Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Vail Town Council Minutes, January - September / . WORK SESSION MINUTES _ Tuesday, November S, 1996 12:00 noon Library Community Room What follows constitutes actions taken by the Vail Town Council at their regular work session: 1. Council voted unanimously to contribute $5,000 toward a group effort to recognize athletic achievements. Motion by Sybill Navas with a second by Kevin Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 {Jewett absent). 2. Council moved to adopt recommendations attached hereto regarding the Vail Valley Marketing Board, the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and the Vail Commission on Special Events and Activities. Motion by Ludwig Kurz with a second by Rob Ford. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Foley against; Jewett absent). 3. Consideration of the Planning Commission meeting, October 28, 1996 and Design Review Board meeting on Octaber 16, 1996, was taken. • i i xECOM~1vnAT>lolvs To TxE vAU. Towle coulvcu, I. Continue your practice of appointing the most qualified, creative individuals to VVMB seats. II. Invest in marketing at the previously discussed levels: 100% of business license fees -Marketing fund $183,750 general fund -Marketing fund $135,000 -Special events (VVTCB} $100,000 -Visitors' Centers (VVTCB) III. Amend contract between VVTCB and Town of Vail to include the following: A. VVTCB to coordinate selection of Vail Commission on Special Events and Activities, composed of the following: 1. VVTCB Director of Special Events, Chairman 2. Village Merchants Association member who is also a TOV business license holder. 3. Lionshead Merchants Associatian member who is also a TOV business license holder. 4. Vail Tawn Council member 5. VRD staff member 6. Vail Valley Foundation staff member 7. Vail Associates staff member B. Purpose of the group is to coordinate and implement an event underwriting program to encourage the expansion of existing events and the development of new events within the Vail Town Limits, with long term marketing potential. . C. Develop within the VVTCB budgeting process an "Events Support" fund, isolated from other VVTCB funds, similar to the Marketing fund, to be no less than $60,000 to be used specifically for purposes outlined in "B" above. Dollars remaining in this fund at the end of 1997 will be carried forward for the same purposes in subsequent years. y ~ h ~ , .,y VAIL VALLEY TOURISM ~ CONVENTION BUREAU u 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMO DATE: October 31, 1996 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Frank 7ohnson, President VVTCB BiII Brice, Director of Special Events VVTCB RE: Redirection of Vail Specific Special Events Due to the questions asked of you by several merchants relative to Vail specific marketing, the VVTCB staff has met with your staff several times aver the past month to reexamine our approach to administering the special events funding received from the Vail Town Council. We believe that the most powerful tool available to focus customer attention specifically an Vail is the development of additional events and enhancement of existing events at Ford Park, Gore Creek Promenade, Bridge Street and Lianshead Mall. Our original proposal and subsequent contractual relationship with the Vail Town Government in 1994 addressed services the VVTCB would perform for the Tawn Government with respect to coordinating the activities of the VVMB, executing existing events and developing new ones, and enhancing the operation of the Visitors Centers. The feeling at that time was that this consolidation and focus would enable the town to gain mare impact for fewer dollars expended than it had through its previous, fragmented approach to funding various events individually funding the visitors centers as reactive "information" booths, and having the Marketing Board's efforts carried out without appropriate coordination with either the special events effort, the VVTCB's existing programs, or Vail Associates' summer activities. The VVTCB Board and staff is extremely pleased that through this synergistic approach, we have been able to leverage the Town's investment in these marketing activities, focus our advertising and PR campaigns to better support existing events and activities and expand the impact of both the Memorial Day Whitewater Festival and the Oktaberfest, resulting in real growth in summer revenue and sales tax. This has all been accomplished while keeping the Town's investment (not taunting the business license fee revenue) at or below 1993's spending levels. Attached are recommendations for 1997 that we believe will address your priority of increasing income into Vail, specifically during the summer months, while continuing to wisely leverage your investment with dollars from Avon, Beaver Creek and other businesses to produce maximum impact. Cenh-ai Reservations 1-800-5Z5-3875 Group Sales (970) 479 2360 Business Off ce {870} 8761000 Group Sales 1-800-775-8245 ZrAX. (970} 479-2364 FAX {870) 476-6008 WORK SESSION MINUTES Tuesday, December 17, 1996 1:40 P.M. Town of Vail Council Chambers What follows constitutes formal motions and actions taken by the Vail Town Council at their regular work session on December 17, 1996. All members were present. 1. Tom Moorhead was directed to put terms and conditions together far a lease with the Vail Alpine Garden in regard to bath their current Garden space as well as the Educational Center proposed location at the soccer field parking lot. Such documents to be held until after Council approval of the Ford Park Management Plan at their evening meeting on February 18, 1997. 2. Bob advised Council the computer replacement currently being studied by Steve Thompson and staff has a revised price tag of between $SS0,000 and $575,000. Council stated they should move forward. • • • • r ~ ; MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING January 2, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy OsterFoss TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Resident, Bill Wilto complimented Community Development Director, Susan Connelly for her participation in the Vail Host Program; and stated it was fabulous to see someone in a position such as hers out on the street greeting guests in the cold. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of December 5 and 19, 1995. B. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1996, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. C. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance amending Section 18.24.050 (B) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for eliminating any existing dwelling unit or accommodation unit or any portion thereof above the second floor in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core 11 Zone Districts. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas and seconded by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance, First Amendment to the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Steve Thompson presented the item, explaining that the change in text was prompted by an IRS review, at the request of the Town in order to obtain a determination letter from the IRS. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 1 on frst reading, with a second from Rob Ford. A vo#e was taken and passed unanimously, 8-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Cade and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Mike Mollica presented the item, explaining that the SDD which was originally approved in 1993 was now being amended by the applicant. Mike referenced a memorandum dated January 2 to Council from Community Development (attached) which listed seven conditions of approval as recommended by the PEC. Mike reviewed the seven conditions and stated the architect, Michae! Barclay, was available to answer any questions. Michael Jewett asked about trash storage and heated walkway and driveway areas. Stan Cape, representing the applicant, along with Michael Barclay, addressed those issues. Stan indicated the project would probably commence sometime in April, 1997. Paul Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996 on first reading with the conditions as recommended by the PEC, and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Stan Cope then introduced the owner of the Vail Athletic Club, Tom Rousch. 1 'Ua~l 7~,n C~.~l ~ ~ p~~p2~V6 - Y Item five on the agenda was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance for the regulation of traffic by the Town of Vail, Colorado, for the purpose of providing a system of traffic regulations consistent with state law and generally conforming to similar regulations throughout the state and the nation; adapting by reference the 1995 edition of the "Model Traffic Code far Colorado Municipalities"; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing penalties for violation thereof. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Tom Moorhead informed Counci! that the Model Traffic Code was intended to provide uniformity between the state's traffic laws and the various municipal traffic codes dealing with enforcement. He explained that the Town of Vail had previously adopted the 1974 and 1977 Model Traffic Codes and that CDOT had prepared a 1995 revised edition of the Code, reflecting recodification of the state traffic laws enacted by the State General Assembly. Town of Vail Police Chief, Greg Morrison, was on hand to answer any questions. Tom reviewed the ordinance, pointing out the "Amendments" section which included items that differed from the Model Traffic Code, namely speed limits in residential and business district areas. Tom further noted an incorrect citation under the "Repeal" section of the ordinance. Discussion centered around the 15 mph speed limits contained in the ordinance and whether ar not they should be raised. Tom stated further input from Public Works and Town Engineer, Greg Hall would be required prior to making that decision. Mire Jewett suggested tabling the item. Sybill had questions regarding roller blades and bicycles being allowed on local streets. A motion was made by Paul to Table Ordinance No. 3 until the next evening meeting, allowing time to obtain input from Public Works and Greg Hall. The motion was seconded by Mike Jewett. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item number six on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob Mct_aurin informed council members of the upcoming Council Retreat scheduled for February 27 at the Ford Room at Village Hall in Beaver Creek, and of the Public Participation Workshop set for February 13. Paul inquired as to an alternative to the Ford Room and Bab stated he would look into it. Kevin Foley expressed his gratitude for those who participated in the "Perks" program and stated the program was a big success. There being no further business, Mayor Armour moved for adjournment at approximately 8:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ,ATTEST: Holly L. NicCutcheon, Town Clerk (Names of certain individuals who gage public input may be inaccurate.) `Z 91a1 aaan C~~ E 7n~ 7~La p1/OL~96 MEMORANAUM T0: Vail Town Council FROM: Communi#y Development Department DATE: January 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Vail Athletic Club -Major Special Development District Amendment On December 11, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval of The Vail Athletic Club's proposal for a Major SDD Amendment. The vote was 6-0. The Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation #or approval carried with it the 7 conditions as recommended by staff. The Planning and Environmental Commission did, however, modify condition No.'s 4 and 5 as indicated in the bald type below. 1. That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as short-term rental units, and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be subdivided in the future #o allow far individual ownership. The condominium declarations for the Vaif Athletic Club shall be amended to include this requirement. These items shall be completed prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits far the building. 2. The applicant shall execute and have recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, the Town's Type IV Employee blousing Agreement for the four employee housing units proposed in the structure. This shall be required prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building. 3. Construction drawings, for all the site planninglstreetscape improvemen#s included as a part of #his project, shall be submitted #or the review and approval by the Town Engineer. This shall be required prior #o the Town's issuance of a Building Permi# for the project. 4. That the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board, carefully review the architectural character of the building and the details and materials which are proposed for use on the exterior of the building. That the proposed oversized shingles net be used as the exterior siding materials for the building and that the applicant use more traditional siding materials such as stucco, wood and stone. 5. That ail the deck rails and the exterior siding of the building be consistent with regard to design, material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing condominiums on the third and fourth floors of the building. 6. Tha# #his application shah conform to Chapter 18.40.120 (Time Requirements} of the Town's Municipal Code, relating to "sunset" provisions for Special Development Dis#ricts. 7. Thai all the provisions stated in Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, be met in full and be included as a part of this amendment to the SDD. Since the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the applicant has modified the Major SDD Amendment proposal to comply with the PEC's request to change the exterior materials of the structure. The applicant is now proposing an exterior that is predominantly s#ucco. The use a# wood and stone is also apparent on the exterior of the building. The applicant's revised building elevations are attached to this memorandum to the Town Cauncif. II I I I I ~ Y r Q c o_ b ~ ' y r ~ l ~ ~ ~ ' mi ~ l i i z~ ~ ~ _ _°~~~'F0~1~ ~ V ~ZN - U I ~ ' - - - _ . i F-~ 3; ilk l;l~ ~-~i~~_h ~ ii Ill(1~h:1~ j I ~ ~r-~ ~ ~ LI.9~ I .I ~ ~I ELI ~ ~ _ l..l_L!_! ' ~L__ FI, ~ ~ i - c$=x_-11.. I~-}~ il~-y _ _ - - ! ~ ~ ~ ~r;'~ .,V f l L Ll I - - :a~. 1==i r I~t-r1 1; r_~i a~ _i l_r ~-l ~ ~ L C:= ~ = EF~=1 '~ri-~~ E T:. ~ a-r ~ _ . ~ ~ - II I I I I H ~ ~f ' % ~ •s O~ _ t~ s 5 ~ ~ Q d ' - 0 ' { ~ • t IA ~ r a ~S~ "I ~b ~ a - ' -i! ~ ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ i 3~ Ys a.~. f=H - t~. ~ - v U r~ - W s §~n C II _ _ I~.. Ik~_~ ~ T~ W ~ ¦ 'L' Yl _ i~N F ~ ~ f - - ~ ~ ~k._ _ _ _ _ , - ~-=1=+ I - r F_~- - I~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~i= ~~lll; -1~ I a ; ~ . _ ~ ~ u ~ I~ 4 ~ ~ Imo; - . ~ ~ _ u.,. ' ~ 3~ , .r a ~ I ~I ~ kl I I I I k I I l,~ I I I' I • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a Major Special Development District {SDD) Amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club, 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as. follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79°46'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence 5 06°26'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land descrit~ed in Bock 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79°04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62°52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said comer being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Raad, as platted in Vail Village. Fifth Filing; thence N 27° 13'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-ot-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89°29'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40°30'00" whose chard bears N 53°40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73°55'00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85° 10'21" W a distance~o# 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer of the Mountain Fiaus Parcel; thence S 02° 18'00"Wand along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45°13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. . Applicant: ~ JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (dba Vail Athletic Ciub), represented by Stan Cape and Michael Barclay Planner: Mike Moliica I. PROJFC:T OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND On November 2, 1993, the Vail Town Council approved the establishment of Special Development District {SDD} No. 30 (the Vail Athletic Club) and the detailed development plan for the SDD. The Town Council approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 passed by a vote of 5-2. The Town Council approval occurred following approximately six-months of review, by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB}, during which four joint PEC/DRB public hearings were held. An overview of the 1993 SDD approval is 1 ~ - listed in outline form°d~ Exhibit B, attached to this memorandum. On July 24, 1995, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss possible amendments to the 1993 approved development plan. A copy of the meeting minutes are attached to this memorandum, as t=xhibit D. Subsequent to this July PEC meeting, the applicant requested that the Major SDD Amendment request be tabled, in order to allow them to make adjustments to the application. At this time, the applicant is prepared #o move forward and is requesting a Major Amendment to the 1993 approved SDD, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendments io the 199~pnroved SDD include the following: • The creation of three additional accommodation units (AU's) - for a total of 55 AU`s for the SDD. The creation of one additional dwelling unit {DU} - far a total of four DU's far the SDD. • The expansion of the spa lounge to the south, aver an existing skylight, (190 square feet of floor area). This expansion does not count as additional site coverage since there is • existing floor area beneath this space. This is the oNy proposed change to the "general footprint" of the 1993 approved structure. • The reconfiguration of the north facing, upper-level dormers. Nine gable~dormers are now proposed in this area, and are similar in architectural design to the previously approved south-facing dormers. The 1993 approval included nine "articulated" north-facing dormers. • The addition of anorth-facing 5th floor clerestory (as suggested by the PEC in Juiy}. • The south-facing dormers have been slightly modified. Additionally, the south-facing inverted dormers ("roof cutouts"), originally approved in the center-most area of the roof have been eliminated. • Althcugh the overall mass and bulk of the proposed structure has not changed to any • significant degree, an internal reconfiguration of the spaces has.occurred. The details of this reconfiguration (area calculations} are included as Exhibit A. Iri summary, the applicant is proposing an additional 1,769 square feet of gross floor area, to be located within the building envelope of the 1993 approved plans. Relating to building height, all the proposed dormers (north and south facing) will meet the 1993 approved maximum ridge height elevations. • The reconfiguration of the interior spaces has resulted in a decrease in the required number of parking space. The 1993 approval required that nine additional parking spaces be added to the existing 19-20 space garage. This SDD amendment request requires four additional parking spaces, which are proposed to be provided within the existing parking structure. • All of the proposed sits and building improvements {including streetscape improvements, landscaping, etc.} associated with the 1993 SDD approval remain intact. A detailed • 2 listing of these improvements is attached as Exhibit C. II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The proposed amendments described in Section I are considered to be Major Amendments to the 1993 approved SDD. As stated in the Zoning Code, a major amendment is defined as follows: "Major amendment means any proposal to change uses; increase gross residerttiat floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District (other than minor amendments as defined in subsection 18.40.0208)." Since the applicant's proposed amendments to the SDD involve changes to grass residential floor area, as well as density {number of units), the proposal is required to fallow the Major SDD Amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposal. The Town Council shall approve the proposal via two readings of an ordinance. ill. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA As provided for in Chapter 18.40 of the Town's Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review criteria which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed Major SDD Amendment. It should be noted that the staff analysis of the project's compliance with the SDD review criteria has only focused on the proposed amendments to the SDD, and not on the balance of the 1993 approval. The review criteria, and the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the review criteria, are as follows: 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. Due to the.nature of the SDD review process, the PEC has the authority to review and critique much of the architectural detailing for the project. The staff will be presenting colored renderings of the exterior elevations of the structure, of bath the 1993 approved drawings as well as the current 1995 SDD amendment proposal. Although there have been a variety of architectural changes made to the design of the building, the overall scale, and mass and bulk of the proposed structure will generally remain as it was approved in 1993. The primary roof forms {and building height) will also remain as approved in 1993. The following outlines the areas where there are proposed changes to the architectural design of the structure: • Upper level dormers and clerestory (fourth and fifth floors); • Third level "porches" (north elevation); • Gable roof added to east stair towerlrestaurant entry; • Restaurant fenestration (north elevation); and • Architectural character of the building (elimination of srucco & the use of woad sidinglshingles}. . 3 The 1993 apNr~val included a series of "articulated" dormers on both the north and south elevations of the structure. Staff believes that the 1893 architectural approach was very successful in that it not only broke up the large expanses of roof area, but it akso allowed for a very attractive interior room layout. Additionally, the design kept the shading on East Meadow Drive to a minimum. Although the project architect is now proposing a more traditional gable-style dormer, the staff continues to be comfortable with the design approach, and we believe this change will improve the overall "alpine character" and quality of the building. Staff~does, however, have some concerns with the proposed changes to the overall architectural character of the building.. The project architect is proposing to eliminate the previously approved stucco on the exterior of the building, and is now proposing to side the building wi#h a mixture of oversized wood shingles, board and batten siding, redwood trim and a new stone base. Anew shake shingle roof is also proposed. According to the project architect, the proposed "rustic mountain lodge" design is intended to mimic the architectural style(s) used for buildings such as the Clubhouse at Cordillera, the Old Faithful Inn (Yegawstone National Park) and the 13aathouse at Saranac Lake (New York}. Please see exhibit E for reproduced photos of these praperties._. The staff's concern is that this design style has not historically been utilized in the Vai! Village area, and although we are not opposed to a "new" design approach, we are concerned with the precedent setting nature of the issue. We encourage the PEC, and subsequently the DRB, to carefully review the proposal with regard to the overall character of the building, and specifically, to review the proposed exterior materials.. One additional detail relates to the two existing condominiums in the project {third and fourth floor locations}. These two condominium owners do not wish to modify their ' exterior deck rails to conform with the new deck rails proposed for the balance of the building. Staff believes that;~I the deck rails on the building need to be consistent and we will recommend this as a condition of approval. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. .The general uses~within the redeveloped Vail Athletic Club {VAC) are not proposed to change. Given that the applicant is generally working within the confines of the 1993 approved building envelope, the staff views the addition of three accommodation units to be a positive element of the proposal. Short-term accommodation units are strongly recommended in the Vail Village Master Plan, as discussed later in this memorandum. It should be noted that one additional dwelling unit is also proposed at this time. While the staff would prefer that this unit be an accommodation unit, we also recognize that the existing VAC has a total of nine dwelling units, and that the SDD proposal calls for the elimination of five of those units. When viewed as a whole, this is a positive step, in staff's opinion. Staff recognizes that approximately 1,769 square feet of grass additional floor area is proposed to be added as a part of this amendment application. We fee] that the project architect has been very creative in the- overall design and layout of the interior spaces, and has now maximized the full floor area potential within the 1993 established building Y envelope. V1r'c are comfortable with the request for the additional square footage. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the SDD are in compliance with this criteria. As detailed in Exhibit A, the proposed Major SDD Amendment requires an additional four parking spaces. This is a reduction from the 1993 approval, which required an additional nine parking spaces. To satisfy the Town's requirement for the four additional parking spaces, the applicant has proposed a valet parking program, and will add four parking spaces within the existing parking structure. The valet parking program was approved in 1993, and the staff continues to support the valet parking concept. As approved in 1993, the applicant is continuing to propose a loading area (a pull-out) off of East Meadow Drive. This area is intended to accommodate the short-term parking needs of the project, as well as the loading and delivery functions far the hotel and restaurant. In addition, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing trash facility currently located on the west side of the building, and to construct a trash room (with a trash compactor) within the enclosed parking garage. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and IJrban Design Plans. VAIL LAND USE PLAN The goals contained in the Vaif Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the initial review of the 1993 SDD establishment #or the Vail Athletic Club, and further, staff believes that these goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current Major SDD Amendment proposal: 1~i Vail should continue to grow in a controNed 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. ,~2 The Village and Lianshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. ~ Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,. therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable sa long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 5 4 4,.~ ~-The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) ~ Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5~. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above. VILLAGE ~~R P~ The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vafl Athletic Club carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vaif Village Master Plan. Additionally, the staff believes that the current Major SDD Amendment proposal also furthers the following Master Plan's goals and objectives: Goal -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.~ -Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. ~,osl #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. Obier~ive 2.~ -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. Qbjective 2.3 -Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Poiicv 2~.t -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. ' Qbj,~ctive 2.5 - lncourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Poiicv 2_a.1 -Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of 6 lodging properties. Objective 2.6 -Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Q~,iective 2.6.1 -Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density aver ti~at allowed by existing zoning. Goal - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. Objective 3.4 -Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #5 -Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Policv 5.1.1 -For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District, an-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policv 5.1.5 -Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground ar visually concealed parking. The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets, and furthers, the Vail Village Master Plan goals, objectives, and policies as described above. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Akthough this project is located adjacent to Gore Creek, na portion of the proposal encroaches into the fifty-foot stream setback, nor into the 100-year flaodplain. There are no other natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Although this criteria was discussed extensively during the 1993 review, staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no negative impacts on this criteria. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts on this criteria. The staff waukd encourage the PEC to review the September 30, i 993 staff memorandum to the PEC (attached as Exhibit F) for background information regarding this issue. 7 H. Functional aid aesthetic landscaping and open space in order #o optimize and preserve natural #eatures, recreation, views and functions. Again, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have na impacts on this criteria. 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 has nab proposed that the construction of this project be phased. IV. ^~TAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is far approval of the applicant's request for a Major SDD Amendment, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. We believe that the proposal meets the review criteria for Major SDD Amendment applications, as detailed in Section III of this memorandum. We also believe that the Major SDD Amendment request is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as well as the purpose section of the SDD Zone District. The staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as short-term rental units, and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The condominium declarations for the Vail Athletic Club shall be amended to include this requirement. These items shall be compileted prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building. 2. The applicant shall execute and have recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, the Town's Type IV Employee Housing Agreement for the #our employee housing units proposed in the structure. This shall be required prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building. 3. Construction drawings, for all the site planning/streetscape improvements included as a part of this project, shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Town Engineer. This shall be required prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit far the project. 4. That the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board, carefully review the architectural character of the building and the details and materials which are proposed for use on the. exterior of the building. 5. That all the deck rails an the exterior of the building be consistent with regard to design, material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing condominiums an the third and fourth floors of the building. 6. That this application sha11 conform to Chapter 18.40.120 {Time Requirements} of 8 a <y the Tc„~rn's Municipal Code, relating to "sunset" provisions for Special Development Districts. 7. That all the provisions stated in Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, be rnet in full . and be included as a part of this amendment to the SDD. F:leveryonelpecVnemoslvacamend.D11 EXHIBIT A b a~ i ~ ~ Q .ss _ ~ ~ ~ ~ II Z ~ U O ~ to p o °o 00 N ~ ono ~ W Q ~ ~D 00 C O C `D N ~ M O 1 ~A ~ ~ OMp F-~ --i ~ ~ cNr1 w r~ r~ w w rx ~ w w ~ z A ~ OHO ~--i ~ ~ N M ~--i OHO ~ N O C~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ + + + + ~ ~ ~ + o ~ ~ ~!E y o Q ~ ~ ~ ai ua ~ * ~ d ~ 3 pWQ w w w w r~ w w w w o~ ~ a. M N ~ o ~ ~ ri. ~ ~ ~ rn ~ via ~ ~ v, r., W ~ oMO ono ~ ~ oo a ~ Q M `p N N 00 ~ N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ kn M N 00 A ~ 'd ~ . OD ~ sn ~ V ~ M a ~ d w , w w w r~ w r~ w o C/~] f/~] C/~~ C~ C/Z C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ p-+ ~ ~ 00 N V~'1 O 000 ~ ~ ~D .~-r ~ ~ ~i A Rj V1 ~ N G~ Q ~ n N vl [ ~ ~ v ~ M 4.e N N ~ N ° ~ O ° 0 II II II II ~ ~ k"~ n n U v L", ~1F ° U ~ r~ d Q,° ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o A ~ W d * ~ g w d A~ v t~ c7 Ix ~ r~ ~~~H ~ ~ * W .EXHIBIT B Highlights of the19~93 SDD approval: 1. Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation units. 2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units. ' ~ 3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. 4'. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and athletic club use. 5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing ridige height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation. ' 6. increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition (554 square feet}. 7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. ' 8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public land. 9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking requirements. There . is an existing def+cit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following - manner: •2 spaces built underground below the entry •2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area •2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room •7 space added along the south side of the parking structure s,~~es in central area of ngrkina sfirur. rp ' 9 total 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim,~deck railings and a wood shake roof. 17. Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver walk along West Meadow Qrive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along Vail Valley Drive ex#ending over the Gare Creek bridge and street lamps. The pavers on the bridge will not be heated. 12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which is . .encroaching onto adjacent properties. , 13. The applicant proposes to provide onetwo-bedroom employee housing unit within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail employee housing requirements. 14. Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building. VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB EXHIBIT C E4 pages} September 17 , 1993 ~ November 11, 199 revisions in "italics" SDD - STATEMENT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Vai! Athletic Clilb (VAC} agrees as part of the implementation of our SDD proposal to make the following improvements: Landscape - East Meadow Drive / Vail Vallev Drive The VAC will extend the curb and sidewalk 6'-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'-b" along Vail Valley Drive to create a continuous, heated, rectangular concrete paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC service/parking drive an East Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge an Vail Valley Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer. We will revise the curb line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive in accordance with the "entry' feature" concepts put forward in the Vail Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At the "entry feature" and partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk. We will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drive with stone. We will incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a "pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the Mountain House. We will work with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing streetlamps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives. We will create a new car pu#I-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new hotel/health club entry. This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated. We will need consent from the town's authorities that short-term parking in the opposite direction will be permitted here. The creation of the new hotel/health club entry and car pull-off along East Meadow Drive should result minimal disruption to the existing vegetation in the landscaped area above the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the course of canstraction to protect the existing vegetation. New drainage grates will be introduced ~to handle melting runoff at East Meadow Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer. We will replace the existing wood transformer grate with a new steel grate. Landscape ~ Gore Creek 1 South Side We will work with the town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement regarding the town's property between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore Creek. We will prune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek. We will remove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as well as the existing woo utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash shed at the service/garage drive. We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive/fire lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC. We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/swimming pool Level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan. Building Ex#erior We will reside the entire outside of the building. The new siding will be a combination of oversized shingles at most of the existing stucco areas, board and batten at the new dormers and redwood trim. There will be a stone base by the new entry. We will be installing a new wood shingle roof throughout. We wilt be building onto and residing the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations. We will be extending the existing dining deck along the south side of the restaurant to connect with the ne hotel lounge. We will be constructing a new on-grade hotel/health club entry on fast Meadow Drive. We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling in an existing 28' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of the dining terrace. We will be installing new clad wood windows and doors throughout. We will be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and south sides of the existing 'structure. We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces. Interior Improvements - Health Club, The improvements to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural light into the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are. We will be adding a new floor at the upper health club level above the existing racquetball court. We will be creating a new staff locker/kounge area at the upper health club level. interior Improvements - Garage We will create a total of 4 additional on-site parking spaces for a total of 24. Interior Improvements - Hotel We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby which will connect to the new hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor. We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor. We wilt be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor. The other two employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating 5 existing DU's and adding 27 new AU's to create a new room mix of 4 DU's and 55 AU's. All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made larger. f Other imnrorrements Most of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to an attic above the fourth floor or to new mechanical rooms at the lower health club level. We will be installing a new, 6-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator within the existing shaft to serve the hotel and health club. We will be installing a new z-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator between the restaurant and the upp Ieve! of the health club to faciltate deliveries and trash removal. We will be instaAing a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the hoteVhealth club trash. The restaurant grease and trash will ,be handled in a similar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of garage. We will be adding a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of the building. The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirements. Schedule We hope to start construction in the spring of 1996 and open the renovated VAC in by~ the start of the 1996-7 ski season. EXHIi3IT I} ~ (3 PAGES) • Greg Amsden seta thank you and that this meeting was fog directional purposes for the applicant. 3. A request far a worksession for a major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic - Clubl352 East Meadow Drive and more specifically described as follows: A parts! o! land in Trac18, Val village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, cornmgnang a1 the • Norlfteast comer of said Tract B; thence N 73°46OQ" W along the Northerly ling of Vail VilEage, Frst Fling, and - ~ along the Northerly fns of said Tract 8 6228fi lest; thence S 0S°26'52" W a distance of 348.83 test to the Saanhwest wrner of that parcel of land described in Book i9i at Page 739 as recorded January 10, 7966 and filed in !Reception No. 102978 in the tweets County Records, sold comer also being'ihe True Point of Beginning; thence S 79°04'08' E and along the Southerly fine of said parse! 200.OD text to the Southeast comer thereof; thence lV 62°52'00' E and along the Northerly line of that parts! of land described fn Boak 222 a1 Page 513 as recorded in 7971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said . corner being on the Wesiedy right-of--way fine of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vap llillaga, Ffih Fling; thence N 27°73'37' W a distance of 77.37 feel along said Westerlyright-of-way fine of Gore Creek Road; thence N ~ -$9°29'22" W a distance of 7280 lest to the Northeasterly currier of that parcel of land descn'bed in Book i9t, Page i 39 as recorded January 10,1966 and filed in Reception No. i 02978 in the Eagle County Records; !hence ~ Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.SD feet radius curve io the left having a central angle of 4b°30'00" vrtEOSe chord bears N 53°40'00' W a distance of 25.96 feet is a point of langgnry; thence N 73°55'00' W and . along said tangent 165.44 feet; thence N 85°10'21 ` W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Norhwesterly comer of the - Mountain Haas parcel; thence S b2°i 800` W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Maus Parcel a distance of ~ 00.Q0 fast to the Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45°13'53" 1: a distance o! 38.70 feet to the True Paint - of Beginning, containing 30,086 square feet, more or less: • ~ Applicant nrV'I" 1987 Vail Limited Partnership,.(d/b/a Vail Athletic Club), represented ` by Stan Cope and~Michael Barclay Planner: Mince Mollica Mike Mollica asked the PEC to look at the drawings with the proposed changes. Mike reviewed the zoning analysis with the PEC and discussed the staff's identified issues. Michael Barclay, representing the Vail Athletic Club, spoke about the architectural qualities of the building and stated that the three shed dormers were only one solution to resolve~the snow problems on the roof, Mike Mollica said the shade and shadow was an issue. He explained that December 21st was the • worst scenario. ~ ' Bob Armour said that the 1993 approval was for 1640 sq.ft. of additional floor area and now i#'s 1800 sq.ft. Dalton Williams s#a#ed that he had no problems with the square footage proposed. Bob Armour asked if everyone was comfortable with the addition of t<vo accommodation units for this building. The project also includes additional square footage {from the parking garage} for a staff locker area. Bob Armour stated that they were not changing the building envelope, just adding square footage internally. Michael Barclay said they were better off leaving the roof on and using the ~nisa space to house mechanical systems. Henry Pratt said building over the skylight technically changes the building envelope. • ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minuses ' , Dalton William~'~aid modifying the dozmers changes the roof height. Dalton said he likes this architecture better, however, he wants to feel secure that the height is not changed from the 1993 ' approFvaL L . Mice Mollica suggested lowering the dormer height to the approved 1993 approved plan. F ' _ Henry Pratt asked for the history of the East Village Homeowners Association's issues. Daltom~ Williams explained why Jim Lamont opposed the original plan. . Bob Armour wanted to touch on the pazking issues. Mike lviollica su~a.u~azized. that in 193 there were 9 parking spaces required. This new proposal s•. reduces that number to 2 spaces. JeffBowen has a problem with the lack of parking. He sta#ed, "a hotel of this substance can't • reduce the number of parking spaces." • Mike Mollica said the zoning code is what sets the requirement for the number ofparking spaces and that the applicant was meeting, and exceeding, the required pazking. - Jeff Bowen said with an SDD, 9 spaces should still be required. M>'ke Mollica said the parking requirement in the zoning code was tied to the uses. Jeff Bowen said the zaning code was used as an index. Parking spaces were computed for a reasoa and he feels the 9 spaces must remain for the hotel. Bob Armour said he would like to see more spaces. Michael Barclay stated that he is providing ~ spaces when the Zoning Code only requires #vvo. Greg Amsden agrees with Staffregarding the parking. Greg ll~offet had no problem with the pazking proposal. Kevin Deaghan agreed Frith Staff. Henry Pratt also agrees with the parking numbers that Staff has come up with. Dalton Williams also agrees with the parking numbers that Staffhas come up with. Bob Arnmur asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the 1995 archi#ecture. Kevin Deighan was more comfortable with the 1993 azchitecture, bit doesn't have a problem with the revised 1995 plan, ~ • Greg Moffet said the azchitectural decisions were more appropriate for DRB review. Flanninp and F~vi~onmenta! Commission Mines Greg Amsden likes the new architectural design and said that DRB will fine tune it. Mme Mollica stated that the clerestory was recently added to the plan. Michael Barclay said the clerestory would not be covered with snow most of the time, as skylights woulclE . Henry Pratt likes the downers, but prefers the 1993 fenestration. The d~xu,ers aze too close together and he feels will present a leaking problem. He thinks the shed dormers detract from the ~ design; _ s. ~ • . Daltone 1~i11ianrs said the clerestory on the roof adds architectural interest on the roof. The i 993 cutouts iin the roof didn't work very well. Dalton. reminded everyone that the Town rules for a SDD y ~.~sixed PEC to review the architectural details. F Jeff Bowen, notwithstanding the fact that he liked the 1993 version, felt the new design was quite race. Ike has a problem with the second story restaurant expansion in that it doesn't seem to fit the rest of the building. It seems too massive. I1~ichael Barclay stated that the vegetation was thick and would cover it. Bob Amour thought the restaurant area was a little too high. . Henry Pratt pointed out that in the 1993 design there were punched windows and now there is a window wall. He felt it wasn't consistent. Dalton ~'fJilliams asked if the pavers on the Gore Creek bridge would be heated. Mike Mallica said the walkway #o the edge ofthe bridge u=ould be heated, but not the bridge .itself. H~ also said there would be brick pavers that would match the Town's Streetscape Plan. . Bob Amx~ur asked if there was anything else to give direction to the applicant to look at, Micha~l:1$azclay had one comment about the restaurant windows . Most of the facade is window or wood trim. This mirrors what is on the south side. They wanted to introduce more wood to break ug the stucco. Bob Arrruour thought the DRB would have some problems with the restaurant design and he directed ~e applicant to explore more options. 4. A Tequest for a major SDD amendment to allow for the expansion of the Glen Lyon Ofl"ice 1 ~tutilding, located at 100p S. Frontage RdJArea D, Cascade Village SDD #f4. ` ~ ~ A~plican#: Gordon Pierce for Glen Lyon Partnership Pllanner. Randy Stouder . 7eff Bowen made a motion to table this until August 14th. Plartrtinfl and Ertvironmentaf Commission i M P Barclay, ArChlteCt EXHIBIT E (6 a es 235 East Eleventh Street P $ } Ndw York, NY 10x03 212-598-O~F92 December 2, 1995 Mike Molfica Community Development Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657 re: Vail Athletic Club Dear Mike, , Enclosed are "in progress" 1 /4" elevations of the south, east and north elevations of the VAC. Hopefully these will provide sufficient detail for you and the staff to clearly understand my proposal for, the outside of the VAC. My proposal calls for replacing all of the stucco at from the first floor up with either wood shingles, wood trim {or meta! trim detailed and painted to appear to be wood) or board and batten. Most of the east, north and west elevations of the VAC as it exists today would become sheathed with ove {approximately 9" exposure} woad shingles. The new dormers will be sheathed with arough-faced boara and batten, The south side of the building, as a consequence of its almost continuous porch or windows, will be a combination of wood trim and steel painted to read as wood. The handrails on the south side of the building will be steel with 1 "square ballusters and 5" spaces. On the north side of the building, the handrails will either be steel or wood slats S 1 /2" wide with 1 /2" spaces. These will be painted or stained to appear to be the same shade of redwood. I've also enclosed photagr-aphs of some of the buildings that are similar to certain aspects of my proposal for the outside of the VAC. Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone National Park (color and black and white) - for the the massing, trim and use of oversize woad shingles Boathouse at Saranac Lake, NY . - far the trim details and the variety of different exterior woods The Clubhouse at Cordierra - as an example of a mostly wood exterior and for the combination of board and batten and wood shingle I hope this is helpful. I'If call Monday. Michael uia i-a~tntui inn is iocatea in a geothermal area with earthquake proof design. A new rear entrance of rustic ` Wyoming • Idaho • pld faithful geyser nearby. Construction of the inn was .stick style blends info the scheme of the inn, provides Montana started in 1943. design changes and additions were for handicapped accessibility, and also relieves the made until shortly before World War II. Small congestion from the service and front desk areas. A , r i. i <,at - , ,l ~ ,_:i~ _ h. e ~ a 1. ..,..,r'' rs a J L ~q'j ~ ' 4 CAF ~ li it . .•ia..._.. a :c~.:.ad, M r z , i i I t .,.:5.~. 1 L..:. ~ -~---z_~:~:..--X11'.:=--•._.' ' . - r ~ ~ t ~ - ~ 1 '•i + .1 • • j ti IL i' r ~ 1 t • ' } ~ 3 t y1~1 4i• ~ J M. i ~ • r i • ; ~ ~ ~ . _ l Z 1 4 ~j r~ ~ - ~ _ , •t i s ~ ~ 1 4 t r, ~ ~ ` _ ~ ~ r' _ t c. ti,, i 1 ~ t ~r~'1 r ' r a r,.~ i . • ay L.`~~ r I' f- I I 1~ ~ cn ar i~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ .r•~ _ ~ m c Q . ~ , ~ C ~ . i -:1 ; t- - ~ . ~ *S '+-t f ~ . ~ 1~'.~ ' j,~i I i, i ` - f ci,- 'r ~c ,3 ~ ~ i .k ~ - w...«,.. ,C-', - Y - ;4re~~ ~ - l ~ - - , ° ~ - ~F{'iA'F. ~ L . - ~ ~'C -~?ti~~ __„-ti~~ G ~ `6 r~ ..c. S;y . III I _ E t.+ yt.'. .I' .,.x ~ ~ _ . err,..§1F~ a r. i 'f _ .I . _ . _ _ _r.nvm _ ~ if J EXHIBIT F MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department D T r 1993 A E. Septembe 30, SUBJECT: R¢quest for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow • Drive. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: ~ Shelly Mello „•'2\ .`:t•\'a'R' • ':~3 ~.,,,.,.:,.v::. sX4~S iii¢>4\1\~k wk''S,',. `~`y\`i\~\?tuk:..{.;.,~, ii,'h`C.,• ~\'4!~hw14:fi `"+x •o.,,~„~~..;yry,.o.)..+:{.++~ , ~°•~:~°'~.e~ ,...y n}~k kfi~:. ~ 'y°+~`~?~.,. \ t JS ;`~:';"x.'~~~c .+,t-. e4.,r,~.,'~~ ...\,~„"A,q.. .>.\o o vv n4n:..,•?, •a x:.:e.;,~.,.»+1~7C;,'•: ;ti++.~+.n;. 3~:.,t.;:y,:t. .``•i5: k,. .q:n;:.. r,:;l +',•'~2`.~:t'~~,.:a;;.`~4;~ . \ . ~..fi~;.•,c.,., wu.:.9 ,.:e :4 ~'c.\;t~:,"•~ ,~k;,.,, . • ti.a•,...: t 'c~nvc o\..~; w11~~y..,.y ..C 6:.z£, K.~v.\» ~;^4t"~t~~~r.~.,a~vc;~'d :~`.k-ciE~aa ..\~yy `w );.y a;.. n:~,~+•~~:a~:~o-•~.~~~,:~~\~;'~~~c;~~•;.~:ti~;'.-.~~..:„ ro ~`C;d :4Q..~}•..[.ti. .~4...~J.~'l\:t;.~~'.:,..~.,,. 2-.,:.~+k'.s:'~'2a:tia;: r:,:ynng,. .r~~\~~;.. ~~.,.+~,.•::b:;t.•. 1~:'~.'.~:•~:•l.^q-~,,..~-.4~e.. ,.w ~~ti~,..':~:,~: b„, :ti i ~ 4.::<;.: ?;w. ),-Oti~~:.~'~,v.,:.~ ~~.L+.:!':\O`SC~.,,Sti. r. ..ic:2:,,titi:..... .Ut, . 4....4 J•\...., • iR \!:1:i~\'' :ti i~ v. .ri: v +1 t,.. . t r.. u,.. . e , \ , :_.~t.r:~\A,~,~t~., .v~, .x'-;,.,.;~,c::, ~~+h~:nC•~• e~ ~,c~ti:••{~~.;,ta.~,;,~,~;,\'.`~,\~.~s.~xA.,,,. ......~.xfi..a~~~r.,~~\~~ ,..-A..,.. k n ...4~4~i+!k..., w....:.....:. ~ ~:t? 1,\'{a:+v4,4+\1y,\4h On September 27, X993,"the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed a. request from the owners of the Vail Athletic Club for the establishment of a Special Development District.- This meeting was the final hearing after a series of three warksessions with the PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) beginning in June of this year. Attached please find a copy of staff's memorandum dated September 27, 1993 regarding the details of the applicant's request. The PEC voted unanimously to approve the project with Jeff Bowen making the motion and Dalton Williams seconding the motion. In addition to the staff's conditions which required the following: 1. The applicant permanently restrict the proposed 52 AUs as short-term rental units and that the 52 AUs shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The Condominium Declarations shall be amended to include this point before an occupancy permit will be released for the project. 2. The applicant provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom employee housing unit and restrict them per the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance. The employee housing restriction agreement shat! be signed and submitted to the staff far approval before a building permit will be released for the project. The proposed employee units shall provide housing for a total of 6 employees. The units shall meet the minimum standards specified in the Tawn of Vaii's Employee Housing Ordinance. Further, the PEC recommended the fallowing conditions: i. That three of the parking spaces currently being proposed on the site for the incremental increase in required parking shall be removed and the applicant shall pay into the parking fund far these three spaces ($8,000 per space , =$24,000). With this provision, the applicant shall remove the two exterior ~ parking spaces adjacent to the structure entry and this area shall be designated . 1 . r for loaning and delivery. An additional space within the interior of the parking structure shall also be removed from the proposal. This condition was due to the PEC's concern with the ability of the parking structure to function with twenty-seven interior valet parking spaces. 2. That the applicant work with the DRB to develop a landscape plan on the south side of the building between the building and the streamwalk with the goal of returning this area to a more natural condition. This work includes improving and allowing public access through the property via the existing bridge and path on the southwest corner of the building and removing the existing sod and reseeding the area with a natural grass seed mix and possibly adding additional planting. The area to be returned to a natural condition begins just south of the willows adjacent to the VAC and extends south #o the streamwalk. 3. That the DRB review the architectural details of the building further to insure that there is adequate architectural relief in the window mullions, trim, a#c. That the applicant work with the DRB to improve the signage, landscaping and general of East Meadow Drive as it intersects with Blue Cow Ghute particularly the north side of East Meadow Drive, The objective of this effort is to not only to improve the pedestrian character of this area, but to also deter unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering East Meadow Drive. c:Ishellylmemoslvac.S30 2 • MEMORANDUM TO: Punning Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department • DATE: September 27, # 993 (Corrections made September 27, 1993 are In bold.) SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and mare specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, rrsore particularly described as follows: - Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79°46'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail Viiiage, First Filing, and along the northerly line of-said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S O6°26'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 181 at Page 939 as recorded January 10, 9966 and flied in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79°04'06" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 Feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62°52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of Land described in Book 222 at Page 593 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 68.76 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-0f-way fine of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, i=ifih Filing; thence N 27°13'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way fine of Gore Creek Road; thence N B9°29'22" W a distance of 12.$0 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 199, Page 139 as recorded January 1 fl, 1986 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle • of 40°30'00" whose chord bears N 53°40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73°55`00"Wand along said tangent 966.44 feet; thence N 85°10'29" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02°98'00"Wand along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45°t3'S3" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, nsore or less. . ~ Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner: Shelly Mello ipt'xr;1 w• :W~rpr.>` •r}:.)~,+ .:?.Y`ytk~:":`k:6:fitc::\: :~..?k, ;;y,'. 4; Qi ~'fi :.~4 :s,o.,.::,tio-. . c. v.p~~. .:enti;:.,~]a +ti w. CC•~ J ..R w., x;.. .~]:v'='; +'W:t{"~\:k ~+r :>?:Ztvhi^i] h`..:]..,r v. ,+]rX^' w'T... hE:u w}. +:.15:'+::.}+Yi k{ , u. , : .?,a?.... } \...::::'<:2xc;?? n:.;C¢ox4::`:: „'.~:~L;.,::`..nw-.rnv.:.. ~ 'r. Sr w':4']].:: .k{:v~,"Cjv;]:;::,b^:\:... ,i'.:~.kr~'v]•.\`f{:.. vvn 6i:, :iitiv S v'L'\»ik::v,T~.,i':'-\.2:]]:,.;b :k.'.•'l 4• k:+`:iv3~. „tb?'r~A.:. :off\.. .4n, ,..w:.:,..::.,.;,:;"...,::..yy;: a ,.•t,.:.::., uti: vA.•. o. ...afio •r:.,;+,;. :..:a.a...: ,..;:;..,~x.c, ',i~ 4^:. 1' 2: .v h, ]hv..,w.3]'{•]:~ti?: .:•S..'i~;•Y.:::i{{hQ .ti'•:5 }:5..: rk'Yx. ;Gw:~ a..t ~ei•ir.; ~,Z,..:~:<,]..:. :.+.C?..~<-+::+S:?:ac{:.~:.: ~>:rY;.:c]]!].cy;~~i..,,,ar.~i§7..,. a`{nS.,y ....yq],i> C:, a+?Zcc ~h.,+.r::o:{a<a:ao:;;.. ~.a~ n •n,. ~4r.~G. ti ,.~ti.~{.a, r.:. :,tnur t..»:.u: ti vk:::;~i ...............:a5,:2,2..i..,+::55.h~'S7:.@ax'~c.C.~'::: h1'~:#a.~Rr4t~t:.t~r .ka::, • uZZ•:; b. '..a.i~:.k.,:.~.'„ti`;•:'...;,5rn :v:;:a];•u:i.. ~`?,a• ~v..' .;;oa... ~ ..,:L~:.. v . I. PROJFC:T +7VFRVIEW . . The applicant is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District (SDD} far the redevelopment of the Vaif Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The Vail Athletic Club is located on the southwest corner of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute. The property is currently zoned Public Accommada#ion and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to development standards. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for this property ' is to improve the appearance of the building and site as well as make it a more viable hotel. The proposal includes the deletion of six dwelling units, the addition of twenty-four 1 accommoda!con units, a decrease to the Glub Area, a decrease in total restaurant area, modifications to the elevations, a decrease in common area and the addition of nine • underground parking spaces. The four existing employee units will remain an-site and wil! be permanently deed restricted. The deviations from the Public Accommodation development standards include: 1. Density. The proposed density for the project will be 3D.33 dwelling units (DU), which wil! include 52 AUs, 3 DUs and 4 employee housing units. The existing density for the project is 24.33 DU and the allowed density for the project 17.5 DUs. The total density increase is 6 DUs over the existing development and 12.83 DUs over the allowable density. 2. GRFA. The applicant is proposing a total of 32,282 square feet of GRFA. !n addition t0 lhis, there is an overage on common area of 8,458 square feet. When this Is added to GRFA, the total GRFA #ar the project will be 40,738 square feet. The allowed GRFAICommon Area for the project is 32,924 square feet. Currently, there is 33,802 square feet of GRfA in the project which includes overages on common area. This results in a total increase of GRFA/Common Area of 6,838 square feet above the existing development and 7,814 square feet over the allowable GRFA/Common Area. 3, Common Area. The applicant is proposing to reduce common area, however, the existing project is in excess of the allowed common area by 13,541 square feet which is added to the GRFA. The proposal would exceed the allowable common area 8,456 square feet. 4. Heiaht. The existing building is 87 feet in height an the south elevation and 59 feet on the north elevation. The allowable height is 45 feet..The applicant does not propose to increase the ridge height, however, dormers will be added to both the north and south of the building where the ridge heights exceed the 45 foot height allowance. 5. Site Caveraae. Currently, the site coverage for the project is 20,796 square feet. The application will increase this to 21,350 square feet. Which includes the underground . parking and ser+rice areas. Tfie allowed site coverage for the site is 16,787 square feet. fi. .Accessory Use. The accessory use allowance is 10% of exlstina GRFA. if built as proposed, this project would have an accessory use allowance of 3,225 square feet. As proposed, the aNowalale accessory use will be 3,428 square feet. This is a reduction from the existing 4,068 square feet. However, there is still an overage of 198 square feet. 7. Setbacks. The applicant proposes to add building along the north side of the project. This will be in the area of the entry and the restaurant. The addition of the entry will result in a i foot setback from the property line. The existing parking structure has a foot setback. Qrt the south side of the projec#, the applicant is proposing an at grade terrace which will have a minimum setback of 2 feet. The required setback !n this area would be 10 feet, In addition, other areas of the building which are currently in the 2 a ~ ' setbacks will be intilled. This includes an area on the northwest comer as well as decks along the rear of the building. The dormers will also be increasing the amount of building in the setbacks. The applicant has proposed to do the following with the application:` Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation units. 2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units. 3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. 4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and athletic club use. 5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which'do not exceed the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation. 6. Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and . ~ restaurant addition (554 square feet}. 7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. 8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currenfiy encroaches onto public . land. 9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking , requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site.. The new parking is located in the following manner: •2 spaces built underground below the entry •2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area •2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room •1 space added along the south side of the parking structure •2 spaces in central area of aarkina structure 9 total 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck. railings and a woad shake roof. 3 11. Add-~treetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver walk along West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along ' Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The ` pavers on the bridgewill not be heated. 12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility. which ~ . is encroaching onto adjacent properties. 13. The applicant proposes to provide one two-bedroom employee housing unit within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail ' employee housing requirements. 14. Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building. 'For further details on the deviations please see Section lil, Zoning Analysis, of this memorandum, which specify the changes in development standards for the project. Also, please see applicant's description of proposal for specific details. U. BACKGROUND A. Project History The Vai) Athletic Club was originally developed •rn f 977 and included a mixed use building with condominiums and accommodation units as well as the health club facility and offices. Twenty on-site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received far . the remaining required spaces. Per the fife records, it appears that the variance was granted in order to facilitate the construction of hotel rooms which were needed in the community at the time, in 1977, it was felt that it would be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the sixteen parking spaces for this property due to the proximity of the Town parking structure. Parking variances far lour additional spaces have been granted far the project since that time. In addition, while variances were not granted far height or density, the project was allowed to deviate from these standards. Setback variances were granted in 1977 for the development of the project. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over a number of years .and subsequent parking variances. At the time of the project approval in i 977, it was discussed that possibly a portion of the property which ,the Vaii Athletic Club had acquired would not be counted towards their developable site area. Research has been conducted regarding this issue to determine whether or not that was actually done. The staff has found no definitive information which would indicate that this was completed. B. Previous PEC reviews On June 28, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) and the Design Review Board {DR13) to discuss the establishment of an SDD far this site. At this time, the applicant was directed to work with the existing volume of the building. !t was also indicated that it might be acceptable to expand the building adjacent to the Mountain Haus. It was stated that some expansion would be acceptable on the 4 southwest carnet and that no additional development should be proposed an the north side of the building. In addition, there was a concern with the additional shade/shadow being cast on Meadow Driye. fn regard to parking, the PEC indicated that the applicant should strive to accommodate parking on-site. On Tuesday July 13, 1993, a worksessian was held with the Town Council regarding the parking for this project. During this discussion, three of the Town Council members were open to discussing further the passibility of pay-in-lieu parking for this site. Three of the Town Council members #elt that the applicant should accommodate parking an-site due to the already significant average of parking which is not provided on the site. ~ As a result of this discussion, the applicant has provided an additional nine parking spaces on the site which will accommodate al! of the increases in parking generated by the renovation of the building. On July 26, 1983, an additional worksession was held with the PEC. ~ Please see the attached minutes which detail the discussion !!I. ZONING Air"ALYSIS - . l.isled below is the zoning analysis for the Vail Athletla Glub SDD proposal. ALLOWI=D DEV, EXf571NG PRdP05ED STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT' DEVELOPMENT Site Area: 30,486 sq. h. 30,486 aq, h. 30,486 sq, h Setbacks: 20 feet north: -0- north: -0- • south: 2' - 26' savth: 2' - 26' 0' (decks} -0-(decks} east: 12 - 20' east: 12 - 20' west: 12' west: i2' . Height: teat 67 south; 59 north 67 south; 59 north Site Coverage: 16,767 sq. h. 20,796 sq, h. 18,300 sq. h. + 5,050 sq. h. • - 21,350 sq. h, includes garage and below grade service area an east side. Landscaping: 9,145 sq. h. 9,071 eq. ft. 9,730 aq. tt. (Including at•grade decks} Units: 25 unhs per acre 28 AU + 9 DU = 23 DU(2 LO)"*"• 52 AU + 3 DU 17.5 units + 4 amp units" ~ 24.33 DU(2 Ld)" 28 DU {2 LO} + 4 amp units = 30,33 DU (2 LO) GRFA: 24,388 sq, h. (80%} 10,927 AU + 8,122 DU 24,647 AU + 6,252 DU -19,049 sq. h. ~ - 30,889 sq. h, + 1,383 + 1,312 amp units = 20,361 emp units = 32,282 + 8,456 + 13,541 common - 33,902 wmmon overage ~ 40,736 Accessory Use: 10% of ebsiing GRFA 2,036 sq, h. (Allowed) 3,228 sq. h. {allowed) Restaurant: 3,606 sq. h. 3,285 sq, h. Club Retail: 460 sa. h. 141 sa. h. Total: 4,068 sq. h. 3,426 sq. h, . Gammon Arsa: • 8,536 sq, h. {35%} . HailsMlach: 19,235 sq. h. 14,265 sq. h. Conlerence: 2.842 sa. h. 2,727 sc. h, Total Oomman: 22,077 sq, h. 16,892 sq. h. (13,541 sq. h. overage} 8,456 sq. h. kiverage) Club Area: 22,257 sq. h. 20,881 sq, h. Parking Garage: 4.131 sa. h: 5.512 sa. tt. Total Bu!lding , Square Footage:'"' 72,892 sq. ft. 78,093 aq. ft, . 6 a - Parking: 20 an-site due to 20 29 (242~a wmpact} approved variances. HallslMech: -0- -0- Cfu6 Area: -0- -0- ' Retail: 7.134 parking spacES .47 parking spaces , Conference Area: 1 t.8 parking spaces 71.29 parking spaces Restaurant: 22.5 parking spaces 20.3 parking spaces AU: 2i .8 parking spaces 44.75 parking spaces DU: 75.5 parking spaces 6.5 parking spaces Emp Units: 4 aarkina spaces 4 oarkino spaces Total Parking: 78.44 parking spaces 87.31 parking spaces (8.57 or 9 space increase) A bckoff is an accommodation unit which is attached to a dwelling unit and is no larger than one-third of the total floor area of the dwelling unit. Required by the Vail Town Council in 1977. Units are to remain on-site for the life of the building. Each employee unit counts as .333 units towards density. ~ . Includes GRFAIAccessory Retail/RestaurantlCiublCommon/Parking. There is a total increase of building area of 6,201 sq. n. The memorandums an the Vail Athletic Club condominium conversion process indicate that 24 AU and 5 DU were rental restricted and 2 DU were approved wish no restrictions. 'there are no fife retards which indicate the approve! of the 4 additional All's and 2 DU's currently on-site. IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As s#ated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows: "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: to improve the design character and quaff#y of new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and scenic .features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special , development distric#." . The staff finds that the application meets the purpose of the Special Development District. Specifically, staff finds that this application furthers the overall goals of the community as ' stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The project proposes to improve the design character, function and quality of the development and provide additional short-#erm units within the Village which is a specific goal of many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The staff as well as the PEC have identified in past reviews that this site is appropriate for increased densities as well as a variety of uses due to the location and proximity to the Village core area. In addition, employee housing and streetscape improvements are proposed which provide overall community benefi#. Staff recognizes that the existing building exceeds the ' i underlying zoning requirements, but believes that due to the site and location it is suitable to allow for such deviations as proposed in. the application given the goals and policies in the Town's Land Use_Plan~ Vail Village Master Plan and 5#reetscape Plan. Please see Section Vl for further datalls on these pans. 7 . V. SPECIAL. f1e"VELOPMENT D{STRICT CRITERIA The following nine criteria should be used to review the project. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate envfranment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to arch;#ectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. . Massinq The staff feels that this criterion is especially important to the review of this project. While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ridge height, the proposal includes adding dormers to the existing roof. The amount of building area is increased with building infills and the introduction of a series of dormers. On the south side, roof cut outs are being used for the three ' central top units. Otherwise, dormers have been added to both sides of the roof farm in order to utilize existing "dead" space. . The applicant has also modified the roof farm on both the east and west elevations of the building. The east sieve#ion terraces back from Vaii Valley Drive and additional windows have been added to this elevation. Terracing has also been accomplished on the west elevation adjacent to the Mountain. Haus. The !ow save fine which is maintained with this proposal and the landscaping of the site bring the scale of the building down to a pedestrian level. The staff ,feels that maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is seen as a major corridor to Golden Peak and the Village from the parking structure and fs also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park. The Vail Village Master Plan calls for this building to have a maximum of four . stories. From the original appiica#ion, the applicant has lowered the building to the existing ridge line In all locations and decreased the scale of the dormers in . .order to decrease. the shadow on East Meadow Drive. Sun/Shade The proposed building increases the amount of shade on East Meadow Drive by 5 feet 6 inches in the area of the entry, 24 feat 6 inches on the west wing and 5 feet on the east wing on December 21st (See attached sun/shade analysis). The impacts on shade on September 21st will be an increase of 1 foot $ inches in the. center of the building, ~ i feet on the west wing and 2 feet 6 inches on the east wing. Tha amount of shade is determined by bath the angle of the sun and the height of the ridge or save line. While the December 21st . date creates the most impact, the September 21st date is what is specified in the code for sunlshade analysis in the CCI zone district. Although this property is not in CCI, the shade impact is important to address for this pedestrian area. 8 r The greatest impact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On December 21st, the proposed building will cast shadow on#o the sidewalk. On September 21st, the increase in shade in this area will be 11 feet and does ' - not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. ft should be noted that the existing . building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in the center of the building and east wing. In the center and east wing, the additional shade cast will be 6 feet 6 inches and 8 feet accordingly as a result of the dormers. The . applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer for the pedestrian. The staff feels that the increases in shade have been minimized to a point that is acceptable. Entry On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to add a two and a haft story entry area to the building. The entry has been ,towered by two floors from the original proposal. The design of the entry minimizes the massing impacts of the element and does not add any mare shade to the street. Building Footprint The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 45Q square feet to allow far the restaurant addition and entry. Staff does not have a problem with the restaurant addition as no landscaping is removed. The en#ry will remove two to four trees which the applicant has agreed to relocate or replace. Streetscage The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements discussed in section Viil of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk along Vail Valley Drive as well as a heated paver walk along the south side of East Meadow Drive. The driveway to the garage will also be heated. In general, the project is sensitive to adjacent properties through the use of appropriate architectural design and massing as well as landscaping. B. Uses, ac#ivity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and 'workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Density The applicant proposes to increase the total density of the project by six dwelling units. This includes the removal of six dwelling units as well as the addition of twenty-four accommodation units. Of the nine dwelling units on-site, six are currently restricted per the Condominium .Conversion requirements. There are two existing units which are free market and the applicant willies to retain one additional unrestricted unit. The staff feels that because this unit is already restricted that it should remain available far short-term rental according to Section i 7.26 of the . Subdivision Regulations, Condominium Conversion, or an employee housing unit should be provided in place of the restricted unit as was allowed with the Vail Village Inn Goodes space. The staff would prefer to see an additional 9 r employee housing unit versus the restr+cted DU provided as we believe the employee tiausing unit~also provides an Important community benefit. The staff feels that the applicant's desire to increase the short term hotel units is very positive. The GRFA attributable to dwelling units has been decreased by 1,870 square feat. 13,270 square feet of f RFA will be added to increase the amount of floor area for accommodation units. The additional GRFA has , been gained by using existing dead space within the building, using common area more efficiently, and the addition of dormers and infilling portions of decks on the south side: An additional fi,201 square feet of total buiiding area will be added with this proposal. En order to insure that the AU's remain as short- term rentals, the staff requests that the owner agree to not subdivide the units in the future per the Condominium Conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations. Emplovee Housina Currently, four employee housing units are required on-site per the 1977 parking variance. The applicant proposes that these units remain an-site and has agreed to restrict these units on a permanent basis. Due to the requested increases ]n density, the applicant has indicated that there may be an increase of two to four employees on the site. Utilizing the Employee Hauling Guidelines, based on the net increase in development over the existing building, two to four additions! employees would be generated by the expansion. The staff would require that one two-bedroom ar two one-bedroom units be provided #o address the increase. The summary is as follows: a} Bar/Restaurant = 321 sq. ft. (@6.511,004 sq. ft.} = 2.08 employees (decrease} b) Retail/Service Commercial = 310 sq. ft. (@6.511,000 sq. ft.} 2.015 employees (decrease} c} DweiHng Units = 8 units (@,4/room} = 2.4 employees (decrease) d1 Accommodation Units = 24 units (a(~.75/rooml = 18 emnlovee (increasel e} Total ~ i 1 S or 12 employees •12 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 1.8 or 2 employees •12 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 3.6 or 4 employees •Assumina two emnlovees~ oer bedroom, the proposed one two-bedroom unit would be needed per the employee generation formula. The staff has used the higher multiplier due to the overages in density. The Employee Housing Report doss nvt differentiate between the provision of on•slte ar off-site housing. As 10 a ' stated above, the staff would like to see one more.employee unit provided in order to lift the use restriction an the proposed dwelling unit. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. ' Parking Parking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history . of this project, the staff found that there were a number of variances granted to this project. In December of 1977, twenty underground parking spaces were approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized that surface parking was not appropriate for this site and that these spaces would be the maximum . number that could be placed~on the site. Different arrangements have been made over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as other properties for this project to address the deficit. Variances have been granted for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's standards, there is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces far the project. There would.~be a nine space parking requirement increase as a result of this expansion. This is based on the difference between the required parking for the proposed project and the existing development. The applicant is proposing an additional nine on-site parking spaces which would bring the total on-site spaces to twenty-nine. Ali of the parking spaces would be valet. ' n valet arks ei hteen arking spaces in the existing Currently, the appl~ca t p g P structure. The parking structure will be expanded which will accommodate the nine additional spaces. Due to the tyke of use of this facility, valet parking is appropriate and has been approved for other projects of this nature. With the full-time' concierge and valet, this type of parking solution is feasible. In addition, after reviewing the function of the existing facility, it appears that the proposed plan is reasonable and, the additional nine parking spaces can be accommodated. The two existing exterior spaces will remain adjacent to the entrance to the parking structure on the west side. No additional square footage has been added to the health club and therefore the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to assess a parking requirement for this facility. Parking for a health club is determined by the PEC. There is no parking standard far this type of use. No parking requirement has been assessed in the past and the'staff is not assessing any additional parking nor do we recommend to the PEC that a parking requirement be set as na club square footage is being proposed. ' 11 i load~~a and Delivery The applicant is providing a loading #acility with a pull-out from East Meadow Drive. This will accommodate the short-term parking needs of the project. loading and Delivery will also be accommodated in this pull-off area. The applicant will no larger be allowed to unload deliveries along Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the restaurant entrance. This is a very unsafe practice which the Town daes~not encourage and will not allow to continue. fn addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing trash facility on the west side of the project. This enclosure encroaches both onto Town of Vail, land as welt as Mountain Haus property. The applicant would propose to . Include the trash facility inside the building in this same area. • D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vall Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urayan Design Plans: There are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this application: The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the land Use Plan. Please see Sections VI, VIf, and VIII of this memo for further descriptions of these plans. Many elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan encourage the development and preservation of hotel-type units. The applicant proposes to add an additional twenty-four At1's and delete six DU's for a total of. fifty-two AtJ's and three DU's. This is In keeping with the Comprehensive Plan`s objective to increase the hotel bed base. Please see Sections VI, VII and Vill that Identify the applicable goals and objectives of the plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property an which the special development district Is proposed. This site is located adjacent to Gore Creek. Na portion of this proposal encroaches into the 50 foot stream setback or the one hundred year 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 the community. Building Design While .the changes to the site plan through this proposal are limited, the building design changes significantly. In respect to the south or Gore Creek side of the building, the applicant is proposing to change the character of the elevation with the, enclosure and redesign of. balconies and to change the window design, Dormers will be added to the east and west wings and decks will cut into the roof form in the center area. The applicant has adjusted the south elevation to break up the facade per PEC and staff comments. Initially the applicant proposed to increase the height of the western section of the building. 12 Currently, the applicant proposes to maintain all of the existing ridge lines arid not increase the ridge in any area of the building. The staff feels that this is very positive. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a terrace at the lower level on the . south side of the project. This will encroach into the 20 foot setback and result to a 2 foot setback a the tightest point Pram the south property line. On the north elevation, the applicant proposes to infil! an area an the east wing adjacent to the restaurant and add an entry. In addition, balconies will be added to units on the east wing. Dormers will be added in all three areas on this elevation. This will a11ow for the additional accommodation units on the upper level. These additions will cast additiona! shade onto East Meadow Drive. Landscaping has been proposed along the retaining wall adjacent to the sidewalk on the north side of the building. This will increase the landscape buffer between the building and the public area. The staff feels that this . additional landscaping is very important to the project as it will screen the building and mitigate bath the existing and proposed impacts of the building. Building's imoact on open space and vegetation The application impacts the existing landscaping on the north side of the building. Approximately two #o four large evergreen trees will be lost as a . result of .this proposal. The applicant is proposing to landscape along the new stone retaining wall adjacent to the west wing in order to better screen the building in areas where landscaping does not currently exist. The staff feels that while it is unfortunate that these evergreen trees will possibly be lost, the addition of landscaping which includes evergreen and aspen trees along the sidewalk, will mitigate the impact of the bss of these two to four trees. The applicant will attempt to save these trees. However, in the event that they cannot be saved as a result of this construction, the applicant does agree to replace the trees. The applicant has also added a 3 foot planting step to the . east of the existing at-grade parking on the west end of~the building in order to help screen the parking. The step wilt also reduce the height of the wall in this area. On the south side of the building, the applicant will be removing an existing deck which is currently located an Town of Vail land. The applicant proposes to add additional landscaping in this area which includes shrubs and aspen trees. This will buffer the building Pram the public area. Due to the amount of land and landscaping between the streamwalk and the building, adequate buffer areas are provided. The proposed landscaping adjacent to the building will be positive and will not hinder the use of this open space area on the south side of the building. The applicant has also agreed to provide a maintenance agreement to the Town for this. open space. 13 a G. A cir~t~latian system designed for path vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circ~alatlan. The applicant proposes to add nine underground parking spaces. ay adding additional on-site parking, the vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive will be increased. While it is an objective of the Streetscape Plan to make this area more pedestrianized, it is also an objective of the Vail Village Master Plan to have properties in this area provide on-site parking. The staff feels that the provision of on-site parking to. meet the additional requirement is important given the constraints on~parking our community must deal with. The applicant does propose to install an entry and pull-off in order to facilitate the drop-off of guests and boding and delivery. The installation of a drop-off area will be a benefit to the area as currently there is no off-street drop-off area for this building and the existing situation creates congestion along East Meadow Drive as guests and trucks park in the bus lane an Meadow Drive. The Town Engineer has signed off on this solution, With this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult #o completely restrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit the number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. We also believe that by providing safe wail designed sidewalks, pedestrian circulation can also be accommodated. The applicant's proposal Improves both pedestrian and vehicular_circuiation in an area that currently must provide far both uses. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Due to the installation of the pull-off and entry and relocation of the retaining wall in this area, two to four evergreen trees could possibly be loss. The applicant has agreed to attempt to save these trees, however, it would appear that this may not be possible. The applicant does agree to replace these trees in addition to increasing the landscaping along East Meadow Drive between the , . building and the roadway adjacent to the sidewalk. Trees 1n the 3Q foot range wil! be required to replace the trees that may not be able to be relocated. The new landscaping in fron# of the building includes evergreens that range in size from 10 to 15 feet and aspens having a minimum of a 3 inch caliper. To the east of the main entry to the building, the applicant is proposing to redesign the sidewalk as well as the landscape area. This will involve cutting back the existing utility grate and bringing the landscape down to the same grade as the sidewalk. This is accomplished by moving the sidewalk and curbline to the south from the existing location. Landscaping will also be added an the south elevation in the area where the existing deck is being removed. Aspen trees and shrubs will be added to this area and the grades will be redone to match the existing topographic conditions. 14 • The landscaping on-site will be increased as a result of the removal of an above grade deck. With this application, the protect will be in compliance with the landscaping requirement for the site. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wilt maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the develapment_of the special . development district: The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased. ' Vi. VAIL LAN? EJSE PLAN, The goals contained in the VaiE Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The land Use Plans GoalslPolicies applicable to the Vaii Athletic Club redevelopment are as follows: 7.1 Vaii should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor ar~d the permanent resident. 12 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1_3 ~ The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3__._2 The Village and Lianshead areas are, the best location for hotels to . serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3~3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion #o condominiums should be discouraged. ~ . 42 Increased density in the care areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vai! Village Master Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town #eeling, mountains, natura{ setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.} 5_3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions., 15 r 5,_5~ _ The existing employee housing base should be preserved and . upgraded. Additional employee housir3g needs should be~ accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The application meets the goofs and policies in the Land Use Plan. The addition of short-term hotel rooms is a very positive addition to this area. Item 4.2 specifies chat increased densities in the core are acceptable if the character of the area is preserved. The applicant proposes to • change the character of the building by changing the materials and design details of the building. While the proposal increases the size of the building, the staff believes that the applicant has attempted to utilize the unused Interior spaces of the building to minimize the expansion an the exterior of the building. The scale and design of the building with the addition of new materials and landscaping maintain the alpine character of the development. VII. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The proposed redevelopment of the Vai! Athletic Cfub carries out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are as follows: Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the.Village in order to sustain ifs sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2 -Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and'. commercial facilities. Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist Indeistry and promote year-round economic health and viability far the Village and far the community as a whole. Objective 2.1 -Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow far development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.3 -increase the. number of residential units.available for short term overnight accommodations,. Policv 2.3.1 -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 ovemight rental. Objective 2.5 -Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. • Poiicv 2.5.1 -Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. f6 Obiective 2.6 -Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Obiective 2.6.1 -Employee ha~rsing units may be required as part of any new ar redevelopment project requesting- density over that allowed by existing zoning. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience . throughout the village. ~ , Objective 3.4 -Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and 'accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #5 -Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Poiicv 5.1.1 -For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Care I Zone District, an-site parking shalt be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Poiicv 5.1.5 -Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. , Objective 5.2 - Encoura a the use of ublic trans ortation to minimize the use 9 P p of private automobiles throughout Vail. Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the Vail Village Master . Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a height of four stories. The existing building is four stories along East Meadow Drive. The proposal builds into the existing roof to form a fifth floor. This is being accomplished by adding dormers, infilling portions of decks on the south side, and using existing common area and dead space in the . roof farm. None of the ridge lines will be increased and all of the existing save lines will be maintained. This application addresses the four Vail Village Master flan goals which are applicable to the site. It also meets the twelve policies and objectives which are applicable. Vlli, STREETSCAPE MASTER PF`AN The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic has increased because of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation of a new eastern exit portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an 13 to 1 d foot wide . heated concrete unit paver walk an the west side of Vail Valley Drive extending over the 17 i ~e bridge at Gore Creek and a 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the south side of East Meadow Drive. The applicant has included these improvements in this application with the exception that only a 6 foot walk is being proposed along Vail Valley Drive due to site .constraints and 8 feet along Meadow Drive. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff recommends approval of the application. We find that the proposal has developed into one which is in compliance with the oY~jectives and purpose section of.the SDD zone district as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements as described in the memo. The approval includes the following understandings: 1. That the owner will permanently restrict the 52 Aus as short-term rental units and that the 52 Aus steal! net be subdivided in the.future to allow for individual ownership. The condominium declarations shall be amended to include this point before any occupancy permits will be released. 2. In addition to the one. two-bedroom permanently deed restricted employee housing unit, the owner shall provide one-bedroom employee housing unit.to allow for the use restriction to be lifted from the restricted dwelling unit. The employee housing unit restriction agreements shall be signed and submitted for staff approval before a building permit will be released for the project. "one following items wii! need to be addressed further as the project develops into working drawings. 1. Engineered drawings will need to be submitted which address the streetscape improvements far review by the Town Engineer before a luilding permit is released for the project. The staff feels that the application is a positive one and does meet the goofs and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. These include the Land Use, the Village Master Plan, Zoning Code and SDD Criteria. Wa recognize that the proposal deviates from the existing zoning. We recognize that it is importan# to increase accommodation units as Weil as maintain and improve existing buildings in town in order to maintain the area. 1Ne feel that this is a site which can handle increased density and deviations from the site development standards which include height, density and site coverage while maintaining the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. c:lpeclmemoslvac.927 18 _ { ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ III .~~..~.W [1 1~ f _ . ~ V ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t i•: ~ ~ ~ i y ~~~f~ ~ ~ , IIl. ~I ice' R~ ~ i ~ i ~ , . ~ / t~ 'I 1 ~ i .:I ~ I ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ~ ~ -~--___.._t.....___.. ==II i , , Vii! ~ bra ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . f ~ ® - ~ ~ ® E ~ ~ 1 ~ I t ~ r ! x I ~ . F ~ ~ ~ _ _ - _ ® - ® ' ~ { 4. I i t. _ ~ W ~ ~ ~ . ~++.ii 1 ~ ~ ti ~ ,~o • ~ > s ~ j ~ ~ ~ I . i I „ ~ ~ ` f i ~,•i~'fK ~ ~ m__ . • ~ ~ ~ i i ! ~ ' ,~i ~ ~ * ~ r~ [ _ ° _ id ti. - _ U • I - _ j ~S ~ ~ I yen ,~~~~~y Il ~ .i..,. . _ ~ t i ' II ~ kirk. r ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ r I t 1~ ~ ~ T, ! F ~ ~ r ~ ~ I Y Y. 1.. ~ Ir~ 1 ~ i E ~ rE [ ~ j o.f Y i ~ a ~ I ~1~ e ` ~ ~ ~ as ~ ~ ~ ~ r ;I ~ ~ ~ _.::.:i~ t ~ I ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~_.Y... - , _f~l . ~........a ~ - - , - E ~ ~ ~ ~ r s I r r I I ,~i I ~ / r • ~ i ~ ~ ~ ; r y r . . ~ ~ air I~ ? . ~l , ~ ~ r ~ lj • a fir- ~ 1I + S = ~ 1 ~ ~ .i •r j ~ f rr t ~ :t?r . it ~ ~ r` i' ~:~s=s~ i ~ ~F ~ ~ ,l ~ ~ ~ 3~ r ~ + ~f i r--- ~ . { • ~ ~ ` 3 .,1 s _ ~ ~ f ~ ~ r _.w~ ` ~ # =I r~ f > , ~ ?t x • t~ j ~ ~ ~ . I l I I I I I . ~ ~ 8 b~ M ~ w i ~ ~ _ II1lf~ 1L. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~ :3 d ~ _ f ~ ~ ~ ' ~ r-- ..~C_ ~ x ~t~ ~ ~i s . ~z_ ~ s ~ ~ z C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ t ~ ~ ~ rn II f ~ ~ a a << ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 3F ~ ~ 3~ I~T r c . ~f ~ . 3t ~ ~ . S~ ~ I~ S~ ~ of . r ~ - - f~~.._ t# 1 i~ i i _..~M~='~ _ _ ~ . • ~ ~ ~ ~ i t . a . ~ k? ~ _ • u' ~ r ~f • ~ r? ~ ~ ~ x ~ I .6 u i ~~i ' rf i~ , ~ ~ Wit' 3~~ • Isl. 1 :r ~ i ;•e i r ~ ' ~ i~E . ~ ~ ~ i V J l • iI r ~ 1S3 •o ~ ~ _ ~i~ Ft 3 • ' ~l,ii i Jf i ~ --~--'`k ~a % i i v i - ; ~ st i ~ ~ ~ • .a +~F • ~ ~ I• I I I I I ~ j ' .c• • . F.~ ' ~ ils 1 r ,r . ~ ~ \ ~L_ ' i \ ; . I _--ins _ •4 ~ S r d . + ..J ~ r ` ~ \ R ~ ~ - ; ~ ~ i ~ 9 e ~w~ I ~ 1 • I • . Y .r ~ VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB September ~.l, I993 - S'TA1~~'lE[rfT C?F P RC~V~T~ i The Vail Athletic Club (VAC1 agrees as part of the implementation of our ~SDD proposal to make the following unprovements: ~2S1d5CapP -,F~st Mead{l~N T7~VP_ / V~~P.V Df1VE The VAC will extend the curb and 'sidewalk 6'-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'- 0" along Vail Valley Drive to~ create a continuous, heated, rectangular co~ncxete paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC service/parking drive on East Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge onVail Valley Drive. This will be coordinated with the town P*+~ineer. We will re~~ise the curb.line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive in accordance with the "entry feature" concepts put forward in the Vail Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At the "entry feature" and partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retauung wali to bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk. We will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drive with stone. ~We will incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a ",pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the Mountain House. We will t~-ork with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing streetla~nps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives. ' VVe will create a new car pull-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new hotel health club entry. This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated. We will need consent from the town's authorities that short-term parking in the opposite direction will be permitted here. The creation of the new hotel health club entry and car pull~ff along East Meadow Drive should result ~rit~al disruption to the existirxg vegetation in the landscaped area above the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the i course of construction to protect the existing vegetation. New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting runoff at East Meadow . Drive, This will be coordinated with the town engineer. We will replace the existing wood transformer. grate with a new steel grate. y I'.ands~ P - C'xnre .rPPk L So~.~rh ~idei ~ • 'We will work with the town to formalize an uiformal n~.aintenance agreement regarding the town's property between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore Creek e will- rune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek, W p We will remove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as • well as the existing wood utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash shed at the service/garage drive. We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive/isre lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC. We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health clublsw~n~n~ing pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan. R~~ilding Exterior We will restucco the entire outside of the building. The stucco color will be light, natural color. There will be a stone base by the new entry. We will be insta»;~g a new wood shingle roof throughout We will be introducing new wood trim and roof overhangs as shown ~on the elevations. We will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations. We will be extending the existing d1n=ng deck along.the south side of the restaurant to connect with the new hotel lounge. We will be constructing a new on grade hotel health club entry on East Meadow Drive. _ We will be extending the worth wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling in an existing 28' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of the r~Tr;rg terrace. ~ • We will be insta1~~ag new wood windows and doors throughout We will be adding new dormers~at the fourth floor level along both the north and • south sides of the existing stucture. We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces. • jar T~nrnvemenrs - ~~r C`~, ~ _ The improvements.to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capa.city of the club and adding new door's and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural Tight into• the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are. • We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the wei ht roo~ g and the existing racquetball court. ~ ~ ' We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the Iovyer health club Level. . ~~jsir Tsr~yrnv~yc - ~ • Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional ~ acs to be k . ~ C par ed on site. We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3 additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional 4 cars. The remaining ~ cars will be accomodated within the existing garage • through a valet parking arrangement ~ . ~,tPrinr T~rnv~•g~rts - ~ . We will be creatuzg a new double-high hotel lobby and loon a area which will g connect to the new hotel health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor. We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor, adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room along the south side the first floor of the building. We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor. The other two employee- units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure, We will be eliminating '6 existing DU's and adding 24 new AU's to create a new room mix of 3 DU's and 5 2 AU's. The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to 478 square feet from 424 square feet. i All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made larger. ~QYjnr T tS - ~-[ea1t~1 Club ~ , - ' The improvements to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural light into. the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are. We wilt be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room . and the existing racquetball court. ~ ~ - ' We will be treating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level. . Inrerinr Fm~rnvP~~tc - f:ara~ee ~ . Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional cars to be parked on site. We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3 additional cars and P ' inating two storage rooms to create room for an additional 4 cars. The remai*~»g 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage ~ , through a valet parking arrangement j~Linr Tr~prnvPmPnt~ - Hnr~, We will be creating a-new double-high hotel lobby and Iounge area which wilt connect to the new hotel health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor. We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor, adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room along the south side the fast floor of the building. We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor: The other two employee uzuts will be relocated. to the third floor. These units will be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure. We will be eliminating ~6 existing DU`s and adding 24 new AUTs to create a new room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU`s. . The average size of our new hotel room {AU} will be increase by 54 square feet to • 478 square feet from 424 square feet All of the existing hotel rooxas will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made larger. J Z ' ~ ~ Qther Imnrwements. Most.of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to a plenum above the existing double-high space at the restaurant or to a new mechancal room at the Tower health club level We will~be installing a new ~-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator within. the existing shaft to serve the hotel and health club. We will be installing a new ~-story, hydraulic freight elevator for "back of the house" services. The existing dumbwaiter at the west end oi' the building will remain. ' We will be installing a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the hotel/health club trash. The restaurant grease and trash will be.handled in a' similar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash strorage closet at the garage. We will be adda.ng a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of the building. The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirements. Schedule We hope to start construction in the spring of 1.994 and open the renovated VAC in by the start of the 1994-5 ski season. . ~ ~ - . i r . } request. ~ . The PEC asked staff to pass on to Council that they supported the Council's efforts to pem~anenfly restrict the six existing employee housing units. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development Districf to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Ciub, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: - - A parcel of land In Tract B, Vafl Village, First Filing, Town of Vaff, Eagle County, Ccbrado, more particularly described as follower Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Tract B; thence N 79°4S`OD" W along the Northerly line of Vafl Village, First Filing, and slang the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.Bfi feat; thence S Ofi°26'52" W a distance of 348.63 feet to the Southwest comer of that parcel of land descried fn gook 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10,-1966 and filed In Recepticn No, 102978 in the Eagle County Accords, said rimer also being the True paint of Beginning; thence S 79°44'DB" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62°52'00' E and abng the Northerly line of that parcel at fend described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 In the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66,78 feet to the Northeasterly comer of said parts! of land; said tamer being on the Westerly right-oi-way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, FtMh Fi[ing; thence N 27°13'37' W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89°29'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly comer of #hat parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January t0, 1966 and filled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve #o the left having a cenUal angle of 40`30'00' whose chord bears N 53°40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet - to a palnl of tangency; thence N 73°55'80"Wand along said tangent 186.44 feat; thence N 85°18'21" W a' distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer of the Moun#aln 1-laus Parcel; thence S 82°18'80"Wand along the easterly line of Bald Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.88 feet to the Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45°13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. ' Applicant: Vai! Athletic Cfub Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made ~ a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that her presentation would focus on the changes that had been made to the proposed Vail Athletic Club expansion since the worksession with the PEC and ©RB on June 28, 1993, Stan Cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifith flan would consist of toff bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property became a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the dwelttng units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications • that they had made were an attempt to address the concerns that the PEC members had from the June 28, i 993 worksession. ~ • Kathy l.angenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would tike them to comment on whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project. Planning and Ertivfronmental Commission July 26, 1993 4 . \ b ~ f ~ ~ -a • ~ Ml . \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i V ~40 ~ g 1 ji ' Q . ~ 1 r ~i~~ ,~i l ~ Y G O~ . + 6 r 1 ` , V _ ti / t~~ 111 ~s ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ S l ~ ~ °ti ~ , r~ , 1 ~ ~ c a. ~ 1 ~ rf i~ ~ d' ~ 7 ~ - ~ 9~ p~ ~ ~,'I ` i ~ i~` .aal ~V tY~~!~~llr. ~'w,f~..i: a I ~ ~ 7 ' r 1 ~ 4 Y ~ > t 3 g < ~ ~ n i .i a9 a t33. r + fs ! ~ a / / , 1 ~ + r y. ~ n y1 ~ l i ° i f ~ ~ / ~r'. _ i,, I f 1 I 0 ~ ' 2 ' I I. 1t ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ V ~ 4~ ~ ~ .a , ry ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~e~ o ~ ~ ai ~ ' ' ~ $ ` ~ ~ 3 ~~~t ti O ~ tl I• I r 1 L ~ 7 ~ \ 4 s ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n n~ N . ~ p o ~ ~ : o ne ` . ~ M q , ~ ~T I I`~ ~ a Y i a ~ 4 ` ~ ~ f • 4 ~ 4 / ~ ~ L y • ~ f Fi n ~ ~ ! ~ ! ~ ~E r 3 1 ~ •I I I I 11 I yl s 'i • 3 ~ . ~d~Q~~~Q ~~~o~-~~ ~tf ~ ~ ~ i~~ W , U Q ~ ~I. ~ ~ ~ ~ F~:: + kLY i:. k . - - _ _ B - - r~r ® ~ ~ II~~IUII.. :1 4JL /~p~ _ L Lf 1 1 . ~ 6611 - - E~EJ ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ® ~ r l ~ .r~ - - ~~[_ci - i~rrn~ ~ A ' r~~ ~ C~ nr , ~~~I~ / • w.... S ~ dt r I ~ 1) I I I ~ I I II I II I I _o ~~s e _ ~ a , Vii;[ - a a a a~ i I, ~ ~ . ti ~ a ~ _ - ~ a ~ c f j m i f r I S b ~ 1 3 ~ I J ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ! u k ~ ' j~ ~ ` ~ II ~ I ~ 8 ~ a ~g ~ _ ~ ` I I ~ r' ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ \ ~ r C ~ 3 ~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~ i • e r . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ I. e i ~ ~ o ~ c s j j i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ 3 < / ~ z 0 3 i i ~ ~ z -~l _ ~ o i ~ , I w r ~ ~ - ~ , ~ . ~ 3 ~4 I e ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ z ~ ~ 1II _ ~ , ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ` 2 e ~ x ~ e I - I _ , `I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Q , ' i ~ ~ ----a-~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IrT_ J..., ~ - ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i! ~ ~t~ ~ ti ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ r ; ~ s t ~ ~ ~ ~ ! <I \~i.' ~ ~ ' ! ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~r . k trr' 1 ~i ~ ~ ~5 '~~11e 1 . • • ! . U .r-+ b . s ~ a~ J .~x~. \ U ; ~ - ~ f . i -l' ~ a ~ ~k _ - i i _ U~ U ° ~ ~ ~ 0. ~ t o ~ ^ . - ~f M ~ ` ~ ~ I y jE{ 1~-~-~ ~I r t n ra r-7 ? 1 5 3 D ? ~ } ~ s ~ n ~n ! ~ K 1.1 r 1 ' .a c:.~ ~a ' a a • i s _ J iJ ~ ~ J , ' ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ L~i~ ~ ~ I,. ~ I~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - ~ ' f ~ 0 r~ j ~ ~ r~ f. I 1 ~ ~W r J Ir 7 ~ ~ ~ ! r l ~ I 1 r - ~ ~i ~ a r r ~ ~ I 1 r ~ ~ ti r ~ ~ ~ rr jn ~ ~ r lJ LJ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ i ~ ~ 3 ` 1 ? Y ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ y •'ir r~ ~ r ~ ~ I ~ ~ l N r - ~ j o 1~ ~ L__ Q l~ c ~ ! ~ ~ jl ~ I r~ _ x ~ i M ~ o rr,......,F 1 ~ r i r ~ ~ o ° t~ I j £ ~ i A ~ 1......~ ~ . i . r? I ~ I I 1 I I I ! ! s c ~n i ~ f ' 4. 0 ~ i o ~ k. O ~ au ~ 'i o ~ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ _ U e r a f[I~I~IQlFFIII` ~ p - z M J1 ~ ~ x~ Q o { ~ Q k < I ' U j ~ r. ~ 3 r ~ Q~.. f t~ ; k~ ~ ~ ' s ~ I s~ i^ i I t •:pRrl 1 j 1 a I. tt.._ ----t ~ ~ i i 2„ I e E::I c~; S J . a~ 1 . ~ ' t ~ I I ; r i ~ _ n ~ ~ ~ pp r s E ~ x~ ~ o )t-.ra. 3 3 ~ ° I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ o 'F " _ ~ d n u~.~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ l u " a ~ C ~ ~ s._...-- ~ _ ~ ~o r~~ ; ~ ~ $ O ' ~J ~ " T 3 0 1~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~T o o + ~((~I]] 0 4 c u ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ i o t g ~f Il~r I ~ . 1 I ~ . C a O 'b O iL i . ~ C O ' a N Y_. S N M ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ Q~ f ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ r = M - + r i ~ ~ ~ ~ .g a L_.I ~a~ ~ ~ r U ~ ~ ~ a I~~ - ~ ~ R ~ ~ (J ~ 0 ' a u GOQ~ L ~u --a ~ o a ~ ~ . D ~ _ F • ~ ~ o a - 4 - ~G ~ k ~ ~ 1l '~~ll.... Y U E 4. o o p ~ y ~ W P 3 ' S d a r...;~ a~,._...._ _ ~1 . . ` f f f a o ° ~ u. -o T GO . e J - F) v x ~ Q 1 ...I I~ rr+il ~'"'Iff~ ..ate, r~ _ ~ ~ u a ~1 ~ 3 ~ s s j ti J~ f P O i ' ~ i I s:.~ q x ~ - (7 ~ ~T F ~ O . ~ 'F~ I~~I U r Lo oiU ~ ' ^-ti1 : R ! ~ .f7: • O ~ 7 1 Ve aFt . oo r . v~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ p U F _ O . I 1l, I~ f ! I ~ . _N: f_ r ' ' ~ ' ~ ' j~. r p b L4 ~~I ~ , y~,. ~ ~ I~ 1 fj a ' ~,I ~ It "~~~~r Eel I I ~ . r~ yet til. ~a I t . ~ ~ ~a ' .H ~ ' ~ .r. - ~,1 o ii 1 1 '9 ~31Y 1 ~I'ir 'r! ~ ~ ~~a'l~ir'~ry~ ,1,;.,~3i . ti , ~ df: ' ~ ~ ~ M• y~,.; ~ ~,Aa }u~. ~ I • 1 r-,, 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission I FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request #or a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4). ' Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (iLC} submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for structures constructed in the PrimarylSecondary Zone District. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest. See the attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades . provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey}, and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC}, ridges A, B and C were constructed $.4 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is requesting a variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of 8.4 inches to the 33-foot height limitation. . II. ~ CRITERIA AND IFiNDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested height variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The rekationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will have little or no impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roo# ridges that exceed 33 feet are very short and the height exceedances are small. All of the ridges are 8.4 inches over the 33-#oat limitation for a length of less than 5 lineal feet. 1 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 The applicant's statement indicates that the height exceedances occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes could have been` made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the interior spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly, Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after-the-fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. 3. .The affect of the requested variance on light and air, dlstribu#ion of population, transportatlan and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safely. The requested variance will have no effect an this criteria. B. ThP Planning and Fnviranrl Commission shall make the following flndinn~ ire nrantina a vari~~ce: - - 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special prEVilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in tik the same district. _ 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public k~ ~~k health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or . ti improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i~ ~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. 2e,~~d~~ There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions o- o~,~ 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 a\ l would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of ~1 other properties in the same district. 2 1,7i ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ 8 v~ ~sn. pU S e t9-z W ec.a i.~ ~ Ove,f S ~~G~ ~ . Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC deny the reques#ed variance. Staff believes that granting the height variance would not be materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or i the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. If the PEC denies the requested variance, staff recommends that the height problem be remedied as follows: 1. The applicant shall submit a re-designed roof plan to the Design Review Board no later than January 22nd. The roof plan shall propose a modified roof design that meets the 33-foot height limitation and is architecturally harmonious with the ` remainder of the structure. 2. An ILC shall be provided by the applicant, after the roof is re-framed, to confirm the height of the re-designed roof is at or below the 33-foot height limitation. 3 -~kr~ a 1~y .W. ~.Sr. i? wit ~ ~ .-+,~`t _ .I 1. ~ a' 1Y yip ~w+~ _ S ~ ` ,1. r F' ~ ~r _ . G' y l` ~ r= R y1 ~•~s stn' ~ +-J~ ' ice" '••y ~ ~ V ~ i _.-,~~~ti' . h~ ~ ur, ~ i / ..y ~Y :1ri 1 1, ~ j ~ ~11 ~ f~• C1,~ ~ 'r r' i ~ tK ,~f\~¦rL~} ~r ~ 1 t - ` S~ 1 e~' r , E + 1 ,i ti 1 - yy M1 1~ 1'"y ~ ~ 5'hh 1' Y T S `i ~ !R i ~,+.r, < ~ I ~ ~ S r. 'c'wt ~ f "'„]Ir~lr~,fi~' :~..1, i ~ ~ i . ~r 1 N -81 yp b ~ 7~N ~ 6 ~ 3ie ~ U N '¢y y` U $ ~ ~ ~ U ~ m' - ~ ~ ~ ~ N ils~pcv Jv e4~ 4UON r a V Q I ~ y ~ ' 'ao I I ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ 0 3 ~ ~ ;i ~ ~ ~I I ~ ~ ~ i - ---~~.-iQ .I~ . --.__..~~aMas~- 1- W.. aennas~ - _ - C-- tt 1,-w Q ~ ~ r96'L$~~,OO~11o16S~ ' ~ ~ - - -u , Ir . , A _ w _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ' fig. L / ~ Q..~ ti aje. , _ ~ , _ _ 8018 ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it ~ ,N, ~ - - ~-emsor.,ua , - ' ~ - r - - ----"9 -~~SG- _ ~x ~ ~ ~ say w~< ~c~ E.~ sir ` ~ ~ , l ~n ~ m ~ ~ ~ - is ,,,L.~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~.ysr~ ~ ~~z+; f 3 ~ z' ac ,#',~1 ~ ~ i jk ~ S~ ~ ~ OS ' 6 ~ ~m~"' ~`°~,~5 # u;~~p, ~ y, ~o- ' c ~ y~ :,,x r ~ ~s~' x'" y, s.~ a ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ # ~ t~r~ 3:~. ~ ° ~ a" ~~^4~ao r~ ~ ~-0x ,~a ~ •~c a ~ ~ ~t(J f z,~ ~'~ia ~ x,s, L~'.y e 8"s ~.y ^~c~ ~ sr, a "~-J°~ y~ - ~ 1 ~a ~ a k x ,e ~ s z ~.I ~ ~,tz 1 ~ ^i ~ as {o,a * x xr ~ s c a9 w ~ e ~<x~oF~s4 ~.~y~i ~ ' ~ tr N 9E6 - ~ . - - r a~ k s~ ~ c r{ > a ez rook r r~ ro` ' ~~11 ~ J , ¦ { ,tF~ - ytu' ~ sLo- ~ 9'b ~'f.w b~f~,~' J ~ ~.}i ~F. i[ ~ h.%~ • 3~ ~ Y 'k atx'0~'~$„X ~~ux~1.,w !?A, ~s~~ ~ o ~s a~ I s . r ` ~ ti sa x ~ ~ g y ir,y, y~ ~r:,„P ~ ~ ~ „x, - t ~ ~ J~ ~ _ ~ x ~ ;z sar; c ~~-a,~ ~ ~ x fir ~ ~ N GY s ,me, ~ H T - - ' ~S'''~ 1 , _ _ _ 00 . N ~ ~ 11] ctl m p, 3 ~ i ~ W ~ 87 96. . 20.$ a 0 35.8 0 0 o•s• ca+c. wins ~ 1~ ~ 15.2 f CD zs.D o js.o 8125.5 p ~ ~ 147.1 ~ w ~ 61az.a ~ ~ Bt3a.o 2.Dx8.D p~ 7.5 STORY 8149.1 `OVERHANG MULTI-LEVEL ~ o WOO{) FRAME MOUSE / ~ ~ UNDER CONSTRUCTfON}1 6147.1 d ~ 15.4 + 1339 WESTMAVEN CIRCLE ¢.D ~ 16.7 ~ ~ rn v d ~ 0 D.5 ~ X8149.0 ~ v Cn 15.0 c.~ . "8150. O zo.D j L~~ f 8146.9 x 8149.0 r 5 4.5 0.7' CONCRETE 2 RETAINING WALL N ~ 141.5 Nj rn o UTILITY & tD ? f ~ DRAINAGE ' D EASEMENT tf 0~ LOT 23 ~ ~ D.5 ~ 75 AcR~s ~ . 1 j ~ J a vy W N ~ 8 o ,s.D cs J Y ~1 ~ 4 j 0 a 1, ~ i 1h r - HOVEY RESIDENCE VARIANCE ~ ~ Lot 23, Glen Lyon .Subdivision 1339 Westhaven Circle Vail, Colorado' The variance requested is a height variance as it relates to the thirty-three foot (33'-b") maximum building height for structures in a duplex zone district. The subject project is a single family residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle, Glen Lyon Subdivision, SDD No. 4, Area C,~Glen Lyon Duplex Lots. The current Improvement Location Certificate (ILC} by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc., Job No. 2242, dated 11-29--95, indicates minimal encroachment in three roof areas: (Also see attachments.) r A. 7" to 0" for a lineal distance of .4'-0" at the third floor, north bedroom north wall dormer. (8147.1 per ILC vs. interpolated 8113.5 per original topographical survey by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd., Project No. 948565, dated 11-4-94.) B. 7" to 0" for a Lineal distance of 3'-0" at the third floor hip ridge, north bedroom. (8149:1 ILC vs. iterpolated 8115.5.} G, 13" to 0" for a lineal distance of 5'-d" at the third floor highest roof ridge. .(8150.6 ILG vs.:interpalated 8116.5.) Design Review Phase ridge line elevations were "best estimate" vertical dimen- sions prior to structural engineering and construction phase detailing. The ridge elevations were related to an enlarged, interpolated topographical survey provided by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd. The third Haar, north bedroom hip roof was incorporated into the design to bring the roof into compliance at~~DRB stage. The applicant acknowledges the ILC encroachment and has attempted to determine areas where the discrepancy occured. In addition to slight dimensional. variances which may commonly occur during in=field construction, two areas of height in- crease have been determined: ~ - . 1. Increase in depth of floor framing members/plywood subfloor to support radiant hearing topping slab. (Pram 10" to 12 5/8".} This dimension applied to two floats results in a total increase of S 1/4". 2. Increase in roof truss top chord vertical height per truss manufacturer's shop drawings. This occurred during the construction phase and was required to maintain typical fascia depth/detailing throughout the pro- ject. (From 6 1/I6" assumed 2x6 to 9 13/16".} This results~in an in- crease of 3 3/4". The above two areas result in a total increase of 9" to~the height of the buildin~ Page : l .of 2 r The project is located in a Debris Flow Hazard done and the owner requested that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. The design "tucks" the south facing, up-hill side of the residence and mitigation walls into the site to create as little site disturbance as possible and yet maintain the mitigation standards .of the consulting geologist and the views and natural light requests of the owner. Preserving the south portion of the site and saving as many trees as possible were requirements of the DRB at approval stages. Had potential minor dimensional increases been deemed to pose a problem, the lower level-slab elevation could have been lowered a foot or-so, thus lowering the total height of the structure as it relates to original natural grade. However, this most likely would have resulted in higher exposed mitigation walls on the south side of the structure and/or increased regrading on the up- k,x11 side with resultant loss of trees. It is the applicant's wish to request:a height variance in order to maintain the existing, DRB approved design integrity and detailing of the residence. We feel that maintaining the current aesthetics of the building out-weigh the minor encroachments. The encroachments were in no way intentional, nor do they . benefit the owner or detract from neighboring properties. APPLICATION ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED: I. The subject project is a single family residence located in an area of large duplex residences.. The structure already presentis less of~ a visual impact than adjacent properties and the requested variance would not have detrimental affects on any existing or potential uses and structures. (See attached photos.) 2. The granting of the variance would not constitute special priviledge, since similar residential issues and encroachments have previously been granted variances in. order to maintain the best interests Hof a . particular project and adjacent areas. ~ , 3. and 4. ~ The granting of the variance will have no affect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facil- h ies, utilities, public safety and Vail's Comprehensive Plan. - Page 2 of 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 8, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS, PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Dalton Williams George Ruther Kevin Deighan - .Randy Stouder Henry Pratt ~ Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez Pubfia Hearing 2:00 p.m, The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. ' Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow fora 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Raad, Unit 51Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy 5tauder Henry Pratt moved to table item Na. 1, Stem No. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. .2. A request for a building height variance to allow far a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven CirclelLot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant; Bill Anderson representing Mr, and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance criteria carefully and found that justification far granting the variance was lacking. According to the applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of • special privilege. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 7anuary 8, 1996 ~ a Y Bill Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vail where a house was 3' aver the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was an the PEC at the time. He stated tha# the surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made on the Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both were honest mistakes. He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No~one came forward. Henry Pratt said although the impact is negligible and the neighbors don't care, he feels handcuffed since the Findings are not met. Greg Arnsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of the criteria and findings. Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an ILC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural elements above the #oundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. Dave Peel said they went from a 10"floor to 11 718". He also explained how the roof structure was modified slightly, resulting in additional height. Greg Moffet said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a variance. Bill Anderson mentioned that for on-site construction mistakes that the Board has granted variances in the past. Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was far the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The. PEC did grant that variance. Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Town. Mike Mollica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judged individually. Mike Mallica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being .granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history Planning and Environmeptal Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 ~ 2 r for being on target with heights and setbacks: We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-Q, Mike Mallica added for the record that the applicant has i Q days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEG uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a TCO 13y posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that " ` the work could be comple#ed prior to March 1. Mike Mallica said he would be comfortable wi#h bonding. 3. A request f wall height variances and a driveway grade variance r the Koenig residence located at 79 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vaii Potato Patch Su ivision. Applicant: Er Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: Geo a Ruther George Ruther gave an overvi and quickly went thrau the items the applicant changed since the December 11th meeting. Public orks suggested a 2' ravel shoulder to be replaced with a guardrail since the sho~rlder could not maint ' a safe slope t he street. Staff does not feel there would be any impacts if the variances are granted. toff does feel the driveway would have any negative impacts either. Staff.has the greatest ncern h item 2 of the Criteria. The hardship is self imposed by the Contractor. Staff is recommendin e ' 1 because of a grant of special,privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memarandu ,should the PEC grant the request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Constr tion a representing the Koenigs and Dowlings, owners. He requested the variance be granted b ed on the ndscape changes to save the trees. One other hardship shawl the surveyor made mistake and i wasn't discovered until after.the fact. This is the first time he heard about the guar ,rail. The utilities r where the guardrail is proposed and he would prefer plantings, rather than er fng a guardrail. Greg Mo#fet asked for publi input. Henry Pratt said agai racticality should rule ra#her than the le er of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a serious issue for th own. The driveway can be remedied. Pro ' ing a variance wouldn't do anything for the walls. Th a has been an effort to remedy the landscape. my is not optimistic about the wall variance, how er. Greg Am en said preservation of tress is not justification for granting the ariance. There are some site res aints for the wall) height variance. The driveway is a grant of specia rivilege. Planning and l;nvirotunantal Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 3 viu~ v vv .vu r Town of Pail Department of Community T]evelopment 7S Sauth Frontage koad West Vail, CO 81657 Fax: ~479~2452 Attention: Bandy Stouder - Re~?ise~ 77ear Randy, As a resplt of our denial by PfwC, far a height variance ac 1339 wcsthave~t Circ]ell.at 23, then LyOri Subdivision (SDD li4)_ ii am requesting a work sessicm wjth the T'owc~ Council at the elrrliest time a~ratlable. Again, ear inte,yt is to have the opport~rnity to present and discuss the height problem in an infonndt meeting. We feel this wrould €~e a much better ~ttmosphore fur a gtve and take Conversation. i~Ve have also asked Intcrmauntain Engjneering to review their original topo survey, just as a triple oltcck, Si ~Y, II~ $ill Anderson Project 1VIa~g~ . deck and Associates, Inc. BAldi i, 7"OWN OF PAIL 7S South Frontage Road Office o, f the Town Ma~~ager Yail, Colorado 81657 ~70-479-2105/Fax 970-479-21 S7 . MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager RE: Town Manager's' Report DT: January 16, 1996 Community Task Force Update The TOV/VA Community Task Force continues to meet and make progress an several fronts. As we have discussed, the Vail Hast Program was very successful and the Task Force is l~ preparing to implement this program again over Presidents Weekend. The Task Force is also working on a long term effort to help ensure the economic and social viability of the community. This effort will examine trends and work to define a vision far Vail's future. It will also recommend a number action plans to help implement the plan's desired outcomes. It is, in effect,. a strategic plan for the community. We {the Mayor and I} will keep you advised on this status of this effort. C'alaracln I.e~islature The 60th Colorado General Assembly convened on January 10th. The session will meet for the next 120 days and is scheduled to adjourn pn May Sth. As always the legislators will be considering a number of bills that may affect the Town of Vail and other Colorado municipalities. The Colorado Municipal League will be representing our interest and lobbying against bills which would adversely affect local governments. Although there are many bills to be considered, key legislation include bills on Takings, Transportation, Finance and Rights of Way access. Sam Manet has summarized a!1 the important legislation in the December CML Newsletter.' I believe each of you received a copy last week. If you need additional copies, please let me know. For your information I have attached copies of several bills as well as a copy of an analysis prepared by the City of Aspen. i~~ RECYCLED PAPER Privatization of Federal Lands Last year, as part of the effort to balance the Federal Budget, the Congress included a proposal to sell parts of Forest Service lands currently Ieased to ski area operators. As a response to this proposal, the Town of Vail in conjunction with the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) hired a Washington lobbyist to help defeat this measure. According to Liz Robbins, who is representing CAST, it appears that this issue is currently dead. Although Congress and the President have yet to agree on a budget for the fiscal year (which began Oct 1), Liz does not think there is any chance of this being included at the last minute. Indeed, several key backers have indicated a willingness to exclude this from any budget this year. However it is very likely that this proposal will be back in the future. Because this proposal would raise revenue and appeals to the republic philosophy of smaller government, Liz expects that we will be facing this issue again. The Cast Executive Board will meet later this month to determine haw CAST should proceed in the future. The Board will make a recommendation to the full membership at the March CAST meeting. about We have prepared some statistics on the performance of the roundabout (already at your seats}. The analysis shows the new intersection has done well in reducing delays and traffic congestion fox the past six months. The roundabout handled an estimated 15 percent more traffic during Christmas week 1995, the number of accidents (five) was below the average number of accidents {seven) at the site over the past three years. That compares to 275 other accidents throughout town during the fourth quarter of 1995. Although we're extremely optimistic about the roundabout's operation, we believe driver education remains a key component in the roundabout's continued success. f: MEMOru~nrovM DATE : December 19 , 1995 Txri CITY oz; AsrEly TO: Mayor and Members of Council CIS ATTOtuvEY's OFFICE FROM: John Worcester, City Attorney _ RE: State "Takings" Legislation , Councilmember Richards has asked for my comments regarding "takings" legislation in the state legislature this past session and the forthcoming 1996 legislative session. As you know, several "takings" or "private property rights" bills have been defeated in Colorado over the, last several years. It is likely that a number of proposed bills will be introduced in the legislature this coming year. Attached hereto, for example, is a copy of a draft bill which will be carried by the President of the Senate, Sen. Tom Norton (R, Greeley). I'm told this bill will have the support of a wide range of groups including the Colorado Association of Commerce and industry, and the Colorado Realtors Association. The concept of requiring government to pay for pr~.vate property taken for public use is not new. The Fifth Amendment to~the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, as follows: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Bill of Rights found in the Colorado Constitution contains a similar guarantee (See Sec. II, Art. i5}. Nevertheless, takings bills have been adopted in 19 states and the U.S. Congress has had similar legislation under consideration in the past several years. Some legislation has been the result of legitimate concerns regarding the rights of property owners. Much of the legislation, however, is really anti-regulation legislation clothed in the fabric of private property rights. Because federal courts and the courts in Colorado have recognized and applied existing constitutional protections for private property owners, all takings legislation in our state should be viewed with skepticism as they will merely add onerous financial burdens on communities exercising their normal police power to , regulate private property for public good. . The general legalfprinciple is that a reg~ixlation to avoid being considered a taking must satisfy two requirements: (1} it must "substantially advance legitimate state interests", and (2) it must not deny an owner all "economically viable use of his land." See, Aains v. Tiburon, 447 U.S.-255 (1980} {a U.S. Supreme Court y r Memorandum to Mayor and Caty Council December 19, 1995 Page 2 case); and Baum v. City and County of Denver, 363 P.2d 688 {Colo. 1961) {a Colorado Supreme Court case). Traditionally, a broad range of governmental purposes constitute "legitimate state interests" maintaining residential zoning, preserving land- marks, and protecting the environment. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coasts,]. Commission, 1,07 S.Ct. 3141, required that there be a very close f'it or "nexus" between the means chosen by the state {i.e. the particular land use regula- tion selected) and the governmental objective being pursued. Even a compelling state interest wall be to no avail if the means chosen are not quite tailored to advance that interest. The latest addition to the takings equation is the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dolan v Citv of Tiaard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). Tn this case the Supreme Court held that not only must , there be an essential nexus between the means chosen by the state and the objective being pursued, but there must be "rough propor- tion~lity" between the means and objective. In other words, "whether the degree of exactions demanded ...,bear the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed develop-- ment." This is the state of the Iaw as enunciated by the courts an this area. Tt offers property owners the protection they need from ' arbitrary governmental action, yet allows the government to enact reasonable land use regulations pursuant to its traditional. police powers. Any alteration of this carefully crafted balanc- ing of private property rights and governmental police powers by the state legislature is extremely dangerous. It is not hyperbo- le to suggest that legislative meddling, could destroy the quality of life in communities throughout the state and bankrupt local 'and state governments. A quick analysis of Sen. Narton's.pro- posed bill reveals a number of serious Concerns. The bill's summary provides the basis for the concerns. The bill requires local governments to support the existence of the essential nexus between the burden and a legitimate govern- ment interest and to show that the burden is roughly proportional to the property owner's proposed use of the property. This requirement alone will add an immense financial burden upon municipalities and encourage court challenges to most land use regulations, and regulations which might affect the value of ~ private property. Traditionally, the courts in Color~.do; as in all states, have held that there is a presumption of validity and regularity that attaches to and supports the official acts of public officials and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts are to presume that official acts have been r Memorandum to Mayor and City Council December 19, 1995 Page 3 ' properly discharged. City of Colorado 5nrinc~s v. District Court, 519 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1974j. The burden has always been on the party challenging official action to overcome such presumptions of validity and regularity. Fedder v. McCurdv., 768 P.2d 711 .(Colo. App. 1988). There are strong public policy considerations for these principles. The bill would alter these presumptions by shifting the burden upon municipalities to defend all of their actions in enacting land use regulations. Rohe bill gives property owners the right to claim compensation for anv devaluation of their property resulting from a violation of the act. Enforcement of this provision is through arbitrata.on and court proceedings. Every regulation that limits the use of property has some theoretical impact on the 'value of property. If a municipality is unable to carry its burden of proof in showing an essential nexus and rough proportionality, it gill be open to damage claims. Just defending such claims will be an administrative nightmare and very expensive in staff time and court resources. Property owners pay nothing to government for the gains they enjoy when their property benefits from land use regulation. This phenomenon is quite evident in our c~.~u«unity. Dawnzoning may have an initial negative impact on the value of land, but over a reasonably short period of time, the value of property increases at exponential rates. The question thus becomes, why should private property owners be compensated far any diminution in value of their property even though they may benefit in the long run. Should this bill, or~one similar to it pass, municipalities will simply not be able to afford to take the risk of having to pay compensation to everyone who claims that their property values have been reduced. The social impact of this concern is.immea- surable as social ills will simply go unchecked for fear that the enactment of responsible legislation will be too risky. The Norton bill is particularly onerous in this respect. Ina.-- tially, the bill refers to the "adoption" of new legislation; than it appears to cover the "adoption or enforcement" of anv regulation; then it mentions the "implementation" of any regula- tion. Tf the bill passes as written, the sanctions and procedur- al requirements would apply to virtually every section of our f ~ municipal code which allegedly causes anyone's private property ~ values to be diminished! Does not our smoking ordinance affect the value of property? And haw about our sign, fireplace, noise abatement, tree protection, and liquor licensing ordinances? Every time one of these ordinances was enforced, the City would • t 7' Memorandum to Mayor and City Council December 19, 1995 - Page 4 ' be open to a damage claim from the property owner claiming a diminution in the value of his or her property. There are legitimate concerns about the power of government to .take private property without just compensation. However, placing at risk the police power regulations that make a complex and relatively compact society livable will impose incredible penalties on all who live in communities. Bath the federal and state courts have developed the proper balancing tests to protect those property owners that have legitimate claims against over- - reaching governmental regulations. Attached hereto is a generic resolution prepared by the Colorado Municipal League for adoption by municipalities desiring to express their opposition to "takings" legislation. Upon Coun- cil's direction I would be happy to tailor such a resolution for adoption by the Aspen City Council. If you have any questions regarding the above, please let me know. JPW/mc Attachment jw1219.1 cc: City Manager Community Development Director DR.A,~.l. . 1! 2120/95 i • LLS N0. 96-0311.81 0~ SENATE BILL 96- BY SENATOR Norton ' ~A BILL FOR AN ACT 101 CONCERNING REGULATORY IMPAIRMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHT5. Bi]l Summary . "Property Rights" (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced . and does not necessarily reflect any amendments which may be subsequently adapted.} . Declares that the right to own and use private property is fundamental, citing constitutiana7 provisions and disapproving the placement of burdens on individual property owners to achieve general public purposes. Declares the issue a matter of statewide concern. Prohibits local governments from adopting laws or policies that burden the use of private property except when there is an established t}~reat to the public health or safety ar when: • there is an essential nexus between the burden and a legitimate local government interest, and • the burden is roughly proportional to the property owner's proposed use of the property. Requires a local government to support the existence of the two conditions above by substantial evidence. Defines the adoption or enforcement of any local Saw or requirement without meeting the required conditions as an action beyond the jurisdiction of the official taking such action. Gives property owners the right to claim compensation for any devaluation of their property resulting from violation of ' the act. Provides for enforcement through arbitration and court proceedings. Places the burden of proof an the loco] gavernmenta] entity invo]ved in any such enforcement action. - A11ows a property owner to waive such relief, but requires that a waiver be written and recorded in the land records before it is enforceable against a subsequent owner of the property. 1 Be rt enacted by•the General Assembly of the State of Colorado: 2 SECTION 1. Artic]e 20 of title 29, Colorado Revised 3 Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol., as amended, is amended BY THE ' ~ ~ j • , i~; 1 Z9-20-203. Regeiatory enactments. {1) NO LOCAL 2 GOVERNMENT SHALL ADOPT A LOCAL LA~1, REGULATION, POLICY, OR 3 REQUIREMENT•THAT IMPAIRS AN EXISTING USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN 4 THE ABSENCE OF AN ESTABLISHED THREAT TO THE Pt18LIC HEALTH OR S SAFETY OR THAT REQUIRES THE OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, AS A 5 CONDITION OF PERMITTING A USE ON SUCH PROPERTY, TQ DEDICATE ANY 7 PORTION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC, TO PAY ANY MONEY TO THE B LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE, OR TO 9 EXPEND ANY MONEY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH USE UNLESS THERE IS AN 10 ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXACTION AND A LEGITIMATE LOCAL lI GOVERNMENT INTEREST ANO THE EXACTION iS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO 12 THE USE BEING PROPOSED. 1~ (2) ANY SUCH IMPAIRMENT OR EXACTION SHALL BE SUPPORTER 14 BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS INTEREST AND THE MEANS USED TO CALCULATE THE'i MPACT OF THE USE. ~ 16 {3) ADOPTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, 17 POLICY, OR REQUIREMENT THAT VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS 18 5ECTION RFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE,OF THIS PART 2 BY ANY LOCAL _ i9 OFFICIAL SHALL CONSTITUTE ACTION BEYOND SUCH OFFICIAL'S 2Q JURISDICTION. 21 29-20-Z04. Regulatory .impairment~of property rights - 22 existing provisions. {i) ANY OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 23 AFFECTED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, 24 OR REQUIREMENT THAT REGULATES THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN ANY 2S WAY WHO BELIEVES THAT SUCH :+MPLEMENTATiQN FAILS TO ADVANCE A • 26 LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR IS NOT ROUGHLY -3- ~ ` f' r . ~ 1 C.R.S., OR A CLAIM THAT THE AWARD WAS BASED ON A WRONGLY DECIDED 2 QUESTION OF LAW. ~ 3 (3) (a) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER AGGRIEVED BY 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF A LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, OR 5 REQUIREMENT REGULATING THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN ANY WAY MAY 6 SEEK RELIEF IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE SUCH PROPERTY I5 1 LOCATED. IN ANY SUCH ACTION, WHEN THE OWNER ESTABLISHES THAT 8 .USE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DIMINISHED OR THAT AN 9 EXACTION HAS BEEN MAaE THAT REQUIRES DEDICATION OF ANY PGRTION . lO OF SUCH PROPERTY OR MANDATES A PAYMENT OR EXPENDITURE BY THE I1 QwNER, THE BURDEN SHALL BE UPON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO 12 ESTABLISH BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EXACTION ADVANCES A 13 LEGITIMATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND THAT THE EXACTION IS i4 ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT OF THE USE. THE COURT SHALL 15 NOT BE LIMITED TO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE 16 PROCEEDING. 17 (b) IF 7HE EXACTION ADVANCES A LEGITIMATE LOCAL 18 GOVERNMENT INTEREST OTHER THAN AVERTING A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC •~19 HEALTH OR SAFETY BUT DEVALUES THE PROPERTY, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ZO Si~ALL PAY THE OWNER THE AMOUNT OF DEVALUATION DETERMINED IN 7HE 2I PROCEEDING AND CONFIRMED BY THE COURT. IF THE EXACTION AVERTS 22 A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BUT EXCESSIVELY BURDENS 23 THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE COURT SHALL ORDER IT REVISED TO REQUIRE 24 A PROPORTIONATE BURDEN. IF THE EXACTION IS MORE THAN ROUGHLY Z5 PROPORTIONAL TO THE USE'S IMPACT, THE COURT SHALL 4P.DER IT 1 26 REVISED TO REFLECT A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. -5- ' ~ ~ener~c M»n,i,ci_na) Rp~n3ution in Opposition to "Takings" Legislation, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE (TOWN BOARD) (CITY COUNCIL} OF THE (TOWN) (CITY} OF EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT "TAKINGS" LEGISLATION IN GENERAL AND URGING ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO OPPOSE (IDENTIFY PARTICULAR BILL} WHEREAS, both the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress are considering legislation which may dramatically expand the circumstances under which some property owners can claim compensation from the government to the extent government regulations affect private property values; and WHEREAS, all government entities, including municipalities, are already constrained by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions from . taking private property for public use without just compensation; and WHEREAS, the courts have long held that government regulations which go "too far" may constitute a taking of private property and recent decisions by the U.S. supreme court have provided additional protection under the constitution for private property rights; and WHEREAS, municipalities, in their traditional role as land use regulators, have a special understanding of the fact that any government action may be alleged to have both positive and negative effects on a myriad of property interests; including those associated with the regulated property, neighboring properties, and the community at large, and WHEREAS, so called "takings" legislation tends to bestow new • compensation rights upon some property owners to the potential • detriment off' other property owners, while undermining the effectiveness of even the most reasonable regulations which are designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, takings legislation promises to substantially increase the cast of government by mandating redundant, bureaucratic review processes upon government agencies and inviting a flood of new claims for compensation which have no basis whatsoever under the constitution, and WHEREAS, even takings legislation which does not prESently---~ ~ include within its scope actions by municipalities is nevertheless objectionable because: A) Proponents of such legislation have vowed, once the precedent is established, to include municipalities in future takings legislation; ~ r. -y B} Any legislative redefinition of what constitutes a regulatory taking of private property may in the future be imputed by the courts to municipalities; C) Municipalities work in partnership with state and federal agencies to protect the public health, safety and general welfare in local c~.,......unities, and any unreasonable impairment of the ability of those agencies to carry out their regulatory function will inure to the detriment o.f citizens living within municipalities. •NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE (CITY COUNCIL) (TOWN BOARD) OF THE (CITY) (TOWN) OF 1. The (city Council} (Town Board) opposes any and all legislation by the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. congress which purports to codify constitutional "takings" principles to the extent that such legislation redefines what a regulatory taking is and the types of claims for which c.,.,.~,ensation must be paid, favors the interests of some property owners over others, increases the cast of government, or impairs the effectiveness of reasonable laws and regulations which protect the public health, safety and general welfare . 2. The (City Council) (Yawn Board) respectfully urges its elected representatives to vote against (cite specific legislation) 3. The (City} (Town) clerk is hereby directed to forward this resolution to the (City's} (Town's) elected representatives in the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress and to otherwise disseminate copies of this resolution to the public at large as appropriate. • - • 1 Prepared by CML David Broadwell, Staff Attorney March 10,~ 1995 t RESOLUTION NO. iD ' SERIES OF 1995 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL DI= TWE TOWN OF VAlL EXPRtESSING CONCERN ABOUT "TAKINGS" LEGISLATION IN GENERAL. AND URGING ELECTED REpRES1=NTATIVES TO OPPOSE SB t36, H8 t17t ANp SIMILAR LEGISLATION. . WHEREAS, both the Colorado Genera! Assembly and the U.S, Congress are considering legislation which may dramatically expand the circumstances under which some praperty owners can claim compensation from the government to the extent government regulations affect their property values; and WHEREAS, all government entities, including municipall~es, are already constrained by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions from taking private property for public use without Just . compensation; and WHEREAS, the courts have long held that government regulationswhich go "too far" may constitute a taking of private property and recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have provided additional pro#ection under the constitution to private property rights; and WHEREAS, municipalities, in their traditional role as land use regulators, have a special understanding of the fact that virtually any regula#ion has both positive and negative effects an a myriad of property values, including those associated with the regulated property, neighboring Properties, and the community at large; and WHEREAS, so caAed "takings" legislation tends to bestow new compensation rights upon some property owners to the potential detriment of other praperty owners, while undermining the effectiveness of even the most reasonable regulations which are designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, takings legislation promises tc substantiatfy increase the cost of government by mandating redundant, bureaucratic review processes upon government agencies and inviting a flood of new claims for compensation which have no basis whatsoever under the constitution; and WHEREAS, even takings legislation which does not presently include within Its scope actions by municipalities is nevertheless objectionable because: A) Aroponents of such legislation have vowed, once the precedent !s established, to include municipalities in future "takings" legislation; Bj Any legislative redefinition of what constitutes a regulatory tatting of private praperty may in the future be imputed by the courts to municipalities; n.~aWa, No. ,o. s.,;.. a »cs ~ C) Municipalities work in par#nership with state and federal agencies to protect the public health, safety and general welfare in local communities, and any unreasonat)le impairment of the ability of those agencies to cony out their regulatory function will inure to the detriment of citizens living within municipalities. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of VaiE, Colorado: 1. The Town Council opposes any and alE legislation by the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. congress which purports to codify constitutional "takings" principles to~the extent that such legislation redefines what a regulatory taking is and the types of claims far which compensaffon must be paid, favors the interests of some property owners over others, increases the cost of government, or impairs the effectiveness of reasonable laws and regulations which protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 2. The Town Council respectfully urges its elected representatives to vote against SB 136, H8 1177 and any similar legislation. 3. The Town Clerk is hereby directed to forward this resolution to the Town's elected representatives in the, Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress and to otherwise disseminate copies of this resolution to the public at large as appropriate. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTI=D this 4th day of April, 1995. Margaret A. Ostertoss, M~Jor EST: . ~ Holly E_. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:ViESOLU95.t0 RNOblion Ha. E9. Seriu d tp0.5 ,r. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING t ~ January 16, 1996 7:30 P:M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipa! Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Armour, Mayor TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident and former council member, Tom Steinberg, expressed tiffs thanks to former town mayor Peggy Osterfoss for her participation and dedication aver the past six years. He commended her, saying she had been the best leader he had worked with during ~_his years of serving with all but one of Vail's mayors. Mr. Steinberg was joined by his wife, Flo. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance, First Amendment to the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan. B. Resolution No. 2, Series of 1996, a Resolution designating Colorado National Bank, as a depository for the funds of the Town of Vail Pension Plan as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. C. Resolution No. 3, Series of 1996, a Resolution designating Colorado National Bank, as a depository far the funds of the Town of Vail 457 Pension Plan as permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances,, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Pro-tem, Sybill Navas read the consent agenda in full. Peggy moved to approve the consent agenda, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club, and amending the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.4D of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. ~5ybill read the title in full. Mike Mollica then summarized the revised ordinance, reviewing changes since the first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead added that an indemnification section had been removed from the ordinance, because the issue had been resolved and no longer applied. Discussion then continued as council members questioned the possibility of the Athletic Club heating the bridge in addition to the sidewalks on the north and east sides of the building. Town Planner, Mike Mollica stated the Athletic Club would heat . the sidewalk up to but not over the bridge. Vail Athletic Club representative, Stan Cope addressed the issue and informed Council that the possibility had been discussed, but would require an up sized boiler to accommodate that request. Stan stated the Athletic Club would cooperate in any way they could, but that many issues still remained to be discussed. Tom Moorhead informed Council the intent had been that any heating beyond the sidewalks along the north and east sides of the building would be an expense of the Town. Pauf moved to approve Ordinance 2 on second reading with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. The fourth item an the agenda was an appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.54.D90 of the Municipa! Code, of~the Design Review Board decision to deny the OlesonlVolinn duplex separation request for a proposed residence to be constructed on Lo# 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing13275 Katsos Ranch Road. George Ruttier, TOV planner assigned to the project, presented the item to Council, and provided the ~fiowing background: On December 20, 1995, the applicant met with the Design Review Board to request a determination of significant site constraints and the opportunity to separate the duplex structure proposed for Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing in accordance with Section 18.54.D50{I) of the Municipal Code {see attachment 1). Upon review by the DRB, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request since the DRB ~ v~Y«~ Cpl ~ ~ 01/16/96 ;.could not find evidence of significant site constraints. The motion passed unanimously (4-0), George then referenced a letter from the applicant dated December 29, 1995, appealing the DRB decision (see attachment 2) and the applicant's reference of the intent of the Design Review Guidelines {Section 18.54.410) as a possible basis for overturning the DRB decision. A copy of Section 18.54.010 from the Municipal Code was provided for reference (see attachment 3). George went on to state that upon review of the applicant's separation request, staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the DRB decision of December 20, 1995, of denial. He stated that in staff's opinion, the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of significant site constraints on the lot as required by Section 18.54.050(1) of the Municipal Cade. Peggy Osterfoss questioned whether the section on "Intent" superseded the criteria that might constitute a significant site constraint as outlined in section 18.54.050(!) of the Cade. Tom Moorhead explained that white applying the criteria, one could look to the general intent, but that the specific criteria still needed to be applied. Sybill inquired as to whether or not the separation request was really a variance. George and Mike Moliica informed Council that the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the Code, and that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order far a separation to be granted. Gary 0[eson, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architect, Mark Donaldson. Paul moved to overturn the decision of the DRB to deny the separation request due to the large size of the lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separation contributed nicely to the existing residences on Katsos Ranch Road. The motion was seconded by Peggy. Mike Jewett expressed he would rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rob Ford stated that many other options were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have to build a duplex. Tom clarified that the section in the Code lis#ed examples of what might constitute a significant site constraint, and said there were many and varied situations. He went on to state that man made features could possibly be considered. Kevin inquires! as to how the neighbors felt about the project, and Sybill addressed the question, stating those she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller scale, but that the size of the lot itself would allow for a much bigger structure to be built. Sybill felt tha# going through the variance request would be more appropriate. George reminded council members there was not a variance request to decide on. Mike suggested another possible avenue for the applicant would be to request a front setback variance, in order to maintain development on the site as low as practical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts. DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained the DRB's finding that there was nothing which would constitute a significant site constraint as outlined in the town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB had no other option but to deny the request. Mike then suggested the proper course of action would be to request a change in zoning on the lot. Peggy reminded council members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed that would allow for the separation. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site constraint, stating that under the proposed scenario, the applicant would be removing the feast amount of trees. George stated that according to staff, a significant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown on the proposed project plan were 6" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that were not shown on the plan that would ultimately be removed. A vote was taken and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybill in favor of overturning the DRB's decision to deny the request, Mike, Rob, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition. A motion was then made by Rob to uphold the decision of the DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed, 4~2. Sybill and Paul opposed. Mr. Olseon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Mollica stated he would be happy to meet with the applicant to discuss the processes available. Agenda item number five was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's {PEC) denial of a request for a height variance to allow far a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven CirclelLot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Town of Vail Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the following background: The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for residential structures. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, as shown on the attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC}, ridges A, B, and C were constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested that the ~-REC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEC unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because 2 `U~l Cwt ~ ~ Yfl~l:h 01/f 6/16 they agreed it would be granting a special privilege. ~ Architect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of Beck & Associates presented the height variance request on behalf of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof moditECations caused the overages. Sybill asked if there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it was being taken advantage of, survey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991. Also, Randy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no 1' grace allowance far roof height, and that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out. a building permit. Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been corrected. Mike Jewett was looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without granting a special privilege. Dave Peel suggested similar situations had occurred in the past. Tam Moorhead informed Council that each variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits after reviewing the criteria and findings. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and resulted in a tie, 3~3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor; Paul, Mike and Sybill opposed, the motion was defeated. Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt Council should be more flexible and cited the following reasons: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cast the applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appeal process. Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and consistent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as apposed to granting special privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and the motion was seconded by Paul. Town residents Martin Walbaum and Scotty McGaon expressed their opinions, encouraging Council to approve the variance. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage, but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulatiori or changing the height restriction. A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybill voting in favor, Kevin, Peggy and Rob voting in apposition. Therefore, the decision of fihe PEC to deny the height variance stands. Next on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul to adjourn. Mike Jewett commended the Police Department far their efforts and expressed satisfaction from the community regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public Works for the fine job they had done removing snow during the recent heavy accumulations. Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, , i~~Navas, M yor Pro-tem ATTEST: V ~ ~Q Holly l.. McCutcheon, Town Clerk (Names of cerkain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 3 vat ~o~ Go~,,~t ~~q ?~.Emq 0 ~ / i 6/46 Il 1~ ~or~vo~ v~rL 75 Sauth Frontage Road Pail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISDRY January 17, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAlL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR JANUARY 16 Work Session Brie#s Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Navas, Osterfoss --Vail Valley Marketing Board Overview During an update on the Vail Valley Marketing Board's 1995 performance and plans for 1996, Chairman Ross Boyle presented data showing a positive return on investment by the five entities which fund summer marketing. The Town of Vail will provide 61 percent of the $1 million 1996 annual budget; Vail Associates, 12 percent; Beaver Creek Resort Company, 21 percent; and the Town of Avon, six percent. Over its seven-year life, the WMB has produced almost $75 million in total sales with an investment of $4.5 million, or a return of $16.68 for every dollar spent, Boyle said. The marketing program for 1996 will target individuals, families and groups through an emphasis on direct mail, public relations, group sales and.a front range campaign. As for long-range funding, Boyle said he hoped the 9998 marketing program would be funded by a permanent revenue source. One option favored by Boyle is creation of a special business district from the top of Vail Pass to Cordillera in which businesses would pay a license fee {similar to Vail's business license fee} to support summer . marketing. However, the concept may be difficult to gain legislative support from Eagle County and the state, he said. Another option is to reactivate the county's Economic Development Authority. Boyle is one of four WMB members appointed by the Vail Town Council. The other Vail appointees are: John Garth, Barbara Black and Dean Liotta. There are a total of 8 board members. Frank Johnson, president of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, which oversees the WMB efforts, also presented an update yesterday. Key projects for 1996 include: merger of the central reservations system and development of a year-round flight program into the Eagle County Regional Airport, Johnson said. . . --Housing Background and Current Update of Status After reviewing an overview of the town's affordable housing initiatives, Councilman Mike Jewett floated the concept of earmarking a portion of the town's Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) for housing. The one percent tax, created in 1980, generates about $1.7 million annually and--by ardinance~-has been used exclusively to purchase ~~,a ~more~ R CYCLED APER Council HighlightslAdd 1 and maintain open space. Although Jewett, the Council's appointee on the Housing Authority, agreed the issue will be controversial, he said this might be the time to create momentum #or action on housing. Following an analysis of the issue--including funding levels needed to complete the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and funding projections fior a stepped-up housing program--the Council~will invite public comment on the concept through a series of community meetings.. Town Attorney Tam Moorhead has indicated the RETT use has been and can be modified through passage •of a Council ordinance rather than a townwide election. In the 9995 community survey, residents identified the most significant issues facing Vail: 1) open space protection; 2) affordable housing; 3) new development regulations to limit density; 4) traffic congestion; 5) air and water quality protection; and 6) water capacity and streamflow protection. The town has reached the halfway mark in implementation of its 1994 open lands plan, taking action on 26 of 51 parcels identified in the document. Also yesterday, the Council expressed its interest in reactivating the Housing Authority and heard from Steve Stockmar, president of the Vail Village Merchants Association. S#ockmar said he met with representatives from four other major constituent groups in Vail (Lionshead Merchants Association, Lodging Association, Vail Valley Restaurant Association, and Gallery Association) and all five organizations agree that housing is the single most important issue to be addressed in Vail. Stockmar said his members were supportive and interested in assisting the Council with its action plan through a public-private partnership. He also indicated he would talk about the RETT concept during a meeting of the Village Merchants at 3 p.m. today {1-17). In addition to Stockmar's supportive message on the housing issue, the Council heard from Mitchell Weiss of the Lodging Advisory Committee. Weiss said his group also wants to come to the table to help with the problem. He asked the Council to challenge itself by taking risks and "thinking outside the box." Town Manager Bob Mctaurin complimented the business community for coming forward to pitch in and work together to improve the housing situation. Also yesterday, there was a brief discussion about the values which will drive the lottery criteria for the for-sale units at Vail Commons. A draft of the criteria will be presented to the Council in February with the lottery taking place in March. For additional details on yesterday's discussion, contact Andy Knudtsen, Vail senior housing policy coordinator, at 479-2440, or Michael Jewett at 479-1860. --Covered Bridge Building Walkway The Council voted 4-0 to allow East West Hospitality, developer of the Covered Bridge Building, to proceed through the planning process to allow for the expansion of a private brick paver walkway at the southwest corner of the building onto Town of Vail land. --Information Update After reviewing a letter from the Vail Valley Foundation regarding sponsorship of mountain bike events in Vail during 1996, the Council said it endorsed such events, but agreed to discourage staging mountain bike events in 1996 due to the redevelopment of Golden Peak. (more} r r Council HighlightslAdd 2 --Council Report Sybilf Navas indicated the Special Events-Commission was considering funding support of the local mountain bike race series. --Manager's Report Bob McLaurin gave an update on last week's meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST). The organization, which represents 23 ski towns, is wrestling with two issues: hiring staff and how to address efforts to privatize ski areas on federal lands. --Other . ~ Sybill Navas inquired about the proposed "takings" legislation introduced by Sen. Tom Norton of Greeley.. The Colorado Municipal League will lobby against the measure during the legislative session. --Site Visits The Council attended two site visits in preparation for appeals which were heard at the evening session. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Navas, Ostertoss --Citizen Participation Former Vail Town Councilman Tom Steinberg recognized Peggy Ostertoss for her years of service to the town. Ostertoss, the former mayor, has resigned from the Council effective Jan. 3D, due to family demands. Last night was her last public meeting. Steinberg, who has served with all but one of Vail's mayors, said Osterfoss has been the best leader, he's worked with. And, as a physician, he said, Osterl`oss' decision to put her child before the town~was the right choice. --Consent Agenda The Council voted 6-0 to approve the consent agenda which included: second reading of an ordinance amending the town's police and fire employees' pension plan; and resolutions designating Colorado National Bank as a depository for the town's pension #unds. --Major Amendment to the Vail Athletic Club Special Development District The Council voted 6-0 to approve on second reading a major amendment to the 1993 Vail Athletic Club Special Development District. The modifications to the 1993 plan include creation of three additional accommodation units for a total of 55 AU's; creation • of one additional dwelling unit for a total of 4 DU's; a variety of exterior changes; and a reduction of required parking spaces from 9 to 4 as a result of decreased conference space.. For addi#ional details, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. (more) Council HighlightslAdd 3 --Design Review Board Appeal, 3275 Katsos Ranch Road The Council voted 4-2 {Navas, Johnston against) to uphold Design Review Board denial of a duplex separation request for a proposed residence to be constructed at 3275 Katsos Ranch Road. Council members voting in support of the DRB decision said they were unable to identify a "significant site constraint" which would permit the separation. For details, contact George Rusher in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Planning & Environmental Commission Appeal, 1339 Westhaven Circie Due to a 3-3 tie vote by the Council, PEC denial of a request for a height variance on the property will stand. The applicant had asked for the variance after it was determined the residence, currently under construction, exceeds the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. Three separate roof ridges were constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33~foot height limitation. Rather than allow an exception to the zoning code, Council members voting in support of the PEC denial (Ostertoss, Foley, Ford} suggested adjusting the 33-foot height rule rather than granting special privileges to applicants. However, the remaining Council members (Navas, Jewett, Johnston) disagreed, saying the Council should be more fiexible in considering variance requests. For more information, contact Randy Stouder in the Community Development Department at 479-2950. # # # UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS January 23 Work Session Kraige Kinney 15 Year Anniversary Update on Category III Joint Meeting with County Commissioners (cooperation, transportation, housing & r ~ annexation} Update on Railroad Abandonment January 30 Special Election! February 6 Work Session Revisit Town Council Appointments Youth Recognition Award Discussion Site Visit, Glen Lyon Office Building February 6 Evening Meeting • Glen Lyon Office Building Ordinance, first reading February 73 Work Session All Day Public Process Wark Session r . + TOWN f;ClItNCIL AGENDA R~QtJE$1 ' (Request form 1~i be given ro the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8.00_~.m. Thursdays.) MEETING DATE: .lan~iarv iR 1AAEZ (f repave a separate Agenda Request fpr each agenda item. ti Iho agenda item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be certain to check both boxes In this section and indicate tuna needed during each meeting.} Work Session TIME Nt;!"DED: XX Site Visit T1ME NEEDED: 9n min XX Evening Meeting TIME N~EDED:~ inin WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA kTEM BY NON•TOV 5TA1=F? NO. XX YES. Specifics: Andrew Abraham, Pro;act Architect WILL THE PRESENTATION OF TI-I!S AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE AIyY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT? XX N0, YES. Specifics WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOF! THIS ITEM? N0. XX Y1"S. If yes,~is the material also for puhlic distrit~utian? ' Yes. XX NO. 1TEM/TOPIC: An appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.54.094 of the Municipal Code, of the Design Review board declsion to deny the OlasonlVolinn duplex separation request for a proposed residence to be constructed pn Lot 11, Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Vtltage 12th f=Uing13275 Katsas Ranch Road. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphold, overturn, or overturn with modifications the Design Review Board's decision to deny the OlesoNVolinn duplex separation request. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On December 20, 1995, the applicant met with the 6esign Review Board to request a determination of signi[icant site constraints and the opportunity to separate the duplex structure proposed for Lot 11, F31ock 1, Vail Village 12th Filing in accordance wilt} Section i 8.54.050(1} of the Municipal Code (see attachment 1}. Upon review by Ihs DRf3, a motion was made to deny Ehe applicant's request since Iho iaR6 could net find evidence of significant site constraints. The motion passed unanimously (4-4}. A letter from the applicant dated December 29, 1995, appealing the DRt3 decision, has beon attached (see attachment 2}, In the applicant's letter, he raters to the intent of the Design Review Guidelines (Section 1$.54.010} as a possible basis for overturning the DRS declsion. A copy of Section 18.54.010 from the Municipal Code has been attached for reference (see attachment 3} STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Upon review of the applicant's severe#ion request, stall recommends that the Town Council uphold the DRB decision of December 20, 1995, of denial, In staff's opinion, the applican! has not demonstrated the existence o! significant site constraints an the lot as required In Section 19.54.0500} of the Municipal Cods. . . ~ . ~ a.-trf~.-. ~~.r~-,mot ' Employee SlgnaturelDedartment l:+everyrona4oounciMequeslsblason.JIB DESIGN REVIEW • I. Duplex and primaryJsecondary development. v 1. The purpose of this sectian is to ensure that duplex and primaryJsecondary development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated i structure with unified site development. Dwelling ~ units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in 18.04.050 I,2 thereof, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substan- tiai]y above grade. Unified architectural and land- • scope design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural stile, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. The nrescnce of sisnificant site constraints may ~p.,.~.,.it the physical separation of units and armies ' n~a a s,~. T e determination of whether or not a low h~ sienificant site constraints shall be made by the deign review board. SiEnificant site constraints shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands otE mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses an~:d other natural water features, rack outcropninss, wetlands, other natural features, and existing struc- ~ • tr~cs that may create practical difficulties in the site ni~nnin~e and development of a lot. Slope may be coausidered a physical site constraint that allows for tl~c separation of a garase From a unit, It shall be the • a~licant's responsibility to reouest a determination foam the design review board as to whether or not a sii~ has sienificant site constraints before Tina! design • ._ru~rk~on t e~praiert ~,~p~sented. This determination. sl`t~ll be made at a conceptual review of the proposal F.sed an review of th.e site. a detailed survey ot`-tote lit {to include information as outlined in sectian t$,.54.040 C,la.j and a preliminary site plan of the • proposed slructure(sj, 'The duplex and primarvlsecondarv development nrv be designed to accommodate the development of dlline units and earaQes in more than one structure if the design review board determines that s%s~ztificant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of uraanfied architectural and landscape design as outlined ifa Section 18.54.050 H,1. shall be required for the t d~irelapmcnt. In addition, the design review board army require that one ar mare of the following . c~nmon design clctnents such as fences, walls, r..~:ios, decks, retaining walla, walkways, landscape e~~mcnts, or other architectural features be incorpa- ,.,d to create unified site development. (Ord. 46Q'~91} 2, 3: Ord. 12(1988) § Z: Ord. 24{1985) § 1; Ord. 9{1985) 2, 3: Ord.39{1983) § 1.) • AtCachment.~~1 3031949-5200 FAX/949-5205 } - VICTOR MARK DONALDSC}N ARCHITECTS, P.C, ARCH17EC1'Uf~E • PLANNING • [NTEC~101~5 [3ox 5300 • Avon, Calarodo 81620 12/29/95 The Vail Town Council via George Ruther, Planner Community Development 111 South Frontage Road D ' West Vail, Colorado ' ~ ~ ~ . Re: Oleson / Volinn Residence ' 3275 Katsos Ranch Road DEC Z 9 1995 Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block l ~ ~ ! ~ Vail Village, 12th Filing ~ Dear Council Members: ' With the encouragement of the Design Review Board, we are making an appeal to the town council in accordance with section 1$,54.090 of the Vail Municipal Code. On December 1, 1995 I met with George Ruther and reviewed the process ofsub-dividing the site in accordance with section 18,12.050. This site complies with two of the three requirements to subdivide by having 202.721inear feet of frontage and by easily holding two SO foot wide squares within its boundaries. . Although the site has over 45,000 square feet, prelinunary calculations show the buildable area at less than the 30,000 square feet required to subdivide. On December 20, 1995 we met with the Design Review Board to request a determination For site constraints and the opportunity to separate the two family residences zoned for lot 11 at 3275 Katsos Ranch Road in accordance with section 18.54.050 (I). Our request was denied noting that the slope was not extreme enough nor the existing grove of trees significant enough. Relativity aside, we understand the kind of precedent an approval would provide. We do not agree with the results based on the Intents established in the Vail Municipal Code under section 18.54.010. The objectives of design review shall be (paraphrased} as follows: A. Recognition of interdependence of welfare and aesthetics to benefit citizens and visitors. B. Development of property in harmony with desired character of town. C. Prevention of unnecessary destruction of natural landscape. D. Provision for a harmonuous relationship between the residence with the immediate environment including natural landforms, native vegetation and existing and proposed developments. E. Protection of the neighboring property owners and provision of reasonable tra~xc, drainage, sound and sight buffers, and other similar effects. We can assume that the proposed residences will be designed and constructed in pursuit of the well-being of both citizens and visitors and with the appropriate appeal to fit within the immediate context of the Katsos Ranch Road as well as within the larger context of Vai1(A). We can also assume through the design review process that the neighbors wil[ not he adversely affected by the product (E}. Our appeal is based in the remaining three objectives which were significant factors in the development of the design concept. According to the records available from the community development offee, the lot is significantly larger than al[ other lots on Katsos Ranch Road. (A list of the lot sizes are included in the attached information.} ATTACHMENT ~l2 R i'R w:Y.::. 1 Taking into account the south-facing uphill slope, the design would naturally travel horizontally across the slope to minimize the number of floors moving up the slope. From the cul-de-sac the uphill duplex would appear inappropriate in scale to those at grade ar stepping down the hillside to the south away from the road. The allowed GRl~A for two dwellings on this site is 6$67 square feet. Being larger than any other residence on Katsos Ranch Road, the massing for a duplex of this size would not be harmonious with the existing dwellings unless the new residences are separated. We would like to preserve the most mature trees located in the center of the site by building to the east and west of the trees. The centra! portion of the property also. has the steepest change of grade between the' road and both the property Gne and the setback line which are, respectively, 14 and 19 feet higher than the cul-de-sac. This slope encourages the street access locations to beat the east and west ends of the site far economy and ease of construction. In response to the examples provided by the existing residences, the best location for the garages is immediately off of the street. To provide a driveway through the site to reach buildable area of less than 40% slope on the west end as suggested at the concept design review would cause unnecessary destruction of the natural landscape. We believe that in allowing for the separation of the two family residences, the town will be protecting an established and to data undisturbed grove of deciduous trees, undergrowth and previously fallen boulders as . well as allowing the two new residences to be appropriately scaled to match the existing residences. The concept design presented is a sensitive and harmonious scheme that has been discussed with and encouraged by neighbors in hopes of preserving the views and limiting the site impact. if the site is granted a residential separation, we will design the two dwellings concurrently using a unified architectural and landscape vocabulary as described in the section 18.54.050 {I}. We are content with the two residences allowed with one conditional Employee Housing Unit and are not seeking any additional residences ar increased GRFA in the appeal, Although we understand that the Vail Municipal Code does not empower the Design Review Board to grant a separation based on the established design review intents, we believe that this concept design is the most appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. Thank you for reviewing our appeal. Please see the attached information as presented at the design review, We look forward to meeting with you and to wanking with the design review board on this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns, Sincerely, ` rZ.zq, y~ new .lames Abraham, Project Architect Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, P.C. ' 18~,~4.010 Intent. VasT is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally ltucpwn for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of man-made structures with the environment. • Th~sc characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors . t0 some to Vail wish many visitors eventually becoming perma- ne~ residents participating in community ]ife. -These factors constitute an important economic base for the tovvrt, both for those who earn their living here and far those who ~ ~ . vices the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finuds that new development and redevelopment can have a suisstantia! impact on the character of an area in which it is loc~terl. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can. b~•~revented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building cades_ Other aspects of development are more subtle and~less . amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to sp~ific development proposals. Among these are the general fawn of the land before and after development, the spatial . rciationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the . vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open I spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. Tn order to provide for the timely exercise of iudgrrzent in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new dsevelopment and redevelopment, the town council has created a design review board (DR33} and design criteria. Th,::refore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhanrt.,P land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives ' set otz~ in this section; the improvement or alteration of open • spacef exterior design of all new development, and all modifi- cation_s io existing development shall be subject to design review as spe~ifed in this chapter. It i~ the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design frccdo»cn as possible to the individual designer while at the same time rsaaintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creatirzg structures which are designed to complement both their ~ . indivie~ual sites and surroundings. Tim objectives of design revie~v shall be as follows: A. 'I'a recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this inter- dc~sendence may continue~to benefit its citizens and visitors; To allow for the development of public and private property vss~ch is in harmony with the desired character of the town as dcsxned by the guidelines herein provided; C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the nazsural landscape; D. Taw ensure that the architectural design, location, configura- tiic~aa materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and • spaces have been designed sa that they relate harmo- ni,cx~siy to the natural laridforms and native vegetation, the taa~n's overall appearance, with surrounding development ' anr~ with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for tF~ areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. E. "I'~~rotect neighboring property owners and users by making srmx that reasonable provision has been made for such miters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water . d~inage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light . an;,d air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by at$~r regulations which may have substantial effects on . ne~hboring land uses. • (Ord~~ (1983} § 1.} Attachment 4~3 F~ lr f ~r~!'. ~i 'i~ ` ~ ! /,x111 1~~ r• ~1 i ~ - .w [If `EI, ~ ~ ~ ` i / j ir1 /~r! / '1fr11 ! ~ ~ ~ I / ~7I1 f j/r// f!/~ rf/ ~ ' I Ir, ~ ~ f i 1 e i !/~7 ~ ~ ~ r Er J ~ / r j ~ 1 1%1' ' ~ 11'$ ' 111 rl'i f ,r ~F!/r~+rll+r,•~~•,l f/,r rr r1 mill r(i~. ,~.i rJ, 1'?rr1 r, / f-, ~ r r ~ ~ , ~ / / ! / ~ / i 1 f / ` / 1 / YL I 11.1 '!1 r ~r/ ~ / /r~ ! f ~i .l , • , , ' ' , i s / , ~a 1 1 / 1 N y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ ~ , r -_r r ~ - r ~ r ~ - - r - T1 ~ - - i t ~ r ~ I { ~ mo YICTaR MARK D4NALOSON ARCHlTEGTS P.C, o~rL, o„a„` SHLCT H4. ~ ARCHlT'1071l~ ~p . MflEgrgl] VIY~iiM/~ Ai~1~ nsuw s~ AO-L "0/9.~,~ LOT 17 ..~y..._,m, - 1i"AT503 RANCN 1iL1A0 Y1IL, COLORA!]0 r ? r r / / / / r / / / / I / r / / / r / r ! / r r r r r J J / r r r J J J ? . r r / / / / / / / / / / r / ~ ~ \I \r/\/////rr~+~~4tHV)~W~IiV/N~/ILkJ/V/~~/,LiI.L/~,///I////r \ / ~ % /f//I/~/7It-r'/T/~~PW~/~~~d''~.i.~IX`I'Wr J /r i /////!!////1! ~ / / 1 l / / / / / r / / 1 / r ? r / / / / / / l r r J ! / / r r ! ~ ~ r / j , f I `ti , \ ` \ 1 ~ / / / ! / / / / / / / J r / / / / / / / J J / l l / / / / J J J .J I / / / / / / / / / / I / / B~dTk ~ ! \ r ~ / / / f ! / / J / l / / / / ! / / / / / / / / / / / ? ' J / / / / 4l.! i ) f1. ~Ir'1~C+4.L / ~ C../1 ~ .1 /~i..~i i ~f ~J • `9 / , / /Ill r r / J ! / J / / / I / r ! / / / / / / / / / / I / / / / / / / / / / r / / i • ///~~%W'LIl~JV/I~V'IIC.Jia11~a/~,/•Ir ~~~I^/~ /r/ / 1 i./r////; i/.~/?////////////r r/r /r /r~••5.' ~•••g•• / r///r r /i / r / rrOr / r /r r/ //r r///;~ f~~///y/•//~~` .Q~Crr;;~rr//f ~r//J//J: rr///////r//rr rr•;"~~~//~;f~i~///,/ice// /t~%//i~•~~?~/iii/i.i!~~~/ rr/~,. /;~f/////mar/// .~~Z~TC.. ',2... ////r/: r?/r////////:rr.~ r/ •j' //r/r J//r/ ? ~ 4K ` r r r r r / • / / / / / r r r r r~//}•'Q7 / / rJ .{'7r'(r r}r J~r~r r o . r / p J r i / / / / / / / / / / / r .~M'QT'~`{~ ~ ` \ \ / / / / / / / k ~y } ~Y ,Y~~,J{~~ 1/Vr .~,J/ l.tWi V~~ .i ~rJJV1 M i ~ J / / / / / / / / r ~ ? ~ ? ~ r// / / /Jirr//////////r/r ~r /'`.`lr•' /lt 1 / /////////r //r/r//////ricer////rrrl;:r//////////:// ~ ~ ti ti ~ ///!////!//////////////////r/r/: / / Jr// / / / / / / /v.+'7r i•~ J~l ~~h'1~ / ~ L..rI.YV •1 /~Cll / / / / / / r / r ! / ~ •'r • / / / / r . ? / J / / J . / / r r r / r r / / / / / r / r r r . J / / r . r / / r / r ! r ~ / //r,,/~~~Irr~~/rrJJrr//XI~!/~+/ry,r~,rry~///.J~rr'I~~r~i•r~»/~/r~//./~/~~//////f,/ / ` % ~ / r~ •7 • • r . i i ~ ,F~kCc Nrl ,FYI kfl ~I i0:f"~ .C~IJ / /t C3•iL~~iV /~?/r ! / J /111rT! / ////r// r //r / /r / i r/ ///1 //•~i r /i r ~ / / r ///r/J/r~ TO /1//!IJ//J,'//JrrJr./I/Irr I ~ INTERSTATE 70 ~ roe Ho. +so VICTOR AlARK pONALDSON ARCHITECTS , P.C. s„~ wo.DRB3 ~-..~"'JAC . rw+N°w . p~r[RIORS OLrOii7ON~iMIi~iT diL1~17(.{/~r~iAp REhn51tlN5f °,a~n~oMe 970/944-7200 LOT 71 rAx/o+o-s~os 3276 KA~',SUS !CINCH Ft0A11 VAL,S, CbLORADO o? r~ + MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular~meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Fokey Rob Ford . Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident J B Smith voiced his concerns regarding the regional transportation authority and theirworking on expanding the regional transportation system. Mr. Smith complained about people driving too fast and recklessly in our area and urged Council to oppose an increased 75 mph speed limit. Second was the Consent Agenda which consisted of approval of the minutes for the meetings of January 2 and 16, 1996. Sybill moved to~approve the Consent Agenda, and the motion was seconded by Kevin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-iJ. . The third item on the agenda was Resolution Na. ~4, Series of 1996, a Resalution Extending the Present Term of the Design Review Board. Tom Moorhead explained that the terms of Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, had expired on February 1, and it was necessary to reappoint them in order for the February DRB meetings to be conducted with a quorum., Tom further explained that staff was recommending the Council pass Resolution No. 4, Series of 1996 until new DRB Members could be sworn in on March 6. A motion was made by Paul to approve Resolution No. 4, with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was then taken and passed. unanimously, 7-0. Fourth on the agenda was Resalution No. 5, Series of 1996, a Resolution Agreeing to Indemnify Stewart Title for Attorneys Fees. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, presented the item, stating that pursuant to the agreement with City Market, it was the obligation of the Town of Vail to provide title insurance. In the event such title insurance was not available it was the obligation of the Town of Vail to bring a declaratory judgment action to resolve any issues concerning the Town's authority to enter into the previously execu#ed agreement. Tom said that upon review of the agreement and the authority of the Town to enter into the same, Stewart Title believed that the actions taken were appropriate and consistent with Town of Vail ordinances, its Charter'and Colorado law. However, Tom stated, obtaining title insurance would require an agreement that the Town of Vail would share any cost of defending such a lawsuit. Tom stated that such an agreement was reasonable and would relieve the Town of Vail of the obligation to presently bring a declaratory judgment action to remove any potential of a lawsuit being fled by the "Common Sense far the Cammons" Petitioner's Committee. Tom further stated that the staff recommendation ,was to pass the resolution, which would authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Stewart Title to share attorneys fees and costs in the event a cause of action was brought by the "Common Sense for the Commons" 1 Town Council Evenong Meeting Q2lOb/4b y.. a Petitioner's Committee challenging the authority of the Town of Vail to enter into the agreement with City Market. A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, with a second from Paul. Mike stated he didn't participate in an earlier executive session because of his involvement with the Common Sense for Commons Committee, but said he would vote on the issue. Sybill questioned whether the time frame for a lawsuit had passed, and Tom stated that the review period for a court action in district court challenging the project as arbitrary and capricious had passed. Mayor Armor questioned whether it was appropriate for council member Mike Jewett to vote on the . issue. Tom addressed the question, stating it Mike Jewett's responsibility to disclose any conflict of interest he might have. Mike said after studying documents he received from the Secretary of State's office he was confident he did not have a conflict and stated he was clearly opposed to the project. A vote was taken and passed 6-1, Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Item number five on the agenda was an appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.62.070 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny the Koenig driveway grade request, for a residence currently under construction on Lot 26, Potato Patch Subdivision/795 Potato Patch Drive. Town Planner, George Ruther . presented the item, and provided the fallowing background: On January 8, 1996, the applicant's representative met with the Planning and Environmental Commission, ("PEC"), requesting a driveway grade variance for a residence under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive, in accordance with Chapter 18.62, Variances, of the Municipal Code {see attachment 1). Upon review of the requested variance, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request since the PEC could not make the findings necessary to grant approval of a variance (see attachment 2). The motion passed unanimously (4-0). A letter from the applicant's representative, Eric Johnson, dated January 17, '1996, appealing the PEC decision, was reviewed (see attachment 3). In the applicant's letter, he referred to Section 17.28.030, Design Criteria, as being the section of the Municipal Code from which he was seeking relief. Specifically, the applicant was seeking relief from the maximum grade far heated driveways,{12%). In this appeal, the applicant wished to be permitted a heated driveway with a finished grade of 14.1 A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff to the PEC~on January 8, 1996, was attached for reference {see attachment 4). George reviewed the three findings as outlined in the variances section of the Town Code. Town Engineer, Greg Hall, said maximum grades for both heated and unheated driveways were - adopted and #hat not more than 12% was allowed. Project Architect, Eric Johnson, addressed the Council, stating the biggest concern should be the safety issue. He said the Fire Department had reviewed the site and issued a letter of support. Mr. Johnson then presented a survey of the property and expressed his feeling that more hardship would be caused on the property if the driveway were not allowed as requested. Contractor,~Ray Kutash, and owner of Beehive Construction, reviewed the details of the heated driveway and explained how the survey error had occurred. He felt the survey error constituted a hardship, and that allowing the variance would not be detrimental to public health or safety and reiterated the fire department's approval of the request. Project engineer, Jerry Law, informed Council that it would be safer to allow the driveway to remain as is. He then reviewed possible solutions and presented a diagram of the project. Councilman Ludwig Kurz asked if the 12% grade could have been adhered to, and the applicant stated that it could have been in compliance had the surveying error not occurred.. Paul Johnston said that if the owner of the property would be willing to indemnify the Town of Vail against any emergency or accidents, he would have na problem overturning the decision. George explained that the applicant would be willing to indemnify the town, but felt strongly that the agreement should be recorded, as future owners might not be willing to comply. Tom Moorhead said he'd not heard of such an indemnification running with the land. Paul Johnston moved to overturn the decision of the PEC, conditions! upon the owner of the property indemnifying the Town of Vail. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Mike Jewett was concerned that vehicles might end up parking on the street if they couldn't get up the driveway, and Ludwig Kurz commented that he would be in favor of Paul's motion for two reasons: 1) the percentage by which the grade was in excess was minor, and 2) ~ because the applicant did not intentionally go over the allowable grade. Sybill stated she 2 Town Council Evenong Meeting 021Qb/96 A' f would vote in favor, but felt i# unfortunate that many designs are being built at the. absolute maximum allowances without leaving room for possible error. Rob agreed, suggesting applicants needed to allow for a contingency. A vote was taken and passed,' 4-3, Mike, Sybill, Paul and Ludwig in favor; Mayor Armour, Rob Ford and Kevin Foley voting in opposition. Tom Moorhead asked if it was a requirement that the indemnification agreement be recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder, and council members agreed that it was a ,condition of the motion tha# the owners of the property execute an indemnification agreement with the Town of Vail, and further, that the agreement must be executed and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuing a T.C.O. for the east-half of the duplex. - The sixth item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin gave an update on the railroad abandonment project and asked Council to allocate $4,000 from . council contingency to assist Eagle County with legal fees associated with the project. Paul Johnston moved #o approve the $4,000 contribution and the motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Bob then invited council members to attend an appreciation luncheon for Town of Vail employees the following day, to thank town crews for their hard work during January's record snow fall. There being no further business, Rob moved for adjournment. The motion was second by . Ludwig and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 P.M. Respectfugy submitted, . , Ro ert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST:• (/tit ~1~ Holly L. McGtatcheon, Town Clerk (Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 3 Town Council Eventing Meeting 021t)619b F { 4a 1~ ~o~v of vAr~ 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 .4X 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY February 7, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR FEBRUARY fi Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Ludwig Kurz Ludwig Kurz, who was elected to fill a mid-year term during the Jan. 30 special election, was sworn in by Town Clerk Holly McCutcheon. Kurz will serve until November 1997. . --Citizen Participation, Diane Golden The Council heard from local resident Diane Golden who expressed a concern about the effectiveness of the town's GRFA {grass residential floor area) provisions. Golden said the town's GRFA requirements are too restrictive and are driving people out of town. She said the town should continue to restrict exterior bulk and mass, but should be less concerned about what takes place within the interior of buildings. Council members said they would add the topic to their retreat discussion scheduled for Feb. 27. Golden asked the Council to have new policies in place in time for the coming construction season. --Site Visit Council members visited a residence under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive in preparation for the evening meeting. --Volleyball Courts The Council voted 7-~ to allow the Vail Recreation District to proceed through the planning process to request a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of four new sand volleyball courts an town-awned land at the east end of the existing soccer field south of Vail Valley Drive. The request will be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission at its Feb. 26 meeting. For more information, contact George Ruther at 479-2145. --Vail Commons Lottery Criteria After reviewing various options to structure and prioritize criteria for the Vai! Commons ~,,a ~more~ R CYCLER APER i Council HighlightslAdd 1 lottery, the majority of the Council members reacted favorably to; 1) Pursuing a modified point allocation structure with basic eligibility as the pre#erred approach to structuring the lottery. Under this approach, individuals would be ranked based on such factors as length of employment, length of residency and home . ownership status. Based on the ranking, individuals would qualify for different #iers. A random drawing would be conducted within each #ier, stacking with the top tier and moving through to the next, until aff homes are allocated. The strength of this approach, said senior housing policy planner Andy Knudtsen, is that it allows fora variety of values to be involved in the ranking without getting too detailed. 2) Requiring financial pre-qualification prior to applying for the lottery. 3) Giving higher priority to applicants who work in Vail, while those who work elsewhere will be weighted slightly lower. I_ongavity will be recognized with an emphasis placed on long-term employees and residents of five or more years. 4) No preferences will be given for length of residency in Vail as compared to other locations in the Vail Valley. 5} Giving low priority to persons who already own homes; however, should an existing homeowner agree #o deed restrict a current property, the application could be weighted higher. 6) Making the 37 two-bedroom units available to any lottery applicant (singles, couple, etc.), while prioritizing the 16three-bedroom units for families (three or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption). 7} Allowing business owners to participate in the lottery only i# there are no other individual purchasers. During the discussion, several members of the pub~fc offered their opinions and suggestions, including: keep the Ivttery process as simple as possible; consider adjusting the 3 percent appreciation cap on resales to the DenverlBoulder Consumer Price Index; allow for room mates, so long as the unit also is occupied by the owner; keep the lottery process fair for single applicants and make it as random as possible; and consider targeting some of-the units #or critical employees such as hospital workers, police, fire, etc. Following yesterday's initial discussion and direction provided by~the Council, the proposed lottery application and structure will be refined and presented for additional public input at a work session on Feb. 20 and at the March 5 evening Council meeting. Demand for the 53 for-sale units is expected to exceed the supply. To date, more than 200 individuals have requested information on the housing. For more details, ~cantact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. --Youth Recognition Award After hearing an overview from Paul Johnston, Council members agreed to move forward in selecting and announcing winners of a new youth recognition award sponsored by the Town of Vail. The award, which replaces the Chuck Anderson Youth Award, wilt honor two high school juniors, one from Battle Mountain, the other from Vail Mountain School, with a summer internship experience in another country, such as St. Moritz, Switzerland. The town will provide funds for the students' travel expenses and (more) r Council HighlightslAdd 2 will coordinate other arrangements through the Vail Valley Exchange program, formerly the Sister Cities Committee. For more details, contact Johnston at 479-18fi~. • --Town Council Appointments Ludwig Kurz was asked to consider serving on four committees: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments alternate; Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality/Quantity Committee alternate; Eagle County Recreation Authority (Berry Creek Fifth) alternate; and the Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame.. --Information Update Council members were asked to review the criteria for contributions to outside agencies . , in preparation for the 1996 budget. Last year, the Council gave priority to requests that sought to enhance the town's economic viability through marketing, special events and other activities, while deferring social services requests to other agencies.. The Council added the topic to its list of discussion items for its Feb. 27 retreat. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said the town has received some complaints from residents in the Matterhorn neighborhood regarding late-night snowmobiling in Donovan Park. She said staff will monitor the situation and will recommend if an ordinance on snowmobiling within the town's boundaries should be pursued. The benefit package for council-appointed board and commission members was discussed. Currently members of the Vail Valley Marketing Board and Vail Housing Authority receive no benefits, while members of the Arts In Public Places, Local Licensing Authority, Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission receive a minimum benefit of either a blue parking pass or a recreation pass. Applications for ~10 open seats on five boards are due Feb. 14. The Council.will discuss the benefits in more detail at an upcoming meeting. --Council Reports Paul Johnston, who represents the Council on the board of the Chamber of Commerce, distributed a Vail Valley map which represents the first joint venture between the Chamber and the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau. He said plans are progressing for construction of a new tourism information center in Avon which would also house a new Eagle County Annex. Rob Ford gave an overview of the Ford Park management study meetings. He said parking and access issues have dominated the discussions. Since none of the user groups have expressed interest in financing a parking structure at the park, Ford said the study group is reviewing better utilization of current parking facilities and an extension of bus service from the in-town shuttle route to accommodate events and other activities at the park. (more} i Council HighlightslAdd 3 Sybill Navas, through her committee assignment on the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, reported on an effort to direct excess state revenues to the Department of Transportation for possible projects in the Vail Valley. Navas also encouraged the town to become involved in an economic analysis of the • area conducted by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs at the request of the U.S. Forest Service. Navas said it's important for the data. to be accurate since the Forest Service will use the study in making land use decisions. . In another committee report, Navas said the Special Events Commission has approved funding requests for three events: the local mountain bike race series; the Vail International Hockey Tournament; and a June marketing program sponsored by the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation. Also, Navas said the Special Events Committee has suggested revamping town ordinances to allow more banners during events. The Council agreed to discuss the item at its Feb. 27 retreat. Lastly, Navas said it appears the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau and Vail Associates are continuing tv make headway in resolving the 1-800 number conflict. Kevin Foley said he attended a workshop for elected officials sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League (CML}, Vail will host CML's annual conference in June with an estimated 1,500 delegates. Foley encouraged his colleagues to participate in the conference. --Other Public WarkslTransportativn Director Larry Grafel gave an update on snow removal efforts in January: crews worked the equivalent of 6 weeks within the month; $56,000 in salaries were paid while equipment costs totaled $96,000; 16 pieces of equipment were kept running an average of 12 hours a day for a total of 3,600 hours; 780 tons of cinders and 1,fi00 gallons of magnesium chloride were used; $33,000 was spent on .contractual services to haul and remove snow; 1,800 truck loads of snow were hauled, or the equivalent of one football field piled with~22 feet of snow. For additional details, contact Grafel at 479-2173. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation The Council heard from J.B. Smith of Vail who expressed concern about the regional transportation authority's progress in expanding the regional transportation system. Smith called the process extremely bureaucratic. He also complained about people driving too fast for conditions in and around Vail and asked for the Council's support in . opposing an increase to the speed limit an the interstate. Smith learned the town has already sent a letter to the state in opposition of a speed limit increase on Vail Pass west through Dowd Junction. --Design Review Board Term Extensions (more} Council HighlightslAdd 4 The Council voted 7-0 to approve a resolution extending the present terms of two members of the Design Review Board, Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, until the newly appointed members are sworn in on March 6. The terms had been set to expire . Feb. 1. --Vail Commons Indemni#ication The Council voted 6-1 (Jewett against) to approve a resolution directing the town manager to enter into an agreement with Stewark Title Guaranty Company to share any attorneys fees and costs which might be incurred defending any action brought by the "Common Sense for the Commons" Petitioner's Committee, which has sought to block the project. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said the indemnification was a reasonable . , request by the title company in exchange for providing title insurance for up to $20 million for improvements on the Vail Commons site. In the event of a lawsuit, the agreement provides that Stewart Title Guaranty Company wou}d be responsible for the first $7,000 in attorneys fees; the town would be responsible for the second $7,000, and both entities would split equally all fees in excess of $14,000. Before voting on the resolution, Councilman Michael Jewett said he chose not to participate in an executive session discussion of the issue because of his involvement on the Petitioner's Committee. In response to a question by Council member Sybill Navas, Moorhead said the review period for a court action in district court challenging the project as arbitrary and capricious has passed. Ground breaking on the Vail Commons development is expected to occur later this month. Far more information, contact Moorhead at 479- 2107. --Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Denial of Driveway Grade Variance Request The Council voted 4-3 (Foley, Ford, Armour against) to overturn denial by the Planning and Environmental Commission of a driveway grade variance request for a residence ,currently under cons#ruction at 795 Potato Patch Drive. Following the vote, Council members. Sybill Navas and Rob Ford emphasized the need for future applicants to plan responsibly in accounting for margins of error within the framework of the project's design rather than squeezing plans to the maximum grade, heigh# or square footage, and then expecting to receive a variance from the town. For more details, contact George Rather in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Town Manager's Report During an update on the railroad abandonment project, Town Manager Bob McLaurin recommended and received approval an a 7-0 vote to appropriate $4,000 to help Eagle County with legal fees associated with the local action. Mct^aurin said the town would be hosting a luncheon today (Wednesday) to thank town crews for their hard work during January's record snow fall. # # # (mare) Council HighlightslAdd 5 UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS February 73 Work Session All Day CouncillStaff Public Process Work Session PECIDRB Report Information Update Council Reports February 20 Work Session PEC Interviews . a DRB Interviews Housing Authority Interviews Vail Valley Marketing Board Interviews Continuation of Lottery Criteria Discussion ~ 0-Year Budget Contribution Request Criteria Revisit Town Council BoardlCommittee Appointments Executive Session/Land Negotiations February 20 Evening Meeting PEC Appointments DRB Appointments , Housing Authority Appointments Vail Valley Marketing Board Appointments Eagle Valley Land Trust Presentation February. 27 Work Session DRBIPEC Review All Day Council Retreat • • er~c o son a r c i t e ~c t ~ ~ ~ January 1 ~ , 1 ~ ~ 6 JAN 17 19~ Town of Vail, Town Council • 11 S. Frontage Road West • C Vai 1, CO 81657 ~~Y.tr~~~~ ~~'p~. RE: Koenig Residence Primary/Secondary Residence improvements 795 Potato Patch Drive Vail, CO $1657 VARIANCE STATEMENT • This variance is written in order to prevent hardship and increase ,t practicability for an existing non-conforming condition. A request to deviate from a strict interpretation of Section 1$.5$,020 and Section 17'.28.330 involving the items listed below was denied by the PEC on 1/$/96 is hereby submitted for appeal. The difficulty lies in a minor construction defect found in the driveway installation due to a topographic survey error and a request by the Town Engineer to install an extensive steel guardrail in the Public-Right-of-Way. The original heated concrete driveway was designed far a maximum 12% slope as allowed, reviewed and approved by Public Works on 4/6/95. Upon an-site verification on 11/14/35 by the above representatives it was determined that an the centerline of driveway, a short (20') section at the bottom exceeded 12~. This could be attributed to a minor construction defect; however, following a request by the PEC Worksessian for as-built surveys, the original topo showed errors of 8". The 12/28/95 topo and follow-up letter by White Survey clarify this fact. This eliminated any room for error and this hardship has resulted in a request to appeal the variance denial. As seen.in the enclosed lettet of approval by the Fire Marshall, this area of concern has been mitigated by an extensive fire alarm system and state-of-the-art driveway snowmelt controls. The costs associated with completely resolving this matter involve the cutting, demolition and complete removal of the seamless hydronic tubing and reinforced concrete and the re-installation of the same for approximately $70,000. A smaller scale concrete capping of the related area would be approximately $1,500-$3,004 but the quality, longevity and .upkeep of this solution is highly questionable. This opinion has been acknowledged by Public Works. The issue of the steel guardrail along Potato Patch Drive is a last minute condition attached to the PEC approval of the retaining wall variance by the Public Works Department to safeguard a condition that was existent before the project began. As seen in the 7/25/94 topo survey there was no shoulder along Patata Patch Drive before construction began nor was any shoulder proposed in the 4/6/95 approved drawings., 1000 lionsridge loop • suite 3d • vail Colorado 81657 • (970} 47fi-9228 * fax (970} 476-9023 The Contractor has made every effort to restore a 2' gravel shoulder with at least 5' of 1:2 slope but this is now impossible to achieve (in a small area) with the driveway and retaining walls in place. The area requested to be mitigated by the Town Engineer {adjacent to the shoulder} is also occupied by a 1 1/4 " PVC gas line ~ 30" below grade that may be impacted during construction and certainly effected for future repairs. We fee]. Public Works created a hardship condition in $/89 when, according to Gary Hall of PSCo, Director Stan Berryman ordered a second gas line be placed on the south side .of Potato Patch Drive to eliminated future asphalt ~ utility cuts. PSCo requires maintenance of the line be performed between the asphalt and any improvement. Therefore, allowance far future guardrails, such as is presently requested, was not made and herein lies the hardship. This also brings up the issue of future maintenance, liability and shared costs. Initial construction estimates suggest $3500- $4x00 installed without having to move the gas line. Should this be absorbed by the property owner or is there a passibility of shared costs? Should the railing need maintenance or is damaged, who should absorb these costs? The barrier also creates a hazard by limiting sight lines for traffic and casting shadows that create ice slicks. Who is liable in these instances? While there is the issue of additional damages created by improvement of the property there is also the safeguazd of homeowners insurance that covers such matters. While we agree to the request for matters of safety our own civil engineer has reached a similar and less obtrusive solution.. We respectfully request these methods be considered in interest of cost, the likelihood of damage to an underground gas line, reduced hazards and appearance. . We feel these matters and the consequences to the home owners shall have no effect on the light, views and safety of the public. Herein lies the summation of the variance request along with the survey dated 12/28/95 and letters for the above stated Primary/ Secondary residence. The above items haves been presented and discussed with the Planning Staff, Public Works and the Planning and Zoning Commission in previous conferences and this statement is our understanding of the matters involved. We appreciate any other points of clarification and should be brought to our attention in writing. Res ectf lly ubmitted, Eric Jo 0 ERIC JOHNS ARCHITECT, P.C. Enclosures: Fire Dept (Mike Magee}, White Survey (Daryl White}, PSCo {Gary Ha11}, Civil Engineering {Jerry Law}, Petition (Adj. Neighbors}, Beehive Const. (Ray Kutash},.Longs Excav (Daryl Long}. Casson Concrete Construction {Jimbo Casson). MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch DrivelLot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruttier I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Eric Johnson, representing the property owner, is requesting a wall height variance and a driveway grade variance for a new PrimarylSecondary residence under construction an Lot 26, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. A Building Permit for the Prirnaryl5econdary residence was issued on April 21, 1995, and construction on the project has proceeded since that date. On October 17, 1995, the applicant submitted an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) for staff review and approval. Staff requires a review and approval ofi an lLC to insure that the . improvements under construction comply with the relevant development standards. When staff reviewed the ILC for Lot 26, it was determined that the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, and those on the north side of the driveway, in the front setback exceeded the 3-foot height limitation pursuant to Section 18.58.Q20 of the Municipal Code. The heated driveway was also be over the 12% grade maximum. Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code permits retaining walls up to 3 feet in height in the front setback, and Section 17.28.030 allows driveway grades up to 12°/p if heated and approved by the~Tawn Engineer. Since the applicant is proposing retaining walls up to 6 feet in height in the front setback, and a heated driveway with a finish grade of 14.1 a variance approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission is required. II. BACKGROUND According to the applicant, the need for the wall height variance and driveway grade variance requests are the result of minor construction defects. On April 6, 1995, the Town of Vaii Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed heated driveway grade at 12%. The Public Works Department's review and approval was based upon a site plan and topographic survey submitted to the Town of . Vail. Additionally, the Fire Department approved the i 2% driveway grade once the applicant revised the site plan to allow for a wider driveway access onto the property. 1 • On November 14, 1995, an inspection of the finished driveway grade was completed by the Tawn Engineers.. The inspection concluded that the finish driveway grade exceeded the allowed maximum grade of 12% pursuant to Section 17.28.030 of the Municipal Cade. The #inished driveway grade was determined to be up to 14.1 % over a 20 foot long section of the driveway. . • On December 11, 1995, a worksession was held with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed variances (See Attachment 1). At . that meeting, the applicant presented a proposal to construct another three-foot tall boulder retaining wall along Potato Patch Drive. The purpase of the additional retaining wall was to facilitate the reconstruction of a two-foot wide gravel shoulder along the street. Upon de#ailed review of the site, it has been determined by the Contractor's Consulting Engineer and the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the pre-existing gravel shoulder cannot be restored and still maintain a safe slope adjacent to the street. Therefore, Public Works is now requiring that the contractor install 36 linear feet of steel • - guardrail, including flared-end sections, along Potato Patch Drive, should the wall height variance request be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The purpase of the guardrail is to protect the general public and the property owner from vehicles sliding off of Potato Patch and down into the.driveway and house (See Attachment 2 The driveway grade variance was also discussed at the Planning and Environmental Commission worksession. The driveway as currently constructed, exceeds the 12% maximum allowed by the Municipal Code. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the existing driveway to remain as constructed. According to the "as-built" survey submitted by the applicant, the driveway exceeds the 12% maximum over a 20' section of the driveway. The maximum grade on the existing driveway is 14.1%. According to the • applicant, the excess driveway grade is due to minor defects in the construction. process. It has been suggested by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the applicant research the possibility of "capping" the driveway to resolve the grade issue. The applicant has met with a Consulting Engineer to discuss the passibility of "capping" the . driveway. The applicant has indicated that according to the Consulting Engineer, the long • term longevity of the "capping" process, including the use of special concrete additives • and epoxy, is'questionabie. The concern of the Consulting Engineer revalues around the extremely thin layer of concrete that will be added to the driveway. The applicant is continuing to research the "capping" process. At the December 11th worksession, staff had identified several issues which we wanted to discuss further with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. These issues included the redesign of the retaining wall along the south side of the driveway, and the need to redesign and regrade the landscaping in response to the change to the retaining wall system. The applicant has submitted a set of plan revisions illustrating the redesign of the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, as well as anew landscape and grading plan (See Attachment 3). The applicant has indicated that the retaining wall south of the driveway will be modified by adding one more planting zone at the southernmost aspen to raise the grade of the top of the wall, thus shortening one of the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The applicant has indicated a desire to leave the top course of stones along the driveway to act as a deterrent to vehicles sliding off of the driveway, and to prevent the erosion of the driveway subsurface. 2 Additionally, the applicant is proposing to amend the landscape plan by adding three additional Colorado Blue Spruce, twelve five-gallon Red Twig Dogwoods, and eight Blue Rug Junipers to the previously approved landscape plan. The additional landscaping is intended to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed six foot toff retaining walls. III. CRITERIA AND iFINDlNGS Comn[iance with the Town of Vail Zoning Code., A. Pursuant to Section ~ 8.62.Q60 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance application the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the requested variance with respect to the variance Criteria and Findings. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance. = 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity of the Koenig Residence wiA have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures. The retaining walls are located on the downhill side of Potato Patch Drive. The walls will not be visible #rom any other location than the applicant's property and the adjoining lots to the east and west. To mitigate the visual impact of the retaining walls, the applicant has proposed to add more landscaping on the property. The additional landscaping will be placed to take maximum bens#it of its' screening ability. Similiar to the wall height variance, the driveway grade variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and, structures in the vicinity. The request to exceed the maximum grade allowable by 2.1 % will only affect the users of the driveway. The proposed driveway wilt remain heated to help ensure all-weather access. Staff would like to point out however that since the adoption of the 12% driveway grade standard in 1991, no driveway grade variances have ever been granted. The approval or denial of the requested variance does not create precedence for future driveway grade variance requests. 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; . The applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway grade and wall height regulations to achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Municipal Code. The applicant has agreed and proposed to add and delete boulders in the retaining walls where possible to reduce the finished wall's height. According to the Consulting Engineer, the retaining walls constructed to the north of the driveway are the minimum necessary to . support the earth behind. In some locations, the Engineer has indicated that it may be desirable to increase the wall heights, however, this is not necessary. The applicant has submitted a set of Engineer's stamped plans to the Town of Vail as requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A letter from the Consulting Engineer has been attached (See Attachment 4) The applicant has neither proposed to increase, nor reduce the existing driveway grade. Instead, the applicant has requested that the driveway grade be permitted to remain at the grade constructed. At the present time, only 2Q feet of the total driveway length exceeds the 12% maximum grade. Staff believes that the applicant is asking for the minimurrt amount of relief #rom the code necessary to achieve the desired objective. Staff, however, is concerned that granting the requested variances may result in the granting of special privilege. As discussed at the worksession meeting, the applicant had originally submitted, and the Town approved, a Building Permit set of drawings that illustrated the ability to construct the residence with a maximum 12 % driveway grade and three foot tall retaining walls in the front setback. If the applicant had come to the Planning and Environmental Commission requesting a wall height and driveway grade variance prior to the start of construction an the residence, it is quite likely that the variance would not have been approved because it appears na physical hardship or practical difficulty existed on the property. It would appear now that a practical difficulty exists. The issue, however, is that the practical difficulty of removing and reconstructing the retaining walls and driveway was self-imposed by the applicant and the contractor and their representatives. 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 the wall height and driveway grade variances will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above described criteria. Staff would life to point out'that from a public safety standpoint, the Town of Vail Fire Department has granted their approval to the driveway grade variance request (See Attachment 5). 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff has not identified any other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed variances. 4 B. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting 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 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 stric# 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 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 RECOMM~NDATInN • The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the wall height and driveway grade variances. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings listed in Section III of this memorandum, staff feels the applicant has failed to meet the findings necessary to recommend approval. Staff agrees that the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious, to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence. Staff is concerned, however, that the applicant has not addressed finding B1 since the granting of the requested variances. may constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the wall height and driveway grade variances, staf# would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1) That 36 lineal feet of steel guardrail and required flared-end sections be installed along Potato Patch Drive in a location approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. i 5 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 11, 1995 draft minutes 6, A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision, A licant: Eric ]ohnson for Ga Koeni pP g . Planner: George Ruther George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the driveway grade. Two walls are now over the 3' height limitation. Public Works would like to have a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would like the contractor to explain where the discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public N VI''orks said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Depar#msnt) indicated that the building may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but there~is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing aspens. If wasn't far the rack wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove as little as passible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over A~0%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original survey. There is almost 13' in elevation change. Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department wanted was an additional Q'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height. They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve the aspen tress. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with the neighbors and decided tp mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls. Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created more problems. Their engineer is writing a~letter to keep the earth the way it is and not put any more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 3-4" short a# 12% grads. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response from Terri Martinez the inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade. Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria. George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. • Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along the street. He encouraged the applicant to da double or triple walls without impacting trees. ATTACffi~,~c.L~ ~ # L Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walks. Dalton kS not Concerned about the wall except far safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail would make it safer. The Town goes honkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2% grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"-4" of concrete without sloughing off. Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway. George Ruther said the bottom needs to came up to lesson the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway. Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done. Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. Whert the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining wails will hold. Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it a#ter the fact and not be#ore it was put 'rt. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail ar rock wall on the south side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rack walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat far children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall o#f. He will let the driveway issue go. Dalfon Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the~retaining walls. Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession. Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has melted a 3' snowdrift. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. • George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer. Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone. Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways. Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned on. ~ . George Ruther said it is impassible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times. George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feek the house needs to be retrosprinklered. Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house. Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. Greg Moffat said he doesn't like waivers; just indemnifications. Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing. Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails. i a r MF,MDR.A NDIIM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Public Works Department DATE: January 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Konig driveway/ wall height variance I. The architect is requesting a variance For a driveway grade which exceeds the maximum grade allowed by 2.1 as well as a wall height variance for walls exceeding the maximum height of 3'by2'2" II. III. Upon review of Section 17.28.330 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Public Works Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. No variances for driveway grade have been granted since 1991 when the Town began to enforce the ordinance. All driveways that have been built since then have been in . ~ conformance with the Town standard. B. The Town Engineer will allow the contractor to exceed the maximum allowable grade of 12% to account far inadequate surveys, etc. The contractor can exceed the maximum grade by 10%, or go to an absolute maximum of 13.2%, before we would ask the contractor to submit a request for a variance. In this case, the grade exceeds the absolute maximum allowable at 14.1 To allow the contractor to use a driveway at 14.1 % would definitely be a grant of special privilege. C. Allowing the driveway to remain at 14, l % will potentially cause access problems for the current owner as well as any future owners. Potential problems include bottoming out or scraping if they drive larger vehicles on the drive, as well as problems with emergency or delivery vehicle access, particularilly if the owner chooses not to turn on the heating system. D. The wall height variance as proposed is acceptable, but the contractor will be required to instal136 linear feet of guardrail, including flared end sections on both ends. The guardrail should be installed to protect the general public from sliding off of Potato Patch Drive, down into the Kong drivewaylhome. The contractor was unable to restore the preexisting shoulder on Potato Patch Drive and still meet safe slope requirements for this section of the property frontage. ATrAC~x~ #2 . ~ s~.. ' ;`t r 84.5 ~ • ! I 2` ~ ~I ~ s vKl..a ~ p~a~ rlr.a-1 FMK • ~ t . H}'`~~.ir;+reia ~o~~I~EI~ s~'ETi~'INI~.ka Wf"e,l- • - ..f ~ ~07~'.es.F ~.T!!~uayi.:.N'rso e-Hrm.>-I a w.,s1 H'f• Tm 1 r _ H 1 I t Yr~vc 1J ~ ~ (3 y 2'i,:' sr•!. r~r'e.u f 1 ~ clJ Sas4J'1' ' , I , ~ , j K'W A 416f _ 1 `1 L~~ T ~ 7. r. I+CN N 'ra N~Yurlll(' ~ ~ 1 M~ -.~=-ul%~X ffk:iY P' Q i ^"i-~ itI ' ~a ~ ~ ~1~ ~dP4 DI.IJp'KUCI ww~ L , flf ~ W a o~ j ff+l ~~1 tl -I 17J~ IIW~~yN CrL ~Ii ~1Y1~~ L~•a- LI~ N 'ji r~~ ~ 4 I S ~tl.. Q6n siduHsC7 ~ ?J ....-WI b 1-+ nl 1~ ii 1 ~ij I r~ (Al Dv wu.li ~ r 14.1' 6:. yr.l~ ' ~ ~ ~i.V , O 4 ~r~f ~ y 441Y '17gNGl-F+ Q r GV~V 4ti p/r!'yl Nl+f ~~J~~-YrFJObGPfH~ L.IQ~M'f IA01.VfR F~ l a (Bx~ND bvsa cuNpIJIT rba PuT.a6~~ ~ ATTA~aMENT # PeleMlT 3.21~gS. l.lMIT aK yNOI.lHrldr l+ pErr w ! ~ !f • . ar OF Jerry C. Law, R.E. .335 Dr~negan Road Glenwood Springs, Ctn. 81601 December 28, 1995 George Ruttier, Town Planner Town of vail Department of C.~,~.«snity Development 75 South Frontage Road pail, CO 82657 icc,: The i~aenig Residence Wall Height Variance Dear Mr. Ruttier: ~ :~.ave prepared the fallowing sutrmaz'y paragzaphs out az respect far your limited time to study the many different variance cases which you review. I respectfully request that the wall height variance be allowed based on the positive aspects of the existing walls versus the unsafe and sparsely landscaped 3' wails shown in Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. THE GOOD The existing walls {see Exhibits B--].,B-2,A-.3,H-4) were built using sound construe- ti.on principles with well compacted sail held in place with MiraPi fabric covered with tightly interlocking boulders. The walls will provide a stable service life long aFter the landscaping has matured and established extensive root systems. THE 3AD It is physically impossible to constnzct a 2' road shoulder, a 5' slope at 2: then step the rock walls 3' vertically within th¢spaCe allowed at the Kaenig residence. ~ 1 THE [7GLX See Exhibits C-1,C-2,G-3,C-4. The series of 3' walls would be mostlg rock eXppsed with very ~.ittle landscaping in between and only a Z' shoulder with no 5' slope at 2:1 (unsafe). Respectfully submitted, fir''' Jerry C. Law, P.E. e 2544 . ~ c.2g/f r ssfANAL ECG, i ATTACffi~NT ~`4 Y t i~ raw~v of 42 West Meadom Drive Yard Ftre D~epartr~en~ [~ei1, Calarnrlo l~~I~~7 3D3-479-t2~0 ' ] 196 ~~'Y C~earge Bother Town of Vail Department ofGammunity I~velapment 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Calorada 8 t 657 . - Re: Koenig Request far Variance on Wali Height es~d Driveway Grade Dear C~eor~e; . The Vail )Fire Department svmple~teci annthcr p~ti review and Conducted a site visit this morning at 7~5 Potato Pgtch, Hssed on the observations we made during the site visit and having again reevaluated the plans and conditions as they easel, we da not abject to the granting of"the variance provided th~+ structure ie provicieul with an approved and monitored fire alarm system. Please advise us as to the PEC's decision. Sincerely, Michatl McCxee Fire Marshal ATTACHMENT ~`5 TQTAL F'. ~1 O~~ George Rather gave an overview and said the Steinbergs were appealing the staff`s interpretation of the Zoning Analysis. The Steinbergs were not present and were appealing that a third dwelling unit an the property was the concern they had, since only two dwelling units were allowed. Staff was recommending upholding the staffs coning analysis. Rick ROSen, representing Sam Cook, said Town Council should not have sent it back to the PEC. The addition is a wet bar sink and lemon refrigerator. Section 18.04.150 states the definition of a kitchen does not apply to this addition. It is simply a bedroom with a sink. The code is real clear and we should not be here. He didn't appreciate the S#einbergs writing a letter and' not having any representation at the meeting. George Rt~ther said Torn Moorhead could not be here. Torn was looking for an agreement from the property owner to get on the record that the intent is not to be used as a third dwelling unit. Sam Cook, the owner of the house, has 4 children who each have 2 children. It is simply an - < extra bedroom. He regrets the problem with the neighbor. Lynn Fritzlen, Mr. Cooks architect, wanted to assure staff that they have gone to elaborate lengths to stay within the constraints of the Zoning Code, even though the house was built in '64. There were no problems by anyone on the Board. - Jeff Bowen made a motion to uphold the staff's Zoning Analysis and that it be approved in a manner where the PEC agrees with the review. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vats of 6-0. 6. A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 25, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson f, Planner: George gave an overview of the worksessian to discuss the wall height variance and the driveway grade. Two walls are now over the 3' height limitation. Public Works would like to have a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would Pike the contractor to explain where the discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what gat constructed. Public Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and a[so no enforcement. The current owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Tawn from any liability. • Planning an3 Environmental Commission Minutes • ~ December 11,1995 ~ Ray Coutash, owner of beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfifl was over 40%. The change in elevation from the highpaint to the driveway was not supplied in the original survey. There is almost 13' in elevation change. Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department ~ • wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height. They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve the aspen trees. If they used a three font stepping process they would have ended up with five walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with . ~ the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls. Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way it is and not put any more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the.driveway up, and came up 3-4" short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response from Terri Martinez the inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade. Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria. George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. .Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees. Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail would make it safer. The Town goes bankers over driveways. The Town gave an extra grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"-4" of concrete without sloughing off. Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway. George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lessor, the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway. Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep Into the concrete. He would like to have an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done. • Planning and Enaironmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 8 S Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As far the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with It. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining walls will hold. • Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rack wall an the south side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the- driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rack walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall of#. He will let the driveway issue go. Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls. Greg Mo#fet stated this is a worksession. Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily, It has melted a 3' snowdrift. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2` shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades an . driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer. Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone. Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways. Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned on. George Ruther said it is impassible to police whether heated driveways are turned an. Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times. i Planuing and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 ~ ~ George Rather had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house needs to be retrosprinklered. Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house. Eric Johnson (architect} said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. . - Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications. Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing. Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails. 7. "Council Reports." a. A vacancy existed on the PEC board created by Bob Armour. b. Call-up of Serrano's. c. Golden Peak has gone before the Tawn Council for a first reading. Kevin Deighan said he heard that the Council was going to require a parking structure. d. The Bob Borne denial was overturned by Council. Henry Pratt heard that Council overturned some of PEC's architectural approvals. He is not sure to what extent the Council has overturned the PEC recommendations. 8. Approval of November 27, 1995 PEC minutes. Jeff Bowen moved that the minutes be approved. Henry Pratt had changes on page 20 to delete the 7th line. Greg Moffet had some deletions on page 20. Dalton Williams had changes on page 20. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the November 27, 1995 minutes as modified. Henry Pratt secnnded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Dalton Williams said he doesn't plan on running again for the PEC. He is stepping down due to time retraints but has enjoyed his B years on the Board. Jeff Bowen made a motion to adjorn the meeting. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjorned at 4:50 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11,1995 10 ~ I~ccll~vc Constrr~ct~ory G~~n~~iux~3, . ~ ~ 12~Sfi Illovc~ r; - iiw~ri~*rr~~nt, ('.01~~. RII~O1 a Rhl•33rHh ~netrn 4t4~7•lKR6ti ,~u~.s.~.~ ,~,.;,r . ~ , Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd. Va11, Co. ,lanuary 1, 1995 Attn: George Ruttier ' . p Re: Koenig Residence 795 Potato Patch Dr. Vail, Co. Dear Sirs, Our proposal for the work relating to our variance application is outlined below. The meeting with Terry Martinez, Eric Johnson, and yoursetf on Friday, December 29, 1995 was very helpful iri evaluating the engineering report and determining out course. We request that the variance for the rock walls north of the drive be ~ granted, leaving the walls at their present height. Cleaning up of the road right of way, landscape planting and minor grade work will be completed in the spring. As outlined in the engineering report no more . excavation along the road will be done, this will ensure that the load capacity of the road fill and the shoulder can be preserved as welt as providing a safety zone for the public right of way. The visual impact of this wall will be minimized through the landscape and the planting of ground covers within the interlocking rock wail. The wall south of the drive wilt be modified by adding one more planting zone at the southern most aspen to raise the grade at the toe of the wall #hus shortening one of the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The remainder of Efts wall would be left at its existing height, the stone steps will shorten the height of the wall near the house and provide access. This wiN leave one section of the wall slightly taf[er than the three foot height, we have planted a • Balsam Fir in the planting zone in front of ibis section, it will stabilize the earthwork and visually mitigate the wail height. This wall will also be planted with ground covers and improved in the spring Iandscaping.We wish to (save the top course of stone as the deterrent to sliding off the drive and to prevent erosion and the undermining of the gfl that supports the concrete drive. The zone between these rocks and the concrete serves as a curb and is better able to warn a driver of the edge without the likelihood of becoming stuck or going beyond the drive without a possible recovery. Tits sloping character of the wait wilt be enhanced by the removal of the rubble stone stored there at present, and the wall will be much safer and attractive upon completion, resembling the natural rock indigenous to the region. The driveway grade is an issue much troubling ms. Our engineering consultants support ~ihe granting of a variance based on the drives construction and minor grade defect. To achieve compliance a capping process has bash evaluated. The long term viability of the cap process, even with special add mixtures and epoxies, has been questioned and no warranty on the process is possible. We will be asking Mike McGee, the (owns fire marshal) , fo evaluate the as . built survey and to visit the site and see the work. I believe that access is the key issue and there are alternatives io the staging area an the drive that satisfy the ~ 5D ft. ruse and provide protection to the site, #he' firemen and their equipment. the drive design was based an survey information that contains two errors making this an unnecessary hardship ~ and an extremely difficult design and engineering cask. The grade dId not reveal the nafure of the wall ai the northwest property comer and the second error of a much mare substantial nature Es the grade at the drive along Potato Patch is actually .t3 ft. or between 7 and 9 inches higher than the approved drawings Shaw it. This additional height removed any tolerance from the driveway grades. This second error was discovered in evaluating the as built survey and interpreting the earlier survey work and drawings. This is a very sensitive issue and 1 hope that we are obis to resolve this . , without compromising the intent of the statute and the process of variance. The nafure of the drives construction may help in the decision to grant a variance. The hydronlc heat system is a 70% glycol closed loop. Mare important is the control, a Tekmar controller "sees" precipitation it turns on and off the 2 boiler, 2 pump system as the temperature, snow, and ice require heat, Unlike many systems this costs much less to run and is automated where the system remains in the ready mode until needed, the system is an and is supported by backups. This system is repeated in both units wish slight variation. It has always been my intent and the owners intent to fully comply with codes. and ordinances. !n an effort to satisfy the comprehensive plans guidelines we have made every effort to unify the hams with the si#e, saving the native trees by moving them , utilizing the indigenous rock and plants and preserving the natural character of the site. I would request that you grant #his variance based on the strength of the engineering j sparks and th© efforts to fulfill the intent of the codes and the statutes governing our building pro ect. Thank you for ybu considerallon, Sincerely, Raymond Kutash- Beehive Construction ~ ~ieeH~vc Construet3on Company 126 Hnvcr ~ 1iF?M-~~tRif mclrn x•447-~1i~R6 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd, ~ _ Vail, CO January 23, 989$ Town Council: • P The section of road above the Koenig residence at 795 Potato Patch is along a dead end road. The project is along a straight section of road wish moderate slope not far down from the end. Town engineers are asking the owners to install a shirty six foot guardrail west of the drive. Other similar road sections do not have guardrail. The building project has added shoulder where steep slope wish no shoulder fell off before construction. The rock wall and FII have provided access and a road buffer.as well as preserving indigenous plantings and aspen groves. The guardrail would add the risks of ice shading, higher accumulated snow from plowing aperaiians, and blocked sight fines for cars entering and leaving this drive. These risks outweigh the limited protection provided by the proposed rail. As an alternative we would prefer you allow a low landscape visual barrier and not require a guardrail. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely: } Ray Kutash Beehive Construction Sharon and Gary Koenig -Owners Barbara and Bob Dowse -Owners We are signing this at the request of our neighbors: _ ' W P V ~ ~ ~ ® ' ~ o ~o ~ r w o~ o m u ~ N 0 ~y ~ d ~ o.~,~o U ~ ~ J 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~y~ ~ ~ ® 8~ O Q O O ~ O ~ ~ 0 0 ~c ~ + ~O ~ o o n a ® ® w _ a'~ ° Asa m o o ~ ~ z o o ~N~~ p ~ 0 ~ A Oi N ~ O O 9 O ~ O W ' Q ~ 0 . 0 o o ~ ' mo m m ~ ~ W PQ m ~ N ~ QO O N ~ ' O O O O ~ m ~ 0 I p q ~ N ti~ p p trT ~ Q ~ I ~ O p 0 6 co ~ H ~ ~ ~ 0 N ~ 1 N~~ ~ u~ I prp a N l p w D w ' ~ I u N o ~ ~n to Q O ~ 0 ~ a " ' 0 0 Oy ~y 0 m f ~"a m p 1O " _ N 0 ~ 2n ~ m b 0 0 / ' ~ 0 p ~ 0 0 u ~ A $ ' ~ ~ 3O p i » Q wA 0 Ow p ' ~ ~ 0 ~ w pe 0 p 0 ' ~ 0 _ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~r~o ~ ~ 0 m 0 w ° ~ 0 ~a N W p ' u a °a i !JO a 4O ~ N ~ N u 9 qo N m a ° ~ ~ m a C $ ~ p' e w p Q ~ ~ ~ JJJ ~ ~ 0 p Z ` n ~ f 0 0 08f 00 ` 0 a ` ~ ® n Ia ~ ~ 'g a C o D 4~ ~ aw ~ N ~ r J e >o J ~ D ' a o~~ N C ~ 0 ~ a., ® as J a ~ N o ~~o G ~0 0 a ~ c o o Z U U a N 0 N~Gq 0 ~ ~j a W O pp 0 W /w J ~ ~aO~ O da ~ o 0 m 0 C ~ P mmUm 00 N A r.~ N p O~ TC • e~pOec~3+La fJ'ci P ~ /t m ~ ~ ~ m w ~ N ~ r ~ C m t0. 141 a u . C o l ~6 V ~ m 0 4 J c n ~ a o ~ rr-I a r ~ ~ ~ p~ m D ~ a D r ~ ~ Vo ~ a O O O{ ~ N 41 t S~ a ma 4 ~ y 4i~lo + o man ~ a o n Q no ~ ~ ~ .'C c 'a ~ p~c a N o m ryP rr ~ ~ U1 P ~e n~ O~~w u ~A ,~-~-r ~h use c~ 2 . L, . ~'C~ SUBDIVISIONS 5. Alleys -Alleys shall be provided if required by the planning commission. The minimum wiidih of the alley shall be twenty feet. Dead-end alleys shall not be permitted. All alleys shall be paved. 6. Easements -Easements shall be provided for all utilities, drainage ways, channels, or streams which traverse across the subdivision. Block lengths -The length, width, and shapes of blocks shall be determined by the type of use, zoning requirements, needs for convenient access, circulation and safety of street traffic, and Iimitations and oppominities of topography. _ 8. Cut-de-sacs - Cul-de-sac streets, however, shall be designed as minor or local with aright-of-way bulb of fifty foot radius and pavement radius of forty feet. 9. Street width-Street width shall conform to the following: L1.A5S Ro,W PAV® SHWt17ER DESIC3N MAX. MIIV.CURVE PtJiURE WLi7iH WII7t~~ orar~ C~t/IDE96 RADit75 Adr Arterial {Frontage) 70 12' 8 50 G 650 750 and per lane over Collector 50 24 4 40 7 250 300-750 Local 50 22 3 30 8 60 150-300 Minor {Private) 40 22 2 30 4 50 0-150 Driveway 12 1 20 - B . Horizontal Alignment. The major considerations in horizontal alignment design are: safety, grade profile, road type, design - ~ ~ speed; sight distance, and topography. All these factors must be balanced to produce an alignment that is safest, most economical, and adequate for the type of road proposed. Horizontal alignment must provide at least the minimum . stopping sight distance for the design speed at all points. This "Maximum grade for driveways may be np to 10~k if the Town Engineers approval is obtained. If the driveway is proposed to be heated, the grade may be up to 1290 if the Town Engineers approval is obtained. 298-26 _ {Vail 4-7-92) a J jy `OWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road D,ff ce of the Town Attorney Yail, Colorado 8.1657 470-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Tawn Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin' - Town Manager DATE: February 2, 1996 SUB.lECT: -Town Manager's Report Lunch with PEC The Planning and Environmental Commission wanted #o invite the Town Council to have lunch with them on Monday, February 12. This meeting wilt be held in the Tawn Council Chambers and will begin at 12:00 noon. The purpose of this meeting wilt be to discuss local housing and how the Planning Commission and Council can best work together to accomplish this important goal. If you S are able to attend please R.S.V.P. to Susan Connelly at 479-2138. Public Particiaation Workshoo As you are aware, on February 13th we will host a public participation workshop for the Council and selected members of the TOV staff. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a better understanding of public participation, to understand specific public participation objectives and .techniques to accomplish these objectives: It is our hope that this session will improve our ability to manage the various "processes" that we undertake in debating, deciding and implementing public policy. This workshop will begin at 8:00 a.m. and will continue until 6:00 p.m.. It will be held at the Evergreen Lodge, and lunch will be provided. We hope you will be able to join us as we believe • it will help you be more effective in dealing Frith the many complex issues that you will be facing over the coming two years. For additional information please contact Suzanne Sllverthorn at 479- 2115. For your information I have attached a list of the participants far this workshop. RWMIaw . C:4Townmgr.rpl i,~• RECYCLED PAPER _ 4 Citizen Parlticipatlon Training 8 am #0 5 pm, Evergreen Lodge Lunch will be provided FEBRUARY 13 FEBRUARY 14 Bab Armour 5ybill Navas K~evi.n Foley Rob Fard Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Pau! Johnston Bob McLaurin Bob McLaurin Pam Brandmeyer Pam Brandmeyer Community Development Staff {16) Community Development Staff (16) Suzanne Silverthorn Suzanne Sllverthorn Holly McCutcheon John Power John Power Steve Thompson Steve Thompson Chris Anderson Chris Anderson Buck Allen Dick Duran Dick Duran John Gulick Mike McGee Mike McGee Jeff Atencio Jefl' Atencio Larry Grafel Larry Grafel Greg Hali Greg Hall Jim Hoza Jim Hoza Terri Martinez Terri Martinez Larry Pardee Larry Pardee Todd Oppenheimer Todd Oppenheimber Mike Rase ~ ~ Mike Rose Jody Doster Jody Doster Annie Fax ~ Annie Fox Susan Boyd Susan Boyd Greg Morrison Greg Morrison Jeff Layman Jeff Layman Corey Schmidt Carey Schmidt Joe Russell Jae Russell Dick Gericke Dick Gericke Linda Moore Linda Moore Tom Moorhead Tom Moorhead Jim Weber Jim Weber Totals: 53 Totals: 28 J WI'l I1~11YJ l.Ul'li'IVIYlt. fl l 1U 1L 11711 .]7f ~iL JI'YIV 1J 70 J 71 ~VU ,l•J ~J r i TawN of VAII. CITY COUNCIL 1 STAFF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING FEBRUARY ] 3, 1996 PRELIMINARY SES510N AGENDA g a„., - S ~ wi ~utr~~ccn ~4~~ e Lunc,1~ prove) . What is citizen participatian? What it is not Why is it important? How do we know it will matter? . ~ Overview of national research What DO people expect from local government What does practicing citizen participation mean? ' The pro's and can's at making a public commitment to citizen . participation Roles and responxibilities Of leaders Of managers and staff Of citizens When is citizen participation the right approach? when NOT to use When to use Key questions fior planning a citizen participation process . Iden#ifying the problem to be salved . De-brief of Vail Cv„~..ions project (~el•~~i ~~~,4ris~) Group work on defining the problem on the West Vail Interchange Establishing the 'Givens' ' :Group work on establishing the givens for the West Vail Interchange process Deciding why needs to be involved Small group work on West Vail Interchange interests /issues matrix, and report-out Determining if all people !groups need equal appartunity to be involved in the process; if they all need equal attention wnir,i~ti.~ ..u~~iiivirlt.nilU 1Li17~IfJyf4c JHf'1 l~~yC3 J~SL IVO.UUS F'.LJS i i . Determining the expectations of each citizen participation process Setting objectives Deciding on expectations and objectives for West Vail Interchange process The difference between public opinion and public judgment Encouraging consensus~decision-making How people's values influence the process . An overview of Citizen participation methods General rules of thumb Cautions Setting the tone for citizen participation processes Cammunicatians principles What can go wrong in a process Honoring the process when it comes to decision time saying thank You t TowN of vql~ STAFF CmZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING FEBRUARY 14, 199fi R~ - 5 E~g~h PRELIMINARY SESSION AGENDA C ~.,tAn~, `~DJid~d (First block of time in the morning. is dependent on whether the staff in this . ~ session attended the previous day's session; if not al! staff were at the Feb, ~ 13 session, some time will need to be spent at the beginning of this session re- capping the major points made the previous day}. Review Vail Commons discussion from previous day's session; discuss lessons learned Common staff mistakes in citizen participation Re-visit the West Vaii Interchange matrix begun the previous day Determine additional in#erests 1 155ue5 Review how to use the matrix Determine the depth of interest on the West Vaii interchange Determine the complexity of information needed Review step-by-step chart of decisions Discuss as a planning tool Review in context of West Vail Interchange project Haw to determine the series of decisions and information needed . Fallow a problem-solving sequence . Communicating technical information Develop a process plan for West Vail interchange Review checklist for designing a citizen participation process Review of citizen participation methods 5eiect methods to use on West Vail Interchange What consensus decision-making fools like The importance of listening fbr the values people hold Checking the process with citi;~ens I i - LL • i ~a..~ JhifV 1~ ~ ~a J:~1 No .UV~ N,05 4 Prepalring the written plan Communications, internally and externally specifics about meetings Inviting people Logistics Amenities Roomset-up Agenda . . Group memory Response forms Specifics about deliberatipn and consensus Preparing elected ofFicials for the final derision Communicating the decision Saying Thank You Evaluating the process . i' S a 216196 Town Council Meeting RA The next item on the agenda, Resolution No. S, Series of 1996, a resolution directing the Town Manager to enter to an agreement with Stewart Title Guaranty Company for attorneys fees and costs. RTM Mayor this relates to our agreements for the development of Vail Commons which will provide the public purpose of making housing available for local employees. Pursuant to ' our contracts the Town has an obligation to provide title insurance. Based upon threats of litigation that it had been previous brought by the Common Sense for the Commons - Petitioners Committee, Stewart Title is willing to provide the title insurance up to~the amount of $20 million for the improvements on the property with the agreement that the Town of Vail would share attorneys fees and costs for any cause of action that was brought by the Common Sense of the Commons Petitioners Committee. I believe that that is a reasonable request by ,Stewart Title and would recommend passage of this resolution. RA Thank you Tom. Is there any public input on this? If not, is there a motion for discussion. SN I move for approval of Resolution No. 5. PJ Second. RA So moved by Sybill, seconded by Paul. Is there any further discussion? MJ I'll discuss. RA Yes. • MJ We've had a couple of , we had an executive session today where basically, and I don't really think that that was privileged what we were talking about specifically, but I think that for the sake of ,for my interest I think that I should mention that I did not participate. in the actual executive session that concerned the commons because I have been a - participant with the Common Sense far the Commons Committee, which-of course is against this particular project. And as I've been out of Town for a week and I'm not sure of the current status of where they're going with this, my understanding is that they did want to pursue some type of legal action, but since I have been extremely close to. this I did remove myself from the meeting today. I felt that the conflict was really not because * I am an employee of Safeway but I wanted to bring it out in the open that it was because of my participation as a member of the Common Sense for the Commons Committee. As far as the voting on this particular issue I guess I've got a choice to make, I can either abstain, or I can make a move to vote. What I think would do. on this particular case is because Y do nat know far sure if there is action, I will vote on this partieular issue, with the understanding that I have not participated in executive session participation. Thank you. RA Further discussion. SN Did, Tam did you just {inaudible) sorry, I know it was mentioned earlier that the time frame for a lawsuit has passed... RTM For certain lawsuits Sybill, for a lawsuit that would be brought pursuant to Rule 106, which provides for District Court review of any action of Town Council as to whether it would be arbitrary and capricious, that time has passed. SN Thank you. RA Tom your, and I ask fax Iegal advice on Mike's decision to vote on this, is it appropriate or should he recuse himself. TRM Mike had previously stated to me that he had a conflict of interest in regard to any issues dealing with the Vail Commons. Other than that he and I have had no discussion in regard to this. Whether or not he has a conflict is something that falls within his decision making process. It's not for me to say whether or not Mike Jewett has a conflict in this matter. MJ I think that if i can respond to that. My concern originally, and I'm not an attorney so I don't want to interpret law, but the way I was reading the documents that were provided plus what I've picked up from the Secretary of State's Office was that there was a need for like a monetary gain and I didn't see any monetary gain on my part. Because at Safeway, where I work, I'm very very high on the seniority list and so as far as layoffs and that type of thing I don't anticipate any problem. Where the conflict would arise now ~ • • at this point is if the Common Sense for the Commons Committee did file a suit and I ~ • was in an executive session where privy information was being divulged then in theory if Pm part of that group then 1 would have that conflict with the Town of Vail. Now at the same time I feel that I have, I represent a certain group of individuals within the Tawn of - Vail who are against this particular project and was voted into office for that particular reason. There's going to be a varying degree depending on how that individual felt but certainly I received enough votes to get elected and they knew my position clearly, that I was against this particular project, not because of another grocery store but because of the way this process was handled and the way it all came dawn. So, for that reason, there's no monetary gain and sa I feel comfortable voting. RA Very good. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? (Inaudible) There is a motion on the floor. All those in favor? • Aye. r RA Opposed? MJ Aye. RA I am in favor 6-1 with Mike Jewett being opposed to this. . rr MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING February 20, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 20, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M, due to technical recording difficulties. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybil! Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Mike Jewett Rob Ford Kevin Foley MEMBERS ABSENT: Ludwig Kurz TQWN QFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager and on behalf of the Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was presentation of the Vail Youth Recognition Awards. Two outstanding high school students, Dana Carlson, a senior from Battle Mountain High School and Tag Hopkins, a junior from Vail Mountain School, were awaxded certificates and an opportunity to travel on an exchange program to Mount Buller, Australia, this coming summer. Paul Johnston indicated standards of excellence above the norm had been established to qualify for this recognition and that bath of these students exemplified tha highest standards according to the criteria. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The third item on the agenda was a presentation by Terrill Knight and Andy Weisner of the Eagle Valley Land Trust. Knight explained this private non-profit organization used the best techniques available for preserving and obtaining open space through private means. The organization is to be viewed as a referral agency and broker. A prime mandate in their facilitation of negotiations is that no one should lose any rights nor opportunities. Presentations having already been made to the Towns of Minturn, Avon, Eagle and Gypsum, as well as the Cattlemen's Association. Knight and Weisner explained to Council they appreciated the opportunity to simply discuss the operation of the Land Trust and that they had come to the Council with no request in mind, other than that the Council understand their role. The fourth item on the agenda was appointment to the Planning and Environmental. Comrnission, A motion was made by Sybill, with a second from Kevin, to appoint Galen Aasland, Greg Amsden, Diane Golden, and Gene Uselton to two year terms expiring February of 1998. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6~0. The fifth item on the agenda was appointment to the Design Review Board. A motion was made by Sybill, with a second from Paul, to appoint Clark Brittain and Ted Hingst for a two year appointment expiring February of 1998. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The sixth item on the agenda was an appointment to the Housing Authority. A motion was made by Sybill, with a second from Paul, to appoint Robert Mann for a five year term expiring in February of 2001. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The seventh item an the agenda was appointment to the Art In Public Places Board. A motion was made by Sybill, with a second from Rob, to appoint Sherry Dorward and George Lamb to three year appointments and Kyle Webb to a one year appointment. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 2!20!96 .f t ~ The eighth item on the agenda was an appointzxa.ent to the Vail Valley Marketing Board. A motion was made by Sybill, with a second from Rob, to appoint Beth Slifer to fill an unexpired term until January of 1997. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. There being no Town Manager's Report, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: I?1 ~~,u.~-~.~.. Holly ~VlcCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pamela A. Brandmeyer on behalf of the Town Clerk. (`Names of certain Individuals who gave public input may ba inaccurate.} 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting M'Rnutes 2I2of96 . , MINUTES VAlL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING March 5, 1996 7:30 P.M. M A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Prq-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz _ TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second on the agenda was Proclamation No. 1, Series of 1996, Girl Scouts' Be Your Best Day. Mayor Armour welcomed Brownie Girl Scouts 9-year old Kaitlin Duffey and 7-year old Chelsea Donaldson to the meeting and -read Proclamation No. 1 in full. Kaitlin Duffey then read a prepared statement encouraging community members to "be your best" on March 12. Third on the agenda was the Consent Agenda, which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the meetings of February 6 and 20, 1996. Mike Jewett moved to approve the minutes of February 20, and requested the minutes of February 6 be continued until the next evening meeting, pending his review of the tape recording. Paul Johnston seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number four was the Review of the Lottery Values and Weighting of Criteria. Council was requested to review information, provide feedback, modify, and approve lottery cri#eria and weighting. Mike Jewett excused himself from the discussion. Local business owner and resident, Jack Curtin, expressed his views in determining the criteria, stating that people who live and work in Vail should be given higher preference. Council members expressed their understanding, but some felt it was important to encourage employees working in Vail and living outside the town limits to move back to Vail. Rob Ford moved to adopt the lottery criteria pursuant to staff recommendation with changes, and Paul seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 6~0, Jewett abstaining, and the following criteria was adopted: ~ Current and consecutive years of EMPLOYMENT in Vail will be weighted 3-to~1 over consecutive years of employment elsewhere in Eagle County and historical employment in Vail immediately preceding consecutive employment elsewhere in Eagle County. • Current and consecutive years of RESIDENCE in Vail will be weighted 2-to-1 over consecutive years of residence elsewhere in Eagle County and historical residence in Vail immediately preceding consecutive residence elsewhere in Eagle County. • HOMEOWNERS at the time of the lottery application are not eligible unless, upon selection, they deed restrict and agree to complete the safe of that residence before or simultaneously with the purchase of the Vail Commons unit. • A 2Q point bonus will be provided for DEED RESTRfiCTING and selling a unit in Vail • because of the net gain in locals housing that results. • Lender PREQUALIFICATION will be required prior to application. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 03/05/96 ' . Agenda item number five was Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.9 8, Section 18.18.090 Density Control, Medium-Density Family (MDMF} District of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and explained staff had discovered #hat when Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991 was adopted it inadvertently omitted the density provisions which limit the density in the district to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Dominic further stated that staff was proposing Ordinance 4 to correct the oversight. Paul moved to approve the ordinance with a second from Kevin Foley. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Sixth on the agenda was Ordinance No.6, Series of 199fi, first reading of First Amendment to the Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Tom Moorhead presented the item, stating this was a follow up ordinance, similar to the amendment passed recently for the Fire and Police Pension Plan. He informed Council that the change in text was prompted by an IRS review, at the request of the Town in order to obtain a determination letter from the IRS. A motion was made by Sybil! to approve Ordinance 6, Series of 1996 on frst reading, with a second from Paul. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number seven on the agenda was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, for the • construction of a Type I11 Employee Housing Unit in the Cornice Building; fio amend the development plans for Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Jim Curnutte, presented the item, and, together with the owner representative, Tom Braun, gave a detailed history of the project. The following background was provided: On February 12, 1996, the applicant's representative, Tom Braun, appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission, ("PEC"} with a request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District (SDD} No. 32, to allow for the construction of an employee housing unit, located at the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drivelpart of Tract B, Vail Village 1st Filing. In addition to the proposal to construct an employee housing unit in the Cornice Building, the applicant also proposed a change to the approved development plan with regard to the outdoor lighting requirements. The applicant was seeking greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement than is currently allowed by Chapter 18.54, Design Review, of the Town of Vaii Municipal Code. Upon review of the Major SDD Amendment request, in accordance with Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code, the PEC approved a motion to recommend approval of the Major SDD Amendment request to the Town Council with following conditions: 1. That the proposed employee housing unit, within the Cornice Bulldmg, not be eligible for sake separately from the single-family dwelling unit. 2. That any previous approvals for outdoor lighting on the property be voided by this approval. 3. That the internal access door between the existing garage and the proposed employee housing unit be eliminated. The motion to recommend approval of the Major SDD Amendment request passed 3-1-1 (Bowen dissented, Amsden abstained). A copy of the memorandum prepared for the PEC, dated February 12, 1996, was attached for reference. Jim stated that in accordance with the memorandum prepared by staff for the PEC on 02112!96, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building. 2 Vail Town Council livening Meeting Minutes 03/05/96 r Jim Lamont representative for the East Village Homeowners Association voiced his concern regarding the additional outside parking the approval would provide, citing the visual impact vehicles parked outside would have on the neighborhood. Tom Braun proposed various solutions and discussion continued regarding the applicant's fighting request. Paul Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. Series of 1996, subject to the three restrictions imposed by the PEC, allowing outside surface parking. Mike Jewett seconded the motion. A vote was taken and failed, 4-3, Sybill, Rob, Ludwig and Mayor Armour voting in opposition. Rob Ford then moved to approve the Ordinance subject to the three restrictions imposed by the PEC, and, additionally, limiting permanent parking to the garage only, restricting the outside driveway to loading, drop off and pick up only. The motion was seconded by Sybill. Council members then discussed enforcement issues, and Bob McLaurin said enforcement would occur if and when complaints were received. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. The last item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin reported on his meeting with Eagle County engineer regarding options for proceeding with the railroad right-of way. Council supported the county in continuing to pursue all options. Kevin Foley congratulated Sara Wall, who took first place in the recent Slolom & Giant Slolom races. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .v Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk . Minutes taken by hloily McCutcheon {*Names of ceAain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 03/D5196 i ~~rr ~7 TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 :AX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY March 6, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VA1L TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MARCH 5 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Site Visit The Council made a site visit to the Cornice Building at 363 Vail Valley Drive in preparation for the evening meeting. (See evening meeting briefs.} --Special Events Intertace with Vail Valley Marketing Board and Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau i An informational overview was presented by Frank Johnson, president of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and other VVTCB representatives. The presentation included an update on the integration of special events, communications, visitor information and marketing within the framework of the VVTCB organization. The briefing was intended as an orientation for new Council members. --Appeals Process Discussion (Ordinance No. 7} After reviewing a staff proposal to revise the appeals process for development review, Council members offered support for adding clarity and addressing inconsistencies in the appeals process (through a revision of the codes}, but turned down a controversial recommendation to remove the Council from the appeals process of Design Review Board decisions and certain variance appeals of the Planning and Environmental Commission. While the staff had attempted to recommend a streamlined process that enables a decision to be appealed only once (DRB appeals heard by PEC and PEC appeals heard by the courts}, Council members objected, saying review of appeals at the Council level should be inherent to the process. Council members said the entire development review process should be scrutinized and suggested contacting current • and former applicants for their feedback. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association urged the town to move forward in analyzing the entire process, while Sue Dugan, who works in the real estate field, suggested the length of time to appeal a decision should be extended to better accommodate the second homeowner community. For additional details, contact Susan Connelly in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. ~~,a ~more~ . R GYCLED APER l Council HighlightslAdd 1 --Housing Lottery Criteria With Mike Jewett excusing himself from the discussion, the remaining Council members continued their review of the lottery criteria for the Vail Commons project. Although Council members expressed interest in protecting the integrity of the lottery process and said they would be offended by someone trying to "make a buck" an the subsidized housing, they stopped short of creating a "deed police" requirement. Instead, the criteria will continue to focus on the goals to be achieved, not on those who may attempt to subvert the integrity of the process. Sybil) Navas wondered if, the criteria would eliminate someone with significant assets. In response, Andy Knudtsen, senior housing policy planner, said the criteria requiring local wage earners to work 30 hours a week should address the concern. Navas also reluctantly agreed to support a plan to award lottery bonus points to anyone agreeing to deed restrict and sell a housing unit in Vail. Navas had proposed allowing the deed restricted unit to be added to.the rental pool, but other Council members said it would be simpler to require the unit to be sold. In addition, Council members agreed to give additional weighting to lottery applicants who already live in Vail. Sue Dugan, who works in the real estate profession, advised the Counciil to keep the process as simple as possible. She objected to the 30 hour per week work requirement for eligibility. Council members agreed the lottery will not be all - things to all people. Following the afternoon discussion, the Council tweaked the lottery criteria to give additional priority to those working and living in Vail before voting 6-0-1 (Jewett} for final approval. (Please see evening briefs for the final outcome). --Information Update The Council agreed to start its March 12 work session at noon to continue discussions ' from the Feb. 27 retreat. Evening Session Briefs ,Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participa#ion. --Girl Scouts' Be Your Best Day - Mayor Bob Armour read a proclamation declaring March 12 as Girl Scouts' Be Your Best Day in Vail. The proclamation was presented to 9-year-old Kaitlin Duffey and 7- year-old Chelsea Donaldson, representing the scouting community. --Lottery Criteria Final Approval With Michael Jewett again refraining from the discussion, the Council heard a request from Vail businessman Jack Curtin to give higher lottery preference to those who not . nnly work in Vail, but those who already live in Vail, as well. Current residents (renters} are the people who should be rewarded, Curtin said, because they're paying the price to live here with their tax dollars. In addition, the action would double the affordable housing stock in Vail from 53 to 106, he said. Council members were sympathetic to (more) e i Council HighlightslAdd 2 Cumin's request, but said the lottery criteria should not punish someone who is currently unable to find affordable housing in Vail due to the lack of inventory. Some members emphasized the town's leadership role in solving valleywide problems. The Council then voted 6-0-1 (Jewett abstaining) to adopt the lottery criteria as follows: Current and consecutive years of EMPLOYMENT in Vail will be weighted 3-to-1 . over consecutive years of employment elsewhere in Eagle County and historical . ~ employment in Vail immediately preceding consecutive employment elsewhere in Eagle County. • Current and consecutive years of RESIDENCE in Vail will be weighted 2-to-1 over consecutive years of residence elsewhere in Eagle County and historical residence in Vail immediately preceding consecutive residence elsewhere in . Eagle County. • HOMEOWNERS at the tome of the lottery application are not eligible unless, upon selection, they deed restrict and agree to complete the sale of that residence before or simultaneously with the purchase of the Vail Commons unit. • A 20 point bonus will be provided for DEED RESTRICTING and selling a unit in Vail because of the net gain in locals housing that results. • Lender PREQUALIFICATION will be required prior to application. The next phase of the lottery process wi11 include hammering out the details of the financial prequalification requirement. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Ordinance No. 4, Density Control, Medium-Density Family Distric# of the Vail Municipal Code ' The Council voted 7-0 to approve.this housekeeping ordinance on first reading. --Qrdinance No. fi, Amendment to the Town of Vai! Employees' Pension Plan The Council voted 7-0 to approve this ordinance on first reading. It, too, is a housekeeping measure. --Ordinance No. 8, Cornice Building Major Special Development District Amendmen# The Council voted 7-0 to approve on first reading a major amendment to the Cornice Building Special Development District. The motion for approval carried with it the additional condition that no permanent exterior parking for the employee housing unit . tenant be allowed on the property with the exception of loading and deliveries. Approval would allow creation of an employee housing unit within the Cornice Building and additional flexibility with regard to outdoor lighting requirements. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association voiced the group's concerns about allowing surface parking on the site. The ordinance will be heard for second reading at the March 19 evening meeting. For additional details, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Town Manager's Report In, his town manager's report, Bob McLaurin reported on his meeting with the Eagle (more} i Council HighlightslAdd 3 County engineer regarding options for proceeding with the railroad right-of-way acquisition. Options vary from a cost of $4.6 to $6 million to outright purchase the line to $900,000 to deal with the rail abandonment issue only. The Council gave its support for the county to continue pursuing all options. # # # UPCOMING D1SCU5SION TOPICS March 72 Work Session (72 noon start) Council Retreat Continued ?iscussions PECIDRB Review Update of Eagle Mine Clean-up Red Sandstone Employee Housing March 79 Work Session Phase I Design Review Revisions Site Visit, Glen Lyon Office Building Art In Public Places {AIPP} March 79 Evening Meeting . First Reading, Phase I Design Review Revisions First Reading, Amend Design Review Board Terms ' First Reading, Glen Lyon Office Building Golden Peak Ski Base Request to Amend Operational Management Plan ~ , ~c~ , ':~7 ~'~.d.~ ar~~ ~.~.a,~-~~ gar' TO: Mayan Armour and Town Council FROM: Andy Knudtsen and Susan Connelly RE: Proposed Vail Carnmons Lottery Criteria DATE: March 5, 1995 A. TODAY' S WORK SESSION RESULTS/ DIRECTION TO STAFF: I . Weight current and consecutive years of EMPLOYMENT in Vai12 -to-1 over consecutive years of employment elsewhere in Eagle County and historical employment in Vail immediately preceding consecutive employment elsewhere in Eagle County. 2. Weight current and consecutive years of RESIDENCE iri Vail 1.S-to-1 [same thing as 3-tat] aver consecutive years of residence elsewhere in Eagle County and historical residence in Vail immediately preceding consecutive residence elsewhere in Eagle County. 3. HOMEOWNERS at the time of the Tottery application are not eligible UNLESS, upon selection, they deed restrict and agree to complete the sale of that residence before or simultaneously with the purchase of the Vail Commons unit. 4. Provide a bonus for DEED RESTRICTING and selling a unit in Vail because of the net gain in locals housing that results. 5. Lender prequalificaiton required prior to application. 5. No "deed police" focus on the goals to be achieved, not on those people who may attempt to subvert the integrity of the process. .(PLUS, use of tiers will create more randomness even among those with much seniority in the area.) 7. In addition to the weighting of the values/ priorities, for selection fi.,~„ among the lottery applicants use TIERS based on 20, 44, 60 and 80 percentiles of point ranges for all applicants. ILLUSTRATION: POINT SPREAD OF ALL APPLICANTS 0 TOP 0 20 40 60 80 100 PERCENTILES S. REMEMBER that this particular lottery will not be all things to all people. B. PUBLIC INPUT??? SCENARIOS ILLUSTRATING WEIGHTED VALUES Per 3/5/96 Council Work Session SUMMARY OF GIVENS: (See cover memo for details) 1, CURRENT EMPLOYMENT IN VAIL 2:1 OVER EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE VAIL AND HISTORICALLY ]N VAIL 2. RESIDENCE IN VAIL 1.5:1 OVER RESIDENCE OUTSIDE VAIL 3. 20 BONUS POINTS FOR DEED RESTRICTING IN VAIL Six Fictional Case Studies: 20yr res.Vail 20yr res.Vail 10yr res.Vail l0yr resAvon 14yr resAvon 5 yr.res Vail 20yremp1Vai1 SyrsworkAvon l0yrsworkV l0yrsworkV IOyrsworkAvon SyrsworkV . 15yrspastworkV [DEED RESTRICT] 30 30 15 10 10 7.5 40 20 20 20 10 10 [20] 70 50 35 30 20 17.5 [37.5] - MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental C~u,,,~ission FROM: Community Devel.,~,.~~ent Department a DATE: February 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a Ma1or Amendment to SDD No. 32 ~to allow for the construction of an Employee Housing unit located at The Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: David Smith, represented by Tam Braun Planner: George Ruttier I. ~~~ROUND The establishment of Special Development District (SDD) #32, the Cornice Building, was approved by the Vail Town Council on Apri15, 1994, (Ordinance #7, Series of 1994). This approval set devel~,~,~~.ent standards and requirements for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive. The ~h~,~essed purpose for the creation of the Cornice Building SDD was to allow for greater flexibility in the redevelopment of the property and that certain' public benefits would be realized through the creation of the SDD. • ermanentl As part of the original SDD approval, the developer agreed to provide three, p y restricted employee housing units. The units are to be located within the Town of Vail limits, ' close to a Town of Vail bus route and are to be rented at reasonable market rates. Additionally, the units are to always comply with the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements, as maybe amended from time to time. Each of the three employee units are to be deed restricted and .available for occupancy prior to a Temporary. Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the ' Cornice Building. ~ ' On May 26, 1994, the Town issued a building permit for the demolition of the original Cornice Building and its subsequent reconstruction. Construction on the Cornice Building is nearly complete, with only a few minor improvements in need of completion. Ta date, two of the three required employee units have been completed and permanently restricted in accordance with the original SDD approval. These include a new employee unit constructed within an existing duplex in the Pitkin Creek Meadows area of East Vail, and a new employee unit located within a new duplex in the Golfcourse neighborhood. The third employee unit was originally planned to be located at the Vail Racquet Club., The applicant's plans to deed-restrict that unit did not work out, and the applicant is proposing to construct the last of the three required units in~the Cornice Building, F:IEVF.ILYONBIPEC~MEMOSICORNICF.F12 II. DESCRIPTIONS TH~EOUEST~, The applicant is proposing a Major Amendment to Special Development District #32, in accordance with Section 18.14. k44, Amendment Procedures, of the Vail Municipal Code. A Major Amendment is being proposed to allow for the construction of a Type III, Employee Housing Unit within the Cornice Building, and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirements than is currently allowed by the Ogtdoor Lighting Ordinance. ~plnvee Ho~I Included within the ground level of the newly constructed Cornice Building is a crawl space of approximately 259 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing to construct the new employee unit within the crawl space area, as well as extend a portion of the building out underneath an existing second-floor cantilever. When completed, the total square footage of the employee unit will be approximately 3$7 square feet. The only changes to the exterior of the building will be the in-fill of the area beneath the second-floor cantilever, the addition of three new windows on the east elevation of the building and the installation of an :.~I~ance doar with sidelights on the south elevation. The applicant is ~.~~rasing to match the exterior changes with the existing architecture and building materials. Once completed, the employee unit will be permanently deed-restricted in accordance with the requirements of the original SDD approval and is intended to satisfiy the requirement as the third employee unit. The original approval of Special Development District #32 restricted density to one dwelling unit, and limited the Total Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on the property to 2,040 square feet. With this application, the applicant is proposing to deviate from the original SDD arr~~val. The applicant is proposing to increase the number of dwelling units on "the praperiy to 1.5, and increase the Total Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area to 2,387 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to deviate from the on-site parking requirement established by the underlying zoning ofHigh-Density Multi-Family {HDMF). According to the HDMF zone district, 75% of the required on-site parking must be enclosed within the main building. With this proposal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 66% of the on-site parking within the main building. Outdoor Light The applicant is also proposing to amend Special Development District #32 to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting regulations for the property. On May k 8, 1993, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, setting forth standards for regulating outdoor lighting in the Town of Vail. According to the approved Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, in part, ' one (1}outdoor light source is allowed per one-thousand square feet of total lot area. In the opinion of the applicant, it is not practical to be required to adhere to this requirement because of F:IAVERYONE1FECtMBd4f051CO1tNICL.F12 the unusually small lot sire of the Cornice Building property. As shown below, the total square footage of the Cornice Building property is 3,659 sq. ft. Based upon 3,659 sq. ft., the wilding is allowed only four outdoor lights. According to the applicant, faun outdoor lights are not enough to adequately light the exterior of the building. The applicant would request that he be pemtitted to install a total of twelve outdoor lights on the property. 'This would allow the y~.,r,ertY to be adequately lit for safety and aesthetic purposes without resulting in the undesirable side effects of too much outdoor lighting. The applicant is proposing to install twelve outdoor lights; seven of which are recessed niche lights in the stairway and balcony walls, two are fully cut-off recessed can lights installed in the soffit and three are surfaced mounted light fixtures. All of the proposed light fixtures comply with the Source Lumens limitations of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. An approval •of this outdoor lighting request will void any previous approvals granted for lighting on the property. III. ~QNINLYSIS . Address: 362 Vail Valley Drive Zoning: Special Devel~,y~uent District #32 Lot Size: 3,659 square feet/0.084 acres ALLOWED EXISTING PROPOSED Setbacks: as indicated on the Front: 13' no change approved devel.,Y~~~ent Sides: 2'111' . plan Rear: 2.5' Height: 33 feet 33 feet no change ' Density: One {1) single-family One {1) single-family 1.5 dwelling units*** dwelling unit dwelling unit GRFA: 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. 2,387 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 38% ar 1,397 sq. ft. 38% or 1,397 sq. ft. no change Landscaping: 40% or 1,464 sq. ft. 40% or 1,464 sq. ft. no change F:IEVERYONEIPLCIIVIEMOS~CORNICSFI2 3 V Outdoor Lighting: One (1) outdoor light fourteen outdoor • twelve outdoor Tight source per one-thousand light sources sources as indicated square feet of lot area on the amended development plan. Parking: Two {2) interior spaces Two (2) anterior spaces Two (2) interior . ~ spaces + one (1) exterior space * The underlying ~g for Special Development District #32 is High Density Multi-Family (HOME). According to the apptaved SOD, the nuu~imum altFA for the Cornice Building shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. This figure is the rnax+n,um CiIiFA that will be allowed an the lat. Arl addttiana1250 square feat of CiRFA, per Chapter 18.71 of • the Vail Municipal Code, shad not be allowed an this site, now or in the future. A 500 equate foot credit for a two-car garage shall be allowed in addition io the 2,000 square feat of CiRFA allawad on the site. The approved density for the Cornice Building shall be one (1) single-family dwelling unit. * * According to Section 18.57.060(B}(3}, Type-III Employee Housing Units, of the Vail Municipal Code, a Type III Employee Housing Unit shall he taunted as 0.5 dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density. IV. SDD REVi~W CRITERIA In reviewing the applicant's r~~urosed Major Amendment to Special Devel~~,~~~ent District #32, the staff relied on several relevant planning documents to formulate a recommendation. The Town of Vail Municipal Code and the Vail Village Master Plan were used to analize this proposal. Town of Vail Municiual Codes According to Section 18.40.020(C) of the Vail. Municipal Code, a Major Amendment to an SDD is defined as: "any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accornodation units; modify, enlarge, or expand any approved Special Development District other than a minor amendment," Staff has detemuned that, since the applicant is proposing to increase the total amount of GRFA on the property from 2,000 square feet to 2,387 square feet, and increase the number of dwelling units within the building fi.,~~~ one single-family to asingle-family and a Type III employee • housing unit, this request is a Major SDD Amendment. Section 18,40,080 of the Vail Municipal Code, Special Devel~ra..ent District Design Criteria, establishes nine criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Envir„u,.x~ental Cornmission when F:IEVPRYONEIPEC\MEM031CbRiVICE.P12 4 evaluating the merits of Special Devel.,tu~ent District proposals and/or amendments. The fallowing is an evaluation of the nine desiga criteria by staff: 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. This design criteria is relevant to the applicant's proposed amendment to construct a Type lli employee housing unit in the existing buiiding and #o increase the total number of . outdoor lights an the property than would otherwise be permitted. The construction of the employee unit will have minimal, if any, negative effects on the above-listed criteria. The new unit will be constructed within the existing footprint of the building. Therefore, the additional bulk and mass being added will not be readily noticable. The portion of the employee unit constructed under the second-floor cantilever is designed to match the existing architecture and fenestration of the building. The new front entry to the employee unit will be slightly recessed to provide articulation and shadow/shade and to avoid the creation of a large flat wall. All construction associated with the new employee unit will be built with materials to match those existing an the building. The new construction will be most visible from the streamwalk along the south side of the property. Regarding the proposed exterior parking space, the applicant has proposed to increase the amount of landscaping immediately adjacent to the parking space in order to mitigate any visual impact associated with a vehicle parked in the space. The applicant is proposing to relocate three existing Red-Twig Dogwoods and replace them with three Mugho pines. The Red-Twig Dogwoods will be replanted to the north of the parking space. The property owner will continue to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the landscaping on the property as required by the original SDD approval. In the staff's opinion, the additional outdoor lighting being proposed by the applicant will not adversely affect adjacent properties, nor the community in general. The request of the applicant to be permitted to install twelve outdoor lights on the property, rather than four as regulated by the Outdaar Lighting Ordinance, does not create a conflict with the intent " of the ordinance. B. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. With regard to GRFA and density, the applicant is requesting an additional 3$7 square feet of GRFA, and an increase in density of 4.5 dwelling units more than was originally approved by the Town Council. The staff believes the proposed increases will be compatible with surrounding uses and activities. Properties in the immediate vicinty are • zoned for higher density and mare intensive use. Prior to the original Cornice Building being demolished, one dwelling unit and three,. studio-size apartments existed on the F:1P.VBRXON6IPEC~IfiMOS1CORN~CE.Fi2 5 property, and at one time in the past, eight, studio-size apartments were on the property. Additionally, an employee unit in this location will be attractive to persons working in the Village, as well as to persons working elsewhere in Town, due to the convenient access to the Town's bus system. As stated earlier, the staff is comfortable with the request for additional outdoor lighting. The applicant is not requesting an exorbinant amount of lighting which may otherwise adversely impact adjacent properties or result in undesirable side effects. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined is Chapter 18.52. An increase in GRFA and density will result in an increase in the parking requirement associated with the property. Currently, the approved SDD allows for 2,000 square feet . of GRFA on the property. According to Chapter 1$,S2 of the Vail Municipal Code, the parking requirement is two spaces. The existing garage Curren#ly provides two enclosed parking spaces and the driveway design will accomodate a third exterior space on the west side of the building. According to the property's underlying zoning of HDMF, 75% of the required parking shall be enclosed within the main building. With this proposal, G6% of the required parking will be enclosed. After exploring other alternatives, staff is comfortable allowing one exterior parking space on the property in the area identified on the site plan. Modifying the existing garage to accommodate a third enclosed parking space will cause significant structural constraints. The building is designed with a structural beam running north-south through the garage to a supporting column constructed where the new garage door would need to be placed. The only way to provide a third enclosed parking space would be to completely reconstruct the gazazge. . Allowing the applicant to pay-in-lieu of providing a parking space on-site does not resolve the parking need generated by the employee unit. While it may be possible to restrict any o~,~yloyee parking on the site, it creates an enforcement problem. In the staff s opinion, we would be creating a regulation that is difficult to enforce since it is likely the tenant will have a vehicle and need to park it somewhere and it does not address guest • parking. This design criteria is not applicable with regard to the proposed outdoor lighting, and therefore, need not be addressed. • D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. • V#t~~ Village Master Plan Goals for Vail Village are addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan, Staffhas identified the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this Major SDD Amendment request: F:1EVfiRYONEIF~CIMF.MOSICOR~'iCS.P12 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. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promateyear-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. . 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 ar xedevelopment project requesting density aver that allowed by existing zoning. 2,6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availibility and affordability to the local work force. The staff continues to believe that the overall redevel.,~,~ent of the Cornice Building meets many of the goals, policies and objectives of the Town's ad'Vk L:,d Master Plans. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the - property on which the Special Development District is propoeed. There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, nor is the property effected by the Gore Creek 100-yeaz 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 the community. The site plan and building design of the existing building will be altered minimally with this proposal. Staff does not believe that the changes proposed are significant enough to effect this criteria. G. A circulation system designed for both~vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. . Attached for reference is an on-site parking and circulation plan. The plan indicates the location of the exterior parking space for the employee unit and the turning movements required to get vehicles out of the garage spaces without needing to back out onto Vail Valley Drive. This plan has been reviewed and approved by Greg Hall, the Town F:\EVEAYO]VEIPEG'tiMF.MOSICO1tNICEFI2 7 Engineer. It does not appear that the addition of an employee unit on the property will have any negative impacts on the traffic flow on Vail Valley Drive. The driveway was originally . constructed far enough from the nearby intersection to insure adequate sight lines for vehicles leaving the property. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and ~ preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Given the scope of this proposal, staff believes there will be minimal, if any, impacts on the above-referenced criteria. The applicant has agreed to mitigate any visual impacts of the proposed exterior parking space by increasing the amount of landscaping along the west side of the property. As with the original approval, 40% of the site will continue to be maintained as landscaping. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. The above-referenced criteria is not applicable to this application, V. STAFF RE~QMN~ND,diTION Staffrecornmendsnr+al of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District #32, the Cornice Building. We find that the applicant's proposal to construct a Type III employee housing unit and increase density to 1.5 dwelling units in the Cornice Building, increase the Total Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on the property to 2,3$7 square feet from 2,000 square , feet, provide 66'% of the on-site parking enclosed in the main'building rather than the 75°/n required by the underlying zoning, and be permitted to install twelve outdoor lights on the property, are all in compliance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code in general, and specifically, meets the goals and objectives of the Special Devel.,~,~«ent District as described in this memorandum. F:1aV8RYpNE1PECtiMHMOSICOIZNICE.F12 g 0 ¦ 18~, ,~.SS~J~~~;lr~5, ~1'~~. fiLANNIr`fG anc COMMl1fJi1'~' q[:vEl.ot'M~Nr February 8, 196 C,ec~r~e Bother Tcn~vn. of 'Vail 7~ Sc+itth Frt~ntagr Rc~:~cl Yail. Calaractc~ S1t557 R~: Cnrnicc Building D~tr Gec7rge: . Enclo~d you will find a revised set of lrlatts for the C;ornit;e Ettilding ~ll1U amendment. The fc~ilowing ~:hange.~ have ficcs~ made: 1) Flaw have hucn lat~c:lcd "I99G SDD An~ndmtant-A,drlitiat~ of Ei1L1~, 2} Notes have been added indicating tltr~x: rc~•twig dogwoods to be re~iaced by tluee mugc~ (dogwoods ECt ~ rt:ltx:eteci un site}, 3} xtertar lighting is indicated oA building elevations, and 4} The: mouth etevatlan has been modified to refl~:t the fcnc~tratic,n ineli~tttxl an the niaui ]arCl ~aor }Ian. . 1 laav~: discutk5ed the lighting issue with Jim attd we have made ilte following changes: l } one of the small drec~rdtive lamps mounted on the column dt the main entry to tl~c building will be removed. 2} A sma[1 wall mounted lamp loeatrxi at the man-dexx to the garage wiII be removed. 3) 1#ll,ather lights to remain, th~c tights include: . Four rt:c;e;+sfcl 4al'cty lights located an the main exterior Stairway, Tttret: ru;~5cd safety lights located on the second level balcony. • Two wall-m«unt~ decorative lamps located can the we:;t elavation, • Two rect~.~:d "cans" lacatc~i in the soffit above the gage, and ¦ ~Inr cm:~ll ri~.rcerativr lamp mrruntc~l nn the cnlurnn at the main ea'ttry tot the building. 'l'he building mill have a total U£ t~rclvc exterior lights? however it is hnportAnt try [totE; that acvcr~ of these. lights arse rere~ss~•.d wafety lights t.lta t arr<: virtr~ally t~rtrmtiae.~hie frnnr cuff the site. There will nc>w 1~ c.~nl}~ frv~: surfac,~ ixtOurtted light fixtures, two of which are recessed pans. I hope this infot7nation is aczceptable tc~ you and the rat of the staff: Thanks for the~a~gortunity to rrsalvc this issua via the SDD prc~ccss. l'lcasc do not h~itatc to call with any clucstinns. Situ:e~+rly, Thc~ma„+ A. »rautn. A,[CP Minturn Ironworks Bvitding pt+one - 970,t3IT,5797 241 Main Street 2nd ~laor i=cx - 97fl.SY7.5507 Post OFfice Box 776 Minturn, Cr~3c~rado 81b4S TaTHL P,Oi Y J. ~,~•.a~ ~ i ' ~ a~~ z. , r ~ 111, ~ \ ~ ~ .r ' ~ ~ ~ ! r f ~ ~ t' i . ' ,J . ~ , ~x ' ~ ~ .i ~3 ~ ~ ~ ,~r ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~Q~ ~ ~ ~ e 7 w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F W a~ ~ V~ # ~ I 1 i s } ~ . ~ 1a ~ • 9 4 ~h _ > ~ - - rk n ~ b~~~~~~ 1 { M r , Ij n~ i' i' I ~ t. i 1 5 - 3 ~ - E _ - ~ .,a- ; t ~ _ i ~ ~ w ~ I - - 9 - ~ I I o ~ 4 ~ ~ _ i + ~ { LJ~ J -~F ii q 4.J j ~ ~ 'r • ' y1 ~ i 1./ y'. ~ `1 V a f.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ u ~ ~ c~: cr 3 Y r 4 I 1 ~ 9 ~ ~ Qa - - - ~ ~w - ~ g' ~ o ~ ~ ~ t' p ~ b ~ ~ w N ~ w ~ ~ a~ o~ . - _o;ss"- . i I ~ Q. y_~~ . i D r+ w o~ t A O 1,'.~. R, ~ .'.~.r fLY ~ 1.4 _ . , 1 1 i i ~ti ~Sa . ~ r1~i - ~ ~ ~ ~ a J~ Z S i ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ ~ Q~ a~i' • a oa ~ ~ _ G ~ O I S~1 .+fY ~ ~r% ~ Q d ~ ~ ~ ~ - r. T .w y ~ 9 1 y ly r/.///A J ~ ' ~ 4' a ~ ~~y ~f~, ; ~ f , I 1 ~ I • 3~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~l ~ X11 ~ ~ y i~1 ~'1 ~ 1 ,r 1 ~ r_~ ~y ~ u a ~ ~ I 1 a ~s _ ~ ~ r . - Z n J ~ a ~ F -Q ~ W \ w ~ W~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ H ©gy { i ~ ~a,,,~ .S a~ ~ _ ~ ~ 3 ~ .J 1 - ti riiv ~ _ a 'r ~J ~~s~~. ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ f~ •ri ~ ~ ~ a , ~i~is.~ ~ ~ ~ ,1' _ _ _ J~ ~ ~ 4 ~ .,d V ~ w 1 ' r , .M. ~i ~~r. S. ~ ~ ~ • • Y .r i • ~ , • • ~~r ' ~ ~ ~'t ~ti :;w-_ _1_ _i . i a i ~o ~ 1 •n ~ j ~ ~ ~ + ~ 4y o of I I I ~ i . ~ ~ o . s a ~ ~,4i ~ Y ~ t ~ ~ ~ .p~. w ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ o s. ,b ,9t ~ y ~x 9 x !s„' _ _J ~r ~ ~ y,~ ~1t~7~~~ r-... _ ~ r. r. .y r ~ ~ i ~so~ _ _ ~~o~-~ - ~ _ j..,. ! ~ ~ ` ~ s 1~1 ;tom- .1~` I`~M~ ' r'~ i' r - ~ : t' , „r. ~ rp P~u~ f * ~ ~ f... ~ r 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin,~-~ RE: Town Manager's Report DT: March 15, 1996 2996 (;ammunity Survey The 1996 Community Survey is scheduled to be mailed at the end of this month. This is the eightth year we have surveyed residents, second homeowners and merchants. This questionnaire is attached for your information, This is the third consecutive year we have used this format. This format is used to identify satisfaction levels with various town services and departments. 1t also asks "haw are we doing?" with respect to the Tawn Staff, TOV Boards and the Town Council. The survey is used to help measure performance. As you will recall, each TOV department identifies specific outcome measures in the town budget. This survey is one of the principle tools we use to measure organizational and departmental performance. This year the survey will also focus on community priorities with respect to various town services. We intend to use this data as we work through our budget problems. Please note this copy of the survey is still in draft form. We will be conducting several focus groups on March 18 and 19 to help test the instrument. if you have comments or questions regarding xhe instrument, please feel free to contact Suzanne at 479-2115. We would like to hear your comments by. Tuesday evening in order to maintain our schedule. We intend to mail the survey at the end of March, and have the data by the middle of May. This will provide us with the results in time to assist in our internal budget work. Ten Year Budget Undate As we discussed several weeks ago, flattening sales collections and increasing costs due to inflation makes the Town's financial future somewhat uncertain. 1 indicated at that meeting we would be working internally over the next four months to develop a strategic financial plan in order to deal with this problem. Pursuant to the format discussed at the Kezziah Watkins, the attached documents show the Statement of Problem and a list of Givens, i have also attached chart showing the process we will use develop the strategic f nancial plan. As indicated in the chart, this work will conclude in August when we prepare the 1997/98 budget document. Ql:i-11-56 12:01 RRC ASSOCIATES ID=303 445 6587 p,02 'I'IDWN OF VAIL COMMi1NITY SURVEY 1996 TkeJullo>sr~b?,f~rdianx probe aatafn iasuerar related to the a~+gWrrcy and prrjnr~tw~rcr ajilrel'rrrw~ njYpit gavtr~~ Wa x~oald apprec,>rais ya+rr rrarparrre to 1Jre a~tent wliidF yaue err tIb1C. Ijya~x 1~ar6 rte aparinq, ur no b+r+w~kd~ oja ' particular ~frfb~el:l. pleRSe leave blrtsk ar llldiLYJtC trt the aPPrnprfete dlrOtrr» l . Flow satisCod are yau, i n general, with the overall lxrforrnattec anti rcapansivencss of the 'l'awn of Vail govcrnrnent? UsG a scale from 1 to S where 1 means "Nat at All 5atisfted" and S means "VCry Satisfied." N(3T ATAfa. y~Ky liA7781rI~D 3ATr5T1T'.1] 'town Council 1 2 3 4 5 ,,,•,.M Boards and Comtnisaions 1 2 ~ 4 5 ~ ~ s%~ ~ ' ' . Tawn of Vail staff 1 2 3 4 ~ 'a ~ 1 is 1~ 2. What do ou believe are the ihrnc; to test rohlCrt~s in order of Y X(, p priority, facing t6c Town of Vail? 1 2. 3. . 3. How do yau rau; yqur satisfaction with the following public faciliiies n~Kl services in the Town of Viri17 N{~'~TU•i• V1sRY NOtyPINlUNI SATlsi~i):n &a'rt~l>1) Tk]N"1' KN[1W Shaw removal from roads 1 2 ~ 5 U 5tmc~t sweeping I 2 3 4 S 0 Road tnainlcnance (potholes, cracks, etc.} 1 Z ~ 4 F p . (:ondilion of pc~dcstrian wallcways ~ Z 3 ¢ 5 l) Msiiri Vail roundabout 1 2 3 4 5 p Adcclu~:cy of street lighting l 2 3 4 5 Eiufo........ont of traffic regulations (speeding, rgcklcss driving, DUI, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 0 • Crintc prevention, feeling of security 12 3 4 S q Ull'"street parking ~ 2 3 4 5 U >in[prcxinont of parking regulations 1 2 :1 4 _5 Il TrasWlittc-r, abandoned vrhiClcs 1 Z 3 4 5 p Neigllborhaod noise 1 2 3 4 5 U Animals (running at large, barking) ! Z 3 4 5 U Adequac~+ pf sil;iis (strut names, traffic caturols} 1 2 3 4 5 0 Pollution froen woodstnoke 1 2 ~ ~ 5 t! Extent of ..,w~,adonal facilities (bilcc paths, parks, playgrounds} l ? 3 4 5 p Other: _ 1 2 3 4 5 t) Comaeentr: valNnWp1i7~61C:t)MMSURV11Uf: ~I na i ~ -ar 12 : e l RRG A55pG I ATES I Il+a~a~ 449 657 P . 03 4. Haw cfo you rate you[ t~l of satisfaction with public CACilities and stm+iczs itl the "!'awnT rlcslcv ~Qu~lity of Bus 3vstcm NUT AT AIL VLRY N(1 rIF'INIpN! 6A•!'IBM7L+U s,n'{~a[•7cA IK1 +~T'~' KIYnw !%rscqur~nc y uf.• ]11-tawu shuttle 1 2 ~ 4 5 U Saadstorte route 1 2 3 4 5 0 East Vail routs 1 2 3 4 5 A West Vail routC 1 2 3 4 S Golf Cwrltee raulc 1 2 3 a 5 . i.ionsridge 1..oop mule 1 ~ 2 3 • a ~ 5 p Ford Park routs l 2 7 4~ 5 l1 Gypsum to Vail rwltc 1 2 3 a S ~warrry: Adec}trac~ of bas >thClucrs ~ 1 2 3 a 5 0 Fius drivCr CCt?>'IC~y 1 2 a 5 Q CIC~srlinCS& of busees ~ 1 2 3 a 5 Q Dcpcndablllty of bus service 1 Z 3 4 5 U !',era-Transit (handicapprd/spcx~ial ncxds} 1 2 3 4 9 t! Farkin~ NqT AT ALL VIiRY NfJ Ql'11Vrr)N/ ~a~rrs~7ku 1ac1tuT1KNQW Amount of parking in Vi11AgC parkia~ structure 1 2 3 4 5 p Amount u!' psrlcing in L,ioashead parking structure 1 2 3 4 5 0 Discount parking program (debit card} ~ s ~ a ~ o BOOtII attcpdanl Courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 p Speed of transaction ai exit booth 1 2 3 4 5 u Ovn[all parking fee pzicing tilructure ! 2 3 4 5 p Cammcats Qn Tows Servicxr; ~t~,w.~ti~ru.~cau~,rssrnv.aaa ~ i 10 ~i^ 1 1 -~17 iL :161 iCK1. N."~.7V1. l I11 C..7 1 U^x16.7 Ra "#.~1 C.7P / Y .104 S, The ('.pmmunity Development Department provides planning, design revicrv, cmironmctttal, health, and building intspcctioa ycrvitxs. Plctise talc Your satisfaction with the following aspcc;ts of the Community Dcwclopmcnl i?epartmcnt. (Bast your eval~on on cxperienc~cs you have had, or definite impressions you have fortncd from what you've hoard, (,`haose'No OpitlionlDoa't Know"where applicable.) NcYC AT Al i • +V~I2Y Nfs npirlIO+Nf aA't'jS~ sn'rtsiTtl?I) t)01~"t' I:NQW ILmnloveer Overall a~rvice and o[l'iciency l 2 3 4 S t) Cour'tcsy and auiwde 1 2 3 4 5 tl Compctcnee itrtd professionalism [ 2 3 4 5 U . ~gGrationlt 1)cvelopmc~nt rCview process (stall Icvcl} 1 2 3 4 S U 13uildinE; r,.....it plan r4wiCVU 1 2 3 4 S U New Permit Counter (as of Ja>z. 1, 149Ci} 1 2 3 4 5 U Zoning wdc cnforoemcnt ! Z 3 4 S 0 131nildink inspearons ~k. eode enforlxtlaent ~ i 2 3 4 5 p Sign cvdc enforcement 1 2 3 4~ 5 U . Rcstauraat in.~r:,..~ion pro~am 1 2 3 4 5 0 Environmental pfa>nning program 1 Z 3 4 ~ 0 Envirolunentrtl cede cnforc~ment I 2 3 4 ~ 0 6. Arc you aware of ilte Town of Veil's housing Iottcry process'1 a) ! ~ Yes b} f ~ No 7. (IF YF..SJ liow woulQ you rate the effcctivcne.5s of the housing l~tery? Na'I'A'CAIa- vt:RY NpOMNInNI ~1•F_ F,["t'IVE L•PFRfSI'f VIi DQN"1' Kt+fOw T 1 2 3 4 S 0 - 8. F.ffons have been made to create a mare user fiendty Community Devetoprrx~lt 1)epariment. Have you noticed any chlingc in the attitude or performance of the C.ommtlniiy Development Department staff over the past 1~ months? ` s} (i Ycs b} i J No c) f 1 Uncertain Please explain: How satisfied ilre You with the police anti lire pratecliall services in the 's'own of V:~i1? Nc>1'A'TAId. VCRY NUOPtN1UNl sn~'ts>:tNl} an'1751?tEt>', I3UN"i' ICIJaw Fire - Fire ~proteetiou and rrsponse tirnc l Z 3 4 S 0 Firv Bode enforccmcnt 1 2 3 4 'S 0 lrmergetuy rrlotiical services 1 2 Z 4 5 U Fire cdusraeion sarvicxxc 1 2 3 a S tr . Police Uvcrall feeling of security in the commcnzas tx:ntcrs of Vail l 2 3 4 S p Viability of police 1'oot<vchicle patr+cl i z 3 a s 0 ~ ~ 1'riettdlin and approilcchability of Vail police department employees I 2 3 4 5 U Crime prevention activities in sxhools I 2 3 4 5 U Overall pcrforynance of Vail Police Dcpmtnu•.nt I 2 3 A S U Commcntr v.ilw,wnllyyGVL•uMMCIlRV IXx, p~S 1'1o3V~.ir1iC.5 ID=303 449 66E37 P.OE, ~ 1I1, Haw a~atis6ed arc you with the fallowing services and facilities provided by the librtuy? Nryr A'i' ALL VRRY DON"1' KNQW/ ' tiA,C76GIT•;~] ~'I'1RIrIM:f) NR] oPINIQN 1~r~Clt informatiaq 1 2 ~ 4 5 Q ~n-line databases 1 2 3 4 S U Fiction boofcb i 2 3 ~ S A Noniiclioa books l 2 3 4 5 U Videos, Cds 1 2 3 4 S n Ma~uincs and recwsp,~r I 2 :i 4 S U Hooks on tape 1 Z 3 4 5 A G'hildren's books 1 2 3 4 S tl ' Children's story limes 1 2 3 4 5 U scilltitQ 1.avc1 of crowding within facility 1 z 3 4 ~ S c1 f lours of operation I x 3 a 5 ~ U Level aCne)ise 1 ~ 3 4 S 0 Comments: 11. How would you rate the vvcrttll porfarmanca; of the following adtttittistrativelmanagemettt functions aithc:'l'crtlm gavcrnme~7 Ht)'1' AT Ald. VFAY NOI)PINlQNI ll.~RI] an'I~~ ~x~•rrcrrg}~r Crncrat adsninistralion (manager's office;, finance dcpartmicnt, clerk's mice, stab 1 2 3 4 5 U ltcspansivcness to public iuput/concerns I 2 i 4 5 Q ln!'armatian dissemination (newstctters, meetings, alnnouncenlesits) t 2 3 4 5 p Municipal Court 1 2 3 4 S ~ 0 FintinccJcashicr window 1 2 3 a S a ' Steles lax dE business licxnsc servio~.c I 2 3 4 5 U Comments: 12. The Town oC Vail is ftlcing potential budget sht]rtages aver tlu: nexl several yctirs. Aleasc tlclp us to walelate which selviccs.tu]d pragrarns are MUST esscnl.ial to maintain at current or expluedcd levels, alai which arc of lower priority . .givers limitai resources. ~ ~ • REl)t1t;E ~ MAINTAIN INC:I21SAbli N()UP1NIgNif . I~IOR~'v ~ cu1tA~N'r rllrUtrrrY 1]t]N°I' I~rc,~ ~~g~ta#inn/.Slr~et u Public transit/bus stt]vicx ! 2 3 4 S U Parking sttt]cturos 1 Z 3 4 S tl 5trcet maintenance t 2 ~ 4 S U TratTic control ! 2 3 a S U >+xpand strcc~l capacity la rtducc c'angcstian I 2 3 4 S Q ~etrki end Recrr~{g,$ .Acquisition e]f sites ! 2 3 4 s n Uevelapnlent of azisting fncitilics l 2 ~ 4 S U Maintenantx: of txisting park facilities 1 2 3 q S t) Ma]ntetiar]cc of trailslbike palhv 1 ~ 3 a $ h r.~lu~wm~l~u;nMt,~ultvtxx; nta r C~l:i- 1 I --6ta I ~ : fb:i l'CK(4 H55lJl: i H1~5 I I1=303 44S 6587 p ,Spy Palirt! ~ervicr.~ Crin7e prrwcntion/edtu:~tiion 1 2 3 4 $ 0 Traffic enfnrvcmeat 1 ~ :l 4 5 Unlfarnra! patrol services I 2 3 4 S 0 PSre DcQ~trtmmt Cade cn[ w.. ~anL 1 2 4 5 ~ . L'tncrgcncy medical response ~ 2 3 4 5 p Conslructinn Of rtew fire skttion 1 2 3 4 5 p Librsr~v C,cnera! library services 1 2 3 4 S 0 Catnmurtity Develgnmeet Activities Code enrorccment 1 q :i 4 5 l) . long":sage Plamm~g/neighbprhood plattrting 1 2 3 4 5 U Devclopntcnt lcviCvY praxes 1 Z 3 4 3 a Environmental plamsink 1 2 ~ 4 5 0 HatiniaQ Provision of affordable housing 1 .2 ~ ~ S ~ Other (:xCt~era! bea;utiftcatioMatsdscapiag l 2 3 4 5 U Acquisition attd preservation of"open space 1 2 3 4 S 0. Recycling prpgrara 1 2 3 4 S Uctteral admittistratlve/slaff expenses 1 2 7 q S R Maiutcnantx of public buildiugs/facilities 1 2 3 q S 0 Cammcnts or suggestions about priorities for spewing: ' 13, In the event of oontinttin bud t shortf`al 8 ~ Ib, bhauld the; Town seek la rcfiaancc ifs current dr~l in order to spread out the repayrncnt, reducing annual payments but, in the long term, increasing the total amount of interest paidY a} I~ Yes ` b) [ f No c) f l Uncertain 14, Currcntiy, 35 percent of the Town's sales !ax revc~uies are a1loc;tled to specific capital c:xpenditutl.~ for infrastruc~ure . . . irnprovem~ts and tuwv facilities, wlulc GS perc~:nl are allocatal to getu:rdl operations and maintanancc (tr"ir nail, . snowplowing, etc. Would you support a11oC.glion of a larger percentage of nwctiiues to gcnCr-dl opcratians if such becamC netxss~ty to tnairttrin ltte desired levels of scrvtce? a1 1) Yes b) I J No c) I 1 Unasrtain 15. Would you su,~ ~ ~ the crr$tion of a pmgrdnt urvolv,ng incrc3rod user fees for cartain public services such as tltc Irbr~ry. public transit* recreation facilities, or parking if sash became necessary to rrycintailc U~ desired lcwcls of service') L 1 Yes b} f i lVo c) 1 J Uncertain 1G. Would you support a tax, increase [o rand essential services? I) Yes b) I ~ No C} 1 I Uncertain vril4uwn51~Y,I6VY}lrilul~f]~V.iXx' P8S ~.~-..-~Q .~.aa ~err~, rvtirau~:iATSS ID=303 449 CS97 r~.~7 ~ 17, Under Ilght budget circumstance, which a~f the following is the MOST ar r ~,ria(C public polity? , , .And what would 6c your second choicC? - ~~tasr a~c.~Nr~ ~llnl~ a) 1 I l 1 !refinance cxisling debt b) f 1 J I lncrr~RC rcvnnuo allacauion from capital buIIgq tv general opcratitig fiord c) 1 1 ~ I Adopt expanded user foes (or lnilipilc where trot curn;nlly in place} d) [ 1 I I increase sates tax e) I l F ~ Cut try essential public services Prea~rtlrr+ov&Irr ~ jollnwtrrg dehwgrnphi'c injaMarafiaa: Fee! jr~ to frrava 6lo~k ark pudiorer . urr.~+HrriK~ ~l,~airr, rrrrveys +?til! mrrrain annreyproa& PJfas~e do ut+tt k+rila yarn Kmne pQ rfrk4at* nw fi~~ aaervey., . , ~Artabl~ 18. WherC i6 your residency within the town of Vail looted? a) J j East Vail b} f ] booth Falls and Bald Mountain !toad arws I I - Booth L'reek/Aspen Lane d) l) Golf Course - f 1 veil village . ~ f} ! 1 l.iorishead 8) I I Potato Patch, Sandstnriy h) I 1 Buffeter Crock, Lio>,sridge, the Valley i) l 1 Vail CammonsJ:~ ,,:~y arcs . .1) f 1 Wrsl Vail (north ut` 1.7(1) k1 l 1 Mattcnc~nt~, Glen Lyon i 1 lntermountairr m) I I Nol a resident of t.tc Town of Vail - 19. Which of the fallowing categaric~ bast describes ynur residency statuAY a) I I Vcar-aroutrd Vail resident b) l J Seasonal Vuil resident I 1 (h~mcr of vacation r...i....,~r in Vail d) I 1 Non-resldc~l, owner of business or commercial property in Vail - G) , I I Chhc;r; 2A. Da v4u own or operate a business within the Tawn of Viii? a} J J Yes b) I I tdv ' 21. How long.ifavC you dived within the town a£ Vail (or awned pmpcrly iFA non-s+esidcnt)'~ a) ! I less than 1 ycatr . b) l 1 1-5 yyt~rs c) l i G-1 S years d) I I Mary than 15 years . 22. Dn you awe or real year property? - a) 11 thvA b} ~ I , ttciu - c) f f Olher {spedfy)i, . v~dn~mM,~iovrnc~nMMS[1RV,ixx~ p86 ~ b.i- i 1 -tlG 16:16.5 KKl. H.S .7UV iH1G.~ 117=.316.5 -~Ntl l7btl! P . 0~ 23_ 'Which of these c{ttegorics best dcscriiycs your marital status? a) 11 Sin$1e b} 5inglc with children c) (I Single, children no IoagCr at borne d) l 1 Couple, no children e} t„oup1C with children at home (1 Couple, children no lonber at home !F YUU NATO C'HILDIi',L1V 24. How marry arc in lho fnllawing Rgc groups? a} U-5 years . b) 6-12 years , 25. _ _ Including ypuraclf, tiow many persons rCSide in your hausehold'1 26. Which of these categories best ducribCS your age? a} (I Under 20 ~ G} (J 45- s4 b} I I 2U-za t) Ss-fi4 . ~ c} 25-34 S} ~ ] K5 or over d} I I 35-44 h) ~ ] 1]o not wish to reply 27. Which of tlw'~c ~lcgarics hest describes the annual income of your hnusclwld (bcfnrc lbzt~}'~ a) SO-14,999 b) I I S15,Q00-34,999_ C} 535.(iUll-44,9)9 d) SSO,UDO-74,999 c) l J s7s,non-~~y,1»1~ ~ I I St(lU,(lUll-[49,999 ta) I I S 1 SO,GGG or more h) I I~ Uo not wish to reply T'harrk yon joryoar particrpatinn ix orrr reserrrcJk • vulltowtillS~Stt~~L(IMM.RUkY.1X]t; ~7 r TOWN OF VAIL TEN YEAR BUDGET Statement of Problem Although financially secure today, the Town's ability to maintain its future financial well being is jeopardized by flattening revenues and growing expenses. Since 1994 sales tax collections, the largest source of revenue used provide municipal services can capital improvements in Vail, have been unable to keep pace with inflation. If these conditions are allowed to continue, the Town will face a $7 million deficit in the year 2005. Our challenge is to decide how to make adjustment now, in the form of reduced expenditures, service modif cations, tighter budgeting, increased revenues, or a combination of all, to avert financial hardship for this community's future. ,Anything less would be irresponsible. Givens ? All decisions and recommendations will be made within the context of the Town of Vail Organizational Values. ? The do nothing alternative is not acceptable. We will proactively address this situation. •S There will be no lay offs. There may be reductions in farce, but these will occur through attrition and turn over. ? Decisions about service provisions and service level modifications will be made with extensive public involvement. There will be no across the board reductions. Each service, task and process will be reviewed, analyzed and evaluated separately. Process (see attached) 1 N U_ Y ~ C v, ~ ¢ O C ~ ~ ~ Cy! ~ ~ O o Oq R ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ u O ~ ,U a U 'w PU ~ U ~ h H W 1r 1 M N {h ay+ i.. N L. N Y h N ~ h ~i n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O r ~ ~ ~ .a G ~ .G C 'Cy ~ 'a C ~ CV vhs .4 C1. ;d O ~ G. O. L" M Q r ~ ~ ~ C 'u oA ~ r; w G v ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ R O y C ~ ~ ~ in C U .a ~ G C Z L7 7,.t. ,S7 ~ W O ' ~ W ~ 'y C4 ~ U ~ ' ~ a°, • • ~ o ~ ~ ~ .e x m y ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~a ^ ~ ~ ~ O ~ C GQ ~ GU i u ~ ~ y ~y r a+ p+ .b - O O~ O O m O 'd D a~~ ~ a: • • • • • y bQ ~ ~ n~~' p rri C ~ 'ro rn O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U R. ~ a~" y ~,b ~ O V ~ ~6 _ yL_1.. tyii y nJ 7, ~ y ' y W cC D ~ O ~ O ~ 47 a3 N ~ a 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i 8. ~ D ~ f-' to y N.~~s~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~arnU~ d Vj ~D+ ~ ry ~ ~ A LLl xi R T 67 N t.,, ~ ~ .1] 0' U R ~ y ~ ~ ~ o 0~ ~ yy ,C N ~ ~ a. N N G T ~i ~yy A d ~ CC N U v ~ y 'O ~ O 3mz y 3~~~c~~~ • a°, ~ • ~ ~ _ ~ . U w j • ~ s o n°". nG "r a. p e~ o 'n d d ~ ~ ~ ~ o f o y o ai ~ ~p a~i n. ~ o ~ Fo w° ~ H p N ~ ~ ~ C~] V ~ y 4" d ~ y V ~ 3~ ~~A ~ ~sx~ 0 a, • su~SaB ssaaoad ai~gnd c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ro a~ w ~ ~ ~ o u a ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o an ~ o ~ u O '^o 'v ~ o U W~ ~ A. ~ _ _ y N 'N ICI Ci 1~I ~ Q 1~I ~ ~ ~.~1 T Qr I~Yn 0. y u O ~ ~ ~ aE ~ o F O 7, a ~ a y v C U ~ _ ~ „t] O A, Q p w a+ ~ c U U ~ G r U"~GQ H ~ Gr • Q• r-+ GA C ,a ~ v a1 KQ .D ~ ~ o v, C ~ ~ O rq y G o ro •E b i Yti U ~ ~ ~ p t~ . a y ~ ~ ~ N C ud .C ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ 4 Ez ~°w y fAGJ._ a°. • • U Q • O .y Y, O p~ ~ i y M L ' O U ~ 0 ~ ~ y ~ • a ~ ~o 'a° ~ ~ d ~W a o ~ o o y ~ ~o C4 ~ ;b A ~ w a. • • T ~d o~ H d C ~ a oA rn F. ~ v `d ~ ' ep CQ v, ° v r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C b0 •i y ~ Q a 3 'C7 c A ~ n. 0 d o ° M ~ L c ~ 3 7 ~ N ~ I' d ~ ~ Cad ~ H ° ~ VI •N a^V C .a 0. d ° ~ vNi 43 N ~ ~Q H C ~ Gq • j • ~ o U v d w a ~ a. ~ 00 U L v~ ~ "'a y o c v Q ~ w. v C ~ 'r'n ~ .a ° ~ C °o a • c n. • ° o ~ U ~ L7.. a ~ c E a~ ~ o ~ o~ 3 a~i V] ~ o V' U 0.r ~o • U Q N N ~ ~ ~ ~ r. 3 T . ° ~ ~ h ~ F" ~ h H «t o 3 ~ °M' on w G ~ ~ "C ~ d u p a~~~ v n' eC ~ ~ p A a ~ a ? ? l~ ~ou~v of vAIL 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM; R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney DATE: March 19, 1996 'L ~ RE: 'Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision On May 17, 1994 the Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision received approval for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family Residential and a major subdivision. The development consists of 14 buildings, 19 dwelling units, and the developer agreed to provide four employee housing units in the project. (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994 attached) An "Employee Housing Unit" (EHU) means a dwelling unit which shall not be leased or rented for any period less than thirty consecutive days, and shall be rented only to tenants who are foil ` #ime employees in Eagle County. A "full time" employee shall mean a person who works a minimum of an average of thirty hours per week. (18.04.105). The EHU's at the Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision are Type 11l which are permitted in multiple • ~ family and ,mixed use zone districts. They shall have a GRI'A of not fees than 450 sq. ft. and . not more than 900.sq. ft. and no more than two bedrooms. No more than two persons for each bedroom located therein shall reside in a Type III EHU. A Type III EHU may be rented or it may be sold, transferred or conveyed, separately from other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located on the same lat. (18.57.060). If sold the EHU must be used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence. A permanent residence shall mean the home ar place in which one`s habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he ar she is absent, has a present intention of returning after a departure or absence therefrom, regardless of the duration of the absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff shall take the following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence in account: business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income ar other tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and real. property, and motor vehicle registration. (18.57.060 B. 11. a.}, • RECYCLED PAPER If a Type III EHU is sold its tenant must be a full time employee who works in Eagle County. A full time employee is one who works an average of a minimum of thirty hours each week. (18.;57.060 B. 12. and 18.57.020 C.) No later than February 1st of each year, the owner of a Type III Employee Housing Unit within the town shall submit a report establishing that the employee housing unit is occupied by a . tenant who is a full time employee in Eagle County. {18.57.020 E.) A copy of the Deed Restriction that pertains to the employee housing units at the Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision is attached, Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type III EHU, the perspective purchaser shall submit an application to the Community Development Department documenting that the perspective purchaser meets the requirement of a tenant who is a full time employee in Eagle County and that it will be used by the owner of the EHU as a permanent residence. (18.57.060 B. 13} The affidavit attached pertains to the Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision, Unit SB being discussed at this time. . l c~:~ RTMIaw attachments r ORDINANCE ND. 5 SERIES OF 1994 AN ORDINANCE REZONFNG A TRACT FROM PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.13 TO LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SECTION 18.16 GENERALLY LOGATED AT 2850 KINNICKINNIGK ROAD MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS: A parcel 01 land in the Southwest f]uerter of Sectlan 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 Wast of the 6th Principal fleridlen, more partiwlarly described as follows: • Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a wittleas corner for the west Quarter of geld Seaton 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds west, 1073.06 feet Deedy (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds west, 815.136 teat Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutea 19 seconds East, 10.78 feet; . ~ Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to•the rlgM which are subtends a chord bearing Narlh 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; ThehCe South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet, • Thence 147.43 feet along the err of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing Narih 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 s:.....~s East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 tees; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curare to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds Eaat, 44.20 feat; Thenea South 14 degrees 25 mknulea 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet;. Thence South 68 degroes 18 minutes 91 seconds west, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.t10 tact; Thence South 77 degrees 46 minutes 41 seconds Wesl, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; 'Thence North 87 degrees 4p minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; .Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Geed) Narih 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT Ot= BEGINNING, Bearing from G.L.O. record for South halt of Section line between Sections 14-15. {G.L.O. record South Oi degrees 90.2 minutes i?~st} {South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measuredi WHEREAS, the property located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road has been replotted tv a single !at from an unplatted parcel in accordance with Section 17.20.030; and WHEREAS, an application has been 5ubmlried to rezone the lot from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family Residential; and . WHEREAS, Ehe rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediate adjacent properties; WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to plat restrictions which shall be recorded on the plat at the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to second reading which s#ipulate how the future development shall occur; and WHEREAS, alt notices required by 5ectian i8.fifi.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and 4111-iEREAS, the Town Councit has held a public hearing as required by Lhapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAiL, CQLORADO THAT: arefn.no. xo. s, s.rb. a1 tY74 ' , Sectian 1 " . The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 16.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vai! have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have bean fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones the property #rom f'rlmarylSecondary Residential to. Low Density Multi-Family Residential. ' Sectian 3 If any park, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance !s for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shat! nvt affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares It would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardfass of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared Invalid. section a . The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeat and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaif as provided In this ordinance shall not~affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the ef#ective date hereof, any ' prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly " stated herein. Section fi All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or.parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Ortllnp,p~ 6, B~tNa q 1iW INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, ANA ORDERl=D PUBLISHED EN FULL ON FIRST READING This 3rd day pf May, 1994, and a public hearing shat! be held on the 17th day of May, 1994, at 7:3d p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail MunicipaE Building, Vail, Colorado. ~ Q, Ma aret A. Osterfo ATTI=ST: ~ ss. ayor Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Glerlc READ AND AIPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED E3Y TITLE ONLY this 17th day of May, 1994. a, Margar A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~Yl~ ~.~ng~.,g~. ~ Holly L. McCutcheon, 7ow~n C~le~rk GORDW.S . ~ Obfnano~ No. 5, ' S~~a p1.fiW . I TYPE III EMPi.OYEI: HOUSING UNIT ~STRIC7IUE COVENANT WHEREAS, ~Ilc ~ ~ . ~s the owner of certain property {"the Owner"}described as: / lw i,~r ~i 4 I~V11~1A 11 [~iL 1111 {"the Property"}; and WHEREAS, the Owner wishes to place certain restrlcticns on the use of a unit ar apartment located an the Property far the benefit of the Owner and the Tawn of Vail, Colorado ("the Tawn"}. NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner does hereby impose, esfablisfi, acknowledge, declare for the benefit of all persons who may hereinafter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject land the fopawing restr€ctions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the Owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assigns. L"~ 1. Unit ar Apartment , containing ~ square feat, i~ hereby restricted as e p Type III Employee Mousing Unit {EHU} which must comply with all the provisions of ~ Sections 18.57,024, 18.57.434, and 1&.57.060 of the Vail Municipal Code as amended. • 2. The Type III Employee Housing Unit shall be leased to tenants who era full-time employees who work in EAr~le County. An EHU shall not be leased for a period less than thirty consecutive days. Far the purposes of this section, afull-time employee is one who works an average of thirty hours each week, 3. A Type EII EHU maybe sold, transferred, or conveyed separately tram other dwelling units or Employee Housing Units that may be located on the same lot ar within the same building so long as it meets the following conditions: a} it niusi oa uaed by file owner of the Eii~3 as a permanent residence. t=or the purpose of this paragraph, a permanent residence shall mean the home or place in which one's habitation is fixed and to which one, whenever he or she is absent, has a present intention of returning after a departu?e or absence therefrom, ' regardless of fhe duration of absence. In determining what is a permanent residence, the Town staff shall take fhe following circumstances relating to the owner of the residence into account: business pursuits, employment, Income sources, res!~ience for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status, 567280 8-871 F-242 07/13/95 10:45A PG 1 OF 3 REC DOC Sara 3. Fisher Eagle County Clerk & Recorder 16.04 ~ , residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and rea[ property, an motor vehicle registration, b) If a Type NI EHV is sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from the other dwelling units and/or Type I!I Employee Housing units in a multifamily structure it • is apart of, or from other dwelling urns end/or Type Eft EHUs located vn the same lot, the Type III EHUs in the structure or on that lot shall be subject to all the ' provision set forth in Section 18.57.020. 4. The Type fll EHU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Coda of the Tawn of Vail. 5. No later than February 1 of each year, the owner of esch employee housing unit whhin the town which Is constructed fallowing the effective date of this chapter shall submit two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community >Jevelapment Department, to the Community Qevelopment Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit ~a has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that earh tanrtnt i.J • who resides within the employee housing uni! is a full-time employee in E=agle County. 6. The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with yr lower ~ than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail. w 0 N 7. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the StlJdy.af, a. other units of cvrnparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The Q ~ market rare shall be based vn an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable ° units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined - . ~ rn tv be in noncomp#iance. in addition to any other penahies and restrictiarts provided herein, ~ ` a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by tits ti ° Housing Authority. N d' N a. 8. Thirty days prior to the transfer of a deed for a Type III EHI~, the prospective purchaser ' n shall submit an application to the Community Development lepartment documenting that rn ' the prospective purchaser meets the criteria set forth above and shall include an affidavit affirming that he yr she meets these criteria. o N ~ 2 CO i • 9. The provisions of these restrictive covenants may ba enforced by the Owner and the T Town. • 10. The conditions, restrictions, stipulations, and agreemems contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the writlen consent of both the Town of Vail end the Owner of the property, TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal carprlration ' fay: Bob to al.aunn, Town Manager The toregofng instrument was acknowledged before ma this day of ~ u.P,, Jyg~ atary Public . ~!<bcanrNa~~ x.17-1994 ra x rraiuye My commission expires: By: f'rapeny Hers + I ~ / ~ia The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9 day of ~ uo ~ 5 Notary ubu~ V / atiict: Gno~, s • My commission expires: /'/b •Q~ ~'pUf31 1~ ~ , • s~ c~' TCUrC(1L()«1~~ . 1 , ~~i F:Wgyc~W,ymu1EHU111 . - ,i, . 56726t} B-671 P-242 ~t37/13/95 10:a5A PG 3~^~."OF 3 i" ~f f/:z"1 ~Yi, rl ;~1 ~ , , r e Win,., • , ~i,~ ~iy ~ . 2128196, Dear Andy, I wish to state for the record that I work in Eagle County forty hours per week at AMR Sen~ices and that I intend to use rriy Innsbruck Meadows unit as my primary residence. Sincerely, Peter Battin{ ~ / Peter Baffin / ~ - ~ ^ r~;; n Notarv~~~ ~~i l,t~v, ~Yl- ~Y~ C'%~c.,~,-1/~1~~'^~ y .~~.yO r Z. ;y b • ~~o~.~a~ ~W''w Nay My t;ommissio~r Fao,}lres,1411911999 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING March 19, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, March 19, 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 PraTem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bab McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town resident and PEC member, Greg Amsden, requested Council to consider allowing private developers to propose Town of Vail developments rather than hiring consultants to analyze projects and duplicate steps. Greg also suggested opening up the Vail Commons project to local lenders. 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 February 6, 1996. B. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.18, Section 18.18.090 Density Control, Medium-Density Family (MDMF) District of the Vail Municipal Code. C. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1996, second reading of First Amendment to the Town of Vail Employees' Pension flan. Mayor Armour read the #itle in full. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the Consent Agenda with a second from Sybill Navas. Mike Jewett requested the transcript of Item No. Four of the February 6 evening meeting relating to discussion of Resolution 5, Series of 1996, be attached to the minutes as part of the approval. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance Amending . Title 16 (Sign Code} and Title 18, Chapter 18.54 {Design Review Guidelines) of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail planner, Randy Stouder, presented the item and gave the fallowing background: A Technical Advisory Committee, ("TAC"), was formed to guide staff in the formulation of amendments to the Sign Code and Design Review Guidelines that will expedite the development review process for items of minimal complexity. The proposed amendments were reviewed by the DRB and the. PEC, and include the recommendations of Staff, the TAC, the DRB and the PEC. The PEC unanimously (7-0) recommended that the Town Council approve Ordinance Na. 9 at their meeting on March 1.1, 1996. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes which were requested by Counci! at their work session that day. Paul moved to approve Ordinance 9, Series of 1996 on first reading with changes as discussed and the motion was seconded by Rob Fard. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. " Item number four on the agenda was Ordinance No. 1Q, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.24.020, Members-Appointments-Terms of the Planning and Environmental Commission; Section 2.26.020 Arts Board-Appointment; Section 2.26.030 Members- ' Appointments-Terms of Town of Vail Arts Board; and Section 18.54.020(b} Board Organization. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Assistant Tawn Manager, Pam Brandmeyer, presented the item and provided the following background: At the time of the recent board appointments it became apparent that it was in the best interests of the organization to have a consistent date of termination for the Planning and Environmental Commission, {"PEC"), the Design Review Board, ("DRB"}, and the Arts Board, ("AIPP"). It is believed that the date of May the 1st, being between the seasons, offers the best time for transition of members. Additionally, the AIPP board requested an increase in its membership due to the amount of interest in the community to participate and because an Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes03119196 increased membership would ease the obligation of members to attend all meetings. Sybill Navas said she thought many locals would be out of Town on May 1, and suggested changing the date to April 1, and other members agreed. Sybill also said she felt the last interview process didn't allow enough time to spend with applicants. Pam felt the recent overwhelming number of individuals responding to the Town's request far board applicants was a rare occurrence, and suggested that in the future interviews could be staggered and could take place during two ar three work sessions. Mayor Armour suggested that increasing the number of AIPP members might create problems in filling those positions in future years. Sybill then recommended changing the April 1 date to March 31 so date of appointment would not be April Fools Day. Sybill then moved to approve with the condition that the date be changed to March 31, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Fifth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to all for the construction of a Type Ili Employee Housing Unit in the Cornice Building; to amend the development plans far Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Council was requested by the applicant to table this item to the April 2, 1996 evening meeting. Paul moved to table Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, to the April 2, 1996 evening meeting with a second from Sybill, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number six on the agenda was a request to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. Council was asked to approve or deny the amendmen# to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. A copy of a letter to Town Planner, Jim Curnutte, from Dave Corbin, Vice President of Development for Vaii Associates, outlining the proposed amendment to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan was distributed to council members. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, presented the item along with Jim Curnutte, and Town Manager, Bob McLaurin, and provided the following background: Town Council was being asked to consider a request by Vail Associates, Inc., the applicant, to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan. The request would allow the 150 parking spaces in the parking structure to be offered as first tier parking memberships. This would be an increase from the presently permitted 75 parking memberships provided in Section II. Managed Parking Structure as approved in the development plan. The request did not include a modification to building plans, site or landscape plan or any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units. The requested amendment involved only the operation of the managed parking structure. Dave Corbin, reviewed the goals of the applicant, the previously approved plan, and presented the proposed amendment to the plan. Janet Woodard, who was in charge of selling the project for Vail Associates, updated Council on the issues she was facing in selling the spaces in the proposed structure. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association expressed the neighborhood's desire to keep parking under control. After questions from Council members were addressed, Sybill moved to approve the amendment to the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Seventh on the agenda was a discussion regarding Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbrook Meadows Subdivision. Prompted by an earlier phone message to Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen, from local real estate salesman and PEC member, Greg Amsden, and receipt of a letter from local real estate broker, Sue Dugan, Council members received input regarding deed restricted Employee Housing Units in the Tawn of Vail. Mayor Armor stated that because Ordinance No. 8 had been tabled, the Council was able to include this item on the evening's agenda. Discussion particularly centered around Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbraok Meadows, and the argument of whether or not a potential buyer far that unit qualified as an Eagle County full time employee. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead reviewed definitions and qualifications as outlined in the Tawn Code, and referenced his memo to Counci! dated March 19, 1996. Andy Knudtsen informed Council as to how he arrived at his decision that the potential buyer did not qualify for the purchase of the unit. Mr. Bob Borne, developer of the project, suggested revising the restrictive covenant form so that it would clearly state the criteria and to avoid any confusion in the future. Sue Dugan, buyer's agent, felt the covenant was confusing and needed to be changed. Council concerns regarding the various projects and varying requirements for different types of Employee Housing Units were addressed by staff. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed Council members they would have time during the upcoming work session on March 26 to further discuss these issues. Item eight on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had . nothing to add, but briefly reviewed his memorandum, asking council members to review a draft of the upcoming Community Survey. Sybill asked about the "expand street capacity" question under the Transportation and Streets section, and asked if it was referring to the West Vail Interchange. Additionally, she wondered if Question 14 should be included, and suggested 2' Vail Town Couricil livening Meeling Minu1es03119l96 rephrasing question 'l7 relating to "essential services". Bob McLaurin stated That staff would look into Sybill's concerns. There being no further business Rob moved for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. Respectf ly submitted, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ~1TT ST: Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon ('Names of ceiiain individuals who gave public Input maybe inaccurate.) M • I 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes03119196 MAR- 1 9-9Er TiJE 1 8 29 !P ~ Suzanne .Dugan, Broker ~~~9 2642 Kinnickinriick Court • Vail, Colorado !]SA 81657 lvlatliikg Address: P.O. Box 3768 • Vail, Colorado USA 81658 Town of Vail Town Counsel 1970) 47b-4764 • FAX (970) 476.2564 .Fax;'970 4?9 2157 ~~airch 19, 199b -:Dear Members: I'am writing tdlj?ou ;concerning Pete Baffin, a Town and County employee, the workshog o Vail .a his nrst home, at Innsbruck Meadows. I mentioned lns situation bne y, at Comrrions, at your Febnaary meeting. Pete called Community Development in January (I believe) to get the application to fill out for the Towsi .(per #8 ~on the Type 111 Employee Housing Covenant}. The Town didn't have one but he was:asked to write a letter stating~he worked in Eagle County. He did that but then, that wasn't :good enough. ~ He was asked to bring in a letter from his employer. Then that wasn't good " :enough:, He riias asked to prove he worked in Eagle County by bringing in his pay stubs. Then I was'told by Andy Knutson that he didn't make enough money. When I explained that most of his income. came frame figs .Andy wanted proof of that in the form of a tax return. ~ Pete doesn't show that, on a tax. return.. 3 znenfsaned Pete recently came into a trust. Andy told me the Town didn`t . t ' : ~ 'y~arit.t~iose type of people in these employee units (just as one councilwoman expressed the same at'the workshop imeeting). Then the next thing was, the Town had to prove that Pete worked 30 . - hours a_week so, again, verif cation of employment was provided by the employees and I believe, ,tile Lender involved in this transaction. Andy Knutson then says Pete just made it qualifying an the hours worked (30.9)' and the application was going to Tam Moorehead-for approval. Now, 'to-day, I hear Pete is rejected because he doesn't qualify? Now there is another guideline that has ~ come up that 'requires 12 weeks of consecutive weeks of employment {or something to that effect}7 _ Land Title faxed me this covenant San 31, 1996. I have read it. Nowhere have I found any `reference to Pu~'chrs having to qualify with the 30 hours a week. #3a} only says that.the owner has to ~be a permanent resident. #2 references tenants in Type 111 units must be full-time ' employees and work 30 hours a week {there is no mention of 12 consecutive weeks or what ever ~Tom.,Moorehead is now stating as part of this covenant). Therefor, Pe#e qualifies unless this is ;'the Town's wa_ y of keeping trustfiinders out of these type of units? There are two types of ~ trustfunders.. Clne's that don't work and those who work, enjoy working and give to the ~comtnunity. fete is the latter. ' ~ It. w~s_ my understanding that the Town wanted to attract permanent residents back into the town :,,limits?~ Vail is 1go$ing permanent resident fanulies to down valley due to no kids in Vail and ~ ~ ~ school districts. 'Vail always attracted the singles but now I'm hearing that they prefer Avon to Vasl:~~~ If you want to attract people back to Vail then you need to make it attractive to come back. Givr?~ gepple the run around is not the way. -It's hard enough to f nd the right property to buy then,have to go through the frustration of the loan application without having then to go through ~ the third degree with the Town. And for what reason when the Covenant does not request ai! thin MFiR- i x3-9i~S TUE 1 8 28 P _ i proof (agar #3 on the Covenant}. I am advising Pete Battin to come before Town Counsil and request a hearing on this issue. Unfortunately, I have not been able to reach him to-day and T .know he will riot ba happy as he has been waiting to close on this unit and has ordered Sutcerely, Sue Dugan . f Copy~to Pete ~attin ~ . .~`~-f..Y~ Il~i3. (Jt ~~~1 Ass~ci~tes ~ea~ Es~~~~ ~ro~p, ~n~. • } • 1 } . • • a } • • • t • • } ! . • • • • Y • • • • e • • a } } • • • 4 v 4 v v 0 4 v • 0 • w a i ! P v M • March 1 fit, 1 X96 ~ Mx} aim Cumutte Senior Planner Town of Vail 1301 Vail Valley brive Vail, Co 51657 VlA Fr1~CS1MILE 479-2A5~ 1~: Proposed Amendment to Golden Peak Operational Management P1ao. Dear Jim: Vail Associates has con#irtued to market the first and second tier parking ' memberships for the Golden Peak base facility parking structure since the Gounoil's approval o~'tkie projec# in December, We have successfully marketed all of the 7'S first tier memberships, but have only sold 16 of the second tier xneznber5hipsY As you may xecall, tha second tier consists of up to Asp zzzembershipa, 200 of whiclx were contemplated for the first offering to the public. Devflopca of val1, BeswrCreek'~ela+~ ~leatly the market recap#ion tCt the two memberships has been strongly weighted in ar:•owAead"'and aachelor6YlCIFvtllage" Favor of the "guaranteed" parking space Of the tier one mezx~bership, The objection to the tier two m,ernbership is that the member can nc~t always be assured that a space is available #'or them and lacking that assurance they do cot wish to substantially invest in the membership which would pay for the parking structure. Given this market objection to the second tier product Vail Associates proposes amending the Golden Peak Qperatianal Management Plan to provide far up to 600 members, an increase of 75 members from the current 5~5 permitted. Ixx addition, the applicant propQSes that the first tier could consist cf up to 150 members who have a rik~t to park in an idezatified, reserved parking space. In effect what we are proposing is that the operational management plan allow far both types of parking memberships, the tier one and the tier two, but that the marketplace would determine the mix of these memberships types and that theoretically all ref the spaces could be sold as tier vsie memberships. l ~M1wm~oAUUa sanor~u~ Yu+i iun~ aui c o ~ a ~ ~ 1 ! i 97 Benthmgrk Road + PO Box 959 a Avon, Colorado .81820 + phone 970 845 253 5 o fax 9T0 845 2555 A ~.d df10d~ '3'~"k1'~ Wki6S:I~ 96. 6T JaW Mr, Jixn Curnette March 19, 1996 page 2 The applicant understands and presumes that the Town's concern with the potential increase of tier one memberships will be the utilization of the spaces. Vail Associates likewise does mat wish to invest a very significant sum of money in dais parking structure and have the spaces stand idle. However, we anticipate utilization of the spaces, whether tier one ax tier two will be quite high. We have conducted a survey of the existing flex one members and of the 36 members responding, 33, or 91%, indicated that they would either be frequent users of the facility themselves or would participate in a rental pool and place their parking spaces into the goof for use in their absence by the public under our operational management. Daly 3 of the 36 respondents (9%) said they were not interested in participating in a rental pawl. Vail ASSaciates further proposes to amend the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan to explicitly provide far the creation of a rental. pawl program for the first tier parking memberships, We propose adding the following language to paragraph 2, page 7, beginning with the following as the third sentence; The first tier rn?embers will be incepted to place their parking space in a rental pool program available to guests, .members of the skiing public, employees, or other persons who must call and reserve available spaces in advance. The f rst tier mer~abers partioipa#ing in this program would advise or nptify the club manager of those times or occasions wherx they would not be using their garldng space and it would be available for rental by xeservation. The proceeds from the first tier rental program would be split so that 50% of the revenues achieved would go directly to the member's account offsetting their dues and SO°~o would go to the operating expenses of the Golden Peak Passport Clubhouse, indirectly offsetting ar reducirAg the dues requirements of the xnernbors. Vail Associates as managex of this facility will directly maxket these available parking spaces to parents of the Galdex~ Peak Childrens Ski School program, parents of LDEV'tJ and ether special prograans particigants, private ski lesson customers and identifiable front range guests, Beginnuag in the 1996/9? ski season ski school clients will be sale to phone in reservations for the ski school' and through a computerized reservation system Vail Associates will offer daily parking in the Gulden peak structure froth the gaol tid these customers and guests and will provide a phone number for parking reservations available to the public. ~3 ~.d d~14J~ '3'~'~"r1 Wk~65;Zti 9~a~ 6ti ~IdW Ivir. dim Curnette March 19, 1996 Page 3 The combination of frequent use b3' first tier nnembers, the financial incentives to pool available spaces into a rental program, atld the direct marketing efforts .far these pooled spaces should result in high utilization of the first tier spaces. The creation of the underground parking structure has always been a unique and complicated campoaent of the Malden Peak development plan. A number of planning and development goals hinge an the success of this unique structure and its management. The tteighbarhaad has saug~it a controlled access underground structure to reduce traffic volumes, adverse traffic impacts and visual clutter io. the neighbarhaad. Vail Associates has favored the concept of this structure to achieve this traffic control, as well as to increase the site surface areas available far skier d~'ap~off, skier altd pedestrian circulation, and green space. The only complicating factor far Vail Associates has been the creation ~of a mechanism to pay #'ar this extraardxnary parking solution. The Town's goals ha~re been to insure that there is x~a net lass of piaysical parking spaces nor a reduction in utilization of these parking spaces that would be equivalent to a net lass of parking available to the public. It is our belief that the proposed amendments to the Qperatianal 1V,lanagernent Plan v~iil continue to meet these multiple goals ai• controlling traffic, increasing the site surface area #'or other beneficial uses, and achieving high utilization of the parking cozt~tttructed. We therefore request the Council's approval of this proposed revision to the Operational Management Plan. very truly, VAIL ASSQCIATEg, INC, r?avid Ca, Corbin Vice President of Development cc: Jim Lammant, EVIiOA DCrC:it ,r~~, YA~s~aott~r er.ur~~rouse ~I GC]LI3&lV }iyGAK Gh~ter Member UtiliEatian Survey 03/1$!9611:59 ANx An informal phone survey of 7~ Charter members' expected utilization of their designated parking space at the Passport Clubhouse at Golden 1?eak was conducted duri~lg the period of March 4. 1 S, 1196. The survey produced tkle ~Falla~wing results: • 73 Charter Members ? 36 responding 49 % response rate) - ? 33 will be Sequent users or would pgrticipate in a rental ponl concept for the fallowing reasc?ns; • front range residents ? second homeowners in'V'aii Yalley • living in Vail Valley ? community awareness of parlGing availability * 3 are not interested in partioiQating in a rental pool )percentage of utilization for the respandiag saxnpie of members - 33 of ~6 = 91.9% klrequent use was described es utilization of a designated! parking space: • multiple use during the week and aver the Weekends ? wanm se$son use for various activities; ? B~~ro attendance ? V'illage shopping , • restaurant dining in the Village or at Passport Clubhouse thzoughout the year 2711 IiAI*ISC]N RANC;(-I R(~A15 PC7. F14~X 7 VAEI,, ~:(7 eit~r5ti U70-479-R()(Iq I~A}C'~7yU-475)-S[) IC) ~ • ~ ciS"10~1`~ ' 3 ' ?J ' ki ' l1 Wd~~ : ~ ti 96 f 6 ~ ~it':}W „i,y„~~ pAS3POIt`C S:LUm~~~S~ ~ ~':QLC76N >>raK CHARTER PASSPORT 1~NTAL POOL PROCRAIvt Deserintian ~ Charter Passport holders will ba incanted to place their parking space in ~ rental pool grogram available to guests of Vail Mountain. Rental Pregarket: Children's ski sehaai parents, >~E'VO parents, private lessons, attd P'ra~at Range guests: + Starting in the 1996197 ski season,. ski school clients will be able to phone in their reservations. At the time at' confirmation, they can 6e prompted oxt whether they would Like to have perking space at Golden Peak fcr the day of their lesson, subject t4 avallability of spaces in the rental gaol £o{r that day. 1<ecentlves to ~Ieifn Rental Prn~ram: • A,11 proceeds from the rental pragrarn will be split as foliaws: o SU°!o goes directly to member's account offsetting their annual dues • 50°1o goes to the Passport Clubhouse, indirectly offsetting dues s Mora paKSattelized sarvicefbei~er management of parl~t~g sQaces • Community-minded • ae~nent Tactics * COttlputer reservations system, similar to a golf tee time or hotel reservation system. • Users can sail in using the photxe key pad to type in menu ohoices. They will receive aonfirmatio{n o£ a parking space or they will leave a teiephana number fnr the waitlist. • 'The system will assign parkiti,g ox~ a first came, first serve basis With the ability to prioriti2e users based on usage frequency, + ~e system will handle Signaiwe mambsrslxip reservations as yell a,s Rental Pool reservations, 27H 1'I~NwC7Nl~AIVC{-{ IiC7Al] f'.C}. IiCJX 7 VAIk„ G;() $ICi~B K)7i}-M174).RI700 S~Ax )7~r•49ts•RU]cl g•~ dfEQ~IJ "3'i`E'k~'!~ WdT~~~ti ~6~ 61: ~lj~ ~ , MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Randy Stouder, Town Planner Susan Connelly, Co~.u,.anity Development Director RE: Proposed Design Review Process and Sign Code Modifications DATE: March 19, 199b In response to the 1995 Community Survey results which indicated frustration with the existing Design Review guidelines and process and to the Conununity Development Department's need to."da more with less", staffhas spent the last several months reviewing~Town codes and identifying areas for procedural irn~.,~~,, cement. We seek to achieve two goals: (I) to improve customer satisfaction and (2) to improve staff efficiency and, thus, availability to respond proactively to other community planning needs (such as revising the GRFA regulations, the Community Planning process, and Lionshead redevelopment). Early in the effort, staff enlisted members of the community who were experienced with the TOV's design review process to serve on a technical advisory committee (TAC) to have "framework discussions" upon which the staff would "build" recommendations for specific code madif cations. Summaries of the TAC framework discussions held on October S and October 2S, l 995 are attached hereto for your review. The staff's r.~,rosed recommendations were reviewed in worksessions by the Desiga Review Board (DRB) on February 2l , 1996 and by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on February 26, ]996. The final PEC review and unanimous favorable recommendation occurred on March 1 1, 1996. The cssense of the proposed code modifications is:, ~ ~ . A. SIGN CODE. Staff would assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs, using the same criteria now used by the DRB. DRB would have the authority to call up a staffdecision. All new sign programs would continue to be reviewed and approved by the DRB. - B. DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. The proposed amendments would clarify the distinctions between the staff's and the DRB's review and approval authority and authorize staff to determine compliance with the Design Review Guidelines on applications .of minimal complexity. Such items would include: any applicaitan to modify an exissting building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and that is generally consistent with the architectural design, including but not limited to exterior building finish materials, exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennae, satellite dishes, windows, skylights, and minor commercial facade imrovements outside the commercial core areas of the Village and Lionshead, as well as site improvements or modifications, including driveway modifications, site grading, site walls, and installation of accessory structures and recreational facilities. DRB would continue to have the authority to call up a staff decision. (Please refer to the actual ordinance language at page 10 for detail.) To assist Council in its deliberations on the proposed code modifications, enclosed herewith in addition to the sununaries of the two TAC meetings and proposed Ordinance No. 9 Series of 1996 is a copy of the March 11, 1996 PEC Memorandum and excerpts of minutes of the March 11, 1996 PEC meeting. Staff will look forward to answering any questions you may have at the warksession and the evening meeting. . DESIGN REVIEW TAC MEETING SUMIVIARY Thurs. October 5, 1995 PRESENT: Sally Brainerd, Tom Braun, Pat Dauphinais, Diana Donovan, ]ay Peterson, Bill Pierce, Henry Pratt, Fans WoIdrich (Jim Morten submitted written comments which were read to the group) AND STAFF. Susan, Mike, Tim, Randy, George, . Lauren (Bob McLaurin gave opening remarks} FOCUS: Framework Discussion OUTCOME: Consensus re: 1. Leave with DRB : New construction, demo/rebuilds, major commercial remodels and all commercial alterations in CCI and CCII, and sign programs. Z. Staff will approve: Signs, lighting, canopies, colors, additions and alterations, site improvements, retaining walls, fences, and landscaping. 3. We mast strictly enforce the requirement for complete submittals. 4. Reduce redundancy of projects going to both PEC and DRB. {Decide what should go where under what circumstances.) 5. Spell out in regulations and applications exactly what level of detail and submittal is required at cacti stage. 6. Staffrnust be aware of neighborhood context when~reviewing applications. ZONING ISSCTE5 RAISED (for future review): _ 1. GRFA: ' 2. Height restrictions/ interpretations - ' ~ 3. Site coverage limits ~ ~ ~ , NEXT STEPS: l . TAC. and Staff will submit proposed substantive changes to design review guidelines (or staff interpretations) by Friday, October l3 (to Randy Stouder}.. - . 2. T.~C and staff will meet again on Wednesday, October 25 from i 0 a.rn. to roan in . CornDcv Large Conference Room. COIviMENT: We can expand the number of staff approvals starting immediately and probably can adopt necessary procedural changes (e.g., sign code changes} by our January I, 199G target. Other substantive changes will nat be adopt-able by ]anuary 1, 199b. At this time, i anticipate . ~ adoption by March 1, 1996.. i ~ ~aa I . DESIGN REVIEW TAC MEETING SUNIlViARY Wednesday, October 25,1995 " i PRESENT: Tom Braun, Pat Dauphinais, Diana Donovan, Say Peterson, Bill Pierce {Sally Brainerd submitted written~comments which were read to the group) and STAFF: Susan, Randy, George and Lauren. FOGEYS: ~ Recap of October 5 meeting (Framework Discussion] and continuing discussion of what works, what does not work, and possible improvements SUNIlVIARY OF~KEY COMIv~NTS: . I . All new construction should be reviewed by DRB. 2. Applicants (particuiariy those unfamiliar with our guidelines/processlprior decisions) do not lmaw what they can and cannot do. There is a perception of arbitrariness. 3. More specific proceduraUjurisdictional guidelines are necess ary. 4. We geed to clarify/ modify the existing (substantive) design guidelines: * review intent (what are we trying to accomplish by design review?) * adopt standards (vs. guidelines), where possible * review why we require certain items of information certain level of detail . ~ ~ ~ . * clarify submittal requirements and streamline administrative processing of . 'applications MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Envir~,,.....ental Cu~~~ission ri Fol. FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1996 . RE: A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Chapter S4 of ~ . Title 18 (Design Review Guidelines) and Title 16 (Sign Code). ' Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder . I. DESCRIPTION OF ~ ru~QUEST Staff is proposing to make amendments to certain sections of the Sign Cods and the Design . Review Guidelines. We request that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review the proposed changes and forward a recommendation for approval of the code changes, as outlined in Section N of this memorandum, to the Town Council. The specific, recommended text changes can be found in Attachment #2 of this mem.~.«..dum. Background inI',,....ation is incorporated into Sections iI and III of the memorandum. These two sections explain the rationale behind the code changes. Section V discusses the need for additional, future changes to the Design Review Guidelines. At a worksession hold on February 26, 1996, the PEC raised the fallowing issues. Staff has addressed each issue as noted below: 1) A question was raised regarding the notification requirements far adjacent property owners. ' There is currently an adjacent property owner notification requirement only for sign ' variances. Staff is not proposing to change the current notification requirements. Neighbors will still see staking for projects that go to the DRB, and will see staking of some items subject to staff review. Staff reviewed the comments of the PEC and felt that = adding.a public notice requirement to, the design review process would be-onerous and contradi.,,~,,,+ to the purpose of the cods changes that are proposed herein. -The purpose of the code changes is to expedite the design review process for development r~..,~rosals of . minimal c.,~~~~~rlexity and impact. Adding a public notice requirement would lengthen the process and defeat the purpose of these code changes. Therefore, staff would not recommend any changes to the public notification requirements at this tune. 1 Staff is proposing the code changes, and has re-stru„l~ed the C.,~.....unity Devel.,r~.sent Department for several reasons. Community input is regularly received through an annual Town- wide survey. That survey has regularly indicated a desire to reduce the amount of time the Tom. u takes to review and approve minor development proposals sack as new c~~~.....ercial signs, exterior facade changes, minor additions to residential structures, minor changes to the exterior of commercial establishments outside of the core areas, decks, hot tubs, landscaping and other site development improvements. In response to the Community Survey, staffundertook an internal analysis of the Town's devel„r..yent review process. A series of meetings were held with the Town staff members directly involved ~in the review process. A Technical Advisory C,~~..~ittee (TAC} was formed to represent the. people within the community that regularly deal with the Town's development review process. The review process was examined and input gathered fi.,u~ Town Staff and the TAC. It was determined that the Town's ~devel„r...ent review process should be changed to reduce processing time far certain . types of applications. The preliminary findings of this effort have culminated in the x..~~x osed changes outlined below. • III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT On r rCE STRUt_, ~ JRE AND PRQCESS CHANGES Based on the community input we have received so far, the Community Deve1~ j .u.•ent Department - has been re-structured and the following changes nave been made: - 1) Pr_ofessianal~ervlce__C~u~ter. Service fours have been established and rofessionals with decision maki authori have been P ~ ty located up front at a new service counter area to expedite the processing of certain types of . ` applications that were identified bystaff as being of minimal complexity. A Building Liaison . Offzcer and a Planning Liaison Officer have been Warned and placed at the new service counter to help review development applications and inform the general public of submittal requirements and - application review processes. A list of items of minimal complexity has been developed by staff... . These items of minirrtal complexity generally do not require a review by Town agencies other than the Department of Community Deve1~Y.,.ent, and thus can bestaff ar~.~ red, either on-the-spot or within 24 hours (if a site visit is required). The initial list of items of rninin?al ct,.uYlexity has been attached to this memorandum {see Attachment # 1 This list is expected to change or evolve . - : ever time. : - - • ~ s 2} I~evelanment Review Annlications and Sub~1lQ1~1i~~'~t~; The Town's devel ~ ~„ent review application forms are being consolidated and revised to simplify the paperwork for applicants, and to clearly outline submittal information requ:.~:.~.ents. The Community Deveh.r....ent Department is now accepting only complete applications, and rejecting applications that do not contain all the required submittal information, Starting this year, submittal deadlines were changed to noon instead of five o'clock on the submittal deadline dates, The noon deadline gives the Planning Liaison Ot~ecer time to check application submittals for completeness the same day they are recsrived. If the application is not complete, immediate contact with the submitting party is be made by the Planning Liaison Officer and the missing items are requested. The applicant then has up to 24 hours to make the application complete. If the applicant cannot submit the required items within the 24-hour grace period, the application is returned and the applicant must start over on a new submittal deadline, 3) pevelonment St?~dardc: The Town's internal Development Review Team {DRT) is undergoing a development review i...r.~„vement process (DRIP) to examine potential process changes that will imr„~ ~ ~ ~e application review and processing efficiency. The Town Manager and the DRIP steering committee have outlined a governing philosophy that will guide the DRT in the formulation of a clearly defined . review process and a written set of development standards. The development standards will essentially be a road map far applicants and design professionals. They will guide the devel~r...ent of plans that will gain Town approval with little or na modification, eliminating the review of multiple plan submissions, thus reducing processing time and frustration. 4) Code Rev'rI. Inl1.~: The Community Development Department will propose the code amendments is two phases. The goal is to znalce the devel~~y~...ent review process more efficient, more understandable and 'predictable.. ~ . ~ . IV. The following is a brief sununary of the proposed Phase 1 code revisions being recommended by staff. The Phase Fchanges are largely changes to the administrative processing sections of both Titles. 1~~ Staff proposes to assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs. Staff will review all new sign requests using the same criteria the DRB c~... ~..tly uses. We reiterate the review process here for informational purposes. if a r.~.,r,osed sign meets the technical requi.~,L.ents and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the request will be staff 4 approved. If a sign proposal does not meet the #echnical requirements and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the applicant will be requested to modify the proposal to conform to the Code or it will be denied. Applicants will be informed of ~,~,.~,.val or denial in writing. The code-based rcasoa(s} for the Administrator's decision will be cited in the write-up. If the Administrator denies a sign request based on lack of conformance with a design guideline (e.g. earth tone, architectural harmony, etc.}, the applicant will have the right to appeal the Admini~ts alnr's denial to the DRB, in writing. Staff feels that this is app~.,~.:ate since design guidelines are by nature, somewhat subjective. Applications rejected because the proposal does not meet a technical requirement (e.g. size, height shave grade, etc.) must be revised to meet the standard, or a variance can be filed with the PEC. Variances will be processed by the PEC and evaluated according to the existing Sign Code variance criteria. The review process outlined above will replace the existing process, whereby individual sign applications go to the DRB for review, with variances going to DRB for recammendation and then Council for final review and decision. Staff will notify the DRB of all adminiakakve actions oa sign requests by publishing a list of approvalsldenials on the next DRB meeting agenda. The decision of the Administrator will . become final upon publication on the DRB's meeting agenda. The DRB will have the right to review the Administrator's decision at their next regularly scheduled meeting. The Administrator's decision may be appealed by the applicant, in writing, within 10 days of the decision becoming final. All new sign programs will continue to be reviewed and ayy.~, red by the DRB. Sign programs will be required for all new ordemo/rebuild multi-family residential projects, for new or dernolrebuild commercial projects, and far other significant new developments orredevei.,~ru.ent projects at the discretion of the DRB. Future changes to the Sign Code (Phase II) will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances from this Title, in favor of a cross refs, Duce to other code sections, such as .the administrative title (Title 2} or to the administrative chapter of the Zoning Ordinance {Title ~1$) 2} ~gn Review ~delines (Chanter 54. Title I8): = The Design Review Guidelines are proposed to be amended to clarify the distinctions between the staff s and the DRB's review and approval authority. The goal of these revisions is to take the less complex items off the DRB's plate and allow staff make the decisions of compliance with the guidelines on applications of minimal complexity. Staff can review and approve the items of minimal complexity more efficiently than the DRB. Staff, the TAC and the DRB identified the types of development activities that should be reviewed at the staff level instead of at the board level. Modifications to the DRB guidelines are proposed accordingly. The text of section C(3) of "Preliminary/Final Design Review" portion of the Design Review Guidelines.(page 454c), lists the items that are subject to staff review and ar~,.~val. Staff 5 • . r ~ ~'r Dees to expand para. ~.rh (a) of this section by adding the following items: exterior finish materials (e.g. stonework, siding, roof materials, paint ar stain), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas and satellite dishes, and minor commercial facade improvements outside the commercial core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Staffwould also like to add a new paragraph (d} allowing staffto review and approve all site work (e.g. grading, landscaping, retaining walls, eta.} after the initial site development has occurred. Staff believes that these changes do not significantly alter ar reduce the review authority of the . DRB. Any decision of the Administrator would be noted on the,next DRB agenda and would be subject to review by the DRB. Staff intends to exercise its approval authority judiciously, deferring projects to the DRB that could have wide ranging implications or significant impacts to surrounding r. ~r ernes. Special sensitivity will be exercised is the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. Neighborhood context will be carefully considered in all staff decisions. Again, further changes to the Design Review Guidelines (Phase II} will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances, and lapse of appnaval from Chapter 34, in favor of cross ref;,. ~..ces to either Chapter 18.62, "Variances", or to Chapter fib, "AdmuustratlOII". 3}tense I Code Chg~ge Schedule; The proposed Phase I code changes have been presented to the planning staff, DRT, TAC, DRB and the PEC informally in a series meetings and discussions. The PEC reviewed the proposed changes at a public worksession on February 26, 1996. Staff proposes the following public meeting schedule: • March 1 lth - PEC Final Review and Rec~~......~.,.endahon ' • March l 9th - Council Worksession and 1st Reading of Q. ~:..snce ` • April 2nd - Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance . V. In reviewing the Design Review Guidelines for the proposed Phase I code changes outlined above, it became clear to staffthat further review and modification of the Design Review Guidelines is necessary. The guidelines have evolved and changed in a piecemeal fashion over the past two decades. The guidelines have become overly complex and are poorly organized. The Town Staff is npv~ considering a major overhaul of the guidelines, For this e#fort, we are considering utilizing a consultant who has the expertise necessary to accomplish this mEajor task. Staff anticipates that this overhaul will occur over the next twelve months to eighteen months. Staff feels that the design guidelines should, at a minimum, be revised so that they are logically presented in text and graphically illustrated where helpful. Design standards will be quantified to the extent practical. s F.T.nVIYNATinN nF Di1PLiCATION OF REVIEW BY THE DRB AND THE PFD A suggestion was made by staff to eliminate duplication of review between the DRB and the PEC for major projects requiring review by both boards. However, the TAC thought that a better . solution to resolving this issue was to perform joint work sessions (DRB and PEC} early on in the review process so that the DRB would not be put in the awkward position of wanting #o revisit design issues that had already been addressed by the PEC and/or the Council. At a worksession held on February 21, 1996, the DRB was asked for input regarding the .proposed Phase I code revisions. The DRB was generally comfortable with Staffs proposed code changes. However, the DRB was not in favor of joint worksessioiis. The DRB felt that' there were simply too many decision makers {up to 11 people} present at the joint worksessions for these meetings to be effective, . ~ Staff solicited feedback fi.,~~~ the PEC regarding this issue at a worksession on Febn~ary 26, 1996. The PEC felt that the most effective way to get the DR.B involved was to schedule the item £or an initial worksession with the PEC and then, schedule the item for a subsequent worksession with the DRB within the next week or two. This would allow the PEC to give direction to the applicant on major site development issues, and the DRB to give direction on major design issues at a very early point in the review process. The applicant could then revise the proposal to address the initial concerns or decisions of the PEC and the DRB before the application would be brought back to the PEC for final decision or recommendation to Council. The~PEC identified the following types of projects that should be reviewed according to the procedures outlined above: Major SDD Amendments, new SDD's, Major Exterior Alterations in the commercial core areas and other major demo/rebuild projects in the commercial and business districts. Attachment # 1 ~ Items of Minimal Complexity or Planning Liaison Officer Approval Items f . 6 r The Planning Liaison Officer can a~r.~~ re the fallowing items within 24 hovers of receipt of a complete application/request: 1. Color changes 2. Landscaping ~ . 3. Fences ' 4. Exterior decks* 5, Window and door ~hanges* 6. Skylights* 7. .Signs on a building that has.an approved sign program in place • ~ 8. Hot tubs* 9. Changes to exterior building materials* 10. Exterior lighting* 11. Changes to previously arr.. red pians* 12. Re-roof'' * [4fay roguin the isauaa¢e of a Building Pemtit from the Buildiag Diviaioa fs~evaryono~randy~it:ems.plo ~ ~ ' attachment # 2 ~ ~ Proposed Phase I Code Amendments A} Sign Code . ~ (Title 16) . B) Design Review Guidelines (Title 1 S Chapter 54) Nate: Only the pages of the Code that are being amended are attached. For a complete copy of either A or B above, as currently adopted, contact Cammnnity Development @ . ~ 479-2138. 10 A) SIGN CODE REVISIONS . ~ ~ {Title 16; ~ Chapters 16.08, 16.12 and 16.36) ¦ Chapter 16,08 ADMIN~, Y nATION Sections: 16.0$.010 Appointment. 16.08.020 Responsibilities, 16.08.030 Enforcement. 16.08.040 Appeal. . 16.08.050 Amendments. • 16.08.010 Appoint4reent. • The town manager shall appoint an administrator, who shall adnunister~and enforce this chapter. This position may be combined with another position of the town. {Ord. 9{ 1973} § , 15{1}.} 16.08.020 Responsibilities. The administrator shall be responsible for such duties as prescribed in this chapter, and shall be responsible for enforcement of the sign regulations. (Ord. 9{1973) § 15{2} (part).} 16.08.030 Enforcement. The administrator may serve notice indicating the nature of any violation, or requiring the removal of any sign in violation of this title, on the owner or his authorized agent. The administrator may call upon the town attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce the ra~u~ tlsiona of this title, and the town attorney is authorized t0 institute ,.rr~,~„rriate actions t0 that end. The administrator may call upon the chief of police and his authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this title. (Ord, 9(1973) § 15(2} {part}.} • 16.08.040 Appeal. r~ A. Appeal 1~.a,.ra .ran, M~aauaayaaµ{y Y V;y'1~:'a'a?aCtien Or determination b~ .th~y('yl~ii VY~C administrator ursuant to the revisions of this c3~a ter ma be fil wtth the Design p y.. y app cant within ten da s followia the action ~ ~ Review Board b an 1~ y detemtinahonv ~ ~ + t. : }~;-LICGl~t~i, ~~~aiSi~W'. ffb3~#,;~ ~I~,g ?l~'b°w.~a+r.~~. . 1 ?i;gag. In the event of appeal, the Design Review Board, . • after reviewing a report from the administrator, may coaf~trn, reverse,•or modify the action of the administrator. Failure of the design review board to act within sixty days of the filing of appeal shall be deemed concua.~...ce in the action of the administrator. (Ord. 14 (1982} § lb: Ord. . 9(1973} § 3.) ' :':a:';.::•:iC r:}.}i:r r::^:r;:•:ri:':i :.}Y.¢•.~~~r ~:.~.:::::.;.:;a.i}}•ti:n . '~r:..,:... ;p• . f' y ...3: 9 ,.~'~:a/~~:~,c~~::.,.:. rs c: 4 V:.:...: ~:•7y7M y; ~`i r<:::si~'t:~:S:kr: ;ryil,,•f r:e~?x.. Jri:;':'?' e.t`:. :":}:L:%>G:d''7i.^,:,Ho: :y. ~ . k:i~i 16.08.050 Amendments. The regulations prescribed in this chapter may be amended, or repealed by the town council. (Qd. 9(1973) § 4,} . ~ 1.2 ' Chapter 16.12 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Sections: 16.12.010 Applications and approvals required. • 16.12.020 Application procedures. 16.12.030 Fees. - ' 16.12.01.0 Application and approvals required. . It is unlawful far any person to display any sign within the town without complying with the following nequ:i~alaents: A, Completion ofthe sign application; B. Review ~ ".:::<;>:.:>:x;>:..;:;,..... pE#~'~:<::<><:;:::.i::~.~:>::.;.,-:..- '.hb the ad~miniStrator; C C. Review and a ral ~ . r~.= x~~~ ~~e~. ~ .:flfthe Design Review ...:.:.:.v.. .r" ~y~ G :a~'r:;;.. ~:.ti r BOard~Y:} ' ..:.:..:.::::::':::.}:::":.~.....~.}:~:.'..:.::.~:.~:.~::.::.............:.:nvs:•.::.?::ivi;;:': rv:: L:v.~:.::s:..v.:::.~:.::.~4::i: i'::J:'v;4: :}v: ~.:yi r ~'~'i~.~W::L±~!a.~?A?~;V,~.1? i~7~i..~~k~f"'ii?wX1M~w~<~WiY~71~Yfv~iFb'4y~~~~':~'`.~~'!'.~"~,~.~?.~:: ::.:.~:.:+:.-.r. y :.x.. .:.o: :..r.. ..::..:..::......:.ri.>; ~::~,ai,".~~t'~ 47.i *~f~V7..`.~~.~u~:..,,"'F TF„*,~~::i Vl J161L/ VI\V V V~b i~ J.i,~..Y Feffzt, J,.L.L{ia.faalu V1aauaua4V .1:~11,.,1i11 J.~,lat/.{/~.MViNiaad, r.,i~.a:u.,a 6,.., rll\,a gall µl=aW4`V~ .laGal, rLV. V~/4V .fl~al .Lla'4 4VVVLLi la~h~g: D. Approval by tVhe sign administrator for signage not specifically required to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. (Ord.S(1993} §2: Ord.51(1978} § 1 (part).) - 16.12.020 Application procedures. ~ The procedures to be followed in fulfilling the intent of the sign ordinance are as follows: A. A sign application for an individual sign or a sign program must be obtained, properly completed, and returned to the sign administrator, B. The sign administrator shall accept and review the pro~erlycompletedlsign application. Fr 1.1 al u L t motor will ~~?r= w ,r~,..o~t~c~.y ~ ~,~~,1~,:~bu~. ..I app~..~;~©~. ::~,~>i#s..~~~.uans~ wither fi<~~ ~o~w 1) ~ If the administrator determines that the sign application does not meet 3=t .::........:..~.vA.., 3~~5 ~:m~Cl,t~t iS 1fi ~ ~'~~the technical requirements, _ ~t m C~~p~rs 1620 and 162.2 :u.,l...l:.a6, L..~~•nat-I:...:t„d•tQ aaVr~1J1 KliLi aJLYIlUI,l V ~1L:~ ~,3'C' the administrator :aaali~ deny the application. Upon denial of an application by the administrator, t'::<#i:rcqu;,,;~;, the a licant may resubm_ it~a modified .:...u:H. . a iication file an a lication f V'`~`'`~ PP pp or a vanance€'?g,~..~.: yfy y} i:~ f` ~ .Ti >orlil 1 l lL 1 - 7th. ;•r:::::. ,.;j: V laaa W V4 V V Vdl~aa A V Y aV 71 V V W .s: s :O :.i:::.?:!:.:~+L:::~1':~::`~~':~::~:::':: ~ ? .,.:~:.ti:::;:.::.::?:~~:~::!:~::~::.:.:.::iv.::: ::.::..:...:..~:.isv:'::}i,.iilY;:i;;;..'.;::.:::: :.::.v.~::. rvw~:•: v':: ~€~at~._~.~...~...~:.~....~:d~. ~eel:~ppl~c~ ~ ~e7 r~t~.~" ~.::':t~.~~~.:.; y~~n y~ N.V~!4!~y>:tE,'~; ~ ~'ed~~:!5!aa~}:~~:ki:::?SM>..~"`'...., `::';~c~: ,:«:;esf r~hC"1, ~ a.. JY4il\ \I'V iL`J{YVIl {ill ?.~JlJ y{+l KL linl [1VS/1L iV~W4[l~ ~}V~VI.F~ 111V V1.=1/L 'V! 4J rll ylll~/~~ {yy.~~V~ ~JJ i{V llV4il11V LAY. 4 .74LJV1.t u\.ul 14~?11N1 l1l'VVLilI~ Ul rr lilV~ ~1, cay~1VY11L 10 ~lYLLL YYll~LGll 13 +L~ 1 l 1 ~1 ~ 1 1 1~ r 1uV[aVV• raaV YVMa4 yLµ~l ay}yas~W W wrVWaVaa r+yu WV M~JrVYl IIaYJiWi• 4IlL[J' ~J J MaLW ~Y 1~rYw aw~i, Maal1r*1iJJ M~W.~. y.iw.~~l ~aV aJ{,.~VYNK V~ TVa ~V V~aiiaJ V, 1414 JIN 1 V N VV,d, V~ '~V VaJiraa Yaa MaV ..rrIa Vaµa~ a1a/Lal [y ~ V M~l rlla VYra~'J 1ZaJ~ 1?KV .y as N~~ VJJ, E ~ a..a.. }:;4:vr:;JG..i:2: ?:•':n+:j::::Y•.:.:Yi~:. ...u1 ~~r[r. .r•1 ~.~n.1;,~,~:r,i;,pi~ii.: float the sign meets the general requirements of this title, the administrator ma a aY ~e ~~~:':Ja~,• aa./ uV[ VJ?V VM~aa.a~ 4` i V J~YtMMa V J~ Va Va~au/ VVaaT~aauaa~, + V?i4K WJIVKW V1~4 ~IL l4J, u~JFJI u ~ r~ J.~aa raa.~.l.aaa: Th;, J:~. as administrator shall notify the Design Review Board of all administrative . decisions at their next re arl scheduled me `~v""h ~"~"'ki . . . ~ The Design Review Board ma::.:....-. y require that any decision of the administrator be reviewed lr., at its next regularly scheduled meeting; Applications far " " a~ ~ ~ • • - si Ja aK V~aV VIIa? Va Jl1 V V .a?Ia V TVV JµIJ 1lYaHK Va1• ~y~ Viayy Ja~aaJ, Va gn programs; ~~shall be reviewed by the Design Review Boat+d at its next regularly scheduled meeting in the presence of the applicant or his a;,r~.~sentative following a • - ~ determination by the sigh administrator that the applica#ioa bas been properly completed. 1~ The Design Review Board will approve, conditionally approve or raj act the siga ; a lication based °"`:`.s.:......~``.,~..~',.:.~ PP 1u1pon its/conTr...aance with this title and its aesthetic value~1:.1-:.. ; ; T. U~.1.K ~ V Mara V 1yµ y, j~,,~V~, Y VNa~aY a r i a V 11 1, {laV Makiya~s 11~I~IIa VY~ V?U t/ V?iaaa[ 11 aI, Y V a V •W a.a V [V 1.LLV ai~aaaµlJ4lLK Ll1 aaL~LL~r arrrlaVlaaa4r ~a~' YVLllay~ Va ~V 4VJa~1liV Iay lY a1VVWa V M, 1) if the Design Review Board determines that the sign pro~:,~;.~~.. application does not k. { . v.,..~:+~~ ' meet • , . ;4••~ ~:A.:,.., ~ vii:>:~.•~:: b• , ~ ~ ~s , , the technical requu~emcnts/1, ~,~,x~ a~„~~,.~r:~~y auy~ug, L4'`Qal Iuaa:W~ L., i7a6{a, la r:~l,ll~ laaa~ u4aaauw ur~i, LLIe Design Review Board deny the, application. Upon denial of an application by the Design Review Board, b~ ;ta.'~i~~~€ . 'IC,~~., the applicant may resubmit a modified application. file, an ham; application for a vanance~t ay,,,,;a~,,,~ i - de~ial.~ftha;~ppli~.~ the r } tits app~C~t ~ ~ ~,•1~ <,<: ~ - After having determined that tie sign pro~a~laa meets the general requi.waalents of ~ . this title, the Design Review Board may approve ! t S .fL~. aiJ uu VI?yVV~~. •i1 V JyYW V'T~i~V• Ja~. uJ VVLLYLailaaaa~ [V ~V aVY~4L Vili VAa~-VTW~Jaa Vl - _ err- ~ 1 vt~ Ja~4 }/a V~,{a4lk~ ~ }:?:i:::::i;y;i::i?::::;:;.;.;:ry;:i•:r ~}:4:.b::! :?v.~i:J' M1}}:4b' r::::v ~ Upon the my 1 D• .$PP : - i a . ' ~ica~.oa by ~ .....................:~~:.=~f ~:Y.Design Review Board, tLr Wat,a: ~CrrL'r,.~ra.. r r.aaa:~ ,.:11 L r a yly4al.y,,}ty the r 1 1~ - nOtll ;r..::••.;r.:;Y`!6:tE' • +4 dt.•i:': ~ ini~waar 444 ?L„ LILir4u1 will-be dul ~ ~ of the yA a4 W~2~ ~rrVa aVl?V 11 4>:c:rsi.:r,:ra:fr,.r ,.::.r:.:a~::,.;.. ..f.. 4s~ :i•. r,. :::.•:::.•}:~}.4}}::..i~... ryMN ~I: . ~ s... ::h.. of the sign application waaa:t the r:.::f~.:::;~.<::.~::;~~><:<:ry::•M$, v:,:r: .:..,av;... :Design Review Board, notification will be given in writing to the applicant "-ti' specifying the reason for disapproval and making recommendations to bring the sign mto conformance with the provisions of this title. 14 yyUk.VUivJ~v~.v....t`~...:...rr~....ry~..a.~..,«:~...r{'.y~~..~yt~~......r...e~~y{.~~...r~..yr 1.......y~..ta+iwa........... rr.ll i La. i r a.a....+1~rr11..~aa.b1 ~..1...V ..x.~.1~uWr~ J~1r...rl>..I^.l~, [B.. a.+...i.....iltr. ~w.pt.~~., r..~ W+/~~~'i1...W?.a.~,- ``i~~VV`'VIIilJLV41FM~RV4.1 ~ V31L~. ~V Ill~l.L ilLW VVI-aFV111J`ML+VV ~.l 4t~~ V iJ1V ~lafglUl.Y1 Vl 4aaJ i1~.~+ l W Z j.Yl• ~r +b'aY ----'1{.. ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ - ,1.V rr ~ l.. lli lit rr a? e/'irR V M ~ 7/V~i+171 Va+ L. aVNaa a~ a/\1 VwA.uV aa1 i V V V.V V 1-J V V VM K ~~r/V~/M V 'J Imo= VVMiIV 11 3VRiV r. aaaL 1~V ~.I1LV~IµµIV V4~L1V~`R++ 14aV IJV aaaai~~ ?~V• iu ~.I ,Ii,IU. V~L w{IW~a ytM.'f~J~}~I V{iA' MAV dVJL~LL LV riV VVLY 1~a?LLI~VU1a~aa Yr~ai.w+,wHY1M~~~L~+ii..R\V 1VVyall[LlLV11 ~.~~:u.~~J WM+V 4U/lu V VYLLVll• 4L,13. ~V +~1LLV ~LV ({{~lilllll.f~(?~{,Jl {~V VM~.r a.1 ~V Na~ai ~L~/fJ~aVKKLI.L, ~V M3/3/+iV{.~ai k/Li, .i ~VV V~ .~yy~t r/l Vaa ~~y~Vrlya1WJ jl Vi Ria~,. ,a, V1w J.~.u ~11V~LY1a• ~V as WiaL`lW V1~1~1~11J ~Vl Y i1111~11r//~J~YV~1Ma V I.aAViM~V}..1~.'~ ~V NrI}/il VfiLaM11 iJ uV~1Vaf ~a aV ~V~, l.Ia'V ra~V~ ~V~ VV~Vaiaa W ~V YI~V rays?V44a? Vl ~.1 ~L I~i ©l~• ?1 1~.:1~Q s~ . ~ hM.:sss . ~ ~v ~ p::~:::: ~:.~:..:;ry•.~:.... ..v..... r. :::..:.....n.. r...:::..: r.:,... rnr~ v. :\-r:~: n.. •r ,~~yy Y.i; ~.i~r:.... V . xr . 'ltd ~ .~~'<CiA~':S~'`.~.5~.~3' : ~~k'~~: ~ ~t : ~`p Chapter 163b VARIANCES Sections: 16.36.010 Purpose -Limitations. 16.36.020 Application. I6.36A30 Fee 16.36.040 Hearing. 16.36.050 C~~ for~spprov~l: i~Fo4:,,,..,f I - i G.3E.8(rU .kttiomon 1.,;~ 'icu4' . , . ib~6:0-70 Ei:~,.na-forap~, . 1, 16.36.Ob80 .tfl town council action. 1b.3b.010 Purpose -Limitations. A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical . _ hazdships inconsistent with the objectives of this title, variance from the regulations may _ - be granted A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the . size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of fihe structure, li.,l,r topa~,L~.rhic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this title. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 {L)(1): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (1).} 1b.3b,020 Application, 15 • r Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The variance application shall include the application for a sign pemut and shall also state the ` • applicant's reasons for requesting variance in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 16.36.070. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(2}: Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (2).) 16.36.030 Fee. . The town council shall set a variance fee sufficient to cover the cost of towns staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at the tune of . application and shall not be refundable {Ord, 4(1975) § 2(Lx3): Ord. 9 {1973) § 17(3}.) • f6.36.040 Hearing. Upon receipt of a' ":'''~;.w~`~'~'>"~ p ' on, tvanance a~ licati the administrator shall set a daft forK<~: ::<:s:,~.::.::.:.,:. : ::~~:..{:..>::>:.,.:•.:w.v'::i•;.;.x•:.,:..,:.sy.~rh:$: r.:%:.: xy.;s;.~r~. :,:'+"~to-iw`Yt::i'?~r?:^?iSR,>.,>.i~~~:?. L,`~?~"i.:ht:YF^;.y.•.•.r,;x shearing before the ~ .~',;,~,~~~i~,,,~, . .•.~.o:: .v::t ......w f ,r, „~.Y, ..:.:~.::yk:'n A'+•.; No.,,~..,.:,.,2, :.fbgo;;.;~. •N:i;t.;%••Y.... ::r:, ~y;,:,}r •.Yy:.:.,:~:"~".~': ti:: ~~$`M{i+7?~.~T~~•,., ~:••'.,L:7S;:M~~~~;`5~1 ~.R~~i~~•~~...~.~~~~.~.}~.n:.:~~.•.~...M...;.>h•y ~~~..:SSi+~ . ..kww :'W_ty~z ~r.:J:;v:v.;.'~'.'+.2 ' .:',6ri'I~;~'' • ~ ...•or,}y{iiti i<'.:: F'. ~ x: . 4 : ' :i: Y 1~v+::..::..;.....ti.:;; :'•:;'I„•y<4:iy~::+, !.r•?S4:?4Y.{;%2%' { yv . l ......1:' . `:!".vY:t; Y. S. ~fv ..~,....'.:r :•.ri4.0• ...lwyA ,yi I :i:'4'r ,;.?k:... ~~~:<i!;~aMwii,YM~?~`n~~:...~.+:`.i3?'•':k!:,•S.'.e,~,~..,~.~?~~~4 +fM/~~aa a r. av 11 , i, ~,....1. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(4}: Ord, 9(1973} § 17(4).) . i\lI~ 1VJJ ~1M~.4,yA~~~~ V~ W1 ri.Va 41 V ./V~ •Vl ~V Y'V1 Yaau~, ~V YIYI/aua.1YN~V1 W~{iL //V~YYJY li VV~J~ V1 Y YVtaYV ua-~~i ~1a4 Yl1Y !/1{.VV V~~V 4YYaaY~, rV ~y r/YV11V~Mr~'~wjN!V aa.~~M uV,I ./j/yFr ya V• 6YilVlµl Yii 41.1Y~l Yll lu `1!V VUN?1~~.~01 9V`~~?) ~ L~d~~}~i 3) [5 16.36.050 Criteria for a~~roval. " ~ BYfVly the 1, ~ ,1 ~'~i~g~.,a,'~n~:l~uYmentai" .~....,.'~i acts On a variance application ~:~yll tlt ~'i, the a lieaAt must rove h sical hardshi ,and the ~ ~ ~ PP P P Y P Em~~.~~~..~lleiit,C~~ ~~:.:`must find that: .A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other. matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right- of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do - not.apply generally to all businesses or ent,;i rl ses; ~ ~ ~ , ~ - • B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant; C. That the granting of the variance will be in.general harmony with the purposes of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent pfoperty, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general; D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use; ;::.n.:. E. Such other factors and criteria as the Pl `r`'~~y~~4bHd~~'~ ~ ~~KR r<~:u:~<':A'~:.`'.3.,.,: •~Y 1, d deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L){7): Ord. 4(1973) § 17(7},} 1~{1w ~ Z6 •iraL.~.aa t....aaL,~ ~y.i ..~wr ..~~J....~ iL +t....a~..~..a L~ r ~.~a~..a.r wpt.~va.L.'...y [La.. V./.~ai r i,~1 .~yJ'y~}~ ?i ~~y~4 1 V ilV 11 ~ MVU11~ NVL V/-R ML+V 4r1~11~~VY. 1+F+~i.V(,~L VNa~ aa1Y.J ? VVr~1La I?~I~Vu VL.r ra V iM~ •+1~ Y+V' 4r~[aV441V11 ~JYLil11 LLVY~ Vi L141' 1LV Vil411 V11 YJLiiJ~JlU ~lil Vi Y1V KII Li}'y L,Lt/~LVWL•Vya JYLJ VV~`~ LV JY1V~ liVYLLVila/ Vi VVll(ilYyllal La1R1 i/LI~~4~Vy1N11W uVVVJdiK' 1v 4VVVaa1rV }J Y+1.•LILJV vl LLiJ Ll~L~V~ Va ~'~I} LViiA~ ilJ,iL'' iVVVii LiIVYV LIMA Vi 4LiV ii~I~JL•Va~Vii. ~YLlYaiVV Sli4iJ LV fV V VVL~iV Vl iliN~ L V b+Li++4VM ft,A N AJ-LIi>•~VL~ L.la.4. rV.:,.i~. i•9id:~}9~~) ~ ~tL)( • 16136.00 ~ Town Counci~iion: ii ~ t 1 11 ~V a V Va+ay1AUalavuLl4Lwaa Vi'~11v ~VJa~aa A V i a V ii L V1Lw4 JL4~A 1L V ~a.+aar. ~Ls1M1.+Waaa~~}.y~/~~ ii~/~/11VM11L Yll~ LV e1M1V lL i1i~i al VVYilV ll• L~L l~ ~lwAVILL i V~M+~M a~ JVNV ~1W V~ 11AVV~lA~1~~1++V ii aYa~ a'VV Va~/L~ Va ..4V +Y\I VaiuaYVULaM4aa+u V• ~'u ~'Vall~11 iV YlV 7• LViY ~`Mt .1 rJl Vall}/L1~ Mal lJAMV ~~VY+ MRS 1M JYL1J1 Viiii1'V14L 1 V~. Y~LM a+aV VLLL~.. Vl If LaVaa LLV Yt/~/1l V{tL1LL~ iR7 ~l. VLl ~f Li`i Vl.L 111V L~V1V7~~~V Yf I.L VVLii1 VLi J Y+`7LV14 IAVYLIAAb1 LV A V i 1V ~.L4 + V V4aaallaV++~`1Vil V1~V L ViM VIA LFLiii JLµ{ll Vi~VA {lr/IJ1¦L V Y V LL~V LMyIFJxl 11 Vii L1VA1 LLS a7NLlfAaILV~~ M~,l,a..IV LLV MrrLVMLYVU ~LJr/~V't1V4 Wy1Jy1.aVL uaVf ~u11VMI+VaaJ V1 VVaaAMar.+//,~r.~,.'.11a1 fi0 LiVVY1aa1 1y4V Va1.1 M+,' LV MVV Vaaa 1~a~ ~~V ~~//?Y1~JV dV Vi LWL1 4a4+Vi 'V1 v~Vai, il.l.. WyrI1VMLA /1V•IJ+ Y+~V VV YaYV~ ~V VayuJ . 1Y./uyLV~i~1~V+VaaL .'+~aaaai~{..11VU aJ iiYL1YVV~ ~V LVira aaa~ LV raV is }.,~~1 V LMa/aw 11~a M .11V MawM3 ~VVa JaR.raai a{ Ry~ 'Vf1VIAL~YV LLV uVi.[aaa~ i.V VlaV Va alaViV a1YLJV'\1M Vaal +aaVV/4~.aliaa~. +y¦~+yI+V VVYIa IVal •]L~LiRA aVUµMa/yM1n~VVaJaV¦*aa Vta 4LLV Y~.13J VY1~ i~ aLi+++ Naa\~~ Si4~'a1~~~}Vl ~V 1L VMa ua~1~ MM.LVdJ MM4i1~1V~ >L.++IV AJ A VL1Yaa1VY 11~a V V.l VµYJV~ Yli4 of Vl ~ V aL VVlJJ Vl ATW 4VV1JiVU Vii1WAI•.V/1•~yMiJ3J+aVirut Ly u.li:+ LV ~V M~rLVMaAti'O F~aW.V ilu V0a7• -oa J (u! 2 iJ • ~i~•~J{/2l I J 3'A.rn~.4vCr 4::"~ 'ifi.S :O,Y;~::~v::C i' )'S :>~:~a . wryvr~: rv:r :ti,{r .:i~i:.~:::..:..~:::.:: v.~:..~:..t:.r...v :.~..a:..s y~ iiil :i:R• : ~ . " - ~ '.::r:~st~kC#~~.. s!:F!4.4YR. '.~..~'4~!:RiWd~F3~%i~~~fFa!i~115V!~fR` + ~'4:'4 . , e:: ov i. 17 ' B} DESIGN REV 1~W GUIDELINES REVISIQNS (Ti~1e 18, Chapter 54) ~ ~ ~a Ctiapter 18.54 DESIGN REV ~ ~V Sections: 1$.54.010 Intent. 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. 1$.54.020 Board orgartization 18.54.030 Design a~proval.::.:.t - ~~fi - ' 18.54.451 Park design guidelines. 18.54.460 Design review fee. 15.54.074 Performance bond. 18.54.080 Administrative policies. .18.54.490. Appeal to town council. - ~ 18.54.100 Enforcement. 18.54.110 Lapse of design review approval. 18.54.410 Intent. Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally know for its natural beauty, alpine envir~~..ent, and the compatibility of man-made structures with the environment. These.. characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perms- vent residents participating in community life. These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who eam their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finds that new devel„r~,.ent and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can . be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific devel~~~~..ent proposals. Among these are the general~form of the land before and after ~ - . - development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgement in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new devel.,r~ent and redevelopmentx=thc town council has created a design board {D1tB} and design criteria. Therefore; in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the rA ~{.;otion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the imr,., cement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing develwru.ent shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. It rts the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating strictures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and 29 r surroundings. x The objectives.of desigp. review shall ~be as follows: A. To recognize the interdependence ofthe public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependenceroay coatinue to benefit its citizens and visitors; B. To allow for the development of public and private r~ ~~r ertY which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herr»in provided; C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape; D, . To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment ofbuilt-up and open spaces have been~designed so that they relate harmoaiously to the natural land forms and native vegetation, the town's overall . appearance, with surrounding develwr...ent and with officially all „ ~ ~ red plans or -4 guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the struchues are proposed to be located, E. To r.~.lect neighboring property owners and users by making sut9e that reasonable y, provision has been made for each matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the ;.yervation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.} 18.54.025 Definitions and rules of eonstruction. Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be defined and intr.xr~eted in accordance with the definitions contained in Section 18.04 ofthe Vail Municipal Code, unless the context clearly indicates a diff;,l';.ut meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review board for final de~:,.u.ination. The distinction made between those items captained within this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word shall, and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or may. In all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general. (Ord. 39 (19$3) 1.) 18.54.020 Bosrd organization. A, There is established a design review board (DRB} of the Town of Vail. The DRB should ~ be composed of five members. Four members shall be residents of the town of Vail appointed by the town council and the fif}h member shall be a mear?ber of the planning and environmental commission of the town. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the cti..~~..t design review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the Town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review board. B, The terms of office for the four members at large shall be two years on an overlapping basis and shall expire on February 1 of the year of termination. The teen of office for the planning and environmental commission member shall be three months. C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur whenever a member of the board is 2D y removed by the fawn council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to perform his duties for a period of sixty days, resigns, ceases to be a resident of the Town of Vail, or is convicted of a felony. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current design review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review board. In the event a vacancy occurs, the town council shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy and serve . the remainder of the teen of the former member. The board shall select its own chairman . and vice-chairman G.,... among its members. The chairman, or itt ius absence, the vice- chairman, shall be the presiding officer of its meetings. in the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from a meeting, the members present shall appoint a member to serve as acting chairman at the meeting. All business of the board shall be held at the municipal building of the Town of Vail, unless otherwise specified, with adequate notice given to all interested parties. Three members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but in the absence of a quorum, a lesser number shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date, and in the absence of all members, any staff member shall " adjourn any meeting to a later time or date. D. The board shall operate in accordance with its own rules of procedure as Y.~. rided for in Section 8.6 of the Hame Rule Charter. The rules shall be filed with the town clerk and maintained in the records of the town, and shall be subject to public inspection; provided, however, that the board shall submit its ~.~yosed rules or any amendment thereto to the town council which, by motion, shall arr.~.,+e the rules or amendment and direct their adoption by the board or disapprove the proposal with directions for revision and resubmission. E. ,The design review board shall meet /.,.y. first and third Wednesday of each month. Additional meetings maybe called by the design review board or the town staff if such meetings are deemed necessary. Should the staff or the design review board require any - additional meetings otL..~ ll.w....,~./ ll... fi.,~ l1...1 d V~..,,.,1.~~ .V f „~„L a . ~ notificafion of the date err a,.,,l: i1~`''~~~`~-'<:-:~::> ::::::::..::::;:+:::..:.::.w:.>::~.::.<: ? meetin shall be ` V.1`V~ Vll ~V ~V Vl 4. ~V Vi144iAVV 'V~`~V .V /71L V11lV VJ ~.~.~.*)'~:~~I~~iLf:.irl',.`~:~::!~:::~:~:2i}~';jy~:j;-yi:,i~:~;:~'y;:~/, ~.,,,V:=• ne~sp~p ttif.~~~' ~irconm.Eag~e ~v~,al. ~ bz~.,~ate~,~ tn<and shall also be found posted within the Commutrity Development Dep~.lu~ent ' of the Town of Vail. ~ " , ~ {Ord. 46(1991) § 1: Ord. 18(1985) 1, 2: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.} 1.$.54.434 Design approval. . A. No person shall c.,uu.~ence removal of vegetation, site r.~.Yaration, building construction - or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the Town of Vail unless design approval has been a,.a..ted as prescribed in this chapter. The addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall be exempt from this r~~~ rision. B. It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building p41,~µt for any person to commence, continue or complete work that has nat received design aY~,~..val as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the zoning administrator and/or DRB and the chief building official. (Ord. 39(1983} § 1.) 21 s 18.54.048 Material to be submitted/procedures. • Items A and B of this section have not been af~`ected by the proposed code changes and therefore are not included here. ' C. Preliminary/final design review. Item 1 of this section has not been a,,~"ected by the proposed code changes and therefore ' is not included here. 2. Staff/DRB Procedure, The Department of Community Development shall check all material ' submitted for desi review far gn compliance withapplicable Y~•~"~ visions of the Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, and with Section I8.54.040C' '•i 2i:+}:~i::i~::... \?~I~vYi4~#:'.~}i'•:::t:::+::,+.pax?:t:r:;r'+.:":,;;.x..~-:~:e~~;>n:;cr4xag;~ys:e~w'.. .,vurt'.`:C ; ~ , ~,sl'~ ~ ~ 1 ...~~:,~+,~.,.,,z y~ If the apphcattOn' 1s ..t. found to be in compliance with the applicable „ riaions of the oningode, subdivision egulations, and Section 18.54.040{ the r.~„JeGt shall be placed upon the agenda of the next ar,..~.~~r..~:ately scheduled DRB meeting in • accordance with the requiredAyNa~pplication submittal deadlines on file in the n :vh•r •Y!i, ~ ~ l~ ~ 'i' ~:~•:ry~:~.~.~. Viy<Sn~41r "'i:.YiJ''~52; A:•~~ :fi:S•'{~:p'G~i- :r,:G'-~i:+ . M unt ~ievelo ent 1J arrment . J ,.:.:..::.:::..:r~::..:...:...m ~K~. t~,ltem ~e:af#hts sectat'~~~:`~ifthe application is found not to be in compliance with ~1e:applicablc provisions of throning vde • and Section 18.54.040~C~, the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the ..~......b admutistrator's findings. The admini,;, aar may require any additional items from the applicant as maybe ' necessary for complete and proper design review. a. The ~~~tor or the Design Review $oard shall review the application • and supporting material, and if the design of the project is found to comply • with the objectives and design guidelines of this chapter, the '.Design Review Board shall approve the design of the protect d~nenting such ~r~..~~~~val iA wn#iag a~i ~f . . • oval: If additional items are needed as specified herein to determine whether the project will comply with the purposes, statement and design rs guidelines of this chapter, the DRB may give prelirtiinary approval or table - the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if preliminary apptbval is given, the board shall specify the conditions and additional and/or modified materials which must be ' submitted by. the appl icant to the ;'Design eview>oard ~f • ~.~~.tor, including any changes in the design of the project. The applicant may also table the application to a future meeting for any reason, b. Ifthe project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the .:':~vr~ the D ,Board shall disapr.., ~e the design of the Y. ~,;ect, Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specifically . describe the design guidelines with which the desiga of the r„ ~yect does not • 22 a„~aa..~ly and the manner of noncompliance. `:i.: ...:::..:::::•:::•..:..,~:v. .<.:~.:rs~. the DRB shall have thirty days to consider and apr..~ re or deny an application. The time for action may be extended at the request of the applicant. • d. If changes in the design of the~r..,~ect are requested, the board shall - approve, disapprove or request further changes within thirty days of the meeting at which the DRB receives the changes unless an extension is agreed to by the applican#. .e. The applicant or his authorized l~.y.~.sentative shall be present at the design . - review board meeting. 3. Staff approval. ~'he IJylllli~ adnlinl~L~.~' may a~}~~ti~ re any of the following applications: a. Any application to ~~r~,n existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, nra.~l:,1., ,....w .,Ja...~ .,f lL.. bnii~,'..aa~„ including, but ~ ' not llmrted to a~LV. ~ . ~ _ ? _ ' ~F ~i}.~::~:4i. r v~ ..Si,...~...::: i is h .i~ 4.•. - : ..:...v... QFl~ifi ~ ' '~i?4~k-'~~~a' .`,,,',~{~7#. MY.~ifraj j ~ , a~i#~ des vsnndows, skylights;.~,:.::..~,~,~,.~,H"~. ;tom as ~~r~~ts ou~-tl~~:,~~,$~'t~ and other similar modifications; b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, and approval bas been received by an authorized member of a condominium - association, if applicable, c. Anti application to remove ar modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site; ' . . d`y Amy ~pplication.far site m~,.~ ~ra~,..,~1~ ~~i-`~~' to, driveway nrodif~cafipns~ ' . . . . ~ sary structures or recreational. ~l~s.:. In the above-specified cases, the 1.Vll:,le administrator may review and aprl~„ re the ap~lication,.approvc the application with certain modifications, pt~ ~::.ton~`or ..a,1 refer the airy application to the design review $~oard for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the b!esign review ward. {Ord. 9{1993} § Ord. 12(1.98$) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § l.) 1$.54.08p Administrative policies. S, r A. .1...,1.71V11 tlral 11aLL, L„ llul'~tL, Q.....,..,.11.1~ µ~111111vua~V1 Jllall LV u.1wM rrl~alu wu .luy ~ a~L i 1 ''11 11. lyyy ~Vll V K VVlal 1VE laVµ4aVV laal~ l1aV Jµt,r, Ma Laaa~ aaaM~Va a/a~:'" Y r V Mj.+~.. .x~i,;Y?W:~f~..t.V;.!+Mki?~/R ~~~~`'~all conveyed t[i the C~~ ;c,~~~~~.~:~.irr~ ~~i~i' rax r' ......::::..~n. . ';~_'be i11J{~v1F.~VV.JaV.a aJ .aV ~ aaa{.~V .~aa LVaa L'4~ J Ul ~'S 4_ ' , _ t ' ~ a MV VII LaMa+• V ~V V4uar1V~L'/V~~b,r'l~..L Vw~Yu Y1..aaol~.~u.yL W.Mi1J~ Ga.r r.~,r~i/.Y~r~rL V.y~?f~~~ Li/ Yil riliiV~ µr/ra V / V~• l lle IlV aaau~. ~4L1W4A~4Lor s11Wi lryi.... .y,..? ~.F HLiWIiLL W 4iLV ~VJl~. as a V 1 aV 11 I, YYµ~ a :.r~.. v..} Yryi'J.r.;{{Yr•:[y;:LCl::'}': •}:.~:rM1:'}:' :rii$"~' ::i::f::~i•~:"::r:•~~;:,y~`:~'~~':::'v'; ::.~,~i ~ f ~y~y~ summary pf all deClStonS IYfade ~~ta~H.lly~«ui ,n 'f3~.4'11~ySeP~4~!;} ? N~'.' :::.inv. i ~ r. ~'y~,~.~+:! ~~:..~s>:~< .1~a...L the 1 Z. ' a.r•.L aaarrl.aa~ ua r r..a~yaa a r t ar n ~ l.. B. A deciaian'. vFtLr ..Vaa.MLYy adt111nlstratormay beappealed t0 the sign ~treview hoard by the applicant} ii'vadjacent property owner, LL„ LV I. a. IliYaa4 Vl'~i•:~f~r$~~~~~~ Vl ML ~a V MVJY Q~f tl'!C The design l;eview hoard wL Yil l LLLiar L r~{ra Y ~ V r[' V rwa V as ~ V V u aaa VJ taaAiil . ~ ;.::n..:.r•:.:.,....y. s. •h•.,y:.:~:< y;: ......,,4 v • ~:.:ayx..:.:a,oro;,,.:o:tt .:r;y..x:.ux:..;..:r.•.ss:>•w~•:s::+:>!:~:.+r.. Ira 1~.~_~~ ..~:~1 . ~ v ' C• ~V?aJaVY 4~.M ~.4a.+aa~l M~aaaaaaVL•Mr4a J...+..... Y V?Ywr ~µ4 ~~aaLL Van Mr~ Y.Ma aJ wN.~ i VMrJa~aa aV /aV/1 ./aLlaau JV. YU \.µ/y.J J'V~` }~~.?~.Ja~....ay~YaV 11 4yLy ~.~J arVYat,JL 4+L~V MWaa4{l{Y~ VViNl Vla a~ya,.a~V WV..aaY~ MY+aaauaVLlr.~Vl• The design review board shall consider the appeal in the same meaner as the board • considers all other applications coming before i#. . {Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.090 Appeal to town council. • a ~;~::~:~;~;~:~$...:,.:..;:.:~W:~.;..:::.::. ~ ~ to the -own uncil L ? aaY.,Le by the appiicant,pi adjacent property owner, ar by t11he town m~a~nager. The~own •3•• Ollncll can also call-up matters by 8 majority vot:, ~ r.laV Jb V V uilril iliWllL rrU',1i 4J ViLL. B. For all appeals, the appeal must be filed is writing ten days following the decision ar must . be called-up by theown council at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The council shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its being filed ar called up with a possible thirty day extension if the council finds that there is insufficient in!',al,llation. {Ord. 39(1983) § l.) 24 . r Ga1~r1 Aasland had no comment. D~ Pam Hopkins asked if the applicant could stain the soffits. Mike Mollica said it should be painted white to match the rest of the building. • Greg Moffet asked what the timing was for the request. Pam Hopkins said- next spring of 1997. Greg Moffet suggested that it integrate with ha Tour. Greg Amsden made a motion that the request be approved per the staff recommendation on page 8 of the memo with an additional condition that the applicant pay the parking fee prior to the issuance of Building Permit at the prevailing rate. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0, 5. A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles i 6 & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vai# Planner: Randy Stauder Randy Stouder summarized the proposed changes to the Sign Code and the Design Review _ .Guidelines. He referred the PEC to Attachment #2 of the staff memo which includes the actual ' text of the changes proposed. He presented the proposed code changes as outlined in Section 1V ' ~ of the staff memorandum. He stated that the changes being proposed would allow staff to review and approve individual sign requests and minor design review requests. He stated that all staff decisions would be published on the next Design Review Board {DRB}meeting agenda. The . DRB would have the ability to "call-up" any staff decision at that meeting. He reiterated that the ~ , . proposed changes do not remove the right to appeal a staff decision to the DRB, and a DRB decision to the Town Council. He stated that the proposed changes were in accordance with the findings of the Technical Advisoly Committee (TAC}that was formed to guide staff in reviewing the code. Randy stated that staff would forwazd controversial requests on to the DRB for review, especially where an adjacent ya~~t.erh' owner was raising an objection. He also stated that high profile projects in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas would be sent to the DRB for decision. Randy stated that sign prograans will be required on most new or demo/rebuild commercial projects. Randy stated that sign variance requests would be sent to the PEC for review rather than to the DRB and then The Town Council (per current process}. Planning aad Envi........cnial Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 ~ 4 • ~ DRQF , T Greg Ma~iet noted for the record that there~was na public comment on this item. Henry Pratt asked if an adjacent property owner cosald still appeal, Randy Studer said yes. There wexe no comments from the other Commissioners. Kevin Dewghan made a oration #or approval of the proposed changes as shown in Attachment 2 of the statff memorandum. • Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 6. A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used Ir1 the calculation of building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: hauren Waterton Mike Monica, an behalf of i,auren Waterton, listed the 3 options in the memo regarding modifications to the survey policy. Staff was recommending Option Na. 2. Greg Mo~fet noted for the record that there was na public present with any comments. Henry Pratt said that he is not in favor of Option Na. 3 ar Option 2 since it has hidden cast increases and time increases. He is in favor of Option Na. 1. Not raising the height Ilmit is less r burdensome for staff and the Boards and it would not allow people to design to those tolerances. Greg Amsden is in favor of Option No, 2, since the bulls of people build within height limits. Kevin De+ghan is in favor of Option Na. 2 for the reasons stated by Henry Pratt. Galen Aasland agrees with Henry. He doesn't like Option No. 2, since it increases casts'and . time with the surveying. It is not making it.easier for people in Tawn. • Diane Golden had no comment. . Gene Useltan thinks Option No. 2 raises costs and increases time. He feels with Option No. 2, you know in advance what the ridge wil! be. Greg Moffet is in°favor of Option No. 2. He has the same reasons as Gene Useiton and Greg Amsden. . Greg Amsden made a oration, per the staff memo, far approval of Option Na. 2. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. 1'ianning and Eavironmemal Co~nnrnission Minuies• March 11, 19915 ~ j~ ~t TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road fail, Colorado 81 Fi57 70-479-2100 AX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY March 20, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office . VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MARCH 21 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Fard, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Art in Public Places {AIPP} Update AIPP Board Chairman Kathy Langenwalter gave an update on the organization's plan to spearhead efforts to select and raise funds for an art piece at Seibert Circle, located at the top of Bridge Street. The goal is to complete the project prior to the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. Council members agreed to consider a variety of design options, including a possible water feature. AIPP also~is seeking applications #ar its temporary art exhibition program. For more information, contact Langenwalter at 476- 4506. --Red Sandstone Employee Hauling Development The Council gave its approval to prepare an agreement between the Town and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District for a locals housing development on Red Sandstone .Road. The agreement would combine 1.2 acres of property owned by the water district with adjacent land which is scheduled to be turned over to the town by the U.S. Forest Service upon completion of the Land Ownership Adjustment agreement. The site would accommodate construction of 12 to 20 townhouse and/or condominium units for sale or rent {to be determined) to be controlled proportionately by the water district and the town. Water district board member Pat Dauphinais said the development is motivated by the desire to house water district employees in Vail. Currently, no water district employee lives east of Dowd Junction. Similarly, Tawn Manager Bob McLaurin said the town proposes to designate the town's share of the units for critical TOV employees for the "public good of the community." Only a handful of the town's critical • employees live in Vail. Under the agreement: VVCWD would be the developer; the town's participation would be dependent upon completion of the land transfer from the Forest Service; TOV would initiate a rezoning of the Forest Service property, white the VVCWD would initiate rezoning of its property; the project could include free market units, up to 25 percent of the total number of units, although only to be included as a last resort to make the locals units affordable; the two partners would jointly convey the land to a homeowners association; construction financing would be on a pro rata basis; and deed restrictions on the units would be the same as on the Vail Commons units {if LA {mare} RECYCLED PAPER a Add 11Highlights owner occupied) or other TOV employee housing unit restrictions for renters, with the addition of a right of first refusal for each of the partners to purchase its share~of the resale units. Noting two letters of opposition by surrounding property owners, Councilman Ludwig Kurz said the Council's political will and fortitude will be tested on i the project. The development process will include public hearings on the rezoning requests and a series of public meetings on the project's site plan as it moves through PEC and DRB review. Dauphinais said the water district owns two other sites and . ~ hopes to come back to the town with additional locals housing ideas in the future. Far details on this project, contact Andy Kundtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Information Update on the Vail Commons Lottery The Council (with Mike Jewett excusing himself from the discussion) reviewed a timetable of the Vail Commons lottery process which shows applications becoming available March 29. Prospective homeowners would then have until April 25 to prequalify with a lender and submit the application. The lottery drawing is scheduled for May 20. Units would be selected ar~d contracts would be signed by each lottery winner by May 31. It is anticipated that some of the townhomes will be ready for occupancy in September 1996 with the remainder completed by January 1997. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. ~-Discussion of Sign Code and Design Review Modifications In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed recommendations to modify the town's Sign Code and Design Review guidelines to help improve customer satisfaction and to improve staff efficiency. The recommended changes allow additional staff approvals on specific items to help streamline the review process. See evening briefs far more details, or contact Randy Stouder in the Community Development Department at 479-2150. --Information Update The Councll agreed to consider a concept to modify the existing prohibition on conversion of accommodation units to condominium units if the conversion would increase occupancy rates ("warm beds") within the facility. A discussion date has not yet been scheduled. After getting no responses to a public notice for request for proposals, the Council agreed to negotiate a contract with an architect and a contractor to design renovation of the terminal building within the Vail Transportation Center. The renovation work is • expected to be completed this summer. --Council Reports Ludwig Kurz attended a board meeting of the Colorado Ski Museum. He said the museum's activities include a focus on the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships and obtaining accreditation by the American Museum Association. (more) Add ?JHighiights Paul Johnston attended a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in which discussions continue on a joint location for the Chamber and an annex for Eagle County. At a Leadership Coalition meeting, Bob Armour said the focus was on housing and the possibility of creating anon-profit housing coalition to address the issue. Armour also said he attended the Vail Community Task Force meeting along with Rob Ford in which the peak and nonpeak programs were reviewed and a proposal to formalize the Vail . Host program to be administered by the Vaii Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau was presented. Also, work continues on developing the #ramework for a community plan, Armour said. Task Force members will make a presentation to the Town Council on April 2.' Because of conflicting meeting schedules, Sybill Navas wondered if anyone else on the Council was interested in serving as the town's representative on the Channel 5 board. --Other In response to a question by Councilman Mike Jewett, Bob McLaurin said a discussion - on the potential use of Real Estate Transfer Tax funds for affordable housing will be scheduled for initial review, along with other housing ideas, at the March 2fi work session. S bill Navas su ested addin a uestion to the Town of Vail Community survey to Y 9g 9 4 probe support for modifying use of the Real Estate Transfer Tax. It was also suggested to ask the community if it would favor using any open space parcels for affordable housing. . Kevin Foley, Vail's representative on the Eagle County Transportation Authority, said he will need feedback soon regarding the town's level of interest in the rail corridor issue. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford; Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Greg Amsderi, a- Vail real estate broker, requested the Council consider allowing private developers to propose projects to the town far town-owned parcels rather than hiring consultants to analyze and duplicate steps. Amsden was referring to the Public Works facility renovation and employee housing project. He also suggested that the Vail Commons housing mortgage financing be opened to local lenders. --Consent Agenda Second reading of housekeeping ordinances on the town's employee pension plan, the medium-density family district of the Vail Municipal Code and approval of the Feb. fi evening minutes with the addition of a transcript of the proceedings were approved by a 7-0 vote. (more) n Add 3/Highlights --Sign Code and Design Review Modifications The Council voted 7-0 to approve first reading of an ordinance amending both the Sign Code and Design Review guidelines to help expedite the development review process for items of minimal complexity. Far example, the changes allow far staff approval of i minor commercial facade changes rather than taking the request to the Design Review Board (DRB) for consideration. Also, town staff would assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs, using the same criteria now~used by the DRB. The changes would have no impact on DRB's authority to call up a staff decision. Far more information, contact Randy Stouder in the Community Development Department at 479-2150. --PEC, DRB and AIPP Appointments The Counci! voted 7-0 to approve on first reading an ordinance which would set March 31 as the annual date to appoint Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) , Design Review Board {DRB) and Art in Public Places {AIPP) board members. Additionally, the Gauncil approved expansion of the AIPP board from 9 to 11 members. --Major Amendment to the Cornice Building Special Development District Upon request of the applicant, this ordinance was tabled to the April 2 evening meeting. --Request to Amend the Golden Peak O erational Mana ement Pian P g The Council voted 7-0 to amend the management plan'by increasing the number of premium for-sale parking spaces from 75 to 150. Dave Corbin, vice president of development for Vail Associates, said the change was needed based on VA's inability to successfully market the second tier shared parking spaces. To date, VA has sold all 75 of the first tier spaces, but only 1fi of the second tier memberships. The change to the management plan only impacts operation of the 150-space managed parking structure. It does not impact the Golden Peak ski base building design, site or landscape plan, square footage or the number of dwelling or accommodation units. For more information, contact Jim Curnutte iri the Gommunity Development Department at 479-2142. --Discussion Regarding Employee Housing Unit 5B at Innsbrook Meadows Town Attorney Tom Moorhead provided an overview of regulations and definitions relating to employee housing units and restated the town's housing goals. The basic issue was the prospective purchaser's eligibility to purchase the type III employee housing unit criteria contained in the town's codes and in the recorded deed restriction. A discussion about clarifying the criteria and the application process followed, which included comments by Bab Borne and Sue Dugan. --Community Survey The Council shared ideas for revisions to a draft of the 1996 community survey which will be mailed in the next few weeks. # # # 1 r ' UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS March 26 Work Session - Cinda Rau 10 Year Anniversary PEC/DRB Review Library Update Revisit Town Council Appointments Discussion of Vail Valley Marketing Board & Housing Authority Benefits ' Housing Discussion Apr!! 2 Work Session Site visi#, 666 West Forest Road/Austrian Contribution Request Discussion Special Events Banner Discussion Update TOV-VA Community Task ForcelCommunity Strategic Planning Effort Apri12 Evening Meeting First Reading, Plumbing and Electrical Code Ordinance Second Reading, Cornice Building SDD . Second Reading, Design Review and Sign Code Revisions Second Reading, Term Changes to DRB, PEC, AIPP Proclamation, Take Our Daughters to Work Day Award Certificates of Appreciation to DRB, PEC, HA &AIPP Austrian/Appeal ofi DRB decision Apri! 9 Work Session PEC/DRB Review Amplified Sound Discussion i MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING April 2, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 2, 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 Mike Jewett Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Ford Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Rod Goebel of Colorado Carriage Company presented his concerns relating to his contract to provide carriage service in the Town, due to expire May 31, 1996, and the Town's recent Request for Proposal ("RFP") to provide an exclusive contract to one carriage operator in Vail, as opposed to two which were currently operating. Mr. Goebel presented his qualifications and informed council members of his safe record. Mayor Bob Armour reminded Mr. Goebel his contract stated that upon termination the Town would proceed with the RFP process. Bob then thanked Mr. Goebel for his input and recommended he submit an RFP. Next under Citizen Participation council member, Michael Jewett, addressed his fellow Counci! members from behind the podium, and presented a message from Common Sense for the Commons, Inc., informing Council of their intent to take the Vail Commons project to court immediately pending further fundraising to cover legal fees. He told council members to watch for ads in the newspaper, and stated he had recently accepted the duty of managing the Common Sense for the Commons. Item n~rmber two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of March 5 and 19, 1996. B. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Section 2.24.020, Members-Appointments-Terms of the Planning and Environmental Commission; Section 2.26.020 Arts Board-Appointment; Section 2.26.030 Members-Appointments-Terms of Town of Vail Arts Board; and Section 18.54.020(b) Board Organization. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full and Kevin Foley moved to approve item A. on the consent Agenda, with a second from Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. A motion was then made by Sybill Navas to approve item B. on the Consent Agenda. Kevin seconded the motion, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Third on the agenda was Proclamation No. 2, Series of 1996, Take Our Daughters to Work Day. Mayor Armour read the proclamation in full and a motion was made by Ludwig to approve Proclamation No. 2, with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Armour then stressed the importance of Take Our Daughters to Work Day and encouraged all to do so. Vai1 Town Councit Evening Meeting Minu[es Apri! 2, 1996 The fourth item an the agenda was a Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the following individuals for their service an various Town of Vail Boards and Commissions: Jen Wright, Housing Authority Jeff Bowen, Planning & Environmental Commission Dalton Williams, Planning & Environmental Commission Bob Armour, Planning & Environmental Commission Hans Woldrich, Design Review Board Bob Borne, Design Review Board Nancy Rondeau, Art In Public Places Board Mayor Armour distributed certificates and personally thanked those in attendance for their dedication and work. Those not in attendance were Jen Wright, Jeff Bowen and Hans Woldrich. The fifth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter ~ 5.02; adopting by reference the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1996 edition of the National Electric Cpde; setting forth certain amendments to the National Electric Cade and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Dan Stanek presented the item, stating the plumbing and electric codes should be adopted by reference so that the Town of Vail • would be enforcing the most recent standards of the industry. Kevin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5, with a second from Sybili. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5~0. Sixth on the agenda was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995 as to a portion of Tract B, VaillLionshead, Second Filing shown as Property No. 38 on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995 and Tract B, VaillLionshead, Third Filing shown as Property No. 44 on Exhibit A to Ordinance 19, Series of 1995. Mayor Armour read the title in full and Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead presented the issue, providing the following background: subsequent to the passing of Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995, it had been brought to the attention of the Town of Vail staff that a portion of Tract B, VaillLionshead, Second Filing and Tract B, VaillLionshead, Third Filing that was rezoned to Natural Area Preservation District from Agriculture Open Space was improperly listed in Ordinance No. 19 and on the public notice as being owned by the Town of Vail. in proceeding with the project to replace the Lionshead Gondola with a new gondola it was discovered that an area where it is necessary to place a tower to support the gondola had been listed as property owned by the Town of Vail in the zoning amendment when in fact the public records of the Clerk and Recorder and a title report of Land Title Guaranty Company show that the property was owned by the Vail Corporation which is also known as Vail Associates, Inc. Since the property owner was improperly listed,, the notice of public hearing was insufficient to ' advise Vail Associates that its right may be affected by the ordinance. Since the Town must strictly comply with provisions for notice in connection with a zoning ordinance amendment, #hat portion of the ordinance which rezoned the property in question was invalid. The purpose of the proposed ordinance was to correc# that invalidity and to property reflect the zoning designation as Agriculture Open Space which applied to the property prior to the passage of the zoning amendment. Sybill moved to approve the ordinance, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 5-0. Item number seven on the agenda was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996, second reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 (Sign Code} and Title 18, Chapter 98.54 (Design Review Guidelines) of the Vail Municipal Code. Bob Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Mike Mollica, presented the item and provided the following background: A Technical Advisory Committee was formed to guide staff in the formulation of amendments to the Sign Code and Design Review Guidelines that will expedite the development review process for items of minimal complexity. The proposed amendments had been reviewed 2 Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes April 2, 1996 by the DRB and the PEC, and included the recommendations of Staff, the TAC, the DRB and the PEC. The PEC unanimously {7-0} recommended thafi the Town Council approve . Ordinance No. 9 a# their meeting on March 11, 1996. Staff recommends approval of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1996 on second reading. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance 9, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Eiighth on the agenda was Ordinance Na. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of a Type III Employee Housing Unit in the Cornice Building; to amend fihe development plans for Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapfier 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Council members acknowledged the applicant's request to table the item for thirty days. Sybill moved to table the item until the May 7 evening meeting and Kevin seconded the motion. At that time a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. The last item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin updated council members on the status of the Dowd Junction Recreation Trai! and proposed three phases for the project. After reviewing the proposed "phase two" which would include construction of a 14 foot wide platform, Ludwig moved to authorize the Town Manager to enter into negotiations for a contract to construct the Dowd Junction Recreation Trail connection without submifting it for bid. The motion was seconded by Kevin and a vote was taken which passed unanimously, 5-0. Bab McLaurin then informed Council of the Colorado Department of Transportation construction of a new chain-up area on I-70 eastbound adjacent to the Vail Golf Course due to be completed in the fall. Additionally, Bob McLaurin stated he would not be present at the April 16 council meetings as he was scheduled to attend a cast meeting with legislators. Kevin wished Tom Moorhead good luck in his participation in the Boston Marathon on April 15. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 p.m. . Respectf ly submitted, Ro ert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~~~~'C~cc~G~~ Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon ('Names of certain Individuals who gave publie input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Cocancil Evening Meeting Minutes April 2, 1996 y Transcription of TC Evening Meeting 04.02.96 Item No. 1, Citizen Participation . Armour Is there any other Citizen's Participation? Jewett Good evening Council. Armour You are... Jewett Michael Jewett. Armour Thank you. Jewett This is a message from Common Sense for the Commons, Inc. In 1993 the Vail Commons property was purchased by a resolution and dedicated and held in public trust as open space, parks or other purposes. Common Sense for the Commons, Inc. firmly believes that the grocery storelretail project does not meet this criteria. We are immediately continuing fund raising efforts to raise the necessary monies needed to take this case to court and allow a judge an opportunity to rule on this • issue and in addition to open space, parks and other purposes we're looking at whether the Town acted properly within its own procedural constraints; whether the Town acted properly within the powers granted and the (imitations existing within its own charter and ordinance; whether the transaction was done in accordance with the limitations of the original acquisition; whether the Town Charter and ordinance provision authorizing the transaction were, in fact, invalid with specific reference to Article XX, Article IX, Section 1 & 2 of the Colorado Constitution; and whether the Town might otherwise be limited by the same articles regardless of the Town's enabling legislation. It is possible that there are other statutory and constitutional provisions that might effect this transaction. This is going to cost many thousands of dollars to raise this issue to the court. We've already been successful with finding some individuals with seed money. In the event we raise the necessary monies we will fife a lawsuit immediately. At once. Common Sense for the Commons did everything possible to mitigate damages in 1995 but were ignored by the Town Council at that time. If we go to court, Common Sense for the Commons will do everything possible to stop this action by • the prior Council. Watch the news media for ads that will be breaking . tomorrow. And effective yesterday, the Committee asked me if I would manage the Common Sense for the Commons and I've accepted that duty. Armour Thank you Mr. Jewett. Is there any other Citizen's Participation. Seeing r Y none, the second item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda... _ • M1NlJTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING April 16, 1996 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vaii Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers of lthe Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybil! Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The firs# item on the agenda was Citizen~Participation. Longtime Matterhorn resident, Kirsh Sanders, explained her side of the story regarding multiple summonses she received for garbage and refuse violations on rental property she owns in the Matterhorn area, and a fine imposed by the Town for collecting and disposirig of rubbage on her property. After elaborating on the details of the situation, Kirsh requested the Council drop the charges against her, which totaled $1$40.00, she said. Kirsh said she was a landlord and provided housing for locals, 52 bedrooms which rent for under $400 per bedroom and has had same tenants over 10 years. Mayor Armour thanked her for her input. Next under Citizen Participation council member, Michael Jewett, addressed his fellow Council members again #rom behind the podium. He introduced himself as the administrator for Common Sense far the Commons, thanked attorney Carol Curtis for her work in representing the committee initially and then announced that attorney Hugh Warder had been retained to move forward with the lawsuit against the Town. Jewett said Warder was a former District Court Judge in Eagle County and also lead the suit against the town when West Vail de-annexed. Jewett stated that the committee was more determined than ever to stop the project. He stated the committee felt the Town should not put the commercial component into the project and shouldn't be in the retail leasing business. Jewett stated another announcement would be forthcoming within 7'-10 days re: district court proceedings. Citizen Participation continued when several individuals addressed the council, asking Mike Jewett to reconsider his position or resign from the Council: .Peter Vavra, Vaii Cascade Hotel & Club employee, said he was one who had to move down valley because of the housing problems in Vail. He continued, stating that he couldn't believe that someone sworn to serve on the Council and who should be committed to the community would put the town in the position of wasting esources by defending a costly lawsuit. Vavra requested Jewett wear one set of shoes or the other, and ~tated that such a conflict should not be allowed to happen. Herman Staufer then approached the Council and suggested that citizens and fellow council members ask Jewett to step aside. Stauffer said he did not agree that Jewett was representing the community and asked Jewett how he could be effective when he was spending taxpayers' money to sue his own town. He then referenced the $2 million dollar penalty for backing out of the City Market agreement and asked Jewett if he was willing to burden everyone to serve his own purpose. Stauffer then stated Jewett was not representing the citizens the best way he could and recommend that Jewett reconsider or resign from the Town Council. Farmer Mayor Kent Rose addressed the Council next, stating he came to the meeting because of the article in the Vail Daily that referenced the action. He said it was time for someone to come and speak up. Rose told Jewett he didn't support him in the election because he was a single issue candidate who had a conflict of interest. Rose continued, saying there were probably 360 others (those having taken out applications far the Commons) who didn't support Jewett either. Rose stated the action was not appropriate and asked Jewett to step down from the Council If he were planning to continue the efforts against the town. The fourth speaker, Dalton Williams, a farmer member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, spoke of the importance of housing in Vail and the time consuming process that had gone into the effort over the last several years. He said he couldn't understand how a small group of people and especially a Town Council .member could put the community at a risk for aself-serving interest. "You took an oath, "Williams said. "How can you sit in that chair? I think what you're doing is wrong. You do not have an issue. The lawyer you have acquired cost this town millions of dollars during the de-annexation, only to have it re-annexed back into the Town of Vail. How can you rationalize spending and wasting that kind of money and how can you live in this ~ Vail Tawn Council Evening Meating Minutes April 16, 4996 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING April 16, 1996 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipa{ Building. The meeting was called to order a# approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was CitizerrParticipation. Longtime Matterhorn resident, Kirsh Sanders, explained her side of the story regarding multiple summonses she received for garbage and refuse violations on rental property she owns in the Matterhorn area, and a fine imposed by the Town for collecting and disposing of rubbage on her property. After elaborating on the details of the situation, Kirsh requested the Council drop the charges against her, which totaled $1800.00, she said. Kirsh said she was a landlord and provided housing for locals, 52 bedrooms which rent for under $400 per bedroom and has had some tenants over 10 years. Mayor Armour thanked her for her input. Next under Citizen Participation council member, Michael Jewett, addressed his fellow Council members again from behind the podium. He introduced himself as the administrator for Common Sense for the Commons, thanked a#torney Carol Curtis for her work in representing the committee initially and #hen announced that attorney Hugh Warder had been retained to move forward with the lawsuit against the Town. Jewett said Warder was a former District Court Judge in Eagle County and also lead the suit against the town when West Vail de-annexed. Jewett stated that the committee was more defiermined than ever to stop the project. He sta#ed the committee felt the Town should not put the commercial component into the project and shouldn't be in the retail leasing business. Jewett stated another announcement would be forthcoming within 7-10 days re: district court proceedings. Citizen Participation continued when several individuals addressed the council, asking Mike Jewett to reconsider his position or resign from the Council: Peter Vavra, Vail Cascade Hotel & Club employee, said he was one who had to move down valley because of the housing problems in Vail. He continued, stating that he couldn't believe that someone sworn to serve on the Council and who should be committed to the community would put the town in the position of wasting esources by defending a costly lawsuit. Vavra requested Jewett wear one se# of shoes or the other, and ~tated that such a conflict should not be allowed to happen. Herman Staufer then approached the Council and suggested that citizens and fellow council members ask Jewett to step aside. Stauffer said he did not agree that Jewett was representing the community and asked Jewett how he could be effective when he was spending taxpayers' money to sue his own town. He then referenced the $2 million dollar penalty for backing out of the City Market agreement and asked Jewett if he was willing to burden everyone to serve his own purpose. Stauffer then stated Jewett was not'representing the citizens the best way he could and recommend that Jewett reconsider or resign from the Town Council. Former Mayor Kent Rose addressed the Council next, stating he came to the meeting because of the article in the Vail Daily that referenced the action. He said it was time for someone to come and speak up. Rose told Jewett he didn't support him in the election because he was a single issue candidate who had a conflict of interest. Rase continued, saying there were probably 360 o#hers {those having taken out applications for the Commons) who didn't support Jewett either. Rose stated the action was not appropriate and asked Jewet# to step down from the Council If he were planning to continue the efforts against the town. The fourth speaker, Dalton Williams, a former member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, spoke of the importance of housing in Vail and the time consuming process that had gone into the effort over the last several years. He said he couldn't understand how a small group of people and especially a Town Council .member could put the community at a risk for aself-serving interest. "You took an oath, "Williams said. "Haw can you sit in that chair? l think what you're doing is wrong. You do not have an issue. The lawyer you have acquired cost this town millions of dollars during the de-annexation, only to have it re-annexed back into the Town of Vail. How can you rationalize spending and wasting that kind of money and how can you live in this Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutas April 16, 1996 town?," Williams asked. On a lighter note, Mary Lou Armour, wished her Mayor husband a happy birthday and presented him with a cupcake, while those present serenaded him with a "Happy Birthday" song. item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: .Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repeating and reenacting Chapter 15.02; adopting by reference the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code and the 1996 edition of the National Electric Code; setting forth certain details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 19,. Series of 1995 as to a portion of Tract B, VaillLionshead, Second Filing shown as Property No. 38 on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995 and Tract B, VaiVLions head, Third Filing shown as Property No. 44 on Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full and Ludwig moved to approve item A. on the consent Agenda, with a second from Rob. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, ~-0. A motion was then made by Sybill to approve item B. on the Consent Agenda. Rob seconded the motion, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Sybill announced the Vai! Valley Exchange had selected a candidate (whose name would be announced at a later date) out of three very well qualified applicants to participate in the St. Moritz exchange program. Pam 13randmeyer requested council approve a $1200.00 expenditure from the council contingency to assist with expenses associated with the exchange. A motion to approve the expenditure was made by Ludwig and seconded by Kevin. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Additionally, Pam requested the Council authorize a $500.00 each expenditure to help the two recipients of the Mayor's Cup youth award who would be traveling to Australia over the summer. A motion was made by Rob to approve the expenditure and seconded by Sybill. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 6-0. Pam reminded Council that because of the canceled meetings on April 23 & 3D, any actions of the Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission should be called up within 10 days if council members had questions on any of those items. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitte R bent W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: t? J Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Molly McCutcheon ("iVames of certain Individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes April 46, 5996 i~ ?'OWN 4F VAIL 75 South Frontage Road • Pail, Colorado 5.1657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 . ~ MEDiA ADVISORY Apri 117, 1996 , Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR APRIL 16 There was no work session. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation Longtime Matterhorn resident Kirsh Sanders appeared before the Council to ask the town to reconsider fines levied against her in municipal court for various Cade violations. Sanders has been billed $1,800 and has received multiple summonses for garbage and refuse violations on rental property she awns in the Matterhorn area. Kirsh said the town's action was unfair due to her efforts to organize a neighbarhoad- wide cleanup in the Matterhorn area. As a landlord, she said she provides 52 bedrooms for locals which rent far under $400 per bedroom. Same tenants, she said, have rented from her for over 10 years. Mayor Bob Armour thanked her for her input. Next, Councilman Michael Jewett stepped up to the podium and introduced himself as the administrator for the Common Sense for the Commons Committee and thanked attorney Coral Curtis for her work in representing the committee in its early stages. Then Jewett announced attorney Hugh Warder had been retained to move #orward with a lawsuit against the town challenging the Vaii Commons development. Jewett said Warder was a former district court judge in Eagle County and also !ed the suit against . the town when West Vail de-annexed. Jewett said his group was mare determined than ever to block the development. He said the committee objected to the commercial component of the project saying the town shouldn't be in the retail (easing business. Jewett said another announcement would be forthcoming within 7 to 10 days regarding district court proceedings. Citizen participation continued when four individuals addressed the Council and asked Michael Jewett to reconsider his position or resign from the Council. First, Peter Vavre, an employee of Vail Cascade Hote[ & Ciub, said he was among those who had to move down valley because of the housing problems in Vail. He said he couldn't believe someone sworn to serve on the Council and who should be committed to the community would put the town in the position of defending a lawsuit. Vavre asked mare} R CYCLEOPAPER r. i Council HighlightslAdd 1 Jewett to wear one set of shoes or the other. Next, Hermann Staufer approached the Council and suggested that citizens and fellow Council members ask Jewett to step aside. Staufer said he did not agree that Jewett is representing the community and asked Jewett how he could be effective when he is spending taxpayer money to sue the town. He~then referenced the $2 million. penalty far backing out of the City Market agreement and asked Jewett if he was willing to burden everyone to serve his awn purpose. Staufer then suggested Jewett was the, not representing the citizens the best way he can and recommended that Jewett reconsider or resign from the Town Council. Farmer Mayor Kent Rose was next to address the Council. He said it was time for someone to come forward and speak out against Jewett's actions. Rose told Jewett he didn't support him in the election because he was a single issue candidate who had a confect of interest. With at least 360 people interested in applying for the Vail Commons housing, Rose suggested the community doesn't support what Jewett is doing. Rase asked Jewett to step down from the Council if he is going to continue his efforts against the town. . The fourth speaker, Dalton Wil[iams, a former member of the Planning and Environmental Commission, spoke of the importance of housing in Vail and the time- consuming process that has gone into the effort over the last several years. He said he can't understand how a small group of people and especially a Town Council member could put the community at risk for aself-serving interest. "You took an oath," Williams said of Jewett. "How can you sit in that chair? I think what you're doing is wrong. You do not have an issue. The lawyer you have acquired cost this town millions of dollars during the de-annexation, only to have it re-annexed back into the town. How can you rationalize spending and wasting that kind of money and how can you five in this town?," Williams asked. bn a lighter note, Mary Lou Armour wished her husband, Mayor Bab Armour, a happy birthday and presented him with a cupcake. --Consent Agenda The Council voted 6-0 to approve two ordinances on consent agenda: an update of the uniform plumbing code and national electric code; and the rezoning of Vail Associates property in Lionshead to allow for placement of a tower to support a new gondola an the parcel. --Yawn Manager's Report Sybill Navas announced the Vail Valley Exchange has selected a candidate (whose name will be announced at a later date} to participate in the St. Moritz exchange program. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer requested the Council approve a $1,200 expenditure from council contingency funds to assist with expenses associated with the exchange. A motion to approve the expenditure was approved on a fi-0 vote. {more} Council Highlights/Add 2 Additionally, the Council authorized a $500 each expenditure to help the two ,recipients • of the Mayor's Cup youth award who are traveling to Australia this summer. j Brandmeyer reminded the Council that any actions of the Design Review Board ar Planning and Environmental Commission should be called up within 10 days. # # # UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS April 23 Work Session Meeting is Canceled Apri130 Work Session J No Meeting (5th Tuesday) May 7 Work Session Todd Scholl 15 Year Anniversary DRB Review Discussion Ordinance No. 7, Zoning NWCCOG Update by Sandy Blaha Vail Commons Lottery Update Discussion of Housing Authority Rale May 7 Evening Meeting First Reading, Ordinance 7 Second Reading, Ordinance 8 (Cornice Building) r 'MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING May 7, 1996 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 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 Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tam Moorhead, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the meetings of April 2 and 16, 1996. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda, and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. hird on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential {R) District), 18.13 (PrimarylSecondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports}, 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations}, 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and gave the following background: On March 5, 1996, the Council reviewed a proposal to consolidate and amend the appeals process for the Zoning Code. Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order to preserve an applicant's ability to . appeal to the Town Council and to preserve Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one of the boards. The proposal had been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised policy consolidates the appeals process into one chapter of the Zoning Code. Dominic then referred to a memo dated May 7 to Council detailing the proposed code changes and processes, and further stated the staff's recommendation was for approval of Ordinance Na. 7, Series of 1998, on first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead restated that the primary objective of the ordinance was to put the appeals process into one section, alleviating inconsistencies which currently existed. He continued, stating that Dominic had put a lot of time into writing the ordinance and had thoroughly researched regulations in place in other states. Ludwig moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Pau! Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Michael Jewett commended Dominic for a job well done. ~~genda item number four was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to amend the development plans and allow for flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, George Ruther, presented the item and provided the following background: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun, representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town Council for first reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building, however, continued to request the flexibility in the outdoor lighting requirement for the Cornice Building. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, had been amended to reflect the current request. George reminded council members that the applicant was requesting approval of a Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, to allow for twelve outdoor light fixtures on the Cornice Building, and that according to existing Town of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the property {one per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area). George continued, stating the applicant had indicated that the abnormally small lot size of the Cornice Building lot did not adequa#ely address the true outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The proposed lighting plan had been illustrated on amended development plans. Council was informed that Staff's recommendation, in accordance with the 02/02/96 memorandum prepared by staff for the Planning and Environmental Commission, (PEC), was for approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building. motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, with a second by Ludwig. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5~0. Mayor Armour then congratulated George on his recent marriage engagement. Vait Town Council Evening Meeling Minutes May 7, 1996 Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 208 Region Xll Water Quality Management Plan. Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest, requested the Council review and consider adoption of the 208 Plan for the Town of Vail, as recommended by staff, and provided the following information: The 208 plan is a required plan for coordinated regional water quality management under Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act. There are two volumes of the 208 plan. Volume 1 identifies six broad policies fior water quality management. Volume 2 contaif~s specific watershed plans. One of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle River ~atershed which includes Gore Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality in e Eagle River and Gore Creek. Issues and recommendations in the plan address point sources of pollution, nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The recommendations in this Plan can be used to modify state water quality standards and to provide direction for local water resource management. Russell informed Council members that the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), of which the Town of Vail is a member, had been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and was asking its members to adopt the plan. He continued, stating the plan did not identify any new issues and that the Town was already addressing the issues outlined in the plan. Kevin moved to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig. Mike Jewett, clarifying an earlier discussion with Russell, stated he was not "bashing" him, but was only expressing his concern that stream tract property values could be adversely effected by adoption of the plan. A vote was then taken and approved 5-0. Item number six on the agenda was an appeal by Carroll Orrison, owner of Lat 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4 (1464 AspenGrove Lane) of the PEC`s decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. Town Planner, Mike Mollica summarized the staffs memo of Apri18, and stated the applicant's request was fora 19' setback variance to encroach into the front setback of the property and utilization of the 250 ordinance in building an additional two-car garage and an upper level caretaker's unit on top of an existing underground garage. Mike continued, explaining that the PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization included the staff's .findings as discussed in the memorandum, as wall as the additional finding that the approval of the variance and 250 utilization would be a grant of special privilege, and that the PEC's vote was unanimous (6-0) for denial. Further, Mike stated that the Department of Community Development recommended denial of the applicant's appeal of the PEC's decision regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the PEC's decision regarding the utilization of the 250 Ordinance. The staff believed that the review criteria had not been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Rick Rosen, legal council far the applicant, introduced himself and the applicant's land use planner, Tom Braun. Mr. Rosen explained the reason for his client's appeal and said he did not think the PEC followed the necessary criteria as outlined in the Town Code's variance chapter. Tom Braun then explained why he felt the request was valid, citing physical hardship, that the lot was difficult, and presented diagrams of the proposed addition. At that time RC Stevenson of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, addressed the Council, stating he represented the' Kullers, owners of adjacent Lot 7. He then introduced the Kullers' architect, John Gunson. Mr. Gunson stated he was involved with the selection of Lot 7, and that the Kullers chose the lot because of the proximity to the town and the views. He provided information regarding a site analysis that was used in determining sun angles, wind directions, topography, setbacks and most importantly, the views from the lot, and distributed a sheet detailing the potential negative views. He called the proposed addition obtrusive and suggested other alternatives. Property owner, Judy Kuller, informed Council of the impact on her property, requesting the setbacks be adhered to, ~nd the variance be denied. Greg Moffat, Chairman of PEC informed Council that the minutes adequately expressed the findings, and said he was available to address any questions. Applicant, Carroll Orrison spoke briefly, reviewing his request. Kevin Foley asked Mrs. Kuller if they had plans to build an employee housing unit on their property and was told not at the present time. Paul moved to uphold the decision of the PEC and Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armor stated that although there were no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks were a means to create a view corridor, and that a one story garage was the only thing which has been allowed in the front setback. A vote was then taken and approved, 4-1, Kevin voting in apposition because, he said, of the loss of an employee housing unit. Seventh on the agenda was an update on the Vail Commons lottery applications and process. Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen communicated that 76 applicants had turned in applications and that the Town had received good exposure on the news and in the paper. Andy continued, stating the drawing would be held on May 20 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and that tiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. He then informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who expressed interest in the project to termine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't turned in. Two home owners will deed restricting their units, he said. Mayor Armor stated he felt the survey would be important and would reveal some useful information. 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 7, 1996 r Council then adjourned for a short 5-minute break at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at approximately 8:40 p.m. !#em number eight was an appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing proposed addition and the existing condominiums. Appellant: Anita Saltz. ~ndy Knudtsen presented the item and gave the following background: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff consultation, approved the submitted plans for the buffer to be constructed between the penthouse an the international Wing and the existing condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB. The DRB upheld the staff decision an April 3, 1996 unanimously. And the DRB decision was appealed. Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from Art Abplanalp, East Village Homeowners, Ann Frick and stated that certain issues raised did not address the buffer and that such issues were to be resolved in District Court. In December the project was approved with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual impacts from the adjacent property owners. Andy reviewed the drawings of the proposed buffer. Jay Peterson, attorney representing the Lodge at Vail, addressed council members, stating that his client was unable to determine what specifically the objection was, as far as the landscaping plan was concerned. Anita Saltz, owner Unit #527, told Council that she bought her unit in 1986, and said they were told at that time there was a possibility, albeit slim, that an additional building would be built. Ms. 5altz then showed council members photographs of the model she was shown at the time she bought her unit. Rick Rosen, legal council to Dr. James and Mrs. Cavanaugh, owners of unit 533, said that his clients also understood there would be a structure built, and stated that Jay Peterson and the Lodge Properties, Inc. architects had gone out of their way to address his clients' concerns. He agreed that the buffer zone approved by DRB should continue to •be approved, and stated, "Let's move forward and do what needs to be done. " Jim Brown, attorney representing the Lodge Apartment Condominium Association saki he was directed to be keep a neutral position, and wanted to clarify for the record that the Association did not have an objection to the design of the buffer. Architect representing Anita Saltz, Lynn Fritzlen, questioned Andy Knudtsen and asked if the Town had taken the position that no trespassing would occur. Tom Moorhead stated Ms. Fritzlen's question was inappropriate, and that the issue of trespass had been filed in District Court. Michael Arnett spoke on behal# of the DRB and staffs decision and stated that staff had done "a smashing job" He then reiterated that the issue before the Council related to the buffer. Ludwig moved to uphold the DRB's decision and that of the zoning administrator and to deny the appeal. The motion was seconded by Paul. A vote was taken and approved, 4-1, Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Item number nine on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin updated Council members on a request from the Art In Public Places board (AIPP) fora $77,390 contribution to centis piece #or a transparent sculpture at Seibert Circle. Pam stated that the staff recommendation was for $50,040 and that $60,000 had already been budgeted for a fountain in connection with the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to discuss it at the May 14 work session, giving Kevin an opportunity to attend the AIPP meeting. Rob then informed that $300,000 in state funds had been granted for design work on the West Vail Interchange project. Bob said the Town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might work for the designing of a new West Vail Interchange. Pam stated that the water supply to parks and fountains would be turned on May 17, with the exception of the Childress Fountain, which would come on after the Creekside Condominium water line construction was complete. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the mee#ing was adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. Rasp Ily sub d, Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~°rn~~,ca~c oily McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Council Hvening Meeling Minu[es May 7,1896 ji 1# TOWN OF SAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 .303-479-21 DO , FAX 303-479-2157 • MEDIA ADVISORY May 8, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MAY 7 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz --Site Visit The Council visited a residence at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane in preparation for a discussion at the evening meeting. The property owner, Carol Orrison, is appealing a ruling by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny both a front yard • setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. For additional details, please see the evening meeting briefs. --15 Year Employee Recognition The Council recognized Todd Scholl, fleet manager, and Kurt Gordan, maintenance worker !I, for their 15 years of individual service to the Town of Vail. They were each presented with a certificate and a $1,000 check for their dedication to the town. --Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG} Update Sandy Blaha of NWCCOG presented an overview of 1995 accomplishments and activities planned for 1996. The agency represents 32 governments in asix-county area through cost sharing, technical expertise and grant assistance programs in six areas: Skyline Six Area Agency on Aging; energy management; water qualitylquantity; water quality planning; community development; and elevator inspection. The Town of Vail contributes approximately $15,000 to NWCCOG on an annual basis, which is a combination of NWCCOG dues and a contribution to the Water QualitylQuantity • program. --1995 Year End Financial Report Finance Director Steve Thompson presented highlights of the town's 1995 year-end financial report as a prelude to a presentation by the town's auditors at the June 18 meeting. The town ended 1995 with fund balances of about $4.3 million in the general fund, according to Thompson. Revenues totaled 2% ($315,000) more than was (more} Council HighlightslAdd 1 budgeted in the general fund, despite revenues from taxes being below budget by $349,000, or 3%. General fund revenues exceeding budget forecasts included: building fees by $263,000; interest income, $201,000; transfer from the Parking Fund of . $98,000; and intergovernmental revenue, $57,000. Parking revenue from daily fees, passes and debit cards in 1995 increased $27,043 or 1.8% from 1994. Daily parking fees were up $60,254 {4.2%); and pass and debit card sales were down $33,211 (8.9%). Revenue from the Real Estate Transfer Tax came within $28,000 of the $1.7 million budget. As for expenditures, all funds ended the year under budget. The biggest savings were generated by salaries, health insurance, property and liability insurance, workers compensation, snow removal and heavy equipment charges, Thompson said. Salary savings were generated by bus driver positions not being filled, vacant positions created by attrition that were not filled and normal staff turnover. Although pleased with the year-end report, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he was continuing to take a conservative look at future budgets due to flattening sales tax trends (sales tax makes up over half of the town's revenues). He says the staff is continuing to work on a plan for cost reductions and revenue enhancements to be presented to the Council and the public in the next few months. --Ordinance on Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code In preparation far the evening meeting, the Council reviewed an ordinance that would • consolidate and amend the appeals process for the town's Zoning Code. While the appeals process remains mostly unchanged from the existing ordinance, the revision formalizes the notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal; clarifies wha has the right to appeal; and establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. Although the fee has not yet been determined, staff members said the cost would likely be no higher than $250. In 1995, there were 14 appeals and 6 Town Council call-ups. The ordinance was approved on first reading at the evening meeting. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. . --Citizen Participation Citing safety concerns, Harry Gray, a resident of the Intermountain neighborhaod, asked for consideration of a "children at play" sign and the conversion of a two-way stop to a four-way stop in the neighborhood. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the town would add the child safety signs immediately and would consider the intersection request in more depth through analysis already underway by the town engineer. (Gray asked to come before the Council at the afternoon work session, as he was unavailable to attend the evening meeting.) • --Information Update Council members were reminded of the Colorado Municipal League annual conference in Vail on June 18-22. Next, there was a brief review of the Counci! contingency fund as it relates to expenses (more) Council Highlights/Add 3 Intermountain Transportation Planning Commission has voted to add $300;000 for planning and engineering fees for the West Vail Interchange.. McLaurin said the . decision was generated by project concessions from district representatives in Aspen and Pitkin and Eagle counties. Approval from the Transportation Commission is expected in September. If approved, it could put the project on line to receive an additional .appropriation to help with construction costs, McLaurin said. Next month, the town will begin a process to involve the public in exploring ways to improve the interchange with construction potentially occurring in 1997. Errer~ing Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Ordinance on Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code This ordinance was approved by a vote of 5-0 on first reading. The measure essentially places the appeals process into one section of the town's zoning code, alleviating inconsistencies which currently exist. Also, the revision formalizes the notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal; clarifies who has the right to appeal; and establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. Second reading will occur at the May 21 evening meeting. For more information, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-21 X18. --Cornice Building Special Development District Outdoor Lighting Requirement The Council voted 5-0 on second reading to amend the Cornice Building Special Development District to allow flexibility in the building's outdoor lighting requirement. The property, at 362 Vail Valley Drive, received approval to instal! 12 outdoor light fixtures, an increase over the town`s design guidelines of 3 fixtures. An earlier request to allow construction of a Type III employee housing unit within the Cornice Building has since been withdrawn. For more information, contact George Ruttier in the , Communi#y Development Department at 479-2145. --Water Quality Management Plan Resolution The Council voted 5-0 to approve an updated water quality management plan prepared by Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. The 208 plan includes recommended actions to protect and improve water quality in the Eagle River and Gore Creek and is . required by the Federal Clean Water Act. Russell Forrest, the town's senior environmental policy planner, said the plan complements other work the town has completed and provides a list of recommended actions to assist with issues such as erosion and sediment control and streamflow setbacks. Councilman Michael Jewett, clarifying an earlier discussion with Forrest, reiterated his concern that stream tract property values could be adversely impacted by adoption of the plan. The Northwest (more) Council HighlightslAdd 2 for the youth leadership award and student exchange program. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer gave an update on the Specia! Events Commission meeting. She said Frank Johnson of the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau would be coming to the Council to talk about progress on the reservation center project wi#h Vaii Associates. Also, the commission is interested in . ,considering subsidizing pennants on street lights throughout town to add a more festive atmosphere to special events. Upcoming dates to look for include: Camp Jeep at Camp Hale, Aug. 8-10; Polo on Snow at Ford Park, Feb. 22-23; National Brotherhood of Skiers (not confirmed), Feb. 22-29; and World Cup, March 3-9 {#entative). --Council Reports Councilman Paul Johnston said the most recent mee#ing of the Eagle County Recreational Authority (Berry Creek 5th Filing) went well as representatives shared a broader perspective for uses on the site. He said there was also an interest in working collaboratively with the Eagle County School District, which owns the adjacent Miller Ranch site to the west. Johnston said the county has extended the existing Berry Creek 5th sketch plan for another year to allow the partners to add more detail to the plan. Mayor Bob Armour gave an update on the most recent TOV-VA Community Task Force meeting which included a review of peaklnonpeak ski season trends and review of an RFP (request far proposals) for facilitation of a grassroots community action plan recommended by the group. The next task force meeting is May 22. Councilman Ludwig Kurz, who represents the Council on the Colorado Ski Museum Board of Directors, reported on a recent retreat by the board. He said the discussion issues included membership and funding, plus increased support by other. Colorado ski resorts. Councilman Kevin Foley noted schedule conflicts involving the two boards he attends: . Art In Public Places and the Regional Transportation Authority. - =-Other Councilman Mike Jewett told of two citizen requests and asked to be included in the town's follow-up. The first dealt with a woman who asked for assistance from the town in installing a walkway, using public and private property, from Chamonix down to the West Vail Mall. The second request was from an individual who is requesting assistance from the town in working with the Cobrado Department of Transportation to install some guard rails on the South Frontage Road near the Cascade area. The caller, who had an acciden# there earlier this year, was interested in preventing future mishaps at the site. Town Manager Bob McLaurin announced the Colorado Department of Transportation (more) • Council HighlightslAdd 4 Colorado Council of Governments, of which the Town is a member, has been designated by the Governor as the area wide waste treatment management planning . authority under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and is asking its members to adopt the plan. For more information, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2146. - --Orrison Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC} Decision ~ _ The Council voted 4-1 (Foley against} to uphold a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny a front yard setback variance and a request to . utilize the 250 ordinance at a residence at 14fi4 Aspen Grove. Approval would have allowed for a garage and a Type I employee housing unit to be constructed on the property within the front setback. But in upholding the PEC decision, the Council majority found the request would be a grant of "special privilege" which does not conform with variance criteria. An adjacent property owner asked Council to deny the variance. Mayor Bob Armour stated that although there are no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks are a means to create a view corridor, and that a one story garage is the only exception which has been allowed in the fron# setback. Councilman Foley voted in opposition because approval of the variance would have permitted construction of an employee housing unit. For more information, contact Mike Mollica in the Community Development Department at 479-2144. --Update on Vail Commons Lottery Applications and Process Senior Housing Policy Planner Andy Knudtsen announced that 76 applicants had turned in applications for the lottery and that the town had received good exposure on television and in the newspaper. The lottery drawing will be held at 7 p.m. May 20 in the Town Council Chambers and that tiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. Two current homeowners will be deed-restricting their units. Knudtsen also informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who picked up applications to determine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't turned in. Mayor Bob Armour said he believed the survey would reveal some important information. For additional details, contact Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. =-Appeal by Anita Saltz of Design Review Board {DRB} decision to uphold staff decision to approve a buffer to be built between the International Wing proposed addition at the Lodge at Vail and the existing condominiums The Council voted 4-1 (Jewett against) to uphold the Design Review Board`s April 3 decision which upheld a staff decision regarding approval of a buffer to be built as part i of the International Wing addition at the Lodge at Vail. In December, the project was approved by the DRB with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual impacts from the adjacent property owners. Opponents of~the proposed addition were recently unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction from district court to block the project. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tam Moorhead at 479- 2107. (more} r Council HighlightslAdd 5 --Town Manager's Report Bob McLaurin updated Council members of a request from the Art In Public Places board fora $77,390 contribution to assist with an art piece at Seibert Circle. It was noted the town staff has recommended a $50,000 contribution and that $60,000 has already been budgeted for a fountain as part of the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to discuss the matter at its May 14 work session, McLaurin then informed Council that $300,000 in state funds may be approved for design work at the West Vail Interchange. Mcl.aurin said the town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine what solutions might work for improving the Interchange (see work session briefs for more information). Also announced yesterday; water to parks and water fountains will be turned on May 17, with the exception of the Childrens Foundation, which will come an line after a nearby construction project is completed. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS May 21 Work Session Tim Lahey 20 year anniversary PECIDRB Review ! Update on CMCICynthia Heelan Interview for 1 PEC Member Interview for 2 Liquor Board Members VVTCB Update on Unified Call Center Change to Golden Peak Approved Development Plan May 29 Evening Meeting First Reading Ordinance 12, Amending Title 17 Second Reading Ordinance 7, Appeals Process Resolution, Change in Road Name Appointments of PEC Member and Liquor Board Members Change to Golden Peak Approved Development Pian Appeal of PEC Decision Re: Lionshead Gondola May 28 Work Session Conceptual Discussion of Lionshead Redevelopment # # # v 4 MEMORANDUM ~P~ TO: Planning and Environmenta} Commission ~R~M; Community Development Department DATE: May 13, ~ 996 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circlell-ot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision {SDD#4). Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey Planner: Dominic Mauriello I, DESCRIPTION OF THE RE(~UEST The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height limitation for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are ,.labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest {see the attached elevation drawing). According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based an the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC); ridges A, B and C were constructed up to l3 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is claiming that the revised "Survey Policies" {attached) of the Town would allow the constructed building #~eight. Staff believes the revised policies would have na effect on the constructed building height. The applicant is requesting a variance to retain the roof ridges at the constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of 8 inches, to the 33-foot height limitation. II. ~ACKC~.ROUND, On January 8,1996, the PEC unanimously denied the same request for a building height variance. The PEC decision was appealed to the Town Council. On January 16, 1996, the Town Council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the decision of the PEC, and therefore the PEC decision of denial stands. The PEC and Council minutes are attached. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 1$.62.U6i3 of the Vai! Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested height variance based on the following factors: 1 A. Con~r~3tinn of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potentlaf uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will have little or no impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are minimal. All of the ridges are up to 8 inches over the 33-foot limitation, for a length of less than 5 lineal feet. 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 The applicant's statement indicates that the height limitation encroachments occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the interior spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after-the-fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. 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. The requested variance will have no effect on this criteria. B. The Planninn and BrwvirnnmPnt~Qmrni~ion shall mhp fnllawinq findings 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 not be detrimental to the public health, safety ar 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 or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary 2 physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or cor~di#ions • 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Staff believes that granting the height variance would not be Injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does nat appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. f:leveryonelpec~nemoslhovey2.m 13 • • ?'OI~N OF vAIL ~MORANDU~ T0: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Department of Community Deveiopmeni DATE: March 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements The following survey requirements apply to a!1 new construction and to.some additions. !t you are unsure if your project requires an Improvement t_ocation Certificate, talk to the project planner. PRIOR TO A BUIl.t]ING PERMfT Benchmark - On all surveys and Improvement t.ocation Certificates, identify the benchmark used for the basis of tfle elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphatt in streets, or fire lhydrants. Architects and Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentatian in the Vai! Valley. Please consult a registered surveyor to verify manumentation prior to developing plans for a site. ~~hlishment of b~Sp elpv~ions fflr c I~,~~tino building heiq~ - If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that proposed ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation will need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to submitting for a building permit. A topographic survey with the necessary spot elevations, foundation, and the ridges indicated shall be submitted with the building permit application. Any project that has received Design Review Board approval prior to March 11, 1996 shall be exempt from this requirement. Recomrnend~tions for OwnerlBuilder Proier~ -For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of ttie foundation wall. -With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final building height before the structure is completed. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit. 1 • II. AFTER THE FOUNDATION IS POURED, Within three (3}weeks following the approved foundation inspection, an ILC will be required for projects that exhibit and of the following characteristics: 1. The building is within 3 feet of any setback line; , ' 2. The driveway grade is greater than 1 Q%; 3. The building is within B inches of the maximum building height allowance; Q. The project involves three or more separate structures on the property; or The project has received a variance for height or setbacks; The ILC most be submitted to the Town of Vai{ for review and approval within three weeks following the approved foundation inspection. The Building Inspector will notify the project planner when the foundation inspection has been approved. If an 1LC is not received and approved by the planner within three weeks, the Town of Vail will issue a Stop Work Order and no work wip be allowed until the ILC is reviewed and approved: Once submitted to the Town, please allow two working days for the ILC to be reviewed. The ILC should indicate the following: t . The footprint of the building; 2. The elevations of the foundation walls and the garage slab; 3. The grade of the centerline of the driveway, rne~sured in twenty-foot increments; and ~4. The distance of the foundation to each property line. The exterior material existing on the st~acture the day of the survey should be noted. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the Setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next page}. . 111. PRIOR T[9 A FRAMING INSPECTION . An ILC w~ be required prior to any framing inspection #a verify that height and setback . standards~ have been met. No framing inspections will be scheduled until the ILC is approved lby the Town. Please allow two working days from the time the 1LC is submitted to the time the inspection can be scheduled. The ILC must show the following infarrnatio~n: • 1. Roof Ridae Elevaltians - On the survey prepared for the framing inspection, irid~cate the highest point of ~ roof ridges. The roof plan needs to be drawn on the 1LC. The roof ridge points identified on the ILC should align with the roof plan , a~:2he Town's approved set of Building Permit plans. ~ • Rii~lge height will be measured to the lop ridge of the sheathing. On the ILC, the suuTveyor should note the roof material (if any} on the highest paint of the ridge 2 r - which exists the day of the survey, The planner will add the dimensions of a!I other materials (except a cold roof vent). For example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor should note that, and the planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verify the finished product will not exceed the height limit. On the attached diagrams the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured #rom the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 2. setbacks - The distance from the foundation to each property line should be specified, noting the exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. If ledges or supports far rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point {see diagram below). ! ~ ~ ~ ~~~n~ f~ ~ao~- se~-b~aak ~ - l ~our?dv.-tio,~ 1 Fi~ 3 r ~ k /i ToP !Zla~,c a~ d rf .Sil EATI! !?~t n.' • r . Y1 ~ ~ RIDGE V1ENT DCT,~11L • • ` ~ ~ • /C~CnUr~.7. ?I~GG j ILC lop aF s~~iuI,GES ~ ~ cusu~-w ~..~..7~~.~~,4 ptg. ~ 1.•1•.tiiyr. ~tGori. o -'rte rj.!.~' rower. f~l' IL'L. M ~pt~'r~ t~ • ixZ p~.TTT~l~ ovt~. x L+.~z.~y SOP 171DlaF OF ~ ~5u ~eLr oN ~/a" j k+~, cOr~ FtYwD. .SX~~f71/In/Fj ~ ~ xrp St~~~~t-f+.~ ~ 1rJ'o.a, ` ~ I Go+-1T. MEsaYyWJ-» 4f.Ye.rs :C~~ - .Y.ti1a'E~ ~~~lr~- ~ • . . / RlDGC VFN.T DET~IIL . 4. I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated March 28, X996 and commit to adhere to them. Signature of owner, or owner's representative Print Name Date Jab Name Permit Number Legal Description: Lot, , Bfock ,Filing 5 r ~ M PLANNfNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM1SS1ON . January 8, 199G Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Dalton Williams George Ruttier , Kevin Deighan Randy Stouder Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez Puhllc Hearinti 2:00 p.rr=. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow fora 485 square foot addition to an . ~ existing condominium In the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5Nail Gateway Plaza Building. ~ ry. Applicant: Steve Riders representing flail Apartments Inc. planner: Randy Stouder . r• Henry Pratt moved to table item No. ~ ,item No. ~ and item Na. 5 until January 22, 1995. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit•lacated at 1339 Westhaven CirclelLot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applican#: Sill Anderson representing Mr, and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder • Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance criteria carefully and found that justii•ication for granting the variance was lacking. According to the applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process without compensating reductions in the heigh# of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of special privilege. • + Flanning and Environmental Commission _ - Minutes January S, 3 99fi ~ Bill Anderson from l3eck and Associates referred to a situation fn East Vaif where a house was 3' aver the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that the ~ surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made he Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vai! residence, both were~-Eest mistakes. He s#ated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one carne forward. Henry Pratt said although the Impact is negligible and the nelghbors~don't care, he feels handcuffed - since the Findings are not met. Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it would deffnitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of the criteria and findings. • Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an 1LC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. Dave Peel said they went from a i 0"floor to 71-718". He also explained how the roof structure was modified slightly, resulting in additional height. _ . ~ . Greg Moffet said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Beard could not grant a variance. Bill Anderson mentioned that for on-site construction mistakes, the Board has granted variances ire the past. Randy Stouder said the East Vaii variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The PEC did grant that variance. Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Tawn. Mike Monica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judges. .individually. Mike Monica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at feast not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a Fong track history Planning and Euvironmenial Commission Minutes f ]anuary 8, 1996 2 Y / r'/1J for being ors tiarget with heights and setbacks. We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the . small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. Mike Mollica added for the record that the applicant has 1 Q days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and #indings that the PEC uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked i# he could get a TCO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that the work could be completed prior to March 1. Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding. 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch DrivelLot 26, Vaii Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Rusher George Rusher gave an overview and quickly went through the items the applicant changed since the December 11th meeting. Public Works suggested that a tt~vo-foot wide gravel shoulder be replaced wi#h a guardrail since the shoulder could not maintain a safe slope to the street. Staff does not feel w :there would be any negative impacts if the variances were granted. Staff has the greatest concern with item 2 of the Criteria. It is the staff's opinion that the hardship is self imposed by the contractor. Staff is recommending denial because of a grant of special privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memorandum, should the PEC grant the request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and representing the property owners, the Koenig's and Dowie's requested the variance be granted based on the landscape changes to save the existing trees. One other hardship shows the surveyor made a mistake in the original survey and it wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is the first time he heard about the guardrail request. The utilities run where the guardrail is proposed. He would prefer plantings, rather than erecting a guardrail. -Greg Moffet asked far public input. Henry Pratt said again practicality should rule rather than the letter of the law. A lack of a shoulder ~is a serious issue for the Tawn. The driveway can be remedied. Providing a variance wouldn'# do anything • far the walls. There has been an effort to save existing trees. Henry is not optimistic about the wall variance, however. Greg Amsden said preservation of trees is justification for granting the variance. There are site constraints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of special privilege. Planning and Envirorunentai Coax?mission • A'~inutes f Ianuary 8, 1996 3 nnouica intormeci C:ouncki treat the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the code, 8„~ that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order far a separation to be granted. Gary Oleson, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architec ark ' Donaldson. Pau! moved to overturn the decision of the DRB to deny the separation request due to th rge size of the lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separation co uteri nicely he existing residences an Katsos Ranch Road. The mo#ion was seconded by Peggy. Mike Jewett expressed he would rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rab For aced that many other options, were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have wild a duplex. Tam clarified that the section in the Code listed examples of what might constitute a si icant site constraint, and said there { t were many and varied situations. He went on to state tha# man m features could possibly be considered, Kevin inquired as to how the neighbors felt about the project, a ybill addressed the question, staling those she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller e, but that the size of the lot itself would allow for a much bigger structure to be built. 5ybill felt that g through the variance request would be more appropriate. George reminded council members # e was not a variance request to decide on. Mike suggested another possible avenue for the applic would be to request a front setback variance, in order to maintain development on the site as law as ctical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts. DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained DRB's finding that there was nothing which would constitute a significant site constraint as outlined ' e town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB had no other option but to deny the request. Mike #hen Bested the proper course of action would be #o request a change in zoning on the lot. Peggy reminds uncil members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed that would allow for the separ an. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site constraint, s#ating that uncle a proposed scenario, the applicant would be removing the least amount of trees. George stated that aiding to staff, a significant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown on + e proposed project plan w e fi" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that wer~t shown on the plant would ultimately be removed, A vats was to and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybifl in favor of overturning the DRB's decision to deny the t request, Mi ,Rab, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition, A motion was then made by Rob to u~~old the decision a DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed, 4-2. Sybifl and Paul apposed. Mr. eon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Modica stated he would be happy t set with the applicant to discuss the processes available. Agenda item number five v~~fi a~ ^^t^~~nm~ntaf C;nmmissign'~,~pia1 °f a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation far residential structures. The project is located at ~ 339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyan Subdivision (SDD #4}. Town of Vail Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the fallowing background: The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lat 23, Glen Lyan Subdivision. An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction far residential structures, The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, as shown on the attached site plan and elevation drawings. Accarding~ the interpolated exis#ing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topograp survey}, and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B, and C were constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested That the I ; pFC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEC unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height variance would be a grant of special privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because 2 U~! 9,~, C.~„~,t t:~..~.y ~n"G"! TrZ.Y.G. Ot~t6~~16 !agreed it would be granting a special privilege, architect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of Beck & Associates presen#ed the height variance request on behalf of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof modifications caused the overages. Sybill asked ifi there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it . ; wa Ong #aken advantage of, survey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991. A!s andy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no 1' grace allowance for roof height, and that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out a building permit. Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been corrected. Mike Jewett was looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without gran#ing a special privilege. Dave Peel suggested similar situations had occurred in the pas#. Tom Moorhead informed Council that each variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits of#er reviewing the criteria and findings. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and resulted in a tie, 3-3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor, Paul, Mike and Sybill opposed; the motion was defeated. Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt CounciE should be more flexible and cited the following reasons: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cost the applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appeal process. Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and cansis#ent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as opposed to granting "~~_s] privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and ~ th otion was seconded by Paul. Town residents Martin Walbaum and Scatty McGoon expressed their opinions, encouraging Council to approve the variance. Town Manager, Bob Mcl_aurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage, but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulatiari or changing the height restriction. A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybill voting in favor, Kevin, Peggy and Rob voting in opposition. Therefore, the decision of the PEC to deny the height variance stands. Next on the agenda was the Tawn Manager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul to adjourn. Mike Jewett commended the Police Department far their efforts and expressed satisfaction frgm the c unity regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public Works for the fine job they tad done r~ving snow during the recent heavy accumulations. . Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 P.M. . Respectfully submitted, it Navas, M yor Pra-tem A ~ i rST: i ~ r. ~ ~ ~ . r J ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ r • ~ ~ ~ • , , . w ~ ' r ~ ti . _ t _ SSS/// L ~ • ~ ~ _ ~ • ` ~ 1S _ + • ~ S~ i 1 ~ 'i 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ April 11, 1996 Mike Mollica Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81b57 RE: Havey Residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle -height variance Dear Mike: Per our phone discussions I am applying for a height variance at the Hovey Residence. It is my understanding that Randy Stouder and David Peel have developed the following criteria: A) 8" to 0" far a distance of 4'-b" B} 8" to 0" for a distance af4'-0" C} 8" to 0" for a distance of 3'-9" {See attached drawing.} It is our contention that the use of a tops survey as an absahitely accurate document is not ` correct. The national standard allows fora 1 foot plus ar minus tolerance based an 2 foot contours. {See attached letter from Intermountain Engineering.} With this accepted tolerance our ridge heights could be 4" under. The bottom line, it seems to us that there is no way at the present time to accwrately prove that the Havey Residence encroaches into the height limitation. With this in mind we are not sure that a variance is really needed but as rt seems to be our only alternative, we are fallowing the Town of Vail's suggested course of action. Sincerely, ~ Bill Anderson Project Manager Beck and Associates, Inc. • InteriMOMrnta~n Jan~s$ry 3~i 196 Mr. baud Pss1 PQ Box ~,3pa Vail, CD 81658 Via fax: a76-437a FtB: Lot 23, l~len Lyon 8uhdtvis#,vn Prt+~ect Na. 948868 dear Qave: This letter ~.a in rsaard to the mac~racy of the tapagraphio ma?p on the reforencetq property. It im our po~.3cy to fo~,low tl~e N$tional Mapping AcauraQy a~tandardr which require that dll topographic map tae with~,n f the contour intervet]. of the map. the topographic map shown from our sunray ari this prv~act hes ~ fQat csontaurg which means they err w~,thin t i foot. =f yQu havr eny further quBSt3vns~ plearr o~tli. ~ cr eely, -Duaaa d, t?`ahringer P.~., p.L.e. 77 Metcalf toad, #I~A! • Box 97`B • Avon, Color~lp 81620 • Phone: 970~949~5072 + Prom C~rwer f~treot: !393.1631 1420 Vance Street • Laicstivouct, Colorado t3021ti • Phone: ~3.233-0168 • t s MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environments! Commission ~flOM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primarylsecondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls CourtlUnit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.} above their garage to habitable space (GRFA} without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar conversion in the adjoining dupiex Unit "A". In that case, staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property, Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The owners of this adjoining unit (the Shiffrin's) were required to iremove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Shiffrin's applied far, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995. A copy of the PEC minutes are attached. Y A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unperrnitted GRFA be removed. The applicant decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. The allowable GRFA for the property is 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on'February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the dupiex is 4,689 sq.ft. The applicant converted the existing enclosed area above the garage labeled as "open to below" on the approved plans to GRFA. The conversion adds 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Thus, the applicant is requesting a density variance to allow for an additional 172.5 sq.ft. of GRFA on the property. 11~ ZONING ANALYSIS, Zoning: Two-Family Residential (R) Lot Area: 15,999.8 sq.ft. Allowed/Required Exfstina proposed GRFA: 4,700 sq. ft. 4,689 sq.ft. a,872.5 sq. ft. Page 1 of 3 r' a III. CRITERIA AND FII~ING~ Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vai} Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested density variance based upon the following factors: A. Consider~on of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other exlsttng or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed density variance would set a negative precedent if approved. Granting a density variance would reward the applicant for illegal conversion of vaulted space to GRFA by adding a floor. The bulk and density of the building would have been reduced if this conversion would have been included as GRFA in the original floor plans, since the GRFA would have been reduced in other areas. In the present situation, the structure is existing and there are no additional impacts to adjacent uses. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpre#atlon 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 finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the GRFA regulations is important to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among various properties in Town. Granting the requested variance would be a grant of special privilege, and would tend to encourage other unpermitted conversions. This would not only be detrimental to the enforcement of t#~e Zoning Code, but It could r. also result in unsa#e construction since others may attempt to build without a building permit and inspections by TOV building officials to ensure conformity with the Building Code. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, dis#ributlon of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance would have any affect on the above referenced criteria. B. The Pl~nninq and Environmental Commission _shall make the following findings before g~ntinq_ ~_yariance: 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 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 mare of the following reasons: a. The strict li#eral interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wouid result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship Page 2 of 3 F l inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe 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 is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primarylsecondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, I_ot 8, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's request does not meet the variance criteria fisted above. Specifically, staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the density regulations is necessary to avoid a grant of special privilege, that could have significant ramifications to the community if the same privilege is applied to other properties throughout Town. Furthermore, staff finds that there is no special circumstance or physical hardship that applies to the subject property that would warrant granting the requested variance. The applicant is hereby made aware that if the PEC denies the requested variance, that the applicant shall make application for a demolition permit within 14 days of the PEC decision. • ~:leveryonelpeclmemolbingham.m7 3 Y Page 3 of 3 „r 4,:~ r~:Y ~ ?:Ai ~ }r1. 4l~•~ _ ti~.a. ~ i 1, ~ "fit; 2•o y._ 1 , 4jQ'.~ CG - ' ~;~4 rte.-..-1--- 4 ;,,.?e ' p g i ~ W~~; ~ I 4~ w~ `4 r~if4 I. ~ , ~l~l b ~r ~;al .~-.A _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, \.I ~ A v j~ ~ j:, ,y11-~ ~ K ~ ~ 7b .r1r s. ' .yin [w"(Q' i !rw r , ` ~:x;•.i~< ba4 ~,~.~,~U-F~ Rp,~l.,t~f° T~~, u', -U~~'± ~ ~ ~ 1 ~r.i j~``. ~ ~ . G,~•~,,~,. ~ cam ~ y 4 ~ ` v Tt , ~ `Yid 5:9~ f "f J - 3•F . ~ I ~.r~j~ ~n GS J • z... ..l;5 ! " is ...rte ~1 T i• i`n~~L'Z.~ K~~~, 4 l I n, t `l r ~ 4 qJ.{1 y,._ 1 ~ ~,_a r~ f; ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r l~ is !•/%:J*. i . . ~ . zq.~~~_ . ~o~ ~ 1 Qom„ a. ~ t n 1 C] t ~ w Yl p~ ~ . , . . . , . . 1, , -I~lne ~e s-L r~ c.~ t aY, ~-~-o a.t to ~ o ~r rn . ~ ~ . . -'~-a b e_ IG . ~ ~ tee. pe, s ~c~{l are 0. 0.-~. . cc., o n,~, roomy a.P~~ox acv A s a -~'a~~ 1 0~ ~ ~ (~.s 3 c~. ~ E c~~ erg . : ~ ~ ~ <~J ,Y, p~ 3 lo~droorr, ~,o~se we. c©~lc~ real ( ~ use -~-~r,~s erc-~rc.L ro~nr, o.s O. c~u~e~- S~C~ i nn ~t0f' ~nornewor~ ! ~ ~e.aot~naJ ~ a~c~ s~oc-aSe . ciao ~ c~ Inav~e. r~ o ~ x-~e r ~ o r o~ ~ k~, ra.~- ~o~r~ ~ S . pin ~ x ~ s-~~ n c J ~+n-~ r ~o room } ~.J.1~ ~ C h ' 0,..~o~aa.re~~1~. ~4.s ctrl ouje..~ ~r bu.I.~.~.r ~ u~ no-~- -~o r- ~-1~ u r c,~, as e rQ ~ ~o c~.j~ . r ` ~ o~v~e p~bsol ~ -~c. ~ ~ aP trnri ~h~.~-~o v~ r- O ~c'~ b~G~S~' WDUt~ tn~~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AF n o W ~ Q -fie c. a u . +ne` 1:~ bar s . . I ~e v~.c ,rn v ch man -~e.~1 ~-0 1 ti~~ tr, ~~k~-, l o~ n o-~ ~('a t~ whe_?n u3~ rr~ov~Pc~ -~`c-oc~ l~ as ~ f nG i ~ . ~ Ol:~ hA~ ~~Gr, ~pv c ~s-~-a I~~r-e: ~r ~ ~OUrS ~ otn d co ~ Ids G~~ rye c ~a.~ -~-Ine ~ua~ ~ o~~ l -~o ~ ~ 1V~ W ~~rh., *1 '"~'o w r-~ t tin-. b . W G `;a . 0. S ~ re,"~Ch ~ ~d P UrG~0.~. ~ t~ r v-' OUP . ~ . J _ 1 Ca, ~Qa 1 ~ u sre(., ~-1•~ ~ s,rn a ! ~ oar, ~a~._, Vie: ~ , I~rl av r` C~ W~ , ono m C.. ~c" 4.u~" .V,S G. ~...I~,S C~1,0~,~ 1 ~..±ti, J since.. , W~, . ~a ht' ~ ns u r~ ~ . ~ `J a. .S4?n G~~~. a to -~-o ~ . ~ t S o O . J Can er0. ~ ~ r S Cp.ve ~00.~2...... _ _ _ . . ~ ~4.~ . . 1 Q.c.G~. '~'h"'"' Ps. . ms's us,~...._ X~?~s,...S~C~. ?~o . r~c.~ Q .i . 1 m Lr or Ga. c ~e,r~:~; r ~~--w-o r.~,..~.. i . , ~ . s . , f II • . - II , I , ti _ ~ opinion that the unavailability of the applicant could be interpreted as insufficient information. Upon consultation with Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, staff would .recommend that the Vail Town Council grant an approval of the applicant's request for a 30-day extension of the appeals process hearing due to insufficient information. Lapin moved to grant a 30 day extension, with a second by Slifer. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. The twelfth item on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's {PEC) denial of a request for a density {GRFA) variance to allow for the conversion of attic space to GRFA located at 3130 Booth Falls CourtlLot 6-A, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. licant: Jeffre & Eileen Shiff 'n. Randy Stouder presented this item to Council. The applicants converted an area above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The Fire Department alerted the Community Development Department of the unpermitted construction and the job was red-tagged (stop work order issued) on July 26, ~ 995. A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unpermitted GRFA be removed {copy attached). The applicant decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approval to allow the GRFA to remain. On October 9, 1995 the PEC unanimously denied {by a vote 5-Q) the applicant's variance request. The applicant is appealing the PEC decision to the Town Council. Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a density variance. Jeff Shiffrin asked council to grant a density variance. Osterfoss explained the Town of Vail has clear guidelines to follow an density. Counci! must follow these guidelines. Sfrauch moved to uphold the PEC decision and deny the density variance, with a second by Lapin. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2 with Navas & Slifer against. The thirteenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There report. Vail Commons Discussion & Decision. The Counci[ agreed as hole to remain in public session. Lapin once again recused himself and left th a#ing. OsterFass asked for public comment. Jeff Christensen thanked C urtis for her help. He did not appreciate the Town releasing to the press a I from WilEiam D. Rosell, as he felt this to be a smear campaign. Lew Meskiman ees the master plan is administrative, however he feels the people should vote a property use. Bob Fiske does not feel the Counci! pursued all avenues befo eciding on City Market. Rob Levine believes this is a administrative issue. Pa ohnston believes this to have been an administrative process. Nav grees with Johnston and truly believes council should move ahead with the pro' .Steinberg does not fee! it necessary to have everything go to a vote. We wo never need a land plan ar a Town Council if this was the case. Wants to procee ead with the project as it is administrative. Slifer said this is clearly an administr a project. lfi this went to a vote what would the wording be on the ballot? P les Ordinance 1 asks for a master plan to be approved by the electorate. ~ t The P les Ordinance 1, 995 is very badly written and would have to go to court to hav 'interpreted before it could ga on a ballot. Strauch has heard no evidence the t. cess has been legislative. He called 30 people who signed the petition asking them ~ why and he received 3Q different answers. He votes to proceed with the project. TlofcrFncc c4alnrl h7cnrJ nn 4wa ~nf....,~,•.<~.... .,.,.~.._,__,,~_r_. _ - - _ . ,i MINUTES REVISED 06.04.96 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING May 21, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the ail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order a# approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paui Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District}, 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports}, 18.58 (Supplemental Regulations}, 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration} I~vith respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vail Municipal Code. Sybill moved to remove Ordinance 7 from the Consent Agenda, with a second from Mike Jewett. Sybill and Mike said they were concerned about the new filing fee proposed in the ordinance to cover town costs. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, suggested using language that would allow Council to set the fee, however not require it. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead stated that requiring a fee was quite appropriate, given the staff time involved. Council members requested some minor changes be made. Mike Jewett then moved to table Ordinance 7 to the next evening meeting to allow for staff review and other changes. Assistant Director of Community Development, Mike Monica, suggested specific changes and moving forward with the ordinance, and Mike Jewett then withdrew his motion to table the ordinance. Sybill then moved to approve Ordinance 7, with a second from Ludwig Kurz. Discussion continued when local attorney, Art Abplanalp asked Council to consider several other changes, including extending the amount of time to fife records far appeal beyond the 10 day time frame, and requested Council table the ordinance. Mike Jewett then questioned Tom Moorhead about the effect that Ordinance 7 would have on past approvals in rel2tion to Chapter 18.56, Environmental Impact Reports. In response to the question it was pointed out that the ordinance would not be retroactive, and would not have any effect on any approval that had previously been granted. At that time, Sybill withdrew her motion and moved to table Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996. Mike Jewett seconded the motion and a vote was taken, which passed unanimously, 6-0. Third on the agenda was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996 a Resolution Renaming North Frontage Road East to all Line Drive. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead and Public Works Director Larry Grafel presented the item, ~cplaining the Town of Vail had been presented with a petition signed by the residents of that area, requesting a change of the name from North Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive. Larry stated that the Colorado Department of Transportation and other required agencies had approved the requested change, and that staff also recommended adopting Resolution No. 7. Council members were provided with a copy of the petition and asked to approve, modify or deny Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996. Paul moved to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Kevin seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. At the request of Mayor Armour, Tom Moorhead explained the procedure required to change a street. Agenda item number four was the appointment of one Planning & Environmental Commission Board Member.. Director of Community Development, Susan Connelly and Mike Monica presented the item, and informed Council that an opening existed on the seven member PEC due to the resignation of Kevin Deighan., and that the appointee would fill the remainder of Kevin's two-year term serving through March, 1997. Council was asked to appoint a new member or direct staff to re-advertise the vacancy. The following citizens had submitted letters of interest for appointment to the PEC and were interviewed at that afternoon's work session: Jerome B. Jacobs, John B. Schofield, and John C. Zahner. Ballots were then distributed to council members, and voted. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon, then tallied the votes d presented the results #o Mayor Armour. Paul Johnston moved to appoint John Schofield to fill the unexpired ~rm on the PEC, serving through March, 1997. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Fifth on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision to approve with conditions, Vail Associates, Inc.'s 1 Vaf! Town Caunci! Evening Meeting Minutes May 21, 1996 ~ I~..' r conditional use permit application for a new gondola at the Lionshead base area by Mr. and Mrs. David P. Ransburg, the owners of Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing and Mr. John Jordan, the owner of a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 6#h Filing, Town Planner, Jim Curnutte, summarized the history of events, presented the item and referenced a letter of appeal dated May 2, 1996, from local attorney, Art Abplanalp. Jim updated Council, stating the approved conditional use permit would allow for the placement of a low profile, high-speed gondola and associated terminal building, to be located approximately 10' west of the existing Chair 8 lower terminal, and that an additional three towers associated with the new gondola would be located within the Town of Vail municipal limits. Jim then referenced a staff memorandum to the PEC dated April 22, 1996, the approved minutes from the April 22, 1996 PEC meeting, and a letter to Mr. Joe Macy dated May 14, 1996, which summarized the action taken by the PEC and the conditions attached to the approval. Jim then informed Council that the PEC's motion to approve the conditional use permit request included the staff's findings that the criteria for approving the requested conditional use permit had been met, and that the PEC approved the conditional use permit by a vote of 3-1. Jim stated the staff recommended that the Town Council uphold the PEC`s conditional use permit approval of the Lionshead Gondola, with the conditions specified by the PEC on April 22, 1996, and that the staff believed the review criteria for granting a conditional use permit had been met, as specified in the staff memorandum to the PEC. Mayor Armour stated he had received letters from three individuals concerned about the night skiing issue, and made it clear to members of the audience that appeal of the PEC decision had no relevance to night skiing. Tom Moorhead defined the zone districts involved (Commercial Core II and Agricultural Open Space) and stated that ski tows and lifts were specified as a conditional use in those zone districts. Tom further explained that the application far the new gondola had been approved by the Forest Service, and that if Vail Associates wished to pursue night skiing, other processes would have to take place, and that the objection to night skiing did not relate to the application. Appellants' legal representative, Art Abplanalp requested Council put a condition on the gondola permit which would address the night skiing issue. Mar. Abplanalp stated that the Town of Vail should reserve the right to review such a request and to hold a public hearing if and when the issue came up. Right now, he said, only Forest Service approval would be required. Tom Moorhead responded, saying that under the current zoning code there were no standards on the use of Vail Associate's property for skiing, and suggested such a request be addressed as an amendment to the zoning. Senior Vice President and General Council far Vail Associates, James Mandel, addressed Council and introduced members of Vail Associates staff who were on hand to answer any questions, and asked council members to uphold the decision of the PEC. Attorney, Bruce Chapman, representing adjacent property owner Larry Field of 586 Forest Road, also urged Council to add conditions to the approval, as did Lionsquare Lodge General Manager, Jim Gernhoffer. Others in the audience, including attorney, Jay Peterson, PEC member Greg Moffet and Lionshead Merchants Association president Rob Levine spoke in favor of the project without additional conditions. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the PEC's approval of Conditional Use Permit with no additional conditions, and the motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Mayor Armour #hen stated he could not justify controlling the use of land outside the Town of Vail boundaries. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Kevin wished Buddy Lazier good luck this weekend, as he's in the second row at the Indy 500. Shere being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. Respe fully submitted, Ro ert W. Armour, Mayor A ST: Y I J Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.} 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes May 21, 1886 ?r i~ r;. ~owN of vArL 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2.100 . FAX 970-479-2157 . - MEDIA ADVISORY May 22, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MAY 21 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Employee Recagnitio Tim Lahey, a captain with the Town of Vail Fire Department, was honored for 20 years of service to the town. Lahey received a certificate and a check for $2,000. --Interviews for Planning & Environmental Commission Member The Council interviewed three applicants for amid-term opening on the Planning and Environmental Commission in preparation far appointment at the evening meeting. The applicants were: Jerome B. Jacobs, John B. Schofield and John C. Zahner. --VVTCB Update Re: Unified Call Center and Year-Round Air Task Force Frank Jahnsan, president of the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau {VVTCB), along with Jim Gregg, a consultant far Vail Associates, presented an update on efforts to unify the two reservation centers now operated by the VVTCB.and Vail Associates. While Vail Associates will move its reservation center to Denver beginning July 1 to - take advantage of a larger labor pool and expanded floor space, the VVTCB will continue to operate its center out of Vail, Johnson said, to avoid any additional risk to the valley. He said the two centers will be "cohesive," whereby each will serve as a backup to the other with roll-over lines. Johnson said the two entities will continue to work out the details of a single business consolidation. to occur next spring. Council member Sybill Navas, noting her frustration in obtaining site-specific information from national outlets such as TicketMaster, wondered if the center's relocation to Denver will cause a loss in Vail's personality. Acknowledging awareness of the concern, Johnson said the issue would be addressed through training, enhanced technology and numerous site visits by the reservationists. As for year-round air service at the Eagle County Regiar~al Airport, Johnson said a task force appointed to research the possibility has suspended its work until the County and the Vail/Beaver Creek Jet Center resolve the terminal issue. Initial •research, however, has indicated the valley's convention business during May to October last year could (more) RECYCLED PAPER k ~ Y council Highlights/Add 1 have grown by $4.5 million if direct air service had been in place, Johnson said. Airlines are willing to talk about summer service, so long as they're accommodated during the winter season, according to Johnson. He said that interest is further . complicated by existing winter carriers and their subsidies. The task force is attempting to attract ayear-round carrier with international connections that would fly small or mid- sized planes {75-90 seats) into the Eagle airport beginning next summer, he said. Commuter service from Denver or Colorado Springs also is a possibility, Johnson said, although that isn't the focus of the task force effort. Far more information, contact Johnson a# the VVTCB at 479-1000, ext. 3008. --Information Update Public Works/Transpartation Director Larry Grafel briefed the Council on a remodel plan for the Vail Transportation Center Terminal building. The preliminary design includes improving entryways, mare windows for increased orientation to the mountain, heated pavers around the building, improved climate control, relocation of restroams, improved tenant finishes and the addition of other user-friendky amenities. The town has budgeted $500,000 for the project. Construction would begin in August following the necessary approvals from the PEC, DRB and Town Council. For more information, contact Grafef at 479-2173. --Council Reports Paul Johnston gave an update on his Council involvement with the Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber is interested in advancing a health care coverage cooperative program; has received results on an employer housing survey; and is working on a priorities survey to be circulated soon. Kevin Foley said the Arts in Public Places Board will be coming to the Council soon to talk about the Seibert Circle project. Also, the next regional transportation meeting is scheduled for June 6. Bob Armour reviewed his activities from the past week which included: presentation of a Mayor's Cup award to Dana Carlson at Battle Mountain High School; attending a Chamber leadership coalition meeting and a presentation on the Eagle County Regional Airport by Kent Myers from Vail Associates; participation at the May 20 lottery drawing for the Vail Commons housing; and providing the. opening remarks for a convention in Vail by the Federation of Government Information Processing Council. --Other The Colorado Municipal League will hold its annual convention here in June. Michael Jewett asked for clarification regarding distribution of the town code book to council members. Following up on a suggestion by Paul Johnston at the last meeting, Bob Armour asked for more information from Public Works Director Larry Grafel on installing an American (more) . Council Highlights/Add 2 flag in the middle of the roundabout. Grafel asked to wait until a more comprehensive report on an "avenue of flags" concept.can be presented. • --Site Visit The Council visited the Lianshead Gondola site in preparation for the evening meeting. Evening Meeting Brie#s Council members present: Armour, Foley, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation There was no citizen participation. --Consent Agenda After removing Ordinance No. 7 (administration and appeals procedure of the Vail Municipal Code) from the consent agenda, the Council voted 6-0 to table the matter until the next evening meeting on June 4. The ordinance, approved on first reading by a 5-~ vote at the May 8 meeting, essentially places the appeals process into one section of the town's zoning code, alleviating inconsistencies which currently exist. The revision also formalizes the notice of appeal process through use of a written form specifying the reason for the appeal; clarifies who has the right to appeal; and • establishes a new filing fee to cover town costs. During discussion, Council members Sybill Navas and Michael Jewett said they were concerned about the new filing fee proposed in the ordinance. Currently there is no fee for an appeal. Because the town has a complicated set of regulations, Navas said she didn't think it was reasonable to require an appellant to pay a filing fee. However, Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said a fee for an appeal is appropriate given the staff time involved. Local attorney Art Abplanalp asked the Council to consider several other changes, including extending the amount of time to file records for the appeal beyond`the 10 day period proposed in the ordinance. For additional details, contact Dominic NCauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Resolution to Rename North Frontage Road East to Fall Line Drive After reviewing a petition requesting the name change signed by residents of the area, the Council approved the resolution on a 6-0 vote. Public Works Director Larry Grafel said the Colorado Department of Transportation and other required agencies had approved the request. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead -then explained the procedure required to change a street name upon a question from Mayor Bob Armour. . --Appointment of a Planning and Environmental Board Member The Council appointed John B. Schofield to fill amid-year term on the Planning and Environmental Commission. Schofield replaces Kevin Deighan, who moved outside the town's boundary. Schofield's term will run to March 1997 --Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Conditional Use Permit Approval of Lionshead Gondola {more) l Council Highlights/Add 3 After making it clear to members of the audience that appeal of the PEC decision had no relevance to night skiing, the Council voted fi-0 to uphold approval of a conditional use permit (with previous conditions required by PEC}.for a new gondola at Lionshead. • This approval allows for the placement of a low profile, high-speed gondola and associated terminal building, to be located approximately 10 feet west of the existing Chair 8 lower terminal, and construction of an additional three towers associated with the new gondola to be located within the Town of Vaii municipal limits. Mayor Bob Armour acknowledged receipt of letters from individuals can.cerned about the night skiing issue, but reiterated the conditional use permit request was for a gondola, not night skiing. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said ski tows and lifts are specified as a conditional use in that zone district. Moorhead further explained that the application was approved by the U.S. Forest Service. If Vail Associates wanted to pursue night skiing, other processes would need to take place, beginning with the U.S. Forest Service, he said. Local attorney Art Abplanalp, representing the home owners who had appealed the permit, said a condition on the gondola permit which would address night skiing was the only way the Tawn could protect itself and his clients. In response, Town Attorney Tam Moorhead said Abplanalp was correct in that the town cannot require standards an the use of land outside its boundaries. However, lighting placements within the town's jurisdiction would require approval by the Design Review Board, he said. Also, he suggested Abplanalp's request for a condition on a conditional use permit be addressed in a zoning change. Attorney Bruce Chapman, . representing another property owner, also urged the Council to add conditions to the approval, while others in the audience, including attorney Jay Peterson, PEC member Greg Moffet and Lionshead Merchants Association president Rob LeVine,spoke in favor of the project wikhout additional conditions. For more information, contact Town Attorney Tom Moorhead at 479-2105. --Other Council member Kevin Foley wished Buddy Lazier good luck this weekend. He'll be in the second row at the Indy 500. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS May 28 Work Session Cancelled June 4 Work Session Review Ordinance No. 5, Animal Control Interview Liquor Board Applicants . Community Survey Results Presentation Conceptual Review of Lionshead Redevelopment June 4 Evening Session Appointment of 2 Liquor Board Members First Reading, Ordinance No. 12 (amending Title 17} # # # . MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ` June 4, ~ 996 7:30 P.M. A r lar meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1995, in the Council Chambers of the Vunicipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas Rob Ford MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFl=IC1ALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, Vail resident, Bill Wilto distributed photos showing an array of newspaper boxes in the Village core and suggested the town work to improve the presentation of dispensers. NeFred Lutz, new area manager for TCI Cablevision of the Rockies introduced himself and TCI's technical m er, Mark Graves, to council members. item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the meetings of May 7 and 21, 1996. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon distributed revised minutes for the May 21 meeting and Paul Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second by Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance creating Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, and amending Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat-reauirements and procedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats-submittal reauirements, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Mayor Armour read the title in full and Town of Vail Planner, George Ruttier, presented the following background: The Community Development Department was proposing three amendments to Chapter 17, Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The amendments propose to include Plat Tifile Formats. as Section 17.32.050 and to amend Sections 17.15.130C Final Plat-reauirements and procedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats-submittal requirements. The purpose of amending Chapter 17 was to define a standard format for plat titles in the Town of Vail and modify the requirements and procedure. Staff felt that the creation of a standard format for al{ plat titles would help reduce past inconsistencies which have caused indexing and referencing problems for the Town of Vail and Eagle County. George informed council members that on April 22, the PEC had voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend ~val of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Sybill Navas moved to approve Ordinance 12, Series of 1996 on first reading and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance amending Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (PrimarylSecondary Residential District, 18.54 (Design Review), 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports), 18.58 (Supplerriental Regulations), 18.60 (Conditional Use Permits); 1$.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with respect to Administration and Appeals Procedure of the Vai! Municipal Cade. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriella, presented the item, and gave the following history: At a meeting of the Town Council on May 21, 1996, Council tabled Ordinance No. 7 on second reading in order for staff to make some revisions to the ordinance. Concern was raised by Council regarding the language included in the provision for a fee. The language had been modified to reflec# the changes proposed by Council. Concerns were raised by Art Abplanalp over the use of the words "appellee" and "request" and also about the listing of adjacent property owners. The word "appellee" had been replaced with the word "appellant" and the word "request" had been replaced with the word "appeal" throughout the ordinance. Staff felt that the amount of time required to assemble a list of adjacent property owners was acceptable, and that such lists rarely exceed 7 names and addresses. Dominic then stated that staff recommended approval of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, on second reading. Art Abplanalp applauded Council and staff for their willingness to listen to and incorporate suggestions, but stated tie still had concerns. Those concerns were discussed in detail and council triers made several suggestions. Paul Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on second reading, incorporating changes as discussed, Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. 1 Vail Town CauneEl Evening Meeting Minutes June 4,1996 f . Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, a Resolution renaming Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier Court. Mayor Armour read the title in full and George Rrther reviewed details, explaining that the property owners ' on Lion's Ridge Court had requested a change of the name from Lion's Ridge Court to Glacier Court, as evidenced by a petition signed by all of the property owners on Lion's Ridge Court. George further stated that Staff found the applicant's reques# reasonable, and recommended the approval of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996. Pa uphinais, one of the two property owners was present to answer any questions. A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 8, Series of 1996, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. Six on the agenda was the appointment of two Local Licensing Authority Members. Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon presented the item and requested Council appoint two individuals to fill the expiring terms of Don White and Connie Knight. Don White and Connie Knight had both submitted letters for reappointment by the published deadline and no other letters were submitted. Ballots were then distributed to council members, and voted..Holly then tallied the votes and presented the results to Mayor Armour. Sybill moved to reappoint Don White and Connie Knight to serve new terms, due to expire June, 1998. Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, T-0. Mayor Armour thanked the two for their continued service. Seventh on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning & Environmental Commission's (PEC) denial of a request for a height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height limitation for residential structures. The project is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle) Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4}. Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Hovey. Dominic Mauriello presented the item and provided council members with the following background: On January 8, 1996 the PEC unanimously denied a similar request for a building height variance far the structure. The denial was appealed #o Council on January 6, 1996. The council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the PEC decision, therefore the PEC de ' 'on was automatically upheld. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied another request for the same variance, and th plicant was appealing that denial. Dominic stated the applicant was in the process of constructing a res~ ence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision, and that the Improvement Location Certificate (ILC} submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot maximum height allowance far residential structures. The ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying's ILC were constructed a maximum of 8 inches above the 33-foot height allowance. The applicant's requested that the PEC grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing,.constructed heights. Dominic stated the applicant believed that the Town's topographic survey policy allows for a one foot variation in existing elevation and that if given a one foot variation the building would be within the height limitations. The Town's policy did not allow variations in building height, and now require a spot elevation under proposed roof elevations prior to the site being disturbed. In this particular case, Dominic stated, the building height problem resulted from the addition of heated floors and not from a survey error, and that it was the Staff's recommendation to deny the applicant's request to overturn the PEC decision. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead explained that because there was a 3-3 vote, the PEC decision stood, as there must be a majority vote. Bob Armour questioned why the issue was once again before Council, and if one could appeal time after time. Tom said there was no limit on the number of times an applicant could submit an application for a variance and appeal. ~ Peal stated there were new issues that had come to light, concerning the accuracy of the Improvement Lotion Certificate and the actual topo, and that the national standard allowed fora 1' plus or minus tolerance based on 2 foot contours, and Dan Corcoran, professional land surveyor, explained the discrepancy in detail. He also stated he was here on his own, not at anyone's request or payment. Discussion continued regarding the construction process, changing plans, and the Town's new survey policies which went into effect March 28, 1996. Paul moved to overturn the PEC decision, and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and was defeated, 3 - 4, Rob Ford, Kevin Foley, Bob Armour and Ludwig Kurz voting in opposition. Dave Peel then presented Council with an improved design solution, and Pau! Johnston moved to allow the applicant to modify two of the three roof ridges, as presented in the improved design solution. Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Rob Ford, Sybill Navas, and Bob Armour voting in opposition. Item No. Eight on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC denial of a request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primarylsecondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls CourtlUnit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham. D~ is Mauriello provided Council with the fallowing background: In November of 1995, an inspection of the rE~fence revealed a vaulted area had been converted to GRFA without a building permit. The additional GRFA was in excess of that permitted by the Zoning Code. On November 20, 1995, the appellants were sent a letter stating that the additional GRFA must be removed. The appellants then decided to apply for a density variance to allow the additional GRFA. On May 13, 1996, the PEC denied the density variance request (3-1-1}finding that the granting of the variance would be a grant of special privilege. The appellants were appealing that denial. 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June A, 1998 r - Dominic continued, stating the applicant had converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar ' conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit "A" (the Shiffrins). In the Shiffrin's case, staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject property. Construction was an-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The Shiffrins were re ' ed to remove the improvements since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Skis applied for, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995. The allowable GRFA for the property was 4,704 sq.ft. The duplex received a Certificate of Occupancy on February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex was 4,689 sq.ft. The conversion added 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Therefore, the variance request was to allow 172.5 sq.ft. of additional GRFA. Dominic then stated that the recommendation of Staff was for denial of the appellant's request to overturn the PEC decision. Resident and applicant, Barbara Bingham addressed Council and referenced a letter she had written, explaining her variance request in detail. Rob Ford moved to direct staff to draft an agreement between the parties requiring payment of a fine in the amount of $440 and to work with Council on the GRFA issue in the future, that the applicant post a bond, and that the agreement be recorded with Eagle County, leaving the space as is. Tom Moorhead suggested the remodeled area be subject to inspection for health and safety reasons, and further stated the item could be tabled until the next evening meeting, giving staff time to reach an agreement with the Binghams. Mrs. Bingham stated they were willing to work with the Town. Rob then withdrew his motion, and moved to table the item, allowing time for an agreement #a be reached between the parties. Paul seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Sybill, Bob and Ludwig voting in op sition. Th ext item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin reminded Council members about the public meeting schedule in connection with the West Vail Interchange project. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m. Respectf Ily submitted, Rob rt W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~ Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 4, 1996 ~ ~ ti. . Y.' _ i~A i O , 1 f! h i` ~V ~ ~I bbl ~I ~l 3~1 n i Tx-M n'~/ 1,c~ ~~f~9?.us iQ" i 'k E E l d n I MEMQi~ANDU~VI ~ . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: .lone 10, 1996 RE: A request to amend Section 18.04.035, the definition of Brew Pub, and Section 18.28.040 (L) modifying the percentage of the product manufactured far aff-site consumption and the area used for brewing. Applicant: Hubcap Brewery and Kitchen, represented by owner Lance Lucey Planner: Dominic Mauriello DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Zoning Code amendment to modify the definition and the conditional use criteria for a brew pub. A brew pub is an eating establishment which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The current definition limits the area m a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 25°~ of the total floor area. The amount of beer produced is limited to 7,500 barrels a year (46,500 gallons). The conditional use criteria limits sales for off-site consumption to 15% of the product manufactured. The applicant is proposing to increase these limitations. The proposed definition would limit the area in a brew pub used for brewing and bottling to 50% of the total floor area. The amount of beer produced would be limited to 7,500 barrels a year (232,500 gallons). The conditional use criteria would limit sales far off-site consumption to 45% of the product manufactured. Attached is a copy of the proposed text changes and a copy of the applicant's request. II. BACKGROUND On August 21, 1990, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990, allowing brew pubs as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center (CSC} zone • district and as a conditional use for those brew pubs with sales for off-site consumption. At that time, staff researched restrictions placed on brew pubs by other communities. It was found that few communities placed restrictions on the size of such operations and the brewing capacity beyond the normal zoning restrictions placed on any restaurant or commercial establishment. The issues of concern in 1990 centered around the impacts to, and compatibility with, other uses in the CSC district. Specifically, issues relating to 1 r 4 odor, deliveries, and loading. Conditions were established in the code to ensure that the use would comply with regulations regarding loading, delivery, and odor. Also, as a matter of practice, conditions have been placed on the conditional use permit approvals for the Hubcap Brewery which further ensures compatibility with other uses in the . district. The limits adopted in 1990 were based on several factors. The production capacity (1,500 barrels) was established based on the average 1990 production levels of brew pubs across the nation and the fact that the owner of the Hubcap Brewery at that time anticipated only producing 750 barrels a year. Brew pubs across the nation have experienced an increase in demand for "micro-beers" and hence have expanded their production levels of beer. The limits placed on the area used for producing beer (25% of total area} was established to ensure that the brewing operation remained accessory to the restaurant. It was a limitation set at the time, due to our limited experience in Vail with such a use. The staff believed a conservative approach was necessary. The limitation placed on the amount of beer sold for off-site consumption (15%) was based on the Town's desire to ensure that the use remained compatible with other uses by limiting potential deliveries to and from the site. The applicant has indicated that by increasing the brewing capacity, he can actually reduce loading and delivery demands. Since the brewing capacity is so limited now, they can only dispense a small amount of product at a time to outside venders. This requires that these venders make.more trips per week to pick up the beer. With a larger capacity brewing potential, venders can pick-up more product in one trip and therefore reduce the overall number of trips per week. These proposed limitations comply with all State limitations placed an such uses. Staff believes the proposed levels are appropriate to allow this use to be successful in Vail. The existing levels do not reflect the market trends for such uses and therefore may arbitrarily hinder the success of such an operation. Staff has done additional research and found no such limitations in other municipalities. Staff believes the proposed limits will allow the use to remain compatible with other uses in the district. There are existing regulations within the code that ensure that odor, loading and delivery, noise, and other similar impacts are mitigated and compatible throughout the Town. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the definition and • conditional use criteria far brew pubs, finding that the change in the limitations to brew pubs will continue to ensure compatibilty with other uses in the CSC district. . 2 I r Existinpr requlafions Definition: . 18.04.035 Brew Pub. "Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five . hundred (1,5UA) Barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses: 18.28.040 Conditional uses. L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer or ale #or off- site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales far off-site consumption do not exceed fifteen percent of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. . Proposed reaulafions Definition: 18.04.035 Brew Pub. "Brew Pub" means an eating place which includes the brewing of beer as an accessory use. The brewing operation processes water, malt, hops, and yeast into beer or ale by mashing, cooking, and fermenting. The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed ~~,,~q~it3 Nwr441•It~'59~} f~~'~~t}~`?~~E~i'~of the total floor area of the commercial space. The brewery shall not produce more than one-t~e~rsa~rd fits I•i , A i:i~c~:~~~Q<h~nre~:::: <~~~t~: barrels of beer or ale per year. A barrel is equivalent to thirty one (31) gallons. Commercial Service Center, Conditional uses: #8.28.040 Conditional uses. L. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sett beer or ale far aff- site consumption so long as the total of wholesale sales. and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed #~een-pe~eertt ~ ~~~..:r~~. ~~:~~~af the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. taeveryonelpeclmemoslbrewpub.6f 0 3 r 1 ATTACHMENT TO THE PETITION FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Under the current conditioned uses of a Commercial Service Center a brewpub is allowed with the following attached conditions. 1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, sha[I not exceed 25% of the total floor area of the commercial space. 2} The brewery shall not produce more than one thousand five hundred barrels of beer or ale per year. 3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for o#I=site consumption do not exceed 15% of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. Proposed Changes in tote Re ~latinnc That the above conditions be revised to allow the following: 1) The area used for brewing, including bottling and kegging, shall not exceed S4% ofthe total floor area of the commercial space. 2} The brewery shall not produce more than seven thousand five hundred barrels of beer or ale per year. 3) The total of wholesale sales and sales for off-site consumption do not exceed 4S% of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. $~,f~sr R ~ques~ Under the current conditions the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is very limited in our growth potential. As you know, space in Vail is quite expensive. In order to produce more beer we must increase our brewing area and we simply cannot afford to take on more space and keep our brewing area at 25°/a. This would mean we can only allocate I foot of every 4 feet we take on in expansion to brewing. Given the overhead costs associated with space in Vail I would quickly drive this business into the ground under the current restriction of not more than 25% of floor space being allocated to brewing. The current cap of 1544 barrels per year completely restricts our ability #o grow. Our long term plan is to not only produce better beer, but more beer, The most promising growth area for the Brewing Company of Vail, Inc. is on the beer side of the business. 1540 barrels is the minimum we can produce and service all our on-site restaurant and bar business while operating an exl.:....ely modest off-site business. The _ 7504 barrel restriction I suggested was based on the fact that we can produce this level without changing our brewing schedule, which currently allows us to have a minimum effect on neighboring businesses. Please keep in mind that the process that produces the odor in beer making comes approximately three hours into the beer making procedure. Current Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: One Brewer 6:44 p.m. 1st Batch 10:04 p.m. 2nd Batch Proposed Brewing Schedule During Busy Season: Two Brewers x 6:00 p.m. 1st Batch 7:40 p.m. 2nd Batcb 8;00 p.m. 3rd Batch 9:00 p.m. 4th Batch 10:00 p.m. 5th Batch Our on-site sales are capped by the physical boundaries of our space. It is passible for us to sell only so much beer based on the size of the Hubcap. Our future is in off-site sales. Currently we distribute on a very modest basis in Vail and neighboring areas. ~ In my three months here I have already had to turn down several offers from various distributors, restaurants and bars to carry our beer based on the restriction of 15% off-site and wholesale sales, Please see attachment for comparison of comparable breweries. • pW~ on o c g Q ~ $ ~ rn oA N Z O ~ Z Z Z Z . OC H LLI • OC V Z Z Z Z Z Z D O W W o Z ~ ~ z N m v ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ - U O ~ U - _Z ~ W~W m ~ m Y ~ ~ W O a h ~ ~ ~ ~ • m m W ~ ~ W O H ~ c~ m • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING . June 18, 1996 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Va~unicipal Building. Tile meeting was called to order at approximately 7:36 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob Mcl_aurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was a special recognition for Buddy lazier, a resolution honoring Buddy Lazier 1996 Indianapolis 500 Champion. Mayor Armor Read Resolution No. 9 in fiull. Buddy was present with his fiance, Cara, to receive the award. Paul Johnston moved to adopt Resolution No. 9, and Rab Ford seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. After the vote, Paul read a letter of congratulations from Governor Roy Romer, and Mayor Armor extended his congratulations and expressed the pride felt by the community. Buddy st his excitement in bringing home the trophy to Vail, and thanked the citizens of Vail for their continual support thhout his career. Many who knew Buddy and turned out to congratulate him included: Bob Young, Rocky Christopher, Kent Rose, Ludwig Kurz, Rod Slifer, Pete Feistman, John Biziniano, Pete Abuisi, Tim McAdam, and Dr. Bill Steritt. Vail Associates President, Andy Daly presented Buddy with a season ski pass. item number two on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Vail resident Sue Dugan referenced a letter she received from the Community Development Department denying her request to appeal a finding by the town regarding an illegal employee housing unit on her property in the Intermountain neighborhood. Ms. Dugan stated the EHU had been in place for 2Q years, prior to her purchasing the property, and should have been grand fathered in. Ms. Dugan also said she was in possession a# a list (which she was unwilling to share) of at least 6 other properties which were not in compliance, similar to hers. Town Manager, Bob McL.aurin stated he was not prepared to take action without investigating the matter more thoroughly. He said he would personally look into the matter and report back to Council. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 Signs, Chapters 16.12 (Administrative Procedure), 16.20.010 (Designated), 16.20 (Sign Categories}, and 16.22 (Sign Categories for CC3 Zone District and ABD Zone District); Providing #or the Reorganization and Clarification of the Sign Regulations of the Vail Municipal Code. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello requested Council review and discuss the proposed ordinance No.13, Series of 1996, and explained that over the years, the S' ode had been amended and zoning districts had been added to the Zoning Code, which were not reflected i Sign Code, rendering the Sign Code inconsistent. He further explained that in order to correct the inconsistencies and create a Sign Code that would be easier to read and comprehend, staff was proposing to reorganize the code. Amendments and reorganization would be accomplished with minor changes to the substance of specific sign regulations or definitions, as follows: 1. Addition of zoning districts not currently reflected in the Sign Code by the creation of a table which shows all of the zoning districts and which signs are allowed in each district. 2. Changes to specific sign categories as approved by the Town Council on April 2, 1996, including revising language that required Design Review Board approval for signs over 5 sq. ft. in size, in order to allow staff approval. 3. Provisions to allow far a development sign on all residential properties under construction. The proposed temporary site development sign being limited to 6 sq.ft. in size, to include only the project name, project address, the display of permits, and a site depictionlrendering. Dominic further stated the Planning and Environmental Commission had reviewed the proposal on May 20, 1996 and recommended approval. Additionally, Dominic said that Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1996 was step two in the process of amending and reorganizing the Sign Code. At that time Paul moved to approve Ordinance 13, S of 1996 on first reading and the motion was seconded by Rob Ford. A vote was then taken and passed u imously, 7-0. Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance creating 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 16, 9996 i ! Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, and amending Sections 17.16.130C, Final Plat-requirements and procedure and 17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats-submittal requirements, of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. Town Planner, George Rather, requested the Council approve, modify, or deny, on second reading, the proposed amendments to Sections 17.16.130C and 17.22.030, and the crew#ion of Section 17.32.D50, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, and provided a brief background, stating the purpose of the amendments were to define a standard format for plat titles in the Town of Vail and to amend the requirements and procedure. George said st opinion was that the creation of a standard format for all plat titles would help lesson the inconsistency of piing and reduce indexing and referencing problems. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1996, on second reading. Rob seconded the motion, which passed unanimously after a vote, 7-0. Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1996, a resolution to adopt the procedure to petition the Town of Vail Local Licensing Authority for permission to pay a fine in lieu of retail liquor license suspension. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead asked Council to consider adopting the provisions of Section 12-46- 107 and Sec#ion 1247-110, Suspension or Revocation-Fines as set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes., and explained that the Colorado Liquor and Beer Codes set forth a procedure to allow a licensee who had been ordered by decision of the Local Licensing Authority to experience a retail license suspension for 14 days or less to petition the Local Licensing Authority to pay a fine in lieu of such suspension. Tom informed Council that It was necessary for the Town of Vail to accept and adopt the optional procedures before the Local Licensing Authority could consider such petition, and indicated Sections 12-46-107 and 12-47-110 Suspension or Revocation -Fines were attached for review by council members. Tam further stated that any fines received would be deposited into the town's General Fund. Discussion continued regarding the criteria for the fines as outlined in the statute. A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 1996, and Mike Jewett seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Ite~o. Six on the agenda was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1996, a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a contract to purchase of Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Tom Moorhead presented the item and provided the following background: Lot 34 of the Buffehr Creek Subdivision had been previously identified on the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as a high priority action for providing access to Buffehr Creek Park from Chamonix Lane and to allow for further expansion of Buffehr Creek Park for active recreation. Resolution No. 11, outlines the general purpose for the purchase of the land, and specifically provides that the land is not restricted far any particular purpose and that it can be used for any purpose consistent with present or future zoning and could be sold or leased. The purchase price for the lot was $190,000, and not subject to transfer tax, Tom said. Sybill moved to approve Resolution No. 11, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Seventh on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bab McLaurin stated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. Tam Moorhead informed council members that the Eagle County commissioners had adopted a resolution extending the sketch plan for the Berry Creek Fifth parcel for two years. The sketch plan had been due to expire. Armour reminded everyone of the Earth Fest scheduled for Saturday, June 22 and the annual tree planting. commented on the beautiful tree which had been planted recently in the roundabout. There being no further business a motion was made far adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rot~Sert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon {*Names of Certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) F:~LY\WPFILES\l1SERS\COUNCIL\06-18-95.MIN 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes June 18, 1996 r i MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING July 2, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 2, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the V~unicipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas Rob Ford MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly L. McCutchean, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Former owner of the Hubcap Brewery, Dean Liotta, commented on the roundabout and said haw well it was working. M r Bab Armour expressed his thanks to the Volunteers of Outdoor Colorado and the citizens who participated in~ North Trail construction project over the weekend. There were 189 participants on Saturday and about 100 volunteers on Sunday. Item number two on the agenda was the appointment of two Art in Public Places Board members. Ballots were distributed to council members and a motion was made by Paul Johnston to appoint Nancy Andreson to a one- year term and Trish Kieswetter to a two-year term. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 Zoning, Sections 1$.04.035 (Definition of Brew Pub) and 18.2$.040 L. (Conditional Use for a Brew Pub in a CSC Zone District); Providing for the Revision to Production Limits, Area Used for Brewing and Bottling, and Limitations on Sales for Off-site Consumption Provided in the Vail Municipal Code. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and informed Council the applicant was requesting a Zoning Cade amendment to modify the definition and the conditional use criteria for a brew pub. The PEC reviewed the proposal on June 10, 1996, Dominic said, and recommended approval of the amendment (unanimously). There was discussion of possible impacts due to odor and loading and delivery demands. The applicant stated that because the brewing would still occur during the same hours, the odor impacts would remain the same. Applicant Lance Lucey stated that owner of the Crossroads commercial property would be requiring a~or filtration system prior to any major expansion in brewing operations, and that the system had already been o ed. The applicant also stated that the loading and delivery demands would be reduced due to the fact that fewer trips to pickup beer would be required, and should the Hubcap produce a higher quantity of beer, trucks can be more fully loaded, thereby reducing the number of visits. Dominic stated the conditional use permitting process would allow the PEC to evaluate the impacts at specific locations in Vail. The conditional use permit for the Hubcap was subject to numerous conditions to ensure compatibility with other uses in the zone district. Presently, the CSC zone district is the only district which allows a brew pub. Sybill Navas moved to approve Ordinance 14, Series of 1996 on second reading and the motion was seconded by Paul Johnston. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number four was the 1st Quarter Financial Report and Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, and Capital Projects 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. Finance Director, Steve Thompson presented the item, and informed council members that the supplemental appropriation was necessary to cover additional expenditures beyond the 1996 budget appropriation. Steve explained that the Town normally does a supplemental in the spring and again at year end to cover unanticipated expenditures. It was the recommendation of tall to approve Ordinance No. 15 on first reading. Ke in Foley thanked Steve for his explanation and detail earlier in the afternoon. A motion was then made by Paul Johnston with a second from Sybill Navas to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1996 on first reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 1 Vall Town Council 5vening Meeting Minutes July 2, 1998 'Agenda item number five was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1996, second reading, an Ordinance Amending Title 16 Signs, Chapters 16.12 (Administrative Procedure), 16.20.01 D {Designated), 16.20 (Sign Categories), and 16.22 (Sign Categories for CC3 Zone District and ABD Zone District); Providing for the Reorganization and Clarification of the Sign Regulations of the Vail Municipal Code. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and stated there were no changes since the first reading. Mayor Armour thanked Dominic for all of his work on reorganizing the sign code. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve Ordinance No. 13, series of 1996 on s~d reading, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item number six was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1996, a resolution allocating the balance of the Town's sales tax refunding and improvement bonds, Series 19926. Town Aftorney Tom Moorhead presented the item and gave the following background: In October, 1992, the Town issued bonds to build the Police facility. The original projections were that the improvement would require an expenditure of approximately $5.7 million and the resulting bond issue was in that amount. The actual expenditure for the project was $3,302,491. The resulting balance from the bond issue was $2,397,509. During the last six months there was an evaluation made as to whether it would be advantageous to refinance the existing debt. In the course of that examination it was determined that there had never been legislative action taken by Town Council to allocate the balance of the 1992 proceeds. Resolution No. 12 clearly sets forth the Council's intention to allocate the bond proceeds to the 1993 street project ($868,000) and the 1996 Public Works remodel ($1.5 million). The staff recommendation was to adopt Resolution No. 12, Series of 1996. Paul moved to adopt Resolution No., 12, Series apf 1996, with a second from Sybill. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Seventh on the agenda was Resolution No. 13, Series of 1996, a resolution of commitment to the Vail Tomorrow process. Town Manager Bob McLaurin stated that the Vail Tomorrow process was a collaborative effort to develop a munity strategic plan. Bob added that the effort would help ensure the Town's continued economic viability arlp build and foster the sense of community. The effort was initiated by the Town of VailNail Associates Task Force and would be coordinated through the Vail Tomorrow Coordinating Committee, and, as part of the effort, the Coordinating Committee believed that the success of the effort relied upon major organizations and agencies in the community to commit to the effort upfront. Resolution Na. 13 would forrr3alize the Town's commitment to the Vail Tomorrow process and staff recommended adoption of Resolution 13. Rob Ford moved to adopt Resolution No. 13, Series of 1996, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Eighth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin presented an overview of the work plan for the analysis on GRFA (Gross Residential Floor Area). Bob then pointed out that We Recycle had been turned over to BFI, eliminating the need for office space in the Community Development building, and said that use of the space had not yet been determined. Kevin Foley expressed an interest in pursuing the issue of recycling green glass with BFI. Paul Johnston expressed his condolences to the family of Marvel Barnes who died of a stroke that day. T e being no further business a motion was made far adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at a~ximately 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, o rt W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: ~ 7.L Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes July 2, 1996 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Jtaly 16, 1996 7:30 P.M. A~egular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, in the Council hers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas Rob Ford MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer addressed the Council and e ssed the "urbanization" of Ford Park should stop. Noting the Town's current process to create a m~gement plan, Staufer said the park had been "planned" to death. He said the Town should preserve the park as open space by changing the zoning to prevent any future building without a supportive vote of the people. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of June 4 and 18, 1996. B. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1996, second reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 Zoning, Sec#ions 18.04.035 (Definition of Brew Pub) and 18.28.040 L. (Conditional Use for a Brew Pub in a CSC Zone District}; Providing for the Revision to Production Limits, Area Used for Brewing and Bottling, and Limitations on Sales for OfF-site Consumption Provided in the Vail Municipal Code. Sybill Navas moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Kevin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance making lemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Heavy E ipment Fund, and Reai Estate Transfer Tax Fund, and Capital Projects 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. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vai[ Finance Director Steve Thompson presented the item and stated the supplemental appropriation was necessary to cover additional expenditures beyond the 1996 budget appropriation, and that the Town typically approves a supplemental in the spring and at year end to cover anticipated expenditures. He then stated there had been no changes since first reading. Ludwig Kurz moved fio approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1996 on second reading. Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number four was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McL,aurin said the summer meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns would be held in Crested Butte on August 15-16. Also, Bob informed Council of a request from the Vail Valley Foundation, in a joint effort with the Town to place fl~ from the 44 nations to be represented in the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships in the ro dabout, as well as along the Frontage Roads #o represent an "Avenue of Flags." He said the design and cost estimates were being pursued. Va11 Town Counral Evening Meeting MinutesJuly 1B, 1996 Mayor Armour then gave an update on the Vai! Tomorrow festivities planned for the upcoming weekend and encouraged all those who cared about Vail's future to attend. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, obert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public #nput may be inaccurate.) • 2 Vail Town CounciS Evening Meeling MinutesJuly 96, 1996 h MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING A~gus# 6, 1996 7:30 P.M. ~egular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 6, 1996, in the Council tubers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Sybill Navas MEMBERS ABSENT: Rob Ford TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutchean, Town Clerk T first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident, Jo Staufer, who had p~ously addressed Council about what he called the "urbanization of Ford Park" asked for an update from council members as to the status of the management plan for the park. Assistant Town Manager, Pam Brandmeyer provided the update, and stated that groundwork for the park's user groups had been completed and that the process would be turned back to the public. Pam said a calendar for the citizens' involvement process would be forthcoming. Mr. Staufer then expressed his feeling that Ford Park should be the town's central park. He said the matter should be taken very seriously, a lot of time being devoted to it, and recommended the park remain open space. Next, another local resident, Brad Hasley, urged council members to oppose any plan to remove the softball fields and replace them with a parking structure, and said he agreed with Jo Staufer regarding the future of Ford Park. Hermann Staufer, Vail Recreation District ("VRD") board member told Council he wanted to dismiss rumors that the VRD had proposed a 2,500 seat stadium for Ford Park and a potential parking structure. Mr. Staufer said the VRD had no intention of proposing a stadium for the park. Local resident Rick Sackbauer expressed his thanks to the Council and stafF of the town on behalf of the ~cle Tour of Colorado, which brought 550 bicyclists to Vail on July 18 for an overnight stay. Sackbauer s'a!a 400 people camped out on the lower bench and that riders had a wonderFui Vail experience. He then urged the town to work to bring the tour and other groups to Vail in future years because of the event's positive economic benefits. Sackbauer said the tour raised more than $10,000 to benefit Downs Syndrome, and stated the expense of renting the amphifiheater and the fact that the indoor camping location was to far from Ford Park would be reasons for the group not returning in fihe future. Next, Jim Slevin of Vail presented a brief history of the acquisition of Ford Park 25 years ago, and asked Council to remember the park's past when thinking of its future. Lisa Watts, general manager of the Wren, urged Council to consider the needs and concerns of community members and park users in reviewing the draft Ford Park management plan. Last under citizen participation, Rodney Johnson, manager of the Red Lion, and speaking on behalf of area softball players, expressed the value of softball as a recreational asset for the town, and said the fields should remain. On another note, Johnson expressed his concern about a citation issued recently to the Red Lion for exceeding noise levels under the town's amplified sound ordinance. He asked Council to take a goad look at the issue surrounding amplified sound in Vaif. It~ number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the minutes for the meetings of Juiy 2 and 16, 1996. Pouf Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a change to the correct spelling of Marvel Barns' name in the July 2 minutes. Ludwig Kurz seconded 1 Vail Town Council E~en[ng Meeting Minutes August 6, 1996 the motion, and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Third ors the agenda was a legislative update by Jack Taylor and Dave Wattenberg. Council members heard a brief overview of the last legislative session from Rep. Jack Taylor and Sen. Dave Wattenberg. Both talked about their continued opposition to the takings legislation and warned of an uphill battle in c timing to keep the issue from passing the legislature. Rep. Taylor said several entities were ii~ested in the railroad line and said he was concerned about rights of way becoming severed, which would eliminate use for trails or rail. Sen. Wattenberg said congestion along the 1-70 corridor was also a continuing concern to him, and said possible solutions, such as light rail or widening the interstate were being reviewed, as well as possible alternatives for paying for such improvements. Following up on discussions from a visit to the Town Council last year, Taylor and Wattenberg asked for an evaluation of the Department of Transportation's job in handling snow removal on 1-70 during the past winter. Council members agreed the situation had much improved over previous years. Agenda item number four was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1996, a resolution designating additional signers on an interest bearing checking account for Library deposit transactions for the Town of Vaii with Annie Murray and Marie Steffin as signers on that account, permitted by the Charter of the Town, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Armour read the title in full and Town of Vail Controller, Christine Anderson, presented the item, stating that due to night and weekend shifts, additional signers were requested, and that it was staff's recommendation to adopt the resolution. Paul Johnston moved to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of 1996, with a second from Sybill. A vote warms taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. FiRFi on the agenda was a request for authority to proceed through the application process for the expansion of the Vail Interfaith Chapel which could potentially encroach upon Town of Vail owned property. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead presented the item, and provided the following background: The Vail Interfaith Chapel had appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)at a conceptual level with preliminary design plans for an expansion to their existing facility. The preliminary design showed an encroachment of the expansion onto Town of Vail owned stream tract. It had also been determined that the Vail Interfaith Chapel also encroached onto that same Town of Vail-awned property. The request was merely for approval to go through the process and did not involve an evaluation of the design or any other considerations. The PEC would properly review the application and take into consideration all appropriate impacts such as wetlands and design issues. In the event there would ultimately be approval for a design that encroached upon Town of Vail owned property, that encroachment would be permitted through an agreement between the Town and the Interfaith Chapel. Regardless of the outcome of the approval process and effort to go forward with an expansion, it was necessary to enter into an encroachment agreement far the portion of the Vail Interfaith Chapel which encroached upon Town of Vail-owned land. Staff recommended that the request to proceed with application for expansion be approved. resenting the Vail Interfaith Chapel, local attorney, Jim Wear said it was discovered just five weeks e'aTfier that the proposed building encroached onto certain portions of town owned land, and that some of the existing property currently encroached onto town-owned land. Wear then introduced Architect Ned Gwathmey, who reviewed with council members a diagram and model of the Chapel project. Council members expressed support for the Chapel's presence in Vail, noting its strength and uniqueness in serving six denominations. Ludwig Kurz said the Chapel was as much a community center as it was a church, and Sybill Navas requested the PEC work with the applicant to avoid or minimize the encroachment onto town-owned land. Paul Johnston then moved to approve the request, allowing the Vail Interfaith Chapel to proceed through the application process, and the motion was seconded by Ludwig Kurz. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. Six on the agenda was a TCI update including infrastructure build out, continued support for Channel 5 and continuation of FM service. Tom Moorhead told council members that the purpose of the update was to provide Council with information as well as an update as to the status of the operation by TCI v~n the Town of Vail, and explained that no specific action was being requested of Council. Tom then pr rented the following information: 1. System Rebuild. The Town of Vail and TCI entered into the present Franchise Agreement on 2 Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes August 6, 1886 January 5, 1995. The agreement provided for a rebuild utilizing a "fiber optics to the service area" design. The rebuild was to be completed within 36 months of the effective date of the Franchise Agreement. Informally, at the time of negotiations, representations were made that the rebuild would in fact occur within one year of executing the Franchise Agreement. The Town of Vail had recently received correspondence that indicates the construction had begun. The town has not received h ever, a design of the complete system. As of August 5, twenty months had expired since the ring of the agreement. With construction unable to go forward in the winter, it was important for TCl to update Council as to the likelihood of concluding the rebuild within the agreed upon time frame. 2. Continuation of Support for Channel 5. The Town Council had previously committed to continue its support for Channel 5 to the extent of 2 percent of its 5 percent franchise fee, a commitment which was to be reviewed regularly by Council as there was no provision for such funding in the Franchise Agreement. Discussions had arisen concerning TCI's commitment to continue to fund Channel 5. 3. Continuation of FM Service. There had previously been a commitment by TCI to continue to ofFer FM service within the Town of Vail. The service is critical for the continuation of FM service to be received within the franchise area. The present General Manager had expressed the possibility of discontinuing the FM service, which is contrary to the previously expressed commitment by TCI. Fred Lutz, general manager of TCl Cablevision of the Rockies addressed the status of the system rebuild and stated that due to volatile financial markets, the $5 million rebuild in Vail, which began last week, will not be completed until late summer of 1998, a half year Eater than the franchise agreement provides. Mr. Lutz then addressed the issue of continuing the support of Channel 5, stating that TCI could no E~r afFord to #und $ 30,000 per year to Channel 5, due to significant capital investment in rebuilding th system. He said it was in TCI's best interest to provide a quality product for TCI customers, to complete the system rebuild, and to restore the financial health of the company. Brian Hall, board president of Channel 5 told council members he was disappointed by TCI's decision and asked them not #o give up the local channel. Mr. Lutz then informed Council that TCI had received a "must carry" request from KTVD Channel 20, an independent channel in Denver, which must be provided for on the TCI cable lineup by Oct. 7, according to provisions of the FCA (Federal Cable Act). Due to the inability of channel space, Lutz said the options for finding a spot for KTVD include either merging channel 11 (the town's character generator station) with Channel 5, or eliminating the free FM service. Council members expressed concern aver both options and Town Manager Bob McLaurin then offered to facilitate a meeting with Lutz, town staff and representatives of Channel 5 to work out a solution and report back to council with a proposal. Agenda item no. Seven was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated frontage road iovements in connection with the City Market project in West Vail would begin in about two weeks. A , he said a redevelopment of the Safeway stare was planned and that Safeway would assist with roadway and drainage improvements. Paul Johnston wished Eagle County Commissioner James Johnson and his new bride Pam best wishes: There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, r . Robert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutchean (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.} 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes August 6, 1996 ' MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING August 20, 1996 7:30 P.M. P~gular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 20, 1996, in the Council bers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Kevin Foley Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Rob Ford MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas 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. Howard Stone from the Vail Jazz Foundation distributed brochures and informed Council of the upcoming Vail Jazz Party scheduled to take place at t arriott over Labor day weekend. Mr. Stone stated the event would host workshops far young m~lSfcians and intended to promote interest and education in jazz music. Mr. Stone extended an invitation for all #o attend the Introduction to Jazz on August 30 at 6:00 p.m. in the main ballroom at the Marriott, and thanked the Council for its support, which was partly funded by the Commission for special events, a board the Town of Vail contributes to. item number two on the agenda was the Mauri Nottingham Environmental Quality Awards. Town of Vail Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest announced the winners of the 1996 Mauri Nottingham Environmental Quality Award as follows: • Winner of the Business Category was the Coyote Cafe in Beaver Creek. Brian Nolan, co-owner of the Coyote Cafe attended the celebration along with several individuals who were a part of an ongoing effort to clean up of a 10-mile stretch of roadway along Highway 6 between Dowd Junction and Arrowhead. The Coyote's environmental contributions will be featured on KZYR radio throughout the month of September. • Winner of the individual award was Byron Brown. Byron was nominated for the 96 award because of his recycling efforts for more than 30 years in putting on the Eagle Valley Community Fund Rummage Sale and Auction. Mr. Brown thanked his wife, Vi and his family for their con#ributions to the annual sale and auction, which raised over $150,000 for charity last year. A gas fireplace, donated by Public Service Company was awarded to Brown for his contributions, with installation being provided by the Hearth Exchange. • Winner of the student award was Jahn Wright. John, a student at the Vail Mountain School was nominated for his participation in the stream watch program, sponsored by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and for his work at the Vail Nature Center. In recognition of his accomplishments, John received complimentary ski school lessons from Vail Associates for the 1996/1997 ski season. Russell Forrest recognized Rob Levine of Antlers Condominiums, the 1995 winners of the business category, and Kerry Donovan, winner of the 1995 youth award. Also in attendance was Mauri Nottingham, founder of the We Recycle program, to whom the award was named after. Award winners in each category were recognized and presented with a plaque on behalf of the Town of Vail by Mayor Bob Armour. The purpose of the environmental quality award is to encourage businesses and residents to implement creative programs to protect the environment. Third on the agenda was an update on the Vail Tomorrow process. Town of Vail Director of Community D lopment, Susan Connelly introduced members of the Vail Tomorrow volunteer coordinating team (~LeVine, Monica Benderly, Kate Carey, Kerry Donovan, Rob Ford, and Levi Schofield) and stated that because the Vail Town Council was an endorser of the project, the purpose for the update was to keep members abreast of the continuing progress of Vail Tomorrow. Rob Levine, spokesperson for the group reviewed the various steps that had been taken to date and encouraged everyone present to treat 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meating Minutes August 20, 1996 ' themselves to the Imagine Vail Tomorrow confierence, where Myles Rademan, a well-known speaker in the Rocky Mountain West, was scheduled to speak on Friday, September 6. Rob then expressed his thanks to Council for their participation and Mayor Armour commended the efforts of everyone who had taken part in the process. Susan then encouraged all to participate in an upcoming copference scheduled for Saturday, September 7 from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. at Manor Vail when information enerated from more than 300 people and a series of 11 discussions would be presented. Agenda i#em number four was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1996, a resolution adopting the Town of VaillEagle River Water and Sanitation District Joint Funding Agreement. Russell Fores# presented the item and informed Counci! that the Town of VaillEagle River Water and Sanitation District Joint Funding Agreement would provide a partnership to address water quality, quantity, aquatic life issues in the Gore Valley Watershed with a goal of characterizing, protecting, and improving water quality, stream flow, aquatic life, wetlands, and riparian habitat in the Gore Creek Watershed. The agreement specified the description of the project, its purpose and scope. The services were to be performed between the date of the agreement and August 20, 1997. The contribution by each party was not to exceed $10,000. The staff recommendation was for approval of Resolution Na. 15, Series of 1996. Paul Johnston moved to approve Resolution No. 15, Series of 1996, with a second from Kevin Foley. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Fifth on the agenda was an Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of five accessible (handicapped) parking spaces to the Vail Commons development, 2099 N. Frontage Road West, an- unplatted parcel located north of the I-70 right-of way, east of Vaii dos Shone, south of Vail Heights, and west of the Branders Building. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead reviewed the newly adopted appeals ~rocess and explained the procedure to be followed. At that time Council member, Michael Jewett removed himself from the vote and said he would serve as a proxy speaker for the appellant, David Sherwood, and "others." Town of Vail Housing Policy Planner, Andy Knudtsen, then presented a diagram depicting the location of the accessible spaces and provided the following information: In May of 1996, the Town and Warner Development learned of standards for accessibility required by the Fair Housing Act, which exceed the standards of ADA. Vail Commons was one of many developments in the Valley which had been recently modified to comply with the Act. Prior to presenting the changes to DRB, the staff and architect met with the neighbors in Buffehr Creek Park to discuss the proposal. The neighbors' comments were conveyed to the DRB at its July 17, '1996 meeting. In addition, two neighbors and a representative of a third neighbor appeared at the DRB meeting. Several of the neighbors' comments were made conditions to the DRB approval (3-0). On July 26, an adjacent property owner appealed the decision of the DRB which permitted the addition of the accessible spaces because, he said it was his understanding that the Vail Commons project was originally approved with no access allowed from Chamonix Lane with the excep#ion of use by emergency vehicles. udy Anderson-Wright, a local expert on disability issues, said the new spaces were proposed by the ~roject's developer, Warner Developments, after learning of provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act, which requires every multi-family dwelling with four or more units to be accessible to people with disabilities. She added that the Vail Commons projec# was one of many developments in the valley which had been recently modified to comply with the act, as a result of her launching an education effort. Judy recommended that the town's first affordable housing project should be completely in compliance and reflect the community's intent of being accessible to those with disabilities. Andy stated that the neighborhood was primarily concerned with increased traffic on Chamonix and that under a worst case scenario the spaces would generate no more than 24 trips per day on the road, representing only a 1 % increase in the present traffic use. Andy told council members that the Vail Commons homeowners' association declarations would prevent the spaces from being expanded or connected into the remainder of the development in the future and would also provide for landscaping and prompt snow removal. Gary Marner, project manager for Warner Development reviewed four conditions which were incorporated into the Vail Commons homeowners' association declarations. own of Vail Police Chief, Greg Morrison explained~enforcement procedures and stated there would be a zero #olerance for violators parking in accessible {handicapped) only spaces, whether on public or private property. 2 Vail Town Counal Evening Meeting Minutes A¢gust 20, 1996 ' Brent Alm, acting chairman at the July 17 DRB meeting, explained the considerations the DRB had taken in coming to their decision, as well as the conditions placed upon the approval. He requested the Council uphold the decision of the DRB. Appellant, David Sherwood said that even without the additional accessible spaces the project itself Id be a huge impact to Chamonix Road, and deferred again to Mike Jewett. Kevin Foley clarified the oval was for three curb cuts which would not provide access to the project. Mike Jewett again introduced himself as proxy speaker on behalf of Dave Sherwood and others who he said were present at the DRB meeting. Mayor Armour pointed out that Mike had no special training or expertise which would make him an authority on the issue, and informed him that based on laws provided by the Secretary of State's Office, as well as recommendations from Colorado Municipal League, when one recuse himself on an issue, it was inappropriate to speak and that individual should actually leave the room. Mayor Armour then asked Mike Jewett to identify the "others" that he represented and Mike declined to do so. Mr. Jewett described comments he said Dave Sherwood and others had asked him to make, which included that the original plans had changed; the neighborhood desired to provide an elevator to all three floors, as it would be a long walk for anyone with a disability using the spaces; concerns relating to snowplowing; steep slope and blind spots onto Chamonix. Mr. Jewett opposed the DRB hearing the issue, stating the appropriate board was the PEC, and charged the developer with having made a mistake and looking for the cheapest way out. Rob Ford then asked Mr. Sherwood where he was employed and Mr. Sherwood told Council he'd worked a~feway for the past 17 years. Mike Arnett, DRB chairman, addressed concerns communicated by Jewett and alluded to his having a conflict of interest. Rob Ford moved the Council to make the following findings of fact: That: 1. The five accessible parking spaces are required by the Fair Housing Act and appropriate to include as a modification of the site plan; 2. The design as approved by the Design Review Board maintains site lines for drivers using the accessible spaces, creates minimal impacts of traffic patterns on Chamonix, meets the landscape requirements of design review guidelines and creates no adverse impacts to living areas within the proposed development or adjacent properties; and 3. The additional landscaping required by the Design Review Board, provides a buffer between the proposed parking spaces and the adjacent dwelling units: Ludwig seconded the motion and a vote was then taken which passed unanimously, 5-0. Ludwig moved that based upon the findings of fact, Council uphold the decision of the Design ew Board with the following four conditions: , 1. The four accessible parking spaces accessed from Chamonix shall not be expanded at any point in the future to accommodate additional parking; 2. The four accessible parking spaces accessed from Chamonix shall not be connected to any other driveway or parking lot within the Vail Commons development at any point in the future. The only access allowed to these four spaces shall be from two curb cuts along Chamonix; 3. The Homeowner's Association and city Market shall be responsible for removing snow promptly from the accessible parking spaces and shall not plow snow in such a way as to block the site- lines of the parking spaces to Chamonix; and 4. The eight Aspen and 24 shrubs to be planted around the accessible parking spaces shall not encroach onto site-lines. Aspens shall be a minimum of twelve feet from the curb line. Kevin seconded the motion. Mayor Armour called the matter a fair solution, one that would work in the best interests of all. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Additional Business: Tom Moorhead asked council members for consideration to initiate a zone change o e of two parcels of land proposed for a locals housing project on Red Sandstone Road. Andy K~tsen stated both parcels were currently zoned general use district, and the proposal called #or changing the zoning to medium density multi-family, which was consistent with the town's Land Use Plan. He said the land, owned by the US Forest Service, was identified to be turned over to the town in the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, and that the water district had initiated a rezoning request on 3 Vafl Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes August 20,1996 Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement, and that the water district had initiated a rezoning request on its parcel as well, allowing the two parcels to be considered under one application. Rob moved to initiate a zone change of the parcel of land currently owned by the U.S. Forest Service which was being considered in the Land Ownership Adjustment Agreement for transfer to the Town of V 'and being further considered for locals housing. The .4 acre parcel, located along Red Sandstone ,opposite the Potato Patch Club and immediately north of the Aspen Tree Condominiums, and cu rently zoned General Use and should be considered as Medium Density, Multi-family. Kevin Foley seconded the motion, and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. Six on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin announced the last two open house forums to narrow recommended improvements to the West Vail interchange would be held at the West Vail Lodge on August 21, 6:00 and August 22, 12:00 noon. Kevin Foley then thanked all members of the Cycling coalition for their work on the North Trail construction project over the weekend and said the trail was fantastic. Paul Johnston congratulated the Gerald R. Ford family for their sponsorship of the last of 20 successful years of hosting the Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~tobert W. Armour, Mayor ATTEST: Holly cCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.3 • Vail Town Counci4 evening Meeting Minutes August 20, 1996 r~ - ~'w ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) #21, located at 12 Vail Road (Gateway Building, Unit #5}/Part of Lot N and part of Lot O, Block SD, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Steve Riders, representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: George Rather 1. PRO.TEC.T OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND On Apri15, 1988, the Vail Town Council approved Special Devel.,~„xfent District {SDD) # 21, (Ordinance # 9, Series 1988), authorizing the construction of the Gateway Building in accordance . with the approved development plan. The Gateway Building was constructed in 1990, and contains a mix of retail, restaurant, and residential uses. The SDD approval allowed for the construction of twelve dwelling units, consisting of not more than a total of 13,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. The developer chose to construct only seven dwelling units, with a total square footage of i 1,999 square feet to date. Thus, 1,001 square feet of the approved GRFA, and 5 dwelling units, were not constructed. In the fall of 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC}, and the Design Review Board (DRB} approved an interior remodel of Unit No.S that converted vaulted areas over the dining roam and bedroom, into usable floor area, and removed the ceiling over the living room creating a new vaulted area. The floor area calculations confirm that this interior remodel added 3S6 square feet to the unit. Thus, the total GIZFA contained within the building is now 12,355 square feet. The applicant is now proposing to enclose a portion of an existing exterior deck, along the east side of the upper level of Unit No. 5. The applicant wishes to extend an existing gabled - roof to the east (out over the deck}, install new walls and windows to produce an "atrium- like" addition to the unit. The proposed addition results in 4G0 square feet of new GRFA. Thus, the new total GRFA for the Gateway project would be 1.2,815 square feet. • The applicant has staked out the proposed addition. The staking is visible from the south end of Craig's Market parking lot and from the western half of the south roundabout at the main Vail interchange. P:everyone\peclmemoslgateway1.e26 l II. CRITERIA TO BE U~D IN EVALUATING THIS P~OPO~ The proposed amendment described in Section I of this memorandum, is considered to be major amendment to the approved SDD #21. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, a major amendment is defined as: "any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of , dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District (other than minor amendments as defined in subsection 18.44.020B}." Since the applicant's proposed addition involves an increase in gross residential floor area, the proposal is required to follow the major SDD amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposal. The Town Council shall review the proposal via two readings of an ordinance, III. ~PFCIgL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ~ITERI~ As provided for in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review criteria which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed major SDD amendment. The review criteria, and the staff 5 analysis of the proposal's compliance with the review criteria, are as . follows: 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. Two main issues will be discussed under this criteria. The first is related to the impacts of the proposed addition on views of Vail Mountain from the roundabout area. The second is related to the compatibility of the proposed addition with the architecture of the existing Gateway Building. The view issue was discussed during the PEC and Council reviews of the initial Gateway Building proposal in the late 1980's. The impacts of the building's roof line on the view of - Vail Mountain from the original four-way-stop were the subject of much discussion. A view analysis was requested by staff and provided by the developer. That analysis compared the impacts of the raaf lines Y= ~NOSed at the Gateway Building with the approved development plan for Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn, As a result of the view analysis, the roof line of the Gateway Building was modified. The eastern most ridge line was lowered and the gap or "notch" between the eastern ridge and the western ridge was widened. Lowering the eastern ridge had a positive effect on views, and the notch between the two main ridges also improved the view of Vail Mountain from the four-way stop. A copy of the view analysis is attached to this memorandum. F:bveryonalpeclmemoelgateway1.826 2 f The Town recently cpmpleted the construction of a modern xoundabout at the main Vail interchange. The roundabout effectively replaced the 4-way stop. The geometry and function of the roundabout is dramatically different than the 4-way stop. Thus, staff re- visited the view impacts of the Gateway Building related to the proposed addition. The addition will encroach into the notch between the two main ridge lines on the building. Staff did both adrive-by and a walking analysis of view impacts from the south roundabout area. We concluded that although the addition encroached into the notch between the ridge lines, the impacts on views to Vail Mountain are relatively insignificant. The majority of the ski mountain remains visible over the top of the Gateway Building. The view through the notch is very small and is visible only for a few seconds when driving around the western half of the roundabout. Given the fact that cars in the roundabout are continuously in motion, staff feels that visitors to the Tawn of Vail will be more intent on watching what is happening with other cars, or trying to determine which exit to take, rather than attempting to look through the notch an the Gateway Building to see Vail Mountain. The second issue regarding this criteria has been adequately addressed by the architect, with one exception. The addition will extend the existing gabled roof form over the deck, and the architect has chosen materials and colors to match the existing finish materials on the building. A large section of windows have been incorporated into the south roof line to allow light and air in the addition and to take advantage of the southern solar exposure. This will give the addition a significantly different look than the remainder of the building. Staff is concerned with the architectural compatibility of this element of the design. The Vail Village Design Guidelines states that designs should: "...avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character Hof the building}." Staff believes that the window/roof design of the addition is distracting to the overall character of the south elevation of the building. Staff feels that the addition will not add significantly to the mass and bulk of the building. The proposed addition will not extend the building height above its existing maximum height of 54' (south elevation). Elevations and sections of the proposed addition are attached to this memorandum for reference. Staff feels that the proposed addition will have little, or no impact on surrounding properties, buildings and views. The r. ~YOSed addition is in harmony with the existing structure in regard to architectural design, scale, bulls and building height, with the exception of the large, "greenhouse type" windows on the south elevation. F;bveryooelpaclmamos~tewayf.825 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. SDD # 21 authorized amixed-use development including residential dwelling units. The original approval allowed up to twelve dwelling units with a maximum GRFA of 13,000 square feet. If this proposal is approved and constructed, the Gateway Building will contain 12,815 sq. ft. of GRFA within the seven existing dwelling units. Since the original SDD anticipated a mix of uses including residential uses, and since the proposed addition will not exceed the allowable GRFA authorized in the original SDD, staff feels that the proposed use and density are compatible, efficient and workable with the surrounding uses and activities. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 1$.52. Parking requirements for SDD #21 were based an the Code requirements in the Gff-Street Parking section of the Zoning Code. Based on the current mix of retail, restaurant, and residential uses, the parking requirement is 95 spaces. A multi-level parking garage was constructed underneath the Gateway Building that accommodates 95,parking spaces. The additianal square footage being requested by the applicant does not increase the parking requirement for Unit 5, since this unit is already at the maximum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces, Thus, no additional parking is required by the proposed addition and the project meets the current off-street parking requirerr~ent, The proposal does not impact the loading requirements for the building. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. VAIL LAND USE PLAN The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for new or amended develaprnent proposals. The staff considered the following Land Use Plan GoalslPolicies during the original review of the proposed SDD. Staff believes that these goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current major SDD amendment proposal: 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. Vail should accommodate mast of the additional growth in existing developed areas (inftll areas). ~ Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. F:~averyanelpeclmemas~gataway1.826 f Overall, the staffbelieves that the proposed major SDD amendment application meets the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Gateway Building is located at the northwest corner of the area considered in the Vail Village Master Plan. 4n the Master Plan map, the Gateway is part of Area P, the "peripherylsurrounding area" of the Village area. The Land Use Plan, completed after SDD #21 was approved, acknowledged the SDD approval noting that the Gateway site would be developed as a mixed-use project. The Gateway Building is noted as Study Area 1-11, the Gateway Site, in the Land Use Plan. Study Area 1-l l of the Land Use Plan states: "If existing approval expires (SDD #21), this site should be studied to determine best use. Preservation of the view corridor from the 4-way stop to Vail Mountain (relative to the Vail Village Inn Final Phase}, is essential, as is a substantial plazalgreen space area on the northwest corner." As discussed in Criteria A above, staff has reviewed the file and attached a copy of a View Analysis that compares the approved Gateway roofline with the a~,N~~.~ed Vail Village Inn Phase IV expansion. Staff feels that the construction of the roundabout has changed the area of the 4-way dramatically and that the roundabout has created a more efficient traffic flow. Staff feels that the area in and around the roundabout is not conducive to pedestrians lingering and viewing the mountain and feels that views of Vail Mountain, through the notch in the Gateway Building, are not as important as they may have been when the Land Use Plan was originally approved. Staff believes that significant views are still available over the tap of the existing Gateway Building, and that the proposed addition would have little, or no impact on the overall view. The Building Height Plan shows the Gateway Building at 5 stories, and indicates that it does not conform to the plan (story height at 9 feet}. The elevation of the existing ridge is S4 feet above grade along the south elevation. The applicant wishes to extend this ridge line approximately 2S feet to the east. This will raise the height of the building in the notch area. Staff believes that the additional height is not detrimental given the mass, bulk and height of the entire building. - E. Identification and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. This criteria is not applicable. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural. features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. I':leveryonclpeclmemos~gateway1.826 5 The applicant proposes to extend the existing western-most ridge line of the Gateway Building approximately 2$' to the east. Extending this ridge line would cut into the notched out area between the western and eastern ridges. Staff feels that this will not adversely impact the aesthetic quality of the building or the community in general, even though a minor portion of the view of Vail Mountain would be eliminated. After reviewing the case files including the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council memos and minutes 1'i.~~~s the original public hearings on SDD # 21, staff believes that much of the discussion aver views was related to a concern of a very large building replacing a very small building. During the discussion of the anginal SDD, an Amoco Station was present on the site. This was aone-story building that allowed for significant views over its roof from the area of the 4-way stop. Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn had not been constructed, and views of the lower portion of the mountain still existed. The PEC and Council members were reacting strongly to the significant lass of views resulting from the approval of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. The Town officials simply did not want to loose any more of the mountain view from the 4-way stop. Thus, it is understandable that the building height and its impacts on views was thoroughly discussed at that time. Staff feels that the change in conditions at the main Vail interchange (i.e. roundabout construction) combined with the existing location of the Gateway Building and its raofline have made the view issue clearer. Staff feels that the notch l2etween the eastern and the western ridges on the Gateway Building is no longer as important a view as it was considered during the original SDD discussions. Thus, staff feels that the proposed addition does not significantly alter the building design or signif cantly impede views of Vail Mountain from the entryway to Town. G. A circulation system designed for bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and off site traffic circulation, This criteria is not applicable at this time. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. This cntena is not applicable. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This criteria is not applicable to the request. F:IeveryonelpeclmemoslgawwayE.826 IV. STAFF RECnNiMENDATiON, The Community Devel.,~,.,.ent Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's i request for a major amendment to SDD #21, to allow for an exterior addition to Unit No. 5 at the Gateway Building. Staff believes the proposal meets the review criteria for major SDD amendment applications, as detailed in Section lII of this memorandum. The major SDD amendment request is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as well as the purpose section of the SDD overlay Zone District. Staff is concerned that the south elevation of the proposed addition is not architecturally compatible with the remainder of the building. Staff recommends that: 1. The PEC require the Design Review Board to closely review the proposed south elevation of the building and insure that the addition is architecturally compatible with the remainder of the building. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the applicant's major SDD amendment request to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the PEC make the following findings: l . That the requested major amendment to Special Development District #21, has been reviewed in accordance with Chapter I 8.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade, and that, the proposed amendment is in conformance with the review criteria evaluated'in Section III (Special Development District Criteria) of this memorandum, dated August 25, 1996. i F:~averyonalpeclmemoslgateway1.826 7 v i ~ - . ,4121 ~ t EVEN j A M E S.• R 1 D E F~+x 949-0304 - POST OFFICE SOX 3238 - - VATL, CO. 81658 Charles & Irmgard Lipcon 430 N. Mashta Drive Miami, FL 33149 January 22, 1994 Re: Vail Gateway Unit #5 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lipcon, On behalf of Mr. Karl Kerhman we are enclosing a proposal to enclose a portion of the roof deck of Unit #5 at the Vail Gateway Building. The Town of Vail is requesting each Owner of a unit within the building agree that they have no abjection to the addition. We are also enclosing for your convenience a form letter, should you care to use it. Please note that the addition has no effect on any other unit in the building and in no way compromises the status of the existing property. If you need any further assistance or explanation on this matter, please feel free to contact me at your canvenience. Sincerely, Steve James Riden A.LA. Enclosures: 2 • MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS • {970} 949-4121 ~ I ~ EVEN D A M E S. R I D E FAx949-0304 POST OFFICE BOX 3238 - ~ VAIL, CO. 81b58 ~ . • Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 111 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado S 1657 August 14, 1995 Re: Proposed office/greenhouse and deck addition of Gateway #S Dear Members of the Commission, The proposed office or greenhouse addition of the Gateway Plaza Unit #5 involves the expansion of ~ sq. ft. onto the existing deck. The roof line will match existing roofline. The office will not block any views of other units. The existing sliding glass door and adjacent window will be replaced with a larger window to allow light to the living room below. Best regards, Steve James Riders AIA Architect • • MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS • Dear Mr. Riden, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. ~~[.~~L.r Date ~a~....r 7.~ 1 Name Unit # . Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Riders, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. Date ! ~zs/S6 Name Unit # ~ Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado ~ - t'+ Dear Mr. Rider, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #S, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. Date f f Na Unit # Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado r s ~ me ~ r•+ri • 303 949 H38A P. [dl - .+~w..=~.~a~aa i.a-~ ~l~v~ty .i~=x-~a iriut~i ~!H i-1f i babMlFOtt~C Ysll (>~eWY1~r CaOLlO1E31A!!11(L~ l~ssopatlva, apprpwl ~ Lecabjt Vail Apsrtmc~ts Inc. owner of Unit #5, to encdvso a partipn a~'the e~tisting ~ dads area adjacent to the upper le~roel of iXnit #5. ~ l+ttvc reviewed ehe pr+npoael ciocutne~s iaave tw abjection to the proposal as tome . Also I alltrwr the vse o~the square fdotsga available to enclose this pgrtean of tho . r L r , o of the Vail date Csateway ~oc~dotr+is~iurn Association - TQTA~ P,02 07/18/96 13:30 TX/RK N1~.1241 P,ltU1 T00[~jj ~[O~dI'I T~T59L4EEiE XE~,~ EZ:BO 96/7.Z/LO s ~ . i. 9 ~ ~ f~ f ~ ~ r ~ - - m ~ 1~ 1~. ~ ~ ~ N L ~ ~ - ~ 3 r, r - ~ ~;1 ~ ! ~ . O ~ O~ t ~ T) f ~ ;f;: ' r ti s L ~ 'r f, i Cjti ~ ~ . ,i . ~ ~ j•.~•'.'~,~!~!~~~~.•~..~. SAS I~. ' , 5 f• ' ~ 4~ •y ~ • 's~ ~f .tt ~ cr s^ - 'its d' • i ~~f•.i ' s r`c~i~'~`sf. `c"~.R. ~r1, ; ~r •l7;. r "r . r* ti5 ~ y P6~'i#t~.l - ~ 'i~~ ~ tit'- ~ ~ ~ ~t~. r ; Y., ~it~i. r t - . 4 ~ ~ ~ ~i C rr~.-I y ~i h , 1 r~ a. J ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ss+ ~gg~ s~ I f ~ Og F ~i 9 ' 1~' V ICJ ~J 1 _ ~ _ I ~ /Er~j F I 1 / t I ' E E I ' ~ I I ~ II y I I , ~ ICJ I1 I z ~ ~ ~ I~ I \i I f i.~ u~ I~LJ 1 ~ I I i e~ r ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i ~ ~ w~ ~V~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ I ~ , I ~ ~p ~ I~ ' ; I a~ ' 0 ~ ~ 4z ^I n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °x - ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ I q ~ ~ ! 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~"~~~~' ~~~l~~~~ ~ GATERAY PLAZA UNIT 5 ~ i:v~~;,~g~ ~~~}:n E ' ~ 11 ga9i8 lADNiAOE ADAD ~ ....,~Y ~`~i~.i~~Ir~IE~~~~ PAIL, cos,oaAao e~6~r 4 ~ ~ _ _ 1 , r ~ I ~ ~ ~ 4~ i ~ I ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ I d~dlLJi i ~ E ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ `1 ~ ~ 1 # ~ ~ ~ U~ ~II ~ i ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ _f~l I~ ~ d~ ~ r ~ ~ r,.. 1 ~ I~~ N I~ ~~I~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ j I ; ~ ~ ; ~ ~._-1---- x I ~ ~ r I i ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r , 1 ~ ~ ~ Y\\ 1 ~ ~ ( ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ li i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~i ~ I ~9 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i~ ~ ~ N???' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aATE~AY PLAZA UNIT 5 x~}~1~r'~~IrJ4~a,~~d[ . ~ ~ ~ 11~~ ~ a routrz raoecsAaY r~aAa '~`4L. re^ ~ ~ ~ i ~ vAIL. oaLO1?Aao ~16x~ rrrrrl ~ wr~r , ~a~s~er ~ ~ ~ I i E ~ i " ~ ~ ~ I _I._. I I r.. I~~ • i R r o ~ ~ ~ -J ~ r i _ ~ ~ `~~~iy R R ~ kd ~ ~~~++~a'~{~' il~~i~~~ GATE"1?AY PLAZA UNIT r'~v,'~;i~~'~r''~~u~ ~1~11~'~ ~'y~' f a ~OQT1E IROIiTAGY RDAD rrr¦ S it,~~i=~ ~!`~~I~ VAZL, OOLO1lAD0 Sf6s'~T ~.n.a r ••••rrK+ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING September 3, 1996 7:30 P.M. gular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 3, 1996, in the Council tubers of the Vaii Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 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 Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk T first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident, Jo Staufer stated that v his in-laws (ages 90 and 91 }were in Vail recently, the most enjoyable part of their visit was the streamwalk. Jo suggested the Town finish the stream walk from Ford Park to Lionshead. Next, Audrey McLean, a resident of the Village Center condos distribufied a letter to council members regarding noise and drunken behavior in the Village. She said the noise was caused by Gorton's Saloon and other amplified sound, which, she said had been unbearable over the past three years. Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the minutes for the meetings of August 6 and 20, 1996. Paul Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda with minor changes, and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and approved unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was the appointment of one Local Licensing Authority member fio fill an unexpired term to expire June, 97. One letter of interest was received from M. Kathy Vieth. Rob moved to appoint Kathy to fill the unexpired term due to terminate June, 1997. Sybill seconded the motion and a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. nda item number four was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance Amending 18 Zoning, Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to Add Brew Pub as a Conditional Use in the Commercial Care 1, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts and Delete Brew Pubs as a Permitted Use in the Commercial Service Center Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code, Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and provided the following background: The applicant, Vail Associates, Inc., was requesting a Zoning Code amendment to allow brew pubs as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 2 (CC2} zone district {Lionshead commercial area). Brew pubs were a permitted use in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district (Crossroads commercial area) for establishments operating without off-site safes and as a conditional use for brew pubs with off- site sales. He continued, stating the permitted and conditional uses for the CC2 district reference the uses in the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) zone district (Vail Village commercial area) and therefore both districts should be amended. Dominic said that a comprehensive analysis of all of the Town's commercial districts was done by staff to see if brew pubs would be an appropriate and compatible use in other districts. Based on the analysis staff believed that brew pubs should be listed as a condi#ional use in al! of the commercial zone districts including: Commercial Core 1 (CC1), Commercial Core 2 Commercial Core 3 (CC3) (West Vail commercial area), Commercial Service Center (CSC) and ~ial Business (ABD) (Glen Lyon commercial area) zone districts. Dominic explained that it was staff's belief that with the current definition and existing limitations, brew pubs could be a positive and compatible use in the CC1, CC2, CC3, CSC and ABD zone districts. The PEC, at its August 12, 1996 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 3, 1596 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment, and the recommendation of staff was also was for approval of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, on first reading, he said. Mayor Armour noted for the record a letter which was received from Jim Lamont representing the East Village Homeowners Association, opposing the proposed amendment in CC1 because of an unresolved d' ma of truck delivery in the Village. P C member, Greg Moffet was on hand to answer questions and stated it was in his opinion a very appropriate use for the CC1 district. Mayor Armour stated that operating a brew pub was not a use by right, and applicants would have to apply for conditional use permit. Pau! Johnston spoke about the unresolved dilemma of truck delivery and potential problems which could occur because of off-site consumption, delivery, and sales. Pau{ then moved to approve a modified version of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, excluding the CC1 zone district from the ordinance. Sybill seconded the motion. Mike Jewett then asked if CC1 would then be discussed separately at a later time and Mayor Armour explained that the intent was to not allow brew pubs in the CC1 zone district at all. A vote was taken and passed 4-3, Rob Ford, Bob Armour, and Kevin Foley voting in opposition. Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 16, Series of 1996, a resolution determining the necessity of, a~authorizing the acquisition of an easement for street and sidewalk use on land owned by the Lodge a onshead by either negotiation or condemnation for Town public purposes. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead presented the item, and provided the following background: The Town of Vail had recently opened bids for a street project to take place in the area of the Town of Vail Library and Dobson Arena. Th a street project would require a temporary construction easement and a permanent street easement on property that is owned by the Lodge at Lionshead, Tom said. The Town of Vail had been involved in negotiations with the Lodge at Lionshead through its Property Manager, Jeff Bailey, and that an appraisal of the fair market value was being completed by Shields Appraisal Services. He said the town planned to enter into an agreement for immediate possession at which time the fair market value as determined by Shields would be tendered to the Lodge at Lionshead in exchange for immediate possession. It would then be incumbent upon the association to acquire the agreement of its unit owners as to the fair market value of the easements in question. In the event that such approval is not forthcoming, it may become necessary to file an action in the Eagle County District Cour# for a final determination as to the fair market value. Staff's recommendation was for approval of Resolution No. 16, Series. of 1996. Grafel spoke regarding the necessity of the easement, its use for public purpose, and said it was e~ential to complete the project. Tom presented a color coded map depicting the temporary and permanent easement sites, which Larry reviewed with Council members. Rob Ford moved to approve Resolution No. 16, Series of 1996, with a second from Paul Johnston. Kevin Foley thanked Suzanne Silverthorne for sending out a media release informing the public of upcoming construction projects. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number six was Resolution No. 17, Series of 1996, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the acquisition of an easement fors#reet and sidewalk use on land owned by the Vail dos Shone Condominium Association by either negotiation or condemnation for Town public purposes. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Larry Grafel presented the item and stated it was necessary to acquire a temporary construction easement and a perpetual nonexclusive access easement over property which was owned by the Vail dos Shone Condominium Association for access to the development and improvements taking place on Vail Commons. An appraisal of the fair market value of the easements was being completed by Shields Appraisal Services. The fair market value of the easements would be tendered to the association in exchange for immediate possession of the property involved in the easements. Negotiations between various affected entities including WestStar Bank, a ~nt of Vail dos Shone, had been productive and Larry said he anticipated such negotiations would rye-5[~It in agreements for immediate possession. In the event Vail dos Shone Condominium Association was unable to receive the approval of all the unit owners, it might be necessary to file an action in the Eagle County District Court for a final determination on the fair market value. The staff recommended 2 Vail Sown Council Svening Meeting Minutes September 3, 1996 Y Council adop# Resolution No. 17, Series of 1996. Town Manager Bob McLaurin explained the easement would provide interior circulation to the project. Sybill then moved to approve Resolution No. 17, Series of 1996 and Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed 6-0-1, Mike Jewett abstaining. A nda item number seven, was Resolution No. 18, Series of 1996, a resolution determining the rl~ssity of, and authorizing the acquisition of an easement for street and sidewalk use on land awned by the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Phase I by either negotiation or condemnation for Town public purposes. Agenda item number eight was Resolution No. 19, Series of 1996, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the acquisition ofi an easement for street and sidewalk use on land awned by the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Phase II by either negotiation or condemnation for Town public purposes. Agenda item number nine was Resolution No. 20, Series of 1996, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the acquisition ofi an easement for street and sidewalk use on land owned by the Fallridge Recreational Facilities by either negotiation ar condemnation for Town public purposes. Resolution Nos. 18, 19, and 20, Series of 1996, were then considered simultaneously. Mayor Armour read the titles in full and Larry Grafel reviewed a diagram depicting the easements which would give right of way for the road itself, and stated such easements were required to complete the project, a housekeeping item, he said. Rob Ford moved to approve Resolution Nos. 18, 19, and 20, Series of 1996, and Sybill seconded the rr~on. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Tenth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin stated he had nothing to add to his memorandum. Larry Grafel then described improvements scheduled to begin later in the week near the library and the ice arena. Improvements were to include adjustments on rock walls in firont of the arena, repaving, widening the chute to create a sidewalk, drainage improvements, installation of a hydronic snow melt system, and landscaping. Council was then asked by Town Manager, Bob Mcl_aurin to authorize a transfer of funds from the East Lionshead Bus Stop project to complete the $452,000 project. Sybill moved to approve the fund transfier as requested, and Ludwig seconded the motion. Kevin Foley confirmed three large trees were to remain and that a rock wall would be built around them. Mayor Bob Armour advised Council members review and be aware of the Blue Ribbon Panel Report, a panel appointed by the Governor which identifies the long term transportation needs for the state. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. ~blic service announcement was then made and Council members reminded the Channel 5 viewing audience of the upcoming activities associated with the Vaii Tomorrow project. Respectfully submitted, Ro~ert W. Armour, Mayor ATT ST: Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 3,1986 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING September 17, 1996 , 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, in the Council Chambers ~e Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybiil 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. Josef Staufer, Town of Vail resident and owner of the Vail Village Inn expressed his concerns about plans for employee housing units proposed at Red Sandstone on pr.~gerty owned by the water district and land to be exchanged to the Town by the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Staufer s~e supported employee housing and noted that he paid in excess of $10,000 per month to help provide such ho sing for his staff, but stated he objected to selling such units for private ownership. Staufer said that as an involved party in Action Vail, the group is opposed to public lands being sold for private ownership. He used Pitkin Creek as an example of units constructed for the purpose of employee housing, which, he said are now awned mostly by second homeowners and non-employees. Mr. Staufer suggested the Town of Vail retain ownership of the project and rent the units ou#. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin, explained that many decisions remained yet to be made with regard to the Red Sandstone project. He stated that Council would be reviewing details more thoroughly and would have an opportunity to make decisions during upcoming meetings scheduled throughout November. Next, Vail resident, Sue Dugan suggested marking the lanes of the roundabouts at the Main Vail interchange. Also, she said the issue of animal control needed improvement, in particular dog waste. Ms Dugan said she noticed improvement when clean it up signs were placed in her neighborhood and suggested the town erect more signs throughout the community. Finally, Ms. Dugan addressed the need for a bus stop between the Wren and Apollo Park, stating it was unsafe to walk that distance on South Frontage Road in the winter. Dugan then introduced the Wren's General Manager, Lisa Watts. Lisa announced she had scheduled a meeting with Public Works Director, Larry Grafel to address the concern. Watts said the situation was very dangerous due to the lack of a sidewalk. Additionally, she said the mwalk was not maintained in the winter and was too slick to be used. Sue Dugan then referenced a letter which had been faxed to Council members regarding the Buddy's program, and encouraged all to participate. Next, under citizen participation, Michael Jewett appeared before fellow Council members on behalf of the Common Sense for the Commons Committee. Mr. Jewett reviewed the history of the group and its initial purpose to persuade the Council to put the project up to a vote of the citizens. He said fundraising had always been an issue far individuals involved with the committee, and explained that members had wanted the matter to go to a vote. When it didn't, the committee wanted the project investigated for legal issues and retained Hugh Warder, a Glenwood Springs attorney, to investigate the original request for proposal ("RFP") process, and contract negotiations, among other issues. Jewett said he was before Council to announce that because of casts involved, and the potential of the matter being tied up in a lengthy lawsuit, his group would be dissolving the Common Sense for the Commons Committee and their fundraising efforts. Jewett was critical about the RFP process, and said he thought that many of the 50 RFP's sent out had been duplicated. He said he would have preferred a department store such as Target as an anchor to the project as opposed to City Market, one that would not have competed with retail business in West Vail. He recommended the issue of competition be taken into consideration by Council in the future. Additionally, Jewett expressed his disappointment that the Council failed to recognize a petition which was brought in, asking for a public vote on the project: He then announced the issue was over and s~ested everyone move on. Lars Berkhout, a resident of Sandstone said he worked with Mike Jewett and complimented the project, but complained about the huge wall of plaster on the west side. He said he hoped that in the future citizen input would betaken into consideration, and suggested that at the time petitions were presented, same motivations of Counci! 1 Vaik Town Coancil Evening Meeting Minutes September 17,199fi members seemed suspicious. Next, Dan Char~oneau, camera operator for Vail Valley Community Television and a Vail resident, announced his departure from Vail to return to the East Coast. He complimented the Council for keeping the interests of the citizens in mind and thanked.the Council for its support of Channei 5. Mayor Armour then commended Dan on his expertise, a job well done, and wished him goad luck. I number two on the agenda was a status update on the Vail Tomorrow process. Bob McLaurin gave a brief update following the Imagine Vail Tomorrow Community Conference which was held on Saturday, September 7, 1996. He said mare than 130 people attended the conference in which participants identified 11 goal areas for the project: world class resort, natural & built environment, growth management, safety and security, building community, economic diversity, affordable housing, cultural and educational opportunities, youth, family and regional cooperation. He said procedures had included drafting goal statements for the 11 areas and doing research, and that during the following month information would be gathered on each of the goal areas for Vail and three comparison communities (Aspen, Whistler, and Sanibel, Florida). The information would then be shared at the next conference, "Describe Vail Tomorrow," scheduled for Nov. 1 and 2. The purpose of the research would be to describe how Vail and other would-class resorts fare in each of the goal areas. Bob said it was important for people to understand the need to participate in the next conference to make sure their voices were heard on the issues that are important to them. After the November conference, teams will form around prioritized goal areas and action alternatives suggested and will begin making recommendations for action. Mayor Bob Armour commended all thane who organized and participated in the recent conference. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, first reading of an Ordinance amending Special Development 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. The applicant, Vail Apartment, Inc. (Owners of Unit 5) was represented by Steve Riden. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther pr seated the item and described that pursuant to a memorandum from the Community Development Department s o the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated August 26, 1996, the initial SDD approval allowed for th construction of 12 dwelling units and consisted of not more than a total of 13,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. He said the developer chose to construct only seven dwelling units, utilizing a total of 11,999 sq. ft. ,leaving 1,001 sq. ft. of the approved GRFA and 5 dwelling units which were not constructed. A remodel of a unit in the fall of 1995 added 356 sq.ft., increasing the total GRFA contained within the building to 12,355. George explained that the applicant was now proposing to modify Unit No. 5, adding another 460 square feet of new GRFA, which would resulk in a new total GRFA far the Gateway project of 12,815 sq. ft. He said such request would require a major SDD amendmen#, and the Council was asked to review certain criteria as follows: 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. George then distributed a letter from Norman Helwig, attorney at law, representing the interests of the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Association, which stated that the approval of the Association for the approval of the addition to Unit 5 had not yet been received, but was expected at an upcoming meeting of Association members. The staff recommendation was for approval of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, on first reading with the following conditions: 1 }that the applicant be required to provide Community Development with an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Plaza Condominium Association, prior to scheduling the second reading of the ordinance; and 2) prior to scheduling second reading of the ordinance, 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. Skye Riden, on behalf of Vail Apartments, lac. {owners of Unit 5), stated he had no objections to the approval, as concerned with the condition of the neon sign being brought into compliance. He suggested it could be handled in a different manner, such as a citation, rather than including it as a condition of approval, as the owners of Unit 5 had no authority to require the removal of the sign. Sybil) Navas asked Town Attorney, Tam Moorhead, for his opinion, and Tam stated there were are a number of different routes that could be taken. However, he felt that placing the condition as referenced above was the Town's first best opportunity to bring it into compliance. If it did not work, he said, then the town would proceed with the citation process. Paul Johnston moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, until such time as approval from the condominium association was received and the sign was in compliance. Rob Ford seconded the motion. Sybil) said she was inclined to vote for passage of the ordinance on first reading with conditions stated. Ludwig said he felt there were too many inconsistencies and would go along with tabling the ordinance. Mike Jewett was in favor of staff's recommendation and moving ahead with approval on first reading along with the conditions suggested. Paul again moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996 until such time as the application was complete and an agreement reached to bring the illegal neon sign into compliance. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2, Sybil) and Mike voting in opposition. da item number four was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1996, second ng of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 Zoning, Sections 18.26.040, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to Add Brew Pub as a Conditional Use in the Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zane Districts and Delete Brew Pubs as a Permitted Use in the Commercial Service Center Zone District of the Vail Municipal Code. Town of Vail Planner Dominic Mauriello 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 17, 1996 introduced the item and presented a modified version of the ordinance, which excluded the Commercial Core 1 area, as moved by Council at first reading of the ordinance on September 3. Rob moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1996, with a second from Sybill. Kevin Foley said the reason he was voting against the ordinance was because it excluded the Commercial Core 1 zone district. Mayor Armour also felt that staff could control establishments applying for a brew pub businesses on an individual basis, if the mercial Core 1 zone district was included in the ordinance. A vote was then taken and passed, 6-1, Kevin ~y opposed. Fifth on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin explained that the existing signage at the main Vail roundabout was temporary, and that new signage would be installed within the next couple of weeks which would comply with Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation standards. He also talked about Counci! goal setting, issues and strategies, and his feeling that the Vail Tomorrow process was an important component in achieving Council goals which were defined last February. He then encouraged all to stay involved. There being no further business a motion was made for adjournment and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m. Resp Ily submitted, • R hart W. Armour, Mayor A /f, ~ `f L Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by HoEfy McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes September 17,1996 r MEMORANDUM Tp: The Vail Tawn Council . FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 1, 1996 ' SUBJECT: An appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision granting an approval of a request far a front setback variance to allow for the construction of #our triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge LooplLot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Val! Point Phase Ill}. Appellant: Phyllis Mango, adjacent property owner Appellee: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruttier 1. SUBJECT PROPERTY Vail Paint Phase Ill, located at 1 B94 Lionsridge LooplLot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. 11. STANDING OF APPELLANT Pursuant to subsection 18.66.030 (B}(2) of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade, an appeal may be initiated by "an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order, decision, determination, or interpretation by any administrative official with respect to this title." Staff finds that the appellant, Phyllis Manga, an adjacent property owner to Lot 27, Black 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filing, has standing to file an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision of August 26, 1996, granting an approval of a front setback variance. 111. BACKGROUND On August 26, 1996, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, upon conducting a public hearing, granted an approval of a request far a front setback variance to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge LooplLot 27, Black _ 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. The Planning and Environmental Commission`s decision to grant approval of the requested variance was based upon the findings that: • the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Medium-Density Multi-Family Zone District. • that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1 • The variance to encroach into the front setback was warranted since the strict and literal - enforcement of the 20' front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the goats and objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Upon making the findings, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted unanimously to approve, with modifications, the applicant's request for a front setback variance. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval carried with it the fallowing conditions: 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Tawn Council far review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of Vaii Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17, 1979; 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; 4. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed; and 5. That any encroachment of Building #1 into the front setback be removed and the site plan be amended accordingly. A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated August 26, i99B, and a copy of the approved minutes from the August 26, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting have been attached far reference. iV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On September 4, 1996, the Tawn of Vaii Community Development Department received an appeal letter from Jennifer Henise and Phyllis Mango, requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission decision granting an approval of a front setback variance to allow far _ the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 l.fonsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 be appealed to the Town Council. The appeal has been filed pursuant to Chapter 18.66 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Ms. Henise and Ms. Mango filed the appeal as adjacent property owners. On September 5, 1996, the Community Development Department received a letter from Jennifer Henise requesting that her name be withdrawn from the appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. According to a written explanation of the reasons for the appeal, the appellant argued that the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision granting an approval of the front setback variance is inconsistent with Section 18.18.010, {Medium-Density Multi Family, purpose), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 18.18.010, the purpose of the Medium- 2 Density Multi Family Zone District is, in part, to insure adequate light, air and space and to maintain desirable residential qualities of the district. According to the appellant's letter, she feels that adequate light, air, and space is denied, since the proposed triplex structures are too close to one another and the triplexes are too close to the neighboring Capstone Townhouse property, where she owns a unit and resides. The appellant further believes that the triplexes will be "touching" mature 24-year old Blue Spruce trees and some selected trees will be moved in order to build the triplexes. AdditionaAy, according to the appellant, the proposed development for the four triplex structures completely take up all the buildable land of Lot 27 and provides na open space between the buildings and adjacent properties. The appellant further contends that the three-story buildings wilt be "towering" over Capstone, which is 10'-20' lower in elevation than the appellee's property. Lastly, the appellant has expressed concern, and has requested that consideration be given to snow removal on Lot 27. A copy of the appellant's appeal request and a letter describing the nature of her request has been attached for reference. 1/, p?CTIQN REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Upholdl uphold with madificationsl overturn the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision granting an approval of a front setback variance. The Town Council is required to make findings of fact an this appeal in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (D}{5}, Findings: "The Town Council shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. The findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met." 111, ~TAFIF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Vail Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision of August 26, 1996, granting an approval of a 12' front setback variance. Staff recommends that the Town Council make the following findings: 1. That the Town of Vail Planning and Enviranrnental Commission held a public hearing on ,the requested (rant setback variance in accordance with Chapter 18.66 Administration and Chapter 18.62 Variances, and has made the appropriate findings pursuant to Section i 8.62.060 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 Code have been met. 3. That the proposed development plan far Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3, has been approved by the Tawn of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and is in compliance with Section 18.18.01 D Purpose, Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3 j~ ~tf ~...~.4 n~° jr•. ~ s ~ `s: ; J f1?~s r TDI~-CUB ~ ~ r REQUIRED FOR. kI'LING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR PLA~i'NING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION A. ACTIOQN/DECISION BEING APPPEALED: I f ~°fl~~ ~ ~ ~SrL~'~' Ce'ct 'TY Ohf' ~f.~'"~c. ~G \ IG'rr R+.t GeS T'o ~ I a G..1 ~ '77~A v ~'a14.5~c~r7~~ ca uF 17' r~ I . ' K ~ vt 1 Cs~ r S /QC's-/Crt G! I ~ Lf a w-~ r~.~s-~ ~~9 ~./o], f- L~ r~/PGC~, Z. / ~/'~~oh s ra use ~C~', ~ ~ . l P"I CLiI T }~vPn Pfi~S ~CT rlG+hG~ c)~~h Pn Z B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION; ~~~~s~ a~, (~5~, v C, N JA /ME OF BOARD ORrrPERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: 1 ~.N r h~i G to rf C-~ !n ~ ~iv1 na !'.S.i ro r~ v D, NAME OF APPELLANT(S): ~le~~~;,~ ~[~n.~; (,r ~w,~, MAILING ADDRESS: i'~ecr~oc,) fR,c(~ IZ~.A f . ~.D ~6~-Z PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL: SG i'L..e PHONE: ~ - 03 (off LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: l 1 E. SIGNATURE(S): 1 ~r L... ~~~x",~ U ~ ~ Page ~ of 2 ' F. Does this appeal involve a specific pazcel of land? y-~ If yes, please provide the following information: are you an adjacent property owner? Yes no If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person." "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or 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 int;,.~~ in community good shared by all persons. G. Provide 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, ar other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes far 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: $0.(}0 r S ~ Page 2 of 2 We are appealing because Code Section 18,18.010 purpose, states that there must be intention 1) to ensure adequate light air and space, and 2) to maintain desirable residential qualitie~ of the district. We feel that adequate light, air, and space is denied by 1) the triplexes are too close to themselves and 2) the triplexes are too close to the neighboring Capstone Townhouse Property, and 3} the triplexes will be touching mature 20 year old blue spruce trees and some selected trees will be moved in order to build the triplexes. The plan of four triplexes has completely taken up all buildable land allowing for no open space between buildings and inadequate apace between neighbors. Three story buildings, 30 feet away, will be towering over Capstone which is 10 to 20 feet lower. Neighboring residences are surrounded by a great amount of open space. Another consideration is that drainage and snow removal will adversely affect the Capstone property. , Jennifer Henise 1817 Meadow Ridge Road Vail, CO 81657 . Phone (970) 479-0426 Fos (370) 476-4704 September 5, 1996 ~1~~`-- George Ruther ~ a ~ , Planning and Environmental f "~'.:~~a. ~ r Town of Vail Vail, CO Dear George, T withdraw my appeal submitted yesterday concerning the Giesler development of Lions Ridge Laop adjacent to our property. Please notify all to whom it may concern. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ J 3ennifer Henise ~ ,A, ..,q , % W a MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, 61ock 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 {Vail Paint Phase III). Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther . . I. PROJECT D~CRIPTION A. Gerter~l De~.ption Steve Gensler and Steve Katz are proposing to construct four, triplex units an Phase ill at Vail Point. Phase Ili is zoned medium density multi-family. The four, triplex structures will be served by a common driveway, 22' wide, with an emergency vehicle turnaround at the south end of the driveway. There will be a . total of 12 dwelling units comprised of 21,614 sq. ft. of GRFA . The units will range in size from 1,783 sq. ft. to 1,804 sq. ft. Staff will discuss specific components of the development under the analysis in Section IV of this memorandum. The applicants are proposing to construct two of the four structures in the required, 20' front setback. One of the structures encroaches up to 12' into the front setback, while the other, encroaches up to 9' into the setback. A total of 2$$ sq. ft. of building footprint area will be in the front setback. According to Section 18.18.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum front setback for structures built in the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District shall be 20'. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 18.~8~, . to allow for the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20' required front setback, up to 12' and 9' respectively. The applicants have stated that the location of Lionsridge Loop in proximity to the northerly property . line warrants the granting of the requested variance. A letter from the applicants addressing their position on the variance has been attached for reference. The applicants had originally requested a building height variance to allow one of the four, triplex structures to exceed the allowable building height of 38'. The applicants have since withdrawn their building height variance request. Therefore, staff will not be addressing the building height issue In this memorandum. 1 ' B, p„~ces~ When Vail Point was annexed into the Town of Vail, the Annexation Agreement dated July 17, 1979, (Book 428, Page 936} stipulated that there would have to be a review of each proposed site plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Vail Town Council and the Design Review Board (DRB} far each phase of the Vail Point project. Though the process is similar to a Special Development District (SDD}, the proposal is not an SDD. Furthermore, the annexation ordinance did not specify review criteria. However, applicable criteria far this project include the standards for the Medium Density Multi-Family , Zone District, general goals addressed in the Town of Vail's long-range planning documents and the Design Review Board Guidelines (Chapter 18.54} of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The annexation agreement permits 15 dwelling units and 19,462 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA}, plus credits of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for Lot 27. Under the proposed design, there are 2,700 sq. ft. of credits as there are 12 dwelling units. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square footage for Lot 27 is 22,162 sq. ft. of GRFA. II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL POINT PROJECT The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes}, Phases I, II and III, was _ annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1979, addresses the annexation. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lot 27 (Phase lll) was designated Medium Density Multi-Family zoning with the conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail, as described in Section I of this memorandum. The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and I l are located on tat 1, Block 3, which is on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, and Phase II l is located on Lot 27, Block 2, which is across the street, on the south side of Lionsridge Loop. According to the annexation agreement, Phases 1 and II were approved far 48 dwelling units, while Phase lil was approved for a maximum of 15 dwelling units. The list below summarizes the history of the Vail Point Townhome Project: Phase I Phase 1, as constructed, includes 20 dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. It is completed and final certificates of occupancy have been issued. Phase iI As originally approved, Phase 11 called for the construction of 20 dwelling units I}aving a total allowable-GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a modification to the plan to decrease the number of dwelling units by one and increase the total GRFA allowed by 750 sq. ft. This approval resulted in the overall total allowable GRFA . for Phase Il to be 28;795 sq. ft. The 750 sq. ft. of additional GRFA granted lay the Planning and Environmental Commission to Phase Il was required to be deducted from the total allowable GRFA #ar Phase III. 2 On June 8, 1992, Steve Gensler proposed a modification to the approved puns for Phase Il. This plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and was subsequently constructed. It included a total of 28,682 sq. ft. of GRFA in 18 dwelling units. The difference in GRFA (113 sq. ft.} was to be transferred back to Phase III. A large portion of this was used at a later time by a 96 sq. ft. interior expansion to the Katz residence in Phase li. The 96 sq. ft. expansion left only 17 sq. ft. of GRFA to be transferred back to Phase lil. Construction in Phase II is not complete. pose III, Originally, there was 19,445 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA (plus credits} allocated for Lot 27 (Phase III). The total allowable GRFA has been increased by 17 sq. ft. to 19,462 sq. ft. plus allowable credits. There is a credit of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for units constructed in this zone district. On June 13, 1994, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a worksessian to discuss the construction of four, duplex units on Phase ill. At that time, the applicant was proposing to reduce the total density on the property from the allowed 15 dwelling units to 8 dwelling units. The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed at length the site plan for Lot 27. Of most importance, was the preservation of the existing landscape improvements, constructed by the owners of the Cappstone Townhomes, along the southerly property Ilne of Lot 27. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was interested in seeing the developer keep a minimum of 15' of separation between each structure constructed on the property. The Planning and Ewnvironmental Commission did discuss the possibility of granting a front setback variance to allow several of the structures to encroach into the front setback, ire order to preserve the existing landscaping along the southerly property line. It is important to note that the discussion was preliminary, and a more specific application would need to be submitted for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission was specifically concerned that the applicant needed to exhibit the existence of a physical hardship, allowing the granting of a variance at the time of final review. On June 13, 1994, a motion was made to table the discussion to the July 27, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. On September 12, 1994, the applicant requested that the item be tabled indefinitely, to allow the applicant time to address the numerous issues identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission. On August 12, i 996, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of two of the four structures to be built In the required, 20' front setback. One of the structures was proposed to encroach up to 19' into the front setback, while the other structure was proposed to encroach up to 1 T into the front setback. A total of 832 sq, ft. of building footprint area was proposed to i be built in the front setback. After a lengthy discussion on the proposed front setback variance request, which included public testimony from adjoining property owners, the Planning and 3 I Environmental Commission voted unanimously to table the applicant's request to a Subsequent meeting, to allow the applicant time to redesign the site plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission members agreed that a hardship existed on the property, thus permitting the applicant to encroach into the front setback, however, the Planning and Environmental Commission members did not feel that the hardship warranted a 19' and 1 T encroachment into the front setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the applicant reduce the amount of encroachment into the front setback. A copy of the draft August 12, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission minutes addressing the applicant's request have been attached for reference. III, ~QNING ANALYSI^~ Legal Description: Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing IVo. 311894 Lionsridge Loop [Phase III). Zoning: Medium Density Muni-Family [MDMF). Lot Size: 2.103 acres [per Eagle Valley Surveying) or 91.637.2 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA per Talon Tawnhome records: 18,462 sq. ft. of GRFA + a credit of 225 sq. ft. per constructed dwelling unit or 22,162 sq. ft. Devebpment Standard Allowable Pronased Meight: 38' 37.5' Density 15 D.U. 12 D.U. GRFA: 22,162 sq. ft. 21,814 sq. ft. Setbacks: front: 2d' B' 5idelSide 20' 23' Rear: 2D' 24' Site Coverage: 45% or 41,236.7 sq. ft. 15% or 13,718 sq. ft. Retaining wall heights: 3'-6' 6' Parking: 2 per dwelling unit 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS! Upon review of Section 18.62.Ofi0, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based 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. 4 r Phase ill of the Vail Point Townhomes Is approved, per the Annexation Agreement of 1979, for 15 dwelling units and 22,162 square feet of GRFA. The proposed density of Lot 27 (Phase Ill) is compatible with the density of the other multi-family projects in the vicinity (Vail Paint Townhomes Phases I & II and the Capstone Condominiums) The applicant has proposed to construct 12 dwelling units comprising approximately 21,814 square feet of GRFA. The applicant has praposed to construct the four, triplex buildings as far to the north as possible to maintain an adequate separation between the Capstone Condominiums to the south, and to preserve the existing landscaping and landscape improvements encroaching an to Lat 27. This has been praposed as a result of worksession meetings with the PEC in June of 1994. In order to maintain the existing landscaping and provide an adequate separation between the praposed structures and the existing condominiums to the south, the applicant has proposed to encroach up to 12' into the 20' front setback. Staff believes the requested variance is reasonable, as the applicant's lot is severely impacted by steep slopes and encroachments onto the property. Approximately 1.265 acres (fi0%) of the total 2.1037 acre lot has slopes greater than 40%, or is within required setback areas. Staff further believes the requested variances will have minimal, if any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Lionsridge Loop is constructed within a 70' wide right-of-way. The actual width of pavement is 22' to 24' . The road, as constructed, is all the way to the north side of the right-of-way, and therefore, approximately 50' of right-af-way is located between the edge of existing asphalt and the applicant's north property line. Staff believes that the 50' of vacant right- af-way will act as a sufficient buffer between Vaii Point Phases I and II, Lionsridge Loop and the praposed structures. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to aChieae compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or #o attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege, Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief necessary from Section 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to attain the objectives of this title without resulting in a grant of special privilege. Setbacks are intended to provide, in part, minimum separation between structures and uses, and tv insure adequate light, air, and open spaces and maintain desirable residential qualities. Staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback up to 12' is in concert with the intended purposes of setbacks. Staff further believes that there are extraordinary conditions and circumstances (steep slopes, existing landscape encroachments, proximity of Lionsridge Laop) that apply to the applicant's site warranting a granting of a setback variance. 5 Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding the slight shifting of structures to reduce the encroachment into the required setback area. Staff would suggest that the PEC discuss with the applicant the ability to reduce the amount of setback encroachment through slight site plan • modifications. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic #acilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback will have positive impacts on existing development in the area. Staff believes the variance will allow for greater separation between the proposed structures and the Capstone Condominiums, without negatively impacting Phases I & II of the Vail Point Townhomes to the north. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinq~ before granting 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 not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more 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. There 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. 11, ~?FF RECOMMEdpATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a variance from Section 18.18.060 to allow the construction of two structures • to encroach into the 20' required front setback up to 12' and 9' respectively. Staff believes the applicants have met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not result in the grant of special privilege. Finding B.2 has been met, in the opinion of the 6 staff, since 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 that Finding B.3(b} has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form steep slopes and existing landscape improvements, which precludes the applicant from developing the lot to its full potential. Additionally, Finding B.3(c} has also been rnet, . since the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district. Should the Planning and Envirvnrnental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would suggest that the PEC find that: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in the same zone district, and; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety yr welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and; 3. That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enforcement of the front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council far review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Tvwn of Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17, 1979; and 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior the appearing before the Tvwn of Vail Design Review Board; and 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to - appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and ~4. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 4D% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed. • 7 - .,+e..,~~+ .enoNaaxs wu/+ ~urc oer T i ~ S~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ / t \ - ~ W , ~ s _ . 1 j ~ H ~ / , r r r ~ ~ ~ ~ ICI / f - ` / ~ ~ - 1 i e`, t ~ . ~ r, 1 I 1 1 { j ~ - _ I i ~ ~ f ' .r / ' / / / I~~% 1l~ix ?a Ylfu! NM !M ~ ' lxxx~l N! N'Nl~~N ~ •eINN xN /o ~,+~~a~f~r~r av ,xxl~.,xl. Cllr! 'ox xaxx 'ex !ar ~ .xn _~r ~ i v \ ~L ~ y~y . ~ ~ ---L~ -e~,rts- y X ~ 1 0 ~ - r Y' ~ r ~ 1 Fw- / y~ \ Irk ~ ~ ` _ ~ Y , r . t' ~ ~ \ yam, _ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ' ti 1~ r ~ f . `r ` -jam ^,.,~i ~ ~ ~;(,i ~ ~ \ ~ /I \ ' \ ! / I I / ~--x lwxw ! ,i y ~ ~ I J~ ~ ~ ~'xlllll~ I ~ `Y ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ) ~B-~-a.~ i 5 x 4 l l I l l ~ ~ ~ J + rt--, / J 1~~ , \ ~ ~ rte' ~ ~ % r~~~~~~ i • HIIT Yl ']liYl, 1N ~S0i ,p ~]IiIM]YT • kYlliN NG ~ arn~~aFl~~t~ I d I n~nrr~~! ..col.,^.:a ar i o~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p E i o o s z ~ ~ Q~~ ~ 0 a~ N ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,ti1? y 111,,, yi~y \ ` ~ r ~ w IGG ~ I N W O 3 \ °sOg ~ o ~ I J Z W ^ o~ (K V ~ h W M~ _J © z~ ~ , ~ li ~ ~ 1 1' o N ~ ~ ~ o, v> j ~ $o~~~ I ~ n Q 6¢~.]ai~ ~ ~ R ao w ~m~Z ~ m I ~ u _ + ~{nZ~ ; I~ O O O N ~ O ~ / ~ (n LiJ o~ ~ o ~ ~ hb~ ~ + \ t Ns~~m,., ear i •O n o~ v ~'s ~t11 ? y ~ ~ Ma :tuY Q`~. ~ ~ M o ~~o 9 ~ ~oP a ~ ~ U .1 ~ v 1_ Y ^S' GPE.6'~ 4~R s ` 0J _y ~ e osn~~# ~~°~~n z ~ z m V ~w ~IXpi1i~1Y '1, .,ixp ~]l10 'pM ppr ~ N . pC m ~ ~ - ~ ~ 0 4 I~~~ Qdo ~ m f F Nw _ ~ F~ - - u - ~ ~ - ~~aw. I ~ _ _ ww ~ - - a q.l . ,1 f1d x ,]]x.. ' ~ix0111N]N ]'Ox /ol- ]~e0 1 I ~ ~ L ~ l I I Q? ~ ~ ax 1 1 ~ a? ~ 1 n° uu ~ Q? C _~=s-..._._ p - i - a?I 171 _ - - ' m t al ~r ~~=1 P aI . -1I E +l DIM ~iX6iiinaX 'OM 111Xa aleX iNX 'OH ICi - ~ ~ ~ : _ ~ C lAJ - [i. ~ ` - - _ ~ ~ 8® - _ o - 4 _ - _ _ ~o~~ - l . ~i i-~~ i ~ cti ___T ~ . ~ • h~ _ N- ~ f ~ - I f ~f~~~~ ~~I , ~e bV ~a~ro a.w.~oxa~m • ~i a? ~ a~ u~u f~ ~ 4 O; ~ x u. ~---a~ I_ ~~0 ~ . i - ~ ~ n ~ ao ~ uC7 ~ o a ~ a ~ - - ~ r - ~ - ~ _ F un~~ - x ~m ~u ~ .a ~Sd {MGI ;;IY 'OM 1~iX4 Y4 m~'oN ~0~ moo. I P. ~i ~ - ~ ~ 4 ~ , I II ~ I II }I Y y ~ it ~ i ~ 8 I II ~ ~ II II II t I I -I li ~ y ~ 11 ~ ; I I~ r I~ i ~ ~I J,, ~ I~ I I I ~ R ~ I w ~ ~ I ~ k I I I I I I ~ p ~ I Ye ~ I I I - _ ~ a a ~ _ ~ I ~ ~ I kl y e ~ h }I I ~ 'F\ ~ I ~ u_ .I i 1" I II I I I ~ II I / ~1 I } I I } l _ ~ J $ II I II f 7 ~ s",~ er. LV I i ~ ~Y ~ ' _ i ~ ~ I ~~.li~ a r ~ i - ~ _ I ia• I ? _ ~ ~ R i AS .I`AI .19-.ti '~6-•N8-•HC•.2.9-.NIl A9-.2 A9-.1 AIA[ ~CY-,~ p l•1E ~Y ,1[~ ~li~~[ .IS I q ~}}jQm~~~ / ~ b m i - { ~I • 1 ..R .r... ~,v .Grauln~r •ar nirG •um r... ~ex roe .va, w ~ I ~ I ~ L T~ I' I I 1 I I ~ I s I I I I I I I ~ 1 I I I I I 1 I I ~ I I I I I I I I I f f I I I i 1 I Q I I I I m__~ I I h ---II ~ I --7j C I J ~ ,I I ~ - - ~ 7~1. 1 Ir f u ~ I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I { i I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I f I I I I I I ~ ~ I E I I p I I R --~I I I I Ir ---II ~ I ~ I --11 I I --71 I r~. ,I ~ ' I f I I u~ L ~ I I I I ~ I I I I I I ~ ~I { I I i I I ~ ~ % I I I I I I I - 4~ 1 I I I y I f I I Q I'.B Af-.G .t .6 .f A[`"~I .9 .['IF,1[ .IF.CI AG I ,1 I R "-'~I I I I Ir - -II I I li i ~-~I F I 1~~ -'11 I I ~ I 71 I \ ~ qkqk /J ~ /J F ry r~ , _ z_ L L .o ~a , ..~o .,a sera, z j y y JO [ i 1 ' Mfr\e Ni~'O~~~or w. ..a o• I ' 'I ~ - _ ll l ~ : ~`f ` ~ i~ ~ x I ~ ~ ® II a I I I a II I II 1 ~ II I II I ~ II \ I R II ~ I yy ~ p I L II 22 ' ~ I ~I ~ ~ I..I ~ r"-^ ~ I I o e ~ {r`----- I I ~ I - k i I.' ~y I ~ I I ~ x r~ I I I I I ~ ~I I I F 1 4 I ' ~ ~ I I T t ~ ~ - I I. 11 I I F II I I 1 , %e I II II I I t II I h II I I~ I § I~ I 1 II I ~ II I R ~ II I # I I II I 11 ' ~ II II ? ~ _ I ~J I I >Ih 0 _ o o ~ ~ . b~ a~ - ELM i, i. .~K~i7 vn• N+ I c~ is }II w~l I~ ~ i ~ ff ~4 b ~i I, i~ i ~ ~ ~ } ~ ~ 4 'I g ~ ~ a ' ~ I ~ ~ ~ " it - ~ ~ g - i` - I~ ' ' ~ h t t k, ~ ~ i ~ ~h t _~aaa ~ ~ - - _T ~ E ~ ~ ~ spy] ..a- .f r ~a n a» uati~ ~~~3~f0 ro76'6x ~e~ I I r-- e - ~ -Z. rl - I ~ I _ -_U' I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ` " ' I I 1 I I ~ I ~ ~ I 1 FF I I I I R ~ ~ CCCJJJ I I I I I i I J I I I ~ 1 r~--(1 I 1 9" l l f 11 - 0 h J r~ ~4I I C~ ~ 1 ~ i ti I + I I 3 I I 1 I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I ~ I I 1 I I I I I I I I AEA 1 I I /'i-.i A~-.r ' K X-,L .r.f ~ .If.ti ~ ,e .r I Q I r-- I c I Ir--~I I t I - - -11 I 1 1 - -11 L I ~ ~ J ~I I r~ ~ _ _ _ - ~I~ I ~ ~a - .yy - ~ I ~ I ~ i ~ I - I I I { aev I 11 f I ! ~ ~ I I I ~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ I I I I I R ~ I ~ I I I I I I ~ I ~ i .R .S .B .r .i-.A Ag~7l .9'.t 'II'At .r ~r A~-.~ II II P Ir -n - - ~ A Ir-~~~_-------- ri I Ti I t. I _ _ 1: 1 p~^ 1- - - I I i H ` ra ~t &I~ I 6~ ~ ~ III e~ ~ II _ 4 rJ I~ ~f I I f I ~tl I LQT 27, LLC VAIL, CULURADO July 1 S, 1996 . Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Mr. George Ruther Re: Property Line Set-back Variance Dear Sir: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing users or structures in the vicinity will have no adverse effect whatsoever. I am requesting the ability to maximize the buildable area of the site. Lionsridge Loop when constructed is outside the road right-af--way to the north. Therefore, Lot 27, Block 2, Filing 3 northern most property lines are in excess of SO' offthe road. Our request is to be able to build up to the northern property line which will allow far more spacing between four triplex buildings being proposed. The 20' set-back requirement is to provide same buffer between roads and developments. Allowing this variance will still provide a SO'set-back from Lionsridge Loap. In this case the variance will actually improve spacing and allow more buffer from Cap Stone, which is along the southern property line of Lot 27. The property is zoned medium density for development of up to 14 dwelling units. Qur proposal is reducing by two the number of units while using the GRFA square footage allowed. Enclosed far your review is the site plan with improvement elevations. As this request relates to property line set-back variance the exterior design of the units will add some Gables to the front of the buildings. This will be shown in the design review board submittal. Thank you For your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, t Steve M, sler 1 ~ APl~QYF~SEp ~ a ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION - ~ August 26, 1996 . Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffat Henry Pratt Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriella John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez Diane Golden Pvbllc Hearing 2:00 p.m, T#~e meeting was called to order by Greg Moffat at 2:D0 p.m. 1. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, iocated at i 894 Liansrldge LooplLot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. At the August 12, 199fi PEC meeting, the applicant had requested variances of 1 T and 19' respectively, to encroach into the front setback. After a lengthy discussion, the PEC voted unanimously to table the request until the applicant redesigned the project with less encroachment into the front setback. The PEC was generally agreeable to permitting some form of encroachment, but agreed that the amount requested was - excessive and needed to be reduced. George went on to explain that the applicant had come back with a reduction from 1 T and 19', to 12' and 9' of encroachment. Buildings have been shifted on the site plan. One of the concerns from the 1994 request and the August 12, 1996 PEC meeting was the emergency vehicle turnaround at the southerly portion of the site. The - developer.has pulled the turnaround out of the setback area, in order to provide snow storage, which the Fire Department has approved. There are three 10' tall Lodgepole trees chat need to be moved. It is up to the PEC to decide a location on the site that would work, sa the trees can be preserved on the property. Greg Moffat asked if the applicant was here. He was not present. Greg then asked for any • public input. Phyllis Mango, owner of Capstans #1, reviewed what happened 2 years ago when the Commission met. Mr. Gensler has not increased the space between the buildings, oar has he stayed away from the gardens. He wants to move trees, that are 15' tall, only 5', which is not much of a move. He plans to put them on boulders. Trees do not grow on boulders. We would like to suggest not moving the trees. In 1979, Rocky Christopher planted those trees as a barrier to benefit both parcels. I have a letter here•fram him end from Mr. Tofiel to do so. Capstone has an implied easement to use that property; Planning and Enviranmentat Commission ~ Minutes k .August 26, I996~ ~ a 5 Greg Maffei asked if the document had been recorded? Phyllis said, no. Greg Moffet said then that was a legal issue between the parties and that the PEC could not recognize anything that was not recorded. Phyllis Mango said at the last meeting it was implied that we were trespassers. We were granted the licensed easement from Mr. Toffel. We spoke with him in Tucson. Those are our trees. You can't take away someone's license. I ask you to search your conscience. This is an issue of only 5', but it has a huge impact. I ask you to stand by your environmental titles. Greg Moffet asked for any other input. Steve•Gensler said we have tried to redesign the project to get as far away from the front setback as we could. As far as Capstone, we readjusted the buildings and only need to transplant one tree. We went aver the new drawings with the Vail Point owners. We wanted Buildings 7, 8 and 9 to slide into the setback. We are only taking away the highway view from the Lionsridge l_oap homeowners. The problem with the homeowners is the tot lot. They don't want it, but prefer to store snow there. The tot lot is sitting right next to a cliff. The only way to get a CO is to get signatures from the homeowners stating that they don't want the tat lot. They deserve to have COs. We would like to put snow next to Building # 7, staring it on our property down below instead of building more units there. We have tried to listen to comments Pram the PEC in our redesign. _ Galen Aasiand stated there was a hardship because of the steepness of the lot. With regard to • Units 1, 2 and 3; there is no hardship and therefore, no way to support a variance. I would like to see you address the trash issue and snow storage better. You can't put all the snow in the hammerhead. A suggestion far Unit #7 might be to take off the dining room . I feel sorry for the Capstone units. The Capstone owners have been given a gift for many years. It will cost Capstone same money to deal with this, since Mr. Gensler has a right to develop his property. I would tike to see as much landscaping maintained there as passible. Diane Golden would rather have the front variance and leave 7, 8 and 9 where they are. Phyllis, • with regard to Capstone, it is beautiful back there and lovely and I feel they will be able to keep everything, except same of the trees. I agree with Galen as it is the developer's right. John Schofield echoed the comments. Rocky Christopher knows enough about real estate to have recorded the document. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are ok. Gene Uselton asked the developer if he considered interchanging Units 1, 2 and 3, with ~ 1 and 12? Steve Gensler said 1, 2 and 3 don't bather anyone. I would Pike to use wider units for profit reasons, but if narrow units are the only way to get this approved, I will da narrow units. Gene Uselton asked if snow storage would be a problem down on Buffer Creek and how is garbage removed from each unit? . Steve Gensler said, yes, garbage will be ~emaved from each unit. Planning and Environmental Commission tih Minutes '4 August 26.1945 ' ~ ~ l s • Greg Amsden paralleled John 5chofield's comments regarding rearranging 1, 2 and 3. You must architecturally modify the product to keep it out of the setback, based on the developer's desire. Greg doesn't have a problem with 7, 8 and 9. Greg Moffet said specifically 10, $ and 8 reduce the total variance. Now you need to make the Unit i encroachment go away. Building # 7's encroachment is ok, because of the hardship. Regarding the landscaping in the back; if Phyllis thinks they have an easement, then they must go and find out. As it stands here, it's a straight case of private property. Mr. Gensler has a right to do what he wants. I get the feeling from the commission that Unit #1 has an encroachment that must go away. George Ruttier said the location of Buildings 2 and 3 becomes a DRB issue. The 3 trees that are proposed to be moved on the site plan, can be moved 5'. Is that plan acceptable, or would the PEC desire the trees to be moved somewhere else? Greg Mof#et asked for inch #or inch tree loss mitigation wflich is appropriate for the DRB to handle. Greg Amsden asked Phyllis if she might want the trees moved onto the Capstone site. Phyllis Mango said the purpose of the trees was to be a shield between the parcels and woufd just like them to survive the move. Steve Gensler said we woufd work with Capstone to move the trees. • Greg Moffet said the trees need to five, or be replaced. Diane Golden asked if the trees could be moved anywhere on the property or on Capstone's property? Greg Moffet said it's up to Steve where the trees go. Phyllis Mango wants a working solution and would like to have the trees higher upon the wa11 to benefit the new owners. Steve Gensler said since they are Capstone's trees, Capstone can move them wherever they want. He doesn't want to be responsible for the trees. Phyllis Mango asked about the bonding issue. Greg Moffet said we require a bond sufficient to have the trees live, or be replaced. We do transplant a lot of trees; it's not uncommon. Phyllis Mango said it negates that idea, if he's putting it in our laps. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval to grant a variance for Unit # 7 for only a 12' encroachment, because it meets the variance criteria . Before the applicant goes to the DRB, they need to submit a snow removal plan, bond far 3 evergreen trees for a period of two growing seasons, assure no stone wall, on Mr Gender's property, be at a height greater than 6'. : _ = Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • August 26,1996 3 M Gene Uselton seconded the motion, Galen Aasland amended the motion to add that the staff recommendation, on page 7 of the staff memo, be included in the motion. Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. • Greg Moffet stated so included and so moved and asked for any other input. Gene Uselton said that it was reasonable and equitable for the Capstone residents to have the opportunity to move the trees where they like as an alternative to the bond. Galen Aasland said the bond was required of Mr. Gensler, if he moved the trees. George Ruttier said if Capstone wants to move the trees at their own expense, Steve Gensler would grant them the right to came an to his property to do so. Staff would not enforce the bonding on the developer, if Capstone moved the trees onto their property. Galen Aasland asked if Mr. Gensler would be subject to the replacement of those trees on his property, if the trees were removed from his property? Greg Moffet said we are referring to the trees as Capstone's trees. INe are not making a judgement as to who owns those trees. John Schofie,fd said we would allow Capstone to move the trees at their awn expense. . Greg Moffet said that #hat was implied in the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Phyllis Mango asked who will move the trees? Mike Mollica said that Steve Gensler would determine that and present it to the DRB. 2. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at ~2 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vaif Village tst Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Rather George Rather gave an overview of the request and presented the two main issues; the view from the'roundabout and the compatibility of the addition with the architecture already existing on the Gateway Building. We have received an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Condo Association for Unft 5 to enclose the exterior deck. The Association has no abjection to this proposal. Greg Moffet said because it Es an SDD, there is not a cap on the GRFA. • 4 'r~.. i.; . Planning aid Enviranmental,Commission Minutes ~ August 26,1996._ 4 ~;R h M i West Vail Interchange Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Item ~ Item Cost Roadway $730,000 Retaining Walls $630,000 Bridge $1,090,000 Drainage & Utilities $440,000 Surveying, Design & Permits $400,000 . Construction Management & Testing $545,000 Landscaping $750,000 Construction Traffic Control $250,000 Mobilization & Contingencies $665,000 • Project Total $5,500,000 z 0 -k ~ w n A °1 z ~ o ~ ~ U N t~ Cd a\ rn ~ y ~ n ~ ~ ~ V1 ~ M • C~ ~ 8 • ~ ~ ~ ~ • O~ ti ~ Q ~p v > ~ ' z o ~ 3 ~ ~ p; 3 ° c c c U ~ O M ~ 'O N ~ ~ O ~ ~ [rl .p ~ y ~ N ~ COi Pr ~ ~ ~ F. O O O G ayi ~ u ~ j O CV v V C~ H Z r~ w~ iw Q ~ U o4 n'~. C? V U a r~ I S I I 1 r r I l 1 4 1 I 1 f 1 t I I I 1 I r I Q W U I ~ ~ U ~ z~ r om zw ~ ~ z i! i V i = ~ ~ ~ Q r ~ i ~ W r - ~ ~ m I I r r i I I I I r I I I I I I