The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 Vail Town council Minutes~. ~~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEu i ii~1G JANUARY 4, 1994 6:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 4, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk • The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second on the agenda was approval of the Minutes of the December 7,1993, and December 21,1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Minutes of the December 7, 1993, and December 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evenix-g Meetings, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance establishing the value per acre of land to be used in the formula to calculate the cash to be paid in lieu of school land dedication pursuant to 17.17.020 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Torn Moorhead explained this ordinance related to the provision within the Town of Vail Municipal Cade which required Council, with input from the Schaal Board, to set a valuation an property for the purpose of cash in lieu of dedication of Iand. The value stated in this ordinance, $50,000.00 per acre, was a result of information provided to the County and included a valuation of properties throughout the County. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1994, on first reading, with a second from Tone Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1994, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Plannuzg and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised TOV was required to pass a resolution each year designating a place for posting of public notices. Following brief comment, Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1994, with a second from Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was Resolution No. 2, Series of 1994, a resolution granting approval for the issuance of a permit to Vail Valley Consolidated Water District to proceed with installing two 12" water mains in the vicinity of Dowd Junction and I-70. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead noted the purpose of this resolution was consistent with discussion at the December 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting directing that any street cut made after December 15,1993, required a resolution of Council. He explained the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District was in the process of installing the two 12" water mains. Tom Steinberg recalled the ordinance to 'stop street cuts after December 15, 1993, was passed to prevent freezing of lines. He noted, in this case, there would be na connection to pre-existing lines, therefore there was no problem with passing this resolution. After comment from Larry Grafel regarding the timeline of the installation on this project and this project's relationship to installing the bridge over the Eagle River, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution Na. 2, Series of 1994, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin initiated brief discussion regarding affects of not a~.r,~oving this ordinance. He was advised the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District would then be trespassing and the project would be stopped. Merv asked if TOV was or should be trading for anything. Mayor Osterfoss noted the purpose of this project was ensure adequate water supply to areas west of Vail and so that water could return back through this pipe. Larry Grafel con#irmed that water could feed in either direction. He added Vail Associates, Inc. also used the pipe for their water allocation for snow-making. Mayor Osterfoss said there appeared to be substantial public benefit in allowing this to happen. Merv said he was not questioning public benefit, he was asking if TOV had purchased any of the right-of-way. He was advised it was TOV property, and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District was presently an Vail Town Council Evening 14Qoeting Minutes 119194 ~. TOV property without a permit, but they had come in and asked TOV to accommodate them to allow installation to continue. Merv asked if they should be participating in the purchase. Larry Grafel felt perhaps. TOV paid approximately $50,0{1Q.Qf1 for that piece of property. Larry Grafel indicated staff would have to come back and get an easement for them at which time TOV would talk with the District that will provide TOV with the conditions to get that easement. This resolution allowed the District permission to do their work until the easement was gotten. Merv felt there should be more participation in the purchase of that land from the District and VA. Larry Grafel said those easements were negotiable and he felt that could be worked through. Merv encouraged that. After further discussion about the timeline, Tom Moorhead advised the District was going to provide the information necessary to create the easement. They were going to give TOV the legal description necessary. Mayor Osterfoss asked if other Council members had an interest in pursuing discussion about a contribution from the District and/or VA in conjunction with this effort. Larry Grafel said this was outside the Town of Vail. The easement would go to the District, they were the only ones asking for that easement. VA would not be legally tied to the easement document since they had contracted with District to ~..,, vide this service. Mayor Osterfass said since several Council members were considering what tradeoffs there might be, this should be considered as a negotiating point. Larry Grafel was directed to give this issue further consideration and return to Council with recommendations. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item Na. 6 was a presentation and public input session concerning the Lindholm land exchange proposal. Bill Post, ail.,~~.ey and trustee for the Piney Valley Ranches Trust (Trust), represented Magnus Lindholm, the landowner. He advised the Trust was the proponent in this proposed exchange. He displayed several maps depicting two proposals for the proposed exchange areas. He stated that, at this point, the Trust had not formulated any definitive exchange proposal, that no proposal had been made to any local bodies for approval or disapproval, and no proposal had yet been made to any state or federal agency. He noted there had already been several public forums about the proposal, and the Trust realized there was a great deal of public interest. He said all input was being examined and the Trust had been consolidating changes to the proposal based an its review of public input. At this point, Mr. Post introduced Magnus Lindholm. Mr. Lindholm briefly explained the history of his purchase of his ranch. He advised he bought it to preserve it, to ranch on it, and to take care of the wildlzfe. He noted expanded care of the wildlife was one part of the proposed exchange. Mr. Post gave additional background information about present ranch operations, explained how the Trust had arrived at its present proposals, and discussed what the Trust was trying to achieve by way of the proposed exchange. He reviewed the ranch boundaries and noted there were parcels of property involved in the proposed exchange that were outside of Eagle County. Mr. Post discussed those particular properties and reviewed the displayed maps. Mr. Past emphasized Mr. Lindholm.'s combined interest in the wildlife and ranching. He advised approximately 7-1 /2 years ago, the Trust was approached by a professor from the Wildlife Department of Colorado State University (CSU), who suggested a wildlife ranching operation, and funding of a graduate student at CSU to develop an operational program for the ranch. Mr. Post noted the Trust did do that, and hoped the Trust's final operational plan would came from the student's work. Mr. Post explained the Trust was introduced to the Ranching for Wildlife program. if one qualified for this program with the Department of Wildlife, a minimum five-year operational agreement was required whereby the owner of the ranch and the public each received certain benefits. He discussed some of the specifics of the Ranching for Wildlife program including that involved properties had to be a certain size, contiguous, and able to be controlled. With those requirements in mind, he again reviewed the displayed maps explaining some of the rationale for the Trust's proposal. He continued in detail about the areas the Trust was trying to qualify for the Ranching for Wildlife program and two other parcels the Trust was interested in far a separate interest it had in buying to r..~~ent development. Mr. Post discussed how the Town of Avon was involved. He advised when the Trust became aware of the availability of the Nottingham Ranch there were other major developers bidding an it. The Trust looked at the Nottingham property and determined, it was a good economic opportunity. The Trust, seeing that r~..~erty would be developed by someone, felt it could develop the property in order to fund its ranch operations and not worry about funding sources in the future. Mr. Post again reviewed the maps to show land presently owned by the Trust and discussed the details of the proposed exchange, pointing out areas of public access and areas that would potentially go the Forest Service. He discussed concerns of the Department of Wildlife (DOW). He noted the Trust had been accused of trying to exchange land with no value, and after reviewing that public sentiment, the Trust developed a second proposal which he described and showed on one of the displayed maps. One of the things the Trust was initially trying to do was to put a buffer area between Vail and Avon because one of the Trust's considerations at this time was its intent to try to annex that property into the Town of Avon. However, he said the Trust was totally prepared to have the Trust work with the land it presently owned. The Trust was perfectly happy to do that. The 2, Val Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes 114!94 Trust was not iarl a situation where it needed this proposed exchange before it moved ahead with its plans. He said the Trust originally thought it was making a sensible proposal, but, at this point, now that it had various proposals, it was uncertain what people thought was the best. Mr. Past noted, in an exchange, whether legislative or administrative, people had to be convinced what was happening on the grand scale was for the public benefit. Tom Glass, a consultant retained by the Trust, discussed the workings of legislative exchanges. He said these exchanges were based on appraisal. The United States Forest Service (USES} would have the primary responsibility for performing the appraisals in this proposed exchange. He stated the primary reason for going to Can~~~~s in this case was because there were two agencies involved, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM} and the USES. He said in a legislative exchange, Congress determined what was in the public interest. He added he did not expect to see Congress act on any proposal that did not have widespread support. Although none of the land under discussion was in Vail, he said he could not imagine this proposed exchange happening if the Towns of Avon and Vail and Eagle County actively .,rr.,sed the exchange, and, in fact, he said the Trust would not even attempt the proposed exchange under those circumstances. Mr. Glass then thoroughly detailed the parcels being offered for exchange, including 17,162 acres in Costilla County, 371 acres at Sweetwater Lakes Resort in Garfield County. and 823 acres along the top of Davos Trail. He said the Trust had also made a clear commitment to Forest Service about improved access to the wilderness area. He dispelled what he said was misleading information recently broadcast on television. He said Muddy Pass Road would not be closed because of the exchange, access to public lands would not be blocked to any significant degree because o€ the exchange, wilderness area would not be blocked by the exchange but rather improved :in the Vail Valley area and substantially at Flagstone Park and the Flat Tops area, and access to Red and White Mountain would not be impaired by the exchange, it would be improved. At this point, Mr. Glass opened the discussion to comments or questions and noted his primary hope was to receive guidance, particularly with regard to the Nottingham parcel. Mr. Glass indicated tonight's meeting was part of an information gathering process for the Trust. The Trust had previously met with the Avon Town Council and the Eagle County Board of Commissioners. He said what the Trust was seeking now was an indication I~.,~~~ Vail as to how it felt about this proposed exchange. He felt Vail's interest might be focused on the Nottingham parcel because it bordered Trappers Run, a site Vail was currently obtaining an appraisal on for possible purchase to stop development there. Torn Steinberg asked i# lights and housing on the eastern most land of the Trust's proposal which incorporated the deer migration route would be visible in West Vail when the area was developed. Mr. Post advised the current situation was visible from the mountain and West Vail. Merv Lapin asked if there was any land wntiguous with the Town of Vail on any of the proposals. Mr. Post said not to his knowledge. The area between the Town of Vail and the Trust's parcel was currently owned by the USES. Merv, referred to a previous comment regarding no planned devel~r~.~ent by the Trust on the land at Piney Valley, and asked how the Trust planned on guaranteeing that. Mr. Past noted the Trust had been asked whether it was prepared to place conservation easements on USFS land it might obtain. He felt it was doubtful that would work He said conservation easements were a great tax shelter, but the Trust did not presently have the income to benefit from them. Mr. Post said the Trust already had enough losses to write off and it was not worried at this time about their income situation. He added the Trust would be happy to consider conservation easements in the future if it came into a situation where it might be a benefit to the Trust. Therefore, the Trust, in fact, had no method of guaranteeing that the land would not be developed. Mr. Post pointed out if the Trust wanted to develop, it had enough property to flood the entire market in Bogle County with develu~,~.~ent. He said the developable areas were already owned by the Trust. He said it was not the Trust's intent to develop that axes. Tom Steinberg had no problem with the Trust's intent now, but was concerned about the future. He suggested if the Trust did get that land, it immediately deed restrict it or set up a land trust so it did stay the way it was now. He pleaded to Mr. Lindholm to preserve the land because it could not be predicted what would happen to it in the future. Mr. Past described the predicament of a ranch near Steamboat Springs where what Tom Steinberg had suggested had been done and now there was devel.,y~s~ent all around that ranch and the owner was unable to do anything with the r,~.,~erty. Mayor Osterfoss questioned how much of the land around the proposed exchange was USES land and how much of it was privately owned by someone other than Mr. Lindholm. Mr. Post, using the displayed maps, pointed out the privately owned areas. Mayor Osterfoss clarified that with the exception of the Olson's land, the Steamboat scenario would not be likely to be duplicated around this parcel because it was already federally owned. Merv felt when the Trust was trading for land in Costilla County or land in Eagle County, the Trust was increasing the developable land in Eagle County. He saw that as the same basic problem that was part of the Tennenbaum trade and z..Y.Gssed concern about the precedent these kinds of trades .,rG~, up. Merv did not question that the Costilla land may have great value to tourism or the environment, however, he felt there could be a problem locally due to the limited capabilities to carry the number of people already in the Valley. Without the Trust's 3 Vail Town Counc~7 Evening Meeting Minutes 1!4!94 ability to guarantee the land would never be developed, Merv found it difficult to approve of a trade which increased the potential developable land locally. He felt the proposed exchange would have a tremendous effect on the quality of life in the Valley. Mr. Post felt if people could not look an a larger scale than one`s awn jurisdiction, he could not convince people locally this was a good project. Mr. Post stated the Trust understood Council's concern about the future but hoped Council would look at the larger picture. Jim Shearer said he understood Avon was interested in annexing this. Mr. Post confirmed that. Jim asked if that was something appealing to Mr. Lindholm. Mr. Post confirmed that. Mr. Post said the Trust's plan was to decide which part of the property was best to develop, then take it into the Town of Avon for annexation all at once. Jim said, in essence, then Vail and Avon would be almost merged. Mr. Post confirmed that. Mayor Osterfoss clarified that would be the scenario under the present proposal. Mr. Post said the extent of the Trust's development plans to date was that it had pictures taken and was having topographical maps made. He noted the Trust owned the old parts of Nottingham Ranch, and said the Trust did not even know what it was going to do with that. His initial thoughts were that it was hard for him to think of commercial devel„Y~~~ent on those slopes, sa he would think that devel~t,~,~ent would be residential, but he could not answer because he said the Trust had never even had a discussion about the particulars of the devel.,N,~~ent. He stated there was no plan at all at the moment. There was discussion about access to the area including that Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) was moving ahead to put an and off ramps atEagle- Vail. Jim Shearer asked, if at Borne paint, via the Davos Trail hiking/biking path access might be linked into the Town of Vail. Mr. Post said if the Trust thought it could get that, it probably would make a great deal of sense. It would make the property much more accessible and be an advantage to the people who lived there, but, because it would have to cross USFS land, it would also have to go somewhere close to Trapper's Run, so the Trust had not considered that as a viable alternative. Mayor Osterfoss called for public input.* Dick Dixon asked if the Town of Avon was for annexation. Mr. Post said the Trust had spoken to the Town of Avan about their interest in annexation, however the Tawn of Avon had not expressed an opinion one way or another. Mr. Dixon said he saw three problems the ranch had: trespassing in the Piney area, irregular boundaries, and the ranch not making any money with its ranching program. He felt the trespassing was the Trust's problem, the irregular boundaries were something every ranch in the state had to deal with, and financial problems were also the Trust's problem and open space should not have to be sacrificed to finance that. He was adamantly opposed to the trade. Tom Olden, pointing to the extreme value of land in the Vail Valley, suggested the Trust examine other alternatives. He felt fewer people in today's society held hunting as strongly as at one time. He felt the people in the Valley were changing and improved access for everyone needed to be provided. Chuck McGuire inquired about contiguous lands already in place. Mr. Post said the Trust owned 5-6,(}00 acres of land that was contiguous and he discussed contiguous lands in relation to the Ranching for Wildlife Program. Mr. McGuire expressed concern about loss of fishing and hunting access to the general public. Bob Armour asked who determined the number of hunting licenses issued. Mr. Post advised the DOW did. Mr. Armour also asked about the cost to hunters who wanted to go into that area and use it if the Trust acquired the land. Mr. Post said a minirnurn of ~k0% of the licenses had to go to the public and the public could not be charged anything. There was brief discussion as to how the exchange would improve access to Red and White Mountain. Mr. Armour further said he felt it hard to believe the Trust did not know the development potential of the Nottingham Ranch. Mr. Past said the Trust had never denied for a moment it wanted to develop it, and he said it would be insulting to Council and the public if he said the Trust did not want to make money when they developed it, and he assumed the Trust would maximize whatever the potential was on that property. Celina Ward asked how the proposed annexation was of benefit to the general non-hunting public. She saw this as a total loss of mountainous area. The peace of mind knowing the land was out there was important to her. She felt the more these exchanges occurred, the more popular they became, and the net lass was to the public. She also inquired about fences being put up and how the wildlife would benefit from that. Mr. Past said, other than hunters, he had never seen anyone out there except in the fall. He said no one went into the area referred to by Ms. 'Ward. He discussed types of fences they could use that would be safe and uninhibiting to wildlife. The fences would be more as a deterrent to trespassexs. Mr. Past mentioned oil and gas drilling by the USFS in the area and reviewed a document called "Existing and Pending-Oil and Gas Locations." He said the Trust would not like to see oil and gas operations there. Kirk Mecklenbourg was curious about the whole proposed land exchange. He wanted to know who Mr. Lindholm was as a possible wildlife manager and developer of housing. Mr. Mecklenbourg stated he had no problem with Vail and Avon merging. He understood the funds generated from the devel~,~,l~.ent proposal would enable the Trust to better manage the property. He wanted to contribute whatever he could to the wildlife management and help generate more than two or three proposals for the proposed land exchange. Jim Chaplain questioned Mr. Lindholrn's motive to become a wildlife manager and a developer. He questioned Mr. Lindholm's true interest in the wildlife. Long time local, Pete Burnett expressed concern about the e~.1G~~t of development happening and Trust companies buying up the whole Valley. Mr. Post was asked how many people were in the Trust. He said, because it was a family Trust, he preferred not to answer that question. or to discuss how the Trust was set up. Mr. Post confirmed that Mr. Lindholm was not a United States citizen. Dave Eider, a licensed outfitter in Colorado, noted he was familiar with the land under 4 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 114794 discussion. He advised that Mr. Post had contacted him early in the year to inform him of what was going an in that area because Mr. Post was aware Mr. Eider had a USFS permit in that area. Mr. Eider said he worked an agreement with Mr. Past, far this year only, to keep an eye on the properties for Mr. Past in exchange for the right to travel through. Mr. Eider said there was a legal access off the Rock Creek Trail that went around the property. Mr. Eider felt for what the Trust wanted to da as far as improvements #or wildlife, the Trust had an excellent idea, and from that standpoint he wanted to see this go through. Bill Andre, DOW, addressed questions regarding the Ranching for Wildlife program. He explained it was a system established by the DOW to convince ranchers of the value of the wildlife. The DOW set up the program to allow ranchers to gain economic value from the wildlife. He said he had spoken to the former ranch manager, Rocky Mosier, about Ranching for Wildlife and trying to get more public hunting on the property because there was a problem managing elk herds hiding on private property. He said the DOW had the same concern with the Avon piece, whether it was ever developed or not, the elk find the private property and ga hide there. The DOW needed some way to be able to harvest the elk. Mr. Andre advised there was a document available detailing guidelines of the Ranching #or Wildlife program. Merv Lapin asked for further information about the legislative versus administrative exchange processes. Mr. Andre advised he had never been involved with a legislative exchange, but had been involved with several administrative exchanges. He said he felt more comfortable with administrative exchanges because dealings were local, and if there was a problem it could be discussed with the local ranger. There was discussion about what the input of the local DOW, local BLM, and local USFS was under a legislative exchange. Mr. Andre advised he had not, at this time, received information defining how or when their input would come or at what value it would have. He said, in an administrative exchange, the DOW would be contacted and asked for their comments, concerns, and recommendations. Mr. Glass added in an administrative exchange the process was more clearly defined than in a legislative exchange. He said what the Trust was doing with the BLM, the USFS, and the DOW at this time was supplying input as the Trust was formulating a proposal. But, the Trust did not have a proposal yet. He added the Trust was hoping to get input from the Town of Vail, particularly about the Nottingham piece. During the formal process in Congress, the USFS and the BLM were always asked to testify, state government and agencies were frequently asked to testify, and the hearing was very similar to a hearing on a Town ordinance. Merv pointed out the Trust mentioned one of the major reasons it was going through the legislative approach was because there were two different agencies involved, the BLM and USFS. However, Merv recalled the Trust saying it had been done before. He asked why the Trust chose the legislative approach versus the adznixustrativeopproach above and beyond that reason. Mr. Glass said the Trust owned the land in Costilla County and the gov«...~~ent wanted it. He advised he may have misstated facts if he had said the Trust had done exchanges of this magnitude between the two agencies an an administrative basis. He said they had done small exchanges entirely within single counties, but did not think their proposal could be accomplished here on an administrative basis. Tom Steinberg asked Mr. Andre about his concerns about the Avon land exchange with regard to the deer migration route. Tom Steinberg asked Mr. Andre if that problem was solved. Mr. Andre said same of his supervisors and the Trust had met, and the answer given to the Trust was their newest pxopasal was better than the original far deer migration. He reviewed the displayed maps showing the differences in the original proposal and the present proposal. He discussed winter range for deer and elk and stated the Nottingham Ranch was important for that. He acknowledged the potential that Nottingham Ranch would be developed, and said it mold only be hoped that, when the time came, whoever was in control of that, would give ample consideration to development adjustments related to wildlife needs. Mr. Andre felt there were issues other than this proposed exchange that would affect them. There were more questions from the public about the specifics of the Ranching for Wildlife program. Mr. Andre advised when the program was signed up for, it was a minimal five year commitment, and it was up to the landowner and the DOW to make any renewal decisions. If a landowner decided to drop out of Ranching for Wildlife, there would be no guarantee of public access other than what the landowner decided. Mr. Andre advised the DOW had consistently tried to get this program on that ranch in the past, na matter who the owner was. Further public input included comments from John Mills who expressed apposition to the proposal in a long range planning process and he felt the land would be developed. Kent Rose stated this was a grand opportunity to make a big mistake. He said if it was elected to support this land exchange, that decision was forever. He was not in support of a land exchange of this magnitude. Bill Burnett questioned how this proposed exchange fit into the Eagle County Master Plan and suggested the Trust get involved with helping develop the various area Master Plans. Mr. Post stated the Trust had never considered it was part of a Master Plan. Don Hagen felt this issue was being dealt with as if there was a problem, but felt any decision made should be one that could be changed in the future if necessary. He said once this land was given up, it would be lost forever. He felt the lack of impassioned arguments in favor of keeping this public land represented a very grievous state. Mr. Past responded with additional detail about how the Trust felt the public would be better served if the public was involved with Mr. Lindholm and his ranches and the Ranching for Wildlife program. Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1!4!94 ~ ' Allen Best asked Mr. Andre about the idea of a trade for the land above Eagle-Vail between Avon and Vail for the Piney Valley. He asked Mr. Andre what the benefits from the wildlife perspective were. Mr. Andre said the primary benefit would be to the eco-system. After public input, Mayor Osterfoss said this meeting represented an opportunity for public input r rather than a decision point from the Vail Town Council. Mr. Post confirmed the Trust was interested in receiving a position from the Vail Town Council, including no position. He said he appreciated the public input, which would be examined with other public input to help the Trust decide whether to go ahead, haw to go ahead, and if there were other modifications to the proposal which could be made. He hoped within the next thirty to sixty days the Trus# could return to Vail Town Council, Avon Town Council, and the County Commissioners. Again, he said the Trust would particularly like to hear feelings an the Avon property, both from Avan and from Vail because when the Trust proceeded it was important to it to know what people would like to see before they did get involved in a devel..Y~.,ent stage. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the Trust had given consideration to annexing the Nottingham parcel, particularly the portion that would be visible and contiguous with the Town of Vail, into the Town of Vail. Mr. Post stated the Trust had made no final d~~~~A~~ination of where it should annex this property or if it should be annexed, but their initial approach had been with the Tawn of Avon. Mayor Osterfoss suggested annexation into the Tawn a€ Vail might be something the Trust would review to see if that was a realistic possibility. Mr. Post said they would certainly look at that possibility. Sybil! Navas inquired if the Avan land rearrangement could be handled as a separate negotiation from Vail. She felt it would be a benefit to everybody if the Trust carne back when they actually had a plan of how it thought the land might be developed, and then discuss the layout of the parcel with Avon, Vail, and the County. She felt people were reluctant to give up open space and the forest where there was access to the hunting. Mayor Osterfoss felt the public was troubled by the thought of losing public land in this area and gaining public land 204 miles south of here. She felt Sybill's idea would address that and asked B there was a way this proposed exchange could provide benefit strictly to this area. Mr. Post indicated the Trust needed to review all new input to develop a plan to come back to the various entities involved entities. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C,~~. ~~ Marg et A. Osterfoss, Mayor (f ATTEST: ~~~~ h~t_ Holly L. McCutcheon, Tawn Clerk Minutes taken by ~orianne S. veto ('Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.} C:WIiNSJAN4.94 fj Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutee 1!4!94 • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 18, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 18,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to ordex at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfass, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pra-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Tawn Manager Holly McCu#cheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: A. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance establishing the value per acre of land to be used in the formula to calculate the cash to be paid 9n lieu of school land dedication pursuant to section 17.17A20 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. • • Tom Steinberg read the title in full. Paul Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda item A, with a second from Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.69.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for development of land in the I-Iillside Residential Zone District and providing details in regard thereto. Tom Steinberg read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen explained the objective of this ordinance is to include the Hillside Residential Zone District in a section of the Town of Vail's hazard regulations, which discourages winding driveways on sites where the slope exceeds 30%. Andy stated in addition to staff recommending approval, the PEC had also reviewed this ordinance and gave their approval. Paul Johnston moved to aNr~ove Ordinance No. 2, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning one lot from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.1b, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane. Tarn Steinberg read the title in full. Andy ICnudtsen pointed out the location of the site on the Site Plan and went over various issues pertaining to the proposed rezoning. The Schmetzkas are requesting rezoning on this property in order to construct nine townhomes, two of which would be Restricted Type III Employee Housing Units. The Town's hazard maps identify the site as being affected by rockfall and debris flow and the PEC recommended the applicant design a mitigation catch basin, which was pointed out an the site plan and discussed at length. Three conditions of the PEC approval were 1) that a drainage study be provided, 2) that the plat, deed restrictions, and final site plan be recorded with the county and be paid for by applicant, and 3) that additional landscaping be provided as required by the DRB. The deed restrictions and plat must be signed prior to second reading and the drainage plan must be finished prior to appearing before the DRB. Andy reviewed the concerns of two PEC members who voted against the rezoning. Most of the discussion centered around the catch basin, the requirement that the catch basin be cleaned out every year (as outlined in Section 6 of the Deed Restriction}, the potential liability the Town could be faced with should the responsible party not perform as agreed, and the potential cost of such catch basin clean out, should a slide occur. Larry Grafel suggested this clean up would most probably be very cosily, and figures as high as $60,000 were mentioned. Tom Moorhead presented suggestions which could reduce the liability of the Town, including the recommendation that a bond be posted and renewed annually should the funds become exhausted [by the developer] in order to guarantee clean up. Further details regarding funding for the hazard mitigation clean up were discussed. Vai] Town Counc>1 Evening Meeting Minutes 1!1&'9 Rick Rosen, legal counsel to the Schmetalcos, expressed his opposition to the posting of such a bond, indicating that it would be cost prohibitive to his clients. He informed the council that he would strongly urge his clients against doing so and requested the item be tabled. Mr. Rosen suggested alternative solutions such as working with the Forest Service and the BLM to prevent the debris from reaching the site. Mr. Rosen indicated that he was not prepared to discuss such issues without,first consulting his clients. Paul Johnston moved to table Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1994, on first reading, until such time as Mr. Rosen was able to more fully discuss the issue with his clients. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Brief discussion continued, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-d. Item No. 5, which was listed on the agenda as a report from the Town Manager, was presented in an earlier work session and, therefore, was nat discussed. Pam Brandmeyer distributed a preliminary survey she received from Mike Rase which summarized the Village and Lionshead parking lot usage since the implementation of the free parking program, (11-24-93 through 12-31-93). In reviewing the survey, total projected losses on both structures through April 17, 1994, could be as high as $120,{a0Q.Q0. Larry Grafel explained that initially, losses were expected to be only half that. Council concluded that because sales tax figures were not yet back for the 4th quarter of 1993, it would be impossible to assess at this time whether the free parking program was of any benefit. This issue will be revisited at a later date. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Jim Shearer, seconded by Paul Johnston, and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 P.M. ~_ Respectfully submitted, Thomas Steinberg, Acting Mayor ATTEST: Holly L.- Nlc~utcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Nolly L. McCutcheon t C:IMIN,lAN18.94 'Z Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1!18194 r~ r MINUTES {revised 03-01-94) VA1L TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 1, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, February 1, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Tawn Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Michael Stoughton was present on behalf ~' of the Board of Directors of the Vail Restaurant Association. Mr. Stoughton expressed the Association's support for the expanded evening parking program in the Lionshead and Village Parking Structures. He requested an update from Council concerning the future of the program. Mayor Osterfoss indicated Council planned to continue the program until the end of the season, at which time an evaluation would be done. Tom Steinberg expressed the cost to the TOV would be a consideration in determining whether to continue the program. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: i} Approval of the minutes of the January 4, T994, and January 1S, 1994, Vail Town Council evening meetings, and ii} Ordinance No. 2, series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 1S.b9.050 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for development of land in the Hillside Residential Zone District and providing details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Before a vote was taken, there was a brief update from Andy Knudtsen, informing Merv of the details of Ordinance No. 2, as Merv was absent during first reading. Paul Johnston requested that Item No. 4, Resolution No. 3, Series of T994, a resolution authorizing employees of the TOV to purchase, sell resell, to or from Merrill Lynch; and setting forth details in regard thereto, and Item No. 5, Resolution No. 4, Series of 1994, a resolution authorizing employees of the TOV to purchase, sell, resell, to or from United Daniels Securities; and setting forth details in regard thereto, be added to the Consent Agenda. The motion was amended to include Resolution No. 3 and Resolution Na. 4, Series of 1994 on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 15.32 to Low Denisty Multi-Family, Section 1S.1b located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. (Nate: This was formerly Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993.) Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Staff recommended this ordinance be tabled indefinitely rather than denied, due to the fact a tremendous amount of work had been done by the Housing Authority. Mayor Osterfoss reiterated that request and suggested the item could be revisited in the future, possibly by another Council. Paul Johnston recalled previous discussion regarding rezoning the site for daycare at some future time. Jim Shearer commended the Housing Authority, expressing his appreciation for the extensive and thorough studies that had been done and the sites the Authority has come up with. He felt the Council needed to move forward with one of the sites. Merv Lapin made a motion to deny Ordinance No. 4, series of 1994, with a second from Tom Steinberg. Further discussion included comment from Paul Johnston expressing his opposition to denying the ordinance and Kristan Pritz stressed the substantial amount of work that had gone into the project by the Housing Authority, asking again that Council consider tabling the item. Discussion continued and Jim Morter expressed the employee housing issue should move forward, thereby supporting the TOV's commitment to employee housing in the Valley. Mr. Morter felt there would be problems with any proposed site. Mayor Osterfoss agreed, suggesting Council was responsible for delaying this issue. Jan Strauch expressed his opposition to the proposed site being used for possible housing. Merv Lapin called the question. A vote was taken and passed, 43, thereby defeating Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1994, with Peggy Osterfoss, Paul Johnston and Jim Shearer opposed. Vail Town Council Evening MeetingMinutee D2~O1J94 ~, A Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1994, a resolution approving and adopting the 1994 Town of Vail Public Works/Transportation Master Plan. Larry Grafel summarized the five-phase plan to expand and renovate the public works and transportation facility. $1.2 million was budgeted far the project in 1994, with additional monies rolled forward from previously unexpended budget years. 1~ederal funding was also mentioned as a possible source for supplementary financing. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 1994, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Ikem No. 7, the Town Manager's Report had been discussed earlier during work session. Proclamation No. 1, Series of 1994, which did not appear on the agenda, was read in full by Mayor Osterfoss, declaring February 4 - 11, 1994, Commuter Rail Week in Vail, Colorado. A motion was made by Paul Johnston, with a second by Tom Steinberg, and passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, a mation to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~-~' Marg et A. Osterfoss, Mayor J) ATTEST: (/ .aueoaf~~}-~~o~x Holly L. ~;4c~utcheon, Town Clerk N3inutes taken by Hally L. McCutcheon • 2 Vail Town Cwncil Bening Meet'sng Minutes 02(0194 MINUTES (revised 03-01-94} VAiL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 1994 x':30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, February 15,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer (arrived at 7:50 P.M.} Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 2 was the selection of Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board members. The PEC had four positions open. The DRB had two positions open. This item was continued until Jim Shearer arrived, at which time a vote was taken. Merv Lapin moved to appoint to the PEC Greg Amsden, Robert Armour, Jeff Bowen and Dalton Williams. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Merv Lapin moved to appoint Hanz Wnldrich and Bob Borne to the DRB. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1994. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Grafel explained the purpose of this Resolution was to accept a federal grant for replacement of the Pulls Bridge, which was located near the golf course. Merv Lapin questioned if the Vail Recreation District was participating in the funding of such renovation, and it was determined they were not. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 1994, with a second from Jan Strauch. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Further discussion proceeded with Mayor Osterfoss asking when the project would be completed. Larry offered amid-April date, explaining it could take some time to get the contract and construction documents together, along with federal and state review. Public Works will coordinate construction dates with the Vail Recreation District. Item No. 4 was the Town Manager's Report which included information about the TOV's intention of hosting a '94 Planning Conference, as well as updates on the Vail Commons project and the progress of training TOV employees in the Total Quality Management program. (See attached memorandum.} Jan Strauch requested further review regarding the Pulls Bridge renovation and inquired about the possibility of completing the proposed work during the winter months sa as not to interfere with. the golf season. Bob McLaurin explained work done during winter months could increase costs by 10 - 15%. Larry Grafel indicated the earliest commencement date would be sometime in April and final completion should be no later than July 4th. Larry also explained the renovation was being done in order to double the width of the bridge and reduce the elevation. Merv Lapin suggested the Vail Recreation District consider enhancing/beautifying the bridge by possibly using decorative guardrails, etc. Other proposed bridge renovation projects included the Chapel Bridge and the Covered Bridge. Timeframes an those projects had not yet been scheduled. Mayor Osterfoss suggested involving local merchants in the Covered Bridge project. Merv encouraged Suzanne Silverthorn and Bob McLaurin to begin informing the public about the proposed projects. Brief discussion regarding the Eagle County School District Lease followed. Tom Moorhead stated that this issue would be discussed more fully at the work session on Tuesday, February 22, 1994. Council returned to review of the 2nd working draft of the Town of Vail, Colorado, Statement of Goals and Objectives - 1994, which had begun earlier during work session. Merv requested real estate boxes which have been appearing in town be removed immediately. Jan Strauch suggested the Youth Awards Program be reorganized to take place on a date which Vail Town Council Evening McetingMinutee 0211/94 coincided with graduation. Paul Johnston suggested a date closer to college registration so the award could be used to benefit the student during the college application process. An early May to late April date was recommended. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margare~A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. Mceutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken i}yi-Holly L. McCutcheon Vell Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 02/1b~94 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council We have tentatively agreed to host the 1994 Planning Conference of the Colorado Planning Association. This conference will be held in September and we expect approximately 200 delegates. The Community Development Department will coordinate the conference. The actual work to put on and host the conference will be distributed amongst the town departments. Additionally, the planning departments of Eagle County and Avon will also participate in this conference. It is my understanding that this is a very beneficial conference. Once the schedule has been set, the Counci[ will receive invitations. Vail Improvement Process. As of Friday, February 11, 94 regular full time Town of Vail employees will have gone through the Fundamentals. Training for the Vail Improvement Process. Departmental Improvement Process {DIP) workshops will have been completed by the following departments: Municipal Court (4 employees); Community Development (15 employees); Finance {8 employees); Library (10 employees); and Fire Department {17 employees). The Police Department has also begun training in Fundamentals and DIP Workshops with 22 employees so far participating. The next Fundamentals and DIP Workshops are scheduled for the weeks of March 21 st and 28th, and Council Members are still encouraged to attend and participate in these sessions. initial comments from the training sessions have been very positive and the department intensive training has been viewed as extremely beneficial. Selection of Tawn Council Representatives for the Vail Commons Task Force. We are in the process of assembling a team to prepare a Request for Proposal for Planning and Design Services for the Vail Commons Project. The task force will consist of eight members, one from Public Works, one from the PEC, Mike Mollica, Andy Knudtsen and Jen Wright, representing the Housing Authority. 1 will also serve on this task force. As we discussed previously, we are asking that iwo members of the Town Council be designated to serve an this task force. The role of the task force is to help prepare the Request for Proposal. Once the proposals have been received, they wilt also review the proposals and select the consultant to design the project. 4 Once the proposal has been completed, we wil[ forward it to the Town Councii for your review so that all the Council members will be up to speed and comfortable with the RFP. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, which will be discussed under "Other'" at the work session on the 15th, ~. f~ M • ~~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 1, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Tawn Council was held on Tuesday, March 1, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Tawn Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk First itertt on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 2 was the approval of the Minutes of the February 1, 1994, and February 15, 1994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Paul Johnston requested clarification of the minutes of the February 15, 1994, meeting concerning the reason and start date for the replacement of the Pulls Bridge. Holly McCutcheon was asked to verify the information with Larry Grafel. Tom Steinberg moved to approve both sets of minutes, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. b, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance amending the Investment Policy set forth in Chapter 3.52 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Chris Anderson explained this ordinance would accommodate changes in staff and personnel titles, in addition to allowing the use of an independent investment manager for some the Town's long term funding. Merv suggested designating a Town of Vail staff person to oversee the portfolio management. Steve Thompson explained the details of the ordinance more thoroughly and went on to review the procedure followed when TOV funds are invested. Merv requested the ordinance incorporate more specific details. Bab McLaurin proposed investment management firms be reviewed by Council prior to entering into agreements. Mayor Osterfoss recommended Ordinance b, Series of 1994, be reworded prior to second reading, incorporating suggestions as stated by Council members. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994, on first reading with suggested changes. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1994, a resolution approving and adopting the 1994 Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Russ Forest summarized the Plan, explaining changes that lead been incorporated since the Last review of the Plan. Russ stated the next step would be to hire a land negotiator to begin implementation of the Plan, and Request For Proposals would be issued upon adoption of the Plan. Russ stated that the Planning and Environmental Commission enthusiastically approved the Plan on February 14,1994, and requested approval from Council. Merv noticed an error on the large map where a portion of the line that had depicted the streamwalk had not been completely erased between the Covered fridge and the Stream Walk. Russ agreed it was an error that should have been deleted. Discussion continued regarding Vail Recreation District's proposed Par 3 Golf Course. Evie Nott informed Council the Alpine Gardens and the Nature Center wanted to see this parcel protected and made a part of the Open Lands Plan. Mayor Osterfoss explained if the VRD did not receive a favorable vote of the people by December 1,1994, and receive a Section 404 permit by December 1, 1995, it would be recommended the property remain as open space. Kristan Pritz suggested removing the Par 3 parcel from the Open Lands Plan, as she felt it could be dealt with as a separate issue. Jim Lamont commented an various portions of the Plan. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. b with a change an Page 18 of the PIan under the heading "Tract A, Vail Village 13th Filine~" to reflect that the election be conducted pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, that a favorable vote be received by December 1,1994, and conditional upon receiving a Section 404 permit and funding approval by December 1, 1995. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, there was further discussion regarding the proposed Plan and whether it could be changed or modified at any time in the future. Russ explained the Plan was to be used as a flexible guideline. Kristan stated the Plan was provided as a framework. Jim Lamont reiterated his concerns. Ms. Nott and Mr. Lamont expressed their appreciation and thanked staff and Council for the work that had been done so far on the Plan. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Vail Town Council Eventing MeetingMinutea 03JQ1/94 e ~. Item Na. 5 was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin briefly explained the reorganization of the Administrative Services Division, stating that the Administrative Services Director position had been eliminated, that the new position of Assistant Town Manager had been created and filled by Pam Brandmeyer, and that Bob Mach would be implementing the safety program in addition to certain personnel duties. Bob McLaurin explained there was a copy of the Police Department Budget attached to the Town Manager's Report and stated he would be out of town through Thursday, March 10, 1994, attending a training session for the Town of Vail Pension Board. Merv Lapin suggested the Pension Board take a more conservative investing approach. Bob McLaurin, Steve Thompson, and Tom Moorhead discussed the issue more thoroughly. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, a4 Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L, McCutche6n • `~ Vail Town Council Cvening Meeting Minutes 63/01194 .~ r- MINUTES VAiL TOWN COUNCii_ MEETING MARCH 1S, 1994 7:30 P. M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 1S, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Peggy Osterloss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas (arrived at 7:37 p.m.) Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob Mcl_aurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk • First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. {#em Nn. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance amending the Investment Policy set forth in Chapter 3.52 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Paul Johnston moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, b-0, Sybill Navas not yet in attendance. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 32, Cornice Building; adopting a development plan far Special Development District Na. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Cade, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Curnutte introduced property owner and applicant David Smith and explained that a site visit had been conducted earlier during Work Session. Jim went on to explain the details of the requested teardown and rebuild of the building, as outlined in the memo provided by the Community Development Department to the Town Council dated March iS, 1994, and informed Council the Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") had recommended approval of the request. Of major concern was the relocation of three restricted employee housing units, on site parking, and difficult vehicle ingress and egress. Tom Moorhead read the requirements of the employee housing section of the Town Code, as requested by Mayor Osterfoss. Discussion continued at length, with comment from Jim Lamont referencing letters to Council opposing the request, as well as comment from Tom Braun, planner for the applicant. After discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 7 with conditions as follows: (i) that three employee housing units located within the town limits, on the bus route, and wi#h reasonable rental rates be presented and approved by Council, and be permanently deed restricted. Two of the uni#s must be deed restricted and available for occupancy before the issuance of a demo/building permit for the Cornice Building redevelopment, and the third unit must be deed restricted and available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Cornice Building; {ii) that GRFA of the Cornice Building not exceed 2,000 square feet (no "2S0" allowed in the future}; {iii) that an enclosed garage not exceeding 600 square feet and able to house two vehicles be incorporated into the project by the applicant; (iv) that the height of the structure not exceed 33 feet; (v) that the applicant provide landscaping as proposed; (vi} that all staff &PEC recommendations as detailed in the March 1S, 1994, Memorandum be met; and (vii) that there be a clear delineation between the stream walk and the applicant's property line. Jan Strauch seconded the motion, A vo#e was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Jim Shearer and Tom Steinberg opposed. Item No. ~ was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1994, a resolution designating Dana Investments Advisors, Inc., as a money manager for the funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Paul Johnston moved to table Resolution Na. 8 to the April S, 1994, Evening Meeting, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, Veil Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 03)ISl94 r„ .. r ' 7-0. Item No. 5 was a Vail Town Council appeal of a major CCI exterior alteration, to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building (227) Bridge Street, Lots C and D, and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing. Mike Monica reviewed the memorandum dated March 14, 1994, from the Community Development Department to the PEC, explaining in detail the proposed project as requested by Applicants, Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners, and informed Council of PEC`s recommendation for approval with the six conditions as listed in staff's memo. Mike further stated two conditions were added by the PEC. The first condition was that no vehicular access down Bridge Street would be allowed for service and delivery or trash pick up. The second condition stated that if a restaurant were added to the building, a trash removal program must come back for PEC approval. Sid Schultz, architect for the project, entertained questions. Ross Bowker and Peter Dan of East West Partners explained construe#ion activity and timelines for the proposed project, stating construction was expected to begin in April, with a completion by Thanksgiving. Landscaping issues and concerns were discussed. Mike Monica sugges#ed that a tree inventory be done. Any non-surviving trees could be required to be replaced. Council agreed. Plans for the upgrade and additional improvements to the Town's adjacent pocke# park were discussed. Mayor Osterfoss stated Council members had discussed commencement of the Streetscape Plan for lower Bridge Street in conjunction with the Covered Bridge Building redevelopment. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the PEC's approval of the redevelopment project, with a second from Merv Lapin, with the condition that any trees in the area which did not survive during the two years after redevelopment be replaced by the applicants. Mayor Osterfoss added the staging plan would be discussed at a later Wark Session. • Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to return to Council with suggestions as to how to proceed with the S#reetscape Improvements if a water line replacement would be necessary with the project. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Merv Lapin made a motion to direct staff to amend the SDD ordinance, eliminating residentiallsingle family projects from qualifying for SDD status. Paul Johnston reminded Council there was a petition currently circulating regarding an SDD issue and suggested Council wait until June to address the issue. Jan Strauch seconded the motion as made by Merv. A vote was #aken and passed, G-1, Paul Johnston opposed. Tom Steinberg added he had received calls regarding illegal parking and #owing off private property. Mayan Osterfoss asked staff to investigate the situation. Jan Strauch requested a timeline for the prioritization of goals. Bob McLaurin updated Council of status to date and suggested March 22, 1994, as a date for completion. Mayor Osterfoss reques#ed a copy of the document prior to the meeting. There being no fur#her business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margar~ A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~. o~-~-~e Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L, McCutcheon Vaif Town Council Evening Maating Minutes 03!15/94 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 22, 1994 6:30 P.M. -~ A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 22, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem (arrived at 6:38 P.M.) Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer {arrived at 6:45 P.M.} Tam Steinberg Jan 5trauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutehean, Town Clerk Item No. 1 was discussion regarding the use of a 48 acre parcel of property located in West Vail commonly known as Trapper's Run. Mayor Osterfoss presented the following Four options and requested input from residents: 1) Allow current 30-lot development proposal to proceed; 2} Consider Town of Vail entering into a partnership agreement with Colorado Open Lands, aColorado-based land trust, allowing for limited development of 2 - 8 lots; 3) Purchase of the parcel by the Town of Vail for open space; or 4) Acquisition of the parcel by adjacent property owners. Tom Moorhead gave a brief history of the parcel. Tim Schultz and Don Walker of Colorado Open Lands were present to answer questions. Residents commenting on the issue included: Porker Warton, Kent Rose, Howard Rapson, Nichola Ripley, Warren Garbe, Byron Brown, Tall Cline, Pris Boris, Diana Donovan, and James Johnson. Comments reflected a majority of support for option no. 3, purchase of the parcel by the Town, for open space. Funding scenarios presented by Mayor Osterfoss included the following: 1} Hold a bond issue election in November; 2) Purchase the parcel for approximately $3 million out of Town funds; or 3) Purchase the property under an extended payment plan through the Trust for Public Land, also requiring an election in November. As discussion continued, Tom Moorhead informed Council there was an existing contract to purchase the parcel held by a developer in Englewood. That contract called for a closing during the first part of June, and the developer was scheduled to present the issue to the PEC on April 11, 1994. Dan Walker stated waiting for a November election would negate negotiations. He recommended Council move Forward within the next two weeks and suggested commencing condemnation proceedings. Council members communicated their opinions and opted to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss land negotiations. Prior to retreating into Executive Session, other topics of discussion were as follows: Problems with bears in the village due to garbage left outside; the Chuck Anderson Youth Awards [Town of Vail Youth Award (Jan and Paul were appointed to take on the project)]; setting timelines to deal with complaints received by the Town of Vail regarding noise in the Village core and enforcement of noise ordinance; an update from Tom Steinberg on the EREBA; Vail Associates Category III Improvement Process; the St. Moritz Sister City trip scheduled for July 11 - 15, 1994, status of the Awards Ceremony stage temporarily erected at the Children's Fountain; and the Gold Peak House project. At 9:25 P.M. Paul Johnston moved to adjourn into Executive Session, with a second by Jan Strauch. Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes p3/22/44 r Council returned to open session at 14:30 P.M. Paul Johnston made a motion directing Tom Moorhead to negotiate a contract with Colorado Open Lands regarding the acquisition and to prepare a resolution initiating condemnation of the Trappers Run property. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~p~~.~ 1J.r ~ Marg et A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~~ee~-K~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by HolSy L, McCutcheon • 'Z Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting ]vlinutes 03/22/94 r VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 19,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybi11 Navas Jim Sheaxer Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Steinbexg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tam Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting on behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Mu1ti~Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road, more commonly referenced through ownership as the Pedotto property. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudsten gave an overview the of rezoning criteria and the subdivision criteria. He referenced ten plat restrictions which would dictate how future devel~r...ent would take place. Additionally, he described buffer landscaping perimeter areas and interior clusters. Pedestrian safety and increased traffic and parking problems were resolved by the applicant through the provision of asix-foot wide sidewalk on the premises, enough parking for tenants and guests and garages with storage areas. The proposal included three employee housing units. Andy discussed plat restrictions which kept the area to primary/secondary levels of density, with the exception of number of units. Minor subdivision criteria was consistent with the zoning standards which include buildable area, frontage, and shape as well as the purpose section of the subdivision code. Included in the purpose requirements was a regulation assuring the development would not produce negative impacts to the wetland area and would assure adequacy of drainage facilities. Andy pointed out that the council should review the letters from neighbors included in the packet and a petition from the neighbors submitted that day. Staff and PEC both recommend approval. Merv Lapin questioned why the recommendation regarding fo..tr~:nts had been stricken anti requested it be reevaluated and reentered into the proposal. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, member of PEC and developer on project, described the character of the existing neighborhood. He listed the advantages i to the community with his proposal as follows: 1. Large amount of public improvements at developer's expense including safety issues, landscaping, access to and from Kinnickinnick Road, and driveway access elimination; 2. Controlled development; 3. Square footage would be plat restricted; 4. Neighborhood sympathy including the parking issue; 5. Resolution to utility lines; 6. Preservation of the open space instead of developing wetlands and landscaping controlled by a Home Ownex's Association; 7. Employee Housing Units would be provided; 8. Excellent transition area from high density condominiums and townhouses to single family homes. He also spoke of the negatives as foIlow: 1. Many residents feel this is a park area. Since Mrs. Pedotto owns the land, she has a right to develop it; 2. Construction problems would be eliminated by having a controlled development; 3. Enhancement of the looks of the open space. Concerns from Council included available parking, combined building envelopes, rent control language that could be present in new deed restrictions, reduction of employee housing units, and revegetation. Residents not in support of the rezoning were as follows: Jo Brown, Peter Franke, Sara Newsom, and Victor Hoyles. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5 with the following conditions to be added to those from the memo dated April 11, 1994 (See Tape A}. At this time Rick Rosen asked to table the proposal because he felt the Town of Vail was going beyond the purview available to them within the municipal code. He #elt there was no opportunity for negotiation between first and second reading and that he would need time to restructure the proposal. Because the first motion did not receive a second, the motion died. A motion was then made by Merv Lapin to table the proposal to May 3, 1994, with a second by Jan 5trauch. A vote was taken and the motion passed . unanimously, 6-0. Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutoe 9119V94 Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance of the Town Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. Mayor Peggy Ostexfass read the title in full. Dick Duran, Vail Fire Chief, explained the need for an updated fire lane map and explained his intent for signs. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution Na. 8, with a second by Jirn Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1994, a resolution of the Town of Vail supporting the transfer of mills to the Vail Park and Recreation District. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve and support Resolution No. 11, with a second by Jan 5trauch. A vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was a sign variance request for the Concert Hall Plaza Building, located at 616 West Lionshead Circle/Nail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Concert Hall Plaza/Mark Matthews, Slifer Management Company. Kristan Pritz explained because the Concert Hall Plaza is requesting to put a sign on Town of Vail property, a variance was required. The Community Devel.,r~~~ent Department, as well as DRB, had approved the variance. Merv Lapin moved to approve the sign variance based on the findings and staff recommendations from the April 6, 1994, memorandum, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was an appeal of the DRB approval of Kempf demo/rebuild request located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing. Appellant: Dr. and Mrs. Kochman, adjacent property owners, represented by Rohn Robbins. Randy Stauder began with an introduction of the applicant, Chris Kempf and appellants, Dr. and Mrs. Kochman. Randy explained that PEC had • approved the applicant's application for a conditional use permit to allow a Type II employee housing unit on the Kempf property. Randy also described the Design Review Board process, which took three meetings and resulted in several significant changes to the original application before approval was given. Rohn Robbins, representing Dr. and Mrs. Kachman, discussed Design Review Criteria Chapter 18.54, including 18.54.010 (Intent) and 18.54.050 (Design Guidelines). Mike Arnett, Chair of DRB, addressed the issue of blocking the view of the Kochrr-an's residence stating the DRB found no grounds for refusal and supported the remodel. Tom Moorhead stated that the DRB Guideline referenced to sight buffers did not pertain to the preservation of corridors. Jan Strauch expressed concern with the architectural design in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Rick Rosen, representing Chris Kempf, presented letters from numerous residents and neighbors acknowledging support for Chris Kempf, clearly stating that they #elt that the design of this project meets the architectural compatibility requirements. Jim Shearer moved to deny the appeal and uphold DRB's decision for approval of the Kempf demo/rebuild request, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 was an appeal of the PEC decision to grant a conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for an expansion to the library/classroom area at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Pam Hopkins. Discussion focused on the berm located behind the school, its appearance and need fox repair. Fred Otto and Pam Hopkins spoke on behalf of the short . term master plan and the long term {5 year) master plan which is not yet available. Merv Lapin moved to uphold the approval of the conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for this expansion, with a second by Jim shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 was a report by the Tawn Manager. Bob McLauriun reported bids for the Chapel Bridge replacement project are higher than originally expected. Work may be delayed until July 15 ar August 1, saving up to $25,000 by not having to work in high water. Greg Hall will meet with Sonnenalp Management and The Firstbank of Vail before finalizing the decision. Merv Lapin requested to see a construction schedule before a decision is made. The Police Building addition was reported to be on budget and proceeding per the construction schedule. Contractors are in the process of replacing the T-111 siding on the municipal building, which replacement should be completed by the end of April. The estimate for replacing T-111 on the existing building siding had been estimated at $50,000. Kristan Pritz will research past situations to find if the Town of Vail has required someone to replace his/her siding to match an addition. Bob McLaurin asked to have the west entry remodel plan reexamined in order to not block as many office windows. This should not raise the amount of money that will be spent on the entryway. Merv Lapin suggested scheduling a half-hour executive session during a Work Session to discuss meeting procedures. 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 4119!94 i There being no further business, a rt-otion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:3Q P.M. Respectfully submitted, a. _ MargaretLA. Osterfoss, Mayor L ATTEST: "ran 1,0'10.4 Q Q . ~ c~4~t~. Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clem Minutes taken by Mic#~elle L Caster Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 4!19!94 .,,. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 5, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, April 5, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFl~ICIALS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybil! Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Sirauch Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was vane. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting two items: {i} Approval of the minutes of the March 1,1994, March 15,1994, and March 22,1994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings, and (ii) Ordinance No. 7, 5erses of 1994, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 32, Cornice Building; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to take Ordinance No. 7 off of the Consent Agenda and to approve the minutes of the March 1, March 15 and March 22,1994 Evening Meetings, with a semnd from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time discussion began regarding Ordinance No. 7,1994. Jim Curnutte reviewed changes made since first reading, as requested by Council. Tom Braun was present, representing the owner of the Cornice building, David Smith. The Ordinance was revised further, incarparating the following changes: (i} permanently restricted employee housing units to be located within the TOV limits close to a TOV bus route, (ii) employee housing units shall always comply with the TOV housing ordinance requirements as specified in the TOV Municipal Code, as amended from time to time, fill) Council acceptance of the three employee housing units being required pxior to the issuance of a demo/building permit, and (iv) all three employee housing units to be deed restricted and ready for occupancy prior to a TCO being issued. Merv moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, with the above-listed changes. Further, staff was directed to prepare copies of Ordinance 7,1994, as revised, for review by Council at the April 19, 1994 meeting. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg G„N~essed concern about the Cornice Building construction taking place concurrent with other major TOV projects, including the proposed Vail Athletic Club. Jim Curnutte informed Council a staging plan had been submitted to the Town Engineer by Tom Braun. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Tam Steinberg opposed. Item Nn. 3 was Resolution No. 8,1994, a resolution designating Dana Investments Advisors, Inc., as an investment manager for the financial funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Chris Anderson and Steve Thompson explained the details of the Resolution. Steve anticipated higher yields as a result of this investment manager designation,as dollars would be invested at a longer term and restricted to the adjustable rate mortgage markets. Merv Lapin suggested comments from local financial experts be sought to review TOV ixlvestments. Bob McLaurin a~.~~d to speak with. local businesses regarding the matter and indicated he would discuss the issue further with Merv after the meeting. Torn Steinberg moved to approve Resolutian Na. 8, Series of 1994, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, a resolution releasing a Title Restriction on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, and permanently restricting Site 4, Casolar Vail, Fourth Filing, from all development. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Braun requested the Resolution be tabled for 90 days, as the owners were not compelled to restrict Lot 4 without improvements. Paul Johnstan moved to table Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, until July 5,1994. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the acquisition of, certain property by either negotiation or condemnation, fox Town- 'Sail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Manures 09!65!94 .+ public purposes. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tam Moorhead briefly explained the Resolution and the status of Trappers Run. He informed Council the contract had been entered into with Colorado Open Lands. Tom explained Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, would authorize the Town Attorney to move forward with negotiations to purchase the property, and, if that effort was unsuccessful, to proceed with a condemnation petition. Diana Donavan asked for clarification an the process which would be used to determine the value of the parcel. Tom Moorhead stated the value would be determined between the parties and reiterated the purchase would be separate and distinct from the development process. A motion was made by Jan Strauch to approve Resolution No. 10, with a second by Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken Merv stated he was opposed because of a pending zoning change request on the property. He felt it was a conflict to be involved in a condemnation process while reviewing a request to change zoning an the property. Tom Moorhead did not feel there was a conflict, noting the applicant had submitted a preliminary development plan, not a request to change zoning an the property. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Merv Lapin apposed. Item No. G was a discussion pertaining to design and construction of improvements to the Main Vail Interchange including installing modern roundabouts, landscaping, lighting, and signs. Greg Hall made a presentation to Council, displaying a rough draft of two proposed roundabouts for the Main Vail Interchange. A recent video which demonstrated the use of roundabouts in Norway was shown. Greg Hall estimated the roadwork alone for the two roundabouts would be approximately $650,000, and that a possible funding source might include grants from the CDOT, as well as involvement from Vail Associates. Greg also mentioned estimates as high as $700,000 far landscaping. Mayor Osterfoss requested review of the funding of the project. Bob McLaurin recommended Council authorize TOV staff to proceed with design, which would be subject to approvals by the Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation, Planning & Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and Council. Greg stated approximately $25,000 had been spent on design efforts to date, indicating remaining design costs to be approximately $160,000. A motion was made by Jim Shearer and seconded by Tom Steinberg to authorize TOV staff to proceed with design for roundabouts. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. item No. 7 was a report from Bob McLaurin, who updated Council on the Vail Improvement Process and expressed his rationale far wanting to combine the Quality Council and Steering Team. Peggy Osterfoss remarked same Council members had not had the opportunity to participate in any of the TQM workshops and urged those who had not to do so. Bob discussed the performance based budget with Council, explaining supplemental app~„r~~ations to spend department savings would be reviewed by Council on a quarterly basis. Bob also reviewed an update he had received from Mike Rose regarding the discounted parking program in conjunction with VA. 657 transactions utilized the $5.00 parking coupon, with a net lass to the TOV of approximately $2,400. Other topics discussed included: Torn Steinberg requested an update from Bob McLaurin, Tam Moorhead, and Steve Thompson on the recent Pension Board meeting they attended in San Francisco. Pam Brandmeyer presented an information update which was not covered at an earlier Work Session. Porn also informed Council that the 1993 Ride the Rockies participant, Larry McLoughlin, who suffered injuries during an accident at State Bridge during the event, had passed away March 20, 1994. Jim Shearer suggested TOV send condolences to the McLoughlin family and to the organization. Paul Johnston briefly discussed a letter received by Diana Donovan protesting a recent parking issue near the 6th green, where several vehicles were ticketed. Bob McLaurin addressed the issue, explaining an effort was made to contact owners of the vehicles and noted nearby parkir-g structures were not full. Paul Johnston expressed frustration regarding Council process and the length of Council meetings. He noted time allocations on Council agendas were not being met. He suggested members work together in an effort to better control the meetings and to focus on the issues at hand. Merv discussed the upcoming St. Moritz/Sister Cities trip scheduled for four days i_n July. He requested direction from Tom Moorhead relating to the purchase of airline tickets through Jan 5trauch's business and what would not be a conflict of interest. Tom reviewed Section 3.7 of the Town Charter, titled Financial Interest Prohibited. He advised purchase of airline tickets be viewed as a minor, incidental transaction. Jan suggested three bids be obtained and Council proceed with the best bid. There was further discussion pertaining to how the trip would be financed for three staff members (Bob McLaurin, Larry Grafel and ICristan Pritz) and four Counal members, which would total approximately $10,500. Jim Shearer moved that expenses fox the St. Moritz trip be paid out of Council Contingency funds and TOV staff budgets, and that the city of Courceval be included on the itinerary. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vase was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Z Vatil Town Councii Evening Meeting Minutes 09f051S4 Sybill Navas recommended Council move forward with employee housing projects, as State funding commitments had been extended for the last time. Sybill also expressed an urgency to finalize Couxicil Goals. Resident input from Diana Donovan included issues relating to Christmas lighting at the parking structures, the abundant number of signs ozt TOV streets, and the extra 250 square foot increase in GRFA allowed in certain circumstances, to be permitted only for employee housing. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Jim Shearer, seconded by Jan Strauch, and passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: `~1 ~+ r 4~n 9 4 ~. L ~ - ~-~.~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Nelly~-A0.eCdtegeeR- ~ ^ w+n 1 • t Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 04/45/94 ..~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 3, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Tawn Council was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Jan Strauch Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting an behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon TOWN OFFICIALS ABSENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager i The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Xtem No. 2 was the Consent Agenda including; A. the approval of Apri15,1994, and the April 19, 1994, Town Council Evening Minutes; B. Ordinance No. 8, series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance of the Town. Council designating certain areas within the Town of Vail as fire lanes; adopting a fire lane map as the official map of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details relating thereto. Merv Lapin made a motion that the Consent Agenda be approved, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1994, a resolution of the Town of Vail, Colorado, approving the corporate reorganization of Tele-Communications, Inc., the parent company of the franchise holder, and Liberty Media Corporation. Tom Moorhead explained the basis for the resolution since cable companies are required to diversify. He explained that only the corporate structure, and not the local franchise, will be affected. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve Resolution No. 12, with a second by Paul Johnson. The vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 7.994, tabled after first reading on April 19, 1994, an ordinance xezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi- Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 Kinnick~innick Road, more commonly referenced through ownership as the Pedotto property. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy ICnudsten gave a review of Planning Commission conditions that had been discussed during the prior meeting. He pointed nut under the Vail Land Use Plan, the site is designated as Medium Density Residential, allowing 7 to 33 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposed 8.1 dwelling units per acre. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, member of PEC and developer on the project, explained his reasoning for previously requesting a tabling of the proposal. He explained the following conditions with which the applicants were willing to oblige: 1. A plat restriction eliminating the 250 from all residences on this site; 2. A plat restriction for a maximum of 25,900 sq. ft. for GRFA; 3. Agreed to deed restrict three employee housing units; 4. Agreed to have a Homeowner's Association responsible far landscaping, maintenance, and repair of the project. Rosen then stated the applicants would not agree with the following: 1. They will not deed restrict five units; 2. The applicant will not combine units; 3. They requested Town Council allow DRB to handle the landscaping plans; 4. The Council Members discussed the various issues of the proposal in relakion to the criteria and the designation of the Vail Land Use Plan. Peter Franke, resident, was not in support of the rezoning. Tam Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 5, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion was passed 5-2. Jan Strauch and Sybill Navas voted in opposition of the motion. A motion was made by Torn Steinberg regarding the subdivision criteria, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion was passed 4-3. Mayor Osterfoss, Jan Strauch, and Merv Lapin voted in opposition of the motion. Paul Johnston made a motion to adjourn unto an Executive Session, with a second by Jan Strauch. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, a rnation to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 P.M. • Respectfully submitted, Margare A. Osterfoss, Mayor .~ • • ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken Gy Michelle L Caster C:WlINSMAY5.94 2 VA1L TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 17, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 17, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Shearer Jan Strauch Tam Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston Sybill Navas TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bab McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting on behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon Item No. 1 was Citizen Participation. Diana Donovan, Vail resident, requested modifications to the "250 rule." Rather than allow property additions of 250 square feet after a structure has had a Certificate of Occupancy for a minimum of five years, Donovan suggested limiting the 254 use strictly for employee housing units. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss responded to Diana's request by directing staff to review the suggestion as part of the employee housing work plan. Item No. 2 was the appointment of two members to the Local Licensing Authority far a 2 year term. Merv Lapin moved to approve, with a second by Jim Shearer, to appoint Don White and Elizabeth Pickett to the Authority. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 13, Series of 1994, a resolution ratifying and adopting the Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives for the Town of Vail, Colorado, for 1994/95. Bob McL.aurin explained the document had been put into resolution form for formal adoption, and after Council adoption would became a policy document. An action plan will be presented to the Council within the next two to three weeks. Tom Steinberg made a motion to pass Resolution No. 13, with a second by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1994, a resolution approving and adapting the Forest Service Land Ownership Adjustment Plan. Mike Mollica explained the purpose far adopting a common Town of Vail/ U.S. Forest Service boundary. He also explained the Tawn would be hiring a property manager by the third week of June. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss prioritized the goals as follows: 1. Develop a common boundary; 2. Deannex or trade parcels that are in U.S. Forest Service ownership; 3. Resolve encroachment issues that impact the U.S. Forest Service (legally or illegally?. Rich Phelps, U.S. Forest Service, stated the time line for the Forest Service adoption of the Land Ownership Adjustment Plan, if adopted, would be two weeks. Tom Steinberg made a motion to pass Resolution No. 14, with a second by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential, Section 18.13 to Low Density Multi-Family Residential, Section 18.16 generally located at 2850 ICuuuckinnick Raad more commonly referenced through ownership as the Pedotto property. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy ICnudtsen gave a review of Planning Commission conditions that had been discussed during the two prior meetings. He pointed out under the Vail Land Use Plan the site is designated as Medium Density Residential, allowing 7 to 33 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposed S.1 dwelling units per acre. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, member of PEC and developer on the project, explained the applicant's proposal into a subdivider improvements agreement with the Town of Vail prior to the devel.,r~~,ent of the project. The curb and gutter would be completed almost immediately, the sidewalk would be completed no later than June 1, 1995, using a letter of credit to guarantee completion. Tom Moorhead, upon completion of the improvements the developer may apply to have a portion of the letter of credit released. Once the premises has been inspected and approved by Greg Hall, Town Engineer, the Town would release with a 10% retainage. If the work has not been completed by the completion date, the Town would have a right to draw upon the letter. The applicants had previously agreed to restrict the plat with 15 conditions that staff had listed in a memo. In addition to those, the applicant agreed to 1) The number of employee housing uni#s shall be increased from ~. -~~ . . three to four. The total number of dwelling units an the site shall remain at 19. 2} The applicaant shall agree to adding language to the deed restrictions requiring that the employee housing units shall be rented and shall be rented at a market rate. 3) The applicant shall add two berm at the additional landscaping on the northwest corner and northeast corner of the site. 4) The applicant shall provide a letter of credits at 125% of the cost of all public improvements. The public improvements, specifically the sidewalk, shall be constructed no later than June 1, 1995. In addition to the public improvements, the letter of credit shall include the expense of burying or removing one foundation. Jim Shearer made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 5, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion was passed 4-1, with Merv Lapin, in opposition. Ttern Na. 6 was the Town Manager's Report. Bob McLaurin discussed the Gore Creek Promenade project. The Town will begin repairs on May 23, 1994. Heated pavers are an option that will be considered at a later date. He and Kristan Pritz addressed Jan Strauch's concern with the Town's DRB standards to reflect more alpine architecture. They will further address this issue at the May 24,1994, work session. A thorough review of the Special Development District (SDD) ordinance will take a minimum of four months. The Council set a June deadline to make minor modifications to the SDD ordinance and agreed to send a clarification to the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc., regarding the expected time line. Merv Lapin made a motion to adjourn into an Executive Session, with a second by Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The meeting was reconvened, and there being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. 1 Respectfully submitted, ~F Margo t A. Osterfoss, Mayo Ari SST: old ~ ~~~~~~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Michelle L. t;,aster C:~MINIdAY17.94 2 r MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL, EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 7, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro~-Tem Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Tawn Manager Tom Moorhead, Tawn Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Mary Caster, acting on behalf of Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk r The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. The Council had received in their packets, a proposal from Rachel Lenz, representing Brava! Colorado, requesting permission to place a cart in Vail Village or Lionshead to sell Bravo! tickets during the summer.' Pam Brandmeyer stated that she had talked to Rachel on the phone earlier and had informed her that it was against Town of Vail orda.nances to permit the cart, but felt that she had given her some other options to pursue. Also under Citizen Participation, Colleen McCarthy, a resident of West Vail, addressed the Council regarding an article that recently appeared in the Vail Vallev Times regarding lack of involvement of the West Vail neighborhood in the Vail Commons process. Bob Mclaurin stated that West Vail would be included on project team that will be working on the project. Bob also stated that public meetings will be scheduled to receive input on the subject. The next item on the agenda was the approval of the Minutes of the May 3, 1994, and May 17, 3.994, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Jim Shearer made a motion to approve the minutes as written and Jan and Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1994, an ordinance repealing Section 9.56 - Concealed Weapons and $.24.030 - Discharaina Firearms of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and enacting Chapter 9.56 - Offenses Relating to Weapons, Criminal Attempt. and Complicity. Ken Hughey, Chief of Police, presented the ordinance to the Council, stating the intent of this ordinance was to prohibit the possession of dangerous or deadly weapons including posession within bars or liquor stores. Ken stated that this ordinance was similar to legislation passed by the Town of Breckenridge in 3.9$1. There was same discussion regarding the possibility of limiting sales within the Town of Vail, such as Gart Brothers. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, stated it would probably be unconstitutional to limit sales in stores such as this, There was much discussion following relating to the problem of people having guns in their houses and not knowing the problems of how firearms work. The possibility of safety classes being enforced on people prior to buying firearms, much like the hunter safety classes currently in place was discussed. It was suggested that purchasers could be required to obtain a license prior to obtaining a firearm at a cost of $500 - $1000. The question was raised as to the curing time it takes to be able to obtain a firearm. Ken Hughey stated he believes it is all done instantly through computers. He felt this was a national search, but would research the matter to be sure. Buck Allen, Municipal Judge, stated that as the law is currently written, if a person walks into an establishment with an exposed weapon, it is not illegal. This ordinance would prohibit such conduct. Police now cannot act until a weapon is concealed. Tom Moorhead stated that the combination of alcohol and weapons are addressed as violations within this ordinance. Jim Shearer questioned how a gun dealer determines if person is under influence. Tam Moorhead stated that the same standards as used by bartenders and bar managers relating to smell of alcohol, appearance, good sense of time and place would be determining factors. Age restriction of firearm purchase was also discussed. Ken Hughey stated he would check on this before second reading. Sybill Navas stated she would like to see the ordinance more stringent if possible and would like Tom Moorhead to research further. Tom Steinberg asked if there was any age restriction an purchasing of a gun in the State of Colorado. Tom Moorhead stated he was unaware of such a law, but would look into it. Jim Shearer stated he would like to see a local law requiring a commercial business license to sell firearms and a commercial address, to prevent tailgate selling of guns, if it is legal. Jim Shearer also expressed his concern on allowing the Division of Wildlife to fire M15's (firecrackers) in town to scare bears away, alarming people in town who may think guns are being fired. Jan Strauch expressed his concern for more education on firearms use. Tom Steinberg stated that along with the drugs and alcohol, individuals suffering from mental disorders should be included within the list of reasons to preclude selling to individuals. Tom was asked to research this also. Tom Moorhead stated that the one outstanding issue that still needed to be addressed was the penalty issue. The present penalty for carrying a concealed weapon is up to a $999 fine and/or incarceration not to exceed 180 days. There is another provision of a lesser penalty, that being up to $499 and a 90 day fine. Buck Allen stated that during the time he has been here, the fine range has been $0 - $300 and 0 - 90 days in jail. As the municipal courts have gained in standing throughout the state and through the state legislature, the fine level has been raised to the current level as Tom stated. Being a home rule municipality, the Town of Vail can set the fine ranges. Judge Allen felt the fine provisions for carrying a concealed weapon should be the maximum range. He also suggested raising the general penalty for all ordinance violations to the $0 - $999, 0 -- 180 days in jail range. Tom Moorhead stated that the general penalty section of the code could be amended to reflect this. Judge Allen stated that discussions have been held in conjunction with the Vail Police Department to update the criminal code and he would be addressing the Council regarding this matter. Jim Shearer asked for the record, how long the Town had been working on this ordinance. Ken Hughey stated that his department had been working with the Town Attorney for approximately 2-3 months. Jim thought this needed to be clarified, due to recent actions occurring at the Town of Vail. Jim Shearer made a motion to approve Ordinance #12, Series of 1994, on first reading, to include amending general penalty section as suggested by Judge Buck Allen. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Tom Steinberg asked Tom Moorhead to research whether this precluded including automatic weapons before second reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1994, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.69.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for measuring slope of a proposed development site and permitting retaining walls six feet in height in the front setback when associated with a permitted garage structure. George Ruttier, Community Development, presented the ordinance to the Council, stating that the intent for addressing changes were, l} to reduce the site disturbance on steep lots, and 2) to streamline the development review process. The ordinance establishes new procedures for measuring the slope of a proposed development site and permitting retaining walls six feet in height in the front setback when associated with a permitted garage or lots having 30~ or greater slopes. DRB approval will still be required for design and the aesthetics of the walls. Staff is preparing a policy statement to explain the change per Jim Shearer's request. Jim Shearer stated that several variances have been approved in the past and expected more would be requested as there are fewer lots left for development in the Vail area and felt this would be acceptable. Jan Strauch made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1998, on first reading and Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Tom Steinberg asked Kristan Pritz, Community Development Director, how many mare lots would require this approval. Kristan stated that no actual analysis had been done, however, there were 2 ~ variances pending. She felt that there will possibly be a number of these requests coming to the Town for approval. Kristan emphasized that the Town is not automatically requiring a 6 foot wall, as there are instances where a 4 foot wall would be sufficient. This is not meant to encourage 6 foot walls. Tam Steinberg expressed his concern regarding architect's concept of design in these areas and suggested using only Colorado licensed architects, or architects experience in graded slopes, far these purposes. tom Moorhead, questioned whether the review of the plan would show the s],opes in question and would require the Planning Department to review the plans to ensure that the concern was being addressed. Kristan Prita stated that the town engineer is very aware of these concerns, as is the Design Review Board and a professional engineer is required for preparation of the foundation. Jan Strauch amended his motion to include Kristan's comments. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion, as amended, was approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda was Resolution Na. 15, Series of 1994, a resolution setting fees for revocable right-of-way application and permits. After same discussion, Jim Shearer made a motion to approve Resolution No. 15, Series of 1994. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The next item of the agenda was a change request for Vaal Galfcourse Townhomes Hazard Zone change request (Sunburst Filing #3 on Sunburst Drive) . Kristan Pritz presented the request to the Council, stating that the Homeowners Association had requested this change to alleviate the need to come to PEC piecemeal to get approval. for various changes to their condominiums. The Association believed this to be more cost effective in the long run. Art Mears was hired by the Association to due a site specific survey on each unit, as outlined in the staff memo of June 7, 7.994, in which some of the units had been placed in a red hazard area, where they had not been prior to the survey. Bi11 Sargent, representing the applicant, had not yet arrived, so it was decided to go the item #7 on the agenda, Town Manager Report, until his arrival. Bob McLaurin stated that the Police Department was in the process of moving into its new addition and the existing Police Department headquarters were being renovated. Completion of this phase is expected to be done by early September. There was discussion regarding the covering of the west end of the Municipal Building, as part of the expansion. Council adjourned to take a look at the proposed coverings to the building. Bill Sargent arrived at the Council meeting and discussion resumed regarding the Vail Golfcourse townhomes. There was discussion regarding being able to rebuild in red hazard areas should some catastrophe occur, such as afire, that would wipe out the existing building. Tom Moorhead researched the question, and stated that an owner would be able to rebuild the existing unit as originally built. The unit would not be able to be added onto and the current building code would need to be adhered to. Bill Sargent stated that homeowners had discussed the fact that some units were now in the red hazard area and agreed to take their chances and live with the situation. It was suggested by Council. that the Town have its own study done for liability reasons. Tom Moorhead stated that that seemed reasonable if it would put the Council more at ease. He stated that Art Mears has been used extensively over the years and is an expert in Colorado. After more discussion, Jim Shearer made a motion to approve the change request based on a study by Art Mears, with the exception of Unit 55 as per staff recommendation, that study to be kept on file in the Community Development Department. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. - The Council then resumed with the Town Manager Report. Bob McLaurin stated that he was currently working on the 1995 Budget and would have a report at the June 21st meeting. He also stated that the Resident Surveys were being returned to the Tawn and were being processed by the Community Relations Department and directed staff to amend the Hazard Map. It was felt that some items on the survey needed more clarification. Jim Shearer asked Tam Moorhead to explain the gag order recently issued in the Bob Mach case. Tam Moorhead explained the actions leading up to the gag order. Jim Shearer then made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session. Sybill Navas seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, y ..ri r f° ' - e ! (~ ~{ i" Thomas Steinberg Acting Mayor ,i ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster C:\MINJUNE7.94 X •. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 21, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, June 21, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem {arrived at 7;32 P.M.} Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Torn Steinberg Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager I•iolly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.69.050 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for measuring slope of a proposed devel-~fr~~~ent site and permitting retaining walls six feet in height in the front setback when associated with a permitted garage structure. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. George Ruther explained a draft policy statement was included in Council's packets which was requested by Council at the June 7,1994 evening meeting. George also explained the purpose of the policy statement was to layout the history behind the amendment to the ordinance, as well as to clarify the intent of the proposed changes to the ordinance. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to arY~„ve Ordinance No. 13, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 9.5b -Concealed Weapons and 8.24.030 - Dischareing Firearms of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and enacting Chapter 9.5b - Offenses Relative to Weapons. Criminal. Attemvt. and Complicity. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead requested Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1994 be tabled to allow him to review a recent state supreme court decision which held that reasonable ban an assault weapons was constitutional. Council discussed such items as self defense, jail time and penalties. Jim Shearer moved to table Ordinance 12, Series of 1994 until the July 5, 1994 evening meeting, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.44, Special Devel.,~....ent Districts. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica explained Ordinance No. 9 came about as a request from the Council to eliminate the following districts from having the ability to apply for a Special Devel.,r~~~ent District: Single Family, Two-Family, Primary/Secondary and Hillside Residential. Mike stated staff recommended including Agricultural Open Space, Greenbelt Open Space, Parking and Public Use as districts unable to have the SDD overlay. Mike explained that three existing SDD's had underlying zoning that is Primary/Secondary, SDD #113, #22, and #26B, which would be "grandfathered" and would be allowed to request a minor or major amendment to the SDD in the future. Mike further stated staff and Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinance No. 9. Discussion began with Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin suggesting deed restricted employee housing units be published iv the newspaper. Discussion continued with members and staff addressing details of the proposed amendment to SDD's, possible processes and qualifications. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg, with a second from Merv Lapin to approve Ordinance No. 9. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, and Bond Proceeds Fund, of the 1994 budget and the financial plan for the Tawn of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the ~,.r~..ditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson handed out a detailed list of expenditures and added that on the 2nd page additional dollars needed to finish projects were marked with an "ADD." Steve also stated the planting of Potato Patch would be taken out of the Real Estate Transfer Tax fund, as maintenance of „t,~~. space. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the Town owned that property and Steve stated the property was not owned by the Tawn. Mayor Osterfoss then requested the Potato Patch Planting item be taken off the supplemental. Bill Wilto communicated concerns from the real estate community as to the use of Real Estate Transfer Tax 1 Vail Town Counc~ Evening Meeting Minutes - z funds. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordiinance No. 11, as amended, with a second from Tom. Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 17, Series of 1994, a resolution establishing conditional support by the Vail Town Council far the Piney Valley Ranch Trust Land Exchange. Mayor Osterfoss stated the applicant had requested the tabling of the Resolution. Merv Lapin moved to table Resolution No. 17 to the August 2,1994 evening meeting, with a second by Tom Steinberg. Bill Wilto suggested when Council next considers Resolution No. 17, it be very specific as to the reasons for supporting the land exchange. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin discussed the following items as , included in his memo to Council: Park City Visit, Alpine Design, Main Vail Roundabout, Covered and Chapel Bridge Projects, and the Employee Forum. Additional items of discussion included: Jan Strauch suggested sending a formal "Congratulations" to the Vail Valley Foundation from the Town of Vail far obtaining the '99 World Alpine Championships, and Peggy indicated the Town should also send letters of thanks to those individuals that net with the delegation. There being no further business, a motion was made by Jiro Shearer to adjourn, with a semnd by Jan Strauch. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 P.M. t A 11 SST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minuses taken by Hally L. McCutcheon t c:u~u~uus~~.ea Respectfully submitted, L.f ~~~" Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayo Vail Town Counc>1 Evening Meeting Minutes MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING July 5, 1994 7:34 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 5, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Jan Strauch Paul Johnston TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, .Assistant Tawn Manager Michelle Caster, on behalf of Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Elizabeth Wilt subrnitted a proposal for TOV to consider funding a memorial plaque to be placed on the Covered Bridge for John and Cissy Dobson and a memorial plaque at Crossroads far Chuck Betcher. Pam Brandmeyer and Kristan Pritz will follow up considering various options suggested by the Council. Carol Alleman expressed concern with the recent concerts put on by the Vail Valley Foundation. She felt there should be more crowd control surrounding the Ford Amplitheatre to minimize the neighborhood disturbances, Vail Police Department should be more concerned and responsive to citizens' requests, and Public Works should have the area picked up in a more timely manner. She would like to have all concerts begin at a more reasonable hour thus ending at a reasonable hour. Pam Brandmeyer will follow up with staff, Item No. 2 was the Consent Agenda including; A. the approval of June 7, 1994, and the June 21, 1994, Tawn Council Evening Minutes; B. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.40, Special Development Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail; C. Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, a resolution releasing a Title Restriction on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision ,and permanently Restricting Site 4, Casolar Vail, Fourth Filing. {Request to table indefinitely.) Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. A motion was made by Merv Lapin to remove Item C from the Consent Agenda, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. An error in the ]une 21, 1994, minutes, listing Tom Steinberg as absent was corrected. The Minutes wil! be corrected and resubmitted to the Council for approval. Merv Lapin made a motion to table Resolution No. 9, Series of 1994, until the first meeting of October, 1994. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Lapin stated he was concerned about the precedent that could be set for land owners receiving credit for land that was not developable. Lapin questioned whether this would result in density transfer. The owner of this property was identified as Todger Anderson. Kristan Pritz stated the staff was also concerned about these same issues, Andy Knudtsen stated he felt this case needed to be treated very uniquely and independent of any other situations. Mayor Osterfoss stated that when and if this resolution came back for discussion, these concerns would be discussed. A voke was taken on the motion and it was passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No, 3 was the second reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1994, an ordinance regarding supplemental appropriations to the 1994 budget. Steve Thompson, Finance Director, stated several items had been corrected Erom the first reading of this ordinance. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to pass Ordinance No. 11 on second reading. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.5, OEE-Street Parking and Loading. Mike Rose presented this ordinance to the Council. Mayor Osterfoss asked Pepi Gramshammer if he would like to address the Council regarding this ordinance. Pepi stated he has paid the increase in pay-in-lieu fees over the years and felt this new increase in fees was too much money. He felt he would need to raise his prices to pay for the increase in fees Vail Town Council Evening Mceting Minutes 12J7/S3 and felt this was unfair to his guests. He stated he understood some increase was necessary but felt what was proposed was unreasonable. Merv Lapin stated this ordinance was written in regards to the price per space that a developer would pay if he were to add on to his current building or to build a new building. This was not the pay-in-lieu issue, and would not increase any parking rates in this particular ordinance. This would be parking spaces purchased in the structure as opposed to a developer building his own parking areas. Lapin stated when the addition to the Village Parking Structure was built approximately three years ago, the cost at that time was $14,000 per space. Jim Lamont expressed concern with the overdevelopment of the SDD's and the local zoning standards for the village core, Tom Moorhead explained it is possible to have a difference between the usage or between the impact of dwelling units compared to commercial and accommodation units. Jim Shearer made a motion to adjourn into aten-minute Executive Session for legal advice, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. Upon returning from Executive Session, Jim Shearer asked if it were possible to give special privileges to Bridge Street commercial establishments and long time locals of the community by adjusting their fees. Tom Moorhead explained the criteria had to be appropriate and reasonably related to the parking condition itself. Any application submitted before July 27, 1994, will be assured a parking Eee of $8,594.40 per space, the current fee. Tom Steinberg made a motion to pass Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994, first reading, with a second by Jim Shearer, A vote was taken and passed 4-1. Mayor Osterfoss voted against the ordinance. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 9.56 - Concealed Weapons and 5.24.030 - Dischar~ine Firearms of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and enacting Chapter 9.56 -Offenses Relating to Weanans. Criminal Attembt. and Comr~licity, and Amending Section 1.01,100 -Violations and Punishment. Tam Moorhead discussed changes to the ordinance. A third "Whereas" clause pertaining to the penalty section providing all offenses shall have the same general penalty unless otherwise specified was added allowing a penalty of up to $999.00 and up to 180 days in jail. He addressed the concern of self defense by stating that the Colorado State Law determines "self defense" or "in defense of property" through case law. The ordinance has been modified to include but is not limited to public property, public parks, or public buildings. The ordinance also includes selling weapons to intoxicated persons or persons suffering from a mental disease ar defect. Tom explained because this is a state ordinance, presently charges must be filed in the county. Possession of a dangerous or deadly weapon while an individual is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance is prohibited. Vail Police Dfficers, Chuck House and Mark Allen, will address Council through a Work Session, in regard to a recent Supreme Court case involving a ban on assault weapons in the City and County of Denver as well as training with fire arms and voluntary compliance. Also at an upcoming Wark Session, Tom Moorhead would like to discuss the licensing of an individual who is selling fire arms and the changes that will be made in our business license section. A motion was made by Merv Lapin to pass Ordinance Na. 12, Series of 1994, second reading, with the addition of 9.56.04C2, in reference to Colorado State Statute, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0, Item No, 6 was Ordinance Na,14, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.57, Employee Housing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Andy Knudtsen clarified the language used in the ordinance. He noted, in addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. Paragraph 7, in reference adults and children, has been added to the ordinance, Other minor wording changes were made. A motion was made by Merv Lapin to pass Ordinance No. 14, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 7 was Resolution No. 16, Series of 1994, a resolution authorizing the Town of Vail to rent a safe deposit vault at the First Bank of Vail and authorizing certain officers to sign a lease therefore, to terminate the lease, to surrender the box, return the keys, and release the bank from any liability in connection therewith. A motion was made by Merv Lapin to approve Resolution No. 16, with the addition of Vail Bank as another option, with a second by Tom Skeinberg. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 8 was a report by the Town Manager. Main Vail round-a-bout construction will begin after ski season 1994-95. The police expansion is presently within budget. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel issues and land negotiations was made by Tom Steinberg, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes l~l'7/98 Respectfully submitted, i R A i i r:ST: dutl~'~r1~-L~ ~. Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Michelle L. Caster MargarL~ A. Osterfoss, Mayor Vail Town Council evening Meeting Minutes 1?l7/93 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING July 19,1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 19, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P,M. MEMBERS PRESENT; Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tam Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Qsterfoss, Mayor Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle Caster, acting on behalf of Tawn Clerk, Holly McCutcheon The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Scakt Skillman and Bonnie Zueger, merchants from the Gateway Plaza, appealed to the Council to relocate a barricade which has been placed at the entrance to Vail Road at the Vail 4-way. The location of the barricade, part of the Chapel Bridge reconstruction project, is turning away business, Bob McLaurin explained the Town is willing to make adjustments to minimize the impact on merchants. The Town will consider modifications to the barricade to allow better access to the Gateway parking lot as well as, additional signage to help guests access other businesses impacted by the detour. Second on the agenda was the Consent Agenda consisting of two items: (i) Approval of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 1$.52, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and {ii} Ordinance No, 14, Series of 1994, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18,57, Employee Housing, and sekting forth details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin read the title in full. A motion was made by jim Shearer to pass the Consent Agenda, with a second by Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and passed by a vote of 4-1. Paul Johnston was in opposition of Ordinance No. 10. Item No. 3 was the TOV 1993 Audited Financial Statements. Jerry McMahan, McMahan and Associates, explained the Finance Department's system and the process of the auditing staff, annual fees, and the auditor's findings. Merv Lapin expressed concern with maturation of funds. Tom Steinberg expressed concern with the cost accounting method opposed to a budgetary method. Merv Lapin asked what the management response was to the purchasing policy statement as well as the Municipal Court item, Bob McLaurin responded by saying the Town has a draft purchasing policy and Steve Thompson has put together a committee with a goal to have a completion of a purchasing policy by the end of 1994. Buck Allen is presently working with Christine Anderson to bring the Municipal Court item into compliance. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to accept the TOV 1993 Audited Financial Statement, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and passed unanimously (5-0). Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 18, Series of 1994, a resolution designating Piper Capital Management Incorporated as an investment manager far the financial fund of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Christine Anderson and Steve Thompson explained after the Town received numerous bids from various companies. Merv Lapin suggested we add an expiration date with the resolution. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve Resolution No. 18, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and passed unanimously {5~0). Item No. 5 was the Report by the Town Managex. Bob McLaurin updated Council on the Chapel Bridge reconstruction, Ford Park Master Plan, and the 1994 Community Survey completion. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P,M. Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeling 14Iinutes 1?17I98 Respectfully submitted, ,~,P~A Margar A. Osterfoss, Mayo A i t t;ST: ~~~~ f J Holly 1... McCutc4~eon, Town Clerk Minut®s taken by Michelle L. Garter Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutea 12!7193 ~ " ,_ ~~_ ~/~~~ ~~' ; (/ l~~ I~ r ' h ~~ ` y ~ { ~ ~ / a i ! ~~ ~ ~ ' ~il~ ,. ,~~~ ~~~ ~ + ~ ~ 'r~ ~' ~- 11 ' ~ ~ 1 ' iii ~~_~~~~.~ !~y ~ '-~J_-- ~ ! r.:' f ~ ~ `rf //~ ~- ~~r~ ~, ~ ~\ / ~ ~:~,'~ ~, ~~\\\ =~= '~-----_ __ ~~~ JIB '~ -, ,-, ~'~ rl, ~~~'~~ ' n ~ ~~~~~ ~,~ ~ - ~ ~ w .`,, -- ~~ ~~ S J ~5 ~~- `-yeti; ~,--',r' 'i '' _ ~ ~ _ ~ r z~ ~ i ,\ ``' . ~ t '' ; i;;,;,, ,` ~'~ l~ ' ' ``\~~~ --~ , 7F \~ ~~~~ ~~, `~~~ ~ u ~~ ~ ~ E E~ i ^ I t ~ ~i4' ~1 ~ iI~ 141 ~11 /~ ~,~\~~'+l}•\\~~..'~ ~_~-1~ •• -\f--7}11 ~!--r S ~ ~"r -. :;: ~~.: ~ i,{ 1 ~~ as ~ o ..~ ; ~~~ ~ ~~~;, s p .,,:_ ~~ \ a~ - .,• ~ Z ~ {.'c'v~i, f ~1 , f r I sr :;~ry` in4 `` / . ~vJ ~`,` Y.o. 1 ( ~J W ', 1. ~ ~ ~ _ i , f ~~ ' jf_~ ~-J~~ `. .~ ___~~ '-~-'--'~ gam!/ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~r~ '> ~ • ~ ~ ~i '~ ~ ~ J ~, ~ J r r ® ~ .' ~~ _. . _,eD~ ~~ ~ ~~ ' i 4 ,` IIX/f/ y i ~' 't~~ ~ ~. ,, ~ r e~ ~ t ,. ~ ~~~, . ~~_~~ • \ .~~~ ` ~ ~~ ~. ~ .~ ~ \ ~` `~ ~, d ~ •~ 0 ~ r r , ~ ~ ~ a. U~ -~ ~. ~ ) .~.. ~ I '1 "1 .. ~, ~`~ ~ ~ . _ ~ i"- ~ j ~ ~ ~, ~~`` _ / 1 . !~~ ~ • _- ~,. ~ 1 1 ~ /~ ~ ~``,~~ ~ ~ / ~~ ~ I ~~ I ;`-, fir/ ~. .... tl;S ~ s°~ ! I ~~ ''~-~'`.,~ ; ;ti. t °'i `i~ ~ ~t~-~~ y~~~ ~ 7 i-, ~,~' 1~~ i ! ~I . :~ ~ ;. ~~ (,f ~, ``-.'~. '~ ~•~~.:.,_._. _ .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ Jai*, ~~ ,• ~ { i~~~~ ~. 5 a D ~' 5.~ C ~ ---.J N ~ M .~Q' ::~:~ r~ ~~~ ;~ . ~~( ,~ ~~ ul,~~~ n ~ ,~ i,II ;• ~ ;~ ~y ,,•. ~~ t • } t !A ..!! ~ `~~ 1 . • ~" ~~• .~..- "' :r Q ~ „Jj" , :~ _ : ~~ ~. a ~A ~ •;.~ ~ ~~ . ; •; .' .' C ~ ~ .• ~ r • ~ j(/ v1 N ~ ; ` / ~~ a r7 -~ (~~ ACC MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 2, 1994 7:30 .P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 2, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg {arrived 7:38 p.m,) Jan Strauch Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Darren Rowe of Eagle approached the Town Council, expressing his opposition to a proposed ordinance which would ban the possession and sale of assault weapons in the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss thanked Mr. Rowe for taking time to bring his opinion to Council and suggested he be present during first reading of the ordinance at the evening meeting on September b, 1994. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of approval of the minutes for the meetings of July 5 and July 19,1994. Jim Shearer moved to approve the minutes, with a second by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 6-0, Tom Steinberg arrived following the vote. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1G, Series of 1994, a supplemental appropriation to purchase Trapper's Run. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained the proposed funding appropriation in detail, stating the land would be purchased from two funds: the general fund, $703,000; and the capital pro}ects fund, $1.87 million. Mayor Osterfoss said the Council decided against use of Real Estate Transfer Tax funds in order to "maintain flexibility" as to the future use of the property and/or any land that may be traded to the Town in exchange for portions of Trapper's Run. A motion was made by Merv Lapin to approve Ordinance No.16, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. ltem No. 4 was Resolution No. 17, Series of 1994, a Resolution Establishing Conditional Support by the Vail Town Council for the Piney Valley Ranch Trust Land Exchange. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Russell Forrest reviewed a May, 1994, memo to the Vail Town Council from Community Development pertaining to the Nottingham Ranch Parcel of the Lindholm Land Exchange. Russ reviewed the background, as well as pros and cons associated with the proposed exchange, the benefits to the Town of Vail, and presented an overhead display, detailing the location of the Nottingham Ranch portion of the land exchange. Russ answered questions from various citizens and reviewed particular details of the proposed land swap. Discussion included possible benefits to the Town of Vail as a result of the trade, a Congressional vs. an Administrative exchange, and the Council's history of opposing land trade for development. Bill Post, attorney representing the Piney Valley Ranch Trust, presented colored maps of the parcels included in the proposed trade and explained the proposed development. Mr, Post stated the Piney Valley Ranch Trust had offered to commit to a development density of one unit per acre or less, as well as donate ten (10) acres to an entity {Town of Vail, Town of Avon, or Eagle County) willing to provide affordable/employee housing on the land. Discussion continued with Mr. Post answering questions from Council members. Council concerns included water storage and damming and the affect the land trade would have on the State of Colorado. Jim Shearer was concerned if Council approved Resolution 17, it might set a precedent, which would make gaining approval of Eagle County easier. Discussion continued regarding ways to guarantee development density and the offer to donate ten acres for affordable/employee housing. Tom Moorhead suggested entering into letters of intent, until zoning is established. Prior to taking comment from the public, Mayor Osterfoss reiterated the discussion only pertained to the Nottingham Ranch parcel of the proposed land trade. Members of the public voicing their opposition to the proposed land trade included: Tom Johnson, Allen Nottingham, Mike Sellon, and Dick Dixon (presented 2000 signatures of County residents, opposing the swap}, residents of Avon; Tom Mullen, and Scott whose last name was ~7ail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 08l0?J94 inaudible, residents of Eagle-Vail; Ida Case, of Gypsum; Bruce, of Vail Community Foods; Jenny Maxfield, and Maggie Hurley, of Wolcott; David Rickhart, Marko Moser, and Mr, Rondeau, of Vail; Corkey Simmons, of Eagle; Ken Morgan from Interlocken; Jim Olsen of the State Bridge area; Dick Ostowal, John Sheen, and Pete, whose last name was inaudible.* Concerns from the public included: Congressional vs. Administrative process; environmental impacts; elk migration/calving; Vail Council supporting only a portion of the land trade when all parcels involved are located outside Town of Vail Boundaries; conditional support from Vail on the Nottingham parcel would imply Vail's support for the entire land trade. Certain individuals apposed felt that with conditional support from the Vail Town Council, Eagle County might be more apt to give support as well. Council members continued to discuss their concerns. Tom Steinberg made a motion to deny Resolution No. 17, with a second from Sybill Navas. Discussion continued with Jan Strauch, Jim Shearer and Peggy Osterfoss explaining their being in favor of the resolution. A vote was taken to deny Resolution No. 17 and passed, 4-3, Jan Strauch, Jim Shearer and Peggy Osterfoss opposed. Item No. 5 was a request from East West Partners for permission to obtain a utility easement on Town stream tract property adjacent to Russell's Restaurant. Paul Johnston moved to approve the request, with a second from Jim Shearer. Greg Hall gave a brief overview of the request. A representative from East West partners was available to answer questions. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin called the question. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was an information update. Pam Brandmeyer presented additional requests for contributions in 1994. Pam also informed Council there would be no meeting scheduled an August 30, 1994. Item No. 7 was Council reports and included the following: Discussion of August 10 and 11, 1994 meeting with officials from Park City Utah; Mountain Bell fiberoptic cable; and discussion of the Covered Bridge replacement project. Council reports included discussion of: a donation of certain of Jahn Dobson's archival materials from his family; a request from Bravo to park an the Frontage Road; an update on a managed growth workshop attended by Tom and Sybill; question from Jan regarding fiberoptic cable placement; and a Marketing Board update by Sybill Item No. 8, Other, included the following: Tom Steinberg requested an update re: Apollo Park; discussion of excessive rollerblade, bicycle & jogging traffic on Vail Valley Drive and the pending plan for constructing a bike path through that area; resident complaint of bicycle speeds on the East Vail bikepath; and Vail Associates snowcat use of Forest Road. Item No. 9 was a night lighting tour, which was cancelled due to the lateness of the hour and wilt be rescheduled. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously, The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, `.~i~ ~- Merv Lapm, Mayor Pro-Tem ATTEST: Holly L. ~McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Nafy L. McCulcheen ('Names of certain individuals wno gave public input may ba inaccurale.y Veil Town Council Evening Mceting Minutes OLt/0?l94 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 `3-479-2138/ 479-2139 AX 303-479-2452 TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development DATE: May 19, 1994 Departrnent of Community Develnpnienr SUBJECT Nottingham Ranch Parcel/Lindholm Land Exchange - : ~-r: r: r: r--{_•r -a.;r ;r.:w.Y-:i;: -r.v -r.-r v: {.-r •s.-:.;r.~iv ~n-.;.;{.;r.;a~;s.•r •r~•{y:s.v _ ___ n;s.;{{{-:{.v.k:xu_:: ~-_r.;{ ~r :";:__:'-`:i ;• '.1•.1•.. -s - _~ _ . - 1~•:ti :•-.i-. -'. .S ....... .i _ .... z s s -Z .Y .` - s t s •- '.S•-y - _•_ - . '_ - .• - .s .1 . -.Y.s•.s'.Y.s'.s.-v.1•.~•.s•.s-.s-.s-.\-.s-.1•. ~ .1 :~:v.s'.s:S-.s•.s..s:s•.s-.s-.s-.s'.v.4•.\•.Y.s-.s•.s . - - •.1 .s .s:Y.s . _ -s•.s•.s•.Y.a..v.t•.s': BACKGROUND: In October of 1993, the.Town of Vail was approached by the Pirtey Valley Ranch Trust to review a proposed land trade commonly known as the Lindholm Land Trade. The Trust is proposing a congressional land trade on a number of properties in the Piney River Valley, Nottingham Ranch, Sweetwater Lake, Costilla County, and along the Eagle River west of Wolcott. Total federal lands that would go to the Trust equal 4,575 acres and the E"ederal Government would receive i7, 984 acres of land {see attachment 1). The Trust is proposing a congressional land trade as opposed to an administrative swap since two Federal Agencies would be involved. A congressiona! land trade is an act of Congress and requires a bill being passed though the legislative process. Support from the state congressional delegation is typically required to successfully complete a congressional #rade. An administrative trade can be done within the respective 1^orest Service and/or Bureau of Land Management Districts. An Administrative trade requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the completion of appropriate environmental analysis and public input. The stated purpose of this trade will be for the Trust to secure federally owned properties around the Piney Valley Ranch to reduce trespassing and improve habi#at for big game ranching. The Trust also intends to develop what is commonly referred to as the Nottingham Ranch which is located north of I-70 and Eagle Vail.. The Trust specifically wanted to obtain the Town's opinion on the Nottingham Ranch trade. . The Nottingham Ranch is owned by the Trust and is under County jurisdiction. It is zoned Resource which allows for i single family dwelling unit per 35 acres. It is anticipated that the Trust would propose upzoning all or a portion of the property to accommodate a greater development density. It would be likely that the Trust would also request annexation into the Town of Avon. The Nottingham Ranch exchange is, in effect, self contained since 335 acres of Forest Service land are proposed to be traded for 335 acres of adjacent land owned by the Piney River Ranch Trust. Staff comments are focused only on the relative merits of the revised Nottingham propose! shown in Attachment 2. Comments do not address the overall merits of the trade that may be proposed to Congress or the impacts of potential development that ~, may~occur on the Nottingham Ranch. There is significant concern in the County regarding the ability of the area to accommodate planned development that will occur with existing zoning let abne development that may require upzoning. It is staff`s understanding that the Town of. Avon or twagle County would require an Environmental Impact Report when subdivision plans are submitted. Other considerations that need to be considered regardless of the fond . exchange, although not necessarily by the Town of Vail, in the future include: . 1) water availability to service development at Nottingham {i.e., can minimum instream flows be protected) 2) comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts 3y visual impact along I-70 4) cumulative loss of open space in the Upper Eagle River Valley Comparison of Alternatl~es The map shown in attachment 2 displays the proposed exchange at the Nottingham Ranch 'and attachment 3 helps provide a perspective on the distance of the eastern most parcel from the Trappers Run site. The original exchange proposal is displayed in attachment 4. This proposal has been modified based on input from the Department of Waldlife and other interested parties. The Department of Wildlife is the only agency that has issued a written opinion on the exchange (Attachment 5). A significant change in this proposal from the previous proposal is that the Northern parcel indicated as an acquisition from the USES does not extend as far north into a migrational corridor for elk and deer. The following is a list of pros and cons of the 8 oarceis that under the current proposal (Attachment 2) would be traded at the Nottingham Ranch. Pros " Will eliminate the possibility of development on the site being directly visible from the Town of Vail. Lighting from the development may be seen at night under the exchange proposal. Although, lighting would be less visible than if the exchange did not occur and development occurred on the eastern most area of the site. "' By not developing on the eastern parcel the trade will prevent devebpment along the unnamed creek running through the Trappers Run Parcel and reduce the possibility of increased non point source pollution of Gore Creek. Will create a continuous recreation trail for hiking and biking from West Vail to the Red and White Mountain Trail and potentially through to Wolcott. " May reduce impacts to the elk and deer corridor by not developing on the eastern most parcel. Will minimize the visual impacts of the development from the I-7g corridor. The parcels being disposed of have more potential for visual impact than those being acquired. Cons ` Development on the northern parcel that would be acquired from the USFS may have . negative impacts on~ elk and deer habitat. ~ . ` The Department of Wildlife stated in a March 11, 1994 memo that the proposed exchange at the Nottingham Ranch would have a negative affect an wildlife and recreation (See attachment 5). DOW also feels that the habitat value of what will be given to the USFS is less than the value of the land that will be given to the Trust. '~ Without an environmental assessment of the proposed action it is not possible to determine~the relative environmental impacts of the three parcels that would be acquired from the USFS. The Town has held a policy of opposing land trades on its border for the purpose of private development. Although, not directly adjacent to the Town of Vail boundary, ' support of this trade without a strong rational or criteria may send mixed messages to others considering land trades in the Vaii Valley. SUMMARY Based on the available information it does appear that the proposed exchange a# the Nottingham Ranch has tangible benefits to the Town and possible impacts that are difficult to quantify at this time. The disposal of the eastern most parcel to the Forest Service does result in strong positive benefits for the Town of Vail from a visuak standpoint. Hawever, there are still many planning and environmental issues that still need to be examined regardless of the outcome of the land exchange to fully determine the direct and cumulative impacts of any proposed development on the site. ATTACHMENT 1 ~, Summary of possible public gains and losses from revised Piney VaAey Ranches Trust land ezchange CATEGORY ~ GAIN LOSS Public acreslacres open to public access and use -Costilla County 17 162 X -Sweetwater Lake 371 -Eagle River/Red Canyon ~ ~ l I6 ~ -N~«aagham offered - 335 - -Lower Piney 4000 -N~t.t.~gham 335 -BLM (lower Piney) 240 Net public acres + 13,409 acres 2.Open Space acres -all offered lands {acres) I7 984 -all selected lands (acres) 575 Net open space +17,409 acres 3. River frontage/fisherman & recreation access -Rio Crrande (access via boat ramp,dirt road) 4.5 miles -Eagle River (easy access from paved road) 1.5 miles -Piney River canyon (difficult access in remote canyon) 0.5 miles Net river frontagelstream access +S.S miles 4. Estimated public use/enhanced use (in visitor days) -Sweetwater Lake {new) 8008 rvds enhanced existing Sweetwater use 81$5 rvds -enhanced Flattops wilderness access thru Sweetwater 1766 rvds -Eagle school visits to Sweetwater caves llnknowIIl -Costilla County lands (river corridor) 5500 rvds -Castilla County lands (away from river) unknown= • -Eagle River/Red Canyon unknowlla ~ a....•..,]:..g to the local txttfiner, Eagle Cotmty spool classes es regularly visits the caves • ,_ these upllaods have a fair to poor poteagai for huat~g and would ptvbahly sulrpott mly a Few htmdred rvds j unlrnown, but rise should be Q the thousands each year, and should FAIL ecoeedthe use m all the Piney selected lands ilte'rttut i is sexi;mg toace{uue: i ~,M CATEGORY Estimated public uselenhanced use (cont.) -Davos Tray (West Vat1) -Muddy pass -Marina Lake ~~ Net visitor use 5. Bicycle trails -Nottingham offered lands -Eagle River/Red Canyon {possible future trail) . -Piney River selected -Nottingham selected Net bicycle trails • 6. Wetlandslriparian habitat -Sweetwater Lake wetlands . -Sweetwater Lakeshore - Eagle River riparian -Rio Crrande Riparian -Piney River selected -Nottingham selected 7. Wilderness access -Sweetwater Lake -Fzney selected {Eagles Nest Wddemess) 8. Use by disabled -Sweetwater Lake GAIN L055 450 reds 1000 rvds 200 reds + 22,709 rude + Eagle River ~~ unknown - existing yes a 0 1 existing I potential _ 50+ acres 1.5 miles 1.5 miles 4.5 miles 0 0 pas9ble new tradhead & access into Flattops 0~ strong interest m possible future use & special facilities ~ the Piney lids big sou~t by the Tcu~ m ao vray ix~raa a affect ~y .__:...g trails a cxhsr axes to the Eagle's Nee Wildeatas AcYrst into fire W ildemess is by truLe fa 7e4tloved ~Ttlen the Seieaed I~dL r~ t. ATTAC~iMENT 1 n Summary of possible public gains aad losses from revised Piney VaIIey Ranches Trust lead ezchange CATEGORY GA.II~i LOSS Public acres/acres open to public access and use -Costilla County 17,162 -Sweetwater Lake 371 -Eagle•I~iver/Red Canyon ~ • • lI6 -Nottingham offered ~ 335 -Lower Piney 4000 -Nottingham 335 -BLM (lower Piney) 240 Net public acres + 13,409 acres 2.Open Space acres -all. offered lands (acres} 17,984 -all selected lands (acres) 575 Aiet open space +17,409 acres 3. River frontage/fshermalu & recreation, access -Rio Grande (access via boat ramp,dirt road) 4.5 wiles -Eagle River (easy access from paved road) 1.5 miles -Piney River canyon (difficult access in remote canyon) 0.5 miles Net river frontage/stream access 4. Estimated public use/enhanced use (in visitor days) -Sweetwater Lake (new) =enhanced existing Sweetwater use -enhanced Flattops wilderness access thru Sweetwater -Earle school visits to Sweetwater caves -Costilla County lands (river corridor} -Costilla County lands (away from river) • -Eagle River/Red Canyon ~ according to the local o~tifines, Fagle County school classes regularly visits the raves " these up33ands have a fair to po6r patmual fat hunting andwatldprobably sttppatt t~ly a fewhua~ed rvds +5.5 miles 8008 rvds 8185 rvds 1766 rvds UIIkII4Wnt 5500 rvds unlmawn2 unknown' 3 unlmauu, bia use sttaild be m the thotisaads each yew, afld mould FAR exceed the vac m all the Piney aclected lands the Trust i is seeking to acquire f J ~ 1 CATEGORY Estimated public use enhanced use (cont.) -Davos Trail (West Vail) -Muddy pass -Marma Lake Net visitor use S. Bicvcle trails -Nottingham offered lands -Eagle River/Red Canyon (possible future trail) -Piney River selected -Nottingham selected Net bicycle trails 6. Wetlands/riparian habitat -Sweetwater Lake wetlands -Sweetwater lakeshore - Eagle River riparian -Rio Grande Riparian -Piney River selected -Nottingham selected 7. Wilderness access -Sweetwater Lake -Piney selected (Eagles Nest Wilderness) 8. Use by disabled -Sweetwater Lake GAIN LOSS 450 rvds 1000 rvds 200 rvds + 22,709 rvds + Eagle River unknown existing yes 0 0 ~ eaistuig 1 potential 50+ acres 1.5 miles 1.5 miles 4.5 miles 0 0 passible new trailhead & access iota Flattop s 0~ strong interest in possible future use & special facilities ;. 1 the Furry lands bem g sought by the Trvst m no way unpad or affect any oa~iag trails a other aotxss to the eagle's Nest Wilde Awes taro thr W ildemess ~ by trails far moved from the selected ]ids. .~ ~, i# TOWN OF VArL 75 South Frontage Road ~~afl, Colorado 81657 ~3-479-2105/FAX 479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vaif Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin Tbwn Manager DATE: July 29, 1994 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Park Citv Meeting ~~ Office of the Town Manager As we have discussed, a delegation of elected and appointed officials from Park City, Utah, will • be in town on August 10th and 11th. On August 10th, we will host a small picnic This event will be held at Big Horn Park and will begin at 6:00 p.m. The next day an informal meeting with this delegation will be held at the Evergreen bodge. A continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., and the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss issues of mutual concern, such as housing, transportation, and managed growth. The Eagle County Commissioners and Avon Town Council have been invited to attend this meeting. I have also invited the PEC and DRB. The agenda consists of a series of brief presentations. Following these presentations a question and answer period will be held. This meeting should conclude by 11:30 a.m. We have arranged a series of tours following this meeting. Please let me know if you will be able to attend these events. Relocation Guide Please find the attached relocation guide. This document was prepared through a collaborative effort between Eagle County, the Avon Beaver Creek Resort Association, and the Town of Vail. The cost of this publication was $21,000. Eagle County provided $15,000, ABCRA contributed . $3,000, and the TOV contributed $3,000. Vail Associates also participated by providing photographs and text. Fees collected for the booklet will be used to help pay for a second printing when needed. This project was prepared by Suzanne Silverthorn. As usual, she did an exceNent job. RW M/aw C:1Towncaun.l i ~ ~, ' ~-, .~ ,y TOWN OF VAIL ~ 7S Snuth Frontage Road MEDIA ADVISORY Fail, Cvlnr~dn 81657 303-474-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 August 4, 1994 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn Community Information Office 479=21 15 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR AUGUST 2 Council members present: Johnston, Lapin, Navas, Osterfoss, Shearer, Steinberg, Strauch Work Session Briefs --Joint Vail AssociateslTown of Vail Managed Growth Meeting In a continuing discussion on joint planning issues, senior level officials from Vail Associates met with the Town Council yesterday to probe the caunci!'s reaction to 'VA's marketing strategy far the 1994-95 winter season. The strategy, outlined by VA laresident Andy Daly, is amulti-faceted plan intended to expand the number of skier visits during non-peak days, while keeping the number of peak days to a minimum. The plan includes value-priced lift tickets and accommodations; direct mail campaigns; and a mechanism to forecast impending occupancy levels to allow for timely marketing adjustments. A second tier could utilize lower pricing strategies and pass restrictions, among other mechanisms, to move visits to non- peak times. Council members reacted positively to the presentation and added a list of their own concerns. They include: --increased safety mechanismslenforcement on the mountain. --Incentive programs for repeat customers. --Formalization of a communications system to advise the community of occupancy forecasts. --Implementation of an understanding between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates to control the number of peak skier days {in case of a future ownership change). --Explore use of marketing dollars {Vail Valley Marketing Board) for winter campaign. --Capacity improvements (parking, carpooling, I-70 access & corridor) --A centralized reservation system. --A standardized rating system for lodges {Vail and Beaver Creek). --Incentives to upgrade properties. --The need to enlist cooperation of business community in addressing the issues. {more) G TOV HighlightslAdd 1 --Becoming more internationally friendly fsignage, money conversions, fioreign newspapers, menus, etc.) In probing the Tawn of Vail's role in the marketing effort, Council member Jim Shearer suggested the town address what he called the two "biggest anti- marketing problems"--lack of employee housing and the parking issue--and asked for VA's assistance in addressing the problems. In response, Daly said he welcomed the challenge to help with the parking problem. As for the affordable housing issue, Daiy said he was supportive and would look to the town to take the lead. The group also discussed circulation and infrastructure needs. The list includes roundabouts at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges; f-70 corridor capacity improvements; development of a portal at Golden Peak; an underpass at Simba Run; creation of a regional transportation system; redevelopment of Lionshead; and delivery system improvements. For more information, contact Town Manager Bob McLaurin at 479-2105. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Johnston, Lapin, Navas, Osterfoss, Sheared Steinberg, Strauch --Citizen Participation Darren Rowe of Eagle urged the council to vote against an ordinance banning the sale and possession of assault weapons in the Town of Vail. Rowe called the ordinance a "poor idea," Hating that local law enforcement agencies have not supported the concept. Rowe also said he considered the ban to be a violation of canstitutionai rights. The council is scheduled to consider the ordinance for first reading on Sept. 6. --Supplemental Appropriation to Purchase Trappers Run The council unanimously approved a supplemental appropriation to the town's 1994 budget to fund the purchase of Trappers Run. The funding appropriation followed action by the council last week authorizing a purchase price of 52.5 million for the 48-acre parcel in West Vail. The land will be purchased from two reserve funds: the general fund, 5703,000; and the capital projects fund, $1.87 million. Mayor Peggy Osterfoss said the council decided against use of Real Estate Transfer Tax [RETTS funds in order to "maintain flexibility" with regard to future i uses of the property andlar any land that may be traded to the town in exchange # for portions of Trappers Run. The council had previously indicated that any use of RETT funds would have required the corresponding acreage to be maintained as open space. l=or more information, contact Town Manager Bob McLaurin at 479- 2105. -- (morey i TOV Highlights/Add 2 --Lindholm Land Exchange Resolution On a 4 to 3 vote (with Osterfoss, Shearer and Strauch in the minority}, the council defeated a resolution which would have established conditional support for the 335-acre Nottingham Ranch portion of the proposed Lindholm land exchange. About 50 Eagle County residents attended the meeting. Those who spoke--17 in ail--urged the council to vote against the resolution, noting 'that conditional support of the Nottingham portion (an area above Eagle-Vail) would imply Vail's support for the entire land swap, which impacts 18,000 acres of private land (which would go to the federal government) and 4,575 acres of federal land (which would go to Lindholm) throughout three counties. Bill Post, an attorney representing the land exchange proposal, had offered two concessions to the council: a willingness to commit a density of Tess than one unit per acre on the Nottingham Ranch parcel, and an offer to donate a 10-acre parcel to be used for affordable housing. Although the council acknowledged tangible benefits to the town, a majority of the council members said support of the exchange would set a bad precedent for the town regarding other land exchanges. For additional background information on this issue, contact Russell Forrest in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. --Utility Easement The council unanimously granted permission for East West Partners to obtain a utility easement on town stream tract property adjacent to Russell's restaurant. Far details, contact Greg Hall in the Public Works Department at 479-2160. --Information Update The council chose not to consider 1994 funding requests from Vail Mountain School and the Vail Valley Restaurant Association. instead, the council will consider funding requests from those and other organizations this fall as part of the 1995 budget process. A letter from the owner of the Poppyseed Bakery-Deli-Espresso Cafe in West Vail was distributed to the council. The letter outlined concerns about trash and an overflow of patrons from the new Taco Bell franchise in the West Vaii Mall. --Town Manager's Report Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he had been notified by Mountain Bell that installation of a fiber optic cable firom Vail to Copper Mountain would result in A temporary closure of the bike path later this summer. The work also will impact the bike path in East Vail from Streamside Circle east to Bighorn Road and along Highway 6. Also, McLaurin said he intended to bring a resolution before the council at the next (more TQV Highlights/Add 3 meeting to receive authorization to negotiate a contract for the Covered Bridge restoration project rather than ask for bids. McLaurin said the bidding process this season has been extremely difficult because of the overflow of construction projects throughout the valley. As a result, bids have not been competitive, according to McLaurin. --Council Reports Merv Lapin said he had received some items from the John Dobson family and would turn the materials over to the Vail Public Library. Noting a continued concern for safety, the council denied a request from Bravo! Colorado to allow tonight's concert patrons to park on one side of South Frontage Road. 5ybill Navas reported the "fair share" funding committee of the Vail Valley Marketing Board had met and would be finalizing its funding recommendations in the coming weeks. There was a brief discussion regarding safety concerns involving the mix of pedestrians, bicycles, rollerbladers and motor vehicles along Vail Valley Drive and West Meadow Drive. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he was preparing to address the issue through education, increased signage and the possible use of dismount zones. McLaurin's report will be presented later in the month. --Night Ligh#ing Tour The council's night lighting tour was postponed due to the length of last night's meeting. ~ # # MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 16, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 16, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Theo Rumford, who resides at b75 Forest Road, expressed her concern about noisy snowcats using Forest Road to access Vail Mountain. Ms. Rumford referenced a proposed bridge which was slated for the 95-96 ski season as an alternate route for snowcats, and stated Forest Road residents did not want to be forgotten. Tom Steinberg said he had toured the site with Vail Associates personnel and discussions were taking place regarding plans to remedy the situation. Paul Johnston questioned land ownership of the proposed bridge site. Merv Lapin thought the land was owned by the Town. Mayor Osterfoss stated the issue of land ownership would be addressed. Second on the agenda was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1994, 2nd Reading -Supplemental Appropriation to Purchase Trapper's Run. Steve Thompson explained the details of the ardinanceF stating the land would be purchased from two funds: the general fund $706,000; and the capital projects fund, $1.87 million. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance 16, with a second by Tom Steinberg, A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1994, 1st Reading, an Ordinance amending Section 18.04.130, Floor Area Gross Residential (GRFA), allowing area within multi-family buildings to be used for employee housing. Andy Knudtsen referenced a memorandum dated July 25, 1994 to the PEC, detailing the request from Jay Peterson to amend section 18.57 of the Tawn Code. Andy explained the proposed ordinance would amend the definition of GRFA to allow common area to be converted to Type III and Type N employee housing units, as conditional uses. Andy and Mike Moliica continued answering questions pertaining to the details of the ordinance and stated the. PEC had recommended approval of the ordinance. Jay Peterson explained he felt the ordinance would be beneficial not only to his project, but to others as well. Council members discussed their positions with regard to the ordinance, and requested the last line in section B.2.(h} be changed to state that in cases where housing would be converted back to common area, the Town would require the employee housing units be replaced within the town of Vail. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to pass Ordinance No. 17 with changes, Paul Johnston seconded the motion. Tom feared the ordinance would create the potential to convert convention/meeting space, as well as athletic club facilikies into employee housing units. Merv expressed concern about increased density. A vote was taken and passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance vacating the utility and drainage easement on Lot 6, Bighorn Estates, Town of Vail, Colorado. Greg Hall explained the details of the ordinance and answered questions from Council members. Paul suggested submitting a plat with first reading. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 18 on first reading, and directed staff to produce an illustration by second reading. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 7-0. Item Na. 5 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1994, first reading, an Ordinance vacating a right of way and sewer easement, and creating pedestrian and right of way easement, water line easement, public access, drainage and utility easement by plat. Greg informed Council of the location of the easement on a plat map and explained the ordinance was in accordance with an SDD for the Lifthouse project. Paul Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. 19, with a second from Tom Steinberg. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Merv directed staff to inform Council by second reading iE GRFA would be increased. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1994, first reading, an Ordinance creating a utility easement for the Covered Bridge Building. Greg explained the details of the ordinance, and stated Exhibit A was not included, but would be available for second reading. Jan Strauch moved to Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 08!?6l94 approve Ordinance 20, with a second from Paul Johnston. Tom Moorhead pointed out the word "nonexclusive" in the second paragraph should be changed to "exclusive". A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Resolution No. 19, Series of 1994, a Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate a contract to refurbish/reconstruct the Covered Bridge. Greg Hall explained work would be expected to begin September 19, with a completion date of November 1,1994. Jim Shearer moved to approve Resolution No. 19, with Jan Strauch seconding the motion. Discussion continued pertaining to bidding the project vs. negotiating. Bob McLaurin said the town intends to negotiate a fee for the work through an advertising process rather than bid the project in an effort to produce a competitive fee. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 was a DRB Appeal/Gustafson, The applicant, Mr. Dick Gustafson, was appealing the paved parking condition of approval placed upon his proposed residential exterior alteration and interior remodel by the Design Review Board (DRB) at the August 3, 1994 meeting. Mr. Gustafson was represented at the meeting by his architect, Mr. Ken Wentworth. George RutlYer, planner on the project, passed pictures illustrating the property currently, and explained the proposed residential addition. Kent Wentworth explained his client's situation in detail. Mike Mollica informed Council that Mr. Gustafson was contesting a staff policy, which was part of the zoning code. Mike suggested the proper process would be for Mr. Gustafson to ask the PhC for a paving variance ar request an appeal of the staff policy. Paul Johnston suggested the appeal be withdrawn and directed Mr. Gustafson to proceed with the proper process. Mr. Wentworth agreed, and requested his appeal be withdrawn, stating he would apply to the PEC to appeal the staff lialicy. Jim Shearer moved to approve the withdrawal, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed, 7-0. Item No. 9 was an Information Update. Issues discussed included: color of the stucco on the police building (Mike Mollica will raise the issue informally with DRB); dismount zone in the Village (will be discussed at next worksession); Vail Recreation District interested in keeping the library space for another five years; request from the Vail Valley Foundation to temporarily affix a Mountain Bike Championship sign over the 89 World Championship sign at main Vail interchange. Merv moved to staff approve the sign for the Foundation with the condition that it have a nice border. Paul seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Peggy, Sybill, and Tom Steinberg opposed. Pam informed Council of a request from the organizers of the Crystal Ball for a blue parking pass this December. Council members agreed to be consiskent with deadlines, which have already passed for 94 funding requests. Other issues discussed included: public use of police building conference and training rooms and possible public parking in the new lot; encouraging employee carpooling; helipad status; updated fire study this year; Paul asked that notes from the Vail Commons meeting be amended to reflect a clarification comment made by Bill Wilto. Wilto had stated residents were promised a West Vail fire station during consolidation of fire districts not during annexation as some residents had stated at the meeting; conversions of hotel rooms to condos -Bob Mci,aurin was asked to follow up. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P,M. • A r - t;ST: ~rr, f~ : ~8~, "~''f ~ ~~ Holl:~ L. NTcCutchean, Town Clerk Mantes ieken Ep HMH L McCwd~eon ~i Respectfully submitted, Merv La n, Mayor Pro-Tem 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes O~J16/94 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 25, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Section 18.57 of• the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Employee Housing, to allow for common area to be used for employee housing. Applicant: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen ............... .. .. ..... .. ...:~ :•.::.: ...: ....,• w+,:•. :. :....:. .:.~::.::.»:i:.:~:..\\.:::\-.:i0'; \.......... ,"~\"\\.:•i;,.;J'.:~?: :........ ,, "~11~~ till ~':, `:.iti'*ii\:~ •::\.,.,.,Ok,,,. U].il~. ..+Y.: :~.\.. ,.,ti: ti1.~:~:.. :, , ; , ..\ ~. \: ..v,J\~~,.:ti , .:\\:\:..4 \:~i'S ~•:11~..:.. zy:;.~;: ;,4c•:~ ~`; ;:~:.,tiM ~ ~ :~\::e:~.~Cti.~ \b,;:. H:.... .., ~~.,,.a.\.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a,.,,..,,..,,,,,,,,::;*s,\\k;~;: , ., .'c' tea.. I. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST Jay Peterson, the developer of 44 Willow Place, is proposing changes to the Zoning Code regarding employee housing units. When his project was originally designed, he included three employee housing units. He had used all of the GRFA in the project for the three dwelling units and had proposed using common area far the employee housing units. At the • time, the Code did not allow this to be done. The options Jay presented to the Planning and Environmental Gommissian {PEC} at the time of approval included: 1. Delete the employee housing units and turn the area into common storage; 2. Propose an SDD to allow the employee housing units; or, - 3. Propose a Cade change to allow a certain percentage of allowed common area in amulti-family building to be used for employee housing units. The applicant and the I?EC agreed that the third option was the best. At this time, Jay has pursued the third option and is proposing the language listed below. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGES, The proposed code changes are shown below in shade and er~a~st~+k$. 18.04.130 Floor area, gross residential {GRFA)* Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a A building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e. not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wail finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay:`in:~iauus, mechanical chases, vents, and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsections A. or B. below. ~ ' A. Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced na greater than thirty inches apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. 4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three exterior.walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty-five percent of the lineal perimeter of the area of sold deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling with an allowance for a raAing-of up to three feet in height. • GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building set forth in Section t 8.fl4.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in subsection A, shall then be deducted from total square footage. B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements. 2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are common spaces and that the total square footage of all the following spaces shall not exceed thirty-five percent of the allowable GRFA permitted on the lot. a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and airlocks; b. Common lobby areas; c. Common enclosed recreation facilities; d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square footage excluded from calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square footage required to allow for the maintenance and operation of such mechanical systems; 2 e. Common closet and storage areas, providing access to such areas is from common hallways only; f. Meeting and convention facilities; g. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for the management and operation of on-site facilities. 3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. 4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level. 5. Attic space with a ceiling height at five feet or less, as measured from the #ap side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. Attic areas created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches apart. 6. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve square feet in area, with five feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floorlceiling assembly above. 7. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty-five percent of the lineal perimeter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space provided the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height. GRFA shaA be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in subsection B. shall then be deducted from the total square footage. (Ord. 15 {1991 } §1: Ord. 37 (1990} §1: Ord. 41 (1982} § 1A: Ord. 37(1980) § 1(part).) 3 "`EDITOR'S NOTE: The provisions of this section shall not be effective far any application for development which has been submitted to the department of community development, and accepted by the same, on or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant submitting the application before July 1, 1991. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff believes that the proposed changes will be beneficial for providing employee housing. We believe that there are enough checks and balances within the Zoning Code that this section wiN not be used to generate excess mass and bulk or excess units on any particular site. The common area square footage is already allowed by the Code. This amendment adds one additional way in which common area may be used. The important points to understand include the following: The common area can only be used for Type III or Type IV employee hauling units. 2. Type III and Type IV employee housing units are allowed only as conditional uses. They are allowed in the following zone districts: Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi-Family, Medium Density Multi-Family, High Density Multi-Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Parking • District, Public Use District and Ski Base Recreation District. 3. There is no net increase in floor area. The amendment allows for allowed common area to be used not only for standard common area uses {hallways, stairways, lobbies, etc.) but also broadens the use to include Type III and Type lV units. The total allowed common area remains the same. 4. Though the ordinance will allow the use of common area as GRFA, it does no# allow any additional density for dwelling units an-site beyond what is allowed under the property's zoning. 5. All other zoning standards wilt be in effect. Standards for height, site coverage, setbacks, parking, etc. could not be amended without a variance. More importantly, the applicant will have to provide all parking required for the units on-site. 6. The concept of the proposed changes is one that staff believes is consistent with the Town's Employee Housing Ordinance, Land Use Plan, and with the Town's effort to add to the employee housing supply. Specifically, the following goals of the Land Use Plan call for the additional supply of Employee Hauling: "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. 4 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded, Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community." Determining the appropriate amount of common area that can be allocated for employee housing has been difficult for staff to calculate. At this time, staff is recommending 60%. At the end of this memo, there is a chart showing what percentage of floor area has been allocated to common area and what area could be used for employee housing units for a variety of projects in the Town. Staff has shown each project under three different scenarios of common area. We calculated the allowable square footage of common area for employee housing units at 60%, 50%, and 30%. Staff believes that the 60% works the best. We believe that it is important to retain some common area fior typical common area uses, such as lobbies, hallways and front offices. However, we do not want to limit the amount of employee housing that could be located on- site as we are trying to encourage units and disperse employee housing throughout the community. Though the research staff has done does not clearly indicate that a certain percentage is better than others, we believe that 60% of allowed common area is a reasonable standard as it will allow flexibility, yet reserve some of the allocated common area for traditional common area purposes. Please see the chart at the end of the memo. • ~ Because the numbers can get confusing, staff has provided an example below to show how the proposed changes could be used in a hypothetical situation. Lot Size: Zone District: GRFA Allowed: Units Allowed: Common Area Allowed: Maximum Area Allowed to be used for FHU's: Maximum Area Allowed to be used for standard Common Area Uses: 112 acre or 21,780 square feet Public Accommodation (21,780}{.$0} = 17,424 square feet {.5 acre}(25 dwelling units/acre) = 12.5 dwelling units {.35)(17,424) = 6,098.4 square feet {6,098.4){.60) = 3,659 square feet 6,098.4 - 3,659 = 2,439 square feet V, CHANGE TO GRFA DEFINITION Qne of the other changes that staff is proposing at this time that is unrelated to housing is to include the phrase "bay windows" in our definition of GRFA. We have counted all bay windows as GRFA since our definition was changed in 1990. We would like to clarify the Code so that it references bay windows in the definition. We believe that it will help architects and developers as they prepare site plans to have the definition be more complete. There will be no chance in the way staff has been enforcing the Code. 5 vll. coNClLUSION Staff believes that the proposed changes add flexibility to the Zoning Code that will help provide additional employee housing. We believe that it is a reasonable amount of flexibility as ail other zoning standards will still be in effect and any proposal for a Type III or Type IV . unit will be reviewed by the PEC as a conditional use, During the staff and PEC review of the Type III or Type IV unit, staff recommends that applicants be required to explain their current and future common area needs so that future common area variances are discouraged. Based on~the proposed language and its compliance with Town of Vail planning documents, staff recommends approval ~of the requested ,code changes. . c:Ipeclmemoslehujay.725 • v 6 a f • • V ~A ~ ~ i{-I SLR ~ 2m[n d ~ C O __ ~ ~ W W L) C. ~ ~ C G 7 N G1 ~ O O • N 0. ~ ~ ~ ~ w q ~ [u U n a o n v o ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ] 77 T1 T ~ V C V N W ~ C~ n , m O 3 O fQ G ww ... a, Nw rncn n~ ~• o yam ~ ~ x ~~ ~ C C 4 C C C fA ~ •~.• N VCi _ ~ f~ fO A N V W 9 ~ [JI 1 ~ Ut U1 U~ N ~ !] f T ~ A N W m a ~. . m A N w ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ,p ~ • ~ - a O N 6 A O N O Vi O A ~ O N A n Gi -_ (W1[ A W ~ W ~ U W ~ W N ~ Us ~ ~ ~ 0 ' 0 " O W 0 tD O ~ O ~ 1O ~ b w ~, a m a A ~ ~+ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 a3o~ n-.. o- w ~ - N w w o+ a ~m x °n°°~`° a 0 g r c°n m ~ m it ~ y 3 [D m= 3 kV m W N N ~, j N ~ . c w o ~ ~ n ip a n o A _. mw _ .~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ = N A G C ~ w ~ ~, a a ~ ~, m W ~ N v, ? l~ WO (T ~ N W [a ~ ~ ~ m _ ~ N ~ N W N Ul ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ m A ~ D ~ N f J [a ~ ~ a ~ O W V f +7 t O V W (n w A W A ~n A V O J m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A 3 a x 9 £ a fil W [D ~ A W O N W ~ N n w N A N ~ Opo A 3~ V` f0 4J ~ ~ A .O .D N S] N N ~' 7 D --~ .O ~ ~ x J cc N W W ~ ~ m ~ W V a (') w 3~ cn ~ A ~ ~ V A N W ~ ~ ~ S ~ d ll . 7 D .G L N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ry a W~ A A Q D ~O n Y a n MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 6,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first ifem on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second an the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of August 2nd and 16th, 1994. B. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1994, 2nd Reading, an Ordinance amending Section 18.04.130, Floor Area Gross Residential (GRFA), allowing area within multi-Eamily buildings to be used Eor employee housing. C. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an ordinance vacating the utility and drainage easement on Lot b, Bighorn Estates, Town of Vail, Colorado. D. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an Ordinance vacating a right- of-way and sewer easement, and creating pedestrian and right-of-way easement, water line easement, public access, drainage and utility easement by plat. E. Ordinance No, 20, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an Ordinance creating a utility easement for the Covered Bridge Building, A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items B and E, Ordinance Nos.17, and Z0, respectively. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. At that time, discussion proceeded regarding Ordinance No. 17, Andy Knudtsen and Mike Mollica reviewed the details of Ordinance No. 17. Jay Peterson explained that amending the code provided another avenue to create employee housing units within the town, and using that.approach was less complicated than going through the variance process. Jay further stated TOV staff and PEC felt comfortable with Jay's approach. Tom Steinberg expressed two concerns: 1) losing conference space and recreation facilities, and 2) creating special privilege. Andy stated that Community Development had been approached by two other complexes interested in converting common space to employee housing. Jan Strauch moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, with a second from Jim Shearer. Further discussion centered around hotel conversion, density change, and parking requirement issues. Paul Johnston called the question. A vote was taken and passed 4-2, Merv and Tom voting in opposition. Consent Agenda item E., Ordinance No. 20, was then discussed. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance 20, with a second from Jan Strauch. Merv requested language be added to assure the building owner would not remonstrate against the Town. Art Alpenalp stated he didn't feel his client would have any problem with such language. Tom Moorhead stated that an easement agreement, which was not a part of the Ordinance, would be entered into and the language would be incorporated into that agreement. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 6-0. 4 1st Readin an Ordinance Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 199 , g, restricting the sale or possession of assault weapons. A motion was made by Paul Johnston, and seconded Jim Shearer to approve Ordinance No. 15. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Vail Town Council keening Meeting Minutes 09/06/94 f T r IEem No. 4 was First reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, 1st Reading, an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.04, setting forth definitions for active outdoor recreation, interpretive nature walks, nature preserves, passive outdoor recreation, private, public, quasi-public, and changing the section number of recreation structure; amending Chapter 18.36, Public Use District; amending Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; and creating Chapter 18.33, Outdoor Recreation District; and setting forth details in regard thereto. CBased on extensive discussion/modifications/additions from the afternoon's worksession] Tom Steinberg made a motion to table Ordinance No, 21 to the next evening meeting. Paul Johnston seconded the rnotian. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was a sign variance request by the Roost Lodge. George Ruther displayed a drawing of the proposed sign and referenced a memo dated August 17, 1994, to the DRB from the Department of Community Development. George explained the request in detail and stated that staff recommended approval of the request. Comments from Council Members included a concern that granting a variance could set a precedent; proposed sign would be a great improvement; and possibility of increasing the size of the proposed sign. Paul Johnston moved to grant the sign variance as recommended by staff. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 6 was the Lifthouse Lodge Appeal. The Town Council wished to review the PEC's recent approval of setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II (CCII) zone district for the Lifthouse Lodge, Located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead, 1st Filing. Bob Lazier, applicant, Galen Aasland and Jay Peterson were present. Jirn Curnutte referenced two memorandums dated September I~ 6, 1994, to the Town Council from Community Development, and August 22, 1994, to the PEC from Community Development. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the decision of the PEC, with the condition that two sets of windows be installed on the east side of the building as shown on the applicant's color rendering, unless an engineering report reveals that the structural integrity of the building would be threatened, then one set of windows on the east side of the building will be allowed. Jirn Shearer seconded the motion, A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 Presentations Re: 1995 Contract/Dues/Leases: a. WTCB Information Booths and Special Events. b. ABCRA Information Booths. Merv stated the Council would hear both presentations, but would not make a decision until a presentation from the Vail Valley Marketing Board submits its funding request on September 20 at a Council worksession. Frank Johnson, representing the VVTC$, presented a proposal to operate the Vail Information Booths, manage and produce certain Town of Vail special events, and form better events communication and reservation system for 1995. . Kate Collins of the ABCRA explained the organization, and presented a proposal to manage the Vail Information Booths for 1995, and suggested a more regionalized approach to include Avon, as the information center there was already operated by the ABCRA. Item No. 8 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add to his memorandum, which had been included in Council packets. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ., Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Te:m ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L. McCutcheon Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 09106!94 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 17, 1994 SUBJECT: A sign variance request for the Roost Lodge located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, a resub. of Buffeter Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Julian and Chris Mazili Planner: George Ruttier .:!.\....;...::\~.,,,..,,. .,Y.:-::... .1.. ~.. ,:.\ti:,,.: .., ~\~.,~ 1,.,k1~„\,\,.i„v",.~..~k,,. ~,.,,. ~i\~ ~~:\:. \:i\:ii;i.l:ti\.t,;,,_~\:.J.::~i:\:t~::it:i\:vi:ii ~\: .,.,, ,.,\\iiL.in.\~.::.~.~.i:~:2 \:.i:tii`:: ":n,i~'tii~''v,.r ,~~, ~.. .4\\\..ll 1~, ~ . •n:i.~:.z,:.,:i::::: Ji.,.y:, :.~:C:~S: ~:: Vv.v:.,,,.: ..,•.,. .,..:: :. `. ~~ :i{1,x :.~ti. ,\.\,.'„ .,.••\,:ii. \., :ti.!y;.~y:;,*:~~li.., 1.., .., ., ~:ti.~:ti.i~:.:i.:~•+: •:'.?\ .............. .. .. ., ,.., \,.ri:,,:nr?rvv~~: ~:.y ,i::.'i}:: n:......~:i.,Y..~......ii.:-[: n~:C: i:::~ti.y:.,,.n.:.: N??.il, ~::.., ..:......:...:.,.;... :.::: ..,..,,.::.:,..,....,.....,..., ., ,. .. .........,.. .......... . ., ., r . , •~.. - 2`.4,},;». ~,. .. ...-. _... .~:.,LS.y:[p`i,.,`:`;o;;:;,;:,x.;»>;:+: ~ys:o:So;,o-;::;vo;xR ..\....\.4,. , \\.; ., ..\ . ,,,,, \,\., .i..\ : \.,...,., ..Jtiu?~,}\..,,,y.,,i:iC:ti.ry:iC i\..l\.i \i.:.i.:~i.\J:iy.,,:. ...,..?;::ti :j;;:':^:< ~~ i.,, ., .., .... ~:\i::;:n~:',.~.i,'i:;::'iz'i~S:itiiti~'iir\ir~'_~A:,.++:.._~w;:...,,x,:~~\.:\i..\t~,,.,+,..,.,u\,.ti\\~~:,,.,,,,..,~n~.~,::\`tii~~ \», I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, the Roost Lodge, represented by co-owner Julian Mazili, is requesting a variance from the Town of Vail Sign Code, specifically from the wall sign 9-inch projection and maximum 20 square foot size requirements. The applicant currently has a wall sign which does not conform with the Town of Vail Sign Code. The existing sign, originally approved in March of 1979, is an illuminated, cabinet bax sign approximately 93 square feet in size and is mounted 5 to 6 feet from the face of the building wall. The existing sign is located on the south face of the registration building facing in a southerly direction towards the North Frontage Raad and I-70. The new sign the applicant is proposing will be displayed in approximately the same location as the existing sign. The proposed text on the sign will read "ROOST BODGE". The size of the sign proposed by the applicant is approximately 33 square feet in overall size with the text being a maximum of 20 square feet in size. Thus, the need for a wall sign, size variance for a sign greater than the maximum 2D square feet and a variance for a wall sign projection of 5 to 6 feet is required. , Section 16.0'4.320 {Definitions} of the Town of Vail Sign Code defines a wall sign as: "a sign attached to, painted on, or erected against a walk of a building ar structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plain parallel to the base of the wall and not projecting more than 9 inches from the base of the wall." . Additionally, Section 16.22.155{B} {Size -Wall Signs -Single Business Use} permits a single bU51ne55: "2.5 square feet of sign for each 5 front lineal fleet of the building with a maximum area of 20 square feet. The combined maximum area for more than one sign shall not exceed 20 square feet." it. FINDINGS AND CRfTERIA FOR APPROVAL, Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that, A. There are special circumstances or conditions ataplvina to the land. buildings, toQOaraghv, vegetation. Sian structures or other matters on adiacent lots or within thc~ a~iacPnt right-of-way -tuhich woulri s~ih5tantia,ily 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 anoficant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: Staff believes that special circumstances, applying to the Roost lodge restrict the effectiveness of a wail sign mounted 9 inches or less from the building watt and that a maximum size of 20 square feet, exists, Specifically, the registration building, the location where the applicants are proposing their sign, has a unique front eave and front elevation design which would adversely impact the effectiveness of a wall mounted sign 9 inches or less from the face of the building wail The front elevation is nearly all windows. To mount a wail sign would be difficult from a structural standpoint and would affect the amount of natural fight allowed to filter. into the registration/lobby area of the hotel as well as the living space located above the registration/lobby area. Secondly, the front eave design on the registration building is such that a wall sign mounted 9 inches from the building face would have a limited view corridor. The front eave on the registration building is a prow in design, with the eave projecting out at its greatest point approximately 6 feet. To mount the sign pursuant to Code would, in essence, bury the sign up underneath the eave, therefore limiting the amount of visual exposure (see visibility diagram attached}. . The Roost Lodge is dependent upon business generated lay traffic on both the North Frontage Road and the Interstate. The proposed sign placement will be approximately 150 feet from the Inters#ate. Per the Letter Visibility Chart submitted with the sign application by the applicant, prepared by the Colorado Institute of Technology, the maximum impact for readable distance of 150 feet would be a letter height of 15 inches. The proposed letter heights for the Roost Lodge sign are 15 inches for the text "Roost" and 8 inches for the text "Lodge". Again, the applicant has proposed the text portion of the proposed sign to not exceed 20 square feet. B. That special circumstances were not created by the aoniicant or anyone in tarivv to the applicant. 2 Staff Response: The current owners of the Roost Lodge purchased the accommodation facility in the spring on 1994. Staff believes that the applicant did not deliberately create unusual circumstances that would not allow him to adhere to the wall sign 9-inch projection requirement of the Code. Additionally, since the Roost Lodge building was constructed in the 1970'x, prior to the construction of 1-70, it was pat of any action undertaken by the applicant which caused the building to be located the distance it is from the interstate. C. That the arantina a# the variance will be in aeneral harmonv with the purpose of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity. to adiacent propertX, to the neiahborhood, or to the public welfare in aeneral. Staff Response: Staff feels that the request for the variance allowing the applicant to construct a wail sign greater than 9 inches from the wall base of the building and to further allow for a sign greater than the 20 foot maximum currently allowed by the Sign Code is reasonable, and is in harmony with the general purpose of the Sign Code, since the applicant is not proposing to create the text portion greater than 20 square feet. Staff does not believe the requested sign will be materially detrimental to other persons or businesses residing and conducting business in the vicinity. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title anv more than is reauired to identify the applicant's business ar use. Staff Response: Again, as stated earlier in this memo, the applicant is requesting only to erect the sign far enough from the building to allow the sign to be adequately viewed from the North Frontage Road and the Interstate, and to have the text no greater than 20 square feet. The additional 14 square feet of sign area requested by the applicant is mainly far aesthetic purposes and to create harmony between the sign and the existing architecture of the front save. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the requested sign variance to allow for a wall sign to be mounted greater than 9 inches from a building face and to allow the proposed sign to be 34 square feet rather than the maximum 20 square feet as outlined in the Town of Vail Sign Cade. Staff has reviewed the sign, location, lighting and other characteristics of the sign and finds that the proposed sign is in harmony with the Sign Code and variance criteria listed above. c:Ig e o rgelm e m u s fro o st.817 3 TIII -- .'"rR~{3.4 THII 1 T 7 617 DATE: TO: l~'ROM, RE; July 28, 1994 w r r ~ I-+ T ~ r. I-I ~ T ~ t~ ~M:Hrr Town of Vail .' Design ~ ~Reyiew Board Larry A.st, ` ~~ Roost Lad ardship Variallee F' _ ~~ '~ i The new ow«ers of the Ruia~t ~.QC1gc have inherited a sign of approximately y2 squa~'e t'~tt which does no# ctmfort to size, placcmerit,or aontemparary standards. They wish HighTealt td fabricate a~replaceme>7t,sign that will conform to all aspects of the current sign code. However the following two v~irisri~es are being ~re~uosted. Vari$nce number nos, projection. The only place fpr placement o£a wall sign on, the buil¢ing titer can ba visible ' from the cast and the west directions, is in the peak of the registration building. The Town of Vail SignCode, , ; sCGti013 16.04.320 lirt~its vve11 suns to not projecting maze than nine inches from the face of rite wa11, The Tawn of Vail Sign Ctxie, section Id.20.210 limits wall si;~ns to 2D setuare feet. Per the de~i]itiott in~'sectii~n~ } 6.04.320, the square footage includes the surround border outside the text, Thz new sign is being proposed as shown on the attached drawing. The distance from thq wall to the front pf the ea~~es, rltrl~~d htarn approxinately q to 6 feel. Placement against the wa}t is not pdssibie since the wall has ` windows permitting liglt,~xld ventilation to the second level Ii~ing unit. Plaeemesi€ against the~wall is oleo rtnt practical since the sign would not be visible, except fora 1Q to 24 degree ~~ewing c~rri,dpr, from tie roadway, Frt~n~ a safely feature, traffic driving on North Frontafc Road Wcat, should be ablo to'seG the lodge panic wIt1l sufficient time to sign a turn, god slowdown safely. A variance as to projection from t1iC wall would permit the` above goals to be achieved, . Iri addition, t7orn a stnlctt~ra] point, bracing a raceway across the beam (oat to extend beyond the roof line}, and fastening the sign to the supporting,raceway and tci the eAvec via ktack brac.itig, will provide the strength tQ support the weight and hold the sign rigid In high wind Conditions, Currently the Roost Lodge has text that is 19" high for the ROOST LODCaE, and 10",high for ECQNQ~tICAL LODt'iI~iO- HEAT>~f3 YUUL, 't'he attached request contains text that is 1 ~" high for 1t44ST, end $" high far LODGE, a significant reduction in size from the existing sign. The area Arrnmd flip sign is ~te:ing viewed a9 decorative and riot text or logo or anything directly associated with thG property, but ~an attempt #o make the sign , loss obtrusrv~ as a sign. • . ~_ J HICHTECHSIGI~'S i'.O. Eiox 20,88 Production C`~ttlcr Askx:n & Vail, CO 81658 910 Ncttirsgham Road ~rlcnwood Sprgs, 303.949.4365 Suilr 5.? 3p3.943.6693 FA3t: 949.4670 Arran, CO st6xo ~, t I i y . T I i i - '~ :=s - ~! r1 Y W l i 7 7 I+Y .%i I--I T r; H T ~ 1': !-1 ~ T I~ N ~ i' . - +~ 't The sign placerrtent vuitl re ~ipproximately 154 feet from x 7+?. por the attached visibility chart, maximum iit~pact } ...would be reached for Roost, buf not for Lodge te~~t. ~n addition, the colors setectad are~ngt the maximum j risibility of red or blt~ck Un wltlte. ~Vlth a placement near the face of the building, {but, inside the tv4rD existing beams), and a 45, degree best viewing angle, at 65 miles per hour a drive= vvould~hava 125' to see the sign. This : 4 would equate to 1 i12 seconds before the driver was past the sign. This property cdrrtipefes with other ~vdges for drive by tragic (the majottity of ita revenues). The 1~est Vail Lodge and Wendy's, bath neari~y busiites~~x, bath have sign, when the per~nieter of the .sign is measured, exceed the limit set iri the ~ordiriance, ~~ } ~s demo#~strated above ,the new owners ofthe Roost Lode have a hardship that is_ ~itnt c~.ticed by them, And could be corrected by permitting the sign to be attached to the eaves and projecting l3.eams, as shown on the attachc~rl drawings. .~ . .. ti .. . .~: .. ~ ... , s :. ~... to . ~ ~, xl T l-lil 1 7 ~f.ci. H T f:NT F s-:H fi T 1:Nr-. ,711( --~~1-" a~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ :.. ~~ ~. E i P.~. BUX~2C~88 . VAl1.,, CU ~]dS8. 543.5-44.45b5 ,.~h?t; 3(}~.~J4~.4674 ;. , .roe ~ ,.,,p fl,r~r~ ' Ci.tENT ~~~ l SCALE PHDN~ ~Y .... lv~ ^. , ~~ G4NTJUCT GId'i/ /~~1 F1Ax' ' --~•r7.-44 TF-!31 7 ~ Gf.~ H T f:i-ITFf-:H .^~, T IrNti F - ~~+ ~.} ~ ~ =~ ~.....~ ,n sill as~e~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ' ~~... . . ~~~ ~~ ~. .. , I'.O.~ROK 244a . VAtI., CO 41 458 , 303.94~1.4~G5 . F/17C; 3f33:']49.~4by0 LE ~ ~ Ei~ VIS[~iLiYY CHART ~ :~ ~ . READABLE ' ' ~ . .: MAXIMUM DIS7AlvCE . . ' RI=ADA.9LE FOR MAX1MUt~t ~.E7TER ' ' DISTANCE iMPAC; NEIGF~T' ~ ' ' ~ 50' 40` 4R . 200' ti0' 6" . ~ ... 350' so' $M . X00' 90' ~" ... :: 4 0' 5 10" 10 0' .. r~~ r ~G~' )) y ~ LU' 1 (" ,~ 834' ~ 50' 15" jr ~ U ' ~ $~' 1 ~~' (M yy ~ / i ~ WV' /n ~ A 6'i d' t ~ 24° 1250' 300' 3G" 1500` .'3S0' 36" 1750' A20' 42" aooo' Asa d~" ~~Sa' Sdo' ~~„ 2500' Q00' 60" NDTE: The foliowln distances will vary ~~hrrxt- matel~y 10°!e wish var~ous co'or combinations .. . 5,280 equals ons ~1] mile ... n'ax;rr~um diatarlc9 In color would be R b ur BLACK un VJFi13E ba::k- ~fOURd. Psapared by the Csl~orfla Inr~M„le ~ Tecti+ology', JOD M DATC,.~__._...-..... RY CLEF N7.,, SCAL.~.~-~ • PHONE ~/~ CdNT1lCT ., i • i ; .Tlki -7R-cdei T HII 1 7 C F9 .s, H T ~i-IT~i:t-i ~ T f= W ~; F' _ ki4 . ,, •.. , • ~ ~~ • . ~~ ~ . • .. •. ...,,, 1 ... ~... , . P.C~, BG~X 2588 . VAIN CO ~1 GSO .303.949.4555 . FAX: 303'.$49.4670 , _.. . ' '' ' ~~.~ ~ :' . ~~ : r r-yj: ~~{~~'' ,rn •ir I , 1. ' ' ~ . . ~~ ~ • ` .~.' - + ' .. ~ 1 ~ . ' ' L ~ :dir.; ~~(c~ , lj~ • t~ `.;;~: ~ s ' ,,4,,, i., .`• '.' . ~y i •. ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ t .~ jl ~ ~~ ~~ ~Pai•, .. ~ ~ ' ' ~ A - '..1 . • • ' 'v 111ry'i •• • 'y t ! 1 .~ 1 ;' ~~1 - ~ ` Y ~... 1 . _ , ~ ~ . 1 • .log ~.... ~ foa~~ ear w~~ ~.~t~~_ CLIENT-~~f~OS~ ~T7,+.J~u 1. . CC3Nl~uCr~i~G~ry~/' /~9~c~/r-. _ ~SCALa: ~ P!-14NE FAX: ~.. •! Y, - ;~: ;~ • ~_# ~'v~~ , .~~~v~ ~. :-~~ ~~ .~ /~ ~ _ ~ ~~ - r l1 i, ~ .I ~1 ~~1- ~. _..R. :~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~: ~.~~ ~,y ~ ~ ~ ; ~: ~ ~~ ` ~ ~~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ j; ~ 1~~ i +~ ~ ' ~ U M~- ~~ ~'! + . ~ \~ (!1 xR ~~ _~ ~ ~- `~ .- ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~• .r ,, ~" ~ ~ :,.~ M~~i ~ ~ ~ Mr ~ 1~ F-1 J i N C- C-' t~ -L ~.L ~1 ~ ~ Es - 6~ L - 1 Ca K rt ~~~~~~~ .. ~ ,. ~~ P.~. BC)X ?G8$ , VAIL, CO S l 658 , 3a~.949.45GS .FAX: 303.94~?.ab7o ''~~, r/ '•~ ,~€''~ ~, . i ~ , „ .` .~. ~~ r......r ..rr.rn....+w.-..~ ~~j~ { 1~ ....~.... ...-.~~...•~r• r - .~--- .. -.~... :, __ ter.. f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .ate. . w ... - --- -....,-..-.... ~~ . ~~ - -,•• I ,. ~...._._.... -- .~.~ ~ 1 ri !n g ~ _ DATA ~` ~~~~ i9Y C I.ICNT ~-fl ~ s -~-~ ~ O~ ~ ; SCALD 1'~iC}NS Cc~Nr~,C7~ ~ ~ d ~~rti1 ~ C~lt~ S _ FAX: . • y i 3 MEMQRANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 6, 1994 SUBJECT: Town Council review of Planning and Environmental Commission's recent approval of setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Care 11 (CCII) zone district tar the Lifthouse Lodge located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Black 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. Lazier, represented by Galen Aasland and Jay Peterson Planner: Jim Curnutte ..................~.........................................:.::::.~:.~.::::.v:.rvn.nw.....:.:. :..:~:.: ~.. --: ~r~:.:v.».:.v v.~:»\_.h+rixiti'.y...::n::..}:\.:~i'i.iY::i.\'ii..k':::::r:..:.:_r::.Y+»:.y:\:.r::'-.'::....... _... :~.1.y. r...... . .. \...... ..\\.. r :,ti ..\ . ..\:..\... •~.:.:.:.~.:::...:... r r..r\':~~:i•~::v\.~~i~..:.~ :::~... ,.... r .:..i:~~.vi.r \:~: -: ~: ~ :~~C:r•:.:::i•~':i:.ii::.':rr~: ~::~: :~: ............:....r. ..:. n. ~ ... .:.... .. ... w.v; r•)\:. ..~ .r'r': rv.+:•::':<\`:i: :.'...,.ar..A•...:::;:isv:\C:r.:+\~.'.L.'\:...:i.::.-k\:i'i~i~:'~~:~*~: i~~~~ii~ ;,...: \ : a ~. ::..::.~: ': :.: :.: ::.. .. ... ,r.. ~.~.:.r.. y: ..: .. .... r. r•: Y:: :. .. :ti~:r'::i:r:.: ::::~ .::.:::y:::isir:~>:~;::o-r:<~>;:t:.;:.~.~..:~.::::.:i;•aa-:.....+:<'s.o~.::~ :.:.....:.:::.'.~i.~;: i'. ~... ..::?: :..... ........,....» .... .....:.::.....,....:..r:.. rn r :.. .. vrv::::.:r :.S ~n:: `:::.:~: n':::: n:..r...::rv\ ..J\:•i rv:r\•:C'.C.n": .n .:.r., :.. On August 22, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} approved the requested setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in the CCII zone district. The vote was 4-1. Kathy Langenwalter voted in opposition to the motion because she felt that Montauk and Bart and Yeti's needed to tie in better with the rest of the proposed remodel. The PEC's approval of the above described remodel was granted with the following conditions. The conditions listed below are listed as they were originally recommended to the PEC by the staff. Changes to the conditions of approval made by the PEC at the August 22, 1994 meeting are indicated in bold type: At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall be required to pay into the Town of Vaii Parking Fund. As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of this memo, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial expansion is 2.175 spaces which currently equates to a parking pay-in-lieu fee of $18,692.82. It should be pointed out that these figures were derived from the conceptual drawings provided to date, which are not fully dimensioned. The parking pay-in-lieu fee will be recalculated when a building permit application and construction drawings are provided for Town review. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit far the proposed addition, the applicant will contact the Vail Building and Fire Departments to determine whether or not the proposed addition will require the retro-sprinkler of the Lifthouse building. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to ensure continued unrestricted pedestrian access through this area. 4. A construction phasing program for the proposed commercial expansion has not been provided as requested at the March 14, 1994 worksession. Staff recommends that a detailed construction phasing plan be provided to, and be approved by, all effected business owners and staff prior to submittal for building permit. S 5. There is a note on the applicant's plans that states that the "two surveys used to create this drawing do not close". Additionally, the applicant's architect has mentioned that he has field measured tha location of the planters in front, and on the side, of FirstBank and has found discrepancies an the survey. In order to be assured of the actual location of the FirstBank expansion and planter revisions, staff behaves it is necessary that the applicant provide a new survey, including afully-dimensioned and stamped survey in the area south and east of the FirstBank commercial space. This survey should be provided to staff for review prior to scheduling this application for final Design Review Board review. 6. Staff recommends that this application not be scheduled far Final Design Review Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Town Landscape Architect and that one of the two benches on the east side of the building be relocated to some other location in the Lionshead Mal! in order to allow for additional planting in this area. -'. `'~:.~er~is `.hct `.h8 r:~e~al rss#-~ak~n~ tl^s-a~s~a~-~s+~e-e~##e `~~;l~ir,~ "a a.'.:...~`' ~l~-t~9-~AIe~jF--1EE ~I'~ F' The PEC deleted this recommended condition of approval. E: .1t tha-se~sept:~~l 9~FB-~e~weK• cf t':is r°sjest-ee-,A~+~ct 1', , ~ase~er~af all `fie-e~ie-T 111 s~i~}ch 's ~e: ~~ ap~e~i mw#~iat} be--r~er~evc~', ~-~al-fie ~a,. g r~a`.sral w#~sw-~nre+~lsl-!~s ~ss~,~t~e 'a.". ~:~.Ytc t`:a Ts~'Y ~esi~n ^ ~a~cr~ir:~ `.hat this lay a ~ ~;,r;,~_ The PEC deleted this recommended condition of approval. cacounc#Ilmemasllifthous.S08 ~:~ , i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 22, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for setl,ack and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core II (CCIf) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 . East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte .i:.~:.h~i}::.::}}..}...:}\"Ci':}?i:t?}.i:.-.s. . ». k .: ~'v '}k~..'ti. :k'J:~414}%4...: :.~»..:., ~~.. }\• 1 } \ \~ ~~. .}.`.c e ]:.. 1~,+~}\\A~: ti~,r: ~, ~*,}'\.\u}. :•'\, ., ' ? "~";~,"•1\:`t+^,~'tiw .. .,:•A~~4\~\'...\:.......x \~:a\..\.~~•~.~,..,~, .~ ~~..~ ,,\.~.i,.. ti: z::}.`.•2•.\:.\•^.\,••S'~~~„a, \~~ ~n,ti.,',~*:,~'~ttiti•.-c;:,:~,;~:~,*'~'. ~ti\"`~~\~~\~,1M,..i\~'.\\"~,~.\.:Y~.,..;:'::'.. ;., ,~\;.~~\ka;'\\\q\~,\,~, ,a\, .r::.ti~'s~. :xo:x,:o„o: \. n~ ~:. ,' ~ ti~ '.-'.o:\:ti :.::..:.,• ~:...... o~\.,*\... ::, fit . ......:.....~• , ,.•\ ., , • \ ~4 \.... \. \ ?'ti',.'x^~.\:.': \-: \':.;?c~.<::<~\,.:.,\,....,., 7.,.\'; ~.nr..vvk\:S M~`'4. ,. ti,' 1 ,\^. ,.\\L t ~ ..\ ~ ,•~ti~'ti ~'~}. ,.:. \,.;e. ~-}.,;a..\\,....,~ !. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGlUESTS Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier would like to construct a 325 square foot, one-story, addition to the commercial spaces located on the first floor of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The proposed changes involve the tenant spaces currently being leased by Montauk, Pizza • Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and FirstBank. This application will require PEC review of setback and site coverage variances as well as a major CCII exterior alteration. Each portion of this request is further described as follows: A. Setback Variance With the exception of Bart and Yeti's, the proposed addition wil! extend the southern wall of the above-mentioned lease spaces from 8 feet to 12 feet further south of the existing building facade. Additionally, a portion of the FirstBank commercial space will be extended approximately 6 feet to the east. The FirstBank eastward expansion will bring the building to within 8.5 feet of the eastern property line. The applicant is proposing that the Pizza Bakery portion of the expansion be extended to the south property line. Setback variances are reauired in order to allow the addition to encroach 9.5 feet into the reauired 10 foot setback on the south side of the buildina. resultina in a 4.5 setback situation. On the east side. the expansion encroaches 1.5 feet into the reauired i 0 foot setback. which results in an 8.5 foot setback. B. Site Coverage Variance Under the CCiI zone district, the maximum site coverage allowed on this lot is 14,231 square feet (70%). On March 25, 1991, setback and site coverage variances were granted in conjunction with the major exterior alteration request related to the addition of the Banner Sports commercial space. The approved addition resulted in a site coverage allowance of 15,114 square feet {74°1°). Under the current redevelopment proposal, the building's site coverage would be increased an additional 383 square feet to 15,497 square feet (76%}. Therefore. a site coverage variance is requested in order #o exceed the existing site coverage on the lot by 383 square feet. C. Maior Exterior Alteration This project is located in the Commercial Core fl (CCII) zone district, which requires that any exterior expansion of 100 square feet or greater be reviewed by the PEC using the major exterior alteration criteria. The total net floor area of the proposed first floor commercial expansion is 325 square fleet. The applicant is proposing to use building materials that match the addition that was recently built on the west side of the Lifthouse Lodge building (Banner Sports}., The addition will incorporate a stone base that wilt match the rock on the nearby planter retaining walls, and will include a stone cap to match Banner Sports. The applicant proposes to use smooth log pillars to delineate the window areas in the FirstBank addition and the Pizza Bakery addition. The existing log pillars on Bart and Yeti's will remain as is. A stucco texture will be added to the building's facade for the FirstBank addition as well as the eastern wall of the Pizza Bakery addition. The proposal calls for a metal roof which wilt match the Banner Sports addition. This metal roof will be located above Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's, FirstBank, and will also wrap around a majority of the east side of the building where a revised entryway will be provided over the existing access door on the east side of the building. All building addition colors are intended to be painted and stained to match the Banner Sports addition. The area to the southeast of the Lifthouse Lodge building is generally considered, and used, as a part of the Lionshead pedestrian mall. Staff is not aware that a pedestrian easement has been granted across the Lifthouse Lodge property for the use of the public, although it has historically been used in that fashion for many years. Staff believes that it is appropriate to request that the applicant provide a pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to assure continued unrestricted pedestrian access through thus area. The Vaii Fire Department has expressed some concern with maintaining adequate access into the Lion's Pride Court area to the east of this building. The Fire Department has also indicated that it may be necessary for the applicant to retro-sprinkler the entire Lifthouse Building as a result of the proposed addition. II. BACKGROUND On March 14, 1994 a worksession was held with the PEC to discuss the proposed building alteration (see Attachment #1 -Minutes Pram March 14, 1994 PEC worksession}. During the meeting, the PEC and applicant discussed the proposed remodel and ways to improve the original proposal, including building layout, use of building materials and accents, use of consistent roofing materials throughout the building, window treatments, landscaping requirements, signs, etc. On August 8, 1994 a second worksession was held with the PEC {see Attachmen# #2 -draft copy of Minutes from August 8, 1994 PEC worksession}. At this worksession, the PEC again discussed the proposed remodel and reviewed the changes made since the previous meeting The PEC members felt comfortable allowing the applicant to proceed to a final review at the next PEC meeting, provided that certain changes were made in response to the comments discussed at the meeting. 2 Ilf. ZQNING ANALYSIS The fallowing summarizes the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to t~1e CCII zone district development standards. The project's departures from the CCII zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. Allowed per CCII Zonina Existina Protect Provosed Addition Site Area: 0.467 sores Same Same or 20,334 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 14,231 sq. fl. ar 70% 15,114 sq. ft. or 74% 15,497 sq. ft. or 76°k `Setbacks: 10' an all sides, unless N: 0' N: 0' otherwise specified in the S: 0.5' S: 4.5' Vail Lianshead Urban Design E: 15' ~; g,5' Guide Plan and Design W: 0' W: 0' Considerations. Building Height: 45' for a flat or mansard roof NIA 16.5 feet 48' for a sloping root ""Parking: Varies according to the NIA 2.175 additional parking proposed use of the property. spaces required. Loading: Per the TOV required: 1 Required: 1 Loading Standards Existing: 0 _ Existing: 0 • "'Landscaping: 4,066 sq. ft, required (20%} 1,312 sq. ft. gross (6.4%} 1,325 sq. ft. gross (6.5%) 3,253 sq. ft. svftscape 499 sq. N. softscape 512 sq. ft. softscape (planting} (planting} (planting} 813 sq, ft. hardscape 813 sq. ft. hardscape 813 sq. ft. hardscape (paving/decks) (paving/decks} (pavingldecks} `The building setbacks on the north and west sides of the existing building will remain unchanged under this redevelopment proposal. The existing 0.5' building setback is a result of a setback variance granted in conjunction with the Banner Sports commercial space additien in 1991. '"The provision oT 2.175 additional parking spaces is required as a result of the proposed addition. The applicant must pay into the Town's Parking Fund per the Pay-In-Lieu Program. On July 18, 1994, the Vai! Tawn Council raised the parking pay-in-lieu fee to $15,000.00 per space (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994}. However, Section 2 of the Qrdinance states that the new fee shall only apply tv development applications submitted for Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} review after July 27, 1994. Since this redevelopment application was submitted prior to that date, the pay-in-lieu fee is curcently calculated a! $8,594.40 per spave. As currently calculated, the parking requirement of 2.175 spaces equates to a pay-in-lieu-fee of approximately $18,892.92. As provided for in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 10, series of 1994, this fee will be automatically increased annually by the percentage the consumer price index has increased over each successive year. "'Although the property currently has approximately 3,986 square feet of hardscape, only 813 square feet or 20%, may be used far calculating the minimum landscaped area requirement. The landscape requirement for this project is explained in mnre detail in Section IV C of this memo (CvinpGance with the Urban Design Considerations far Lionshead}. • 3 IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL A. Compliance with the Commercial Core II Zone District Purpose Statement As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CCII zone district is as follows: "The Commercial Core II zone district is intended to provide sites tar a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments, in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core II district in accordance with the Vall Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." Staff Response: The staff believes that the proposed first floor commercial addition to the Lifthouse Lodge complies with the purpose statement of the CCII Zone District. B. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead The sub-area concepts which are in the vicinity of the proposed Lifthouse Lodge commercial expansions are as follows (see Attachment #3 for a map of the area): Concept 7: "Lions Pride Court should be opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area reduced and relocated to about Lionshead Arcade building to provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out of the shadows and into the sunny area of the court. Sculpture focal point. Concept ~ 7: "Planting to screen non-commercial areas and make visual green link between plazas. Concept 18: "Commercial expansion (one-story) to emphasize pedestrian level. Patio .area enlarged slightly for additional dining space ( a sun-pocket area), and wider, inviting steps which can also be used for sitting function. Staff Response: The staff believes that the proposed commercial expansion serves to carry out the goals identified in the above listed sub-area concepts of the Urban Design . Guide plan. 4 C. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Considerations for Lionshead and Exterior Alteration Criteria The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals: 1. Height and Massing: At one story, the height and massing of the proposed addition is, consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. The addition is also good, in staff s opinion, in that it helps to add visual interest on the first~floor and breaks up the massing of the existing building. 2. Roofing: The Lionshead Design Considerations state that flat, shed, vaulted, or dome roofs are acceptable for building expansions while discouraging gable roof forms. A peaked roof is proposed over the entry to Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and the FirstBank entryways. The style of these roofs is intended to match the recent approval for Banner Sports which is located on the southwestern side of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The Lionshead Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing • material provided that it is ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. The applicant wishes to have a metal roof on the FirstBank, Bart and Yeti's and Pizza Bakery portions of the expansion, as well as the roof which wraps around the eastern side of the building. This roof udill be a standing seamed metal roo# and will be a dark bronze color. The roof on the Montauk portion of the expansion is proposed to remain cedar shakes. A copper gutter and flashing is proposed to be added to Montauk's fascia in an attempt to architecturally tie together the metal fascia of Banner Sports and Pizza Bakery, which are located on either side of Montauk. Staff believes that the roof on the proposed addition is generally consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. However, staff would recommend that the eas# side roof addition be extended all the way to the northern end of the building, rather than terminating above the east side access door. Staff has included this in the conditions of approval at the end of the memo. 3. Facades - WaIIslStructures: The materials proposed to be used in the remodel (wood, glass, stucco) are encouraged in the Lionshead Design Considerations. The stucco texture and • color will match the stucco on the existing structure and the window and door trim color wiN match the color of the window trim on the Banner Sports portion of the building. The applicant proposes to use peeled log pillars to delineate the new commercial spaces. These pillars will be sealed with a clear water seal and will not be stained to match the Banner Sports pillars. Log pillars will 5 also be used to divide the window areas at FirstBank and Pizza Bakery, The 3~-inch base of the FirstBank and Pizza Bakery addition will be faced with stone to match the nearby planters. These walls will be capped with a sandstone cap. Although staff would prefer that the stonework be carried across the entire remodel area, the existing exterior wails of Bart & Yeti's are not proposed to change in conjunction with this major exterior alteration request. All of the colors and materials to be used in the addition are generally encouraged under the Lionshead Design Guidelines, and will relate well to the existing structure. Through the use of these materials and colors, the addition will avoid having a "tacked on" appearance. 4. Facades -Transparency: The Lionshead Design Guidelines call for transparent store fronts as they are "people attractors and give a pedestrian, open, public character to the street." The proposed addition provides many divided light windows and, in fact, includes the addition of windows along the east side where there are currently none. The glass in all proposed windows will be clear, not tinted. The divided light windows are most prominent at the entry doors to FirstBank, Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's. This feature helps to differentiate these commercial spaces from others on the property and provides a more prominent sense of entry to each. The Lionshead Design Guidelines suggest that the further . subdivision of windows and doors into smaller panes is desirable in order to increase pedestrian scale. Although the applicant has added divided light windows to the building, in response to previous PEC comments, the PBC should decide if additional division of windows is necessary. These glass areas are not currently used for the display of merchandise. 5. Decks and Patios: Approximately 3t d square feet of the existing patio area in front of Pizza Bakery and FirstBank will be removed by this addition. Although a portion of the Pizza Bakery patio area is currently used for outdoor dining, none of the patio area in front of FirstBank is used for dining purposes. Bart and Yeti's has blocked off the FirstBank portion of the patio from their dining patio in order to comply with liquor licensing requirements. Staff believes that the loss of this patio area is not significant and is an acceptable trade-off far the benefits associated with the proposed expansion. 6. Accent Elements: The accent elements associated with this addition include signs, light fixtures, and two terra cotta windows on the FirstBank portion of the addition. The exterior light fixtures will match those which exist on the Banner Sports portion of the building. Three new signs are proposed to replace the existing signs at Pizza Bakery, hart and Yeti's and Firstbank. These signs will be located 8 directly above the business entry doors and are incorporated into tike metal fascia of the building. These signs will be indirectly illuminated from a source in the soffit area above the signs. The proposed signs wii!I have a common metal frame, however, the applicant is proposing that each individual shop owner would have no restrictions with regard to the materials, colors, letter style, etc. proposed to go into each of these spaces, with the exception that plexiglass signs not be allowed. The final "sign program" will be further reviewed by the DRB. 7. Landscape Elements: Under this redevelopment proposal, the existing planter south of FirstBank will be reduced in size by approximately 13 square feet. None of the existing trees located within this planter will be removed. Additionally, the existing planter and seating area on the eastern side of the building is proposed to be significantly reconfigured as a result of the FirstBank commercial area expansion and the application of the metal roof along the eastern side of the building. In addition to the existing 3-inch and 3-112-inch caliper aspen trees which will remain in the east side planter, two 2-112-inch caliper aspen trees are proposed to be planted. One of the two benches adjacent to the planter is proposed to be relocated as a result of the proposed planter expansion. Subarea Concept # 17 of the l.ionshead Urban Design Guide Plan suggests additional plantings in the area of this expansion in order to screen non- commercial areas and make a visual landscape link between plazas. The addition of plants and planting areas an the east side of the building would carry out the intent of the Lionshead Design Guide Plan and help create a sense of enclosure, create shade, and soften the starkness of the building and adjacent plaza area. According to the Zoning Code, the defini#ion of "landscaping" not only includes planted areas and plant materials, but it also allows for up to 20% of a landscaped area to be "hardscape". "Hardscape" would include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features and other similar features. Since the minimum required amount of landscaping for the Lifthouse Lodge property is 4,OG6 square #eet and up to 20% of that figure, ar 813 square feet, may be "hardscape", the remaining 3,253 square feet of required landscaping must be in "softscape". As shown in the Zoning Analysis, this property is already nonconforming with regard to meeting the landscape requirement {and the minimum percentage of "hardscape" and "softscape"). Although the proposed commercial expansion will reduce the amount of "hardscape" landscaping on the property by approximately 370 square feet, the amount of "softscape" is • being increased by 13 square feet. The addition of 13 square feet of "softscape" will bring the property further into compliance with the minimum requirement. The 370 square foot reduction in "hardscape" on the property is not a zoning issue.since only 813 square feet of the "hardscape" on the entire property may be credited toward meeting the minimum landscape requirement. 7 Curren#ly, the Town of Vail plants and maintains (including watering} all of the planters along the E.ifthause Lodge Building. The Town Landscape Architect has some concerns with regard to the proposed amendments to the planting areas along the east side of the building. He would like the PEC to be aware that the proposed revisions to the planters, and the addition at the roof to the east side of the building, will destroy the existing plants in these planters. To date, he has not approved the landscape plan provided for the reconfigured planting area on the eastern'side of the building. Therefore, staff would recommend that this application not be scheduled for final Design Review Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Tawn Landscape Architect. ~ . Staff believes that the layout of the east side planter would be improved toy the reduction of the bench length from 8' to 6', or the relocation of one of the two benches to some other location in the Lionshead Mall. 8. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery will not change as a result of the proposed addition. The Off-Street Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Code requires that one loading berth be provided far the first 10,000 square #eet of commercial float area, plus an additional berth for each 5,000 square feet of floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet. The applicant's 325 square foot commercial addition will not trigger a requirement to provide an additional loading berth. . D. Compliance with the Variance Criteria The following criteria are to be used in reviewing proposed setback and site coverage variances: Consideration of Factors: a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setback Variance Request .. Staff believes that the proposed setback variances will have a positive impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Subarea Concept #18 of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead specifically calls for cone-story commercial addition in the area where this expansion is proposed. The, commercial space expansion will create much needed pedestrian level interest along the south and east facades of the building and will bring the building down to a more comfortable human scale. B The proposed addition would appear to have a positive impact on surrounding properties and pedestrian areas while insuring that maintenance and safety functions {i.e. fire access) can still occur. • ii. Site Coveraae Variance Request. As previously stated, Subarea Concept #18 of the Urban Design Guide Plan specifically calls for aone-story commercial addition in the area where this addition is proposed. Staff believes the granting of the Site coverage variance will also have a positive impact on existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We also believe that the Lianshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the staff's position with regard to the site coverage and setback issues. The patio area in front of Montauk, Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and FirstBank have previously been expanded, as suggested in the Guide Pian. Staff does not believe that the loss of this patio area (310 square feet) associated with this expansion is significant, and we feel it is an acceptable trade-off for the benefits mentioned previously. b. 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. i. Setback and Site Coveraae Variance Reauests Staff believes that the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the staff's position an this matter. The Guide Plan specifically calls for the addition and landscaping improvements which is proposed under this application. c. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Setback and Site Coveraae .Variance Reauests The staff finds that the requested variances will have no negative effect on any of the above considerations. In fact, staff believes that the proposed addition of landscaping will improve the Lions Pride Court pedestrian/gathering experience, while not impeding snow removal or safety access to the mall and surrounding buildings. I~ 2. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: a. 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 district. 9 b. That the granting of the variance wiA not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 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. ii. 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. iii. 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 The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for variances to the south and eastern setbacks and the site coverage variance based on the Findings a, b, c - ii. Staff also finds that the project meets all of the CCII exterior alteration criteria set forth in Section IV of this memorandum. Staff's recommendation for approval includes the following conditions: 1. At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall be required to pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of this memo, the parking requirement far the proposed commercial expansion is 2.175 spaces which currently equates to a parking pay-in-lieu fee of $18,692.82. It should be pointed out that these figures were derived from the conceptual drawings provided to date, which are not fully dimensioned. The parking pay-in-lieu fee will be recalculated when a building permit application and construction drawings are provided for Town review. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit far the proposed addition, the applicant will contact the Vail Building and Fire Departments to determine whether or not the proposed addition will require the retra-sprinkler of the Lifthouse building. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to ensure continued unrestricted pedestrian access through this area. 4. A construction phasing program for the proposed commercial expansion has not been provided as requested at the March 14, 1994 worksession. Staff recommends that a detailed construction phasing plan be provided to, and be approved by, all a#fected business owners and staff prior to submittal for building permit. 10 5. There is a note on the applicants plans that states that the "two surveys used to create this drawing do not close". Additionally, the applicant's architect has mentioned that he has field measured the location of the planters in front, and on the side, of FirstBank and has found discrepancies on the survey. In order to be assured of the actual location of the FirstBank expansion and planter revisions, staff believes it is necessary that the applicant provide a new survey, including afully-dimensioned and stamped survey in the area south and east of . the FirstBank commercial space. This survey should be provided to staff for review prior to scheduling this application for fins! Design Review Board review. B. Staff recommends that this application not be scheduled for Final Design Review Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Town Landscape Architect and that one of the two benches on the east side of the building be relocated to some other location in the Lionshead Mall in order to allow for additional planting in this area. 7. Staff recommends that the metal raaf along the eastern side of the building be carried all the way to the north end of the building. 8. At the conceptual DRB review of this project on August 17, 1994, the DRB requested that all the existing T-111 siding (which is not an approved ma#erial) . be removed, and be replaced with a siding material which would be acceptable to the DRB and which meets the Town's Design Guidelines. The staff is recommending that this be a condition of the PEC approval. c:Ipeclmemoslliflhous.80B 71 ~~ .. . •a a ~~ ~~~~ ~~ _~yr /w' `,~ __ _s- ~'~.__J ;,'--.. ,~a~~d ~'v~aa u~°a ~~4 r .~~ ~ t i ~~ 1j +s :~ ~ ~7 .. _ , ~ 4 ` y .. ~ ~ ~ ,- -- ~' - ~ ~ ,. ~~ , ~ ~ i , ~, . . ~. _:=- _ r ~- -- ? ~~~. Jr ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ....tom ~; ~ .~. , i ~~ i.7311~TTC1~7 ~3OOW3rk ~YI3d3YVY1pJ :. ~ ' 11/1 tl~7 r, v v 'O ~ fv/ 3E~'IQ'1 3Sf10Hl~ll ~ a a ` • Z 0 4 _ ~ 1 ~, -~ ~ _ :~ ~ I ~~-- a ~J; i ~ z I I ^~ -6 y ~a r ~ S P ~ -N V J J x s ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~~ J '1 ~~ y 1~ ~~ r. • 1 I 1 jI Ij /~ ~~ L 1__ --_ it _i _e • ~ ~' ~~ ~i ~~ I _ ~'-~ 'I '-! I ;~. I 1 it ~ ~ ~-'I I'a~A~ ~~ i _ ~ r ; Z E ! E f I ! .,, ~ f 1 _ ^. . ' I i L.. _ ._ I. .~Y' ' ~ .~ I ' E i I __' ~ . I ;I~, .~. 1 .I n ~ ~ I _ r._._-~~ - . ~ 4 ! __.._ i j ~ ~E~ I ~ - -~. ~- II i.,} f 1 - ~ ~ ~~~ s 1~ ~ ._ ~_ //IT l i l 1 ~-r~ r i 2 _O -- - - ... ... ~' ~ . . _ _ - ^' .~~ _ ~ h - ~r . ~ - -~,t~ .- p -- ;~ ~ a3id n i I -~ ' ~- ~ { I ; -.~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ l -= a~i ~ ---- - _ _ I'' - a I i 1 I _ _ ~ lr= ~ iii I,'; ~. I I _- ~, ~ i u I :t !; X O J U1 W W 2 ~ o 0 N ~f ~+ ~. sA y ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~oa~ 3s ~~ ~.` rf, _ ~~ ~d .. #~ ~ • ~ ~~ a s { ~" ~ ~ f ~ ~ S c~ ~ ~{ ~ ,t, ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ''c p.. < Ys ~ r' s " $ 5t ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ _ z ~ ~._.___. ~- i I ~ ~~ I ~ "`! Imo, _ ~ ~~~ ` ``+f' ~ , _ l~,° ;~ _ a -W p -, r= i } . _~ -- n i i, ' -, ~ _ . ,ti W _ ~ , ,~~ ~~ __, ~ ~ + _~ , ~ ~ 1 *~~ t I ~ ° ~ ~ -~ ~ i ~ '~~~ ~ ~ ~. 1 ~~~~ ~ ' ' ~~ ~ j ~~ i ~~ r~ ~ I ~ t ~, ~ ~ ~ / _ __- i~. i ~~` ~_ - 1- i 44' ` ~ ,'I 1'i I ~~1 I c C, ~ \\~ u v a ~` I L i a~ a ~ I ~1 _ `I . II i 1' '_ 1' -- ~ i ~~ ~~ ~ s ~Y // r / ~ `: ~r I~ T \ :~ IEI ~ _~ `` ~' 7d 17~q Iruv ~I V IY V V V rv J I ~J Q 6 F ~ 'r r~ J Q F o O ~" w~i 7w~a~- ~a ~ ~ r ' SV r4'7 ii'1 ~'Q ~ ~~ G a a ~I ~ O f ~ 1 U o y ~..~,! I y ,J,I ! ~~~ + 1 t.., .J _ ~ • 1 ~~ - ~~ ~ . . ~ ~ l \\ i ~., ~ ~`. __-, _.~ H,I s -- ~ i _... - III i li 3 Z 0 U ~ N ~ d tl 1 UP to ~~ ~v iy vv V h.r ivJ ~ ~~x+ir+l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~:. ,.1 ~Sf10F31dil 5 a v ~ S 5 ~~~ 3 s~ ~ } ~ 3~~; ~ ~~ ~ ,_ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ n g '~ F ~i ~ e ., s ~ s I ~`° _~I o ~~ _, - - - _.. ._.._ _ !C i r i ~~ a~ ~t ~~ r a A ~ ~~ x -- x ' ~. ;. .~ .~ ,_ r _.. \ ~ ~ ... ,._ _ \\ 5 ~~ •\ \ ~ \~ i I ~ ~~~ i ~ \ ~~ I `\ `\\\ `\ \ I ,' i ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ,~ i I 4 • ~._ __ ~ i' -- -- -~ _._-_ I - -.: --.- ~ ~ i '~ n a a uJ a U Z r J ~+ W~ ~+ Attachment ;+il '`"~ '- - (minutes, from March 14, 1994 PAC Wc,_~sessi~~~,. ~-~ E; r:~ ~~ R_: ~~ 4 • - ~~ , . Bill Anderson stated that he was opposed to trash trucks using Bridge Street and that trash should be hauled to the intersection for pick-up. He said that he agreed with the six conditions staff outlined in the staff memo. • ~ ~ Kathy Langenwalter stated she did not have problems with the proposed construction barriers. She suggested getting school children involved with painting the fence for something fun and creative. She stated that trash trucks on Bridge Street should not be allowed and that the applicants should submit an accep#able solution to this issue at the time of building permit. She stated that the PEC was not opposed to a '~ ~ restaurant in this location, but that at present, the trash situation did not seem to lend itself to restaurant use. • Kristan Pritz stated that it was not the deliveries that were a concern but that removal of trash was an issue. The applicant would need to utilize the Town of Vat! loading areas. She stated that a'trash removal plan for a future restaurant, could be brought before the PEC. Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building per the staff memo and including the six conditions contained in the staff memo, with the-addition of condition 7 that: "No mo#orized vehicle be allowed to use Bridge Street for trash removal. He added Condition 8 that: "The PEC would need to review the addition of a restaurant as tenant space and its proposed crash removal plan." Greg Amsden seconded this • motion and a 4-1 vote approved this request with Jeff Bowen opposing because he did not feel the proposed construction s#aging plan was appropriate far Bridge Street and that a coordinated development plan needed to be done for the Gramshammer and Covered Bridge Buildings. 4. A request for a worksessiorz for a major exterior alteration, site coverage and setback variances for the'tifihause L~odge~commercial area; Lot 3, Black 1, Vail Lionshead Est Filing/549 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Bob Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the slafi memo. He reviewed the three requests (setback variance, site coverage variance, and major exterior alteration). Jim reviewed the criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal with the PEC. Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they -vere attempting to improve this site through this proposal. He explained the rationale for the proposed rekord doors proposed for Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's. Ross Davis, owner of Bart and Yeti's, stated that he was concerned tha# there be an 'efficient construction process so that his business is not negatively effected. ?iannlnp and Environmental Commission Nlar~h 14, t9Dd 5 integrated, that she did not have a problem with the concept. She told Galen to show mare detail in the next set of drawings. , , • _ - Ross Davis stated tha# he would not be opposed to same sort ofi gable root over his entry or the use of copper. Gaien Aasland stated #hat the 45 degree angle allows #hem to stay away from the large pine trees in front of the First Bank. Kathy Langenwalter stated she was not completely opposed to this approach but that it needs to be more integrated with the rest of the building.. She added that there were options far this area. Overall, she said that there many positive components to this project but that there needed to be greater integration. All members agreed the copper roofi band made sense. 5. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior aHeration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Sireet/Part of Lots B and C, 131ock 5, Vaii Village 4 st Filing. Applicant: Rad and Beth Slicer .- Planner: Kristen Pritz Beth Slifer presented drawings of banners that were proposed to be located in the space and explained their proposed position. She asked the PEC whether they would be in favor of a skater sculpture being pieced beneath the banner. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor ofi the banner with the skater approach. Bab Armour said that he liked the skater. Bill Anderson stated that he tike the banner but he liked the idea of a planter. Kathy Langenwalter commented whether the impact of the sculpture would be Ipst in the space. She felt that even with the sculpture, some plantings should be located along the base of the sculplure. Beth Slifer was concerned that people would walk on plantings placed at this location. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor ofi flowers in the summer and some sort of holiday theme during the winter. • Jeff Bowen made a motion that the skater sculpture be installed and that either a vertical or horizontal banner be installed above the sculpture. A 3-2 vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwalter and Bill Anderson opposing. Plsnntnq and EnvlronrrNntst Commission Mareh 1<, 19L1 .l ATTAGT3MENT ~~2 (Draft copy of minutes from August 8, 1994, PEG Worksession) parking, the applicants could relocate accommodation units on the site. He stated that the density variance was not as hard to properly justify as the height variance. He felt that a comprehensive redevelopment plan fior the property would be a worthwhile exercise to go through. Bob Armour stated that adding mass to the existing nonconforming structure would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Amsden stated that height variances are seldom granted in the Town of Vail and suggested that the 'applicant consider the SDD process. He suggested that the applicant consider shorter individual deck configurations. He said that the dormers themselves were quite massive and should be reduced in order to eliminate a "top heavy" appearance. Gary Bradley asked whether they should go ahead with the swimming pool renovation or should they holed off. Greg Amsden suggested that the applicants hold off until they had developed a comprehensive master plan far the L'Ostello property. Bill Anderson stated that he disagreed with Greg's position and that it was his opinion that the neighbors of the L'Osteilo Building would like to see the swimming pool renovation completed as soon as possible. He encouraged the applicant to complete the plaza renovation and landscaping plan far the property. 3. A request for a worksession to review a CCII major exterior alteration and site coverage and setback variances to allow for a commercial expansion to the Lifthouse Lodge located at 5~9 West Lionshead CirclelLot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Bab Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that 387 square feet of site coverage was proposed to be added with this request. He directed tike PEC's attention to Page 5, Section IV, Discussion Issues of the staff memo. Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they have attempted to address the issues raised concerning this project from the previous worksession, With regard to the sign program, he stated that they were still not interested in changing the Montauk restaurant space. With regard to the sign program, he stated that the three proposed signs would all have a consistent frame and lighting and but that they would like the script and letter material to remain unrestricted. Gary Borsh, the manager of the Montauk, stated that he did not fees that a copper roof across the Montauk would be appropriate. He stated that the Montauk was a sea#ood, chain restaurant from the East Caast.and that they generally utilized a shake shingle roof. Planning and Env~ranmental Commission Meeting Minutes August $ 1994 Dalton Williams stated he would like to see the bank corner pulled back out. of the Pedestrian Malf so that it lines up with the planter. He did not have a problem with removing the two fir trees and replacing them with two deciduous trees. He asked the applicant to consider relocating the bench on the site as opposed to disposing of it altogether. He stated that he did not have any problems with the increased square footage and associated variances. He said that he did have a problem with things that had a tendency to get "piece-mealed" and that he would like to see Montauk tie in with the rest of the Lifthouse Building. Jay Peterson, stated that there were financial considerations attached to their decision not to change the roof on Montauk. He stated that rents in Lianshead were ~ . approximately one-third of the rents in the Village and that construction costs for Lionshead were every bit as expensive as those in the Village and that changing the roof on Montauk could make the entire project unfeasible. Galen Aasland stated that they could have proposed to reroof the Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and FirstBank one store at a time, but they decided to bring them in all at once. Allison Lassoe stated tha# she would like to see the 1-112 foot eastern expansion on FirstBank pushed back out of the l_ionshead Mail She said that she liked the appearance of Montauk but suggested that some sort of copper ~i.e. copper gutter) be used on Montauk in order to tie it into the other three shops. Jeff Bowen agreed with Allison's comments. He said that the use of copper needed to flow through the entire building. He added that he was concerned about increasing the site coverage on the site. Bill Anderson agreed with Allison's comments. He stated that he liked the existing variation in the three shop's themes. He suggested that the applicant consider insetting the entrance way in order to provide some screening. He thought that at least one evergreen tree should be included in the planter along with the aspens. Bob Armour stated that the changes that the applicant has made ate positive since the last PEC worksession. He stated that he was in favor of utilizing some sort of copper on Montauk to tie it into the rest of the building. Greg Amsden agreed that the capper gutter pn the Montauk would be a good solution. He asked fpr a clarification on the peeled logs on the building, especially far Bart and Yeti's. Galen Aasiand said that all new logs would be the same size as Banner Sports but would be stained with a clear varnish. Bart and Yeti's logs would stay exactly the same as what is out there now. Dalton Williams agreed that Allison's suggestion regarding copper gutter was a good idea. Planning and Environmental Gammission Meeting Minutes August B, 199q Allison, Jeff, Biil, Bob and Greg all felt that the east side roof extension was okay the way that was currently proposed and that it did not have to go all the way to the end of the building. Dalton Williams #e!t that the roof extension should be redesigned to go all the way to the corner of the building. Dalton also stated that he did not have a problem should the applicant wish to go forward with the loading variance, should one be required as a result of the addition. Jim Curnutte stated that the PEC still needed to discuss the pedestrian easement. Mike Mollica asked the applicant whether they would be opposed to a pedestrian easement through the Lifthouse site. Bob Lazier felt that the pedestrian easement would not change the existing situation, so he did not have a problem with it. Jim Curnutte stated that staff wanted to insure pedestrian access across the site. Mike Mollica stated that it was important for the Fire Department review this proposal prior to a final hearing before the PEC. Jef# Bowen suggested that a comprehensive sign program be implemented far the • building and.that new tenants be made aware of the program. ~. A request for a setback variances to allow for an addition to the residence located at 4237 Columbine Drive/Lot 22, Bighorn Terrace. Applicant: Joyce Waters Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of the requested setback variances with the five conditions outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the .staff memo: The variance approval shall be contingent upon the DRB approving the "250' request. 2. Prior to DRS review, the applicant shall redesign the flagstone patio entrance area so that it is located 10 feet from the property line, and conforms to the setback. 3. Prior to DRB review, the applicant shall amend the landscape plan showing additional landscaping in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed evergreen trees shalt measure a minimum of 131 linear feet. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), Planning and ~nvironmenta# Gammisston Meeting Minutes August B, 1994 6 ATTACHMENT ~~3 (LIQNSHEAD DESIGN GUIDE i'LAN} <., r ;'r ~~ .. ~ ~' ~ l I ~~ f y .. _....... :~a,~ ~.~~.. 4 K ~ ~ .~-. w } . ;.. ...,.. .. r ._ r .,. ~ ~ 1l ~ ` ... • .. r/ ~ .. .~ ~ I r, i ' .._, ... .y T r r ' '., ~ ~ ,. ' ; ... .. i . '' ~ v , ~. ~ ~ d ~ ~ 11 f y 7+ [////////^~ , .. ~ ..., . 4 ~...,~ ` I ._~ .. i . ~ ., a ~ ~ F, ~f f J ^ ~. r. .,. ~~; r r............_ .. _. ' ~ti ,~, _... '~ _._ ,,.., , j,Rf I ~ ~ f .... . ,. . _ .. ... _ f ~ .~ .. '~. ._ ,. r .... ~sa~ aa; ~, f _ _ :~ ~~, ~~ ._ _.. f ....,.. __.. _ ., . .. , r ~ .- ~r _.. ~ ~ ~ .. .: : C II _ ~ ~- _-. .., .. ~.. w: . ...................... i ~ .~L, ,• ..................., ' yam, ~, .1.. ..... C] ~ LL ~~ c~ ,/~ r f .., ., r ~1.......... _ , i. ~ - ~ ~ .. ,. I L.I _, I 1, ~ ~.. ,. ~, ,, •. .,. ._... _.,.._.. ._' .. I r.. ~ ~ ..,~ `. ~ r ~ , ~, ,, ~ ' `~~ '- ' , 1 7 f +~ i ~ {~' ., .t ' ~ ~.. f { - , • ~ ,- ~ '~ I I }... f ., •. _. ~,;: ;^ ~~ ra ~!+ .. ...., If r ..,, . F r ,.. ~~, ~. ~ ~ .~.. ' f'r ; ~ ' rl '~.., t }.f ~ ~ ~ 1 •. 3.. 4 I . . , . ~•~ _ I ,..___... 1 ,. r ~ NI' ~I~ Ir III..; i' r • •! i • r ~ ~~/ ~ ~ `! I-k ~ ~ \a~~ ,~ ~ i r i,.~l I ! ~ I ! ~. i ' f I F ~ ~ iyr~'r ~ ~+ -'~, ~1 # ~ r .~ ~. r. Vail Recreation DISTRICT 292 R'. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 303-479-2279 FAX: 303 -479-2 197 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 479-2450 SPECIAL EVENTS 479-2465 MARKETING BRANCH 479-2446 VAIL GOLF CLUB 1776 Vail Valley Drive 479-2262 GOLF & PARK MAINTENANCE 1276 Vail Valley Drive 479-2262 FORD PARK TENNIS CENTER 700 S. Frontage Road 479-2294 30HN A. DOBSON ARENA 321 Lionshead Circle 479-2271 VAIL YOUTH SERVICES 395 E. Lionshead Circle a79-2292 VAIL NATURE CENTER Vail Valley Drive 479-2291 September 6, 1994 Mr. Bob McLaurin Town of Vail Manager 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Bob: As you are aware Frank Johnson and I have met several times to review the role of our two agencies with regards to community special events. It is our opinion that the Vail Recreation District should continue to administer sport and recreation related events while the Tourism and Convention Bureau is better suited to manage more community oriented events. This premise is being wholeheartedly supported by the Vail Recreation District Board of Directors. It appears that this is in line with what the special event committee determined to be best after their trip to St. Moritz. Thus, the Vail Recreation District is not interested in bidding on the '1995 management contract for Vail America Days, Vail Oktoberfest, Christmas in Vail, nor Winter Carnival. The District will continue with all of the running races, Lacrosse Shoot Out, 4th of July Youth Dancing in the Streets, Duck Race, and all other previously sponsored sporting events. In addition, we would like to formally bid on a Memorial Day celebration. We have been accepted as a stop on the Champion International Whitewater series and propose hosting the event Memorial Day Weekend. The district is requesting funding in the amount of $10,000 for the event. Previous funding was $6000 for the event but with the demand on labor, the event actually costs the district money to organize. Although we are asking for more money for the Memorial Day event we are not requesting the $5,000 previously appropriated for Labor Day. The Duck Race and Labor Day activities have proven to be very successful and this "seed" money is no longer required. Uail Recreation DISTRICT 292 W. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 303-479-2279 FAX: 303-479-2197 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFiCE5 a79-zaso SPECIAL EVENTS 479-2465 MARKETING BRANCH 479-2446 VAIL GOLF CLUB 1778 Vail Valley 1]rive 479-2262 GOLF & PARK MAINTENANCE 1278 Vail Valley Drive 479-2262 FORD PARK TENNIS CENTER 740 S. Frontage Raad~ 479-2294 ]OHN A. DOBSON ARENA 321 Lionshead Circle a79-2271 VAIL YOUTH SERVICES 395 E. Lionshead Circle 479-2292 VAIL NATURE CENTER Vail Valley Drive 479-229I if the Tourism and Convention Bureau chooses to administer the canoe and kayak event as well, that would be acceptable to the Vail Recreation District. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience should you have any questions andlor concerns. ~~ I i Sirjce ely, h, ~; Rob Robinson Executive Director r-bmcl i MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager DATE: September 2, 1994 SUBJECT: Town Manager`s Report Police Addition As you are aware, the new police addition is complete. For the past few weeks (as you have heard during the Council meetings) the contractor has been remodeling the existing police department space. The remodel should be substantially complete about mid September. The project continues to be within the budget approved by the Council last year. The project budget is attached for your information and review. As indicated on the budget, the total budget approved by the Council was $3,701,986. Of this amount $30,000 was allocated for modifications to the west entry and $1 D,DOD for a walkway along the south side of the Frontage Road. Because the roundabout project will involve a minor relocation of the Frontage Road, we have deleted the sidewalk from this project. This sidewalk will be incorporated into the roundabout project. We are continuing to work to develop a design for the west entry. I am currently working with Pam Hopkins to develop another conceptual design far your review. At this point #hese improvements will be constructed next Spring. You should also be aware that it is unlikely the $30,000 will be enough to fend the improvement to the west entry envisions by the PEC and the DRB. Because these items have been deleted from the contract, the total budget for this project is $3,661,986. Staff Retreat i have scheduled a staff retreat on October 15, 1994. The purpose of this retreat is to enhance the sense of teamwork of the senior staff, develop the staff's understanding of the use of self directed work teams, and to begin #o develop a set of organizational value for the TOV organization. Dick Bowers who is the City Manager for Scottsdale, AZ will facilitate this retreat. Firs Station Study lfpdate in 1990 the Town commissioned a study to assess response times and to determine if an addition fire station was needed in West Vail. This was conducted by Bill Gay of Washington, D.C. Response times collected in the study indicated that an additional station was warranted. As you are aware, a major issue of the Vail Commons plan is whether to allocate a portion of the site for a fire station. !r~ order to accurately determine the need for thls station, I have asked Bil! Gay to update the 1990 study. This study will involve constructing a simulation model to determine the demand for this station. The study will estimate the cost of constructing and staffing a new station, The original study did not analyze the impact of an underpass on response times. It is my feeling (and hope) that an underpass will reduce response times to a point where a new station is not warranted. It is also my feeling the long term cost of an underpass will be significantly }ess than the cost of constructing, maintaining and staffing a new station. This study will begin in late September and wil{ cost approximately $9,000. It wiii be funded from ~ , the money allocated for Vail Commons. Meeting with Eagle County Commissioners As you are aware I have bean meeting with Jack Lewis to improve our working relationship with Eagle County. We have tentatively scheduled a meeting with the Commissioners and the Council for Tuesday, November 1st. The time and location for this meeting has not yet been determined. Neither has the specific agenda. RW M/aw • C:1Tawnmgr.rp~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 20,1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Skrauch BSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Avon resident, Rich Howard, introduced himself as a representative of "Citizens Eor Saving Open Space in Eagle County," an organization formed to support the upcoming ballot issue. Mr. Howard requested Council pass a resolution showing support of the issue. Merv asked Mr. Howard to provide Pam Brandmeyer with ballot language for Council review. Tom Steinberg expressed his support. Second on the agenda was the Appointment of Art in Public Places Board Member. Jan Strauch moved to appoint Nancy M. Rondeau to the unexpired tertxl of former Board Member, Erich Hill. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. ~ Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, first reading, tabled from 09/06/94, an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.04, setting forth definitions for active outdoor recreation, interpretive nature walks, nature preserves, passive outdoor recreation, private, public, quasi-public, and changing the section number of recreation structure; amending Chapter 18.36, Public Use District; amending Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; and creating Chapter 18.33, Outdoor Recreation District; and setting forth details in regard thereto, Merv Lapin read the title in full. Jim Curnute explained Ordinance 21 would update the Town's existing Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, and Public Use Zane Districts, and would provide for a new Outdoor Recreation Zone District. Jim Curnutte and Russell Forest reviewed a memo to Council from Community Development regarding the proposed text changes. Jim informed Council that staff recommended adding "Clinical Pharmacies" to Public Use District under Section M. of the Ordinance. Jim Shearer moved to approve Ordinance 21 with the recommended addition. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1994, 2nd Reading, an Ordinance restricting the sale or possession of assault weapons. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Tom Moorhead reviewed the origination of the ordinance, stating the ordinance was similar to the federal crime bill passed by Congress earlier during the summer. Tom said the major dissimilarity between Ordinance 15 and the federal crime bill was that under Ordinance 15, Vail residents must register within 60 days assault weapons obtained prior to the ban with the Vail Police Department. Tom Moorhead informed Council that a similar ordinance passed by the City and County of Denver had been found to be unconstitutional by the District Court; however the Colorado State Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding it to be a valid ordinance. Tom explained Ordinance 15 was drafted in the same form as the Denver ordinance. Questions from Council pertained to differences between the proposed Ordinance 15 and the recently adopted Federal Crime Bill. Chuck House with the Vail Police Department was on hand to answer specific questions. Merv Lapin opened the floor to public input, r.,,.,,o~~;,,,. r+nmmon#c ha l;m;~ar~ t~ rhrPa minYytPS nor individual, and asked participants to refrain Item No. 5 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add to his memorandum, which had been included in Council packets. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ate" Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem ATTEST; ~ ~ Q.~( Holly L, McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L. McCutchean ('Names of ceri~~in individuals who gave public input maybe inaccurate.} • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 20, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District, of the Vail Municipal Code and the creation of Chapter 1$.33, Outdoor Recreation District. ' ::rk'i.y!.r+:.,+:-.tii~?:i+r:i:::.+-.,: 3til:~i?r:i?ry:+r:+...`v'~i~.~.. .: ..?1+:'!~-tih^:::. ~ .. \..u~r ..\:+.: :~ .~:::.::r:•4.::...~:.r•r~;,+•::,:+.~.,v.:+•.:.ri.?..:i?~tinry.r:...... .,^i.~.:}.:» ...+..::~.,~ ,. , .v x ,,:.4'+W}.y; ....r:i.. v???+,. .. r, ................+.:.+.~..:.~.:v.. ;. •.:..:+... .r nr .+:.+n .....+\,+:ux.~u::+: .. v:.Jy.:J.:.... :.rr?k.E......: .ne!, r\l.i.+?.: v. rn+..v .. , r \+?\>>:.: ~~::.., ..1.+: , ......,..+~ ............. .. .. .. ,.....x.. ....r ~. r .+,+.:.+...... .v rr., .. .... \. ,r r .,.r .. ,.:.\.\ \4,w.,\:? .\r ,r ?++. \. ;,::?\..,:\'v\:::;~+\i:r. irk i*:+>;++:;?,A ~j!:~i: .. \i..:+r!~: .a4:.! ..\+. +:\!+,?.~ :~\~~,. rr ..\.. ,3 .+,r .,\p.ri ,- ,~.??q~.+ .:~;~:+ r:ti v. .~. .?..+: ~.~~~: ,~:,r ~+ ivx:+' + ..... .......:+ :....... ., r.r;pV;,V (.:.:::~.....} n .. ... A A v; i•+'i+...+..x:..,~:::~:`\ \: .+..... :?.; i~:+\r. r. r~i\`>. \ \ . .+\.. !.\v.+?~+ +~\~`.. ,ii,;,'r'iivl:+?t ~i~' .\\i \r:i .:~\':\:?1,\+,~~.r i+'A~1~~: ...rvn:' :?:::::.:.~.:~:... rJ?v" :.:.J.+.+: ... ... r': r+..++.~.+.x:,:.~,J. r:'~i1?. .+. \. r•,.C?. \i~, , +.~.'~' 3v ,.,..4'...........~:?^v ~4i?i~~ti:}::i,~... On Tuesday September 6, 1994, a Council worksession was held to discuss the proposed text amendments to the above-referenced chapters of the Vail Municipal Code. At the worksession, the Council reviewed the proposed changes and recommended that a number of revisions be made and be brought back to the Council for their first reading. The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the changes requested by the Town Council at the September 6th meeting. Staff has incorporated the changes in#o Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, as follows: 1. The definition of "interpretive nature walks" has been amended to include some additional wording as requested by the Town Council. The additional wording is shown in bold and the new definition of interpretive nature walks is as follows: "Interpretive nature walks shall mean unpaved pedestrian trails with either fixed signs or marked points which are used to explain the natural flora, fauna, geology, geography, or history of the immediate area. This use would exclude all mechanical vehicles except wheelchairs and maintenance equipment." 2. Discussion of the definition of quasi-public. After some discussion regarding the proposed definition of quasi-public, the Town Council determined that it was acceptable to leave this definition as is. 3. The Council discussed the issue of removing paved bicycle paths, pedestrian ways and parking areas from the list of conditional uses in the Natural Area Preservation district. After some discussion regarding the provision of adequate handicapped access to natural areas, as well as the fact that the Town Code requires parking areas to be paved, it was determined that the wording can be • left as currently proposed. The Council felt comfortable with the fact that since these uses are listed as conditional uses in the natural area preservation district they will always have the opportunity to "call up" any use which has received conditional use permit approval from the PEC for further review. 4. The Town Council requested that the Conditional Use "F" in the General Use zone district be deleted. The Council felt that the phrase "public service facilities" was not adequately defined and was mast likely already covered by the other conditional uses already listed in this zone district. r 5. The Town Council requested that rectories, convents, and related structures should be deleted from Conditional Use "L" in the General Use District, leaving only churches as Conditional Use "L". 6. The Council then looked at Conditional Use "M" which is listed as "hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers" and suggested the addition of "clinical pharmacy". After reviewing this proposed addition, staff feels that this use would already be allowed as a part of either a hospital, medical facility or a clinic and does not Head to be listed separately. 7. The Town Council felt that the General Use District Conditional Use "P", visitorlinformation centers, is substantially similar to Conditional Use "O" which is "public touristJguest service related facilities". The Council recommended that visitor information centers be deleted. S. The Council then discussed the addition of a new conditional use that would allow for indoor community facilities, such as a youth center, a senior citizens center, swimming pools, and other recreational activities. Staff believes that in order to be consistent with the purpose statement of this zone district, facilities that are entirely private should not be allowed and that the conditional use section of the General Use District include a new "F'" which would read as follows: "public and quasi-public indoor community facilities". 9. Conditional Use "V" in the General Use District, states that the following uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: offices, transit/shuttle services, sundries shops, restaurants, ski and bike storage facilities, and public tourist/guest service related facilities. The Council discussed the need to have public tourist/guest service related facilities listed again, as it was already listed previously as Conditional Use "O". Staff believes that Conditional Use "O" would allow for someone to apply for a public tourist/guest service related facility anywhere in town exceat in a parking structure since it is Hat specifically fisted in Conditional Use "V". Therefore, since staff felt that this type of use would be acceptable in a parking structure, it was listed again. 10. The Town Council requested that Conditional Use "C" "plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the premises" be removed from the Outdoor Recreation District. Staff pointed out that the only reason that that use was left as a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation District is that the Town Landscape Architect has discussed the ability of possibly having a small plant nursery in Town for future public projects. The Tawn Council recognized this need but suggested that it be added as a conditional use in the General Use 2 District. Therefore, staff has listed it as a conditional use in the General Use District and removed it from the conditional uses allowed in the Outdoor Recreation District. 1.1. The Council requested that "horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a Horse Grazing Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58" be deleted as an accessory use in the Outdoor Recreation District. The Council felt that horse grazing is no longer a use that should be preserved within the Town limits and suggested that that portion of Chapter 18.58 {Supplemental Regulations} which allowed for the issuance of horse grazing permits be repealed. This would preclude horse grazing in ail zone districfs in Town and not just in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Staff has deleted horse grazing from the fist of accessory uses in the Outdoor Recreation zone district and amended Ordinance No. 21 to delete Chapters 18.58.230, 18.58.240, 18.58.250, 18.58.260, 18.58.270 and i 8.58.280 which deal with the permitting of horse grazing from the Municipal Code. Staff has also removed horse grazing from the list of accessary uses in all other chapters of the Zoning Code where it currently exists {RC, LDMF, and AOS). The above-described revisions to Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, have been made and are reflected in bold (additions) or strike-through (deletions} in the revised ordinance. 3 ATTACHMENT #5 ~€€r!Q€~ T~-AI~1~^ I`J°~"~Q~'~n ~P.'~S€~(E.""~} DISTRICT NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) 18.38.010 -Purpose. The gfeeflfa~l~ and nG:u-af-ep~n erase natural area preservation district is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or. natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other #han those listed in section 18.32.020 (Permitted uses} et#e~ #~e^..'1 ripRi6-~i~~^_ ?'.".'~ t?~'~E~ IS n9£^^~_^.~')'-~A-a6~?ie~^ +f'^ ~~"'~~SES=~xBSGF1~9~-FF~ ~ec;~cn 1 `~,^~~~. The ~s^~s'.t ~^S ^kt~ral--epeta-spase natural area preservation district is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, . Including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The natural area preserva#ian distric# includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, we#lands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constrain#s. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town"s tourist economy.. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious . weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible • improvements. ~'.lri'!'r.~: ~i: }~:a~i~-~8~.~~ ~~3f~'~8 r:.r~~ :$~-eF~F~BnF;~1@~al~f ~,en~i}' n~' prasewe-ep~,^. ~~~ss ar.~ts :~o`.~.~~al stata- (Ord. 19(1976) § 7{part): Ord.B{1973) § 26.100.) 18.38.020 -Permitted uses. The following shall be permitted uses in the 6~.NAP district: A. ~een#aolt anY sr~e; ~. ~I_ ~r.~ ~~des#~ia~-~at!°r. A. Nature preserves. (Ord. 19{1976} § 17(part): Ord.B(1973) § 26.200.) 18.38.030 -Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ~Ai9~ NAP district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: ~. Fa:~li~ rams-e~i r a)'~s; ~, rr.~f ,..,...~o~ S:A. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; B. Paved and unpaved, non-motorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; C. Interpretive nature walks; D. Picnic tables and informal seating areas; E. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use; 18 F. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the opera#ion thereof, with the exception of buildings. {Ord. 19{1976) § 17{part}: Ord. 8(1973) § 26.300.} 18.38.040 -Accessary uses. Not applicable in the b~iAi~ NAP district. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord. 8{1973) § 26.400.) i 8.38.D50 -Development standards. Nat applicable in the ~a NAP district. - _ (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 26.5DD.) 18.38.080 -Parking and loading. ~Plet ~p~!isabia in tl's ~^°_ ~iis#~ic-~ Parking and loading requirements wail be determined by the Planning and environmental Commission during the review of conditional use requests in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. (Ord. 19(1976) § 17(part}: Ord. 8(1973} § 26.6D0.} 78.38.010 -Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are #ound in Chapter 18.58; Supplemental Reguiatlons. C, • 19 ATTACHMENT #6 P>w1°'_I~ GENERAiL USE ~{P'!^) (GU) DISTRICT 18.36.010 Purpose. The pa"~is general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the develapment standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The ~~is general use district is intended to ensure that pubTic~buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 19(1976} § 16 {part}: Ord. § (1973} § 251100.} 18.36.020 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the t~i3 GU district: A. ~,:~f:s ~k~s Passive outdoor recreation area:, ~I~I~$ artd open space; B. Pedestrian }and bike paths. ~. ~' ,~n~r ~J Ir~Dl~r~~r ~~ ~~~r t{~n?l, ~~3.•?L.\~?~~I~~~rn~ i 8.36.030 Conditional uses -Generally. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ~B GU district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.50: A. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities; B. Public parking facilities and structures; C. Public transportation terminals; ©. Public utilities installations ~g including transmission sines and appurtenant equipment; E. Water and sewage treatment plants; F. Public service facilities; G. Public buildings and grounds; H. Public and private schools and educational institutions; I. P--rer,,reati3n #a^~i#+es-~t#Lr tr~an '.h3se-p~es~,~il~eza in ~' ; I. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses; J. Golf courses; K. Ski lifts, aid el~F tows and runs; L. Churches rectories, convents and refated structures; i~ M. Hospitals, medical and dental facilities, clinics, and rehabilitation centers; N. Equestrian trails; O. 9#fisE ~n ;Public touristlguest service related facilities; P. ~a~an:$d; Visitorlinformation centers; Q. Maur Arcade; R. Heiipad far emergency andlor community use; S. ~'rnrr' gran rGnges; ~. Type ill EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060; >~T. Type iV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070; U. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities; V. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issuance of a conditional use permit, provided such use is accessory to a parking structure: . •OffICeS; •transit/shuttle services; -sundries shops; -restaurants; -ski and bike storage facilities; •pubfic touristlguest service related facilities. {Ord. 8(1992} §§ 27, 28: Ord. B(19$4) § 1: Ord. 27(1982) § 1: Ord. 6(1982) § 7a: Ord. 33(1981} § 2: Ord. 19(1976} § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.300.) 18.36.040 Accessary uses. The fallowing accessory uses shall be permitted in the F~618 GU district: '~thar ase, ;:a_:sr:a~il;~-i~si~an~ ; a~.d-aw.~ssc nal ases~~ er~iaz~ thar-ee€: A. Minor arcade; B. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 6(1882) § 7b: Ord. 19{1976) § 16 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.40D.) 18.36.050 Development standards. ~iEr fri astir~ee-an aPrl:aa#+o~ #:- a sen$+#i3nal ~_c ~er~=r axyr--ef~aa-se;~sfi:isnal :.rte ~r+i'~ed in S 2 p`.arrl~~issxa, shafl~-~wescri~= ~eve4=pr~a# sh p.:.r'' I~_nt prop^_al o~p~efest-i~-easn ~# #~ts #=>iav~~ satege~ies~ In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; ~-C. Building height; 1=:D. Density control; ~Resea~ed; ~-E. Site coverage; ~•I:-F. Landscaping and site development; G. Parking and Loading. 2 Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. {Ord. 8(1979) § (part}; Ord. 50(1978} § 1 {part); Ord. 19(1976}.§ 16 {part): Ord. 8{1973) § 25.500.) ..~ r ,,.,r+~.,r. 8f#-s#ee; p~:l ~n~ wn~ I~~a~er~sn`s shall-lae-aYt~..`~f+sh_~ ~) tha rlanni~~ a_rnF1`.~s`~ r ~i~nh ~~.~ {Ord. 19(1976) § 1fi {part): Ord. 8(1973) § 25.fi00.) _ -_ 18.36.064 Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the General Use District are found in Chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations. 3 ATTACHMENT #7 OUTDOOR RECREATION (OR) DISTRICT 18.33.010 -Purpose. . The outdoor recreation district is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities far active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. 18.33.020 -Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the OR district: - -_ ~ •. A. Passive outdoor recreation areas and open spaces, i.e. picnic tables, informal playing fields, etc.; B. Nature preserves; C. Bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways; D. Interpretive nature walks. 18.33.030 -Conditional uses. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a cond itional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60: A. Public parks and active outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings; B. Equestrian trails, used only to access National Forest system lands; C. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products grown, produced or made on the premises; D. Ski lifts, taws and runs; E. Cemeteries; F. Well water treatment facilities. G. Accessory buildings (permanent and temporary} and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses. 18.33.040 -Accessory uses. The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the OR district: A. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a horse grazing permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.5$. 1$.33.050 - E_ot area and site dimensions. Not applicable in the OR district. 18.33.060 -Setbacks. In the OR district, the minimum setback shall be twenty feet from all property lines, except as may be further restricted by the PEC in conjunction with the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1$.60. 18.33.080 -Height. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings Shall not exceed twenty- ane feet. Far a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed twenty-four feet. 18.33.090 -Density. Nat applicable in the ROS district. 18.33.110 -Site coverage. Site coverage shall not exceed five percent of the total site area, 18.33.130 -Landscaping and site development ~ ~ -~~ Landscape requirements shall be determined by the Design Review Board in accordance with chapter 18.54. 18.33.140 -Parking. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. 18.33.150 -Additional development standards. Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the outdoor recreation district are found in Chapter 18.58, Supplemental Regulations. i z L_J o vl'i ° M v`"i °I ~n ~ U d ~ ~"'~ ~v M ~ o ~p '.~ dl ~ y . y C a, w o '~ N a ~' > ~ ~j O F ~ IN1, ~ a O F • ~ d a ~ -a ~ ~ z ea W ~ ~ O U Z Q V `"' a ~ an ~, n ra . a y L r 0 ~ M u ni R. r J d ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ F 4 > ~aSo C7 ~ > > ~ ~ ~, F. y ~. i a~ R i 4G N t v. Y .w n~ ~ p o ~ 0 m ' ~ a V V a - N '' ~ _ ." , ~ ® > ~ a ,., .~ . _... . p S S O O O ° C a a h 1 .~ . ~ ro C cC b a~ O N r '(j ,.. o ~n c a al a o rl M ~p .r .. U .~ OJ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ :J V Q r ~ ~ !-~ w ~ a ~. x :J ^ J ~~ yf 0. L ~,~, a o n - t v ~ : ~: L } . ~ . U Q G. 1 W U u a a c 5 "~ i 4 Z 4 a 8 R S > I • THOUGHTS ALONG THE WAY I dust heard the Vail Counsel is going to enact an ordinance to control guns. This is a Frivolous, Capricious, Uninformed Action. Without going into a prolonged argument I will list briefly what the Counsel should consider. The United State's Constitution Second Amendment reads and T quote: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keen and bear-Arms. sha~~ pot be infr~.naed." Thats all; thats the whole of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of course follows the First Amendment, the Free Speech Amendment. According to my interpretation I would assume that the Second Amendment is almost as important as the one preceding it concerning speech. The reason for the Second Amendment is it seems obvious to me. History has taught us that to impose an authoritarian type of government you must eliminate all popular resistance. I am not going to argue the point now; but if one wants to change the Constitution lets avail ourselves of the existing legal procedures. We are a nation of law, lets use the machinery available to us. If we as a country believe that the Second Amendment or for that matter any other part of the U. S. Constitution is not needed or needs to be modified lets do in legally. Lets argue all the points. in an informed way. All this political emotionalism clouds the issue. I am not a lawyer, but the Constitution was written in a way that the common man should understand. Now if we want to abide and uphold the Constitution; Article 5 provides the legal way to enact laws contrary to what is now written in the Constitution. Briefly, it states that Two Thirds of Congress can call for a Convention of the States and Three Fourths of the State Legislatures are required to pass a new amendment. This is simple and clear. Let us decide what we want. Our town counsels, legislatures, commissioners,~etc. are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people. Our representatives do not at this time have the power to change Constitutional Law. j v ~(tt1~`~~~ ~' .r.•~'"'- U~~d states DP's *~0~~$~ ~, .e~~~ "rte a, a of ~ S~`~tfie °°" ins of a n~bex adap~- to ~,~retdd~ ~ tt'eft .~ ~ati~+ ~n as ~u~ve and + F r~~~ ap~ ~ wig ~ ,~~sc d Ire mod' ~~t-tu~'' of ~ p b1~ ~~,t'e~ °f , end 'K°us~ . n~ ~ ersu~~'~Yvee ~~ ~ ~ °~ ~~~e ~~~ , twa p~,~t~e ~ ~ . ~~~,~~ , ~ ~,~a nsd,~ti" Stag='d1' °t '~~, t~e~, ~ Pew °f ~- ~ Uriir~ed t by p~N~-~ ~~~xpN '"~ ~ pg~Tl~ Cp- s~~ °~ ~~ xesP~'~ ~ f~ Cong~ss reygon ~~~ ~ ie ~~ ~ a n~ert~ ~ n~~ ~, ..- pRTi~n of t~ ana sa to t1.e F""'_ ~ ~ ~~~ pucu~s~t$~;s, ~, $~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~. ' ~ 7b, '~' ~~e e ,,~1~~'' ~ Fes' be~*ti°~ ~~ pet- acne~w' ?jp ,,.. pSe~ ~~f~~ep~ , ~i'n~ ~e ~Y ~„c-d ->e~ t~ of F1e°'`~ t c Na S°y ~e ~ ~°by-~~c" a s~`~ ~~dpw~ ti°~ ~ ~,w. ,~ ~ p:ead ~~ ~,~,u-) ca ~`• U Article. IV. Sectio~n.1. Fu11 Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and ju- dicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Man- ner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings steal! be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section. 2. The Citizens of each Stall shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several Staten. A Person charged in any State with 'Cresson, Felony, ar other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. [No Person held to Service or labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Serv- ice or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Chun of the Party to whom aurh Service or Labour may be due.l* Section. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congrnes into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or w , , ~~ ~ 1 within the Jurisdicction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the ]unc- tion of two or more States, or Farts of States, without the Consent of the tares of the States concerned as well as of~ ongress. The Congress shall have Pbwer to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belong- ing to the United States; and nothing in this Con- stitution shall be so construed ae to F'rejudue any 'Changed by the Thirteenth Amendment. 14 ~r~-e~.~.~a~ ~ Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legis- lature, or of the T:xecutive (when the Legislature cannot be convened} against domestic Violence. a Article. V~ The Con i.,,,....:+~e: two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Ap- plication of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention far r..,.YOS- ing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to ail Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Leeislatt~ s of three fourths of the several Staten, ar by Conven- tions in urths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be r.~r~aed by the Congress; Provided, that na Amendment which may be made prior tin the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight steal! in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Con- sent, shall be deprived of st's equal Suffrage in the Senate. Article. VI. All Debts contracted and >xngagements entered intoy before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United St<.~:- .vhich shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and ail 'Ileaties made, or which shall be made, 15 tiq~!~.~_... ~{~':.. Ri nor s }~~.:. _' `1 i. ~,~.~. b. -. ,. i; ~."'. ~'.,. :y , ~;~ ~. ,, k}:. ,,, iwr;'4 . ~"~ ~_ .r. - , ;'. {,h ,, ,`.. ?;..~.:. F,~.... ~~~_~ ' ° ,w;°' ' ~,~; . . .'~~~" ,, 5..{• ,_,::'. .`.i,,. . ~~ ., °.:; ~~ ~~ ~-_ _.. d hear e an ke p _ -....,- erson to Givil ~,awer --- - --- -- - .__-LL ~ bQ~` ~'~'S' ~n .TPC ger ea~in uesto'on'.carry ni ~ ing can° -- ht -- S,ectio-~ 1~` .. of his ho~~ pers© shall be call a ractice of arms in def ens al1Y su aned, UstifY th p hen reto legs construed to l . . w t ~` mined herein weap°ns' ,sealed r ~~~ ~~ ~`r~~~n ~v . ~]~r pL'I C~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ t~ ~ ~~ ~~~z~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ . 1 ~~, ~~ F ~~~ , w ~~f, ~ y.a~ ( ^ ~n ~ - v ~ ~ ~~'~ C< ~` ...~ l,. ~ ~ // V MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin ~ Town Manager DATE: September 16, 1994 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report =f::. Chanel Bridge Proiect Update As we discussed last week, we have been experiencing problems with sedimentation control on the Chapel Bridge Project. After several attempts, it appears that we have resolved this problem and the project is proceeding. The Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Wildlife have signed off on the revised sedimentation control program. Because of the delays associated with the sedimentation problems, the project is two or three weeks behind schedule. We anticipate this project to be complete before Thanksgiving. ~. Ted Kendall Park Update $ The improvements at Ted Kendall Park are also running slightly behind schedule. At this point, we believe this project will be c.,u,Yleted in mid October. Covered Bridge Proiect Update We are currently f nalizing the contract for the renovation of the Covered Bridge. The contractor for this project will be G.A. Western Contractors. The temporary pedestrian bridge has been ordered and we are awaiting delivery. As soon as the temporary bridge arrives, the contractor will mobilize and begin work. This project is also scheduled to be completed by Thanksgiving. Ore House Awning Please find the attach transcription of the discussion about the Ore House which occurred on May 17, 1994. As indicated in the transcript, Merv Lapin made a morion to approve the awning as is, with the condition that the owner agree not to further enclose the deck. Jan Strauch requested Merv modify his motion to reflect the addition of flowers and lighting on the dec. The motion was modified and passed 3-1. Thus is it is clear that the addition of flowers and lights were a condition of allowing the awning to remain as originally constructed. We have conveyed this information to Larry Anderson and he is working to get these items installed. I have also asked Tom Moorhead to revise the lease agreement with the Ore House to reflect these changes. Waste Management Policv Attached you will find a draft version of the Waste Management Policy for your review (attachment I}. The issue of waste management is at the f„~L~i~nt of environmental concerns throughout the country, including Eagle County, Colorado. The Eagle County Landfill is filling up much faster than anticipated due to the fact that this area is grow~ngm~uch faster than expected. The Tawn of Vail is the home to 6 of the top 10 waste generators in the county. It is prudent and inevitable that we begin to implement responsible waste management activities. The Policy outlines the waste management hierarchy which calls for 1) waste minimization, 2} reuse and waste toxicity reduction, 3) waste recycling, and finally 4} land disposal. This order of priorities is generally accepted as the most environmentally sound. The cost preference of buying recycled products has been set at l0% over the cost of virgin materials. However, there is every likelihood that the Town will save money because many recycled products are becoming less expensive, and will reduce our dependance on the landfill. The policy calls for three recycling containers to be placed around town. Public works has . given cost estimates for construction, and offered to collect the materials and deliver them to We Recycle. With the assistance of the Vail Board of Realtors Environmental Committee, it seems there will be private donations to cover the entire cost of construction. Please note the T.4.V. recycling icon this icon will be on letter head, envelopes, business cards etc.. In addition, the icon has been used far t-shirts to give to Clean Up Day group leaders, and some for general sale. RAM/aw ATTACHMENT 1 r TOWN OF VAII. WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICY Purpose Statement The purpose of this document shall be to set into policy the methods used by the Town of Vail for waste management. Waste management issues are of growing concern everywhere in the country. The Eagle County landfill, located near Wolcott, began accepting waste in December of 1990 with an expected lifespan of 25 years. Currently Eagle County estimates indicate that due to rapid growth in the county there may only be about 12.5 years of remaining capacity in the existing landfill. According to the Eagle County Master Plan, in a 1990 census Eagle County is one of the fastest growing counties in Colorado. The permanent population of Eagle County is approximately 17,852, but the peak season population can balloon to over 80,000. An adjusted population average of 48,188 sha11 be used for comparisan. According to the Eagle County Solid Waste Management Plan (July 1993) the adjusted average annual population in the Town of Vail is 19,051. This indicates that 40% of the population of Eagle County is represented in Vail. While this policy is not meant to address waste management for the entire town, as a municipal government entity we are in a prime position to be a leader in environmental stewardship and to teach by example. The waste management goaE of the Town is to foster an integrated waste management system in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the waste stream. The following waste management practices are in order of preference: 1. Waste minimization; 2. Reuselwaste toxicity reduction; 3. Waste recycling; 4. Land disposal. Although waste reduction is, of necessity, amulti-jurisdictional issue involving federal, state, county, and local efforts, the Town of Vail has identified a waste reduction rote for itself. That role is one of being a promoter of waste reduction through waste reduction education and technical assistance, by setting an example with in-house government waste reduction and recycling activities, and a reward system for citizens or groups showing above average attempts to reduce waste (the Mauri Nottingham Environmental Awardl. These efforts will target both residential and business waste generators. II. Waste Minimization The following actions shall be taken by the Town of Vail to minimize the generation of waste materials: 1. Routing envelopes should be reused as much as possible. Documents from the Personnel Department, and same large agenda documents should be routed rather than multiple copies being made. 2. When making copies of documents both sides of copy paper should be utilized. 3. Implement the use of computer mail and voice mail as soon as these systems are on line to reduce the need for written messages. 4. Use waste paper printed on one side only to produce note pads for internal use. 5. Discontinue whenever possible the use of self stick type mailing labels as they are not recyclable. 6. Paper used for copying, memo's, and messages should be white or pastel in color to simplify the consolidation #or recycling. 7. Refillable pens shall be used in place of disposable types. . $. Use of single use type food service items including disposable plates and cups, and plastic silverware shall be minimized. This could include the purchase of mugs with the Town of Vail recycling icon for use by visitors and employees. 9. Laser printer, fax machine and typewriter ribbons shall be sent for recharging whenever passible. 10, Where possible low wattage, long life lightbulbs shall be utilized. I11. Procurement It shall be the policy to purchase products for use within the Town of Vail that are recyclable or recycled products where those products are of comparable quality, product life and price when compared to products produced with virgin materials. A cost preference for recycled products shall be set at 10%, to be allowed for the purchase of recyclable or recycled products aver the cost of virgin products. Consideration shall also be given to the purchase of nondisposable products which have a longer fife than the disposable products. This policy will be reviewed annually by Environmental Health staff, and a report given to the Tawn Manager. A. Designate Recycled Products The following products shall be included under this "Waste Management Policy". 2 1. Recycled paper and paper products. Slncluding, but not limited tai writing and copying paper, letterhead, envelopes, business cards, napkins, towels, toilet tissue and facial tissue.? When available towels, napkins, toilet tissue and facial tissue should be of a nonbleached nature; 2. Lubricating oil and hydraulic ail with recycled oil content; 3. Retreaded and remolded tires; - ~ .. 4. Products made #rom recycled tine rubber, including rubber mats, garden hoses, and traffic control cones; 5. Recharged laser printer toner cartridges; 6. Recharged typewriter and non-laser type printer ribbons; 7. Reusable products or products in reusable packaging where the reusable products or packaging are alternatives to disposable products or packaging; . 8. Lead acid batteries or rechargeable, reusable batteries; 9. Other recycled products as designated by the Purchasing Agent. ~ 0. Whenever possible recycled paper shall be requested for outside printing jobs. B. Standards for recycled content in recycled products 1. Minimum recycled content standards established for designated recycled products should require no less than 20% post consumer waste material content. Total recycled material content should be a minimum of 50%. 2. The purchasing agent should purchase products with a post consumer content above 20% when such a product is available within the cost preference range as described in section III. 3. For paper goods the minimum recycled content of any given material should be greater than or equal to 50% by weight. Whenever possible products should be selected that are manufactured with a minimum of toxic materials, such as bleached vs. unbleached paper napkins, painted vs. unpainted pencils, paper cups as opposed to polystyrene. 4. In the case of printing and writing paper, the purchasing agent should 3 set a minimum total recycled content standard with not less than 50°/4 of the paper's total weight consisting of preconsumer waste materials or post consumer waste materials and with not less than 24% of its total weight consisting of post consumer waste material. Paper j purchased should be white or of light pastel colors whenever possible to make recycling easier (avoid neons, very bright "christmas" red/green, goldenrod etc.1. 5. All Town of Vail letterhead, business envelopes, and business cards wil! be of recycled material and display the Town of Vail -recycled material logo. IV. Waste Toxicity Reduction 1. Whenever possible cleaning and de-greasing solvents should have a minimum of highly toxic ingredients. This not only decreases the toxicity of any waste materials generated, but also lessens the likelihood of problems related to contact with skin or eyes. 2. Rechargeable batteries should be used in place ofi disposable types. V. Recycling • 1. Each department shall provide conspicuous containers for the recycling of glass, office paper, and aluminum and any other recyclable material they deem fit. 2. l=och department shall identify a recycling officer to coordinate the collection of recyclable materials in the department. 3. To promote recycling in the community there will be several trash/recycling containers placed in several locations in town. Possible locations for these containers could be near Crossroads, and/or on Bridge Street, and near the Lionshead ticket windows. These containers will have 3 internal compartments, one for trash, one for newsprint, and one for glass, aluminum and plastic. The container itself should be aesthetically pleasing, and be constructed from a recycled product ofi same kind. VI. L.andfilling 1. As with any waste stream there is a portion of waste that will be landfilled. By following this Policy the Town will be reducing its dependance on this final disposal option. Vli. Monitoring 1. Baseline information regarding amounts of material purchased shall be developed by the environmental health office. included in this information will be current expenditures in reference to materials purchased, and waste disposal fees to the 4 contracted waste transporter. 2. The Environmental Health 0#ficer will be able to advise any purchasing agent in the search for goods and supplies that meet the above criteria. In the event there are no products or services available, the Environmental Health Officer will continue to seek out new goods or services to meet the needs of the purchasing agent. 3. An annual report which will review the success of the policy and suggested areas for improvement shale! be presented to the P.E.C., Town Council, and the Town Manager.This report will indicate amount of materials purchased, costs=associated with these purchases, noted changes in the waste stream generated by the municipal building, and any changes in the contract costs with the contracted waste transporter. l~! pjr c:lwplrecyclelpoiicy.drft 7194 PRlIYTED ON RECYCLED RAPER 5 i 0 ~~a ,~r cue ~i~ • ?s\ \~ ~~~ ,sett • T ~~fi . o~ o ~, ~- ,. ~fi4att T~ ,~+ ~ O m 'jar M -.~~~~~~ ale ~ ~~ f Town Council Meeting Minutes, May 17, 1994 Orehouse Awning Merv Lapin made a motion: 7. To approve the awning as it is; 2. That the applicants have met the January 18, X995 deadline and that this deadline needs to be removed; 3. The conditions #hat we want an this. Tom, will you give me the verbiage far the motion. • Tom Moorhead stated that as a term of the continued lease with the Town of Vail that there will be a provision added to the lease stating that they will not further enclose the deck area, and if they do, the lease will terminate by its terms. Fle added that they will need the Town's approval prior to any assignment of the lease in the future. Jim Shearer seconded this motion. Jan Strauch wanted to ensure that the applicants go ahead with what they say they wiif do, and that they are not approving the awning as is and the applicants will install flowers and fighting to give the deck a more lively feel. Kristan Pritz stated that any outdoor lighting would need to go back before the Design Review Board to ensure compliance with the Light€ng Ordinance. She added that it was okay for the Town Council to require the flowers and lighting. Jan 5trauch requested that Merv modify his motion to reflect the addition of flowers and lighting to the Orehouse's deck. _ Merv modified his motion accordingly. A vote of 3-t approved this item with Paul Johnston apposing. It should be ranted that Peggy Osterfoss was not in the roam at the time of the vote for this item. r~ -~J ' MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 4, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT; Peggy Osterfass, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston Jim Shearer TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Vail business owners, Joe Stauffer and Jack Curtin expressed their concerns regarding amplified sound in the village, as well as emergency vehicle noise. Mr. Stauffer suggested Council pass an ordinance which would prohibit outside arnplified sound, and asked about an emergency substation in West Vail. Peggy stated the Council would again review the Town's noise ordinance during a meeting to be set following the budget sessions. Mr. Curtin stated amplified sound ordinances were not being enforced, and suggested the Town enforce its current regulations, as well as increase police presence. Pam Brandmeyer informed Council that review of amplified sound was scheduled for the November 22 worksession. Peggy urged both gentlemen to be present at that time. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approvai of the Minutes for the meetings September b and September 20, 1994. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, an Ordinance re: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv moved to remove item B from the Consent Agenda and approve the minutes for the meetings of September 6 and September 20, 1994. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Sybill noted an error on the minutes of the September 20 meeting and requested item 4 be corrected to reflect the item passed 4-2. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0 to approve the minutes with the above-referenced change. Ordinance 21 was then discussed at length. Jim Curnutte reviewed the changes suggested by council at Eirst reading, and informed council the section number on page 8 would be changed to reflect the correct section number: Section 18.38.020. Jim further explained the ordinance would modify the descriptions of two zone districts, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space and Public Use, and would create a new zone district, Outdoor Recreation. Russ Forrest explained staff was interesked in accomplishing the proposed text changes by passing the ordinance, then, at a later date, staff would review property zoning and propose zone changes to Council. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, voiced his concerns regarding the ordinance. Council concerns included a desire to tighten development standards in the public use district, and those involving "quasi-public" uses. Sybill made a motion to pass Ordinance 21, with a second from Tom Steinbexg. A vote was taken and passed, 4-1, Merv voting in opposition. Tom recommended reviewing changes to the public use zoning district standards in January, and other councilmembers agreed, directing staff to include the item on the Council goal setting agenda in January, 1995. Council would not fake a position and stressed the presentation was only for the purpose of information sharing. Those communicating support of the issue included Bob Kendall, Citizens for Better Golf in Vail and Bald Mountain Road homeowner; Steve Satterstrom on behalf of Tom Whitehead of the Jr. GoIE Foundation; Jeannie Nedvelo, homeowner; Jeff Wild, President of Vail Men's Golf Association; Earnie Bender; Sonny Caster, homeowner; Don Eden, East Vail property owner; Mary Caster, Bald Mountain Road resident; Hermann Stauffer; Joe Stauffer; George Knox; Gail Malloy; Kathy Douglas; and Rick Sackbauer, property owner. Those who spoke voicing their opposition to the GoIE Course included: Barbie Christopher, area resident; Jenny Culp, Vail resident; Diana Donovan; Dennis Linn; Jeff Bowen; Tim Moscow, East Vail resident; and Evie Nott.* Rob Robinson answered specific questions with regard to design, parking, traffic, etc. Evie Nott asked Council to request Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, Sarah Fisher, send pro-con notices out with absent voter ballots. Council suggested the Vail Recreation District ask the County to follow through with I;vie's request. Item No. 5 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add to his memorandum, which had been included in Council packets. Sybill moved to adjourn into executive session, with a second from Merv. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Council adjourned into executive session at approximately 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margret A. Osterfoss, Mayor A i i GST: ~m~~f~ Holly L. McCzirckteon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by F!aliy L. McCulcheon ('Names of CeAain tindividuels who gave public input may he inaccurate.) (J/aria uu-[vov ~ ~ f~c~ b f.Ce~al0.~~- TC ~c•wu r 9 ~~r hal ~ o . p~f ~ 9~ THE FACTS: The Booth Creek Par 3 1,How is the property zoned? And what are the covenants? The property is zoned agricultural and open space. Conditional uses allowed are a. any use within public parks,.which involves assembly of mare than two hundred persons together in one building or group of buildings or in one recreation area or facility b. Public or private schools and colleges, c. churches,f.-j. ski lifts and tows, cemeteries,etc, The existing covenants in effect for the Par 3 parcel,Tract A, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing read as follows:...the Subject Lands, shall be used as an open area for recreational purposes or public and private schools or municipal services such as a fire sub-station. It may be improved by Landscaping, paved or gravel paths, decks retaining walls, wind screen, walls or fences, parapet walls, fountains, steps, minor vehicular driveways, recreational facilities, including pools and related appurtenant buildings. 2, What about the proposed ordinance providing for open space? sf ordinance #21 presently before the town council passes it will amend the present green belt and open space district guidelines. There is no guarantee that this parcel will or will not be included under the above ordinance. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that future councils will not take any action 5 or 10 years from now to change any protective status that may occur. 3. Will our taxes be increased? There will be no tax increase. The Par 3 will be financed by revenue bonds with payments of principal and interest paid by revenues generated by the VRD {Vail Recreation District). 4. What about the wetlands? There is .4 acre of affected wetlands on the site. This .4 acre will be mitigated (traded) to the satisfaction of the Army Corp of Engineers for other wetland sites in Vail. Similar wetlands were mitigated when the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District enlarged Black Lakes Dam. According to VVCWD Bob Weber, of Hydrosphere, sufficient mitigation sites are available within the Vail Valley. 5. What about chemical. fertilizer usage? The VRD (Vail Recreation District) is extremely sensitive to the need to maintain the water quality in Gore Creek. Healthy turf is one of the best forms of protection against erosion. Those agencies monitoring Gore Creek water quality have not currently found golf course chemicals to have impacted water quality. 6. Is there a sufficient water supply? The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, according to its' attorney, Glen Porzak of Holme, Roberts and Owen, has sufficient water rights to service this new golf course. The physical supply of water for this course could either be treated page 1 water or raw water from the Consolidated District's Booth Creek diversion point. 7. What about the safety of the Par 3? Dick Bailey, AIA of Dick Bailey Design Inc. a certified golf course architect, is staking his reputation that he can build a safe golf course. No architect has ever criticized the Dick Bailey design for this Par 3. There is sufficient acreage for the Par :~. Both the Cherry Hills Par 3 in Denver and the Pebble Beach Par a in California are built on smaller acreage. 8. When is the election and who can vote? The election is Tuesday, November 8th at your specified polling place. The deadline far voter registration is October 14th. In addition to Vail registered voters, any VRD property owner who is a registered Colorado voter is also eligible to vote. An absentee ballot may be requested from the Eagle County Clerk at 303-328-8710 or the VRD offices at 303-479-2279. The ballot must reach the clerk's office before 7:00 PM on Tuesday November 8th, 1994, election day. 9. Why is the Par The VRD supports They are currently because of limited this pressure from for the 18 hole ply 3 needed? the development of the Booth Creek Par 3. turning away all golfers,including juniors, tee times. The Par 3 will relieve some of the 18 hole course and free up tee times Ayers . 10. How will the Vail resident golfer benefit? Vail residents will be given reduced green fees and/or season passes with special consideration given to juniors. They will have a quality course to practice their short game, requiring less time than the championship course. There will be a longer season on this course due to the local (southern exposure), Of the numerous golf courses in the VAiI Valley most are private. Currently there are only two public courses available between East Vaii and Gypsum. 11. Does the Vail Town Council approve of this usage? The Town of Vail has approved the VRD to lease this parcel for a Par 3 golf course. 12. Will the Par 3 make money? The feasibility study states that in the most conservative of estimates, the Par 3 will make $40,000 the first year {revenue less expenses). This will be applied to the debt service. After 10 years, the revenue bonds will be totally repaid and the Par 3 will be debt free thus producing revenues for the recreation district for programs such as sports, youth service and ice skating. 13. How do the residents and homeowners of Hooth Creek feel? U page 2 ~- The overwhelming majority of these homeowners are 100 in ` favor of the Par 3. 14. Who else supports the Par 3? Among many others, the CGA (Colorado Golf Association), the Tom Whitehead Jr. Golf Foundation Board, the Vail Men's Golf Association, the Vail. Men and Women's Senior Golf Association and the Vail Women's Golf Association have pledged their support. 15. What is the history of~this land? The parcel was originally used by sheep ranchers and a Vail horse operation resulting in overgrazing and invasion by thistles the tell tale sign of overgrazing throughout the western states. 16. What about parking and how big will the clubhouse be? The structure to be used as a starter facility and snack outlet will be smaller than the present starter house at the 18 hole course. The parking area is designed for 26 cars and is approved by PEC and DR$. • page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback for a proposed structure at 2840 Basingdale Boulevardll_ot 4, Block 9, Vail lntermoun#ain. Applicant: Daniel Frederick Planner: Andy Knudtsen ~... ~...`, ['k• `. :~, "~_'.4~.a`^~Q'.~~~4iv'~.hi `n'~.'J:.4`\:~.~.w n~r.~.,....~M1 . .. .... v, unn...e r.., .. ..~,~....~_..... ...,. .- l. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Dan Frederick, the applicant, is requesting a variance to construct GRFA in the front setback. The setback requirement is 20 feet and the applicant will be providing a 4 foot setback. The variance requested is for 16 feet. The development proposal includes a single family home on a Primary/Secondary lot in In#ermountain. In addition to the residence, he is proposing a detached two-car garage to be located in the front setback. Since the lot exceeds 30% slope, a setback variance for the garage is not required. Since the applicant is proposing two structures, Design Review Board (DRB) approval for a separation is required. On April 20, 1994, the DRB reviewed the separation request and approved it. On May 9, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} reviewed the proposal and approved the site plan which included variances for wall height. The retaining waEls at the front of the garage were designed at 6 to 7 feet in height. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of 3 feet for wails located in the front setback. The PEC approved the wail height variance and subsequently, as a result of this request stafif amended the Code to allow wails to go up to 6 feet for garages that are constructed in the front setback on slopes which exceed 30%. Since the time of the approvals by the PEC and DRB, the applicant has had the drawings reviewed by structural engineers. They have made recommendations that modifiy the original design that include one level of GRFA above the garage. Because the lot is 36% slope, the retaining wall at the rear of the garage would be approximately 17 feet tall. As a result, this rear wall was approximately the height required for a second level. The applicant returned to the DRB with a proposal to enclose the area above the garage. The DRB approved this with the condition that no floor area be installed without returning to the PEC for a setback variance. Following this DRB approval, the, applicant's engineer indicated that floor joists would be required to stabilize the structure. The applicant would like to pursue this and is now requesting a variance to allow 296 feet of GRFA in the front setback, (above the garage). II. ZONING ANAt_YSIS l.ot Size: 0.64 acre or 28,039 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed Approved Mav 9. 1994 Proposed October 10. 1984 Haight: 33' 32.5' 32.5' GFiPA: 6,753.9 sq, ft. 1,071 sq, ft. 1,413 sq, ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 4' for garage, 20' for home 4' for garage, 20' for home Side: 15' 62' 62' Side: 15' 35' 35' Rear: 15' 65' 65' Site Coverage: 4,205 sq. ft. (15%} $i5 sq. ft. (3%} B15 sq. ft. (3%} bandscaping: 10,823.4 (60%) 27,044 sq. ft. (9fi.4%) 27,044 Sq. ft, {98.4%) Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . . Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section f 8.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: i. Tha relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the relationship between the requested variance to other structures in the vicinity is positive. In general, we believe that locating the garage at the street level with a 4-foot setback will entail less site disturbance than locating the garage higher on the lot, behind the front setback, and constructing a driveway from the street level up to a higher elevation. The additional story above the garage, inciuding the GRFA, is reasonable in staff's opinion due to the steep hillside the development is located on. The roof of the second floor addition will be flush with the grade on the south side so that the garage and the second floor will appear benched into the hillside. There wHl be a 4-foot setback from the property line and a rt 9-foot setback from the edge of pavement. As a result, staff believes that there is an adequate buffer between the proposed construction and the street. 2 Concerning the use, staff understands that the applicant would like to finish the second floor as a bedroom. The site is large enough to accommodate a second unit on the site; however, the site plan as currently designed, does not provide adequate parking fior two dwelling units. As a result, there is a maximum of one dwelling unit allowed. The applicant understands that no kitchen facilities may be constructed in the floor area above the garage. An option staff discussed with the applicant is to create a Type II Employee Housing Unit above thin garage. This would require the addition of one more parking space. Staff would recommend that the applicant increase the retaining walls around the garage to accommodate another space on-site. If this could be done, staff would recommend that the employee housing unit be created. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regula#ion 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. Stafif believes that- the physical hardship on the site which warrants a variance is the slope. The slope under the proposed residence and garage is an average of 36%. Due to the steepness of the site, staff believes that the i ~ construction of this building can be two levels. 3. The effect of the reques#ed variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic #acilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The parking requirement for the development is two, both of which are inside the garage. The staff received one call from a neighbor (in the Camelot Townhomes) and he expressed no opposition to the development but said that parking in the neighborhood was tight. The parking requirement has been met; however, to address the parking concern, staff must clarify the code requirement that the on-site parking be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certifica#e of Occupancy for the residence. This will ensure that the required parking is available once the residence is completed. A related concern of staff involves the soil conditions of the site. The drainage that runs through the site is the same drainage that another developer in town had problems with. Stat# has talked to a representative from Kaechlein Consulting Engineering Company who has recommended that a soil investigation be done in the area where the garage will be constructed. The engineer beNeves that the location of the house is high enough on the hillside that there will be very little risk of soil instability. However, the garage is built in an area of the site that may be impacted by drainage. Because of this information staff has received from the engineer, staff is requiring strict adherence to the Hazard Section of the Zoning Code, Section 18.69.050. This section requires the soils investigation to be provided to the Town prior to issuance of building permit. 3 B. The Planning and Environmental 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 pu#~iic health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more ofi 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 ar 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance to locate GRFA in the front setback. We believe the request meets the variance criteria, as discussed above. En addition, staff believes that the proposal meets the findings. Specifically, staff believes that Finding ~ is met in that there is no grant of special privilege, as the slope is very steep and ether setback variances have bean granted on lots that are of a similar slope. Staff believes that Finding 2 is met in that there is no impact to public health, safety, or welfare, given that a soils report be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding 3b is met, in staff's opinion, as the slope is an extraordinary circumstance on the site that warrants a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The boulder wails and foundation of the garage and house must be designed by a registered professional engineer. 2. The utility service line for the garage and house shall be buried underground. 3. The applicant must secure a public way permit prior to applying for a building permit. 4. The applicant must provide a detailed drawing of the driveway showing a 4-foot wide valley pan and a maximum of an 8% slope from the edge of pavement to the garage slab. 4 5. The applicant must provide a soils test in the area beneath the proposed residence and a sails investigation in the area beneath the proposed garage, prior to the issuance ofi a building permit for either structure. 6. The applicant must complete the garage structure prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate ofi Occupancy for the residence. p:lpeclm a mps 1f rd ri k 7 U.10 5 i `I ~~ . ~ t2 / 8~ ~ r~ , _~ _ } _~_.~ ~ . -- ~ ~~ l~ ~~ I~~ ~~~ j y f ii ii it i a i~ ii ~~ ~~~-l.-I- ~L.~.~,a-I-~ o til ~. ~'v_.~ c.,ot~ .. \: I ,., .'~i! ~,~/, ~' . ~ r--I ~ -.~-' i-- "~- -i~~ ~ ~ .__~ 1~ ~~~~ ... ~id l N'f" ~ ~'4"=i ~osl i ~y U ~ ~ ti l 1 a~ ~ 1 t~ 1 ` ~ 11 ~ X111 a 7 1 J 0 r ~'1e .1r_~g 1~~ e% ~` - ` 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I~ y ~ l t 1 ~ ~ , ~, ~ 1 ~ , tiO 1 " ~ r ~. t ` ~ \ ~ 1 .1 ~ ~ , ' ~ 4 ~ ~~ t ~ ~ t i ~ j ~ '1 ~ ~ r 1 ~ I ! ~ 1 ~, r 1~ 1~ ~ ~~ 1 0 ~ I I ~, ~} ~ r I 1 11 \ ~ 1 ~ ~ ®~4 I I ~ ~ ~ ~ U I© 111,1 ~~ ~~ 1 1,-- ` I, 1, , ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ ,~ ~, 1 1 1 1 - I 1 1 ! 1 q ~~ 1 ~~ 1,~ 1 ~ : '~ I, ®1 14 f i ~ ~ ~ } x a D ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ el m a ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~"~~~ ~ ~ i 5~-~~ ~ ~ i ~JS~~ ~ ~. u a a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i~~~ t ~ ~ ° ~9 4~ l ~ «.~~ 11~i ~ ~ , 1~~~ ~. o l ~ ~ `~. ~ 3l S ~ I~ ~'4~' + I~I + I ~+;. ' ti it + I ~ ~ ~ + ' j~ .N ~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ i ! .I'' ~ Vii. +~. • I + • ~ ~ ~~~ ~ `III I ~' , ~ ~ I ' .I,I~R1ilh,~, ~, t'I+ill'j ~, ' I J 4+~. ~ I II~'f+ I +.~ i,t r~ a,l a .i s I:; `t 6 ~,~ J.,+i sin ~o~G ~ f i . ~ + . i ~ ~ `~ a ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ $ C~ ~ ~ w. ~ '~ ~ ~3 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~~ N r ,A ~ ;, i l; I ~ ` . ~p J+ I. I j~ ~I. I I I, r _ N J{ ++ j + lfll,~.+Jl# ~__T__ + ~ : ~ I _ l~l ~ 4 '~ ~, , ~~ ~~ I .;~ I ~I~ .~~.~.~~ I;.~ , ~~1: ~ ~ + = 1. . 1 y ~ i ,~-yy { ~ 1 I I + 1~ ~ I F ~ ®~ .41 i M' ± I ~ 5~ ~ s: ~ ~~~d r ,t, , • , '~ 1 ,, ~ ~ I -4- 1~ ,~ -~; '`• ~~ ~ ~I '• '"'~' 4 dj .. ,. , 1, 4 ' ~ ~ ,~~ ~ I ~ ~ try ®~~ I '~~ ~' ~ '°4 ~~I :~ ~:~ _ ~~ ~~II1li~~~ ~~~~~:~;~~~ ~` ~ _ .. ~ I I~I~1 ~ .4 ,~~,... ~ i z ,~ .~,., l . .. ~' :1 ~~~1~1~ E II k i•I~' ~_ ~~ ~ ~ I I I i. '. ~ ~~ a 4i ~ ~l S - ,.~ I r ~' ~, ~, ` a "~' ; 'r ~ ~ i „~~ ~ I n°~ I n~l~' 9. ~' ;+ .~ Y i ~~ .. ,; ~, ;I .1 !I. I ,. . .:~ ~~~ ~~iny ~~ ~~ ~I I'iIII r. I~~ III'' J~oil I I i,';~, i, ~~.~~ , i I~D~~~I I IIIIIII ~ n ~I I~ ~- _ i ~,IIII Ilo~ll.llll n~~! ~ s. t o• ~; ~ N ~ ~ , ti ~ ski =n ~ ~ ' ~~~~~~ 2. A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be located at 4a Willow Place/l,ot 9, Block 6, Vail Village t st Filing. Applicant: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow for three employee housing units per the.staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-(} vote approved this request. 3. A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback for a proposed structure at 284~~._~astngdal,e_BoulevardlLot:~-.Block;9;~;Vail'~= 'Cn~termountar:~ Applicant: Daniel Frederick Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that stafifi was recommending approval of this request with the six conditions outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo. Kathy I-angenwalter inquired about the proposed two-s#ory structure which was located . wift~in 4 feet ofi the property fine. Andy Knudtsen stated that the DRB had approved the separation request for the 24 foot tall garage since it complied with all zoning standards. Kathy !-angenwalter fel# that the Zoning Code did not intend for such two-story structures to be located this close to the property line given the slope of the site. Dalton Williams did not feel it was appropriate to locate a 24 foot high structure within 4 feet of the front setback. He also felt that the t7 foot high retaining wall was excessive. Kathy i-angenwalter stated that she opposed this request because it did not conform with her interpretation of the intent of the Zoning Code. Andy Knudtsen stated that the PEC should make a determination concerning the location of GRFA in the front setback and that interpretations of the Zoning Code could be done later. • Dalton Williams stated that the intent of the Zoning Code was to allow for aminimally- sized garage in the front setback. He believed that a significant change to a project that had received PEC approval should be required to come back through the PFC. Concerning the GRFA in the fran# setback, he stated that he was not familiar with any sites in Town that have been allowed to have GRFA located above the garage. Planning and Envisonmentat Commissions Minutes o~to~- to, 1994 2 Allison t_assoe had nothing further to add. Jeff Bowen stated that the original approval far the wall height variance was to allow for the garage to be located in the front setback and that to turn the garage into atwo- story structure was not the. intent of the original approval for the wall height variance. Bob Armour opposed GRFA being located in the front setback. . 13111 Anderson agreed with Rob's comment. He asked the applicant why he desired to build a 24 foot tail garage ifi no floor area was allowed: Dan Frederick felt that the 24 foot tall garage was a better design than what the PEC had previously approved. Jeff Bowen made a motion #o deny the request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote denied the applicant's request. Andy Knudtsen stated iha# he would discuss the situation with Tom Moorhead to determine which board SPEC/DRB} has purview over which sections of the Zoning Code. 4. A request for an update on the conditional use permit approval for the tent to be used tar the Vail Associates ski school to be located south of the f.ionshead Center BuildinglTract A, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Tim Kehoe, representing Vail Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented modified drawings of the proposed tent to be located at the Vail Associates ski school located south of the l.ionshead Center. He stated that the DRB had approved the tent with the condition that the exterior tent have a "woodsy, western-like" appearance. The PEC was not concerned with the proposed location of the tent. Jack Hunn explained the differences between the currently proposed tent and the tent approved by the PEC. Bill Anderson inquired how Vail Associates proposed to achieve the "woodsy" concept the DRB had requested. Jack Hunn stated that this would be accomplished via a series of applied logs on the exterior. Kathy t_angenwaiter pointed out that the current tent was not what the PEC had recently approved, Planning end Environmental Commission t~linutas • October 1Q, 7994 .~ ~~~ at ~or~vo~ v~r~ 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 8,I6S7 303-479-2107/FAX 303-4?9-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department FROM; R: Thomas Moorhead DATE: October 20, 1994 RE: Approval Process for a Proposed Structure . at 2844 Basingdale Blvd., Lot 4, Block 9, Vail, Intermountain 1. Approval ProcESS. My understanding of the approval process is as follows: D,ffice of Town Anorney 1. April 20, 1994 Design Review Board approved separation of the garage and residence due to the topographical features on the lot which include slope in excess of 30 percent and natural drainage. 2. May 9, 1994 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved wall height variances in excess of the allowed maximum of three feet far walls located in the =rant setback. 3. May 18, 1994 the project received Design Review Board approval after a detailed review of the Design Review Guidelines chat pertain to the proposed development. 4. August 3, 1994 DRB approval for the addition of a second story to the garage tha# is to be located in the front setback. The height ofi the proposed structure is within the zoning code as it is under 33 feet. v. October 10, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission denied a request for a variance to allow GRFA to be Located in the front setback. ll. Discussion. My understanding of the issue is that the Planning and Environmental Commission questions whether the applicant should have. returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of modification of the proposed garage by adding a second floor prior to Design Review consideration of the proposal. fn as much as the height of the building is in compliance with the zoning code, the applicant could not be required to return to PEC prior to DRB consideration. As the height of the proposed structure was within the height requirements, the DRB must evaluate the design of the structure pursuant to its guidelines. As long as the application is found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code, the project shall be placed by staff upon the~agenda of the DRB. 18.54.040(c)(2). Appropriately, the DRB approval was limited to no floor area being Eacated in the structure without further PEC approval. I believe that appropriate consideration was given #o the project by PEC and DRB. I hope this information is .helpful. is , 1 ~IZ~r94 T0: Town of Vail 1 Cvmm~mity Development FRc~M: Daniel Frederick ~ ... f` ~ ~. .. }~ ' ~ ~. f, ~~1.t;~t+l: Request appeal for decision handed dav~m vn IQIIQI94 by the Planning and Environmental Commission. HISTORY: I, Daniel ,T, k~-ederick, o~~ner af254~ Basingdale Blvd. fail Intermountain, wish to appeal a. decision mods a-week ago by the Plannir~ and Environmental ~ommissivn (PEC) concernir~ the constn~ctian afmy personal residence. Cn t~ctvber 10, 1994 the PEC S rejected my proposed plans to allow for .~.9~ feet of C~RFA in the front setback. My development proposal is for a single family home, tvvelva hundred square feat and a. detached 2 oar garage on a. Prima~rf Secondary lot in Intermountain I am proposing the detached two-car garage to ba located in the front setback. Since my lot axcae.ds a. ~0°ijo slope, I am rac~~ired by ordinance tv Cvnstn~ct a 2 car garage. A Setback vaF-iance far the garage is not required, c?n April Z~ , 1994 the DRB ret+iewed my separation request and approved it. can May 9, 1994, fhe PEC reviewed my proposal anti approved the Site plan which incl~~ded variances for wall height. As aresult afthat meeting the code to allow wa11 heights up to 6 feet for required garages was enacted. ~~n the advise of my .5tn~c(~iral En,~inaer that because vfthe an average 3ti° ~ slope under the garage that a retaining wall in 17 feat in height «=ill Nava tv be built. with consideration given to drainage and potentially active geolo~f, it has bzen recommended that the garage will need to ba stabilized v~~ith floor joists and plfz~~vod. rio erterivr changes will ba needed tv the approved plans in order to allow this stnic#x~re to ba constructed :end st<~bilized properly. This will allav4r ma to ha~ra Gtvrage space with a roof overhead. In reviewing the staffrecammandatians to the PEC ,the Community Development Dapartlnant has recommended approval ofmy proposal. The Sta$'can be quoted assaying the relationship batvveen my requested variance and the other structures in the area is a positive one. They believe that locating the garage where I am proposing now would create less of a. disturbance on the land than locating it higher up on the property. They also have said they believe that the additional story above the garage, which would become living space, is a4reasonable proposal. They state that the garage will appear to be benched into the hillside and that adequate space is being provided between the front aftha garage and the street. They understand that I mean to use this story as a bedroom. In the document that my planner, Andy I~nudtsen, submitted to the PEC, the sta$'recornmends approval an all three criteria. It is becat~sa of sta$'approval that I am appealing the PEC decision, because they feat that I have met the requirements that would be Headed. In reviewing ,the staII'believes that this request meets the requirements needed to obtain the necessary relieffrom the strict and Iiteral interpre#~tioH. In their review of my application for a variance, Community Development stipulated 3 objectives that I must meet before they'd give their approval. All of the objectives were mat to their satisfaction, including the ana which stated that the grantir~ of a. variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, It is my belief that this variance is warranted d~;a to the reasons I have stated gbove. In working with the planning department at various times during this process, I have inquired about the feasibility ofpraviding the dOq sq,ft,of~RFA Duct the garage to deed restricted Typa II emplnyae housing, I was told dead restrictions were not required for what I was proposing and that it would require an additional parking space, Excavating for an additional parking space will regatta the construction of large a retaining wall that with the current proposal dons not exist and era not required. F~rrtharznara, the Town of Vail says in its St.atamant of Coa.Is ~ ~bj ectives far 149, that one oftheir objectives in the realm of housing is to "facilitate constriction and retention of local housing, which is a~ardable, and compatible, in artier to maintain the social and economic viability oftha Ta~~n ofVail " I am a. laHg time resident ofthis valley, and one who due to lack of rental space in Vail, has been forced to move dav~m Valley. As a. concession on my part i am willing to deed restrict all currently proposed development to Type II employee housing. This would ba a total of I60Q sq. tI. living space along with a 2 car garage. I understand that this would ba, if grant.ad, a. Canditianal Use Perini#. I also understand that. all fi~hrra development will need to reviewed in a traditional manner. TC~V Statement of~oals ~: Objective far hauling #~ states,"Encourage through zoning impr~o~=emen~slchangesJ mndificativns our ability to stabilize the local population,.." ~n bringing my problem to yoar attention, I am asking you to consider the offer to create ~~hat v~~ouid be a very nice deed restricted unit for myseifand my friends who are strug,~iing to both iivs and v~~ork in Vail, Thank Y oul aniel T ~ denck ~`'~~ • r~ ~~ ~S~"r~ CoI~C~-f~'r'E ICU. ~ _~. ~ ~ ~x~h~cN~ G ~~ (~I~I~, --~ ~ ----~ ~~ .. -. ~ ~ -~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~I i~ ~ ~ I~ i _1~ ~~ li I ~i ~ i . ~ ~~ r~i~T ~~~v~fiivN I ~I !° °~ a~~ ' r~ ~~~N~ 41l ~r~ 3 0 ;~ _~ Gip-P,~~ hL~ ~~p~ ~L~V/~~'Io~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 18, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandrneyer, Assistant Town Manager Michelle L. Caster, on behalf of Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The fixst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, Rick Sackbauer spoke on behalf of "Citizens for Better Golf." His intent was to clarify questions the Council previously had concerning water issues for the proposed VRD Par 3 golf course. Vail water is primarily well water taken from wells at the Vail Golf Course, with a capacity of 2,950 gallons of water per minute. The Par 3 golf course is projected to use 20,000 gallons of water per day. At full capacity, the amount of water needed to irrigate the Par 3 golf course could be produced in 6.75 minutes. During peak season, the wells produce approximately six million gallons of water a day. The entire 150 day season of water usage estimated for the Par 3 is projected at three million gallons total. The Par 3 usage of 20,000 gallons per day is the equivalent to 3/lOths of 1°Io of the daily production of the wells. The Vail Golf Course presently uses 5 million gallons each 150 day season. Michael Jewett, a representative of "The Committee to Appeal Ordinance No, 15, series of 1994," requested Council to reconsider and repeal this ordinance if /when the committee submits its petitions. The deadline for submittal of the petition is scheduled for October 20, 1994. Second on the agenda was the Consent Agenda consisting of the following items: A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1981, to remove the restriction on sale, transfer or conveyance and creating an Employee Housing Unit for sale or rental. B. Resolution No. 20, Series of 1994, a Resolution designating Colorado National Bank as a depository for Town funds. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the Consent Agenda, including a modification in wording for Ordinance 22, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 22, Series of 1994, a Resolution declaring the Vail Town Council's support for the Eagle County property tax increase to acquire and maintain open space in Eagle County. Walter Allen, Rich Howard, and Bill Wilto spoke in support of the tax, while Joe Staufer and Jim Lamont voiced opposition. Merv Lapin expressed concern with the lack of documentation in regard to use of the funds and the process. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve Resolution No. 22, with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 21, Series of 1994, a Resolution declaring the Vail Town Council's opposition to Amendment 12, which will appear on the November 8, 1994, general election ballot. Tom Moorhead explained various sections of Amendment 12. Paul Johnston expressed concern with the wording that described the penalty for violation of the ordinance. Bill Wilto spoke in support of the resolution. A motion was made by Sybill Navas to approve Resolution No. 21, with a second by Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and was passed unanimously, 5-0. Vail Pawn Council Evening Meeting Minutee Item No. 5 was a public meeting to review the Roundabout landscape design options and related costs, the recommendation of the steering committee, the sign layouts, and to discuss these with the public. Council decided on a design which will now proceed through the DRB approval process, which was described by, Jeff Winston, of Jeff Winston and Associates. The Council selected a landscape concept which places an emphasis on the Vail 4-way rock wall. The recommended landscaping could be phased-in over a period of years beginning with installation of an initial theme for $370,OOOAO. As an option, phase two would cost an additional $150,000.00, while phase three would run about $430,000.00. Following selection of the Landscape design, Larry Grafel presented prototypes signs for the roundabouts. The Council reviewed the series of directional signs proposed Eor the roundabout. Jim Shearer thought that clarity and simplicity are the key words. Paul Johnston, Sybill Navas, Merv Lapin and the audience agreed. They also agreed to use Lionshead and Vail Village, instead of east and west, as directional key words. Dalton Williams, a member of the PEC Board, nnentioned using a digital sign to give directions for special event parking. The Council will continue discussing roundabouts at the next public hearing November 22, 1994, at 2:00 PM. Item No. 6 was a report by the Town Manager. He also informed the Council of the October 15,1994, staff retreat. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, C, • f ""~`~" Merv Lapin, ayor Pro-Tern. ATTEST: . I 1 l.l,f x'1 Q ~ Q ~~ Q~l, Michelle 1J. Caster, on behalf of Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Michelle L. Caster I'Names of certain indNiduals who gave public input may ha inaceurate.~ 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes i MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 1994 7;34 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 1, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybill Navas i C~ J s TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Rick Sackbauer, of the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District informed Council of the completion of an executive planning document for water, stating the document would be distributed to town staff for review. Mr. Sackbauer urged Council and staff to read over the document and look far solutions to save taxpayer money. Mr. Sackbauer further stated that as of November 1, two district bonds had been paid off, one in Intermountain and one in Lionshead. Tom Steinberg thanked Rick for his contributions in getting wafer funding quality under control. Peggy also expressed appreciation. Diana Donovan, Vail resident and treasurer of a political action committee working to defeat the Par 3 election issue, told councilmembers that proposed golf course supporters were misrepresenting information to electors and making false statements. Ms. Donovan distributed a list of statements she said were being passed to second homeowners which contained false information about the issue. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda which contained one item: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings October 4 and October 18, 1994. Merv moved to approve the minutes of the October meetings, with a second from Tom. A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of T994, First Reading of an annual appropriation ordinance: adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1,1995, through December 31,1995, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1994 tax year and payable in the 1995 fiscal year. Steve Thompson distributed a handout which contained revisions, stated there would most likely be additional revisions, and explained the budget. Steve also informed Council that more than 50 hours of staff and Council time had gone into preparation of the document. A motion was made by Merv and seconded by Tom to approve the ordinance. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Steve referenced a lease schedule that he said needed to be disclosed. Peggy asked that an information update be given with regard to road cuts. item No. 4 was a report from the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add. Merv inquired about the assault weapons ban petition that was circulating and stated he hoped for an election which would include an additional question about the cemetery. Vail Town Council evening Meeting Minutes 11/01/94 1 r There being no further business, a motion was made, seconded and passed, and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:10 P.M. r~ Respectfully submitted, ~ . ~-- Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~t.L~/O~ I a? ~' [~rc.~G~Gc.e~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L. McCutcheon L~ ~i Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1170]/94 MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 2, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance for the West Vail Lodge, located at 2211 North Frontage Road/l_ot 1, Block A, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing and Tract C, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicant: West Vail Lodge Planner: Lauren Waterton ... .............:...•„••.,,,,+..,,:,,..,..•.,,•,•.,x.,.;...,~.,,,,;,.,,,.,...,,.:.~;.,. ,•,.,•.,.,..~.'<~{Mtiy.,.•n:;'>:`2:r::e:;b'.:t4';";';:c:;4a.V.,:;C.;..;,,;c:.~~::;4:?'.Z ,,*'wfi:,~kq ;. qn. ,,.. , ,.y,\°..r~~{o,,. ;N. „S.;a .+.-. ,,.., s,'u'.~:,',~,•v.-n:.,~,• „sway,,,:, )~:,+..;.':4~ti',`.. ,r.y:1. - ,~,,. a.: .:r:`~i.4.. r .,• . +, t:o:.:•^.`"~. .,+.ko.. .. r~^ .,ti ...ti. :.:\~,, ,•R.4:o`?-'.}.~ .,:.\':4r.. \. ,, b~~ .bxa ti{ a:: ~w.,titi~Cb'>, :.,~... .rw. ~.4v.h•r; i~.. ,.;: ~n :.,ti.,:i:¢~:q'., .~... .~k..;,r~ .A..';,k.....: ::UA~~.,. +na ~4., :.,..w~,•::,,.:ti"• ~,\ .:tip" ;o~...v~; ~t,.,k~~ti, ,,.~o:;~. <4ti:........, v:~,..hk:+','4 ~':`~~i•~:`\:• , C::.\~'. 'i ...•4.: ,~~S4y,\~~.~..',?: ~..~,,,'.' ~. -.a'~+:i, ~ C.`C.' \ 4h..4.~.. :. :.,;. ~~:,\.~\a ;'~} \:,,\,u. :.:-: ti. ,,•,,.1~4tiil.,'~. >.~:.y.:u,:::,,,o...,..,.ba,4.\..,..:n,:a,ati,..v.;.\~:`:::~:\e~~~~~,-r,,.. \. .,, ~. b'fiw.,..,d., .~.. ,~1. ~4;,'.....:.,y:. %;4:ti .~.'.:. ~a,,... ~;s ,.,, .tit~G.;.,o...•a:-.•ak.ti:»,.::,~.,. .,.,,.:.,...,: ~.r ,,,,.,• ~.in.ni. ~,; ..,•~.{. 'v. -', ~`.•.. 1.., ~.~ ,1yfi:' ,:v„n.. \:~~.. ~:~>:t\-:\tii, , ,,,.w\.,.. k,t.:: ~ 1 ~i4.ii~:. '\,.,,,. ~.,,.,a,,,.,.\1.,:....4.k,.h.~,i: ~.:~'.:1,w, w. ~ti...-., J:,,::0.+$Y.:x.,; ,~4,..`4b*33~~.;\:., v~nv?~v..';.1;+\;:ti\k.:3L;v\`~n. ,~\t•.:,Y,o:o,v ..... ..... ........,,,..., .... .. .. .;;\\.~;s:.. _. ......,,. ,..,., t, ~.,.\Yk.44..tii\,..,..5,....{. .... . I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REDDEST The West Vail Lodge is requesting a sign variance for the height of signs allowed. The section of the Code which relates to the sign variance request is listed below. . Section 16.22.14fl -Wall Signs -Individual Business within aMulti-Tenant Building -Height No part of the sign shall extend above 25 feet from existing grade or the plate line of the building, whichever is more restrictive. The West Vail Lodge as a single business within amulti-tenant building is permitted one sign with an allowable height of up to 25 feet above existing grade. The development's existing sign consists of one 90-square foot legal, nonconforming, projecting sign 50 feel above grade and perpendicular to the North Frontage Road. In 1985, this project received a variance, granting a maximum height of 50 feet and maximum sign area of 90 square feet. This variance request includes changing the sign from a projecting sign to a wall sign and reduci: , the total square footage to 19 square feet. The proposed sign will be attached to the wall and will be lit with pan channeled lights. The letters will be white and the return will be forest green. The sign will be placed in the same location as it is now, which is 50 feet above existing grade at its highest point. A variance is necessary to make the proposed changes even though the height of the proposed sign is the same as the previous variance. The reason for requiring a new variance is because the previous approval was tied to a specific proposal. The new sign will be di#ferent in many respects. The previous approval included variances #or height and sign area. Given the size of the commercial space, the sign is allowed to be 20 square feet. The previous sign was 90 square feet. The proposed sign will be 19 square feet, bringing it into conformance with the current Code. If. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applvina to the land. buildings. topoaraphv. vegetation. sign structures or other matters on adjacent Pots or within the adjacent right-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the Sian 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 enterprises. Staff Response: Staff believes that the West Vail Lodge has a physical hardship because of the design of this building. The large size of the building makes the 25 foot height requirement restrictive. Similar large condominium and hotel projects have previously received height variances due to special circumstances related to their projects. Some examples are as follows; •The Antlers Condominiums, 4{1 feet above grade. •L'Ostello, 65 feet above grade. . •The Evergreen Lodge, 65 feet above grade. •Holiday Inn, ~0 feet above grade. The staff feels that the West Vail Lodge has similar conditions as the projects listed above, such as the size of the building and the necessity for identity from more than one direction. As a result, some increase in the height of the sign is warranted. The staff believes the proposed sign is in proportion with the building, is not excessive, and would improve identification of the project from the North Frontage Road. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy t0 thB applicant. Staff Response: Special circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity. to adjacent property. to the neiahborhnod. or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response: The staff feels that the proposed sign is in compliance with this criteria as well as with the purposes of this title. Staff believes that the size, location and height are 2 harmonious-with the surrounding area and will be compatible with the scale of the existing building. The overall size of the sign will be reduced to 19 square feet arld will be in scale with the rest of the building. Staff believes the sign will not draw undue attention to itself. D. The variance applied for does not depart #rom the provisions of this title anv more than is repaired to identifv the aoolicant's business or use. Staff Rest~onse: The applicant is applying for a variance to allow a sign to be 25 feet above what the sign code allows and is also proposing to reduce the sign area to less than 20 square feet. Staff feels the applicant is not requesting more than is necessary to identify the business. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports the requested variance. Staff believes this request is in harmony with the Code and reducing the overall sign area is a positive step. Variances for height have been granted in the past for a variety of buildings, including the West Vaif Lodge, and staff believes that this request is consistent with those variances. This request meets the variance criteria as described above, specifically criteria it A, B, C and D. c:lfavrenlmemoslwvh 1.02 3 ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~a ~ i c„ _~ Q..} I'L1~'/~ i ~c ~ r :uww \~ ~~, ~! ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ._._..~_ is `~, ~ ~ dz~ ~.,, ~ ~o ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .." li !I II it li II ;`~:::,~; ~r~:` -.::~.r.;~:.~ II II_ i~ i~ ... ~ ti:,:.~:::::::.:::~~~:,:,:,:-:.:«~:-, •. ~_ u-. ~~ ~--- N 00 oz ~~ ~- o z~ QO ~tr~ ~..U ri MEMORANDUM TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Develppment Department DATE: November 2, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a sign variance for the West Vail Lodge, located at 2211 North Frontage Road/Lot 1, Black A, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing and Tract C, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicant: West Vail Lodge Planner: Lauren Waterton :.y„~»~:.,,,,,vn,v:iihY°}~).,,.4...:,.:"+lvti}tii•4,':'['-.~.4~.,1v,}~,`S :ijh}~4:~~1':\i~ii,•`7'.ti }:n.•: •4 ~+y:,,., :}~,~:?~. :^.S.~ltli~+ti i5. ti`'~k}:' }:.ti ;: „\. \,} `: i~:Y`h~iti,'}:C::Y:} ~':b\ \4.. x:'Ati~i~'1. „4 :'3. ~~`..: .~: 4:.,.~:.,\4~:~~ti~>~i A:J;~'S :xn}.~fi~: ~..~`4:'`~>,: ~. ,}:~~' n:;~:4~5}'-.. ,:~~ek:..: .,..4... tit.'¢:.. ,}:., ,:: , .~-~~'tC, :•v:, }., •.`",3.Y ` ~£:, :R...4., ,...,;..:..,-}:; .~4 ~\:~;.. :.,: a: ,~: \:,: ,. ,.~ , .4, a}:[.\24?::•S•'Y'A,i`~:~•l~.ls\,~ h ,.4`~... .\1~\\},:.~......., iV ,: iti •:.~.. '„\h ~5.~.~:} ~ ~`,`}' ~~\\~r[•.: ,. ., .[.J}~4, 1...}.}.:, '..}•\4.k`ha: `'. ,,, •.,ot , ,~ 4 ~,4{c:. ti..:$. 'Q :~ u::\:4V.,;,.+ ..,~ \.:}~;}:; ;...)n,.. , ~\. o.: ,..,- . „~~~'}:. .;;•i+~.~~),+~ .o.a4et;~, ~,^.,o~.. .:. ... ., ,•R~+•'..~:.}:q:;.: y,,;;.,,,., o. ~,h.» .:~:4~i4'k'i•..4t 4\-v,~„..., , J 'S ~:., .O\~~i+'~titihi: ...5~}~r.N.,J ... \... \,:. \:::~~:~}.; ,:„ l 4 ,\n...i:Y ., r,. .:1.1,~ +R~, .^~'~a5::i ;~k;ti,,•a : ~~„ .;1., . 4. , 4t.. .,1 ..42 „~,4 fi wo ~ ., ... ... .~ ',444:..1.\.:.~'15:, ,oa>;` •~.~, ': ~ti4,:\'asr+.}, ••\'S.~tir,:~u::,G}.: :,4,4,a.,..1,»\nk;`+.~..:,.Sa,,..,;;;:,:............., ~:,.z. ~`":: ~':?;'2v~:+•. \~~:¢::i:~i4p~'.~•~~.14>:;52.. ~i44' +.tt4a+\ \.. 4., 4~\ ~, ~Y~.v.,\V.h\\v~\.M1 .,, ..,, , i\ \14\{{,i.}.\ 1':.,~ •.,•~.,.~ Md44.,ti~ 1 AA:w.\:,\, \, E. \, \, 4, h ::,:. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The West Vail Lodge is requesting a sign variance for the height of signs allowed. The section of the Code which relates to the sign variance request is listed below. Section 16.22.140 -Wall Signs -Individual Business within aMulti-Tenant Building -Height No part of the sign shall extend above 25 feet from existing grade or the plate line of the building, whichever is mare restrictive. The West Vail Lodge as a single business within amulti-tenant building is permitted one sign with an allowable height of up to 25 feet above existing grade. The development's existing sign consists of one 90-square foot legal, nonconforming, projecting sign 5g feet above grade and perpendicular to the North Frontage Road. In 1985, this project received a variance, granting a maximum height of 50 feet and maximum sign area of 90 square feet. This variance request includes changing the sign from a projecting sign to a wail sign and reducing the total square footage to 19 square feet. The proposed sign will be attached to the wall and will be lit with pan channeled lights. The letters will be white and the return will be forest green. The sign will be placed in the same location as it is now, which is 50 feet above existing grade at its highest point. A variance is necessary to make the proposed changes even though the height of the proposed sign is the same as the previous variance. The reason for requiring a new variance is because the previous approval was tied to a specific proposal. The new sign will be different in many respects. The previous approva! included variances for height and sign area. Given the size of the commercial space, the sign is allowed to be 20 square feet. The previous sign was 90 square feet. The proposed sign will be 19 square feet, bringing it into conformance with the current Code. IL FINDINGS AND STAFF RESP4N5E5 Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that: A. There are specie! circumstances or conditions apAlvina to the land. buildings. #apoaraphv. veaetatian. sian structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent rlaht-of-way which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sian 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 pat apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: Staff believes that the West Vaii Lodge has a physicai hardship taecause of the design of this building. The large size of the building makes the 25 foot height requirement restrictive. Similar large condominium and hotel projects have previously received height variances due to special circumstances related to their projects. Some examples are as follows: •The Antlers Condominiums, 40 feet above grade. •L'Ostella, 65 feet above grade. •The Evergreen Lodge, 65 feet above grade. •Holiday Inn, 40 feet above grade. The staff feels that the West Vaii Lodge has similar conditions as the projects listed above, such as the size of the building and the necessity for identity from more than one direction. As a result, some increase in the height of the sign is warranted. The staff believes the proposed sign is in proportion with the building, is not excessive, and would improve identification of the project from the North Frontage Road. B. That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff Response: 5peciai circumstances were not created by the applicant. C. That the arantina of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and will not be materially detrimental to the t~ersons residing or warkina in the vicinity. to adjacent property. to the neighborhood. or to the Qublic welfare in general. Staff Response: The staff feels that the proposed sign is in compliance with this criteria as well as with the purposes of this title. Staff believes that the size, location and height are 2 harmonious with the surrounding area and will be compatible with the scale of the existing building. The overall size of the sign will be reduced to 19 square feet and will be in scale with the rest of the building. Staff believes the sign will not draw undue attention to itself. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title anv more than is reauired to identifv the apblicant's business or use. Staff Resbonse: The applicant is applying far a variance to allow a sign to be 25 feet above what the sign code allows and is also proposing to reduce the sign area to less than 20 square feet. Staff ,feels the applicant is not requesting more than is necessary to identify the business. Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN The staff supports the requested variance. Staff believes this request is in harmony with the Code and reducing the overall sign area is a positive step. Variances for height have been granted in the past for a variety of buildings, including the West Vail Lodge, and staff believes that this request is consistent with those variances. This request meets the variance criteria as described above, specifically criteria 1! A, B, C and D. c:11 au re nI m em o s1wv111.02 3 CLt7/~ u ~ 1 ~ Y~ ~ a.~ ~' 1'Lb'!~a i c ~~ ~~ rs .. ~~ k -_ .__~~.............`.- Ill ~ '!s ~. 1 .~~Li~i. v :~ a.~~iv~. 1 ~ ~ ~({ ry:r lr r!!sri :i r - I~ I~ ,.~:. : , .t:F,~aii.r' ~.., :....a.:........:. _ ~~: ~:::,:: _::::.~:::::::!: ..4...d.. w...:..:.a::.,...:.....l..1,4.::ys W~ ~~ f [~ . ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~ } ~~ ~ ~ ~1 d z~ ~. ~ z4J ,: ~~ .. I I~ 1 !! f ~,., ~~ t « ,, n o0 -- - o z ~~ }.._ o z~ do flfl Q- V ~~. u ~ ~9 `OWN OF VAIL ` ~'S South Frontage Road uil, Colorado 81657 03-479-2105/ FAX 479-2757 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJi"CT: Vail Town Council Robert W. McLaurin Town Manager November 11, 1994 Town Manager's Report Police Building UQCiate Office of the Town Manager As I have indicated to your previously the Police addition is substantially complete, with the exception of a few minor punch list items. The following is the budget showing expenditures through the 11th of October. CAST Meetino Please find the attached agenda for the CAST meeting which is to be held in Winter Park December 8 and 9, 1994. If you are interested in attending please let Anne Wright know so she can make the necessary arrangements. RW M/aw ~1 C:1Townmgr.rpt POLICE BUILDING BUDGET Architect Fees Architect Reimbursables Architect Extra Services Printing Costs Testing -Soils Testing -Concrete Project Management Fees Project Management Reimb Surveying Signage Existing Roof Repair West Lot -Clean & Restripe General Construction GMP Construction Change Orders: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SIDING ON BUILDING 9 10 11 Other General Contingency: TOTAL Owner Suppiied Items: Electronics Floor Finishes Furniture Communications Center Telephones & Equipment TOTAL OWNER SUPPLIED Total Retainage Equals 102,543 BUDGET CURRENT ACTUAL UNDER REVISED SINCE THRU (OVER) 7124194 10/11/94 BUDGET 240,000 6,622 236,703 3,297 9,500 492 7,974 1,526 28,500 627 28,911 (411) 6,750 6,642 108 3,584 3,584 0 1,714 1,714 0 49,890 6,OOO 46,690 3,000 Sao 0 5oa 4,095 4,095 0 612 226 612 0 44,585 44,585 0 1,000 0 1,000 3,027,715 219,762 2,960,421 67,294 5,839 5,839 i 0,755 10,755 (287) (2$7) (1,421} (1,421) 3,081 3,081 9,799 9,799 12,592 12,592 14,971 14,971 1 i ,536 11,53$ (4o,oaa) (40,000) 17,653 10$ 17,653 0 42,952 42,952 3,505,715 233,837 3,359,584 146,131 37,956 1,892 26,369 11,587 27,700 125 564 27,136 34,115 676 12,497 21,61$ 44,000 4,253 52,588 (8,588) 12,500 ~ 0 12,500 156,271 6,946 92,018 64,253 3.661,98& 240,783 3.451.602 210.384 r M r POLBLDBD x 4 ~ -=h~' ~ .. ~,Ye e! = ;i J 0 °' CAST MEETING C9 ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 ARK COLORADO WIN 1 ~R P °~, December 8-9, I944 ,° °° SKIING (complimentary) is available at Winter Park on Thursday, December 8th. Please request tickets prior to Thursday, December 1st at the number listed below for lodging ~° ° reservations. °~' December 8, 1994 (Make your own dinner reservation at number listed below for lodging reservations} ~, ° 6:00-7:00 pm Cocktail Hour Lodge at Sunspot °~ 7:00 - Dinner Lodge at Sunspot The Lodge at Sunspot is located at the top of Winter Park Mt. Uphill ~, transportation will be via the Gondola at the Zephyr Express Chairlift. , Gondola service begins at the base at 5:30 p.m. and takes 1 S minutes . to get to the Lodge at Sunspot. ~° December 9, 1994 8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast Winter Park Town Hall ~' 9:00 - 12:00 CAST Meeting 50 Vasquez Road ° Winter Park, CO LODGING °~' : °~° ~`° ~° Beaver Village Condominiums 1-800-824-8438 ° 1 Bedroom/ 1 Bath $68.00/night , ,~, 2 Bedroonl2 Bath $92.00/night '° ° PLEASE REFER TO CAST MEETING WHEN MAKING ' YOUR RESERVATION. REMEMBER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR OWN DINNER, SKIING AND LODGING , a RESERVATION BEFORE 1211! Call 1-800-824-8438 to make reservations for all three. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 1994 7:3D P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ASSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor ProTTem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Jan Strauch Tam Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The fixst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Michael Jewett, a Vail resident and member of the committee to overturn Ordinance 15, presented Council with two opportunities to receive more information regarding assault weapons. Mr. Jewett invited those interested to view a video tape entitled, "The Assault on Semi-Automatic Firearms" and indicated he would attempt to have the video shown on Channel 5. Secondly, Mr. Jewett extended an offer to. Councilmembers from Eagle resident, Terry Quinn, to view his collection of assault weapons and to fire the weapons at the Gypsum shooting range. Jan Strauch expressed his desire to view the video. Paul Johnston stated he was interested in knowing how Vail citizens felt about the issue, rather than citizens residing outside the town limits. Josh Hall informed Mr. Jewett Channel s might not be able to show the video because of copyright laws. Vail resident, Evie Nott, requested Council support an alternative proposal for the Booth Creek site, and stated representatives from the neighborhood and Betty Ford Alpine Gardens would pursue a cooperative plan and present that plan to the town's environmental planner, Russ Forest. Peggy directed Evie to work through the process with Russ in formulating a plan. Merv suggested additional public input be gathered. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda which consisted of Resolution No. 23, Series of 1994, A Resolution Adopting the Environmental Strategic Plan. Merv requested the resolution be removed from the consent agenda. Russ went over the proposed plan, referencing environmental programs in four categories: sustainable sand use regulation and development; ecosystem protection; environmental efficiency; and environmental management and compliance. Peggy thanked Russ for all his efforts and complimented him on a job well done. Paul requested section 2 of-the resolution be changed to state: "The Town Manager and the Town staff are hereby authorized to take all anuroved actions necessary to implement the Environmental Strategic Plan." Merv moved to approve Resolution 23 as changed, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, b-0. Item Na. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1994, second reading of an annual appropriation ordinance: adopting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, for its fiscal year January 1,1995, through December 31,1995, and providing for the Ievy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1994 tax year and payable in the 1995 fiscal year, Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson distributed a revised budget and informed Council that $1.1 million had been added to the capital budget. Steve and Bob McLaurin explained the changes in detail. Discussion continued regarding the budget for the proposed main Vail roundabouts and ~ Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes il/15/94 landscaping. Merv stated he would not be willing to support the $1.9 million project as presented in next year's capital improvements budget. Larry Grafel informed Council an accurate dollar amount for the project would not be known until bids were obtained. Mayor Osterfoss suggested looking for community groups to share in the cost of the landscaping portion of the project. A motion was made by Paul and seconded by Merv to approve Ordinance 23 on second reading. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994, first reading of an Amendment to Section 3.40.020, Adding the Definition For "Telecommunications Service." Torn Moorhead explained the ordinance provided for a standard definition and should be included ir- the town's sales tax code. Merv moved to approve the ordinance with a second from Sybill. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, b-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 2b, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Granting a Cable Television Franchise to Cablevision VI, Inc., d/b/a TCI Cablevision of the Rockies, Inc., to Construct, Reconstruct, Operate, and Maintain a Cable Communications System Within The Town of Vail Pursuant to and Subject to the Provisions of Ordinance No. 25, Series of x994. Tom Moorhead explained that Ordinance 25, adopting the franchise agreement, was contained in Ordinance 26. Stan McKinzie from TCI was . present to answer questions. Tom explained the franchise called fora 15 year term, and reviewed responses from TCI as requested by Councilmembers at an earlier worksession which included the following: TCI agreed to rebuild Vail's cable system with new fiber optic cable within three years, increasing channel capacity to nearly 80 stations; TCI would provide the town up to five percent of its gross revenues collected within the town; the Town could authorize TCI to collect up to 50 cents per month from residential subscribers and up to 25 cents per month for hotel units to be used for community access grants awarded by the town; TCI proposed to connect three of the town's five municipal facilities with fiber optics and free data transmission service for three years. Further discussion continued regarding funding of Vail Valley Community Television Channel 5. A motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the Ordinance, with a second by Merv Lapin. Jan suggested TCI consider connecting all five of the Town's buildings with fiber optics. The motion was amended to include the connecting of all five of the Town's buildings with fiber optics by TCL Merv called the question, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan Subject to Approval by Sixty-Five Percent {65%) of the Town's Police and Firemen; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Trust Agreement Pursuant to Town of Vail Police and Fixe Employees' Pension Plan and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Trust Agreement Pursuant to Town of Vail Employees` Pension Plan and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. Tom Moorhead explained the amendments were required to maintain the documents as qualified plans, and that the trust agreements actually implemented the plans. Merv moved to approve Ordinances 27, 28., 29 & 30, with a second from Paul. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, b-0. '~ Itenx~ No. 10 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1994, first reading of an Ordinance Making ~ Supplemental Appropriations From the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service Fund, and The Vail Housing Fund, of the 1994 Budget Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1I/1S/94 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. A motion was made by Merv and seconded by Jim to approve Ordinance 31. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 11 was an appeal of a PEC denial of a request for a front setback variance. Andy explained the history of the request and the denial of the PEC. Bob Armour and Kathy Langenwalter were present and explained the reason the request was denied by the PEC. Kathy distributed an illustration and reviewed examples of what the PEC typically approved and compared the diagram to the proposed request. Applicant Dan Frederick stated he would agree to deed-restrict the entire 1,200 square foot single family residence, including the 400 square feet bedroom over the garage. Mayor Osterfoss explained that deed restricting an employee housing unit was not part of the criteria in warranting the variance. Merv moved to uphold the PEC recommendation for denial, stating it did not meet the criteria. Mayor Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and failed, 2-4, Paul, Sybill, Jim and Jan voiting in opposition. Jan moved to repeal the dental with a second from Paul. A vote was taken and. passed, 4-2, Peggy and Merv voting in opposition. Item No. 12 was a request for a sign variance for the West Vail Lodge. Merv moved to approve the sign variance. Planner Lauren Waterton explained the variance was for the height of the sign and further stated a variance would not be required if the sign were lower. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 5-~., Sybill voting in opposition. Item No. 13 was a report from the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add. A motion was made, seconded and passed to adjourn at approximately 10:75 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~"~~ ~. -- Margart~A. Osterfoss, Mayor l/ ATTEST: au.~o~°rr~ ~ ~cc~-o~t- Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L. McCutcheon 3 Vail Tuwn Council Evening Meeting Minutes 17./15/94 r • 1 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING December fi, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 6, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk ' ~, The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second an the agenda was a Consent Agenda which contained the fallowing items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of November 1 and November 15, 1994. B. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1994, second reading of an Amendment to Section 3.40.020, Adding the Definition For "Telecommunicati.ons Service." C. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1994, second reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan Subject to Approval by Sixty-Five Percent {b5%) of the Town's Police and Firemen; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. D. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1994, second reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. E. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1994, second reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Trust Agreement Pursuant to Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. F. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1994, second reading of an Ordinance Adopting a New Trust Agreement Pursuant to Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. G. Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1994, second reading of an Ordinance Making Supplemental Appropriations From the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service Fund, and The Vail Housing Fund, of the 1994 Budget and the Fi ~ncial 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. H. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1994, an Ordinance amending Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 5.32.040; providing for the issuance of bed and breakfast permits for the service of complimentary alcohol under certain circumstances; and amending Chapter 2.20, Local Licensing Authority, to add an application fee for bed and breakfast permits; to revise the fee charged to transfer a license; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve the consen# agenda with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1PJOS194 Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 24, Series of 1994, a Resolution adopting a lease policy. Merv Lapin moved to approve the resolution with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed unanunously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 25, Series of 1994, a Resolution approving Pamela A. Brandmeyer as new signer on TOV accounts. Tom Steinberg moved to approve the resolutian wi#h a second from Merv Lapin and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Resolution No. 26, Series of 1994, a Resolution approving the Town of Vail Personnel Rules and Regulations. Tom Moorhead explained changes had occurred since January, 1990 and that new Rules and Regulations needed to be adopted. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution 26 with a second by Tom Steinberg. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 2&, Series of 1994, second reading o£ an Ordinance Granting a Cable Television Franchise to Cablevision VI, Inc., d/b/a TCI Cablevision of the Rockies, Inc., to Construct, Reconstruct, Operate, and Maintain a Cable Communications System Within The Town of Vail Pursuant to and Subject to the Provisions of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1994. Tom Moorhead explained that Ordinance 25, adopting the franchise agreement, was contained in Ordinance 26. Stan McKinzie from TCI was present to answer questions. Tom reviewed several issues which were raised at the Iast work session and evening meeting pertaining to: 1} Council's request to have all five Town buildings connected with fiber optic cable. Stan McKinzie stated TCI was not able to go beyond the three promised. 2) Tom poanted out additions and changes to the final draft of the agreement since last reading, as well as one change in Ordinance 25. At that time Mayor Osterfoss opened discussion up to the public. A letter was received via facsimile from resident Linda Fried opposing the 15 year franchise, and was distributed to Councilmembers prior to the meeting. East Vail resident Sue Mason expressed her concerns and presented Council with a petition which contained 97 signatures in opposition to the franchise. Tom Moorhead reminded Council and members of the public that the agreement with TCI was non-exclusive, and did not exclude other cable companies from operating in Vail. Stan McKinzie addressed concerns of Sue Mason and reviewed the repair section of the contract. Stan also stated TCI would welcome any competition. Vail resident Ed Drager stated 15 years was too long and suggested Council approve a three year contract. Tom Moorhead clarified the contract required compliance within certain time limits. Jan Strauch recommended approval of the TCI franchise for the 15 year term and stated he felt the best way to take care of the complaints and improve service would be to approve the franchise. Jan moved to approve the ordinance with a second from Sybill Navas. Jim Shearer inquired about consulting costs of $20,000 - $25,000 and his understanding that the Town would be reimbursed for these fees by TCI. Tom Moorhead said the contract would not be executed until those costs were negotiated. Jan amended his motion to include reimbursement to the Town of Vail of consulting fees up to $25,000. Peggy requested a responsible party be named who would make sure TCI complied with the agreement. Bob McLaurin stated he would make certain the contract was complied with. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was a request to extend Channel 5's contract. Channel 5 Board President, Brian Hall referenced a packet of information which had been distributed to Councilmembers. Issues that were discussed included: naming a representative from the Town of Vail; sources of funding contributions; franchise fees in non-incorporated areas; public use access; and stock ownership. Jan suggested extending the Channel s contract for six months to allow time for the station to prepare a strategic plan for shared funding of the station by other users. Merv also requested that a current balance sheet be submitted. Tom Steinberg asked for a copy of the current year capital budget. Merv moved to extend the contract for a period of six months, with a second from Jim Shearer. Sybill reiterated the importance of having a Town of Vail representative on the Board, and Jim Shearer suggested Suzanne Silverthorne be the delegate. Jan requested Channel 5 submit the following information and documents to Council: 1) Procedure on electing Board of Directors; 2) Financial Statements; VAiI Town Council evening Meeting Minutes 1?106/94 3) Tax Returns; 4) Bylaws; 5) Articles of Incorporation; 6) Plan to increase funding from unincorporated areas; and 7) Long range plan describing how Channel 5 intends to proceed with programming. Paul called the question and a vote was taken which passed unanimously, 7-~. Item No. 8 was the reconsideration of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1994, an ordinance restricting the sale or possession of assault weapons. Tom Moorhead gave a brief summary of discussions at first and second reading of the ordinance and Holly McCutcheon reviewed the referendum process which was taken. Mayor Osterfoss requested comments be limited to three minutes per person. Those who gave public comment opposing the ordinance included Vail residents Sandy Smith and Scotty McGil. Sybill moved not to repeal the ordinance, with a second from Paul. Councilmembers voiced their feeling the ordinance should be voted on by the electorate. A vote was then taken and approved unanimously, 7-0. Tom Moorhead updated Council of the closing of the town-owned employee housing unit located at 770 Potato Patch, and requested direction from Council as to how to proceed with the rental of the unit. Council directed the unit should be rented to an individual who works in Vail and meets the employee housing criteria. Council further suggested the rental term run until October 31, 1995, and that the rental rate be consistent with the HUD guidelines. There being no further business, a motion was made, seconded and passed, and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:37 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (.~ , --~ . Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. Mc ~,utcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by 1~o14y L. McGutcileon ('Names of certain indMiduals who gave public input may 6e inaccurate.) 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12/06/94 r.~s~u.~~ ~ f~ ~~~~ r 2 • to ~ 9 ~F S~UU ~°~' ~~ ~w~, c ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~! ~~` U,.~ ~~ w"e ~ 1 Z ~; E„ - ~'~ Jew"' c~.~ i ~ p~ ~~ ,~~~ ~- 3~ ~ cap- ~~~ .~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~df. `.~ ~° J;,, a-,~, y-~, ~rs~t.~- ~ ~ ('~ j ~~"`~t~ `"~- -rte ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~~~~~~~-,,.cam--~ ~~ . cc n~~- c ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ .l U ~ ~~ ~ • u ~- ~~ <, L `~ ~ 't ~~ V ~, ---('~'~ 1. ~' ~~`.~~ ~Q"~-~`"~~, ~ n r~ . e ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~c~~_ .,~,. ~ S~- v~ - • ~~,~~5, ~ a,e.~~~ ~~~ 1 7 C_~ • ~ -6S~ • PETTTTON ,,~,(~,~ ~ TO: The Town of Vail /7 ~~ ~.~ ~;~. ~ . 9~ RE: Franchise contract with TCI The undersigned residents of East Vail feel that TCI needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCI responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.Ch. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, not ::the ~ dpoints . TCT is~not performing at a level that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise. NAME ADDRESS C~ 1 J ~ i~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ U/~ ~ ~w.~ ~ C ~~ U~~ t ~ MJ~~ Sa3y to Gor?.. ~ ----- mil mac? .;/'~~~ S-I 3s :~~4( Gf- .1/~k~~ f~f • rJr~., I v'1~ ~~. j rA PETITION • • T0; The Town of Vail RE; Franchise contract with TCI The undersigned residents of Vail Feel that TCl needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCT responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.Oh. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, not the endpoints. '~ ~~ TCI is not performing at a level that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding°future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise. NAME.. ~ ADDRESS ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~.~~ ~~cro~c _~~ J ~_ ~i~s _ f. f _ - ~`"~ ~~~ ~. ~~~ ~~ -t; ~~~~ :a - ~ c ~~ ~~ ~ ~ . ,~ ' /1M ~e t ±~.,~ ~. ~\ ~1~ Y ` i - "/-~~ ~l~\c~ y ~~ ~1~~ i ~1~~1.~ Kv~ FS~ ~C ~ O 1r1~ iA5 s~o~ r /~~~~ ~~~P pr I ~ ~t3 YY1u~`~~ ~a~~ C ;'~~ ~f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~,~.b ~~- ~ . ,~' ~~~ ~~~~<~ G ~ / ~i~s 5 l b`~ °~(~v ~ 1 A ~I~r r~. ~ r his ~/ ~~-~~~~ ~~-~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~i~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'~ ~~w~ ~~. PETITION T0: The Town of Vail RE: Franchise contract with TCT The undersigned residents of East Vail feel that TCI needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCI responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.~h. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, not the endpoints. ° TCT is not performing at a level that engenders our trust. " They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to, gain this lucrative franchise. NAME ADDRESS ' ~~ ~la~~~a-n . ,,fir""~~,~,~; y y~ t ~ C` ~.. ~~~ ~a~ ~ ~ - ~ r ~ .r,P~ C~~Ca_G~C/?~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~~u t ~ ~~ ~' L ~ ~ ~ ~ S 1 ~ -~ l~lr~ r ~ (,cuter h c_~ ~` VA.`l ~ ~ ry/, ~-- ry-~.~/ 1~ 6 ~ o` PETITION T0: The Town of Vail RE: Franchise contract with TCI The undersigned residents of East Vail feel that TCI needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCI responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie far years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.Ch. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, nat the endpoints, TCI is not performing at a level that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise. NAME ADDRESS • --------~-~ °w `~ ~; ~ ~~ w !r' ~ E ~/// .! :P ~-,,..},~`-,,"7~~:'•` .sue-• ' ~ .~ ~ - ..- ~ir„ ~ ~ ~~ 4~ ~^ ~ ~~ '~ ~,,~ ~- ~~ ~~<< I~ ~n ~~ ~~ ~ 35 . J~~ . ~~ ~, b ~~ ~ ! e° ~~_ .~ B~eeyy ,,~~ 4 ~~ Grp ~~~~ ~~~~%ki ~eL~~`~,~ .; ~~ ..,. `~~t ~?~ ~~ GG~i~ /~i~ ~.°~ j i PETITION TOs The Town of Vail RE: Franchise contract with TCI The undersigned residents of ~ Vail feel that TCT needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted along term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCT responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we • cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.Ch. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, not the endpoints, .; ' - TCI is not performing at a"1~vel that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise. N~ME~. - ADDRESS - • ~- • I/ w II ~,.~:- ~~r~ ~~~~~v~w~n' '~v~+il, c'nlY0.E~ ~ ('n hk '.4~~Ch.CavJ ~a~~. ~ ice' ~~ .~ ~ ~ -r ,~ P ~~c~.` oV,.,9 ~.~-C~.:e~, ~ '~~~ ~'t ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~"-~ 1 Kam. 1~- 3~3G ~~ ~~~ ~ ,2~0~~~ ~~ ~• ~3~ ~ Q ~C SJ~Z _ l~~ l ~- , Cv ~~ ~~~~ ~- ~-a<~ O N ~-0N"CArs~G ~P L -~~, Vj4i !. Cc7 Qa(lns ~7 PETITION TOs The Town of Vail s RE: Franchise contract with CI The undersigned residents of ~~,-i' Feel hat TCI needs to assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise,. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCI responses to inquiries regarding outages, .poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re- ception on upper channels (e.g.~h. 3$} and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplification, not the endpoints. TCI is not performing at~a level that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise. NAME ~ ~ ADDRESS • 9 ~,,~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ . 1 Aso ~ ~ ~51~~ ~ __ _ ~ ~~ . ~ l • I r J J PETITION TO: The Town of Vail ftE: Franchise contract with TCI ,~ The undersigned residents of ~----,. feel at 'ACT need.S t0 assure the Town of Vail a better level of service before being granted a long term exclusive franchise. We have experienced numerous and frequent outages, especially lately. Some TCI responses to inquiries regarding outages, poor reception and delayed repairs have been casual and surly, even suggesting that we take our business elsewhere...which, of course, we cannot do. Cables lie for years on the surface of our pro- perties unless we bury them ourselves. Disconnected cables lie there indefinitely. Repairmen are sent to improve re-- ception on upper channels (e.g.~h. 38) and never succeed, probably because the originating signal needs amplif ica,tion, not the endpoints . °, ' i _ TCI is not perform~.ng at a level that engenders our trust. They should indicate a desire and willingness to improve, and offer guarantees regarding future service if they are to gain this lucrative franchise.. NAME ~ ADDRESS ~ ~~ { -- - -- ~~ r - j ~t ~~ ~ ~ ~ r., , ~,~~ , ~~~~ / { ~ / /;a' / ~ ! ~ ~ ~ -~~ ,~~ _ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~