,243 $2,193,452 $2,619,fi09 Balance ==a==muse===a=====________~_____= $2,266,859 Colorado National Bank Super Now Account Interest 3.140% General Operating Account Balance $1,931 Total Commercial Bank Accounts $2,268,790 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS Colorado Trust Capital Projects Proceeds Interest 5.160% • Balance $774,527 Total Local Government Investment Pool Accounts $774,527 . MONEY MARKET FUNDS Bank One Money Market Fund -Dana Investments Interest 3.904% Balance $92,373 Fidelity lnvestment Government Money Market Accounts Interest 5.180% zxmrs=== Bond Issue Reserve Account Balance ~ $6,183 Total Money Market Funds $98,556 Total all accounts $3,141,873 11/21/96 invmmjlp Page 3 Certificates of Deposit as of October 31, 7 996 ~nk Name, l_acation Days to Rates Purchase Maturity Maturity Maturity Ins Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value BestBank, Thorntart Coiorada FDIC 7.250% 16-Feb-95 16-Feb-97 108 $99,000 Firstbank of Vail, Vail Colorado FDIC 6.000% 5.830% 26-Jun-95 26-Jun-98 603 $99,000 Avg Yield 6.540% $198,000 11/21/96 invcdjlp Page 4 Government Securities as of October 31,1996 """Treasury Notes & Bills"' Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity to Book Par Type Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Value Value TNote Pooled 7.500% 5.513% 17-Apr-98 31-Jan-97 289 92 $1,004,781 $1,000,000 TSlrip Pooled 5.970% 5.970% 26-Apr-96 15-May-87 384 196 $97fl,690 $1,000,000 TNote Pooled 5.250% 6.370% 11~Jun-9fi 31~Jut-98 780 638 $491,124 5500,000 Average Yteld 5.86% _$_2,466 595 S2 500 000 Average Days to Maturity 3~ '°GNMAS"' Years to Estimated Interest Rate Purchase Maturity Maturity Years to Principal pal Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturity Outstandins~ 58Q3 8.000% 8.480% 14Nov-86 15-Oct-Ob 19.10 i 1.00 $20,ti35 13003 8.000% 9.500% 24-Oct-86 15-Oet-06 20.20 12.00 $18,664 14659 8.000% 9.200% 24-Oct-86 15-Jan-07 21.20 13.00 $18,350 Avg Yield 9.039% 357,649 •""iJ 5. Savings Bonds"' Years to Issue Maturity Maturity Years to Bock Maturity Series Yield Date Date at Purchase Maturfty Value Value EE 7.170% 01-Oct-86 01-Oct-96 10.D0 iVIA $30,000 530,000 '""Federal Agency discount Notes & Bonds"' DayslYears DaysNears to Interest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Maturity at Book Original Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Month End Value Cost SB Pooled -Dana 9.475% 29-,tun-94 25-Feb-2008 13.7 11.3 $43,114 $82,749 Pooled -Dana 8.975% 26-May-94 25-i4Aar-2008 13.8 11.4 $83,477 $109,734 Pooled -Dana 9.475% 18-Aug-94 25-Ju1-2008 13.9 11.7 $63,191 $149,875 SHA Pooled-Dana 8.125% 31-Oct-96 25-Jan-2013 16.2 16.2 $65,143 $65,558 SBA Pooled-Dana 8.725% 29-Jun-94 25-Jun-2019 25.0 22,7 $100,928 $108,523 SBA Pooled-Dana 8.975% 12.lu1-94 25,1un-2019 25.0 22.7 $61,888 $108,744 SBA Pooled -Dana 8.725% OB-May-95 25-Dec-2019 24.6 23.2 $98,114 $98,391 FNMA Pooled -Dana 6.682% Oi.iul-96 01-May-2026 29.9 29.5 $55,344 $55,304 FNMA Pooled-Dana 5.987% 24-Jun-96 01-Jun-2026 30.0 29.6 $63,142 $71,318 FNMA Pooled -Dana 8.314% 28.tun-94 01-Oct-2017 23.3 24.9 $75,316 $97,572 FNMA Pooled -Dana 7.fiifi% 27-May-94 01-May-2020 25.9 23.5 $66,139 $100,577 FNMA Pooled -Dana 7.55996 24~1an-96 01-Oct-2023 27.7 26.9 $63,848 375,722 FHLMC Pooled -Dena 5.965% 28-Mar-96 01-Mar-2026 29.9 29.4 $60,528 $66,341 FHLMC pooled-Dana 7.851% 28-Aug-94 01-Aug-2018 23.9 21.8 $66,172 374,245 FHLMC Pooled -Dana 8.407% 26,fun-94 01-Mar-2019 24.7 22.3 $41,Bfi4 $86,355 FHLMC Pooled -Dana 6.366% 22-May-96 01-Feb-2436 39.7 39.3 $60.460 $80,461 AverageYfeld 8.01% $1,068,428 $1.352.469 Average Years to Maturity 21 DayslYears DayslYears to tnterest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Maturity at Book Maturity Agency Fund Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Month End Value Value FNMA Debt Service 6.912% 27-Fetr95 17-Jan-97 1.9 78.0 $280,547 $280,000 FHLB Pooled 5.998% 26-Apr-96 10-Nov-97 1.5 1.0 $9$3,605 $1,400,000 FHLMC Pooled 5.340% 31-Oet-96 20-Nov~6 20.0 20.0 $847,812 $850,000 FHLB Pooled 5.783% 30-5ep-96 25-Sep-97 360.0 329.0 $500,457 $500,000 FNMA Pooled 5.340% 31-Oct-96 26-Nov-96 26.0 26.0 $1,145,807 $1,15D.000 FNMA Pouted 5.880% 10-Oct-96 10-.tun-98 1.7 1,6 $496,151 5500,400 FHLMC Pooled 5.751% 28-Aug-96 28-Aug-97 i.0 301.0 5699,389 $700,000 F p~~ 5.354% 47-Rug-9B OS-Nov-9fi 93.0 8.0 3998.960 $1,000,000 Pooled 5.297% 30~Sep-96 15-Nov-86 46.0 15.0 $898,561 $700,000 F CPooted 5.301% 23-Aug-96 22-Nov-96 91.4 22.0 $747,688 $750,000 FFC Pooled 5.330% 31-Oct-96 19-Dec-96 49.0 49.0 31,489,558 $1,500.OW FFC Pooled 5.794% 27,fun-95 28-Apr-97 1.8 179.0 $651.260 3650.000 $9549.595 57.430,040 Average Yield S.~`~ Average Days to Maturity 58 Total _ $13.172,267 11!21!96 iNVTR10.WK4 Page 5 . MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental Commission 'FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 25, 1996 SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Cade to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as a conditional .use in the Public Accommodation Zone District and . establishing additional conditional use factors far time-share estate units, fractional fee units andlor time-sk~are license units in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordan Pierce Planner: George Ruttier 1. DE5CRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting to amend the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. The applicant is proposing that Section 18.22.030 of the Municipa! Code be amended to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and #ime- share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District and #o Srcb~G~'~"° create Section 18.22.035, Conditiana! Uses -Factors applicable. The time-share estate units~.or+~`ti°"~`p fractional fee units and time-share license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a ~ conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. Il. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented, and has since expired, but instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately "75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There Is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet an the east end of 1 ~ the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size {300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as time-share interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking and loading/delivery in an underground parking structure. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Tawn of Vail, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zane District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as maybe located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre, The Public Accommodation Zone Dis#rict does not permit time-share interval units. Interval ownership Is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi- Family Zone District. Alf properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In order for atime-share project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a ' developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time- share project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its current zoning to High Density Multi-Family. Chapter f 8.D4 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee ~inits and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440, time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows: Time-share estate units; Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit, the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or .referred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, ors interval estate is an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule, vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date certain. Fractional fee units: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or more co-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement 2 continues ro be in any way binding ar affective upon any ca-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. Time-share license units; Shall be de#ined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. Na timeshare is a timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare ar timespan estate. III. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS, In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Cade, to allow time-share in the Public Accommodation Zone District as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectlyes stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, Section 18.22.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to the purpose statement, "The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi-public facilities and limited pro#essional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional non-residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to function _ compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public ' Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at - densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre." According to Section 18.22.024, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zane District: a) Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 10% of the total Grass Residential Floor Area of the main structure ar structures an the site; b) Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. 3 Chapter 18.6D of the Town of Vaif Municipal Code provides a framework for making decisions on requests far conditional use permits within the Town of Vail. Section 18.80.01 D identifies the purpose and limitations of a conditional use permit. According to the Purpose Statement, "In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Code, specified uses are permitted in certain zone districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of the Zoning Code and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed In Chapter 18.60 is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town of Vail at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various zone districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Tawn of Vail may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be devised." Section 18.60.060, Criteria-Findings, identifies the Criteria and Findings which the Planning Commission shall consider with respect to the proposed use before acting upon a conditional use permit application. A. The following Criteria-Findings shall be considered by the Planning and Erwironmental Commission when acting upon a request for a conditional use permit: 7 . Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of tha Town; 2. The effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and o#her public facilities needs; 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas; 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use; 6. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Chapter 18.56; 7. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for clime-share estate, fractional fee or time-share license proposal, the applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, 4 of the proposed time-share, fractional fee, or time-share license. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than 60 days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. All buildings which presently contain time-share units, would be exempt from this provision. B. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: • 9. That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in _ which the site is located; 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or Improvements In the vicinity; 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. VAIL LAND t.iSE PLAN • Chapter II of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has identified the following goals (listed below), as being relevant to the applicant's proposal: 1. General Growth 1 Development 1~1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.a The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2. Skier 1 Tourist Concerns 2_i The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. S - ' ~.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2_4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism, 3. Commercial ~ The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently. ~ The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3_~4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate bath local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core 1 Lionshead 4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vai! Village Master Plan. 5. Residential ~,_2 Quality time-share units should 6e accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 6. Additional goofs related to other elements of the comprehensive plan. Economic Development The Town of Vaii should consider developing some type of mechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial uses is maintained. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN; On January 1fi, ~ 99D, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing community goals far public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that wil! preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal . with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan i# underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6 ~ ' i a Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identi#y. 1.2 Objective:. Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic t>tealth and viability iEor the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Cade and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be . encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 7 a 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2,5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Goof #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village, 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, fighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Paiicy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. 8 Goal #4 To preserve existing green space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.}, shall be encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5. i Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zane District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fiurtd} to meet any additional parking . demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Sub-Area #1-13 Sonnenalp(Austria Haus}lSli#er Square Commercial infill along East Meadow Drive, to provide stronger edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide Improvements to pedestrian circulation with a separated walkway, including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. . Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along Meadow Drive, are two significant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residentialllodging may also be accommodated on this site. 9 IV. PROPO$Ep TEXT C~1NGE~ - As stated prevkously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee • units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses and staff is proposing to create Section 18.22.038, establishing additional conditional use factors to consider when reviewing a request for a conditional use permit far atime-share estate, fractional fee and/or time-share license unit in the Public Accommodation Zone District. The proposed changes to Section 18.22.030 are shown as ~f}atled below; • Chapter 78.22 Public Accommodation 18.22.030 Candi#ional uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Professional and business offices; S. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers; C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations; D. Ski lifts and taws; E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; G. Public transportation terminals; H. Publie utility and public service uses; . I. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; J. Public or private schools; K. Public parks and recreational facilities; L. Churches; M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establishments not occupying more than 10% of the total Grass Residential Floor Area of a main structure or structures located on the site in anon-conforming multi-family dwelling; N, Major arcade, so long as it does not have any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area; O. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310; P. Type III EHU as~defined in Section 18.57.Ofi0; Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.70; R. Tlme-hare .estates units, #ractional fee units and:tirTmi?-sh~re.iicdi5~e grits as,#urtf~er . ~~guiatEd by;:Sectic~rti,.':,~'8;~2.t735. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE FACTORS Staff is proposing tc establish additional conditional use factors to be used in the consideration of a conditional use permit request for time-share projects in the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to discussions with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission, staff believes that time-share projects could be compatible with the existing permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation Zone District given that certain factors are met. A similar approach is currently used in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District to address conditional uses. 10 Staff proposes that the following additional conditional use factors be established through the creation of a new section in Chapter 18.22. The proposal is as follows: 18.22.035 Conditional Uses -Factors applicable. In addition to the criteria found in Chapter 18.fi0, an application for a conditional use permit for atime-share estate unit, fractional fee unit, andlor a time-share license unit in the Public Accommodation Zane District shall be evaluated subject to the following review criteria: A. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the Note! bed base (i.e., overnight accommodations) in the Town of Vail. In determining the effects of a time-share project on the hotel bed base, consideration shall be given to the proposed on-site relationship and ratio of time-share units to accommodation units, the availability of lack-affs~• units and the short-term rental opportunities of time-share units when not in use by the owner(s). The cumulative effects of the proposed time-share project and other existing time-share projects shall also be considered. g. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the gross square footage of existing accommodation units in the Town of Vail. Consideration shall be given to allowing #ar the inclusion of the proposed lock-off square footage as accommodation unit square footage. C. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse impacts-upon adjacent properties. Adverse impacts to consider may include, but are not limited to, impacts to traffic, parking, noise, the character of the area, loadingldelivery and trash facilities. p. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the nature of Vail as a world-class resort offering winter and summer recreation and vacation opportunities. The cumulative effects of the proposed time-share project and other existing time-share projects shall also be considered. E. The proposed time-share project's ability to provide accommodation'and. recreation amenities to its guests and the Town of Vail. Amenities to consider include, but are not limited to, proximity of the project to public transportation, availability of conferencelmeeting room space, availability of hotel-type services, proximity of the project to retail shops and eating/drinking establishments, on-site recreation facilities and proximity to community recreation facilities. F. The applicant's ability to guarantee the future adequacy, stability and continuity of a high-level of management and maintenance of the time- share project. G. Whether an office of the managing agent is located locally, or on the site of the time-share project. H. Whether a front desk operation, operating 24 hours a day and seven days a week, with reservation/registration capabilities, exists within the proposed time-share project. 11 1. The effects of a proposed time-share project upon the goals, objectives and policies prescribed in the adopted Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan Ekement5 and the proposal's compliance with the Municipal Code. J. A proposed time-share project shall have no adverse effects upon the present and future supply of Town services, including, but not limited to, loss of tax revenue and increased demand on municipal facilities. The cumulative effect of the proposed time-share project and other existing time-share projects shall also be considered. K. ~ The proposed duration of time-share Intervals. . ~ Whether the developer of the time-share project plans to offer resale assistance andlor exchange program affiliation to time-share interval purchasers. M. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit far atime-share estate, ~ fraction fee or time-share license unit proposal, the applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from 100% of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed time-share, fractional fee, andlor time-share license. No written approval shall be valid if it is signed by the owner more than SO days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. Ali buildings which presently contain time-share interval units, are exempt from this provision. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval to the Town Council of the applicant's request to amend Section 18.22.030, Public Accommodation, Conditional Uses, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Staff recommends that the PEC malts the finding that adding this conditional use, with the additional review criteria to those uses listed in the Public Accommodation (PA) Zone District, will continue to ensure compatibility with other uses In the PA Zone District. The staff's recornrnendation of approval is conditioned upon the approval of the proposed Additional Conditional Use factors listed in Section IV of this memorandum. faeveryonelp®clmemoslsonnenalp.n25 ~ 12 , MEMORANDUM ~ ntal Commission ? . Planrnng and Environme / ~ TO ~ FROM: Department of Community Development f ~ ,y~ DATE: November 11, 1996 SUB,iECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 18.22.030fract on~al fee Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, units and time-share license units" as a conditional use in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther I, D~,SCRIPTION OE THE REClUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordan Pierce, is requesting a worksession io discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. The applicant is proposing that Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code be amended to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses ire the Public Accommodatiora Zone District. The time-share estate units, fractional #ee units and time-share license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. The areas of Town most affected by the proposed amendment are illustrated on Attachment 1. Il. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is located at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the~mid-i 960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Cauneil establishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan far the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented, and has since expired, but instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus has served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vail Road. • The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms (accommodation units) with approximately "75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size {300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. 1 The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably more "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as time=s~iare interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking and Ioadingldelivery in an underground parking structure. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- . public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permi# time-share interval units. Interval ownership is currently allowed only in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series of 1981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi- Famlly Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In order for atime-share project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a developer would either have to convert an existing condominium or hotel project, or undergo an entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative far the construction of a time- share project in the Tawn of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its current zoning to High Density Multi-Family. Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-snare estate units, fractional fee: units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440, time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows: Time-share es~e unit,; Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit, the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the timespan estate either by the project instruments or by the deed conveying the timespan estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or referred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an Interval estate is an estate for four years terminating an a date certain, during which years titled to a .timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule, vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival of the date certain. ,~rtional fee ~~nit~: Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property, including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral ar written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or mare co-tenants to the exclusion of one or mare co-tenants during any period, whether annuapy reoccurring ar not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any co-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 2 Time-share license units:, Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises. Provided that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five ar more separate time periods extending over a term of mare than two years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan estate. llt, HISTORY O~ TiME-SHARING IN VAlL, The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. For the most part, the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adapted by the State of Colorado are intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances intended to protect the health, safely, and general welfare of the community, which includes time- share projects. On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail. A summary of each of the ordinances is listed below: • Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition far the term subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and uNawful acts and remedies for violations of this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town Council, the present subdivision regulations were not sufficient to deal with the problem presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of Vail did not have any regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision process. • ~ Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between accommodations for visitors to the Town, Vail residents and seasonal employees from the unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accammocfation, Commercial Care 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. • Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure requirements far time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said 3 ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 198D Vail Town Council meeting, the ' Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail would best be served by requiring the disclosure of certain facts and information relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units. The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disclose in a public offering statement. • Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing far registration of time-share projects with the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council adapted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had determined that the existing ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems presented by time-sharing and that the registration of time-sharing units is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. • Ordinance # 29, Series of 1960, an ordinance defining time-share broker and time-share salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker or time-share salesman, must obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth standards and procedures far the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vall, the then Town Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail and that time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail. • On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, amending Ordinance #2fi, Series of 198D, providing for the removal of time-sharing from the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCI~ENT~ In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in the Public Accommodation Zane District as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Pian. VEIL MiJNICIPA[_ COg~ Section 18.22.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to the purpose statement, "The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with public and semi-public facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor-oriented uses as may appropriately located in the same district. 4 The Public Accommodation District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional non-residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted, are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. The Public Accommodation Zone District is intended to provide sites for lodging units at densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre." According to Section 18.22.028, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the following uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District: a) Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than 14% of. the total Gross Residential Floor Area of the main structure or structures on the site; b} Additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch or terrace. VAIL LAND USE PLAN. Chapter I l of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Town of Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has identified the #oliowing goals (listed below), as being relevant tv the applicant's proposal: 1. General Growth 1 Development 1.1 Vail should continue tv grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a valance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1 4 The original theme of the ofd Village core should be carried into new development in the Village care through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. i .12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas}. 2. Skier 1 Tourist Concerns The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 5 ~.,4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3. Commercial ~ The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently. The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to • serve the future needs of destination skiers. ~4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Village Core /Lionshead ~ Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5. Residential ~ Quality time-share un!#s should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensl~e plan. Economic De~eiopment The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of mechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial uses is maintained. HAIL VI R PLAN: On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vaii Village Master Plan. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Village area and in implementing community goals far public improvements. It is Intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. l=or the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village wiN grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and aiong.with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 6 Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. Goa! #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Pian. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and r?iabillty for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available far short-ferm overnight . rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infilf development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the VlAage. 7 fi 2,4.2 Policy: Activity that provides nightlife and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.$ Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redeveloped project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. Goal #3 To recognize as a top prlarity the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Vifiage. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. B Goal #4 To preserve existing green space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space informing the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas {public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.}, shall be encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Carnmercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as rectuired by the Zoning Code. 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. B.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities far existing and new development. Sub-Area #1-8 Sonnenalp(Austria Haus)ISlifer Square Commercia! infill along East Meadow Drive, to provide stronger edge to street and commercial activity generators to reinforce the pedestrian loop throughout the Village. Focus of infill is to provide improvements to pedestrian circulation with a separated walkway, including buffer, along East Meadow Drive. Accommodating on-site parking and maintaining the bus route along Meadow Drive, are two significant constraints that must be addressed. One additional floor of residentialllodging may also be accamrnodated on this site. 9 a V. PROPO$,~D TEXT CHANGES As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditionak uses to Section 18.26.x40, Conditional Uses- Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed changes are shown as ~adk~~ below: Chapter 78.22 Public Accommodation 18.22.030 Conditional uses The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Public Accommodation Zone District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Professional and business offices; B. Hospitals, medical and dental clinics, and medical centers; C. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations; D. Ski lifts and tows; E. Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures; G. Public transportation terminals; H. Public utility and public service uses; I. Public buildings, grounds and facilities; J. Public or private schools; K. Public parks and recreational facilities; I... Churcfies; M. Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail establisfiments not occupying more than 10% of the total Gross Residential Floor Area of a main structure or structures located on the site in anon-conforming mufti-family dwelling; N, Major arcade, so long as it does not Dave any exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area; O. Bed and Breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310; P. Type Ill EHU as defined in Section 18.57.050; Q. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57 70, R. dime share r~stat~ unrts;'tracti~na~l frr+~.'ur~i~s $rrd ~i~ sh~r~ Il~ers~.~~r!fE~' VI. SUMMARY of DISCtI~S~QN ISSUES At the October 28, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, a worksession was held to discuss the applicant's proposal to amend the Zoning Code to allow "timeshare" as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. As the discussion was a worksesskon, staff did not evaluate the proposal, nor provide a formal recommendation. Staff did, however, identify issues which were discussed with the Planning and Environmental Commission ar~d the applicant. Each of the issues is described below and a summary of the discussion has been provided. 1. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSIJI~ ISSUE: The cost of maintenance may be higher on a time-share project than on wholly-owned units in a 10 condominium building. it has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other furnishings must be replaced more often in time-share units. This is especially applicable to time-share units which are sold On shorter intervals, The implication is that a higher level of maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for tune-share projects to insure a high level of quality. In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-share projects, there is also a need to ,reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur. Problems potentially occur, when time- share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two (52), one week intervals during the year, there is little or no time for the proper maintenance of a time-share project. STAFF CONCERN: Staff has questioned, how time-shares in the Town of Vail could be regulated to insure adequate and proper maintenance of the project. Staff would not support a proposed time-share project . which utilizes a 52-week interval approach. SUMMARY: The State of Colorado has passed legislation which, in part, regulates the maintenance and upkeep of time-share projects. The regulations were passed to protect consumers from extremely high maintenance costs of time-share projects. The state regulations require that a developer of a time-share project establish an escrow account providing a cash reserve for maintenance and upkeep of the time-share project. 2. AVAILABILITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS IN A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRAM., • ISSUE: Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Lock-off units provide the community benefit of additional "pillows," and they also provide an additions{ return on an investment opportunity for time-share owners. If a time-share owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does root desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms (lock-offs) to a rental program. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time-share unit. Additionally, staff recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program when not in use.. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, atime-share project can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Vail. SUMMARY: Sta#f continues to recommend that lock-off units be required as a part of every individual time- share unit. Some of the Planning and Environmental Commission members fett that it is important to maintain a quality "bed base" in the Towr1 to accommodate guests and visitors. Concerns were expressed by certain members that such a requirement may impede a developer's ability to construct atime-share project as each development site is different and requires different mixtures of uses to make a project successful. No consensus was reached. 3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR. ALL LOCK-OFF UNITS ASSnCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS.. ISSUE: In discussing the development of time-share units, staff believes it is important that any time- share unit proposed in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage requirement. 11 STAFF CONCERN: ' Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum square footage requirement should increase the availability of lock-off accommodation-type units, thus increasing the Town's bed base. SUMMARY: Staff continues to believe it is important that any new time-share unit in the Town of Vail be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage and/or bedroom requirement for lock-off units. The applicant has stated that one reason the existing Austria Haus is not as successful as it could be is because the accommodation units are under-sized and outdated. The applicant has indicated that according to industry standards, an accommodation unit must.be at least 375 - . 450 square feet in size. Several Planning and Environmental Commission members felt that it was important far all time-share units to be multiple bedroom units with lack-off type units attached. These members believed that such units improve the quality of the accommodations and provide possible incentives for owners to make unused lack-off units available as overnight accommodations, thus increasing the potential "bed base". 4. RATIO OF TIME-SHE UNITS TO ACCOMMQ(~AT10N~JNITS ISSUE: The availability of accommodation units has always been a goal of the community. The Public Accommodation Zane District encourages the construction of accommodation units. Accommodation units are allowed uses. At this time, the Zoning Code does not restrict the maximum number of time-share units allowed on a property. Since time-share units are considered dwelling units, a project with all time-share units could be a possibility. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of requiring a ratio of accommodation units ~ time-share units. Specifically, staff is recommending that there be a ratio of accommodation units ~ time-share units established. This would insure that accommodation-type units would remain available to visitors of the Town ofi Vail and not became only time-share units. Staff believes that it is possible to draft review criteria which address the need for a mix of accommodation units and time-share units on a broad basis. SUMMARY: The Planning and Environmentak Commission discussed the issue as to whether a ratio of time- share units to accommodation units should be established. After a lengthy discussion on the issue, the members felt that such a requirement is not necessary, and in fact, impedes developers from constructing the best project possible for any given site. The Commission members further felt that such a ratio would be difficult to es#ablish and would be best determined when reviewed on a case-by case basis. The members felt that any standard created must be flexible to accommodate changing trends and needs. 5. REOUIREMFNT THAT ALL TIME-SHARE l_INITS E3E OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL PROGRAM WHEN NOT IN USA ISSUE: Like unused lock-off units, a community benefit can be realized through the availability of time- share units when they are no# occupied by the owner. The developer or managing agent of a time-share project and the time-share unit owner, can realize additional profits through the rental of time-share units as overnight accommodations. 12 STAFF CONCERN: Staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and made available through a rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of requiring that all time-share units, when not in use, be made available to the general public. Again, this requirement helps attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever possible. SUMMARY: Staff continues to believe that a rental program should be established to offer time-share units to the general pubiic, when not in use. Several Planning and Environmental Commission members _ expressed their desire to see the same. It was determined that in order for a rental program to - be successful, the time-share building must inckude facilities to support the program. For instance, a front desk, reservation services and other amenities generally associated with hotel- type accommodations. INTEGRATiQN QF TIME HARE OWNERSHIP WITH WHOLLY-OWNED CONDOMWIUMS THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WHOLLY-OWNED, CONDOMINIUMS TO TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP. ISSUE: As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share units combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may not be desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential use, or at least, less intensive vacation- - li type of use. Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects to time-share ownership. For example, in the State of Hawaii, numerous wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership, local ordinances have been adapted requiring 100% of the condominium owners to approve of the proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that 100% of the condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units to time-share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacationing-type of use of time-share ownership may conflict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of the premises." Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner. Therefore, conflicts resulting Pram management and quality upkeep of property result. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership and . wholly-owned condominiums. SUMMARY: The applicant is not proposing to integrate time-share units with wholly-owned condominiums. Staff's concern is related more to other passible projects developed in Town. The Planning and Environmental Commission felt that under certain circumstances, time-share units and condominiums could be integrated. The members believed that integration could occur if a buffer between uses were proposed. In general, integration of residential uses was not considered to be desirable by the Commission. 13 . ti 7. MANAS~~NT OF TIMESHARE PRO,J~,~ ISSUE: The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of maintenance required for time share. It is in the best interest of the community to insure that time-share projects are maintained at a high level and in a professional manner. In staff's opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire project. A high quality management program is necessary as the large number of interval owners involved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management, the overwhelming number of owners of the property could result in future conflicts. Discussions with a branch broker of a local time-share project, indicate that the most common form of management of interval ownership projects is a farm of Board of Directors. The Board of Directors functions very similar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The Board, in most instances, is aided by a management company to help in the maintenance and management of day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of Directors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are . responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project. STAFF CONCERN Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their proposed management scheme for the project, as the developers are proposing that there would be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of Directors or management agency needs to be responsible for the management of both the accommodation units and the time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when the management of the time-share units differ from the management of the accommodation units. SUMMARY; 5onnenalp Properties, Inc. will be the manager of the commercial and hotel accommodation units at the Austria Haus. It is the applicant's desire to manage the time-share element as well. The owners association will be set up initially by the developers, to be managed by Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. The owners association reserves the right to ultimately determine who manages the time-share element. The Planning~and Environmental Commission felt that It was important that any project be maintained and operated at a high level and in a professional manner. The Commission also felt it is equally important that whomever manages the time-share element must also manage the accommodation units. This is especially important to ensure that unused time-share units and/or lock-off units are made available to the general public when not in use, 8. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE AUSTRfA HAUS TO 2A TIME-SHARE UNITS 1 LOCK-OFF UNITS AND ~3 ACCOMMODATION UNITS. ISSUE There are currently 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus to include 2D time-share units sold an a five-week interval basis, with 20 attached one-bedroom lock-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type accommodation units. STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated with the reduction in accommodation units currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43 of the units in the new 14 Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off units}, it is very unlikely that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The staff is concerned as to whether this results in a negative impact that should be mitigated t,y the developer of the time-share project. SUMMARY: This issue was not discussed at great lengths. The Planning and Environmental Commission members agreed that accommodation units are an important component with regard to Vail's economic future. The Commission members reserved specific comment an this issue until a more thorough review of the proposed redevelopment project takes place. g, POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP IN, THE TOWN OF VAIL., Positive Impacts ofTime-Sharing: • Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy. The attraction of revenue-generating tourists. • Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept. More pride of ownership with time-share units than with accommodation units. i Increased levels of occupancy. • lncreased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. . Negative Impacts of Time-Sharing: • Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents trying to sell time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an intensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems associated with sales generally comes in the area of solicitation of sales on streets, at the ski base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics. • .Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval owners. • Passible loss of true accommodation units. • Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of awr}ers. Saurc~: Report: Res~i~s of Research on Time-Sharing Reguiati_o~, P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept., t 980 The 1995 WorldwidE Resort Time-Share Industry Time-Share Ownership Benefits: results from a N~tionwidP Survey of Time-Shire Owners, 1995 15 r Vll. D~,~CU$,~[ON ISSIIE$ As a result of the worksession meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission held on Monday, October 28, 1996, the staff has identified additional issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. As this is a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal to amended the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation Zone District, rather than the Commerclal Core 2 Zone District, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. Each of the newly identified issues of the applicant's amended proposal are identified below: 1. Additional Conditional Use Factors ISSUE: Staff has considered establishing additional conditional use factors to be used in the consideration of a proposed conditional use permit request for time-share projects in the Public Accommodation Zone District. According to discussions with the applicant and Planning and Environmental Commission, it was felt that time-share projects could be compatible with the permitted, conditional and accessory uses allowed in the Public Accommodation Zone District given that certain factors are met. This approach is currently used in the Commerclal Care 1 Zone"District. STAFF CONCERN: Staff has evaluated the idea and would propose the following: 18.22.035 Conditional Uses -Factors applicable. ~ ~ . In considering, in accordance with Chapter 18.80, an application for a conditional use permit for atime-share estate unit, fractional fee unit, and/or a time-share license unit in the Public Accommodation Zane District, the following development factors shall be applicable: iG+v4b~~C A. Effe~ctsrof~t'he proposal on the hotel bed base in the core areas; Effects of the proposal on the .+re needs of the community as a year- . round resort; 1a~G.ov~rr~bp~rrio~. C. Effects of the proposal of noise, traffic, maintenance, etc, upon adjacent properties; The enhancement of the proposal on the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community. j~~. 2. t~cula~ian of I_ock_off Uni~'erms o I~$"itG~nd Gress Residen~l Flnor Area. ISSUE: The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a "dwelling unit", "any room or group of rooms in atwo-family or multiple-family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit (lack-off) no larger than one-third (i/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. According to this definition, the staff has interpreted that a time-share estate unit, fractional fee unit and/or time-share license unit, which includes kitchen facilities, shall be classified as a dwelling unit. Staff's interpretation is based upon the fact that, in the case of the Austria Haus proposal, each interval unit will be designed with kitchen facilities for use as an Independent housekeeping unit. According to this interpretation, each time-share unit would be entitled to one 16 lock-off unit. ~ho~ uJ~ ~vit¢~E? ~O~ IF-IDv.1 ~ yoV Town of Vai! Municipal Code also provides a definition of an accommodat~~riit. According The to the definition section of the code, an "accommodation unit is defined as, "Any room or group of roams without kitchen facilities designed for or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from common corridors, walks, ar balconies without passing through asoonerhalfoi/2)aof of dwelling unW far purposes of calculating ~allowa6le shall be counted units per acre STAFF CONCERN: Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant the merits of applying the existing definitions to atime-share project. Staff feels that the existing definitions and interpretations provide the necessary controls an density and square footage for - development in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Staff further believes that the existing language provides density incentives for developers to incorporate lock-off units into time-share projects without impacting a developer's ability to design a project that is sensitive to the site and is flexible to the demands of each particular development. The existing definitions also allow for developers and the Town to maintain and enhance the hotel bed base within the community {a goal identified in numerous planning documents adopted by the Tawn of Vaii}. 3. Subdivision Review Process and Reaistr~tion Requirements for Time-share Prom ISSUE: At the October 28, worksession meeting, a question was raised as to the procedure for establishing atime-share project in accordance with the Town's adopted regulations. Chapter 17.22 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code outlines the procedure for subdividing a time- share project. A time-share project is subdivided according to the Condominium and Townhouse Plat procedure. A condominium and townhouse plat is approved by the Zoning Administrator #ollowing the review by the Public Works Department. The plat shall be reviewed under two general criteria: A. The Zoning Administrator will check to make sure the buildings and other improvements were built as per plans approved by the Design Review Board; B. The Town Engineer will review the survey data for compliance with requirements found in Section 17.16.130C (final plat requirements/procedures). Chapters 5.01 and 5.02 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provide regulations applicable to time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. Chapter 5.01 establishes disclosure requirements for the public offering of time-share projects. The requirements are intended to protect the consumer from inaccurate ar fraudulent representations of time-share developers. • Chapter 5.02 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures far registering atime-share project with the Town of Vail Department of Community Development. Pursuant to Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, all time-share projects constructed and operated in the Town of Vail must be registered. The intended purpose of the registration requirement is to insure that any time-share project offered for sale in the Town of Vail is in compliance with the Town's adopted codes and policies. 17 4. ~gproximate Number of Units in the Town ni Vail Directly ImQacted by the Proem Air endment. ISSUE: At the October 28, worksession meeting a question was raised as to how many units in the Town of Vail would be directly impacted by the proposed amendment. Staff reviewed all the properties in the Town currently zoned Public Accommodation, or was a Special Development District with Public Accommodation as the underlying zoning. According to our research, approximately 736 units could be impacted in 15 buildings. It is important to note that it is not entirely likely that all 736 would be approved to be convey#ed to time-share. VIII. ~T .FF REGOMMENDATIDN ~ ` Since this is a worksession to discuss the propased text amendments to Section 18.22.030 of the Municipal Code, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission #o the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation a# this #ime. Staff will, however, provide a recamrnendation on the applicant's proposal at the time of final review. Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, November 25, 1996. f:leve ryonelpsclmemoslao2exta.a28 18 • APPEN©IX A The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the applicant to the Community Development Department. The in#armation is intended to provide a basic understanding of the socio-economic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the American Resort Development Association (ARDA}. Complete copies of the source materials have been attached for reference. A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% aver the $490 million in world-wide sales reported in 1980.. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of 460% over the interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980, resulting in sales volume of over $36 billion during the 15-year period. The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and 1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area:' • A recent study revealed that 75.3°1° of the. U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their vacation purchases, with 76.6°/° of study participants responding that their expectations at the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives. • Mast important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83.1 % responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their vacation ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, location of the resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs. • According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not owning recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed that aver 113 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as "about 50150 ar better," compared to 15.5°/° in 1990 and 25.5% in 1593. • Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard 2-bedroom unit, sleeping 6, over any other single unit size, by more tfian a 2:1 margin (45.7%). , • The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although nearly 213 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of weeks awned ir?creases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation ownership. • The vast majority of vacation owners (73.9%} initially purchase just one interval. However, more than 114 (26.1 of those who first purchase between 1992 and i 994, now own more than one time-share interval, indicating that many #irst time purchasers are purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase. f:leveryonalpeclmemoslcc2exta.o2B 1 ~ 6 • While in the local resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerably mare than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course of the en#ire stay. • According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single category of expenditure while in the resort area is for fond and drink consumed in restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments. • Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their most recent time-share vacation. • Vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area, by spending additional nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner spends an additional 4.7 nights in the local resort area during hislher most recent time- : share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends yr relatives, or elsewhere. • U.S. owners surveyed in 1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where Their time-share interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased atime-share in the resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times. • Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners Dave higher incomes, are older, and have higher levels of formal education than those of the average American consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middie- income, middle-age, well educated couple. • A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is over $63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Over 112 of all vacation owners have household incomes between $15,000 and $100,000. • 8fi.5% of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5% are single individuals. • As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. The top three states in terms of total number of vacation owners are California, New York and Florida. Sourcg~ The 1995 Worldwide ResArt Time-Share Indr~strv Time-Share Purchasers: Who Thev Are. Whv Thev Bey, 1995 Edition. ' Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a 11~tionwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1995 The American Recreational Property Survey: 1935 F:leveryonelpeclmemoslcc2ex~a.o28 2 0 ~ T MEMORANDUM r T0: Planning and Environmental Commission ~ ~ ' r J~ FROM: Department of Community Development r DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss a request to amend Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses, of the Vail Municipal Code to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as a conditional use the Commercial Core 2 Zone District. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Rusher I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce, is requesting a worksession to discuss amending the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant is proposing that Section ~8.26.Q4p of the Municipal Cade ibe amended to allow time-share estate uni#s, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Cammercia! Core 2 Zone District. In general, the areas of Town most affected by the proposed amendment include I_ianshead and the Village Center Building, as each of these areas is zoned Commercial Core 2. The time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units would be allowed subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Municipal Code. II. BACKGROUND The applicant's request relates to a future proposal to redevelop the Austria Haus property. The Austria Haus is located -at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Austria Haus was originally constructed in the mid-1960's as an inn to accommodate destination skiers. In 1979, the Austria Haus was purchased by the Faessler family who planned to redevelop the property into the Sonnenalp Hotel. In 1984, Ordinance #8 was approved by the Vail Town Council establishing Special Development District #12. Special Development District #12 adopted an approved development plan for the redevelopment of the Austria Haus. The approved development plan was never implemented, and instead, the Austria Haus underwent a remodel. Since the completion of the remodel, the Austria Haus nos served as an annex to the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus located at 20 Vaii Road. The Austria Haus has 37 hotel rooms {accommodation units) with approximately "75 pillows" and is operated approximately eight months each year by the Sonnenalp .Hotel. There is a small restaurant and bar in the Austria Haus that serves its guests and a retail outlet on the east end of the building. The hotel rooms are marginal in size { 300 sq. ft. average) and lack certain amenities, by today's accommodation standards. 1 The current proposal to redevelop the property intends to provide considerably mare "pillows" over a twelve month period, as well as create approximately 10,000 square feet of new commercial space. The applicant has proposed that a percentage of the project be offered as timeshare interval ownership units. The applicant has also proposed to accommodate a portion of the required parking and loading/delivery in an underground parking structure, According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vaii, the applicant's property is currently zoned Public Accommodation. The Public Accommodation Zane District !s intended to provide sites for lodges.and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semi- pubkic facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related visitor oriented uses as may be located in the same district. The Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodging units to densities not to exceed 25 dwelling units per acre. The Public Accommodation Zone District does not permit time-share interval units. Interval ownership is currently allowed oNy in the High Density Multi-Family Zane District pursuant to Ordinance #8, Series off 981. There is no vacant property in the High Density Multi- Family Zone District. All properties currently zoned High Density Multi-Family are developed. In order for a time-sharing project to be constructed in the High Density Multi-Family Zone District, a developer would either have to convert an existing condominium ar hotel project, or undergo an entire redevelopment of the property. A third possible alternative for the construction of a time- sharing project in the Town of Vail, would be to rezone an existing parcel of property from its current zoning to High Density Multi-Family Chapter 18.04 of the municipal code provides definitions of time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units. According to Sections 18.04.420, 18.04.430 and 18.04.440, time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units are defined as follows: Time-share es units; Means either an interval estate or a timespan estate. A timespan estate is a combination of an undivided interest in a present estate in fee simple in a unit, the magnitude of the interest having been established by the time of the creation of the timespan estate either by the project instruments ar by the deed conveying the timespan estate; and an exclusive right to possession and occupancy of the unit during an annually recurring period of time defined and established by a recorded schedule set forth or referred to in the deed conveying the timespan estate. Additionally, an interval estate is an estate for four years terminating on a date certain, during which years titled to a timeshare unit circulates among the interval owners in accordance with a fixed schedule; vesting in each such interval owner in turn for a period of time established by the said schedule, with the series thus established recurring annually until the arrival' of the date certain. Fractinna! feP ia~; Is defined as a tenancy in common interest in improved real property including condominiums, created or held by persons, partnerships, corporations, or joint ventures or similar entities, wherein the tenants in common have formerly arranged by oral or written agreement or understanding, either recorded or unrecorded allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more co-tenants to the exclusion of one or more ca-tenants during any period, whether annually reoccurring or not which is binding upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if said agreement continues to be in any way binding or affective upon any ca-tenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 2 Time-share license units:, Shall be defined as a contractual right to exclusive occupancy of specified premises. Prov9ded that the occupancy of the premise is divided into five or more separate time periods extending over a term of more than two years. The premises may consist of one parcel, unit or dwelling, or any of several parcels, units or dwellings identified at the time the license is created to be identified later. No timeshare is a timeshare license if it meets the definition of interval estate, timeshare or timespan estate. ill. HISTORY OF TIME-SHARING IN VAIL The State of Colorado has adopted regulations regulating the sale of time-shares. Far the mast part, the regulations adapted by the State of Colorado are concerned with financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regulation of sales practices and classification of time-sharing as a subdivision of property. The regulations adopted by the State of Colorado are intended more to protect the consumer, than as regulations designed to have impacts on the community level. The State has granted the authority for local governments to adopt ordinances intended to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, which includes time- share projects. On July 15, 1980, the Vail Town Council adopted five ordinances to regulate time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail. A summary of each' of the ordinances is listed below: • Ordinance # 25, Series of 1980, an ordinance amending Chapter 17 {Subdivision Regulations) of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code, providing a new definition for the term subdivision; and setting forth prohibited and unlawful acts and remedies for violations of this ordinance, and amending the procedure for appealing a decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Town Council. In the opinion of the then Vail Town Council, the present subdivision regulations were not sufficient to deal with the probtem presented by time-sharing projects and therefore, the procedure for subdividing property associated with time-sharing projects should be amended. Ordinance #25 further went on to require that time-sharing projects go through the subdivision review process. Prior to the adoption of Ordinance #25, Series of 1980, the Town of VaiE did not have any regulations requiring that time-sharing projects be reviewed through the subdivision process. Ordinance # 26, Series of 1980, providing for the addition of new conditional uses in certain zone districts. Ordinance #26 was established to protect the balance between accommodations for visitors to the Tawn, Vail residents and seasonal employees from tie unregulated development of time-sharing projects. It was the opinion of the then Vail Town Council that the zoning regulations in place in 1980 did not sufficiently address the problems presented by time-sharing. The ordinance amended Title 18 of the Municipal Code allowing time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units in the High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. • Ordinance # 27, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for certain disclosure requirements for time-sharing projects; providing for public offering statements and setting forth requirements for such offering statements: for the escrowing of deposits or reservations of a time-share unit; and setting forth remedies for violations of said ordinance. According to the minutes of the July 15, 18$0 Vail Town Council meeting, the 3 Council had determined that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Vail would best be served by requiring the disclosure of certain facts and information relating to time-sharing projects, and to the perspective purchasers of time-share units. _ The amendment established disclosure requirements when offering time-share project sales and established a minimum amount of information that the developer must disclose in a public offering statement. • Ordinance # 28, Series of 1980, an ordinance providing for registration of time-share _ projects with the Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail; the requirements for applications for registration of said units; remedies for violation of this ordinance and standards for the revocation of such registration. The Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance # 28 resolving that the Council had determined that the existing ordinances and regulations of the Town were insufficient to cope with the problems presented by time-sharing and that the registration of time-sharing units is necessary to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. • Ordinance # 29, Series of 1980, an ordinance defining time-share broker and time-share salesman: providing that any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation that engages in the business or capacity of time-share broker ortime-share salesman, must obtain a license from the Town Clerk; setting forth the requirements for the application for such license; providing for the display of such license, license fees and setting forth standards and procedures for the suspension or revocation of such license. Similar to the other ordinances relating to time-sharing projects in the Town of Vail, the then Town Council found that these additional regulations were deemed necessary to protect and . preserve the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of VaiE and that time-share brokers and time-share salesman be licensed by the Town of Vail. • On February 3, 1981, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance Series of 1981, amending Ordinance #26, Series of 1980, providing far the removal of time-sharing from the conditional use section of the Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. It was the then Vail Town Council's opinion that permitting the conversion and development of time-sharing projects in said zone districts would upset the balance between accommodations for visitors, Vail residents and seasonal employees and that the amendment was necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the community. IV. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENT ~In considering the proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code, to allow time-share in Commercial Core 2 as a conditional use, staff reviewed several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the Municipal Code, the Goals and Objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Pian and the Vail Village Master Plan. VAiL MUNICIPAL CODE, Section 18.26.010 of the Vail Municipal Code, identifies the purpose of the Commercial Core 2 Zane District. According to the purpose statement, "The Commercial Care 2 Zone District is intended to provide sites far a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vaii Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is Entended to insure 4 adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. {Ordinance 2t{1980) (2) • {part).}„ VAIL LAND USE PLAN. Chapter 11 of the Vail Land Use Plan identifies goals and policies for land use within the Tawn of Vail. The goals articulated by the Vail Land Use Plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goals are to~lae used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new develaprnent proposals. Staff has identified the following goals {listed below}, as being relevant to the applicant's proposal: 1. General Growth 1 Der?elopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1~4 The original theme of the old Village core should be carried into . ~ new development in the Village core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1,12 Vail should accommodate most of the additions! growth in existing developed areas {infill areas}. 2. Skier 1 Tourist Concerns The community should emphasize its role as a destinaton resort while accommodating day skiers. ~.7 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. • ~ ~ ~ The community should improve summer recreational and cultural • opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 3. Commercial The hotel bedbase should be preserved and used more efficiently. The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. ~.4. Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. S Q. Village Core 1 Lionshead 4_2 Increased density in the care areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vai! Viilage Master Plan. 5. Residential ~ Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 6. Additional goals related to other elements of the comprehensive plan. Economic Development The Town of Vail should consider developing some type of mechanism to control tenant mix, so that a balance between tourist and convenient type of commercial uses is maintained. VAi! vii ~ erF MA$~R Piers On January 16, 1990, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vaii Village Master Plan. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in the Vail Viilage area and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Mast importantly, the Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly defined set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Goats for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. The Baal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Viilage. A series of objectives outlines specific steps that can be taken towards achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals ar in implementing capital improvement projects. Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 6 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development maybe allowed as identified by the action plan as is consistent with the Vail VlAage Master PEan and Urban Design Guide Plan. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. 2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub- areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The Zoning Code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. 2.3 Objective: increase the number of residential units available for short- term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed ar managed In a manner • that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES As stated previously, the applicant is proposing to add "time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units" as conditional uses to Section 18.26.040, Conditional Uses- Generally. These uses would be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed changes are shown as ;~I~~ below: Chapter 18.26 Commercial Core 2 18.26.040 conditionai uses-Generally The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.80: A. Ski lifts and tows; B. Public utility and public service uses; C. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities; D. Public park and recreation facilities; E. Theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; . 1=. Cain-operated laundries; 7 G. Commercial storage-as long as it is at basement level and does not have any exterior . frontage on any public way, street, walkway or mall area; H. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310. I. Television stations-as long as the production room/studio is visible from the street or pedestrian mall and that the television station be "cable-cast" only, requiring no additional antennas J 'rye-sha~e:.~~t~;~: urtj#~ ~r~~n~l f~~ ~r~i~~: ~h~ sl~.t~re Ij~~r~;: ui {Ord.23{1990) § 1: Ord. 31{1989} § 9: Ord. 21{1983) § 1: Ord. 8(1981} § 2(part}: Ord. 50(1978) § 8: Ord. 8{1973) § 9.400.) VI. ~I$CUSSIQN I$SUE$ As this a worksession to discuss the applicant's proposal, staff will not evaluate the proposal at this time. Staff has, however, identified issues which we would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. Each of the issues is described below. 1. PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES- The cost of maintenance may be higher an atime-sharing project than on wholly-owned units in a condominium building. It has been reported that furniture, carpeting, appliances and other furnishings must be replaced mare often in time-sharing units. This is especially applicable to time-share units which are sold on shorter intervals. The implication is that a higher level of maintenance and management services must be available on an on-going basis for time-sharing projects to insure a high level of quality. In addition to the additional needs for maintenance on time-sharing projects, there is also a need to reserve adequate time when maintenance can occur, Problems potentially occur, when time- share intervals are sold on a one week basis. By selling fifty-two {52}, one week intervals during the year, there is tittle or no time far the proper maintenance of a time-share project. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, how time-shares in the Town of Vaif could be regulated to insure adequate and proper maintenance of the project. 2. pal Al1r4BiLITY OF LOCK-OFF UNITS 1N A MANAGED RENTAL PROGRq~ Time-share units can be designed to accommodate lock-off units. Staff would recommend that lock-aff~nits be required as a part of every individual time-share unit. Additionally, staff recommends that each lock-off unit be managed through a rental program when not in use. Staff feels that by providing lock-off units, and managing the availability of the lock-off units in a rental program when not in use, can significantly increase the availability of accommodation units in the Town of Val. While lock-off units provide the community benefit of additional "pillows," they also provide an additional return on an investment opportunity far time-share owners. If a time-share owner purchases an interest in a multiple bedroom unit, and does not desire to utilize all the bedrooms, they can then have the opportunity of returning the unused bedrooms {lock-offs) to a rental program. 8 f 3. MINIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR. ALL LOCK-OFF UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH TIME-SHARE UNITS., In discussing the development of time-share units, s#aff thought it was important that any time- share unit proposed in the Town of Vaii be a multiple bedroom unit with a minimum square footage requirement. Staff's desire to see multiple bedroom time-share units with a minimum square footage requirement increases the availability of lock-aff accommodation-type units, thus increasing the Town's bed base. 4, RATIO 01= TIME-SHARE UNITS TO ACCOMMODATION UNITS /LOCK-OFFS. The availability of accommodation units has always been a goal of the community. The Commercial Core 2 Zone District encourages either, by right, or subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, the construction of accommodation units. Accommodation units are allowed uses on all floor levels in the Commercial Core 2 Zone District, with the exception of the garden level. Staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission the merits of requiring a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units ~2 time-share units. Speci#ically, staff is recommending that there be a ratio of accommodation units/lock-off units #Q time-share units established. This would insure that accommodation-type units would remain available to visitors of the Town of Vail and not became only time-share units. b, REQ~IRFMENTTHAT AL,L T1ME-SHARE t,INITS BE OFFERED THROUGH A RENTAL PROGRAM WHEN NOT !N USE.. Like unused lock-off units, staff believes that unused time-share units should be offered and made available through a rental program. Specifically, staff would like to discuss the merits of requiring that all time-share units, when not in use, be made available to the general public. Again, this requirement helps attain the goal of maintaining a strong bed base whenever possible. A true community benefit can be realized through the additional availability of units, and again, the developer or managing agent of atime-share project realizes additional profits through the rental of time-share units as overnight accommodations. 6. THE CONVERSION OF THE 37 EXISTING ACCOMMODATION UNITS AT THE AUSTRIA HAUS TO 20 TIME-SHARE UNITS /LOCK-OFF UNITS AND 23 ACCOMMODATION UNITS., There are currently 37 accommodation units within the Austria Haus. At this time, the developer is proposing to redevelop the Austria Haus to possibly include 2Q time-share units sold on an interval basis, with 2Q attached one-bedroom lock-off units and an additional 23 hotel-type accommodation units. Staff would like to discuss the impacts associated wi#h the reduction in accommodation units currently existing on the Austria Haus property. While it is possible that 43 of the units in the new Austria Haus could be utilized as accommodation units (includes lock-off units), it is very unlikely that all 20 lock-off units would be made available. The staff is concerned . as to whether this results in a negative impact that should be mitigated by the developer of the time-share project. 9 r 7. T~-IE CONVI~,RSION OF EXISTING WH(~I_~Y-OWNED CONDOMINIUMS TO TIMESHARE OWNERSHIP. Other resort communities in the country have experienced the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects to time-share ownership, Far example, in the state of Hawaii, numerous wholly-owned condominium projects have been converted into interval ownership. In Hawaii, as a result of the conversion of wholly-owned condominium projects into time-share ownership, local ordinances have been adopted requiring X00% of the condominium owners approve of the proposed conversion to time-share units. This does two things. First, it insures that t 00% of the condominium ownership agrees to the conversion of any or all of the condominium units, to time- share units. Numerous examples of conflicts arising between wholly-owned and time-share interval ownership have been documented. Specifically, the more intensive vacationing-type of use of time-share ownershlp may conflict with the more residential condominium uses. Conflicts arise out of complaints concerning long hours of "partying, noise and disregard for the quality of the premises." Secondly, conflicts have arisen over the management and maintenance of the property. While time-share owners have a sense of ownership and pride in the property they purchased, they may not be as heavily tied to their investment as a condominium owner. Therefore, conflicts resulting from management and quality upkeep of property result. 8. WTEGRATiQN OF TIM~~ OWNERSHIP WITH111[FjQ~t_Y-OW,~~ CONDOMINIUMS, As discussed above, the integration of time-share ownership with wholly-owned condominiums can result in conflicts of use. As mentioned earlier, the type of use associated with time-share combined in close proximity with less intensively used, wholly-owned condominiums, may not be desirable and could possibly pose problems. Again, time-sharing is a vacation-type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential use, or at least, less intensive vacation-type of use. Again, staff would like to discuss with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant, the potential negative impacts associated with the integration of time-share ownership and wholly-owned condominiums. 9. MANAGEMENT OF TIMESHARE PR0,IECTS. The management of a quality time-share project is closely related to the high level of maintenance required for time share. It is In the best interest of the community to insure that time-share projects are maintained at a high ,level and in a professional manner. fn staff's opinion, this is most easily accomplished through quality, long-term management of the entire project. A high quality management program is necessary as the large number of interval awners~nvolved in a single, time-share project can be extensive. Without proper management, the overwhelming number of owners of the property could result in future conflicts. Discussions with a branch broker of a Iocai time-share project, indicate that the most common form of management of interval ownership projects is a form of Board of Directors. The Board of Directors functions very similar to a Homeowner's Association or Condominium Association. The Board, in most instances, is aided by a management company to help in the maintenance and management of day-to-day operations. As with any association governed by a Board of Directors, the Directors are elected or appointed by the ownership and represent and are responsible to the ownership as a whole. The Board of Directors would be responsible for the overall maintenance and management decisions of the time-share project. a Staff recommends that in the case of the Austria Haus specifically, the applicant discuss their proposed management scheme for the project. !n the case of a project like the proposed Austria Haus, there would be a mixture of accommodation units and time-share units. A Board of . Directors or management agency needs to be responsible far the management of both the accommodation units and the time-share units. Staff believes that conflicts arise when the management of the time-share units differ from the management of the accommodation units. ~ 1, POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TIME SHARE OWNERSHIP lid . THE TOWN OF VAIL., Pasiti~e Impacts of Time-Sharing: Activity during the "shoulder seasons" tends to increase due to an increase in year-round occupancy. The attraction of revenue-generating tourists. Efficient utilization of resources. This is the "warm beds" concept. More pride of ownership with timeshare units than with accommodation units. increased levels of occupancy. . Increased resort exposure due to the extensive number of interval owners. Negative Impacts ofTime-Sharing: Some resort areas have experienced poor, distasteful sales practices of sales agents trying to sell time-share weeks. Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an intensive and costly sakes program must be developed. The problems associated with sales generally comes ~n the area of saiicitatian of sales on streets, at the ski base areas, shopping malls, and the use of high-pressure sales tactics. • Possible conflicts between wholly-owned condominium owners and time-share interval owners. • Possible loss of true accommodation units. Possible difficulty in collection of property taxes due to the extensive number of owners. Sourre~: Report: Results of Res~rrh on Time-Sharinr~ Reoulations, P. Patten, Comm. Dev. Dept., 138Q The 1995 Worldwide Resort Time-Shire lndustr~ Time-Share Ownership Benefits: Results from a Nationwide Survey of Time-Share Owners, 1935 VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed text amendments to Section 18.26.00 of the Municipal Cade, and not a request for a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Town Council, staff will not be providing a recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a recommendation on the applicant's proposal at the time of final review. Currently, the applicant is scheduled to reappear before the Planning and Environmental Commission for final review on Monday, November ~ 1, 1996. 11 APPENDIX A The information in Appendix A is derived from timeshare industry materials submitted by the applicant to the Community Development Department. The information is intended to provide a basic understanding of the socioeconomic impacts of the timeshare industry as reported by the American Resort Development Association (ARDA). Complete copies of the source materials have been attached for reference. ' A recent shady which examined industry performance from 1980-1994 revealed that sales in 1994 reflected an increase of 870% over the $490 million in world-wide sales reported in 1980. In addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994, reflected a jump of 460% over the Interval sales reported in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year end 1994, roughly 4.9 million vacation intervals had been purchased since 1980, resulting in sales volume of aver $36 billion during the 15-year period. • The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3%, of the resorts, 1,538,000 or 48.9%, of the "owners owning in the area," and 1,648,000, or 52.4% of the owners of the "owners residing in the area." • A recent study revealed that 75.3% of the U.S. vacation owners are satisfied with their vacation purchases, with 76.6% of study participants responding that their expectations at the time of purchase have been "matched or exceeded," and 75.4% reporting that they recommend vacation ownership to others. Of the more than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5% responded that vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives. • Most important among the motivation factors sited by the owners surveyed in their decision to purchase vacations were the high standards of the resorts at which they own and exchange, followed by the flexibility offered through vacation exchange opportunities, and the value of vacation ownership. Of those surveyed, 83,1% responded that the "certainty of quality accommodations" was a "very important" factor in their vacation ownership purchase. Other motivational factors included good value, location of the resort, company credibility and savings of dollars on vacation costs. • According to a February, 1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not awning recreational property, 60.3% of the Americans believed they have a chance of purchasing recreational property of some type during the next 10 years. The survey results revealed that over 113 of Americans rate their chance of purchasing during the next 10 years as :about 50150 or better," compared to 15.5% in 1950 and 25.5% in 1993. • Americans interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard ~-bedroom unit, sleeping 6, over any other single unit size, by more than a 2:1 margin (45.7%). • The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks of vacation ownership. Although nearly 213 (58.8%) of vacation owners own a single week of time-share, the number of weeks awned increases the longer the average respondent is involved with vacation ownership. • The vast majority of vacatlon owners (73.9%) initially purchase just one interval. However, more than 114 (26.1%) of those who first purchase between 1992 and 1994, now own mare than one time-share interval, indicating that many first time purchasers are purchasing more than one interval at the time of initial purchase. faeveryonelpeclmemoslcc2exta.o28 12 While in the focal resort area, the average time-share visitor party spends considerably more than the traditional traveler, averaging expenditures of $1,130.00 during the course of the entire stay. • According to more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single category of expenditure while in the resort area is far food and drink consumed in restaurants, bars and other hospitality establishments. Vacation owners surveyed in 1995 average 6.9 nights in the resort area during their mast recent time-share vacation. • Vacation owners often extend their stay in the local resort area, by spending additional nights in another form of accommodation. Of those surveyed in 1995, the average owner spends an additional 4.7 nights in the Iota! resort area during his/her most recent time- share vacation by staying in a hotel, with friends ar relatives, or elsewhere. • U.S. owners surveyed in ,1994 reported that they anticipate returning to the resort where their time-share interval is located an average of 6.4 times during the next 10 years. By contrast, those same owners responded that, had they not purchased atime-share in the resort area, they would have returned to the resort area an average of only 3.2 times. Compared to all households in the United States, vacation owners have higher incomes, are alder, and have higher levels of formal education than those of the average American consumer. As an aggregate profile, the typical vacation owner is an upper middle- income, middle-age, well educated couple. • A recent study revealed that the average household income of vacation owners is aver $63,000, having risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Qver 112 of ail vacation owners have household incomes between $15,400 and $100,000. • 86.5% of all vacation owners are couples, and 13.5% are single individuals. • As of December 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a vacation. The tap three states in terms of total number of vacation owners are California, New York and 1=lorida. Sources: The 1995 Worldwide Aesori Time-Share Industry Time-Share Purchasers: Whn They Are. Whv Thev Buv, 1995 Edition. Time-Sure Ownership Benefits: Results from a NaNnnwide Survey of Time-Share Owner, 7995 The American Recreational Property Survey: 9995 f;leveryooelpeclmemaslcc2exta.o28 ~ ~ TIMESHARE INr'~RMATIQN ~H~F.~ ~g~gshare Pmiecls in Vail 1. Apollo Fark 2. The Wren 3. Vail Run ~..ic'stin~ Timeshare Proiect 1. St. James Place , 2. Post Montane 3. Park Plaza 4, Christie Lodge {Avon} 5. Streamside at Vail E~stin~ .Pr~_iec 1. Evergreen Lodge 11. Riverhouse 2. Marriot Vail Mountain Resort i 2, Edelweiss 3, Lodge at Lionshead 13. Riva Ridge North & South 4. Vail Spa 14. AlI Seasons S. Solar Vail Condominiums 15. Booth Creek Townhomes 6, Vail International 1 The Wren 7. Skaal House 17, Apollo Park 8. Scorpio l S. {Any SDD w/HDMF Zoning) 9, Alphora Z 0. Meadow Vail Place t Proiects 7~ed CC,2 i . Enziao/L'OstelIo Vantage Paint 2, ~ Antler's 9, Lion's Pride 3. Lion's Square Lodge 10, Lifthouse Lodge 4. Lion's Square North 11. Vai121 S. Montaneros I2. Lionshead Center 6. Landmark Lodge I3. Treetops Condominiums 7. West Winds Condominiums 14. Village Center Condominiums ~ AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW I. [,[Ihat is tie Austria Maus Chub? The Austria Haus Club will be a member-owned resort club comprised of spacious two and three bedroom residences and associated club facilities. These Club facilities are planned to include Lobby, front desk and concierge areas, library/lounge roam, exercise and function rooms, ski equipment storage facilities, outdoor sitting area with Jacuzzi, and on-site underground parking. Additionally, access to the Sonnenalp Country Club and Spa facilities will be included along with other membership benefits. I1. How will membership in the Club be evidenced?, Membership will be evidenced by a real estate deed which is recorded and is guaranteed by a title insurance policy. Each member owns an undivided interest (UDI) in one of the Club's residence units and the associated club facilities and common areas. III. How manv members will be allowed to loin? An undivided deeded interest to a portion of the Club units and a commensurate portion of the common areas will be conveyed to a total of nine members for each Club residence. The total number of memberships will be dependent upon the final number of permitted club units. Each membership will carry with it the right to priority use of lodging times. In total, 45 weeks of the year will be dedicated to priority use by Club members; the remaining weeks will be available for rental to the general public and for maintenance of the residences. Prioxirty lodging nights not used by members will also be available for rental to the general public. IV. How often can. owners use their Club? Each member will have full access throughout the year to all Club facilities and all residences of their type category, subject to established reservation policies. V. How will an owner reserve usage? Members reserve their winter vacations in the fall and their summer vacations in the spring. Short-notice stays can be reserved on a "space-available" basis. t AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW V I. Will an owner always occutiv the same unit? No. Members have equal access to all Club residences of their membership type. Members may request a specific residence unit and this request will be granted if possible, based on established reservation policies and priorities. VII.How will the rental nro~ram work? All residence units not reserved by a member will be made available for nightly rental to the general public. This includes full residence units as well as non-utilized lock-off portions of member reserved residences. VIILHow will the memberships be sold? The Club resort marketing programs will be similar in content and character to those utilized in selling high end condominiums in Vail. • IX. Is the Austria Haus Club a timeshare development?. No. Resort club membership is very similar to membership in a prestigious equity golf country club, except members reserve lodging rather than tee times. Resort club membership differs markedly from traditional timeshare or interval ownership where large numbers of prospective buyers must be generated to produce the sale of a specific week of vacation time in a specific lodging unit, or the right to use a specific lodging unit for a set number of years. Resort club memberships are very limited, are sold to an exclusive number of upscale buyers, and offer as a primary benefit the prestige and privilege of membership. High-end resort clubs represent a sepaxate and distinct market segment from what are commonly known as vacation timeshare properties. Although both represent a form of interval ownership, resort clubs merge the benefits of second home ownership with traditional membership club benefits. A limited number of members are invited to make a substantially larger investment in a facility that includes all the features, amenities, services, and benefits of a resort club. They are owners in a single club property in which they have a vested interest in the value, the upkeep, and the financial health and viability. 2 1 AUSTRIA HAUS CLUB OVERVIEW X. Are there UDI clubs at other resort areas? . Yes. Club resorts are becoming an increasingly popular form of resort hotel structure. Existing club resorts include the highly acclaimed Deer Valley Club at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Franz Klammer Lodge in Telluride, Ships Watch in Duck, NC, The Melrose Club near Hilton Head, SC, as well as a growing number of new properties throughout the United States. Each of these clubs is organized somewhat differently and their bylaws permit varying types of usage. XI. Whv was the content developed? Club resorts are one of the few economically viable methods currently available to finance, construct, and, over time, maintain ahigh-quality new mountain hotel property. Membership club services and amenities combined with first class resort . accommodations are also a logical product for the luxury resort market: the blended product meets the demands of the sophisticated leisure travelerlsecond home owner and at the same time addresses the needs and concerns of the community in which it operates. The Austria Haus Club concept is designed to: • Provide more convenience, services, and amenities than are provided by an equally luxurious condominium development; • Provide an economically feasible means of financing the rejuvenation and maintenance of the guest accommodation inventory on the East Meadow Drive property; • Make available significantly more accommodations in the heart of Vail by replacing 37 very small existing guest accommodation units with a new combined total of 68; • Ensure the highest year-round occupancy by providing room rental • opportunities during times when owners are not making full use of the Club; • Add quality commercial property, aesthetic public space, and underground parking in the Vail village core; 3 • MINUTES NAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING December 3, 1996 7:30 P.M. A,~ular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1996, in the Council Cabers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Michael Jewett MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Tawn Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Ite'~mber two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of November 5 and 19, 1996. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the Consent Agenda, with a minor change to the November 5 minutes. Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was #aken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995; An ordinance amending Special Developmen# District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development s#andards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello explained the request for a major amendment #o SDD #5 (Savoy VillaslSimba RunNail Run) to allow for modifications to the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development located a# 1230 Lions Ridge Loop, and provided the following background: The Departmen# of Community Development received a request from the applicant for a major SDD amendment to modify the approved development plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Savoy Villas, located in Phase II, Development Area B, in Special Development District #5 {Simba RunNail Run). The property, loc ~ d at 1230 Lions Ridge Loap is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frc~ge Road to the south, Simba Run to the east, and Lions Ridge Loop to the north. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996, implements the revisions to the SDD. The applicant, BWAB, Inc. was represented by Chris Klein. Staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996, on first reading. Dominic gave a summary of the request as follows, and asked Council members to refer to a memo to Tawn Council dated December 3, 1996, a memo to the PEC, dated November 11, 1996, and site plans, which were included in the Council packets for more detailed information: • The proposal adds 1free-market unit to Building #5 for a total of 2free-market units, 2,420 sq. feet proposed, and two employee housing units. • The proposal adds an additional story to Building #5 for a total of 4 stories, one of which is substantially below grade. The additional story was added upon the PEC recommendation that the applicant provide athree-bedroom employee housing unit {1,300 sq. ft.) in the building instead of the 600 sq. ft. one-bedroom originally proposed. The PEC also recommended that two enclosed parking spaces be provided. Currently, the building is 46' in height from existing grade (in the worst case scenario) and approximately 35' in height above the Lions Ridge Loop elevation. • ~ Building #5 is located in the same area as previously approved and adds about 126 sq. ft. of site coverage. • Seven (7) of the eleven (11) conditions imposed by the PEC were conditions placed by Council on the 1995 development plan. Three (3} of those conditions have been satisfied by the applicant since the PEC review. The memo, which details the conditions, was provided in the Council packet. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes llecember 3, 1996 • The remainder of the plan remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. Dominic explained that the PEC had recommended approval of the amendment with conditions. Council members then reviewed the architectural drawings for the project. Th~pplicant, Chris Klein, was present to address questions. Mayor Armour clarified that the amendment, as proposed, would add 1308 sq. feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA}. Council members Johnston, Navas, Kurz and Ford said they saw no reason to add another level to get a larger employee housing unit and expressed concerns about increasing the size and height of the building. Council members Jewett, and Foley felt the modified plan would not have significant impacts, and that no objections had been received by neighbors. Paul Johnston them moved for denial of the amendment and the motion was seconded by Sybill. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Kevin Foley, Mike Jewett and Mayor Armour voting in opposition. Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 996, first reading of an ordinance re: supplemental appropriations. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson presented the item, and explained that this was the second supplemental appropriation in 1996, and would add $1.2 million to the Town's 1996 budget. Steve said the supplemental appropriation was tied to unexpected expenditures for snow removal, Vail Tomorrow and a 911 tape backup; use of department savings to purchase new library materials and finish recodification of fhe Town Code; pass~through reimbursements, and a transfer from the eneral fund balance to the capital projects fund for 1997 projects. The staff recommendation was for a f.~val of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996 on firs# reading. Rob Ford moved for approval of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1992, and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. , Kevin reminded those present to attend the Town's 30th birthday celebration scheduled for December 6, funds for which were also included as part of the supplemental. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number five was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996, second reading of the budget. Again, Steve Thompson presented the item. He stated the purpose of the ordinance was for an annual appropriation and that Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996 would adopt the 1997 budget and approve the 1998 budget. Staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996 on second reading. Steve explained that since first reading of the ordinance, an additional firefighter position had been added at a net cost of $35,000. Town Manager Bob Mcl_aurin said the town was still hoping to find funding partners to construct roundabouts at the West Vail interchange next year. Kevin Foley inquired about the possibility of separa#ing the bike path on the south side of the proposed roundabouts to increase safety. Bob said the issue would be brought back to Council for further review. Rob Ford then moved for approval of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1996, with a second from Paul Johnston. nor Armour thanked Department Directors and Steve Thompson and Christine Anderson of the Finance lpartment for their efforts and months of work that went into compiling the budget. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Sixth on the agenda was Ordinance 24, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Ordinance 20, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance rezoning three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road. Town of Vail Senior Housing Planner, Andy Knudtsen presented the item and stated that on November 19, 1996, Council approved Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996, on first reading. The applicants were: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Town of Vail, Unified States Forest Service, and the staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996, on second reading. Mayor Armour read the titles in full, and Rob Ford moved to table Ordinances 20 and 24, Series of 1996, to the December 17, 1996 evening meeting due to questions that remained to be addressed. Pau! Johnston seconded the motion and a vote was taken which passed unanimously, 7-0. no. seven on the agenda was Resolution No. 21, Series of 1996, a Resolution authorizing employees ~ the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to Norwest Investment Services, Inc.; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town of Vail Finance Manager, Christine Anderson presented the item, stating that pursuant to the Town's Investment Policy, another company was to be retained. The staff recommendation was for approval. Mayor Armour read the title in full, and Rob Ford moved to approve Resolution No. 21, Series of 1996. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken which passed unanimously, 7-0. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes December 3, 1896 f ..'eighth on the agenda was a presentation of the Investment Report. Christine Anderson presented the item in detail and explained the Town's Investment Policy. The presentation is required to be presented annually to the Town Council as part of the Town's investment policy, she said. Agenda item number Nine was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin reported planning for the 19~World Alpine Ski Championships was beginning to gear up. As chairman of the Municipal Services Co ittee, Bab said he would be attending the 1997 World Alpine Championships in Italy early next year. He then announced that the Downhill World Cup races were to be held on Friday; Super G on Saturday; Town of Vail Birthday celebration also on Friday. There being no further business a motion was made by Rob Ford for adjournment. Kevin Foley seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~e Holy cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) • 3 Vail Town Counul Evening Meeting Minutes December 3, 1996 V MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: December 3, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment tta SDD #5 (Savoy VillaslSimba RunNail Run} to allow for modifications to t#~e previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development located at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop and described as follows: That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1} N03°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12°50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17°56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said wes#erly line, S13° 16'03"W 157.26 #eet, thence S76°43'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13° 16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76"43'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24^44'57"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52"50'29"W 272.501eet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and Thal part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the mast southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1} N37°09'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of t0°49'06", and a chard that bears N42°13'20"t; 334.07 feet; 3} N36"48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°08`12", and a chord that bears N37"52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the 1=irsi Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along sand westerly boundary; 1) S21 "51'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17"56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3} 512"50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03^33'01 "W 180.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly lino, S52°50'29"W 113.08 .feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: BWAB, Inc., represented by Chris Klein Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a major SDD amendment to modify the approved development plan for Phases 2 and 3 of Savoy Villas, located in Phase II, Development Area B, in Special Development District #5 (Simba Run/Nail Run}. The property is located at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop and is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frontage Road to the south, Simba Run to the east, and Lions Ridge Loop to the north (see attached PEC memo for a complete history of this project, the zoning analysis, and site plans for the development). 1 Currently Buildings #1 and #2 are constructed on the site. Design Review approval has been given for Building #3 and #4 and they will be developed according to the 1995 plan, which remains unchanged for this portion of the site. Building #5, under the 1995 plan and SDD ordinance, contained 3 units, 2 of which were EHUs. The plan also included a 686 sq. ft. office space for the condominium association and a 466 sq. ft. two-car garage for the free-market unit. The proposed modifications to the 1995 approved plans include an increase in the number offree-market unfits and GRFA in Savoy Villas, by adding 1,3Q8 sq, ft. of GRFA and ana additional unit to Building #5 in Phase 2, for a total of 27 units far the entire project. Building #5 will now contain 2free-market units and 2 Type lil EHUs. One EHU will contain 600 sq. ft. of GRFA and the other EHU is a three bedroom unit containing 1,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 2 free-market units will contain at total of 2,427 sq. ft. of GRFA. Common area stairways contain 414 sq. ft. of floor area {not included as GRFA). Therefore, this structure will contain 4,327 sq. ft. of GRFA total. At the October 14, 1996 PEC meeting, the PEC recommended that the applicant modify the proposed plan to provide a three bedroom EHU and two enclosed garage spaces. The applicant has provided the recommended changes. The proposed plan adds an additional floor to the building for a total of four stories, one of which is substantially below grade. Additionally, the . building envelope is expanded slightly from the 1995 approval, with the addition of 126 sq. ft. of site coverage. The number of enclosed parking spaces now remains unchanged from the 1995 approval. However, the percentage of enclosed parking in Savoy Villas has been reduced, due to the increase in the surface spaces on-site, from 52% {24 spaces} in 1995 to 49% {24 spaces} in 1996. The parking required far these 4 units is 8 parking spaces. Two parking spaces are required for each free-market unit, 3 spaces are required for the three bedroom EHU, and 1 parking space is required for the one bedroom EHU (since this EHU is 600 sq. ft. ar less in GRFA). The proposed plan provides 6 surface spaces and 2 enclosed parking spaces for Building #5. The pedestrian path required far the development by the previous approval has been relocated between Buildings #2 and #3 and connects with the driveway proposed for Phase 3 (Building #6). The floor plans show a deck which extends into the 10' utility easement along the east property line. The applicant has indicated that they wil! pursue an encroachment agreement to allow the third level deck, but if they are unsuccessful at obtaining such agreements from all utility companies, and the Town of Vail, they will remove the proposed deck from the easement area. The remainder of the plan remains unchanged from the previous approval. The 1995 ordinance has many specific requirements with respect to the phasing of the development, the recordation of the pedestrian, bike path {public access), and drainage easements, the timing of the recordation of EHU restrictions, and the final approval of the access to the North Frontage Road by CDOT and the Town Engineer. 2 i II. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION The Planning and Environmental Commission, at its November 11, 1996 meeting, recamrnended approval of the request far a Major SDD Amendment to SDD #5 for the Savoy Villas development. The recommendation of approval carries with it the following conditions (*indicates condition of approval from 1995 Council approval): 1. The applicant provide an update to the hazard report for the property prior to obtaining a Building Permit for Building #5 of Savoy Villas. "'2. The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any unit in Building #4 or Building #5 (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan) until such time as Temporary Certificates of Occupancy and deed restrictions have been issued far both of the "Type Ill" EHU units in Building #5. *3. The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and will arrange for the grant of a public access easement to the Tnwn of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of any TC~ for any of the Phase ll condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan}. *4. The applicant shall obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit for the proposed triplex driveway prior to the Town's issuance of any building or grading permits for the three townhames {Building #6, Phase 3, Savoy Villas} located on the lower bench of the development. • *5. The applicant shall grant to the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site between the proposed Building #5 and Building #4. The developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town wiN release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase it Condominiums {according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). '"6. The applicant shall provide a bike path easement for any portion of the existing bike path located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be executed and submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer before the Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for units in the Phase II Condominiums (according to the Savoy Villas phasing plan). *7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the three townhouse units in Phase 3 of Savoy Villas, the applicant will receive final approval from the Town of Vail Engineer regarding driveway location and drainage plans in Phase 3. 8. The building elevations for Building #5 are not approved and must be approved by the Design Review Board. 9. The applicant shall increase the size of the 8 evergreens adjacent to Building #5 to 12' - 14' in height and shall add additional Aspens of 3" - 4" caliper subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 3 i' 10. The applicant shall provide executed encroachment agreements for all relevant utility companies and the Town of Vail for the deck encroachment in the 14' utility easement along the east property line or shall eliminate the deck encroachment, prior to submitting the project for review by the Design Review Board. 11. The applicant meet with staff to revise the floor plan of the three-bedroom EHU to allow a more usable layout {a larger living room) and that the north elevation be modified prior to DRB application. The applicant has revised the floor puns and building elevations based upon condition #11 • above. The layout of the three-bedroom EHU has been reorganized to improve the living room area and to add more windows to the building. The PEC was concerned that this EHU was not laid out to accommodate the needs of a family, as the living room and kitchen areas were very small. The applicant has also redesigned the north building elevation to make it more consistent with the remainder of the building and other structures on-site. The PEC was concerned about the appearance of this elevation and has requested that the DRB take a close look at this elevation. The landscape plan has been amended to comply with condition #9 above. The applicant has also provided an update to the hazard study as required by condition #1. The proposed Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996, is attached and includes the above referenced conditions of approval, excluding conditions #1, #9, and #11, which have been fully addressed. Attachments include the ordinance, revised plan reductions, and the PEC memo. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1996, on first reading. f ;leverynnelcnc~nciltnlentr~svsavay,d03 i 4 ~ I .1 _ / T 3~-} y t ~J ~ s±.# ~ t' I p MI k ~ ~ ~ f#~~ ~:_g~. l ~ _ - l ' ~ ~ v NvN u n 4 ~ t ~ o n z ;..y:. _ 1 \ o o o " ~ t 1r ~1 ~ \y ~ o. lo. ~ Q • ~ O O ~ _ r ti \ ; o ~ f L a ~ ~ ~ ~ "'r r ~ i 7 J ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ y j ~ O. p~ P:~ \ ~ 'lf U r4 , m ~ ~1 ~ l- H J1J .L. \ 1 9NSTV t ~ I~j rOt9. a s ; S ~ 'G ~M 1 _ ti r 1 ~ role. F` " , d 3 i ~ , i. 1 y~~ rr~ ~4a}j Z~ n ~ Y~~ t•~' 18.E"~^:~a~3~i~~ FF . : _ - n; > ~ I I • 'Ff ~ t~L I; ti v~ 9e T, i s - a . • P < < y ~ o ~,f,~ ~ a u . ` 1_ 4 ~ u _f ~ ,s ug~~ . ~ ~ 4 , ~ I, \ ~ ,y C 4 ~ ' ~ i N 1 ` / , 1~~ 1 i ~ ' 1 1 1 \ ! -r 1 IstIl i v ~ ~ \ \ i f •'QF ~ I It 4 i i I ~ I C . v 7 1 ~ + J _ 1~ "a ~ j ~ r1 v I \ j ~+ry ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~4 ! ' \ r 1 ~ ~ ' t ~ ~ j ~ j ~ s'gw... sw, _ ~1~ y , r.. 1 1 ~ , 7 .env ~ ' ~ 4 1 1• Y • ~ r r.. ~ 5]J~~ l {4 ~ f ~ ~ ~ i v `'U` pp 1 i ~ ~ ~ oP ' 1 l ~ 1\• \ 1 1 ` A ~ I 1q j ~ ti - t1, ~ _ a j ~ c ~ I~ ~ d ro ~ ' ~ ~ Z ! ~ f ~ \ ~ v ~ J ~ ~ ~ 1~ a . ~V 1. 1y~ ~ z 4 k ¦ i ` ~~1 ~ ~ t ~ Ya- ~Y I • ~ ~ o:~ tilo r ~ 1~ -a ~ u~~.a~ n ~ r r b o n 1 V - 11 ~ ,~l O 1 tir ~ ~ O O ~ 1' r t ~ I ~ ~ ~ ,O 4 by ~ ~3= 15 Qi y • _ , 1 - A q( ~ ~ / - a d o~. ~ r~ 4 ~ ~ a ~ = i 8 ~ ~ ~ ' a` ~ r w J4 4 ii ~I. w~ w ~ S 1~ k ~ °r ~ ~ 11 I ~ ~ r O p .3 ~y~ - _ ~ L t n `r, ~ ~f ~ ti~ yy ~i_r Lrr~ f ~ s ~I ~1 ~ c~ ~z _ _ L x+-rte ~ 1 ~ ~ ' I U} I , ~ ° r~ I l z t , ~ J i ~ ~ ~a I _ ~ i ~ ~ g~ ~ r - O Q V ~ ~ I ~ H I ~ i _ w I~ i ~ ~ I ~ w ~ j - ifc ~n„I -~aa i ~ ~ I o In { It(lrfr I O 4 ~ .a{ ~ li ~l 1 ~ ` I~ .a ~ ~ _ O p~ F„C=,L ~9-,£ ~ .a-,b 1111 i ~ t 1 f , o ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ - - , I .o: i -Q ~ I -4 ~ f` ll I y I w"a I~~~' ' I •o 4 I b' I X11 i , * _ _ { 3nl ~ ~4 I~ ~ , i 1 .r ~ O •~j rv ~ I 1 i _i ' I. n Tit - i - ~ Q ~~s i ~ ~ .o ® ~ ~ e O .~I ? 3 ~ ~r ~ 'TN I I F ~F1 4~ - ~o_ 6z - ,~I ~ • 4 1 1 'O _ ? f ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ e 1 ® _ ~ z ~ . ~ ` i 7 F ~ ~ ~ -i I ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ N j I J rr I~ ~1 ~ I ~ -M'r- f I i ~ ~ ~ ® iii ~ I ~ o ~ ~ ~ \ 3 j J ~ o ~ 'o~ 1 ~ . I ~ , . ~ ~ f~ i ~ ~ ~ aaaaaa , ~ ~ 1 - ~ ~ I : o ~ ~ i i - j ' ~ ~F., is ~ --~•.Si a!a I ~ i 1 ' ~i 1 N ~ ~I I i . i t _ - - _ T- ~ _I 1 _ FI i I I ~ ~ , r ~ r, !3 ~ r ~ I ~ ~ b ~u _ - '':~i ~ 1 I f~ Y a I~ 1 I -~i~ .'J' •bl I .l ..61T I r~Q'•4 ~ .0'J` I ,6 r0'r~ f7-~S I ' ~'rT $ ~ h ~0 ' ~ ~ °i ~ I 1 ~ ~ . ( ~ ~ ~ - ---I--- - ~I I- - .J w r I~ ~ ~ ~ •f . •aaaaaa 1 II O fr i I _ g` 1 f i ~ J ~ 5 •o, S ~ v~ .I I I ~ 1 a ' r ~ i~ I a ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ 1 i ~O ~ ~ S • • f.. ~ ''r4 3 - I r~ I ' m • ~ I 1~~~ i , , -I' 0 ~ 1 . II la of , ~ _ ~ ~ . }',4'6 - -............_.,._.__~..----,..-..-.,,.,.,,..r., ~ ,o-,bz I 1 i „'1 -.L x ,.0-.L.. MC r--~Z I .4 .E I,B;I~ali ,9-x j o Y I? ~ i ~ I I. j _y...~l I 'I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i I U ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ I ~I i Q ~ Yl x I ~ 1 ~ ^Q ~ j Z ~ ~ ~ W i 1 ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~J 1 ~ _ i l o~~ a?~ ~ .4 ~ ~ . I I I i I i ~ p rrr~ I ` I ~ ~ Q n I I' ~ ~ ~ ~ S .L-.W ~ 3tS I~ I' ~ i i F ~q T mF ~ ~ 1 I i 7i 3~ _ ~ : ~ ~ ~ .r I _N! l_ -1 - ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~I I 1 .I ~ O r r t I- i ~I - f i - ~ f ~ ~ I i b c ,v-,ci N ~ t .I. - ~ _ - I - I ~ ' ~ _ ~o-,+x N ~ ~ g~o~ K ~ ~ ~ J .S ~ Ib. ~ ~ it i~ ~ ~ , I~, I I j fl~ ! ~ p ~ i~ I ~ ~ 11~11.~''q!'1!G I I ~ ~ ~ ~ , q ~ H8 I ° F E~ ~ Q :I'i ''i ~ ~ ill F:."~• I~~' . 1„ , I E I d ~ ~ ,E ! ~if111:1,Il.alfl~j I~~[!:.'~II~ 7~7II~i;ll ` 3 ~ . ~i a nl ~ ~ ~ - e-e ~ _ GG4<~GG ' i ' Kpp T- 7 k 4 k ~ ~ y~I 4 4' 1 ~ ~ ~ I y III I F 4~ ° ~ ~ ~ -,e~i~ -g ~b- --o - ~ ~ ~'EI I I I i ii I~ I f I i i I, ~ . i~l f 'I':I~ i ~ ~ it .~I 'Ifl I I 1 'p I~I'I ~.II I it III ~ i ' i1 E~F~ j I Itiil, F ~ I i ~ r ~ : I. ~ .I , ~,I~i,,. LI i I~IIIIfIl~~l111u Ei i I li ~ i ~ - J I ~ i i I ! I ill ~ [ ( i.. il~E I `~~~,i it .1 f~l'~E..,ja?~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~I`i'~I, i I I . ; III,,. I ~ M I ~ i' Iil. :III ~ VIII, ~ I r 'i ~.I•'~ ~ u' ~I f ~ ! • •r_ i al ~ E ~ i I ,LPL: 4a•P,i_~ ~ i .~t•r .M~s%i ; ti, ,east, s.w.v I .a ' I y. ~ j ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~f j~l~1i~ I ~ I ~ Er + i 1 s ~ I ~ . I r' ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ - ~ .7551 .~7 ~ ~ ~ r; ~ ~ tit I ~ ~i ! © ~ i - I - ~ " 'I ~ I ~ - I ! 1 © ~ j ~ Rai 4 i:. ~ ~ -~-E-+- ~ ---------r------- ~ ~ f rt v r ~I i MY ~ _ ~1 ? . i ~ i ~ Q- ; ~ ~~u ~ f ~ o . ~ p~ r ~ ~ i ~ E~ ~ _ I t ~ , r ii.. ~ ..G t .4a.1 , •r`~ ~ Ha II Aie .fr i V , . i i _ • ~ ~b tl 1y1a e ~ l ~ i ~ y A i ~a I f , ~ ~a ; • : ~ , - - ' ~ i.. ~ ~ . , 0 i. ~ © ~ fsl i Q r ~ ~ 1:•• t7C : :4E• i ~ i,~r~ ~ }.....rte.. _~.i,-__~,.,.iY~_~,~..r~.~~ .`..-h~ I ~ i ' % I ~ I 1 ~ - v r F .MS,'~ w• t .~.:t V .45'.7 .44}~~-1 C1 ~O ` ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1IIII ~7>d ~ ~ j ~ a,;ao•a~o f .~+,sy, i r} lV i ~ I ~ I j y...,~~ ~ 1710 ~ i V ~ I Ilw/ v 1 _ ~ ~ I , !I! I aaQ yg ~ ~ 1 O O O ~ I ; ~ A ~ L II b~ .AM! anl'.4s '.'>ti?~7 I.M{7;7 i ~ ' i Y i ~ C ~ ~~r .y ~ k ras5 , ~ ~ , ~~,J1i~ !tiv jy~a~Ti~r .+.a ~'b+TT-i a 4 i x ~ ~ ~ w,.,t~ r I !~!q ~ i I ~ i i~ ~ .1 I ! .i `;'~Y O i,i~ii~i'~ 'i~ ~~'~~~~i ~ ! k tlli'I'~I~'' 3 E ~ ~ ~ i,~if r'Il~~~~I,~II!i' i~IS~j~IIi I`~1~~ I~Ili~ • ~I ~I~f ~ : ~ ~ lii:i';I'ri'~:i~l~i~ l~ju:lllll 14I~ it I I `I k~;,!j,f{ ff E ' ~ , ~ H i~ ~ ; ; I~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I N~ I;~?~i E M ' f ~ ~ E+i~~ i~~ E ~ ~ 1 G~ IIII ~ i f ~1., k!r! I li ~'I ~~I~:~~ I. , I EII:~ I~u~;I~; ll'I',!II ~ i ~ ~ ~ s (i il~liliE~ I i ' i ~ it I;IE~ II•~•!I~I~ It I I r I , `I ,I ~ I! i 11 t - I I ~ ~ ~~1 i ~ . 4 ~ ; Jik ; I ' ~ I ~ ' ~ ,i ! i E ~ Ilinnlull i ; ~ ' II j I j~ E+ ' ~ i I• k I" y ~ 3 I ! ~ lI{i!:k~I~I I [11 i~ i,~i ~ ~i~ Ili j~ik )l~~kE~~~ kl~ E ) i iiln ii~ ~ . I li ~ ~ i; I~' `kl3d ~ I!!i i 14 ijl~ Ilk! Iklpll ! ' ; ~ ~Il`~li ±'ll ~k~lEllk~~~i k ~ I 'i~i, ~II I ' I s i u11k ~k i • I i ! ~ ~ I 'YI! ! ! I ' ~ E I Ii ii ~k ~ I k i I f i ~ s ~ ld~l~l•~6 M~! rt TOWN OF VAIL . 75 Sor~th Frontage Road ~il, Colorado 81657 MEDIA ADVISORY 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 December 11, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 10 Work Session Briefs ' Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Overview of Timeshare Research Council members heard a brief overview of a proposed ordinance to amend the town's municipal code to allow time-share estate units, time-share license units and fractional fee units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation zone district. The proposal was initiated by representatives from Sannenalp Properties, Inc., as the company pursues redevelopment of the Austria Haus at 242 East Meadow Drive. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEG) has voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the ordinance. Council members have received a packet of materials containing a detailed overview of the time-share proposal. To request a copy, call the Community information Office at 479-2115. The Council will discuss the matter in full detail at the Dec. 17 work session prior to consideration far first reading at the evening meeting later that day. For additional information, contact George Ruttier in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Information Update Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said the Youth Recognition Award deadline has been extended to Dec. 20 to allow time for submissions by Battle Mountain High School and Vail Mountain School. Also, Council members were reminded of the town's Christmas party Saturday evening at the Marriott. Town Manager Bob McLaurin indicated that five applications for the second Vail Gammons lottery have been received as a result of the most recent advertisement for submissions. A lottery will soon be conducted far those five. He said the town would continue to work with Warner Developments to accept additional applications for the lottery reserve list, if necessary. Any additional applicants would be placed in a second tier drawing similar to the tier structure established in the original Vail Commons lottery last Spring. For additional details, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. McLaurin also indicated the town will prepare a conceptual design to extend the streamwalk behind the Austria Haus and extending west to the Chapel Bridge (Val! Road). The streamwalk extension has been proposed as part of that property's redevelopment plan. (more} RECYCLED PAPER ' y Council Highlights/Add 1 --Council Reports Sybill Navas reported on the most recent meeting of the Special Events Commission. She said the new format approved by the Town Council to focus on events within the town's boundaries had been well received by the group. Also at the meeting, she said the Vail Valley Foundation indicated it would not bid an the Special Olympics for 2001. However, the foundation will prepare a bid for the World Cup Mountain Bike Races in September 1998 and will explore an appearance by an Irish dance ensemble featured recently on Public Television. In addition, Navas said the Festival of Lights celebration was being enhanced this season with musical performances called "Voices in the Village." Kevin Foley reported on a meeting of the Vail Recreation District. He said discussions included the possibility of athletic fields at Red Sandstone School and the possible expansion of the gymnastics program. Rob Ford suggested initiating a meeting with the Avon Town Council once a new town manager is hired there. He said the meeting could be similar to the discussion held recently between the Vail Town Council and the Breckenridge Council. Council members agreed. --Other Kevin Foley suggested moving forward with a proposal to raise parking fines in the commercial core areas to help control parking problems in private parking lots. Bab McLaurin said he would check with the town attorney and municipal judge to see how quickly an ordnance can be prepared. Many believe the current $16 parking fine is not serving as a deterrent. At the suggestion of Kevin Foley, the Council agreed to write a letter supporting the application of the Arkansas River Headwaters group to secure a GOCO Legacy grant from state lottery funds to be used to conduct a feasibility study for a bike path from Canyon City to Datsero along a route proposed to be abandoned by the railroad. Ludwig Kurz announced that a new executive director has been hired far the Beaver Creek Resort Company. Tony O'Rourke is from Tallahassee, Fla. Paul Johnston said he's observed problems in keeping the sidewalks clear from the Transportation Center to Golden Peak, He said it was unfortunate that a hE;ated system hasn't been installed there to address life-safety issues. Town Manager Bab McLaurin agreed and indicated there may be opportunities to revisit the concept of heated walkways in strategic locations. He said the heated system at the Library chute has convinced him to pursue other opportunities. The system at the Library chute uses steam from the ice compressor at Dobson Arena to heat the walkway (the system is shut down when the ice is covered for special events). (more) Council Highlights/Add 2 Bob Armour noted the town's 3Qth birthday party at the Transportation Center was a successful event. Sybill Navas mentioned the intergovernmental animal control agreement with Eagle County that will be considered for approval at the Dec., 17 evening meeting. Bob McLaurin said the town is getting a good value far the cost of the contract. However, he said, the town is Currently researching what it might cost to deliver the service in.- house starting in 1998. Navas agreed the service is a bargain, but wondered if the town needed additional service. Paul Johnston said he sensed animal control issues are becoming more of a problem valleywide. . Kevin Foley said Vail is in the running to host a bikelpedestrian summit sponsored by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Other potential host cities are Steamboat and Breckenridge. Also, Foley said he was continuing to receive calls an the Popcorn Wagon issue. Council members indicated they intend to honor the contract currently in place--with na extensions. A process will be used next spring to award a new contract when the current one expires. Council members said they aren't interested in adding the issue to an upcoming agenda. Paul Johnston asked to revisit the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. street cut ordinance which allows construction to occur between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., as well. Johnston said the ordinance should be "guest sensitive" and therefore should not allow work to occur an Saturdays or Sundays. Johnston's comment was in response to the Monday through Saturday work scheduled approved for renovation of the fire-damaged Wall Street Building. Also, in preparation far the Berry Greek 5th Filing meeting in January, Jahnstan asked if the town was prepared to offer a statement to indicate if it wants to stay in or out of the partnership. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said the Eagle County School District was interested in continuing planning discussions with the Berry Creek 5th board that could result in additional opportunities far partnerships and development of employee housing. --Community Collaboration Follow-Up Workshop During a workshop on the town's community collaboration programs, council members reaffirmed support far the "open, honest and fair" decision making process adopted last • February. Since then, the town has initiated a public participation process to assist with decision-making an the West Vail interchange, Fard Park management plan, GRFA and Vail Tomorrow. Council members agreed this new way of doing business makes decision making easier and improves trust within the community. The old way of doing business--"decide, announce, defend"--doesn't work any more, they said. Council members reviewed and discussed what it means to honor the process and how to handle those who choose not to participate in the process. The workshop was facilitated by KezziahWatkins, acitizen involvement consulting firm from Colorado Springs. (more} Council Highlights/Add 3 UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS December 7 7 Work Session John Gulick 20 Year Anniversary PEC Review Interview Marketing Board Applicants Discuss Ford Park Management Plan Discuss Ordinance 22, Time Shares Zoning Text Amendment Site Visit, Campisi December 17 Evening Meeting First Reading Ordinance 22, Time Shares Zoning Text Amendment Second Reading Ordinances 20 & 24, Red Sandstone Secand Reading Ordinance 25, Supplemental Appropriations Resolution No. 22, Adoption of Animal Control Services Contract w/Eagle County Appointment of Marketing Baard Positions Campisi Appeal January 7 Work Session Secand Reading Ordinance 22, Time Shares Zoning Text Amendment # # # 11 i~ `OWN 4F MAIL 7~ outh Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager Colorado 81657 970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Rober# W. Mcl_aurin Town Manager DATE: December 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Vail Villaae Popcorn Waaon Last week I met with Bob Schultz concerning the Vail Village Popcorn Wagon. As many of you are aware, Mr. Schultz has a lease with the Town of Vail through December 31, 1997 for a space in Founders Plaza. Mr. Schultz has operated the Popcorn Wagon since about 1988 and is interested in selling this business. He has requested that the Town extend the lease. After reviewing the situation, it is my feeling that the Town should not extend this lease. We should, early next spring, develop a procedure to lease this space at that time. Mr. Schultz could then apply and receive the new lease. However, this would provide the Council with an opportunity to reevaluate the rent we are receiving and to also look at other factors concerning the operational aspects of this matter. For your information, 1 have attached a copy of my draft letter to Mr. Schultz. West Vail Interchange UbdatE On October 1, 1996 you endorsed the concept of constructing two roundabouts in West Vail. Subsequent to this decision we have begun the construction design and preparation of the construction documents. We have scheduled this item for your consideration an the 17th. The purpose of this session is to update you on the progress of this project and to receive your direction for completing the design. In order to keep the project on schedule, the design needs to be essentially complete by January 17th. At this point the design is approximately 30% complete. The current schedule for this project is as follows: Construction: February 14th -construction design complete project out to bid March 4th -bid opening March 11th -award bid March 31st -commence construction November 1st -substantial completion RECYCLEDPAPER The construction design is essentially the same as the Council saw in the conceptual plans last spring with one exception. The conceptual proposal showed a grade separation ofi the West Vail bike path, Specifically, the design showed the bike path going beneath the road and along side Gore Creek. We believe that construction of this alternative would cost approximately $500,000. For approximately 200 lineal feet of bike path. While we are concerned with the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, we do not believe that this is a prudent expenditure. However, if you feel strongly that we should construct this alternative please let us know on Tuesday and we will revise the design accordingly. Please be advised that should we pursue this alternative, that the $5.5 million figure may no longer be valid. We are continuing to pursue funding alternatives, However, it is unlikely we will have a definitive answer on funding until early 1997. We look forward to reviewing this project with you. L~aislative Training The regular session of the 61st Colorado General Assembly will begin on Wednesday, January 8, 1997. It is likely that the session will be dominated by welfare reform, transportation, finance, budget surpluses, and tax rei'ief. As in previous years the Colorado Municipal League (CML) will be at the forefront helping to manage these issues on behalf of Colorado cities and towns. CML will be sponsoring a legislative workshop on January 30, 1997. The purpose of this workshop is to help municipal officials understand pending state legisla#ion. It is a day long workshop and will focus on the key municipal issues that will likely come before the 1997 General Assembly. It is an excellent opportunity for you to learn about the state legislative process. If you are interested in attending please let Anne Wright know so she can make arrangements to register you for this workshop. Loading and Delivery Update We are continuing to work to address the loading and delivery issue, Last week we met with many of the major companies who deliver goods into the Vail Village, This meeting was an attempt to develop a scenario which would improve this situation. Using scale maps and a series of overlays, we worked through a number of scenarios for loading and delivery. An important part of this discussion involved the categorization of trucks into #hree sizes small, medium, and large, based on length of truck. An important component of the scenario discussed was the segregation of loading sites by truck size. A revised loading and delivery plan developed by this group is attached to this memo. This is a modification to the current plan. It is our intention to monitor this through December 31, 1998, In the interim we will be meeting with other people affected by loading and delivery, Specifically, we will be meeting with the Eas# Village Homeowners on December 26th and with the Vail Village Merchants Association on January 8th, Following this additional evaluation and meetings we will bring this issue back to the Council in mid January far additional discussion. RWMIaw Mi t.. December 13, 1996 ~ Y - . . Mr. Robert D. Schultz, Jr. 4112 Spruce Way Vail, CO 81657 Re: Town of Vail/Village Popcorn Wagon Lease Dear Bob: Thank you for taking the time to visit with me concerning the Vail Village Popcorn Wagon Lease earlier this week. Subsequent to our discussions, I have had a change to review the lease agreement. • As we discussed, your lease with the Town of Vail is valid through December 31, 1997. After reviewing the documents and much thought and deliberation, it is my feeling the Town should not extend the lease prior to the termination. It will be my recommendation to the Council that in June, 1997, we reassess the lease on this parcel and develop a procedure for selecting a tenant. I realize this does not satisfy your wishes, and could potentially affect the sale of the lease. However as we discussed, as a fiduciary for the Town I have an obligation to look al a broader perspective on this issue. if the Council chooses to extend the Iease, we will prepare the necessary agreements. However it will be my recommendation that the lease not be extended at this point in time. Thank you for your time. If you have questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, • Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager RTM/aw xc: Vail Town Council R. Thomas Moorhead - 1 jy ~ou~v of v~rL . P.O, Box 567 Department of ice Vail, Colorado 81658 970-479-2200 VAIL VILLAGE LOADING AND DELIVERY POLICY December 13,199G • Effective 12-13-96 delivery trucks are allowed into Vail Village before 7 a.m. if the trucks use "silent mode": no use of air brakes, no refrigeration units running and engines must be turned off while the truck is parked. Any violation of "silent mode" will result in the revocation of an early morning parking permit. Noise complaints may also result in revocation of early morning parking permits. • On mornings when any fresh snow has accumulated overnight, "silent mode" trucks must move out of the Village from 6 to 6:30 a.m. to allow for snowplowing. Trucks may return at 6:30 and park in areas already plowed. • Effective 12-13-96, from 7 a.m. to 12 noon, all sizes of trucks are aIiawed to park on Gore Creek Drive except in designated fire lanes. Engines and refrigeration units should be turned off as much as possible to reduce noise. • Effective 12-13,96 all sizes of trucks not utilizing "silent mode" are allowed on Bridge St. from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.. All trucks must be off Bridge St, by 8:30 a.m. • Effective 12-20-96 15 minute Merchant permits are valid on Bridge St. and Gare Creek Dr. from 6:30 a.m, until 8:30 a.m. for the delivery of large, bulky or heavy items only. • Effective 12-20-9b Trash trucks are only allowed in the Village from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., except on Bridge St., where they are allowed from 7 a.m, to 8:30 a.m. Trash trucks have the right of way over delivery trucks and merchant vehicles from 7:30 a.m, to 8:30 am. • Effective 12-20-96 "Large trucks" (36 ft. must be out of the Village by noon. Large trucks are not allowed to park anywhere in the Village Core after noon. At 12 noon, "Medium trucks" {l9 to 35 ft.) must leave Gore Creek Drive but are allowed to park in the permitted spaces in front of the Mill Creek Court Building or near the International Bridge until 6 p.m.. "Small Trucks" and vans (18 ft. or less} must leave the Village Core at noon but are allowed to park after noon in the permitted parking spaces on Hanson Ranch Road, below the P3 and J Lot on Gore Creek Dr. and near Check Point Charlie until 6 p.m.. • Effective 12-13-96 Airborne Express, DAC, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and U.S. Postal Service trucks are allowed on Gore Creek Drive from 7 a,m. to 6 p.m, These hours will be in effect through December 31, 1996. On January 1, 1997, the 12 noon closure of Gore Creek Drive will be moved back to 11:30 a.m, LOADING AND DELIVERY Problem Statement The pedestrian design and mixed land uses in the Vail Village creates impediments for vehicle- based services including to the delivery of goods and removal of garbage and snow. The lack of alleys or underground passages necessitates delivery of goods and _ removal of trash be conducted on routes shared by pedestrians. During the winter months, delivery and garbage removal conflict with town snow removal operations, exacerbate this problem. This situation creates four specific problems; * first and most importantly, pedestrian safety is jeopardized due to the movement of vehicles in the pedes#rian corridor * the presence of large delivery trucks adversely impact the ambiance of the Vail Village * the presence of large trucks block visibility of businesses in the loading areas and adversely impact these businesses * the noise associated with each of these operations disturb guests staying in the lodges in the Village; The Town of Vail would be irresponsible to aliow this situation continue given the threat posed by the mix of pedestrian and vehicles. 11 _ 1~ TOWN OF YA~~ 5 South Frontage Road ~il, Colorado 81657 970-479-2104 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY December 4, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 3 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johns#on, Kurz, Navas --Site Visit and Discussion of Ordinance to Amend SDD #5 (Savoy VillaslSimba RunNail Run) In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council #oured the site and reviewed the applicant's request to modify the previously approved development plan for the Savoy Villas development at 1230 Lions Ridge Loop. The ordinance was later defeated by a 4-3 vote. See evening mee#ing briefs for more details. --Discussion of Supplemen#al Appropriations Ordinance The Council reviewed an ordinance to add $1.2 million to the Town of Vail 1996 budget. Finance Director Steve Thompson said the supplemental appropriation is tied to unexpected expenditures {$310,956) #or snow removal, Vai! Tomorrow and a 911 tape backup; use of department savings ($10,300) #o purchase new library materials and finish recodification of the TOV municipal code; pass-through reimbursements {$112,332) including the Gypsum/Eagle bus route and library grants; and a transfer from the general fund balance to the capital projects fund for 1997 projects ($750,000). Thompson said a portion of the $310,956 in unexpected expenditures will be offset by savings generated by benefit costs, police salaries and bus operations. The Council later approved the appropriations on first reading at the evening meeting. --Request for Removal of High Debris Flow Hazard Designation At the request of the applicant, the Council tabled to Dec. 17 its considera#ion of a motion to remove a high debris flow hazard designation from 2645 Bald Mountain Road. The applican# is awaiting a letter confirming geological analysis. of the site. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Departmen# at 479-2146. --Information Update There were two announcements from Town Manager Bob McLaurin: one regarding World Cup race creden#ials; the other a reminder about the TOV birthday party on Dec. 6. (more) liECYCLED PAPER i~ Add 11TOV Council Highlights Paul Johnston asked far an update on the Public Works housing project. Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planning, said a request for qualifications would be sent out soon to solicit a design team to Took at the site and offer assistance. Knudtsen said the preliminary plan calls for between 12 to 35 units of 450 to 550 sq. ft, Specific densities will be set by the site planners and architects who will study the site in further detail. --Council Reports . Rob Ford encouraged fellow Council members to participate in the open door sessions at the Daily Grind on the first and third Tuesday mornings. Bob Armour reported on a ribbon cutting at the Cascade Club which has undergone a $2 million renovation. He also said he's received phone calls on the Village popcorn wagon issue. After a brief discussion, Armour agreed to route addition popcorn wagon calls to the town manager. --Other Sybill Navas shared complaints she's received from organizers of the Holiday Fair, which was held at the Marriott several weeks ago. Navas said organizers were critical ofi the way the Police Department handled parking issues and have threatened to move the event out of Vail in the future. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he and the police chief are working to improve the difficulties assocfated with parking shortages and offered to contact the organizers to apologize. In a related parking discussion, Rob Ford complimented the police department for placing empty parking ticket envelopes on cars which had been flfegalfy parked along the Frontage Road to help discourage others from adding to the problem during the weekend of Nov. 12. During a Council discussion last week, members reacted with concern after assuming the envelopes had contained tickets. . Sybill Navas inquired if the A&E channel will be maintained by TCI Cablevision. Town Manager Bob McLaurln said he has received word from TCI that A&E. wilt be retained. Paul Johnston asked for clarification of a letter from Public Works Director Larry Grafel to the contractor working on the Vail Village Club (formerly 5eranno's) regarding the delivery of materials to the site. --Red Sandstone Housing Development After reviewing a letter from Jim Lamont, executive director of the East Village Homeowners Association, which expressed concern about various aspects of the Red Sandstone housing proposal and its review process, the Council agreed to postpone second reading of a pair of ordinances associated with the project. The rezoning and Special Development District ordinances, which had been scheduled for second reading last night, were pushed back to the Dec. 17 evening meeting. Laman# has indicated the homeowners association has a long standing concern with public policy issues associated with the project, preservation of open space and equal application of the law. Specifically, the homeowners have offered three points: 1) sale of units on the (mare) Add 2/TOV Council Highlights open market (no resale deed restrictions} should not be allowed; 2} units allocated for rent, lease or purchase by TOV or water district employees should be limited to critical emergency response lifelsafety personnel; and 3} all other units should be allocated for rent, lease or purchase through an open lottery similar to the Vail Commons project. During discussion, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead reviewed the conteni~ of Town Counci! meetings on March 19 and July 9 to recap creation of a 9-point agreement between the Town and the water district, which includes the possibility for the free market sale of up to 25% of the units to help make the remaining units more affordable. . Several Council members, including Paul Johnston, said they wanted to nail dawn additional details on the free market issue before moving forward with the ordinances. The extra time will be used for additional discussian on: 1 }how free market units would differentiate from deed restricted units; 2) what would trigger the need for a free market unit; 3) how the deed restricted units be distributed under a partnership between the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Town of Vail; and 4) Forest Service reaction to the ordinances proposed. For additional information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440 . --Vail Commons Open House Council members then attended an open house at Vail Commons to welcome the development's 16 newest residents. Former Council members Tom Steinberg, Jan Strauch and Merv Lapin joined with the current Council to celebrate with the first group of Vaii Commons homeowners. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Amendment to Special Development District # 5 (Savoy Villas/Simba Run/Nail Run) The Council voted 4-3 (Foley, Armour and Jewett against} to deny an amendment to . the Special Development District. The proposal would have added an additional story to building # 5 to accommodate one additional free-market unit for a total of two free- market units and two employee housing units within the project. In recommending approval of the amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission had recommended expanding a 600 sq. ft. one-bedroom employee housing unit to athree- bedroom employee housing unit, which caused the need for another level on the building. The PEC had also recommended that two enclosed parking spaces be provided. During Council discussion, it was noted the amendment would add 1,308 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area (GRFA}. Several Councilmembers said they saw no reason to add another level to get a larger employee housing unit and expressed concerns about increasing the size and height of the building. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Supplemental Appropriations The Counci! voted 7-0 on first reading to approve a supplemental appropriation in the (more) ~ i. Add 4/TOV Council Highlights December 17 Evening Meeting First Reading Ordinance #22, time shares Second Reading Ordinance #18, SDD #5 Amendment Savoy Villas Second Reading Ordinance #25, Supplemental Appropriations Appointment of Marketing Board positions Campisi Appea! . TOV 30th Birthday Reminder ~ - Please, join Mayor Bob Armour and former and current members of the Vaif Town Council on Friday, Dec. 6, in celebration of TOV's 30th year of incorporation (1966- 1996) and for the reopening of the newly-remodeled Vail Transportation Center Terminal. Open house is from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Transportation Center. A special ribbon cutting will take place at 1 p.m. And, all the birthday cake you can eat. # # # i Add 3/TOV Counci! Highlights amount of $1.2 million. Please see work session .briefs for details. --1997 TOV Budget The Council voted 7-0 on second reading to approve the 1997 TOV budget. The budget includes an additional firefighter position for a ne# cost of $34,OQ0. During discussion, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the #own is still hoping to find funding partners to construct roundabouts at the West Vail interchange next year. Kevin.Foley asked about the possibility of separating the bike path on the south side of the proposed roundabouts to increase safety. McLaurin said the issue would be brought back to Council for additional review. --Red Sandstone Rezoning and Special Development District The ordinances were tabled to the Dec. 17 meeting. Please see work session brie#s for more details. --Resolution Norwest investment Services The Council voted 7-0 to approve a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to Norwest Investment Services, Inc. --Presentation of Investment Report Next, Christine Anderson, finance and budget manager, presented and explained the town's investment policy. The presentation is presen#ed annually to the Town Council as part of the town's investment policy. --Town Manager's Report Bob McLaurin reported planning for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships are beginning to gear up. As chairman of the Municipal Services Committee, McLaurin said he would be attending the 1997 World Alpine Championships in Italy early next year. --Announcements Downhill World Cup races on Friday; Super G on Saturday; TOV birthday party on Friday. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS December 10 Work Session PEC/DRB Review KezziahWatkins Community Collaboration Follow-up to Support TOV Critical Goals Council Executive Session December 17 Work Session John Gulick 20 Year Anniversary PEC Review Interview Marketing Board Applicants Discuss Ford Park Management Plan Discussion of Ordinance #22, time shares Site Visit, Campisi {more) MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Andy Knudtsen Susan Connelly SUBJECT: Red Sandstone Locals Housing Development DATE: December 17, 1996 Below is the staff analysis pertaining to the Four remaining issues. I. ~ Rezoning and Special Devel.,~,~,.ent District. Please see the attached memo to Town Council dated November 19, 1996, summarizing the recommendation For approval for bath the rezoning and SI3D requests. The memo to PEC dated October 2$, 1996, has also been included for your information. II. Concerns about potential limitations by the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement (LOAA) between the Town of Vail and the United States Forest Service. Please see the attached letter from William Wood, District Ranger Haly Cross Ranger District, clarifying that the proposed use of the site does not jeopardize the agreement with the Forest Service, nor is it in conflict with the LOAA. III. Distributions of the dwelling units. Please see the memo from Torn Braun dated December 9, 1996, outlining the Water District's current thinking. Concerning the Town's five units, Council has previously agreed that three be dedicated to life-safely employees and two be open for all TOV ~~,~~,loyees. Life- safety would include fire fighters, dispatch, police officers, code enforcement officers, and suave plow drivers. There would be two lottery drawings, one for each group. Given the number of available units (three and two, respectively) and the number of interested employees (currently 22}, staff believes that the simplest lottery process makes the most sense. When the life-safely pool is exhausted, life- safety employees may join in the second lottery open to all TOV employees. The minimum requirement for submitting one's name into the lottery will be providing a martgageprc-qualification. Owning residential property in Eagle County will disqualify a potential participant from either pool. 1f three life-safety employees do not choose to purchase these homes, the Town will purchase the homes and make them available to TOV life-safety employees who may rent them. IV. Free Market Dwelling Units. Please see the Torn Braun memo dated December 5, 1996, describing several scenarios for the development, including if free market units are included. f:leveryanelandy196 memaslredsand.dl7 , . "I Urtlted Sttttos Forest Wlh[ite Alvsr Holy Croa6 Ranger plstrlct Department of Servlcs Netlonel 2a74r VS HWY 24, P.0.18QX 180 ABrlcultaro Forest MINIIJRN, COLORADO S1B48 (670) 827•S71 Q FAX 827.6343 ' Reply to: 2720 i Qate: Qecembsr 1 ~ , 1998 Bob Armour, Mayor and Members of the Town Council . 76 South f=ratrtago Raad Nall, Ca 84667 Derar [lob srrtd Counollt 1 understat'td that questions have been raised about the Trnvn of Vail Landownership Adjustment Analysis (Nall LOAA) ertd its impact an the Red Sandstone Eccals housing devefapmeni. I would Iike to clarify the purlaoae of the t.CAA. It is a ~#anning document far the Far'est 3ervlce to use br iderttifyirtg , lands wh~lh we would like to either acquire ar convey, A duly 1980 letter from the Fonjst Supervisor stated, Irt part; ''Ctta principal {~urpuse of tltrr lartdcywnerwltlp adjustrnc~rtt analysis lS to achieve the l optimum landownersflip pattern for the Forest.• The Vail LOAA was unique in that it was rscognixed early in the prcct:ss that the Town of liaii could ' play a ma)ar rote In the rearrangement of landownership to acnleve goals m taotn the Forest Service end the Taws. Tovtm p#annars assisted the Farast 9arvice in idontifying spaei8a parcels.af land that ehoulcl be exahangaa, resulting In a much mare detailed anatysis than the FareSt Senrlae typically requires, To fuRher clarify thlf purpose of the L0,4A, n is not to make any decisions about the future managa~ ment of fends once they are acquired by the Forest Service ar conveyed to other ownership, Deed-restricted locals housing orfree markethousing are patentiai uses of land ante it is exchanged, that would not conflict with the Vail LOAA. In fact theta are rto sedans the Tawn cautd take to jeopr3lydize the Vail LOAA, since it is simply a planning document fnr us to use m making initial daterminatlans about tha daslrahility of a prapdsed lend exchange, Public lands managed by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management have bean Identified Icy menu local, state and Federal officials as having the potential to contribute to the soiudan cif a teak of housing nr3ax resort communities. Wa are pleased to be a p2u~tner in the team creetEtlg solutions j for locals ihausing. PIe~i89 Contact Kathy Hardy should you have any further questions. 3inceraly, ~i l iLLIAM A. D lstrtct Retreat i I f 1 Caring for the Land end Serving the People ~ Y R 8~,1/ B~~L~~1 AS~OC~~~~~, r1~C, PL+~Na`JINC r.nd COMM~JNiT~ t•7FV6L01>J~fEM' ]VfENfQRANDUM TO; Andy Krtudtsea FR(:}Ivf~ Tom Braun DATE: L7ecernUer 9 , 1996 CJ^, Pat r]anphinais RE: Red ~andstorie Local`s Hniicint' Project ~ . I want to thank you and the rest of the staff four your input regarding the three outstanding issues raised by tho trouncit lust week i,elativa to the Red SondstoJZe LaC1I`6 Housin F'raject. Pat andI believe that Che ERWSD and the Council s#are the common Baal of tnakiag th~s tl7e best project possiblc and givcJn this coramon goal we fora confident that each of these issues oan bo Jrosalved iJz order to allow for second xeadingg approval on the 17th. In this regard, the fallowing summarizes the Board's position relative to these three issues; i) "Mudl;t:ed Restricted" Units 'T'he Board. feels ytzc>`nSly it~dC ~a~ crppcrtuuiCy C~ itJ.trucfcJce "~noalfied-restricted" emits into the project be mauataixied in artier to z~educe the sale price of restricted units. We also believe that a mixture of modified-restrictedi and nstaicteci touts wut~l a1sc~ ~ J~ tJaJ:~fic i'u~ the pxaject..Previausty refearcd to as free-market units, a znadi~itrd-restaYCte~i unit is a unit ,fit lc sr~ c~to Ji local em~plr~veJ~ at market value vs+ith no restrictions, i,.e, a~preciatioa7 c (see below}. As we have discussed, the t;<eed to introduce modifaed-rrstxxctcd units will not be known until more information is avaaiable regarding our construction costs. As such, the ERWSD/TOV A~ggreement should be revised as follows to establish the parameteas under which the ERW51] may introduce mbdixied-rast~cted units into the grojxt: • A maximum of 25% {four units) al' the units may be sold asmodified-restricted units. • ~ .The ERWSD slzaall. at their d~scretian, #tave the ~,~~,„~~unitY to introduce modifie@- restricted units auto the p%~ect if construction costs exceed $125 foot Construction costs wall be determined based on qualified bY~fdr construction of the project and on other project costs inctiured by tba ERWSD. • Modified-restricted units will hark na restrictions l,e, ~xiation C ar~r cap) other than the sale of modi~etl-restricted units will be l3Jmited to locals who derrzonstrJ~te cgro~lianee with the Town's enaplayrnent requir~eanertts. Limiting the sale of modified-restricted units to workiQg local's will last from the tirrJ~ rnaxketing of t}x+r units is initiated to a period b4 days firm the date final certif cotes of occupancy are issued for the modif~md-restricted units. • Tlxe ERWSD and Town will maintain a fast and Jsccoad right of JrefizsAl. respectively, on modYfied-restricted units. Mintum >rvnwcrics Building Phgr~ . 974,$27.574a 7.171 Main 5tr~,*,r, 7nci Flnnr ' Pbst Office Box 776 ~ - `~•62i.5507 Piinturn, Colorado OIG45 2) Dlstribu#ion of Urilts The Board's p05itiUII ;~garcliIl~ LIIG ~i,Et'!f?Ilt1lH1 of tu]it5 is unGhaI]~Cd [.vaaa the ERWS!]tl'UV Agreement. As you know, this a~reernent stipulates that the ERWSD wilt obtain vwnersiuplcontrol of 75%a of the units {12.75) and the Town will obtain ownershiplcozttrol of 25% of the units (x.25}. This ctistributiuFi is t~a~.Cd oci rlie asnoua]t of "buildable laad'° provided by the F.RWSD and the Town. The following is a probable scenario for how these units will be di Str-ihured: 5 i hits Tnw~~ (units distributed to the Town are rounded up from 4 to 5) 4 Units potentialfree-market units (with the modified restriction described above whicb~ will inltia~y forger the Fate of there unity tc] 3c]c:als, the nails will likCly cud up iu tl~ Town-wide lottery system) ? Units ~Vlountasn Valley Coraoratig~ {the ERWSD ~ an abt~~.:...x...t tb sell ttp to two tmTta to this cxganiration) - 6 Units ~tWSb (the Board ankicipa#es tnaintainiag ownership of ~-3 units and providing 3-4 units for sale to I?~istrict employees} AS i„ndlcated by the scenario above, the ERV~SD could be left with as few as six units izt oxcler to mrct tl]c current and Iang tcrni nerds of its ctuployccs and as marry as ten units if ao modified restricted units are intralaced into the project. The ERW5l7's position is that it nerds to have control overall units other than tho Svc TpV uzuts and the four patendai amodificd-restrictod units. As Pat Dauphinais has staled publicly on nwnemus occasions, the ERWSD will distribute units to tl~'Ibwu-widC lutcery pool ~ and wf]et] the Board dctcrn]incs that such units may be aYUliablc. 3) United States k'orest Service It is our understanding that the USFS is comfortable with a]1 aspects of fihe pro,~ect as proposed and that the Town wt11 be abtalrfing a letter tiom. Bill ood stating such. i hope this heIps you understand the Saard's position relative to these issues. l will iool~ Zaxward to warktng with you and Tarn Moorehead regarding modifications m the 11KW,~i?/,1'UY ,A,gs~eeeroent as described above, We will need to have this agreement revised by Thursday in order to-allow the ERWSD's counsel an opportunity fvr review. Please Iet me know if I can provide you with any additional inTL~atigrL TQ7AL f . fl~ Y ~ ~~>~~9'N ASSOC~~~~S, ANC. PLANNING and COMhIUNITY DEVELOPIylENT MEMQRANDUM TO: Andy Knudtsen FROM: Tom Braun DATE: December 5, 1996 Red Sandstone Local's Housing Project As we discussed, I have prepared the fallowing hypothetical examples of haw the introduction of free-market units could be utilized to reduce the sale price of the remaining restricted units. For the sake of this exercise, let's assume the cost to deliver the seventeen units is $140 per square foot (hard and soft costs}. Based on this assumption, the unit prices would be approximately; 774 sq. ft. 1 Bedroom $108,360 996 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom $139,440 1,51 S sq. ft. 3 Bedroom $212,520 Scenario #I Assume that the cost to deliver the seventeen units increases to $160.00 per squaze foot. Based on $160.00 per square foot, the unit prices would increase to approximately: . 774 sq. ft. I Bedroom $123,840 996 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom $159,360 1,518 sq, ft. 3 Bedroom $242,880 The sale price of these units at $160 per square foot is probably ~t attainable, or certainly less attainable, by most working locals. The concept of introductiog free-market units is very simple - we sell four units (25% of 17 is 4.25) at market value and take the "proceeds" from these sales to reduce the sale price of remaining 13 restricted units. Let's assume we sell four free market units: one 3-bedroom, two 2-bedrooms and one 1-bedroom at $200 per square foot: Cost to construct 4free-market units $685,440 (4,284 sq. ft. at $160/ft.) Cost to construct I3 restricted units $2,1 fi.5. { i 3,532 sq. ft. at $160/ft.) Total project cost $2,850,560 Revenue from sale of 4free-market units $856,800 (4,284 sq. ft. at $200/ft.) Cast to construct 4 free-mazket units $585.44Q {4,284 sq, ft. at $160/ft.} Proceeds. to reduce cost of remaining units $17X,360 Minturn lronworlc5 Building 201 Main Street 2nd Floor ~ Phone - 970.827.5797 Post Q(Fice Box 776 Fax - 970.827.5507 Minturn, Colorado 81645 - Cost to construct 13 restricted units $2,165,120 (13,532 sq. ft. at $I601ft.} Proceeds to reduce cost of remaining units ~ 171.360 Reduced cost of remaining I3 units $1,993,76p Reduced cost per sq. ft. for restricted units $i47 (13,532 sq. ft./$1,993,76p} 774 sq. ft. I Bedroom $113,778 996 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom $146,412 1,518 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom $223,12b Scenario #2 The District's goal, and I assume this goal is shazed by the Town, is to deliver a quality product at the lowest price possible. In this regard, I Dave run the same analysis incorporating four free- ' ' market units assuming that constzuction cost come in at the hypothetical $140 per square foot: Cost to construct 4free-market units $599,760 ~ (4,284 sq. ft. at $140/ft.) Cost to construct 13 restricted units ~ 1.894.480 {13,532 sq. ft. at $140/ft.} Total project cast $2,494,240 - - Revenue from sale of 4free-market units , $856,800 (4,284 sq.~ft. at $'2Q0/ft.} Cost to construct 4free-market units $599.760 {4,284 sq. ft. at $140/ft.} Proceeds to reduce cost of remaining units $257,040 . Cost to construct 13 restricted units $1,894,480 (13,532 sq. ft. at $140/ft.) Proceeds to reduce cost of remaining units X257.760 Reduced cost of remaining 13 units $1,b36,720 Reduced cost per sq. ft. for restricted units $121 (13,532 sq. ft./$I,63b,720) 774 sq. ft. 1 Bedroom $93,654 996 sq. ft. 2 Bedroom $120,516 1,518 sq. ft. 3 Bedroom $183,678 I hope this is helpful. Remember that these numbers are speculative. However, they do ' . demonstrate how the introduction offree-market units could result in restricted units that are more attainable to more people. Pat and I believe that maintaining the flexibility to introducefree-market units is-critical to providing the best possible project for the District, the Town and the community. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions you may have. . ~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNC{L MEETING December 17, 1996 7:30 P.M, A lar meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, in the Council Ch bets of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Michael Jewett MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Tawn Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Local attorney, Mary lsom, appeared before Council wif~er client, Bob Schultz, owner of the Vail and Lionshead popcorn wagons, and Lori Fennese, a potential buyer of the businesses. Isom said she wished to discuss the Town's lease with Mr. Schultz, which is due to expire in December of 1997, and the transferring of that lease to the potential purchaser. Mayor Armour stated the item was scheduled for Council discussion in the spring of 1997. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead stated that the negotiation of leases with the Town was typically handled by his office, and, that to his knowledge, such an issue had never before been brought to a council meeting. Tom further informed Council members that he had talked to Ms. Isom about the issue and said he told her the Town would honor the lease and the provision of assignment. He said that he had not heard back from her. At that time, Councilman Rob Ford reiterated that the Council would not consider renewing the lease until the spring of 1997. Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996, second reading of an Ordinance Making Supplemental ` Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Boo#h Creek Debt Service Fund, Debt Service Fund, and Housing Fund, of the 1996 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and Authorizing the Expenditures of Said Appropriations as Set Forth Herein; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. B.~ Resolution No. 22, Series of 1996, a Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an Animal Control Services Contract. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full and requested Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson, then updated Council on a supplemental appropriation to the budget in the amount of $1.2 million, which he explained in detail. Ludwig moved for approval of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996, and Rob seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Sybill then moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 6-1, Michael Jewett voting in opposition. Third on the agenda was the appointment of two members to the Vai] Valley Marketing Board. At an earlier work session Council members interviewed the following six applicants: Beth Slifer, Lai Tisher, Andre Fournier, Robert Batchelor, Katye Aaramsan, Howard Leavitt. A letter of interest was also received from John Cogswell but was withdrawn, as he'd previously been appointed to serve on the Marketing Board as a representative for the Vail Village Merchants Association. Ballots were distributed and Council members the voted for the two four-year terms existing on the Marketing Board. Sybill moved to appoint Andre F~~ier and Beth Slifer to fill the terms on the Marketing Board, and Paul seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District, and to establish Section 18.22.035, conditional uses-factors applicable in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Gordon 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes l7ecemder 17, 199& ~ Pierce was present, representing the applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther presented the item and referred to a memorandum firom the Community Development Department staff to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated November 25, 1996. Staff recommendation was for approval Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996 on first reading. Pa ' ohnston recused himself from the issue, as he felt he may have a conflict of interest. George briefly reed the Ordinance and stated the PEC had recommended approval. George then explained in detai! the review criteria used by the PEC in considering a request for a conditional use, and stated that none of the criteria had more importance than any other on the project being considered. George then presented a chart prepared by staff depicting properties in Vail zoned Public Accommodation which could be affected by the proposed change to the text of the Town Code. Although in favor of the Austria House redevelopment, Council member Rob Ford felt the ordinance needed to go into more detail, setting forth specific requirements and more specific language. He then recommended tabling the ordinance. Gordon Pierce, general partner and architect for the project introduced Jim Graves, Mark Sullivan, Cynthia Thornberg, and Randy Burgis. Randy Burgis from the Deer Valley Club in Deer Valley, Utah explained the unique type of ownership the Sonnenalp was considering under the proposed redevelopment, and stated that the fractional fee unit type of ownership had proven to give the highest level of occupancy in Deer Valley. He said that while ho#els in Deer Valley typically averaged an occupancy rate of approximately 65%, winter occupancy at the Deer Valley Club was 100%. Because owners buy a deeded interest in the unit, the properties are better maintained, he said. Jim Lamont said the Board of Directors from the East Village Homeowners Association, who he represented, had not yet taken a position on the project, but said that the applicant had been responding to ~uests by the neighborhood. He asked Council to be cautious and conservative and said that am ding the Code to accommodate time share clubs should be given serious consideration . Concerns from Council members included: transfer tax, lost sales tax revenue, loss of public accommodation units, and that the project have no adverse effects upon the present and future supply of town services or increase the demand on municipal facilities. Council members agreed the project was extremely viable, a good redevelopment and were in support of it. However, they also stated they wanted more time #o increase their knowledge on the issue and to think about alternatives to the language contained in the ordinance. Johannes Faessler, an owner of the Sonnenalp, addressed Ludwig's issue concerning the importance of new faces coming to the area. Mr. Faessler explained that the Sonnenalp had a strong re#urning clientele, old faces that are seen year after year, which was very important for their business. Tom Moorhead informed Council that the applicant had taken the time to submit a proposed Ordinance, but that staff had not yet had the opportunity to examine it in depth. Rob moved to table Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, until the next evening meeting scheduled for Jary 7, 1997. Ludwig seconded the motion and a vote was #aken which passed unanimously, 6-0-1, P ahnston abstaining. Fifth on the agenda was Resolution Noy 23, Series of 199G, a Resolution Directing the Town Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District as modified. Ordinance 24, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Ordinance 20, Series '1996, second reading of an ordinance rezoning three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road. Applicants were the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Vail, and the United States Forest Service. Town of Vail Senior Housing Policy Planner, Andy Knudtsen, presented the item, briefly reviewed the project, and informed Council members that the proposed Special Development District met the criteria ar~as consistent with the existing land use plan. Council was asked to approvelDenylModify Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996. The staff recommendation was for approval of Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996. 2 Va11 Town Council Evening MeaSing Minutes December 17, 1996 ~ Concerns from Jim Lamon# of the East Village Homeowners Association included his feeling that the proposed site had been originally designated for employee housing. He said the project was a conversion of open space, and then suggested other adjacent open space sites be used for neighborhood parks. He asked Council to consider' expanding Sandstone Park, as he fel# it was over utilized, and suggested that another park be constructed. Lamont said he was disappointed with the allocation of the Water District's u ~nd the portion to be sold to the free market. Another suggestion was that a sidewalk be put in along S tone Drive to make the area safer. Red Sandstone resident, Dan Telleen, reiterated the importance of sidewalks due to the dangerous curbs along Red Sandstone and asked Council to address the issue. Rob Ford moved to adopt Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 6-1, Pau! voting in opposition because of the possibility of free market sale units being included in the project. Next, Rob moved to approve Ordinances 24 and 20, and then withdrew the motion in order to consider the ordinances separately. Rob then moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Sybill. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. A motion was made by Rob to approve Ordinance No. 24, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Sybill inquired about the cost of including a sidewalk and Andy addressed the issue, stating that the PEC did not require a sidewalk, and opted instead for landscaping. Bill Braun then informed Council that the site was ve ifticult because of the steep grade changes, and stated that including a sidewalk would narrow the fea~ility of doing the project. Mayor Armour expressed his support of the project and its positive aspects such as less GRFA and site coverage than allowed, and increased parking and landscaping. Paul Johnston stated he was unable to support the project because of its architectural design. A vote was taken and approved, 6-1, Pau! voting in opposition. Council members then took a short break. Sixth on the agenda was an appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi were represented by Kerry Wallace. Geri Campisi was also present. Town of Vail Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and gave the following background: The Town Counci! tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996, Council meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1996, at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's. Dominic explained the appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.5 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-car ga eon the property. The duplex contains two enclosed garage spaces. Site coverage allowed for the sit 3,403.8 sq. ft. and the proposal was for 3,664.6 sq. ft. The PEC at a meeting held on September 23, 1996, unanimously denied the site coverage variance. Further, Dominic stated that any hardship created was self-imposed, and informed Council members that the property had been granted two - 250's in the past, both going to one unit. He explained that the allowable GRFA had already been exceeded by aver 50', and that the site encroached on both setbacks. Local attorney, Kerry Wallace was present with her partner, Jim Stovall, and presented the position of the appellants. Ms. Wallace stated that all neighbors were in favor of the addition and distributed a packet of information to Council members. Mrs. Campisi then addressed Council, claiming that the parking on the properly was insufficient parking and that the house was restricted to one 340' garage. She said that snow storage in winter prohibited using some of the outdoor parking, and that a serious drainage problem also existed. Dominic stated alternatives were available which would alleviate such problems, other than the addition of a garage. He said the zoning code encouraged garages, but within the site coverage limitations. The staff recommendation was that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and that the Town Council make the following findings: 1.~ That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 {Zoning} have not been met. 2. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 3 Vail Town Council l=vening Meeting Minutes Decemder 17, 1996 r ~ ' 3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed. 4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential district. A motion was then made by Rob Ford to uphold the PEC's denial and to adopt the above-referenced findings. Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armour stated that although the variance requested was minimal, it would be a grant of a special privilege. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number seven was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin informed Council members ofi the upcoming meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns scheduled for January 9 and 10. Paul Johnston asked about the new loading and delivery policy in the Village. Police Chief Greg Morrison explained that large trucks on Hanson Ranch Road would be prohibited at all times. Paul then inquired about a community safety officer position to be staffed at the Vail Village Club construction site. Bob McLaurin said the position remained unfilled. .Council Reports: Sybill Navas updated fellow council members of her meetings with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Chamber, Commission on Special Events and Activities and the Vail Valley Exchange. K Foley passed along a thank you from the Vail Recreation District to the Public Works Department for its istance in removing a sign at the golf course erected by an anti-fur group. He also updated the group on his attendance at the Eagle County Transportation Authori#y meetings. Kevin also inquired about the approval status of the ski storage sheds in Lionshead. Mayor Armour thanked the town's Social Committee for organizing the organization's Christmas party and wished all a very happy holiday. Condolences were expressed to the family of Cindy Nash. There being no further business a motion was made by Rob for adjournment. Kevin seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ert W. Armour, Mayor AST: lR.~~~1~Grz0'K~ Holly McCutcheor~, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 4 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes December 17, 1996 MEMORANDUM - TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 17, 1996 SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit 13, Lot 3, VaillPotato Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. SUBJECT PROPERTY Campisi project. Located at 742-B Sandy LanelUnit B, Lot 3, Vaill Potato Patch, Second Filing. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT Staff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of the subject property. III. BACKGROUND The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996 Council meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1996 at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's. The appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20%} and the proposal is far 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) of site coverage. The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes}: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been sel# imposed (the PEC specifically added this provision to the findings recommended by staff]. 3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the PrimarylSecandary Residential district. 4 , Sda~pls ~ s 1 This duplex was approved by the DR6 in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 197.9). This site is allowed 3,951:9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance fora 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1988, a request far 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance. The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is apre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal. IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL The appellants are appealing the PAC decision denying the site coverage variance. The appellants have provided additional justification for the variance which is attached. The appellants have also provided additional justification of haw they will suffer practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is oat granted (provided in attached materials). Staff has summarized their statements below: a. The appellants will have. insufficient parking for parking their own vehicies and far guests. The house will be restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage far a 3,366 sq. ft. house. The Zoning Code allows up to 6D0 sq. ft. of garage space per unit. There is insufficient parking for the house, and snow storage in the winter months precludes . parking in the driveway. Staff response: The driveway, as it currently exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces. The proposed garage does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage of the home and the existing garage space. The entire home (both dwellings) contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit). This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is the responsibility of the homeowner and snow can be stored ar removed from the site in a variety of ways in order to maintain parking on-site. b. The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the property, Staff response: While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage. c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence, particularly for storage of recreational equipment. Staff response: In Juiy of 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a major remodel to the exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide additional storage space. On September 12, 1988, a DRB approval was given in conjunction with a 250 request to construct a storage area, labeled "Bike Storage" on the first level of this structure (see attached elevation and floor plan}. The storage area was 250 sq. ft. As part of the 1998 DRB approvals, this storage area was eliminated and converted to living area. It appears that the lack of storage area on this property is a self imposed situation. d. The variance would correct the serious security problem which exists for the owner of Unit A. Staff response: The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home: This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry to the home and according to the owner, people often came to this door. The staff understands the security issue with this doorway. However, the proposed garage addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an . egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now do not meet the Building Cade requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as well as hand rails. Staff and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria for granting a variance. V. REQUIRED ACTION UpholdlOverturnlModify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. #t. site coverage variance. The Tawn Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below: 5. Findings. The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met. Further, if the Tawn Council chooses to overturn or modify the PEC denial of this variance, the Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the granting of a variance: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 3 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Town Council shall make the fnllowina findings before arantina~ variance; 7 . That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There ors exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V!. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the following findings: f . That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title ~ 8 (Zoning) have not been met. 2. That the granting of the variance wil! constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primaryl5econdary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed. 4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the Primaryl5econdary Residential district. Faeveryone~oeclmerrlolcampisl.d 17 4 Charlie Alexander said that this was a permanent structure. Charlie also said that Vail Associates owned the land and if they determined that the land could be better used, then that's what would happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease. ~rk Masan suggested an additional condition be placed on the approval, which would allow for the conditional use permit to becalled-up, it theLionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative use. . Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal. Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. It was a nice addition to ~ , Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town sorrtething to do. Henry Pratt stated that it was a goad location. Henry addressed the complaints from Units #206 and #30fi and said that Garfinkel's Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat an their privacy than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie and the bank, as fang as the PEC can call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term. Greg Moffet was in favor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from this operation. Greg was in favor of a longer term, to give Charlie an incentive to spend more money on the site to enhance the property. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the. staff's memo, with the addition of a second condition that if the Lionshead Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the ~pproval could be subject to a call-up. Greg Moffet asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit. Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period of time. Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work. Charlie Alexander said, yes. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed by a vote of 5-0. Greg Amsden was not present for this item). 3. A request far a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a one-car garage, located at 742 Sandy LanelLot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd FiNng. Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Maurielto Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending denial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Planning and Environmental Camtnission , Minatcs September 23, 1996 ~ i Kerry Wallace, the attorney on behalf of Jeri Campisi, stated that the owner of the other half of the duplex, Betty Guffy, was here. Kerry stated that the tack of storage and the odd floor plan, with little or no closet space within the residence presented a hardship, in particular, in relation to the storage of recreational goods. The present two-car garage is not t?nough. She stated that the applicant had a problem with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests. Kerry went on to state that the Campisi's have significantly improved the property since purchasing it and that the new garage would further improve the site. The proposed garage was as small as the architect could possibly make it and the architect assured them that it would not encroach into any of the setbacks. Right now there existed a drainage problem and lay raising up the front of the new proposed garage, this drainage problem would be corrected. There was also an existing , security issue far Betty Guffy, since the door to her unit went past the bathroom. This security issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to state that this property was an eyesore, until the Campisis made some changes. There are a number of 2 and 3-car garages in the area, so this request was not asking anything out of the ordinary. Greg Moffet asked far any public comments. Betty Guffy stated that she has owned the other half of the duplex for 5 years, which is the upper third of the house. betty stated that the Campisis are the perfect neighbors and have certainly fit the mold as neighbors that she would have chosen to jointly improve the property. Both neighbors agreed on the stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage problem with this new proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, there were a number of problems. Betty stated that she lived alone and security was a problem. Betty stated that 50 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage. . Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments. Joe 5taufer stated that he lived at 74fi Sandy Lane. Joe was in favor of this request and said that it would not negatively affect any property owners. Under the safety, welfare and health finding, Joe stated that the security issue was the reason and the right to grant this variance. It was a dark neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. Joe stated that when he was gone, Betty Guffy was all alone on the block. He stated that granting this variance would give someone a better place to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant this variance. Dominic Mauriello stated that Ile had reviewed recent DFiB plans. Dominic stated that the applicant had just removed the former storage space, which was used to store snowmobiles, and had created living area out of it, so therefore, the result was a lack of storage. Betty Guffy stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request. Galen Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was. Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq. ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner. Galen Aasland asked if the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the tat is over 15,000 sq. ft., Galen doesn't think the size of the lot was the problem and therefore there was no justification for a site coverage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the security issue. Galen was somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough storage, when in fact, the remodel that was happening right now, did away with the storage. He stated that the. owners, with the remodel, have created same of their own conditions and hardships. Planning and environmental Conunission Minutes 5eplember 23, 1996 4 Betty Guffy said that any staircase sated that she uses part of hetgtarage for storage fort her house were short on closets. Betty off-season clothes. She also stated that the existing entry door was ugly. ~iane Golden asked where the snow will be put? Dominic Mauriello stated that snow storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of solutions for the door. Betty Guffy said that architect Bilk Pierce said that this garage and entrance was the best plan and #rom the (rant of the house, this looks like the way it was meant to be. It seems silly to pay $2$,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not do the addition. Henry Pratt told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky to have owners like the Campisis who take pride in their ownership. Henry felt that identifying where the front door was Tess important than the security issue. He stated that they are entitled to a garage, but without the variance. This garage had no impact on the neighbors and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance, if there was a hardship. John Schofield agreed with Henry. John stated that the door was in a lousy location. John tended to agree with Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket, while parked out in the street. Greg Amsden said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage problem hen the house was first built; it happened with the expansion. The lack of storage doesn't hold an argument. A small deck would justify the safety concern. There were no justifiable reasons to go over site coverages. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was coaxed-out aver what was permitted. There was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk that could have been used for storage. The storage problem has been self-created. Greg said he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege. Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was? Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft. Greg Moffet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none. Greg Amsden made a motion far denial, per the staff memo and he added that the hardships were self-imposed. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Galen Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. If it was under that size, it might be different. .Henry Pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design. Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it would still involve a site coverage issue. . Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 5 September 23, 1996 i Greg Moffet asked sta#f if a carpart was proposed, would it then not be GRFA? Mike Mollica said that could possibly be a staff approval, and it may not be GRFA, depending on how the carpart was designed. The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of fi-0. 4. A request far an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/l.ot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriella TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 1996 5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in freezer, located at 536 West Lionshead MaIIILot 5, Block 1, Vai! Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Mitch Garfinkel Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 11111111111 fi. Information Update Mike Mollica had no information updato. 7. Approval of September 9, 1996 minutes Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item #5 in the minutes. Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 919196. Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 919!96 minutes. The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. The motion passed unanimousiy by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Alarming and Environmental Commission Minutes 5eptember23, 1946 ~ a~ T'~WN OF UAIL 75 South Frontage Raad ~'l, Colorado 81657 . 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 CERTlFlCATlON STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of Item No.3 of the Planning and Environmental Commission of September 23, 1996, as it appears in the original records of the Town of Vail, Department of Community Development. Dated December 5, 1996 ~ Q. Mary A °Caster, Deputy Town Clerk Administrative Services STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) . Subscribed and sworn to before me this5th day of December, 1996, by Mary A. Caster, Deputy Town Clerk, Tow~~ait~ ~~i'Twk bit ` l rJy., L.~~ 5~ 1 •t t^ V y r'^Y3 y~ ~ ~ r: v~ ~uA~~ s ~ .m s ~ ~ • Notary Public 1 d My commission expires: ~:~~Y;~+0~6'y~y` RECYCLEDPAPB'R TRANSCRIPT OF JERI CAMPISI REQUEST FOR SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE AT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996: Greg Moffit: Third item is the Jeri Campisi request, Dominic? ' Dominic Mauriello: The applicants have requested a site coverage variance in order to construct aone-car garage of approximately 300 square feet, making the request approximately 260.$ square feet. The allowable site coverage for the site is approximately 3403 square feet, which is 20% of the lot area, and they're proposing 36fi4, which is approximately 21.5%. This duplex, when it was originally approved in 1980, contained 3763 square feet of GRFA. The way that is calculated today, they contain, they have 4502.8 square feet, and that's also due to a, in 1988 they received 500 square feet of GRFA under the 250 ordinance. So with today's two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4451 square feet, and therefore the site is over on GRFA by approximately 50 square feet. The structure also currently encroaches on the site setbacks on both sides. It's a pre-existing non-conforming condition and it's really not aggravated by this request. Attached you will find some justification provided by the applicant and I've also passed out to . you today two affidavits from owners of the property stating some other issues and hardships that they have. Staff believes that the request wii! increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the district. Staff believes that while the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring praperties, and while other structures in the have two and three-car garages, they have enjoyed that within the limitations of the site coverage limitations, and they also have two and three-car garages built within those limitations. Staff does believe that this would be a special privilege, as other structures in the zone district have been able to construct within these limitations and enjoy the fact that they have atwo-car garage. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request, subject to the three findings that you find on page 3, and that's all I have for you today. Greg Moffit: Thank you, Dominic. Does the applicant have any comments? Kerry Wallace: Hi, I'm Kerry Wallace, my daughter gave me her cold, so if I sound like a swallowed a box of cotton balls, that's why. I'm here on beha#f of the Campisi's. They would have liked to have been here today, but there was a medical emergency in the family that required them in New York. I'm their attorney, with Stovall Goodman Wallace. Their aff#ces are in Avon and we assisted them in preparing the variance application. Obvious#y, as a you've seen from the affidavits that are attached, the Campisi's; in addition, the owner of the other half of the duplex, Betty Guffy, who is also present, # understand has same comments to make today. feel that there a number of issues which does make this a hardship issue as opposed ~to, say, a special privilege. A major issue for the Campisi's is a tack of storage. Obviously, this was a property that was constructed some time ago and it does have a fairly odd floor plan in the way it's designed. The Campisi's have informed me that there is little or no closet space within their residence. and so it makes it very difficult for them to store items in the house, in particular, you know, as anyone who lives in Vail, you have a lot of recreational goods, such as skis and golf clubs, those types of items. They have no where to put them in the house and so their having additional garage space would be of assistance. Right now the two-car garage that they have which is not oversized is used to park both of their vehicles, so there's not a lot of additional storage space. There's also a problem with parking, especially in the winter months. They do have a lot of guests that come out, they have family members that like to came out and visit and there's a problem with parking, particularly in the winter when the plows need to come through and it needs to be a open area. An area . where there is naw, even say if you were going to put a parking pad there, from what I understand the Town of Vail, when they plow the snow, it piles up on that spa#, so it's realty not a usable parking spot in the winter, so they'd like to be able to have an additional car to allow guests and any other person to be able to parkin an enclosed area during the winter months. The Gampisi's, and l think Ms. Guffey will substantiate this, have significantly improved the property since purchasing it with, you know, I think it's been a real benefit to the general area. The garage will essentially be an improvement to the property, not a detriment, it will increase the value which is a positive thing for the neighborhood. It's my understanding that the space, and I know that you've had a site visit, is not really usable as is. And that the garage would be good use of that space. I was informed by the architect that the post garage, is as small as they can possibly make it and still park a regular size car in it. It's not made for, say, a 4x4 or an over-sized car, so he made it as small as possible, keeping in mind the variance issue. And it's also my . understanding in talking to the architect, i.e., I don't look at plans and analyze them, but he did inform me that it was not going to encroach on any of the setbacks. There's also the issue of a serious drainage problem right in the area where the garage would be constructed. lt's my understanding that it slopes and so drainage from Sandy Lane hooks right into a major wall of the building. This has to be corrected one way or the other. It's my 2 understanding that Betty Guffey can substantiate this. She's talked with some contractors, It wilt be substantially expensive to fix the drainage by having to fix the grade or do something of that nature. The garage, by raising up the front of the grade, will take care of the drainage problem while at the same time being a benefit to the property. And I know that a major issue doesn't necessarily affect my client, but it does affect Ms. Guffey and she can tell you more about that as a security issue in that it's my understanding that there's access to a private door. It's a door she has to have in her unit for egress purposes, incase of fire or some kind of emergency. But there's public access to this door. It leads right into her bathroom and her bedroom. She says people use it all the time - knock on the door and, you know, you open ,the door and you might be in your bathrobe. She's concerned with regard to security issues on that. She can see from her main door out the window and see who's at the door and have a little bit more control than when someone knocks an this other door. She's gat some pretty serious concerns about that. So, you know, there's a number of issues that they feel do create, you know, hardship in this case. And, like I said, it is the minimum amount that they could possibly do to put in a garage, and I know Ms. Gulley has landscape plans. They're planning on doing some further improvements to the property and, you know, beautifying the area. it is my understanding that the unit was a bit of an eyesore for a while. You know, until all of the changes that Campisi's have done. Sa, for those reasons, I know the Campisi's would really like to you to consider, you know, approving the variance. 1 think that in the area there are a number of places with two and three-car garages, so this is not something out of the ordinary or out of place. I don't think any of the adjacent units will be negatively impacted. It's not going to be a high garage, so it shouldn't impact views or light to other units or that type of thing and we would like you to take Chase things into consideration when making your decision. Greg Moffit: Thank you. Kerry Wallace: Thank you. Greg Moffit: Any other applicant comments? Betty Guffey:: I'd just like to reiterate what Greg Moffit: First, you have to tell us who you are. Betty Guffey:: Oh, I'm Betty Guffey, and 3 w Greg Moffitt Thank you: - Betty Gaffey: for five years I've owned the upper half of the house, or the upper third of the house known of "A", 742A, and I've been waiting on waiting on somebody like the Campisi's for five years, to come along and help me redo the outside. I refuse to allow the previous owners to paint it. It takes both of our approvals to do anything. . And I didn't want it painted blue gray again. I wanted stucco or - - some rack or something put on it and the Campisi's also fit the mold that they didn't want to subdivide it, make a little tuft here and a little kitchen here and rent it out part time. They plan to live in it with their grandchildren visiting them and that was the perfect person to buy it. The only problem was I didn't sell it to them, another realtor, but they, we agreed on doing this stucco, which is . a great improvement, aver $60,000 for that, and I have to pay my share of that and when it comes down to repairing the drainage problem, and doing something with that area, I was very happy that they agreed to have an architect design a space that's small, that doesn't exceed the lot lines, will solve my problem about the emergency egress door, will open onto a deck that looks like the house to me from the front, kooks like it always should have gone around that corner with the deck. And I have some videos, but I found out you didn't have, i have a video of when I bought it five years ago and my son was ready to put me in a nursing home because that was the ugliest house he had ever seen. So I had videos of it and I put up with a lot in the five years that I`ve had, oh, the propane tank that was there. The Campisi's have removed that and are going to put a garden in its place. The propane tank was to heat the hot tub. They brought in gas. The propane tank was right underneath my bedroom window and some of the renters said they've had short term downstairs before the Campisi's bought it, left the propane tank in my driveway for several weeks. I had to get the Fire Department to came out and move them. And one of my neighbors, Joe Staufer, is here to tell you too, that we had snow mobiiers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00, shaking that garage underneath my bedroom. And if the Campisi's want a garage there for storage, I'm so happy to try to help them get it. It will help me too. It will have a deck of 300 square feet that they're willing to put in. And, I've stated that the security is the biggest concern and the biggest hardship I have. And 1 live there alone and would, i definitely like these plans more than anything else, but it seems like 50 square feet overage is a really minor problem compared to the expense and the lack of security for me. Greg Moffitt Thank you. Is there any public comment? Come on up! 4 Jae Staufer: My name is Joe Staufer, I live at 746 Sandy Lane and maybe I shouldn't be here because where they want to build, that's where my dogs ga every night at 10:00. I like to address a couple of things that I start finding, and number one is it's not, the neighborhood may not negatively impact it and then it says it's a negative effect on light, air and on the neighboring properties, well, I can't see how that little addition of that building is negative to anybody and I live up there so it certainly doesn't affect me and I'm . ~ sure it wouldn't affect anybody else to give them that variance. . The other is that it says safety, welfare and health. Well, I think security is another area where~yau have every right if you wish to do sa to grant this variance. We are living in a dark neighborhood. When I'm out of town, this lady is the only one on the block. And for her to be able to drive into the garage and from the garage a secure (inaudible} going to her unit is certainly a safety factor and I think that, you know, we are here to address those things and I think that granting a variance that in fact is, if I read it right, one . half of one percent over or under the site coverage, allowable site coverage, for one and a half percent, I don't know haw bureaucratic we want to become. 1 feel very strongly that this variance helps somebody in terms of safety, security and a better place to live in. And I can't see any conceivable reason that would hurt somebody else. Sa, why not grant it? Thank you. Greg Moffit: Thank you, Is there any additional public comment? Dominic. Dominic Maurielio: 1 just wanted to fallow up on something that was said earlier about the closet and storage space. We have DRB plans that were approved right now for the additions for the work that they`re doing right now. There used to be a storage space, kind of below that area below Ms. Guffey's area, that was converted to living space, sa while their argument, yea, that we need more storage space, this prior approval actually eliminated that storage and created a living area out of it. I just wanted to point that out. Greg Moffit: Thank you, Come on backup. Betty Guffey: The neighbor in the lovely half to the right of mine, (inaudible}, had to go to physical therapy at this hour and she let me video tape her a few minutes before this, but we don't have a video, and she's in approval of granting this to us also. Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you. Let's go to the commission. Galen, comments, questions? Galen Aasland: I do have one question of Dominic or far the applicant. How big is 5 existing two-car garage? Dominic Mauriello: The existing two-car garage? I think they're each about 300 • square feet, each of those garage spaces, so you're looking at 000 . square feet existing naw. Galen Aasland: is that, da you concur with that? Dominic Mauriello: It's at least that. (Cannot understand comment from audience) Galen Aasland: Okay. So, under this application, it's like the garage that is being built, would that go to your unit or would it go to the Campisi's? {Cannot understand response from audience) Galen Aasland: So they have access from their current garage inside? And it won't change the access into your house? Betty Guffey: No. (Garbled comment). Galen Aasland: Okay. On the south side. Okay. Alright. Actuafiy, in wa s for site Y coverage variance, I have some kind of unusual sympathy. I think in certain cases there's some good grounds for it, especially on smaller lots. If this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I would feel much more strongly about it. I think the lot's under ~ 5,000 square feet have a particular problem once they get over that they have less and less a problem, although this is not that much larger than.... I do have some concerns about it though, is that the building seems to be already pushing the envelope of development under of different grounds already, and this would obviously make it push things further beyond what the zoning is consistent with the neighborhood. I think the deck that you're talking about could be built without a variance, in fact, I know it could off of your unit in terms of getting rid of the door. And so, well it's nice that that can be there. That's already an allowed use and it's not that you can't build a deck and you can't do certain things, it's just that, in this particular case, happens to make this more convenient. I'm somewhat bothered t7y the argument that the Campisi's don't have storage because they're doing this big remodel on the house right now and obviously they've gotten rid of storage, so I really don't think that there's really any argument from that particular standpoint. I would be interested if there's an opportunity because there is existing site coverage left whether the existing garage could be added to within what the allowed zoning to add storage b an to that, so I do have a fair amount of sympathy for the site coverage, but I also see that there's some problems with it that you 've really done a remodel, that the owners have done a remodel and they really, they're creating some of their awn conditions. Greg Moffit: Thank yau, Galen. Diane? Diane Golden: ff the garage is not put in, do you have to leave that staircase . ~ ~ coming out of your bathroom? How did that get put in and when was that put there? Betty Guffey: It had a prior staircase (inaudible) and was buried in snow. Diane Golden: So how long has that staircase been there? Betty Guffey: Five years that I've lived there. Starmshed and garage door (inaudible) short term rental {inaudible) Diane Golden: And from your garage, so have to step outside and then go to your front door? BG: (Inaudible) . Diane Golden: But It's covered? Okay. Diane Golden: Where will the snow be put if the garage is there? Greg Moffit: Would you come up to the microphone sa we can, we're being recorded believe it nor not. Diane Goldlen:. Where will the snow be put if the garage is put in? Dominic Mauriello: I mean, that's the owner's option. The fact that there's snow on their site, I mean, that's their own snow removal issue. As far as the door going in upstairs, I mean, I'm sure there's a variety of architectural saiutions for that, not just having the stairs there. I'm sure that either of the architects on the board could tell you there's probably ten different ways to address that egress. Betty Guffey: Well, Bili Pierce worked with me to, we ran up a bill of 600 to try to design a garage and an entrance around that. One plan was to enter my house in front of my fireplace, which f don't think is acceptable, and another was to put a rock stairway to the earth corner and that exceeded the setback, sa we scratched that, so it didn't make any sense to spend $70,000 and still have an ugly entry. You know, and to have that door that now goes down with 7 this plan, with Jeri's, or Campisi's garage, then I don't have to get access fram it and my stairway can go up. Bill Pierre's architectural plan was to have a stairway, not from a garage there, to go up and around and eater where my laundry room is now and that was terribly expensive and this is just the best plan that I've seen that, fram the front of the house it looks like it was meant to be that way instead of looking like adouble-wide trailer, it will look like a house with a nice sized deck that usable. I don't have a deck on the house that's usable. And if, one of your plans was. to build a . deck up here, that still leaves the drainage problem, which is very expensive to repair. The drainage problem has been there for a long time, creating problems for the other side of the house and it seems silly to me to spend $28,000 to repair the drainage problem when, well, it would have been a little bit easier if they'd left the snowmobile garage there. Probably would have been cheaper to repair that, but I am sa happy to have that out of there, and people running under my bedroom with gasoline and engines, so if they gave up the storage to build a room there, I guess I should be willing to sacrifice and pay for the drainage. But it just seems logical that, I think it does, to we're only exceeding 50 square feet that far the expense involved and somebody willing to make the place look better and more functional. About the question about the snow coming in. It would just be the front part of our driveway that would have to be plowed. It's piled back in there and buries any car that parks in that space there, that's there now and in the stairway, ugly as it is, is buried in snow also. Diane Golden: I have no further comment right now. Greg Moffitt Thank you, Diane. Henry? Henry Pratt: I guess first I'd like to say that I think that you`re extremely lucky to have new neighbors like the Campisi's who are willing to come in and address all wrongs and spend the money and take some pride in their ownership. In terms of this appkication, I'm hearing a lot of things being put forth as hardships that !don't think really are, think you're security issue is more an architectural issue of identifying where the front door is, the drainage issue is something that should have been corrected when the current remodel was designed ar laid out. On the other hand, I think that, like everyone else in town, you and entitled to fi00 square feet of garage, but as the staff memo points out, you should be able to do it without asking far a site coverage variance because everybody else is held to those rules. During our pre-meeting and during the site visit, we've talked about, well if you just took away some GRFA or moved it somewhere else, then, you'd have that site coverage for a 8 garage. At this point I think that's impractical, given the way you've got horizontal condominium type zoning on this thing. Sa I guess even though I don't want it be considered as a precedent, this garage has no impact on any neighbors in terms of light, air, mass and bulk and guess 1'd be in favor of granting the variance in this case, even though I do not really find adequate grounds for a hardship. And that's a tough one for me. Greg Moffit Thank you, Henry. John. John Scofield: I would have to agree very much with Henry in all aspects. You are lucky to have a neighbor that's willing to spend the money to upgrade and I think we should do everything we can as a town to encourage that. I agree that the drain is something that really is not a hardship. It could be fixed with or without the garage. I've had similar problems, I understand what you're working with. Likewise, I think the door, it's a downright lousy location, but it could also, I think, be fixed in other aspects. I think what we have to loop at as a board is perhaps balancing the issues of site coverage and what's really going to sit on that site and no matter what we do, you're probably going to have a car sitting in that earner. So I would tend to agree with Henry that perhaps the hardship of getting parking tickets when you park out in the street would be something that I would look at and say that I could support this type of thing because I really don't think it's going to affect the neighbors at all and I think it would perhaps be an improvement over having a cat sitting out there looking ugly all the time. Greg Moffit: Thanks, Jahn. Greg? Greg Amsden: This application, and I'm leaning mute to what Galen said, is that a lot of these are self imposed problems that have occurred here. The drainage situation atone time that house did not have a structure underneath your apartment. And there was no drainage problem whatsoever with that site. 1 was here when the house was constructed in the beginning. I know the whole history of the house. In fact, our real estate company marketed that house when it was first built. So I don't, I mean, the drainage problem has occurred when the house was expanded into that area and it still can be cured by proper treatment of the expansion, in which it has_ not been done, so the storage argument just doesn't hold water because they've removed the storage space and even the garage that they're suggesting building is only the size of one car. It would be filled with a car and there would not be much storage in it anyway. So, again, they're left with no storage. They've got their 9 variance in a garage and yet they haven't solved at least trying to justify this variance with. The safety concern, I believe you can put either a small or a large deck off that door. I would definitely remove what's there. I don't know if there's really, and it was . mentioned but I don't even know if that is there for a fire purpose, does the staff know? I mean, no one knows if that's even an ingress/egress... . Betty Guffey: That's an emergency egress. )don't have another way out of the house, out of the master.... Greg Amsden; Yea, but we don't know if that's why that stairway's there or even if it was there in the beginning and no one's even brought that point up or whether it has to be there or not, so if it doesn't have to be there, a deck would be a good treatment off that door. Betty Guffey: I've tried to find another access, or egress, and I don't have one. All the windows are on the second floor and they don't open large enough to get out. Greg Amsden: But I mean, in looking at this application, f have a hard time just because it does set a precedent. When you grant a variance without substantial hardship or reasons for that, and I don't find these to be justifiable reasons for granting a variance, I think that we open up, I mean we have a very hard time for the next guy that comes in and says, "Hey, I want to go over my site coverage because of this, this and this." I mean, literally they can associate their causes with what's mentioned here that I don't think, I think they're self imposed situations. And it sounds like the Campisi's want a second garage. My solution would be, it's a design driven problem. You have to fit that garage within existing structure. Without increasing that site coverage to go aver that site coverage limit. And they need to take a hard look at that. I believe it's doable where their family room is. And where they've enclosed and that house has been expanded. In fact, in the memo by the - staff, the 500 square feet, two 250's that was granted that site were all put on the forge side of that home. Why, I don't know. I do know that it was under one ownership. The Platners at that time. And that's probably why it occurred. But, that's the case and that's what is in existence. Greg Moffitt Basically in agreement with Greg on this one. What we've got here is kind of a classic zoning dilemma. You've got a unit, we've got a unit that is maxed. We've got as much square footage as permitted, we've got about as much site coverage as permitted, and now we want to add more despite the fact that there's a lot of 10 . square footage inside the existing bulk and mass that could have been designed to hokd cars or to stare kayaks or to put a ski locker, or whatever. Without going into reiterating all of what Greg said, i think the storage issue is one of self creation and I am very . concerned about the slippery slope aspect of it. Yes, Joe, in response to your comment that the 50 feet is maybe one and a half . percent, but the next application may be an 8000 foot house. Dominic Mauriello: It's 260 square feet, it's 50 square feet aver on GRFA, so what we're talking.about is 2fi0 square feet. Greg Moffit: Okay. And if it's an 8000 foot house, that starts to look like a pretty big bubble. I don't see haw granting this variance isn't a grant of special privilege -hardship or not, It just strikes me' as a grant of special privilege. My guess is that we're going to have to split votes. Greg Moffit: What's the area of the garage that's being proposed? Dominic Maureiilo: 300 square feet. Greg Moffit: So, essentially the site coverage is coaxed before you add this. Dominic Maureillo: It's 40 square feet -less than 40. Greg Moffit: Yea, I just wish I could find something to hang my hat on here. Greg Moffit: If there are no further comments from the applicant, or the public, then somebody gets to make a motion. Greg Amsden: Mr. Chairman, I move that the request for a site coverage variance to allow far aone-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane, Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, being denied, per the staff memo and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified the same district. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances in conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in primary/secondary residential zone district. And I might add that least, I believe that the hardships that have been presented by the applicant, many of them are self imposed by the handling of the expansion of the livable area in the large side of that duplex and that, finally, the strict interpretation or enforcement of this specific regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the primarylsecondary residential district. 11 Greg Moffit: Motion by Greg. Do we have a second? Galen Aasiand: I'll second that. ~ Greg Moffit: Seconded by Galen. Any further discussion? Galen Aasland: I would also like to add, if this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I think my vote would be different on this. But the fact that it's over - ~ 15,000 is one of the deciding factors in my vote. Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you Galen. I guess I have a question for the board and staff. Does anybody see any opportunity to possibly table this and let them find a way to get the site coverage down or is the garage I don't think #hat there's any other way to do it. I mean, they've hired people to look at it themselves and I don't know if they've, they haven't presented any alternatives to us, but I would guess that there's . Yea, let me ask a question. If the deck, if they put a deck out of that door, that's not site coverage, correct. Dominic Maureillo: Correct. ...r• And they could put a hard deck Dominic Maureillo: That`s correct. outside that door. Naw granted, you haven't got a heated garage, but what you've got is covered parking - a carport. The rules are screwy, but unfortunately, we got appointed to enforce them. That creates an interesting scenario in light of what Henry suggested. We've got a motion on the table first, Henry. That's strictly a DRB or staff approval type of issue - it doesn't involve Planning. . Greg Moffit: Okay. So we have a.motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Ali those in favor? Aye. Greg Moffit: Opposed? 12 No response. Greg Moffitt I am also in favor. Motion passes unanimously. The application is denied. l'm sorry -the rules are tough on this one. l3 R • ~ f MEMORANDUM Ij ~ ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1996 SUBJECT: located at 742 Sandy La egLot 31 Vai~Potato Pasch 2nd Fianggarage, Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Mauriello BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20°I°) and the proposal is for 3,664:6 sq. ft. (21.5%). This duplex was approved by the DRS in 1979 and constructed in 1980, The duplex, as originally approved, contained 3,753 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed i 3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance fora 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1968, a request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance. The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250'x, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.8 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is apre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the praposat. The applicant's justification for the site coverage variance request is that this addition will not negatively affect adjacent properties, as adjacent properties have two and three car garages. See attached letter for greater detail. 1 II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Use: Duplex residence Lot Size: 17,019 sq. ft. (entire site) Standard Aiiowad Existing p,roaosed Site Coverage: 3,403,8 sq. ft. (200) 3,366.6 sq. ft. (19.8%) 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21,4%) Landscape area: 10,211.4 sq. ft. ($09'e) 11,330.4 sq. ft. (fifi.59~o) nJc GRFA: 3,959.9 sq. ft. 4,x02,8 sq. ft. n/c . whwo 250's: 4,459.9 sq. ft. 4,502.8 sq. ft. n!c Setbacks: Front: 20' 30' n/c Sides: i 5' 10' & 13.58' n!c F1ear: 15' 3fi' n!c Parking: 5 required 6 (2 enciosedi 6 (3 enclosed) III. CRITERIA AND FINDIN,~ Upon review of Section 18.fi2.06q, Criteria and f=indings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance. The recpmmendation for denial is based on the fallowing factors: A. Consideration of Fad: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that white the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and while other structures in the area have two and three car garages, there has been no indication of any physical hardship which would justify approving the requested variance. Other structures in area have two and three car garages and still comply with the site coverage requirements. Essentially, this owner enjoys a larger house at the expense of reduced garage area. Staff believes.the grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enJoyed by other lots in the area or this zone distric#. Other . sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage requirements. t:laveryanelpeclmamoslcampiei.923 2 3. The effect of the regfssested variance an ligh# and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities anti utilities, and public safety. Staff believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of the building which may have a negative effect on the light and air of neighboring properties. g. The Planning and Envirnnm~ntal Commission shall make the following findina~ ~}gforE orantin? a variance:. 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will nai be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, yr materially injurious to properties or improvements in.the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the follawing.reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances yr conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAI=F RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's variance request subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classi#ied in the same district. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential district. f:leveryonelpeclmemoslcampisi.923 3 a ~ c.c / ~r l , 1 1g / ` O~ ~ ~ v ~ u e a ~ I + I ~ 1 1r , ~ . ~'J\\, - , i , !I III! 1, ~ ti I ~ i z, ~V ~'7II~II, IT///~~Tr~~'S i1i~ , `1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ o ~ ~ n ~ r ~ t ~ z ~ / ; ~ y S ~ ~ ~ ~ J. .F-. . ~ z° ~ ~ ~ ! I ; ~ ~ ~ i ~ r ~ ~ ~ '~s ~ The Campisi Addition ~,,;a`m , RM ~ rs4~ra?im~ ~ ~ e I I E Potato Pate Lot 3 Second Filing ~ Va4 Cda+eo ItOB~tT30N MII,[.E~R 7F.RAF,I1., ARCE~TEC15, PC SEP-1?-1596 2~~1i RMT AP,CH1~c~~TS 970 9~9 1017 P.@2/E2 r a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ r. 1 - ~ r'''1 1 ~ ' ~ a ~ ~ ~~1~~~. ~ ~ ~I~ I i L; ! j ~ ~ 1l J ~ i i ~ .l , i si: f~.' , ~i~7 ~ :I ~ f ~ 1 ~I uf,~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a • • , , ~ rq~caoe ~..~awr. eao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ The Campis~ Addi~~n M~ ~ Pc~to Patch-.Y.ot 3 Seed Fx'i~' g ~ ~~~x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ `o Cait~ilniC~' R1vl. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ f ~ _ ~o ~ ~ ~ ! ~ . . , cry . ~ ~ Y z37 . o~ .i ~ t 1a~ . . ~ ~ ~ • r ~ ~ L _ w' ` I I Y. err..... w. -w.r~ . ..i,r.. _ , I { y- .K _ . , . . ;i~ qS _ ~ i ~ ~ r_^___---~- . _ . . . . i~ `SAS... ~ ~ ~G, ~ a s ~ ~ i . _ . ~ ~ ~ . - ~ t ^.-y j{ O~ 1 O 'fit ~1 z zees ~p ~,r3~1M= a~~ ~PPE~LS F(~R11 REQUIRED FOR FILING .aN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR PLANNING A,~D ENVIRON:I~IENTAL COi1'[AIISSION ACTION A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: Denial of request for a site coverage variance to allow fora one-car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ I,ot 3, Vail, Patata Patch Ind filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Section lzs.i.s.u7u vi slid Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage which, provides that a residence is not to exceed twenty percent (20%} of a total site area. The, requested site coverage variance was for 260.$ sq. ft. for construction of the garage, B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: September 23, 1996. O C. NAATE OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISIONCI'AKING ACTION: Planning and Environmental Commission D. NAME OP APPELLANT(S): Charles P. Campisi and Geri Campisi MAILING ADDRESS: 1146 Sands tone Drive, Vail, CO 81657 PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL74~-g Sandy Lane, Vail, CO 476-5586 ,PHONE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OP APPELLANT'S PROPIrRTY IN VAIL: Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominiums according to the Condominium Man retarded March ls, 19$0 in Book 299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondominium Declaration recorded *trch 4, 1980 i Book 299 at Page 54h r~~xnt~.-Af ~~^i e c e of Golorado. E. SIGNATURE(S): ~a~~/~~~i Kerry H. Walla a At torney~arid'"~epresentative of Charles and Geri Cam isi ~t~va~3x-5$~~anAvonla~o: 8].620 p (970) 449-4200 r Page ! of 2 F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? Yes [f ~•es, please provide the: follo~vin~ inforntation: arc you an adjacent property o«~ner? 1'es na x If no, give a detailed explanarion of how you are an "ag~'ieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person ~;rho will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected ar furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as they are the owners of the property in question and the persons requesting the site coverage variance ~hirh was riFnied. The strict interpretation of the specified regulation in this ' case will result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship to the appellants as at the present time there is available only one 344 sq, ft, single car garage space far the appellants'3,366.6 sq, ft, residence. There is insuff- icient parking space for the appellants' own vehicles without taking into . consideration visiting friends and family. Parking is not available upon the stxeet or surrounding areas There is also insufficient storage area particularly as the single cae garage is fully utilized for parking purposes. There also exists a drainage problem in that the area in which the new garage would be located slnnas tnw,~r.d r.he residence and eater flows directly into a major wall of the 5);E ATTACHED SHEET G. Pro~~ide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties separated by aright-of--way, stream, or other intervening barriers}. ?,lso provide addressed-and stamped envelopes for each property owner on the list. H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 1. FEE: 54.40 ' Page 2 of 2 ' Continuation of Section F of Anneal of Denial of Site Coverage Variance for Charles and re~i Campisi building, The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the praposed garage will correct the drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. In addition, the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious security problem in that the general public has access to her emergency egress which Ieads to her master bedroom ' and bathroom. The proposed garage will correct this problem for the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane who is Betty Gaffey. ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION FOR Arrr.AL OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONIlVIISSION ACTION REGARDING Star. COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR 742B SAi\TDY LANE, VAIL, COLORADO 81$57 SECTION H NATURE OF APPEAL - I. Background Information The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site coverage variance for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.490 of the Town of Vail Building Code regazding site coverage. Said section of the Code provides that a residence is not to exceed 20% of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be 250. S square feet for the purposes of constructing a 344 square .foot. ane car..garage .upon the property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.8 square feet (20°!0) and .the proposed variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet (21.5 a The property is a duplex which currently contains two enclosed garage spaces and the Appellants requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex has use of ane 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300 square foot single car garage space far a 3,366.6 square foot residence. The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied. II. Finding of the PIanning and Environmental Commission The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23, 1996 meeting denied the Appellants' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single car garage addition based on the following findings: 1. -That the granking of the variance will constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that aze applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the primarylsecondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self-imposed; and 3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the primarylsecondary residential district. III. It is Appellants Position that Grantiag of the Variance will not Constitute a grant of a Special Privilege and that there are Practlcal Difficulties andlor hardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Variance is not Granted. The specific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is §18.62A50 of Title 18 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the "Zoning Title." §18.b2.Obil specifically provides that before acting on a variance application the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance; Section A. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to :other existing ~or .potential uses and structures in the vicinities; 2. The degree to which relief from the strict ar .literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, The Planning Commission is also to make the following findings before granting a variance: Section B. 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements In the VICI]'11ty; and c:~cti+~sn~cco~.noc i a 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title; b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges.enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district." The Appellants shall initially address the requirements of Section "A" of the Zoning Title §1$.62.060: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the other structures in trhe vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to three car garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage addition will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Staff specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring ~,~.,Yerties and that other structures in the area have two to three car garages. ]:n addition, at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of an adjacent neighboring property, Ice Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage variance will negatively impact neighboring properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The grant of the minimal site coverage variance requested by the Appellants is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title §18.04.130 addresses gross residential floor area ("GRFA") and addresses how GRFA is c:~c,enteis[uicco~.noc -3- 1 calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. §18.04.130A(1) specifically provides, "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following azea shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1, Enclosed garages from up to' 300 squaze feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code." The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parlang requirements in particular off street parking, The purpose of this title is to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street pazking areas, off street pazking, and loading - facilities. Chapter 1$,52 of the Zoning Title requires a certain .amount of off street parking for all new facilities. 1$.52.100 requires that off street parking be determined in accordance with the following schedule "A": if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet ar more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, The Appellants' property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 square foot garage space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for.their dwelling unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit that are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient 'off street parking for the Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they are requesting the variance to build the single car garage it would not provide far year round parking for the • Appellants. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the strut onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that azea unusable for pazking purposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only passibility for the Appellants' property to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal site coverage variance for construction of the 300 square foot single car garage addition. The possibility of on street pazking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal to park upon the streets in the Potato Patch area particulazly during the winter months when the snowplows need full access to the streets in order to sufficiently cleaz them of snow build up. The requested site coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title. 3. The effect of the requested variance of light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, publ[c facilities and utilities and public safety. It is the Appellants position that the variance will have na effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety, In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a positive affect upon these factors as it will allow far additional off street parking so that vehicles Gs1CAl1~f611ACCOMP,DOC ~Q.. will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was na evidence presented to support a different finding on this issue. . For the foregoing reasons it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities; and 3. The variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar ...unnecessary physical .hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title; b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties andlor unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted. a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage fora 3,366 square foot residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking far the parking of their awn vehicles andlar parking for their guests and famiky members. This is a practical difficulty andlor an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there if na in particukar as there is no available an street parking. The Town of Vail Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for each residence. Xn particular 18.52. k00(A) requires that a 2000 square foot or larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling usut. The Appellants have insufficient parking particularky in the winter months and would be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vaik for parking on the street. In addition the Tawn of Vail Code specifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 30D square feet per vehicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces far each allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the GRFA for a residence. It is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to provide a 3,366 square foot residence to have the capability of having at least 600 square feet of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the Appellants' should be proposed variance be granted. c:~c~s~uccon~rnoc -S- b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will correct a serious drainage problem upon the property which will need to be c.,,a,,cted regardless of whether the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive resolution of the drainage problem and will benefit neighboring properties in the area because it will increase the value. of the property. c. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence particularly for.storage of recreational equipment. ' d. The variance would also c~~.;,ct the serious security problem that exists for the owner of the other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado, wha is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty. Guffey. b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specifled.regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges en,~oyed by the owners, of other .properties in the same district. Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least G44 .square feet of enclosed garage space per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been constructed within the site coverage requirements, it does not alleviate the fact that the Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants should be able to construct an additional 304 square foot enclosed parking space upon their property to allow far off street parking. c:~c~s~ucco~.noc -6- r . .-~FFID:~VIT OF BETTS' GtFFE~' . ' CO~i1;S '~O~V, the Aftiant, Betty Guffey, having personal l~no~;°fed~e of the follo«~ina facts and being duly s«~orn under oath hereby testifies as follows: ' 1. That I am the o«~ner of real property located in the To«'n of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado known as -i?-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. 2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail. Potato Patch, Second Filing Condominium. Toy;gin of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado «~hich is comprised of Unit 742-A and 7-1?-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado ("Condominium Association"}. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and unit 7~2-B Sandy Lane. Vail, Colorado which is owned by Charles Campisi and Geri Campisi (hereinafter referred to as the "Campisi's"). 4. That ~~~ith my express permission and im~olvement the Campisi's have requested a ~°ariance from the To«>n of ail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to • their unit. The construction of said single car garage will not in any ~;gay negatively impact upon . other structures in the vicinit}~ as most structures are residential homes, including condominium units «'ith garages. 5, That the garage addition that the Campisi`s ha~'e requested a variance for from the To~~~n of ~~ail is necessary' fcr a number of reasons: There is significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in ~~-hich the new garage ~~'ill be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly. into a ma}or «°al] of the building. the construction of the garage «~ill r2solye this drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. B. That at the present time ~~'ith the current configuration of the residence ~~~ithout the requested Garage addition. there exists a significant security problem with regard to my unit. The general public currently has access to an emergent}ue taeth aoourrent c onfigurationtloftthe my master bedroom and bath area. Unfortunately, d building the general public often utilizes my emergency egress door as opposed to my main door because it is the only' door readily visible from the street. This is a cause for concern for me • because I cannot see ~;~ho is at the emergency egress door until i am right before the door. This is not the case ~~'ith my main entrance door as I can see the person at the door through windot;'s prior to opening the door. In addition packages and flo~~~er deli~'eries are often left mistakenly at m~~ emergency egress door and as I do not utilize that door i do not locate the items often for days. I have retained atl architect, :sir. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects in Vail. to address. among other issues, the issue of the public access to my emergency egress door so that 1 could be fsm~ id4d ~'•'ith securing. It vas ultimate]} determined b}' A'Ir. Pierce that there vas no ~v3v to pro~~ide ,rt sucli security due to design consu-aints thus the proposed garage tS x _ ~ r an excellent solution to m}~ security problem. As such. I feel that the granting of the Variance to allow the construction of tl~z single car garage is necessary to pro~~ide nie «~ith adequate security at my residence and I «•ill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other options are available to me. C. That in the «'inter months the To~~~n of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto the area «~here the new single car garage ',~°ill be constructed thus making such area unusable . particularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car garage will provide a covered parking area }'ear round. 6. For the foregoing reasons the o«~ners of the property at 7~2 .Sandy. Lane constituted of myself and the Campisi's ~;ill suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allowing for construction of the proposed singe car aara4e. y - Further the Af~ant sayeth naught. ,f I~iw r ~ ~ TY, ~FF ' STATE OF COLORADO } ss. EAGLE C4U~TTY ) Subscribed and s«•orn to before me this ~1 da}~ of September, 1996, by BETTY GUFFEY. `Fitness my hand and ofitcial zza':. r ?~'Iy commission expires: O ~ '~J~' 7 W ~_5~~; i 1 AFFIDA<<IT OF GERI C:~.\IPISI CO:~IF.S NOZV, the Affiant, bein; duly sworn under oath and having personal knowledge of the following facts hereby testifies as follows: 1. That I am the o~;•ner of real property located in the To«~n of Vail, County of .Eagle, State of Colorado 1`no~;gin zs 7~?-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. 2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominium, County of Eagle, State of Colorado ~~°hich is canstin:ted of unit .7~2-A and 7~2-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado (the "Condo Association"}. 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit-and 742 Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado ~;~hich is o«'ned by Berry Guffey. 4. That my husband, Charles Campisi and myself have requested a Variance from the To~i~n of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to our unit. The construction of such single car Garage tii'ill not in any ~vay negatively impact upon othzr structures in the ~~icinity as rzc:t structures ere residential homes, including condominium units, «'ith Garages. 5. That the garage addition that «'e are requesting a Variance from the To«•n of Vail far is necessary for a number of reasons: A. There is a significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in «•hich the new garage kill be located slopes to~vard the residence and water flo«'s directly into a major ~;'ail of the building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and could be Very expensive to fix pursuant to bids that ha~~e been received. The constnrc€ion of zlhe aara~e ~~~ill resolve this drainage problem «'hile at the same time significantly improving the property. B. That there exists ~•er;• little storage area ~;~ithin our residence and the existil-ta t~;'o (2) car Garage is fully utilized far the parking of our t«ro (2) automobiles. .~.s such, ~~'e currently do not have any storage space particularly for our recreational equ:pment such a bicycles, golf clubs and ski equipment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there are no closets in the house to store the equipment, na space in the existing garage as it is used for parkin; our automobiles and it would be inappropriate to stare said items ouuide as the}' could be stolen and it ~vouId detract from the area to store goods in that manner. C. That eve are unable to park an automobile on the street or else;'here an the ]ot in order to make storage space avail2ble in the existing Garage as parkins is not allowed upon the street, particularly in the 1t'inter months, and the area in ~~'hich the new garage 1~ri11 be constructed is currently urnasable for parking purposes during the ~~~inter months as the Toy;'n of ~ uv.+ 79i20i9d FRY l0:OS F~.[ Vail snow remnval plows large amouE7ts of snow upon the space. Xn addition, it is preferable ;o have our car in co~~erecf parking durin8 winter myths. D. That we also have frequent guests, including numerous ftlmily members, and are unable m provide a par]dng space fer thEm wlicn they are visiting. This posts a difficult . problem again is the winter months when the .now plows nxd the streets clear of pazkCd vehicles to adequately plow the streets. That the proposed single car garage Will address all of the above referenced baxdships in itzat it will giovidc for the additional storage, it would provide a coveted parking space that will be usable all year sound dnd It will be a positive U5C of currently unusable space. ` 7. That the proposed' singly car gu~age will t;onstitute an improti~ement to tho property , 1 that wiii increase the value of the residence and thus Rould be a positive effect upon the neighborhood in general 8, For the for~cgoing rcasoas the owners of the pTOperty at 7~2 Sandy Lone which is ~ constituted of myself, my rusbsud, Charles CarnpisB, attd Betty Guffey will suffer a hardship i if the Varia~e is not g7'3nted fer the construction of the proposed side car glrage. . Portlier the Affiant sa}•tth na~sgiSt. V I GERI CAMPISI SrATL OF COLORADO ss, >ACLE covvz~ } ~ . 'G~ Subscnbed and sworn to hefote me this dey at' September? 1996, by G~ ~~.MPISi. Witslers rnY hand and Official sGBI. J . ~ riy canuaission Expires: ~ G:ICAMPjSIIG~Rt.1F'P. pTN STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE PROCESSIONAL CURPORATIUN Attorneys & Counselors at Laly 1AMES WM. STOVALL 202 BENCHMARK PLAZA BUILDING TELEPHONE: (470) 944-4200 10HN D. GOODMAN 48 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD FACSIMILE: {970) 949-6843 KERRY H. WALLACE P.O. DRAWER 5860 AVON, COLORADO 81620 GILLIAN COOLEY MORRISON October 10, 1996 Town of Vaii ATTN: Dominic S. Mauriello, A.I.C.P. Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Raad Vail, CO 81657 REFERENCE: Site Coverage Variance Request for 742 Sandy LanelLot 3, Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, far Charles and Jeri Campisi Dear Mr. Mauriello: The purpose of this letter is to formally request a continuance of the appeals hearing that was initially scheduled before the Vail Town Council for November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. with regard to Charles and Jeri Campisi's appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commissions' denial of a site coverage variance for 742 B Sandy Lane. I will be in trial the week of November 4, 1996 and as such would be unavailable for the hearing before the Vail Town Counsel on November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. It is my understanding that the hearing before the Vail Tawn Council initially scheduled for November 5, 1996 has been moved pursufint to my request to November 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. I appreciate your cooperation in regard to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further. Very truly yours, STOVA OODMAN WAL~LAC , P K RY H. WALLACE KHW:tak cc; Charles and Jeri Campisi G:ICAMPISIIVAIL.LET J _ E jyy~ ~1 ~o~v of vA~, ~outh Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY December 1$, 1996 . Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER ~7 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford,, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Red Sandstone Locals Housing Development In preparation for the evening meeting, Council members met with representatives from the board of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District to discuss details associated with the proposed locals housing development. Distribution of units and the inclusion of free market units were two points on which the two boards focused. Five of the 17 units will be controlled by the Town of Vail to represent its 25% share of the partnership, while water district representatives said they intend to control the balance. There is the potential for four units, which have been the focus of previous discussions, to be sold as free market ar "modified restricted units" (sold to a local employee at market value with no restrictions) if needed, to help lower the selling price of the other units. Board members said i# was the district's intent to use the free market or "modified restricted" approach only if construction casts require a contingency plan to ensure the rest of the project is affordable. The group agreed that both entities would be involved in that decision once~construction costs are determined. The plan calls for . three of the Town of Vail-controlled units to be sold to life-safety employees (such as firefighters, police officers, snow plow drivers and dispatchers), while the other two units would be sold to TOV employees at large. There would be two lottery drawings, one for each group. During discussion yesterday, Paul Johnston said he'd pre#er keeping the units as rental property. Sybill Navas raised questions about the possibility of retaining ownership of the sand to further preserve deed restrictions placed on the units. The two said they didn't want to see another Pitkin Creek slip away from the deed-restricted locals housing inventory. But Jay Peterson, a water board member, said the town had abuy-back provision in the Pitkin Creek project (just as it will have in. the Red Sandstone partnership) and for whatever reason, that buy-back option wasn't pursued by the town. Rob Ford, Ludwig Kurz and Kevin Foley said they were comfortable with the deed restriction safeguards placed on the project and suggested it was time to move forward with town approval. Michael Jewett said he'd like to see the town purchase as many units as possible. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said his group was comfortable with the lottery process proposed far the town's units and expressed interest in learning how the water district would allocate its share of the units. A letter from Bill Wood, U.S. Forest Service district ranger, also was (more) RECYCLED PAPER - , TOV Highlights/Add 1 reviewed yesterday clarifying support for the project. The Council later approved the project at its evening meeting. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --John Gulick Employee Recognition Jahn Gulick, assistant fire chief, was recognized for 20 years of service to the town. He received a certificate and a check for $2,000. --PEG Review In reviewing Monday's actions by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Council was advised of an extension of a previous condition placed on the Public Works Town Shops expansion project. The PEC has extended to July 31, 1997, the condition requiring the issuance of a building permit for three employee housing units to be built on site. Originally, the PEC had required the permit to be issued prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the expansion of the bus barn. Due to the expanded scope of the housing development, additional time had been requested. The expanded development will be constructed in the summer of i 997 with occupancy far seasonal workers by November of next year. For mare information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Interview Applicants far 2 Marketing Board Positions The Council conducted interviews for two apes positions on the Vail Valley Marketing Board. The applicants included Kaye Abramson, Robert Batchelor, Andre Fournier, Howard Leavitt, Beth Slifer (asking for reappointment) and Lai Tischer. Later in the evening, the Council reappointed Slifer and selected Fournier to serve four year terms. Slifer is president of Slifer Designs; Fournier is marketing director far the Vaii Cascade Hotel & Club. --Ordinance Allowing Time-Share As Cor~ditianal Use In Public Accommodation Zone District After reviewing an ordinance that would allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation zone district, council members expressed concern about the broad scope of the proposal. Those concerns were repeated at the evening meeting and the ordinance for first reading was tabled to the Jan. 7 meeting. The ordinance is proposed at the request of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. The proposal includes a fractional fee club redevelopment of the Austria Haus property at 242. East Meadow Drive, in addition to hotel rooms and other improvements. Approval of fractional fee club units as a conditional use within the zone district is needed before the applicant is able to proceed with its request for a Special Development District for redevelopment. During yesterday's discussion, Council members heard an overview of the fractional #ee concept, including a successful example built in Deer Valley. Although Councilmembers praised the Austria Haus proposal, most said they were uncomfortable allowing the more traditional time-share approaches {estate units and license units) within the scope of the ordinance. Rab Ford, in particular, said he (mare} TOV Highlights/Add 2 wanted the provision to ensure retention of existing hotel rooms. The applicant then proposed narrowing the ordinance by focusing on the fractional fee concept and eliminating the other time-share provisions {which are already allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi-Family zone distric#). Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners; Dan Tellen an adjacent business owner; and Pam Hopkins urged the Council to proceed with caution. Please see evening briefs for more information, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --West Vail Interchange Design Update During an update on the West Vail roundabout design, the Counci! agreed to take a law-maintenance approach to the landscaping pion. Council also approved a proposal to construct a bike path at the south side roundabout at grade rather than incur the cost and other problems associated with running the path beneath the road. Also yesterday, the Council approved a plan to involve the public in developing a schedule for construction. The public process will occur in January and February. If the town finds funding partners for the $5.5 million project, construction could begin as early as March 31. For more information, contact Larry Grafe! in the Public Works Department at 479-2173. . --Information Update The Council agreed to pursue a discount skilpark promotion with Vail Associates that would occur on selected weekdays leading up to Christmas. Kevin Foley encouraged the town to prepare its overflow parking plan for the coming weekend. In replacing the fawn's computer systems for dispatch and finance, Town Manager Bab McLaurin said the cyst will likely exceed the $500,000 currently budgeted. McLaurin said he would provide an update in January. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead indicated representatives from the Alpine Gardens had inquired about negotiating a new lease with the town. The Council indicated that specifics of the lease could be finalized following adoption of the Ford Park Management Plan in February. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation • Mary Isom, a local attorney representing Bob Schultz, owner of the popcorn wagons in Vail Village and Lionshead, appeared before the Council to ask for a discussion on the lease issue. Council members indicated the discussion would take place in 1997, possibly in the Spring. Isom explained that Schultz was attempting to sell the business and was interested in knowing if the town would agree to an extension of the current lease, which expires in December 1997. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he would not recommend an extension. (more) - 7 TOV Highlights/Add 3 --Supplemental Appropriation The Council voted 7-0 on second reading to approve a supplemental appropriation to the budget in the amount of $1.2 million. --Animal Control On a 6-1 vote (Jewett against) the Council approved a resolution authorizing the kown . manager to enter into an animal control services contract with Eagle County. The . contract is for $23,704 far one year, --Appointment of Two Marketing Board Members The Council reappointed Beth Slifer and appointed Andre Fournier to the Vaii Valley Marketing Board. Bath will serve four year terms. See afternoon briefs for more details. --Ordinance Allowing Time-Share As Conditional Use in Public Accommodation Zane District The Counci! voted 6-0 (Johnston excused himself from discussion due to a possible conflict of interest} to table first reading of this ordinance to the Jan. 7 evening meeting and directed staff to tighten language in the ordinance to prevent possible abuses. While applauding a proposal to use fractional fee units to help redevelop the Austria Haas site (which triggered the proposed ordinance), Council members said they were concerned with abuses that might result from the ordinance as currently written. Please refer to work session briefs for more details, or contact George Rather in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Red Sandstone Locals Housing Project The Council voted 6-1 (Johnston against) to approve a resolution directing the town manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement between the town and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District an the Red Sandstone housing partnership, Also, the Council voted 7-0 on second reading to rezone the properties from general use to medium density multi-family residential. A third measure, to create a Special Development District far the property, was approved an second reading by a 6-1 vote (Johnston against due to flat roof architecture). Please see work session briefs far more details, or contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Campisi Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision The Council voted 7-0 to uphold the PEC's denial of a site coverage variance to allow an additional one-car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unite B. Council members said they could find na hardship that would enable the variance to be approved. For details, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148, --Town Manager's Report Bob McLaurin said the Colorado Association~of Ski Towns meeting was scheduled far Jan. 9 and 10. . (more) r - TOV HighlightslAdd 4 --Information Update Paul Johnston asked about the town's new loading and delivery policy in the Village. Police Chief Greg Morrison explained that large trucks on Hanson Ranch Road would be prohibited at all times. Johnston inquired about a community safety officer position to be staffed at the Vaii Village Club construction site. McL.aurin said the position remains unfilled. --Council Reports Sybill Navas updated fellow council members of her meetings with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Chamber, Commission on Special Events and Activities and the Vail Valley Exchange. Kevin Foley passed along a thank you from the Vail Recreation District to .the Public Works Department for its assistance in removing a sign at the golf course erected by an anti-fur group. He also updated the group on his attendance at the Eagle County Transportation Authority meetings. Foley also inquired about the approval status of the ski storage sheds in Lionshead. Bab Armaur thanked the town's Social Committee for organizing the holiday party. • Condolences were expressed to the family of Cindy Nash. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS January 7 Work Session Mike Vaughn 15 Year Anniversary .foe Busch iQ Year Anniversary Discussion of Proposed Changes to Investment Po{icy Time-Share Ordinance Discussion Executive Session January 7 Evening Meeting First Reading, Time-Share Ordinance January i4 Work Session PEC/DRB Review • Executive Session . # # !i I n~;o ' ! . ! f f anP 1~ ~'0 1 ' 11 Ir1 4 nzh• : :S• ~~K1 ti:~, ' ~np w f } ~ a ti~ pn ~ ' y O O{ 1 f ~ ` ~ ~ ' ~ V ! y f P '.4 - ~'i I i ! _ 19 in / ! - J f uo r• ~n~ al' c~ 1 r r ae Y / (17 r! IIj nz is 1 r I 1 y o o ~ p , s~ , } ~ r ~ O 3 ~ ~,T` ill ~ o ~ ~ i y0 f.' ~ ~ ` ~ ~ i r ~ ~ f r rr~,~4 ' / r _ Yom. rrl, 1' /i ,y ?k ~ Ir ' gg i { I ~ _ / i' t . ~ ~ taai ~ t r rr 4R ~ 1, or 1 ~ ~ ,:r.;~ , I, / r -II_ ~ y r r i r ! M MIMMI`i ~`IMM~ I ' ! •e~ ~ 1r~ r y i I §d ~b \ .7~! I rr ' ! ' o i e~ ~i / r f r .I ~ r 1 9~ 1 ~ [ it ..11 l~ SS I 1 ~I a-N ~ h^n lr .III ! . 1 ~O O ~ 1..~- j 1 Y i V ~(~fi ^ }}'~1 , P 1 1 ~ , I' 1 Myna ; i y 1:= 1 I ~ Q`no _ 1 1 4 t 1 rn it ' 7.`, ~ 't°a , I 1 a~~ a >f { ~1 ~ ~ 11 t ~ ~ Y ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1`l1 ~ \J \ ~ I~1 ~ 5 I ` 1 I ~ `I _ D ' ' ` ~ t n I ~a . j - 4 ~ - ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ L4.` n l ~ ~ ~ 5 Y s , ~ 5 ';i 1 1 r, ~ #yY 1~ • ~ti,~~_ ~ ~ "i` ~ :moo ~ ~~x 1 '~1 ~ 11 1 1 y yIY ~ i \ Z Y r i \ 5 rn 2 ~T Ol CI 1711 ~11 ~ ...p ii ~w'o~ 1 4 1 ~ l pry - ~ ti` ~ - \ I€! f 1 I!I ! , f ~ aR ! ~ t r y r ! ~r ~ y ~~ageR g~ ~ 1''~ J V - ~ yy ~G~~~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ y14 ~¢Y ~ r 4 z ~Q ~ / - • , w ' 4 $ 1~ 't 1 r ~f ~o' ~ / o,ll~r ~ ~ c //fir ~ / \ " ~ ~ fib 1 r, ~ sir / ~ ~ / ~ ~ ` l i~ ~ r fl / N ?r" ' l ~ f $ 11 r i~ !1 ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ wr w Y~p*~n`y~p~i AVV~ I' ,n _ r _ l1~ ~ 1! ~ ~ ~ ~ C' 1 !1 if I !fr ' I ~ r i ~ rIJ~ I f ~ [ L7 llr l ~ ~ ~ 1 '~f f r3 J1 f ~ .e ~ ~ 1 ~~x r` 1 , ~ fl ~Ia Fn ~ y P~ + !I !t f ~ - ~4- y k~ 1 1 ri I i li i °r ~ 4 ~ 9 ~ l ` i1~ ~ llll y ~ ~ Ii I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f aw i ~ A f~ ~ 1 1 \ y i 4 I y ~ ~~.L,. I _ ~ 1 Sn 41l ! y ~ B a~_..J , 11 ~ - I ~ ~ 1 VVV , O ~ ~ • n N, i a ~ u ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ - 4 ~ wo- jI ` ~~~j~~ ~ Icmn ~t's~ ~ \ ~ p~ti \ Aid FQa bd ~ s ~ ~d a 1 O i \ n ° F ~ ~ ~ III ~ ~ E"~ , ~ / ~ ~Z ~ ~ W ~ i 7~ o I R ~ ~ -a ~ ~ i D I Z I I i ~ ~I I III - I I I ~~'I' I~; ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ _a _ I I E I I I 1 ~ - ~ N ~ N ~ ~ rn ~ m I ° ~ Z i p r- I' R rn ~ I l.t ' ~ ~ N L ~ O I 1 i r I o It i III: I ~ ~ ~ - - ~ j=f= ~ ~ `~1 ~ z ~ III, < . LJ~ I iF: y ~ 11111 - .II _ _ ! ` I S R I j l i i l i ~ o 'I ~ ~ i s ~ ~ 4s _ m I ~l~f y I° - v O ~ - M Y j I ~ r I ~ L..~ ._..i jl~~l~~ 1~ ~ n z r ~ I ! I N 'i~~i ~l II1 R A ~ J ~ . A . i ~ f ~ a ~ . f rl ~ _ N _ ~ I i, , I f 1 T.R. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a i ~It ~ ~ I ~ QI Z ~ ~ I ~ In ~ ~ ' N aV I~ ~ p~ Ir ' x ~ ~ I F .i i ! ~ tS p ~ I II 5 IZ rn ~ ~ I EE b .~O ~ e i@ - _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ a ~ n I N p~ o I`..f~ m~ - F F • ~ ~ I n Q 710 ~ dill i I I ti~ ~ ~ - 1 ~ ~ ` I II111 ~ ~ I O I ~f,l~ F ~ - ~ } II f V _ ~i ~ ~ O I ~ -°n 1L R I b z i r R r ~.r L ~ I__~ :1 il~~ i ,,~:,f~ i ~ , ;i. _ _ I i i I i ~ w. ~ ~ f ~ ' N ~ - ~ ~ ~ - - - - i , ~ O I n 4 a ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i iil;'~ H I ri .:I' iiii:~ I`fI' ~ f'P ~ R 1 II ! ~ u iS IE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r i i; ti ~~i~l ~ E ~ iu ~ - ~ ; i P •.`'I f' p r ~ o r _ _ f~_ I ~ I fll ~ ~ r ~ ~'~I ~ C , Z ~ ~ ~ ~ s b iL ' S. ~ ~ y 4 ~ ~ ` s ~ 8 ri~ >J ~ - a ~ ~ ~ i ~ c I I _ ~ ~ 1 W ~ v' z o ~ c d~ 4~ rn r rn to II r D I ~ I~I ~ ~ Z I ~ ff•~~ ~ ~'.;I';~I'I d If~~i~ I ii illy :ills lfli;, ''E ~ I I • I 3 ' ~ lilllllial~J II I~I 1f i fI I~. I I! Ali I; i~ IIII 'll'll ji'i Iil ~I~I'I;!E'ill~+! II`.~ 1 qi . I .If d ~ ~ i~llll I II II II ',li rti.l lll~l, II illy li• i, .i I,~ I I I I`i!I I ~I I_ ~ I lull, i 11,1 i ~ ~ I ~ ~ I I i f' I , !lil' ! 'i1;~~ ~ ili'';i I I I f i I ! { ,I' I~f II~ it I;. i +:I 1' I' I I I~.I LI ' -III .,Iii" ~f !iUr i i f l f ; ~I' i l ~ I - ~ ' II r, I illl~~' 'I~ I ill I 11 ll'i1, I ~ } I ~ I ~ li r.. :I;ill~'i', If',~l ~'ll ~ !f, .I: III' II,I I ;I 1 i ~EI•'I' 'I III I ',I'!''I~'~'Ifi I 'I I r Dill I" 'I fill # !~~'f ,iil ~I~Illllji~ ;I ill ~ ~ iI I~ I I~' l i ~..II~1 II ~~;~I i 111;1 I 1 ill 'll,l+ ~L, ~ II•~ l I j I I ~i I' ~ I l''ili IIIlllll I it f IM1iil~iill. I ! I~ I li~ ~I ~ III I iI ~ ~It i ~ ~ i r FI. ' Iliili I $i II ;f~` III ; ~ III ~ ~ ~ I 1t. I ill ! f ;':If'' ~ I ~ I I •'I'iillil i II !III ii' I I Ilil~~~l#~~~~~ I N ~ N rn d ~ r~ rn 4 r rn rn r C .rn II I.! In o li'~ j ilf' ;~-t N I iql Iq I i'tl; G;~!;I I' i i z il' ~ `I '.;~lii' i'•il °z ~ 1. + ! I I h,ly I I ..L _ i irii ~1 II, ~I I.~... 3 } i '~ft I'I}rilflli. ~ 'I I'IIiIJ~~11' I II 1 III I'lli I,'flllll I _I. !1 I illl~ll i _ , ~ I I I I'i l l `I j r. i~;i rl li . ,l~ I! 1, 'll I; illill .lf •i~il 1• if 'l,l' i) I I€II f I 11.14 I_~ ! liiil ~ it ~ .....r . „ ~B ~ I I 'i}I' .I.. ` ' IllliE ii ~ rli~ .~.I' ill, ~ b,i ::4~'~~I.II flll Illllllill!'II~Ilil~ill~ iI i' I IIIfI I I l ~ I' f~lllll I I I ~I. , , I ' i •r ; II' li , .j-' 1 ~ I~ ~ ill I,;,, ,..I~, I';1 'Ii ~ , ~ ~ . I I, . 1: is i II I 'jl: I i il~iliilll ~ I it ill ' I i ~ 1 ~ I 6~ - 1 I .I ''~','I'I'' •'I;I',h11If'Ilf,lll!I: IIiII! ff !'I ~ I ~ I Ili IIII ~ I! ~ 11k.iTlll If I I i jl; ;I' I I` I i ~ ,I,,i I• if ,lil, I ill ,i'I II ifi 1. ~ i! I i I i' ; 1 I l l I I I I I , I:~lia~ll'~II" I, I' I 'IIII ~ r ll,.', 1 III (III I yiP;i i !lllpllfllii~l!' I ill a,l!.fi'11 I 'i ~ f#I ii::~I IIII I I ~ 'li'iiilllll~lll~ij ~ I I~Ilil w U' h s o ~ c ; z . ~ o ~T ~n~ m ~ =rn z r- ~ ~ = rn o D .I ,IIIII,~+ r-- 1 I ~ ~ , I rig I p ~ ~ ~ :•+.,;Ifi hi•,~lii.r, !,I,il:rii,~l i ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I.. :li~ I '~I t II fl .I f:~~'F j :I,~~ ~ it I II;! ~ i~ I ~ II 1 1:1~` ,~~I I ~ E II I If~~l~ .II "'i'ir I~ill~''I!i,~:, ~;~;~i~:,l~i ~~I ~ I~'I " ~I ij` ~i ~ ~I;~i ~~:,;.,.I,I. ,.I+~ii~'lil i I;; IIII~;i~ ~ ~ij!,; r :I ' ~ jl~l ?Iill~illiliill~~I~Ciyilili~ I r l~ i i i I 11'`l~' I ~ .i E I Ir ~f iii .l. I~~i i' I 11 III. ~lil`IIill;.il I~I' ~~E 'll ~ ~II~! Ili i~; ff i ~~II I I ' I r i., i;li II'1~1 I f! ,ilili 1I~I,lil~:,l~'~ ~~1. ~I~ ~ ' I IIII I it?III~I i !,l Iii! 'II_ III! II'~f'I l?' f I!Il~il I'~IIIIf! lE I r -r-~-' I ; ~ i t`~ N ~ n D ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ rn ~ rn ~ m ;c' ern rn < ~ rn _ o Il I!~ III~~~~~1! 131 ~ D ~ l l I r i Z IlII s = I~ ~IIi I O ~ lI k ~ i' i 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ i '~i LlJillll ! !I?~ ~~i '1 i I i g I I 7:- ~ 111111!1. III I! fill II ~ _ ;Ililfll ` ' I II II 111' i i~ ! III! I I j ~ III.. ~~;i~ I I I ~ 11I~ 11; i` ~~I I~1!!!~ifll ?Ill~l I II~~: III ?il : i ,.I , ~i'j l~'llillllil~li ~I' :.I i I ~ i i' i1i:11 ~ I;I I' i 1111111111t1i l .111 I!~,li RI I ~ I , i,l!~;Ilrf 'i I!?!hI i j ~jlpjlNli I ~ I Ilf ll;.i lull l,~~l~i ; pj j l~iifill: slr,aiq l .p R Z N r a ~ n 0 ra i{1 ip ~ m = ~ _ ~rn o r q ~ r-n rn c < ~ ~J!Itlill ill i O Ili 'I, I~i~ I Z II ~?lf'~'~ li Iii ~I~~ Z I ~~l I i'II,`~ i III ~Ilill i~! I I' 4. I I ~ I i I~ / E ',II ~il~ I~ 'I I' ~ ` ? I I'i,~l f' ~ i~1 I. is I,,I ~ I 11 i II I '?I VIII' {~•If ~l .I I _ ~ r i ~ ! r0 I I , , 'I j I I ~ ~ I . ~ ..:~1 ~I I~,~ I I,~,~ IpII I~;.I,.a'jllll!i IIIIIiI;'' Irlllil nl'lil! I I ~ i 7~ II~ I II?IIIII I 11 II~,?,I~~,~Ilil~il! '~lii' i ,,Ili I. I I lip. I ' ~ ' ! ~ Ill;ll.,yj~lll ~:'I~~,?,~~~II;I~I°,~ ~i~~I ~ I:~~I,~, ~f I ~ ~ ~ i I ;illl,l'.•IIGIi j!,~I ?Iii!Il,lil!,II li~i ' Y.~ ~ 'I III if ill I I I I jf+~Ilil~~ ,III: I I. i r I° it ~I:+!':I ILL'~la~ ~ I{+i I Ill i ! ~ ~ I~~ II h I I I ,~I ,III ~ . I +Iilill i i.~i N N n CTl ~ ~ r D r rn . rp ~ I• ~n N ~ ~ rn orn ,ern C ~ D _ D -I O Z I ...,III II O 1 E 1 ' X11„11 Z 'I fl~l ` I"i i!li!IIII I' II ly'!P'Ill,l'I II I! I i I' ~ i I ~ ~iF{• ! Illlli j+HIRPRI' lldnup,p i ?I "II ~ ; ~i Ili ~ <; i i III j lil I~ ~li;illl,r I I+I' .I ~ f:~..?~~!~ilj I`Ilj ; Fill! I!I;I, II I ~I IlI~ ~I,,.,,I ~I !i ~ I I~ ~ I~ i I+~~ I' T fII I~ I I.~. I?I~II, , IlI lj,l,~ I' III~II.; ~ I IIII~ ' :t I I II` ' ; iiii ,I,,,l;l,'~I~I'I Iu ~ii,i~~l , I, .i I~; li!' {i~ jell '.I~,Iitill I - Illl I 'III .II I? it ii~ I ~ Lllill. ~ I Ifll ~ r li' IIII I I . ~ ; . I- ,'.III ~ it l;~l ~ i II ~ ~~~?i I!`~~ii~l~ I' I I~ i i l o t ~ f I I ` I \ X11 ~ o r a I v. ! a \ ~ re ~ ' a ~ ~ ov e `D ~ r ~ a 1 ~ R' • ~ ~ Jy r x ~ ~i e f l h '1, ~ • C O ~ \ + 1 ~ • •a ~ ~ m "(,1 1 4. \ .F ' ~ ~ ~ r ~ a ~ ~ - ~ I ~ ~ l L ~ !((1((!LL__ I ~ ~ O \ \ ~ ~O E x as a ~ s a' v c ~ ? c ~ ~ ~ ~ x r ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 1~. Cb ~ Ik Q' a _ • ~ ~G 7 = J C•C ^ i N i I ~ _ r u ~ `~a 'k ~ . \ $,1 r iii _ ~ ~ w - ~ a v ~ j ~ , ~y f ~ ~ r ~ 11 Irr~~l , naggqa~ r 1 1 f! ~ i •I \ p W A V tl, u 1 M N ~ ~Q ~ r ! •I 1 ` r E ~ ~~g1~ ~ of V ~ ~ fe~3 irlr'$ II .a f I ~p~ ,r r Q 1 ~ ~g 3 6 ~ Q ~ # ~ ~g Z ~F ~~f ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 11 / 1 ~ ~ r A~ F~ ~4a 9~ ar o a~ ~.d a ~ ~ i ~ r 1~ e y ~ ~ ~ ~ a Y 9 • e / -I - 1 4 ° r.' L. ~ ! ~ ~ 3~ S~o ~ i~ 8 ~ ~i A 1 ~ ~ ~r Yg .N A~ o< r r~ ~ ~ o / 1 , ~ , ~ IA r ~ ~ w rf, I ~ ~r t ~ ~ ~ ~ I !lr 9! ~ 1I `r ~4 1 I ~ / / ~ 711 !I A ~ J ~ , ~ ~ p y ~ Z ikrr r ~ _ \ ~ ~ ~.QU I~ ~ i u ~ N I y ~ F k 11 1 1 ~1 ~ II t•• i . _ s 1. 4~ ~ ~ 1 9 1 I -r ~ • ` opt 1 15 •.1 0 . I ~ "S ~ k 1 1 ~I 1~ 1 II S~'~ 1 ~I ~ ~ ~ ~I I I~ ; ~ ~ I_ 4 Z I ~ 1 ~ ~ V ~ ~8 n ~ _11 tit ~ ' ',1 r tir, ` ~ ~ - ` ' X11• . ~ •1 ~ ,,1 \ ~ ~ fI ~fN, ' ~ y ~ ~ ~ , zf ~ a 90 ~ s} ~ !1 ~ { py yq voy~ ~i~~$n~~ yam ~ ~ ~ I / t ~ ~ • N 3Q ` ~ ~ mj~ ~a ~ ~ ~ _J y, a O~ „a°i~ ~ _ '-A~ .y` ~ i/ J''•.-~r~~,~ N y•` tlp ~ , f ~ - j F4 ~ - 04 ' / 1 f o /l ~ ~ F i ~ t~ 1r u f ; f If ~ 1 A l ~ ~ a / ~ ~ . 0. _ d ~ I k~ f ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ~ rf r `i 6 Q ~ 1 \ \ ! H ,h ti. ~ ~ J J ~ t 1 ~ ~ r}i \ 'x7 ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ c 6 ~ ' ~ c:: f ~ P. S as ~ a. g o' ro, ' S ` 't 'f 9 ~ a z ~ - d ~•'1 1~1r ~ I J ~ ~I j- _ ~ ~ H 1 N t N - _ _ t _ . _ ~ r ~ ~a ~ - e ' \ \ 1,~ 8 1. ~ ~ ~ 1 \ \ ~ \ ~ ' G' / / ~ _IAy ' l~ \\~IJII/' \ ~~i~ ~ v / 77CC ~ ~ r .-J A ~ ~ - 51~~ i~ e ~ 1 t ~i~ " ~r ~~a =1 r'~' I~~, . S a~ 1 1~" ~1 r \ f ~ r~ l i y .i a ~ a a u U N r •1 ~ y i ~ 1 • f ~ p~ ! p~ Q O~o~i ~R (Y 3 a" ~ dS Z ~C ~ 1 1,~~I ~ ~ S 1 , 4 ~ p y a az¢ g b$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 'tip 1 ~ ~ ~ } Q r b . 1 i q S1 9~ ~ Z ER ~ a ~ 3' 9a ~ ~ d +4 ~Y 2 ~ { 939 9 p !g ~ 1 / Y 1. / ~ ~ ~ ~ / Vl - - I off ~ ~ I / rY ~ \ 1 {1 ~ J aru .ac nrNr~a a I: 1 \ ~ J~ yP ~ I .t 1 a[ i rl H5S}; r Irk ~ I ~.Q~ / I a° ~ ~ !1~ ~ l • L l ~ ' ` 1 ~ ~ ~ - -per .~li~... } 11 '~a~L~ ~1 A•1 Z 1 i K r ,y ~ i 5n-~ . ~J ~ y ~ ~ l ~ ' }II ' 1 ~1 l I ~ ~ ly ~ 1 r y ~ ~ # o ~ I J 1 ~ y1 ~ ~ ~ 1~ 1 - ~~.J 1 1 « ~ , ' 1 1 r1 l 1 {I 1 \ 1 p~~7 y ~ ~ ~a . a ~ b ~ 4 f 1 I~ ~ ~ L ' 1 I1~ I ~•I P J i L f 1 ~ + t 1 RR ~ 11 ~ r a~ ! r i ~ if 1~ f L sa~~~ _ I II ~4 Y 1 C \ ./fy I 1 G ~ t ~ / _ ~r _ r ^j5d a Z ~~G` bb T~ ~ s tl E 1 a ~ erg ' ~ / n ~ 1r " ~ a .R ~ / t Fib ~ J !f l 1 ~ AV ~ ~ r 1 I~ ~ ~ --<a- 1 , ri 1 r i r~ ~ "~(J~f ~ r~~ r1 r ~ : r~r f 1r I ~ f ,7~2 i J 11 f ~ 'f ~ 1 ~~d ~ k ~ Ty ~ nQq ~ I t ~ ; ~v 1 ~r ~ I ~ Q 1 k N,~ k . , ti llli i ~ l ~R 1 i ~ N. iil I I J~ 8 I O\. 1" i 3~, l4 III i ~ ~ ~ r' c~ L 1~ ~ ill ~ 1 ~ ~ - ~`I- ~ \ f I k l k 4 ~ r ~ --1 ` 1 I t s }4 1 ~s ~N ` ~`e~ 1 h ~ -sip--- \ ~g~ ~ ~ I L ~ ~ 1 ~ ~1A~~ ~ ~ 7\ \ ~ ~ - _ ' ~ ~ \ 31 1, F W L~ 1 ~ ~ ~ l 11 ~ Q > m o ~ s~ r L k' ~ ~ ~ ~ 'R~ q A ~ c ~ \ \ J/ R F' 4 0 ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ / r ° t ~ ~ ~ ~ / I rl 1 i ~ rr 1 1 { n I j ~ yy ~ npnO i~r ~ y ~nr ~ ~ y ~j11 n n ~ i F ri 7+r a ~~I"y1 ~Irll :i~ 1!y Hof 1~ ly ~ 1 I tine y 1 ~ j ' ~ ' f I ! ' r ~ y r ~ ~ n `;4 r' y ~ y .R - 2 I 1 1®n> ~ ~ f x; n~~ '1 ! 0 ~ ab f ~ C~ ~R 1 f / A A ~ Y1 r ~ y ' J rrQ 10 r1 / ~ ! I C^ Fn ~ ~ ~ ~ YN ~ .I5' ~i I f o' i, Ana J} o° r os o~ n I~ r yN Y~ l I on ~e f/ / o x ~ t no ~ ~ • ~ O - n \ ~ / ~ ' ° fll a ~ i a! =py ~ I~ ~ y ~ ~ \ t y t,%• rn Z --~o- i ~ ~ I , o , , ~ ~ ! '1r ~ ~ _ 1 'nl' i t ~ r r 'vl y ^i I % t , . R Cu t I jjj/// ~ - r / ~ ~ ! ' uw~n~w ~ enN ~r...N~ ~1~~~iNfrwNr~nn~ Y ~ e . • ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ .h III} , ' I o ~a ~ v r I ~ , y ~ , ! ~ ~ ~ F ~si ~ . _ ~ I n4. 1 • ( 01 , t ~JlI ~ n q I 11 ~ nf/(^iY J ~ t I~ I 11 1 ~1 O 11 _ r I 15 ~ l71 ~ ~ ~ `C) ^i ''i p y f ; o i ~ ~U 4 1 ~1 Z y r) ~ O n ' ~ r :o c, Z I VV ''1 ~ ~ 11~ ~Lyy i ` F -~~~y 1„ r' -f ~t and 'Yr`,' 5 ~ ~ 1 O~inL Y i 74~ ~ 4~ ' t 5 i y ~ I I .•1 p t o ui ~o ,,,5 ~2D \ ~1 0 { ~y ~~y '~1~ y yy ~ t ~ 1 - - y ~ o f 3 j ~ ~ ~ I rP ~~`t j~~ll•,i y 'ice`, r r ~if~{' ~~~nt t . _ - ~ _ I ~ o i ~ Q I Z ~ j - - I i - I ,I I I j~` ~ I 1 1 I E~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - I I ~ R i~ ~i I I~ ~ ~ i DD Z1J' - N . - - 7~ ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ q _ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~o . ~ Z r ~ ~ 1:1I: t .:J~~ i G . f L _ '~~j' 1 f ! I I _o r I I R I ~•I:~t ti 1' .I O - i-' J I P i I :t ~ ~ ~ I { . ~ y 1 f n - - z ~ f ! ~ I I i `;~~~'f I ~ i ~i+: c~ ~ _ L . ~ I u R I -w. - I I II n f i - _ ~ j ~ - - _ N E,~ -111 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ n I'' ' u r~ r - rn ~ rte' ~1 i' j~' r O n ~ ~ - n ~ ' i o ~ r o ~ g ~ € g v i t~ ~ ~ i - - ~ ~ - k ~ , ~ ,I~ :f ~ ~ ~ ~ V ff ~ g R 0 i ~ ~ ii G a 't-` A I! E ~ O I _ r- . D Z c R i ill ! _ - - ~ ~ C E !~~`I~i ! ~ :t. ti I - _ , : I I L V ` N _ _ ! i.,_.. r.S ~ _ I I ~ P - 7 ~ z II m f 7 ~ k ~ „ (1 j! ~ I}I i ii. 'I! i. R ~ I ~ ;I,~ , r ~ ~I. ~ P - I ~~17.' I yiy V ~ I I I f~ $ ~ ~ ~ I rrI` IIII I 8 Iln Itl V Y ~ :I I f~l ~ 4 I 5 If ! Ili ~ I a ~ 3 ~ E hilt i' I ! ~ + ...t I , - - - - - _ ~J C.r' ~ ~ U1 "L ~a a d~ g-~+ T Z rn rn r" r rn C rn n ~ I~ill'~ I Id~ ~ ~ LI i ' i z I I ; ~ ~ ~ i IIIIEII''.!{I I~ ~II I i I i II it II I'!~ !I, 1, I I ~I q' 1 a l I I Ill ,,;I~ ~gIIII;II ~ ~II ~L;, , j,, I~ III I l: I ~71 `!I° I I I~l.:.. ~i I ,I III '~I 'll III I'III :'il' ' ! I I:: ~ ..LI !!i;~ Ij 'i, .Ili li I I I jl Ili! I. III I C I '''~I' ~i~ 'I I! '~Ik~ I I ~I I ~ I I.i kl I'I Ilj I II ''r. I I ;I I ~1 I ~ If l ~I it ~ I, I ill ,I } ti~~~~,:• I I I i .:,Ili ~~-I i~ it I I'' I. I„1111 I ~'I IIE'I'llai; ;Ii.l III' ,i,l I j Ik~i I I ~I ~ I II ' i~i'jl~' III[ j ~ ~ i ,I I ~;,,I II! I~ Iilr II I II~I~~.III I III. ;IIII~III I I I' ~ i ~ ICJ I I'', I ~i. I II ~i. I~ I;, .I I" ~jl ~ II I :Ijl' la V I I I ~I''~i Ij I ~ f I I I;I ~;II !I';, ~ ~ 'I''~II;~•II I illllilll I I' ~ , I N ~n • ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ Fr ~ ~ : rn r I~ ~ ' ' I~--~ I~ ~ :,II ~ I I I :.~Il!I III I I I I!;, q;;' I I' I I ~i I ~ !!a I~ z ,',I ~r~. I'I iii ii!f'I, ~ i d ' I II II'I''I I I _ ''1~1 ~ I~ ~ II! "'j ' 11 I_ill!111 I I 11 ! ~Illif I I II III, 11 ~ ~ i ;r:.. it III I lli.:, ~I I, I ~ I i II I~~I 'I Ij •~-r-~, II III j' II I ~ II, , I' , . Irf i ~ ,I,; i!lii I ~ ;i'I ~l II IIIIIIII I ` ,il;, , ' 'I,~ ~ : I!II!Ili1 ~ II ' 11i1 III . „1; , ''Ij~l _ . 'i Ili! !I Ill;llil iilll'%III I'I;I' ~ Il I rl~~ ~ II I ~II~ ' i ,iil',,' ~I ,i~li! Ill~j p i! Ij---~~ I a.: I I'. I r,, III I ! I ~ I I II,;{I,' I 1 I~ I I I. I', i I I, I. I I I ~ ''I ',I~ ,olpl,l III' li' I Ili III III , ~ I, ill!IIII ~ ,i l'i: I i!~ iii lijlll i{Ili .I ~ I ~ I I III II , ''jr I i II I I_!Ij I'I ; ~~I I I ~d.l I E I I~, ;''~I::ili:Ilk~ ~ ('!I~ ~ I II i 'Ill I .;1111 II ; , I,:ki p I,~!!11!I ,III . . ~,I' !k;l,~ili';I I IIfI~iI1IjIIIII~I~I:j L,If!I I~i;l' ,,I,~~ I I I ~ ~ ~{j'i,allflllilPl, i 1111111' w n N (~y D ~ N Z c D O !Y ~ ~ iD r = fh O~ = rn r- = rn rn - ~ ii!'I~IfI! ~ D I a ~ ~ ~ ~ III .j" I - y ~ I L I ~I I' i I' Y'I'N ~I ~:II ~ IiII ~ I,It ~ r I JlI Illll~lll I' I 1~~41 i;l '•IE ~ ~ II I~I ~I; y~ ~i 'e ! rr I I i• r '?I it f ;li'I,IiII~ ~1 I~•Ili ~l~l~~.!I!! : ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ I I • I ~ ~ • ~ ! 11 ''il II il'°I I,I i'IIII14~ • I:I i ~.I I I I I , € I II ~i!~ g I I I I: ~ ~~~l' I r i! I r ~ I I f III :Iljl ;~i I , i. ~ II ; I:L ~ ; ';•!Ia ~ ~ ~ 1 i i I Q; ~ ,i~l~, r i Ir f _ r ~ ~ , ~I, III f , ; II I , ! I ~ I ~I ~1~ I ~ ~ ~`y ~ d Il,llj! ~I I , I IF'i~jl II I. I 14 I ~ ii iij Ii I fI II~ ~II~I~ IIEI ,i~l!,'~j l IIi' - i ,I, li.ly~~l I°~II !i!' I ~ ' iii 11 III I y l~ !I.I,~Rl I Ifs I Ylrl'ylll`II III ~ ;I 'I~~ ~I lil!~'I ;Ilf I~ IIi I„ili;yll; ~I ~ ,I i i''. I•I III I i i', I~ ' I i I''li, li'Y.I II! 'Ii r, II! :I I Y ;I{ II it ~I! .,illy;" _ ; r~ I III ,t ~j~; 11~11~ ~II~I ~ III I ;I; ,I ill' - I! I N rn v D " ~ r ~ in ~ to rn ~ i'A r ~ I'n i s! ~ I i, II i If~l I ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ I , o I ip ~ l' ~ ~ II l!!.~ - I II~IIII I fl ' iJ ! jil III I IIi Y!I ~'I; I!lilll I I IIIII---ill 'li ~I _"I I II I I y .i,r .I i I!I II!I: ICI I! II11J ~I~~ iil III I f ,E I~I ~I!yll' Illlfil lijl~l I II~1~E~i!I Iyy ~L~~ I E! l y I I ly I II i I, iEllfli i l .li I liyl yll I yl~ lL ~ ~ ~II; ~ I III ~ !I iI ~IIIIIIIIi .`~I~ III I1 1 1 I l ~ j " ~ ~ i lYl'P!Illllll lli! If~~ 'Till i ! ~ - --I C i I Illll II1~lli~ill~~~~1~ Ill~j I~I!liI!I!;I).~I~Illi~.~ f~illlll!I~~,~ ~,II i IIII I : ~ I .!I qy Ili'f IIiIIIIR+ ni! i ,ll 61!Eil!Ilfll' !ril.r llllyl w n z ~ ~ ~ n ~ r- ~ rsl ~ -i w = ~ _ ,z o Rl ~ i"31 =r ~r t~1~ art D ~ „II.~C.~I~~ ~ ~ ~~~I Ilia Z '!I '!11111 ~~ilj III z ~'~'~I f I '1 I 'I 1'' Illi 1i I III ~ I II ; II ~iil~ •I ,I ~I ~I, ~li~~ I ,II ~I ;I i~ II I ' I lil' II ; ~I. II ~ III I I I !III.'' . I~ I I I I ~ I~ I I I' I I I 1 ~ ~ ' I I I; I I t ~I I I, !I, I. 3 I - 1111 lr-_ I I - I I II II' II ' I - _ I I! ! :~:J ~ 1~ ~ ~ I - I ,II~ I i~: ~l! ~ I ~ ~7 Il•1i 1111 i1.'~'l', 1~ i 111 i i1i 1• III I I + 1 I I~ I I!I l III 11111!1 II 1 I II I! ~ II!I 1 ~ f'I~ I I ` I ll lil II I l111111I ~I ilillllll. I I I ~ ~ I~~ I ~ I III illll.~'Iilll+li~i I I ~~I iIY1lllls~IY~lil l I ~I Ii I I I 1 ',II'I',' ~ ~ ~I ~ I 1 ~ L ~~i1~11i~;~ I T~ f f+!I' ~ nlr,~~ I ,III I' 'I r-II € ~ I 1 ~ ~ 11; ! till. I~ ;1;1 I+! 11,111 ~ I I,'i~ n~ fIl ~ ~ 3j U ~ n~ rn + ~ y 1 II =r o (•11 D _ D -I O ~ Z I ~ • I ! 11 Y{v Z ~ !I IIII ~1 I"i I ~P111!II!`1 ' II ,f '11'11 I! ~I II I I f I'' ~ ! 1 ; L ~ I I ,p,1,, Il lllq 11!111+!Ipl!' I,iplllllll III I l~ ~Ii -1I: ~ I 'III II =1J I 'I ` II ~I ~ ~~'iil~~ IIPI. _r, I `I, i i I,, ~~I I' 11 i,~l, it .I, '~1 Ilf~l~ ~11j -i ICI, ~I,i I I 11,; li f' I I I!' f ~ I~ 11 I~ ___-.~1J I I I ~ 11 II II I II I:. I' 1111; .II ' 11 I~i;l~-I1,, ~I`~I II ' , ~ ' 1!111! I lll~~ ~ 111111+;Ilj'I I~I~ ; f~i~~l{: II ~ ~ ~ ~I III'l1 '~II~I~; ! I . ~ - I Y it l I I '111;1! I [ ! I~Ii1 Ike,, I x,111 Ll1;l ~il~ ~ I ii1E# ~ ~ I.I III' I Ills! I,l+ I .III I ' f I I I I !1 I 1 YII 1111!!,! 11 I ~ ~ „I~I,r . I