Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 Vail Town Council Minutes~.~ . ~, r. MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 5, 1993 7:30 P.M, A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 5, 1993, 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 Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager S The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Approval of the Minutes of the December 1, X992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, 1992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to provide far the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. C. Ord~na~ce No. 33, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to . Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase T, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Due to requests for further discussion on both Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, and Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, Rob Levine moved to remove items B & C from the Consent Agenda, with a second fl..... Jim Shearer. A vote was taken. and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Jim Gibson then moved to approve Consent Agenda item A, with a second fi.,.,. Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Jim Gibson also moved to approve Consent Agenda item D, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Osterfoss felt Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, an ordinance Y~~,~iding for limitation of terms for all members of permanent TOV Boards and Commissions, should include language to allow incumbents to apply for reappointment if not enough new applicants applied for vacant positions. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on second reading, with a change to indicate that, in the event there was an insufficient 1 f ~. number of applicants for openings on permanent TOV Boards and Commissions, incumbent members who had served more than eight consecutive years would be eligible to apply for reappointment. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, ~-]., Bob Buckley opposed. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, an ordinance concerning an amendment to Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code to add sledding and tobagganning parks as a conditional use was discussed next. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. A memo dated 12/7/92 from the Community Development Department (CDD} to the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) detailed a description of the request, background information, the proposed Code amendment, an analysis of the proposed Code amendment, and staff's recommendation that given the fact the proposed use would be allowed only after approval of the conditional review, the requested code amendment would have few, if any unmitigated negative impacts. The proposed addition to the zoning code would allow Vail Associates, Inc. {VA) to apply far a conditional use permit to operate a sledding and tobogganning park (s/t park} in the Lionshead area, specifically on an unplatted tract of land currently owned by VA located south of Gore Creek near the skier bridge, under Chair $. Kristan Pritz noted seven letters of opposition from. residents of the area being considered had been received. Art Abplanalp, attorney representing several residents in opposition to this proposed amendment, began a lengthy discussion by first recalling he had appeared before Council in December, 1992, after becoming aware VA had requested approval of a proposed amendment to Chapter 15.32, Agricultural and Open Space District (AOSD), of the Vail Municipal Code, to include s/t parks in the list of conditional uses outlined in Section 18.32.030. He indicated, after examination of material VA had distributed to property owners adjoining the area VA proposed for a s/t park, everyone of the property owners who would be affected by the known impact of this ordinance were opposed to it. He referred to the universality of opposition to this text amendment as primarily being site specific, but noted the objections were also generalized as to the impact of this type of change within the AOSD on adjoining properties. Mr. Abplanalp stated it was recognized this ordinance was a p~,.~,„sal far a text amendment, but felt the impact of this type of conditional use was important. He distributed copies of VA's proposal as characteristic of the type of use being considered for this district. Mayor Osterfoss asked Mr. Abplanalp why he considered a s/t park different from other conditional uses shown in Section 18.32,030 of Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code. She indicated that was the focus of this discussion, and Council could not discuss an application they had not received, although Mr. Abplanalp contended an application from VA had been submitted to the CDD perhaps two months ago. He felt Council would not have considered the change if VA had not proposed the s/t park. He said TOV had received a proposal and decided to change the zoning laws to fit it. He said that was the reverse of the way the process should work. He felt that was the problem. Mayer Osterfoss repeated Council did not review inf„~~ation that had not been presented to them. She repeated throughout the discussion that the proposed change was a conceptual change, not a plan far a s/t park. Larry Eskwith advised no application was presently before Council, and added there could be no application for this issue without a change in the zon~n~. He • emphasized potential conditional use applications were not argued before they were made. Mr. Abplanalp argued, this being a text amendment, people who might be impacted were not notified and given the opportunity to respond. Now aware of the proposed amendment, those people who would be impacted either by a specific application which may have been filed, or any application, have conveyed to Council problems they saw with the text amendment. He said they did not feel the intensive commercial use resulting from a s/t park run on a commercial basis was consistent with either present uses, the purpose af, or other conditional uses within the Code. He noted VA owned the land proposed for this park, and felt VA would not take on liability risks assaci.ated with this project unless there was significant income potential. For that reason, he said it must be assumed there would be a great deal of activity there, and, again, stated that was not consistent with AOSD purposes. Night lighting, parking problems, increased traffic, and security risks to homeowners' properties in the area were among other generalized concerns cited as reasons for why this amendment should not be granted. Mr. Abplanalp felt there was a technical problem with the procedure being followed. He referred to Vail Municipal Code 1$.66.10, which required TOV to hold a public hearing on applications after receipt of a report and recommendations fi~~ the PEC. The fallowing Section provided TOV act on proposed zoning amendments within. twenty days after the closing of a public hearing. Mr. Abplanalp felt the logical reading of that was there first was a hearing on an application, then a decision on whether to develop and ordinance. He did not feel that procedure had happened in this case. He felt there was not only no notice to people who would be affected, there had been no hearing. He felt the procedural aspect 2 of this should be reviewed. 1'Vlayor Osterfoss clarified this was a public hearing, and all regularly scheduled evening meetings of the Vail Town Council, in addition to all meeting of the Vail Town Council were public meetings. Larry Eskwith added second readings of all ordinances were designated in the Charter as public hearings, and the zoning code had been complied with in this matter. Art suggested the ordinance suggested that public hearings come before TOV decided to adopt an ordinance, in other words, before first reading. Mr. Abplanalp stated some of the property owners who have had experiences with this type of conditional use did not believe there was a practical way of controlling conditional uses. Jim Gibson noted there were 37 individual parcels zoned AOSD. Under 18.32.Q5Q, each parcel was required to be a minimum of 35 acres. Kristen advised there were AOSD parcels in existence that did not meet the minimum lot size, but were parcels already in existence before the minimum requi~t..uent of 35 acres was established. If a new AOSD parcel were being created, it now would have to meet the minimum lot size requirement. Jim Gibson felt the number of parcels that could physically accommodate a s/t park should be known because this may indeed not be just a text change, but may be site specific. Jim Gibson asked if an AOSD parcel had to be a minimum of 35 acres in order to be used as a s/t park, and Kristen advised it did not. Jim Gibson's main abjection was that of the 37 lots zoned for AOSD, there was no answer as to how many could conceivably house a s/t park. Kristen was not able to give Jim Gibson specifics. Jina- Gibson felt a new slt area would probably be a commercial venture, and, if that was the case, it might be found the only commercial opportunity was Lionshead, making this ordinance more than a text change; it could be site specific. Kristen indicated staff could do a general site analysis of which parcels might have some potential. Although there was no wording in the ordinance requiring s/t parks as a conditional use being commercial, it was established all 37 parcels would be eligible to apply far conditional use pG~ ....its for alt parks, but there was no foregone conclusion they would be appr,,N~~ ate for that sort of conditional use permit. Kristen said she felt staff had focused on the fact that although private recreation facilities were mentioned in the AOSD Purpose Statement, they were not listed in the list of Permitted or Conditional Uses. Public parks, recreation areas, and open space, however, were permitted uses. Staff had decided the proposed use was not a public park because it was a privately run operation far commercial purposes, and therefore they felt a zoning code amendment was necessary. She said staff felt this use made sense within the zone district, and, in fact, one recommendation through the zoning code amendment process was to change the name of the zone district to Open Space and Recreation District, as the term "agricultural" was misleading. Britt Anderson, representing Lawrence Field, John Jordan, and Burton Lasso (property owners in the area potentially affected by the proposal submitted to the PEC by VA,) also felt if it had not been for VA's proposal, there would be no issue of changing the ordinance. She said no need or interest had been shown far this project by the public. She stated it had to do with a site specific proposal made by VA dealing with the proposed plan in the Lionshead area. She felt the focus for the change in zoning was there to accommodate a potential application, and that was a backward way of dealing with good governing. Joe Macy spoke briefly to note staff had described what the application was for. It was an application that would allow a change in the zoning code to allow applicants to apply for s/t parks in AOSD's as a conditional use. He added that did not mean staff would react favorably to the application or that the PEC would approve it. It was only an application which would allow any applicant, any owner of any of the 37 parcels to apply for a s/t park as a conditional use. He noted Vail was a winter sports resort, and that sledding and tabogganning were as much a part of winter sports as skiing, and there were people who would like to pursue this in a safe and controlled manner. He felt certain there was public support far it. Dan Byers expressed concern about people living next to the other 36 parcels. He felt they had not had the benefit of any knowledge of this, and should be given an opportunity to be heard fi,,.,, if this would change allowed uses on their parcels. Kristen advised when a conditional use goes to the PEC, any property owners affected by proposals were notified, After further discussion regarding procedures related to specific applications and public hearings, Mr. Abplanalp and Ms. Anderson again indicated the property owners they represented were unilaterally apposed to the proposed s/t park. Mayor Osterfoss asked it be recognized there would be specific discussion about any application, and that would be opponents opportunity to say a specifiic application was inappropriate. Any application would have to go through the process, be thoroughly reviewed, and meet established criteria. After individual Council member input, Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance Na. 33, Series of 1992, until it was known how many parcels could be used for commercial sledding and tabogganning parks. Rab Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, there was further discussion about the procedures for det~~~ining appr.,N~.iateness of a parcel for this use, and about parcels that could be practically used for 3 commercial develapnaent of s/t parks. Kristen mentioned a number of private parcels with potential including the west area of Potato Patch, the Spraddle Creek area awned by the U.S. Forest Service, Tract E by Millcreek Circle and the Vista Kahn, an area above Red Sandstone Park, and the Abe Shapiro land, indicating it did appear there were mare than one ar two sites of AOSD that could be used for this purpose. Jim Gibson then withdrew his motion to table the ordinance, and Rob Levine withdrew his second of that motion. Rob Levine then moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on second reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. After brief criticism. from Mx. Abplanalp, who dismissed half of the parcels Kristen mentioned for a variety of reasons, a vote was then taken and the motion failed 3-1- 1, Jim Gibson opposed; Bob Buckley abstaining. Ttem No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1.993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Shelly Mello briefly reviewed the status of this proposal as detailed in the CDD's memo to Council dated December 3U, 1992, noting on December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD No. 4, Cascade Village, Area A. On December $th and 15th, 1992, Council reviewed the proposed amendment during work sessions. At that time, Council suggested a number of modifications to the project, including changes to the density and unit types on the Cornerstone building site. There was also further discussion as to the status of Westhaven Drive. As a result of feedback fa.,,,.. Council, the applicant had chosen to modify the . Cornerstone project to allow a single devel~,~.,uent plan for the Cornerstone site with 64 transient units versus the two development scenarios previously ~.~„~osed to the PEC on December 7, 1992. With the current proposal there were na dwelling units located in the Cornerstone project. The applicant had not made any modifications to the Wat~~f~.rd project since the PEC review. All statistics for the Waterford listed in the CDD's December 7, 1992, memo to the PEC were up-ta-date. The changes made to the Cornerstone project as a result of Council's feedback during work sessions were incorporated into Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading. Rather than review the entire issue again, Kristen Pritz advised CDD would supply further explanation to any interested parties. Shelly added, being this was an SDD project, in order to change any type of density or development plans, including architectural design, a major amendment had to be proposed and approved. That was the process now underway. She noted full details regarding the FEC's recommendations to approve a minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD No. 4 Cascade Village to amend the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A were detailed in the memo to Council dated December 8, 1992. Howard Stone initiated a lengthy discussion concerning the outstanding issue of the ownership status of Westhaven Drive from S. Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. It was noted the road was owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises, and was privately maintained by a separate entity. This road had not been conveyed to TOV as it did not meet TOV's standards, including the skybridge across the road. Discussion concerning the specifics related to the road grade, • construction, and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge followed. Mr. Stone asked whose technical and financial obligation it was to bring the road up to standards. Shelly advised the applicant's for Waterford had agreed t4 bring the portion of the read fi.,~,. the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and dedicate that portion and a public easement far the remainder of the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The Cornerstone developers had also agreed to perform the necessary tests which included borings to determine base compaction and an as-built profile of the road to determine the condition of the road in front of their project as part of this amendment. However, the completion of all of all of the improvements were net being required by staff. Essentially, the testing was necessary to det~,.~ine a cast estimate for repairs. For the record, Mayor Osterfoss explained, initially, one developer had been involved with the entire SDD. There were now individual developers, and the Cascade Village Association {CVA}, had, to a large extent, taken over responsibility for this road in lieu of the initial developer. Considering this development already had special zoning, and further accommodations were being requested, Mr. Stone did not feel it would be inappropriate for TOV to seek a final conclusion from the new developers on this aspect of the project. Mayor Osterfoss added CVA had members including the Westin, the Cascade Club, and the developers of this project. The new developers, being a part of CVA, were as responsible as all members of CVA, for the needed road improvements. Kay Saulsbury, representing Colorado Mountain College, the Colorado Mountain Condominium Association, and CVA, expressed concerns about the remainder of the xoad net being dealt with through this proposal. She encouraged Council to look at 4 ~. accepting the road as it was, and assume some responsibility for upgrading it. Rob Levine asked what guarantees there were that the developer would be part of a future solution to the road problem. Fred Otto, MECM applicant, indicated guarantees were in the form of economic motivation. He stated it was correctly pointed out that they were members of CVA, and CVA had lien rights, taxing authority, and could force assessments against all CVA members to maintain that road. He suggested CVA find a way to capitalize the annual cost of maintaining that raad and try to convert that into cost of repairs. He stated the problem was no one knew what that cost was. As dues paying CVA members, they would continue to participate and collectively find solutions. Mx. Otto viewed CVA as a political entity. He said it had been created by protective covenant and had senior lien rights. Ms. Saulsbury, CVA board member, said she believed the new developers would have to become members of CVA. She felt the new owners should take responsibility for the road, but Rob observed this issue involved an entire SDD stretching beyond the limits of the model displayed at this meeting. Tn that respect, he felt members of the entire SDD were ultimately the group responsible for solving the problem. He felt it was appropriate to expect the new developers to improve the area of the road adjacent to their property, and noted they had said they would do that. Beyond that, he also felt it was appropriate fox them to participate in the future improvement of the rest of the road. After further discussion, including consideration of tabling this ordinance until the parties involved reached a timely resolution to the problem, it was agreed the first step was to ascertain the cost of undertaking repairs, and that would require a cooperative effort between all entities to organize a process to bring the road up to standards so TOV could take it over and the SDD could be relieved of maintenance costs for it. He stated they MECM would contribute $5,000.00 to a study the total cast of the problem, but he felt guidance from TOV was needed. Estacquio Cortina stated they were willing to cooperate, but he wanted Council participation to help solve the problem and avoid lost construction time. Bob Buckley moved to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson advised he was going to vote against approval because he wanted to see: (1) a traffic study, (2) a resolution of the circulation problems, {3} a forum or format of cooperation between all the entities using the raad, and (4) a commitment to bring the road up to TOV standards. Then, he indicated, TOV would take over the road and relieve the maintenance problems being experienced there. There was further examination regarding a collective effort to salve the problem. Ron Phillips then suggested there was a way to work out short-term {3-5 year) financing to accomplish this project if, with the aid of a local financial institution, TOV and the financial institution could get an agreement from CVA that what they now paid for maintenance each year would be dedicated for as long as it took to repay. Take the maintenance costs, capitalize that into something to fund the iznpravemeuts. Mr. Otto had offered to take the lead to find out what it was going to cost to try to quantify that. Ron suggested putting the cost of assessing the improvements into that total and try to put together a f nancing package that could be paid off with the assessments. Jim Gibson felt that was a good suggestion. With the agreement that the road would be brought up to standards and a plan for paying far that, Jim Gibson felt the problem could be solved. The suggestion was made that the assessment currently levied against CVA members be used to pay off the indebtedness to bring the road up to standards and TOV would then accept the road. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The applicants were directed to pursue the above referenced financing plan before second reading, at which time a determination on whether to proceed ar not would be made. Item Na. ~ was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Tawn of Vail. Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1893, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item Na. 5 was a review of an Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. {VA) regarding VA's use of the athletic field parking lot. Bab Buckley stepped d.,~~. due to a conflict of interest. Larry Eskwith explained this was a license agreement which would give VA the non-exclusive right to utilize the athletic field for parking this year. He added it provided VA would indemnify and insure TOV, and that VA would repair and maintain the athletic field parking lot while they were using it. Joe Macy noted this had been discussed at Council work session, and Council had suggested this agreement be made a concxete, 5 r situation and develop contract to f.,. u.alize the agreement. Jim Shearer moved to approve this Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. regarding the athletic field parking lot, with a second from Rab Levine. A vote was taken anal the motion passed, 4-0-1, Boh Buckley ab~taiiung. Item Na. 6 was the review of a si gn variance request far tartan's Salaan at Crossroads Shopping Center located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing. The applicant was Garton Devel~,r~ent. Dave Garton was present. Shelly Mello noted staff and the DRB had unanimously recommended approval of the sign variance. It would allow for a sign to be hung an an awning which was not adjacent or connected to the business, although it was connected to the Crossroads Building. Full particulars of the description of the request, findings and staff responses, and staff recommendations were detailed in the CDD's memo to the DRB dated December 16, 1992. Shelly noted there were four items in that memo which discussed why staff felt there was a hardship, including a safety issue. Jim Shearer moved to approve the sign variance request as proposed with findings per the CDD memo dated December 16, 1992, and the findings of the DRB. Jim Gibson seconded the motion.. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Before adjournment, Pam Brandmeyer briefly reviewed dates, times, and places of a number of upcoming functions and meetings. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. ~~ Respectfully submitted, A~ ~ ~ argar A. Osterfoss, May J A~~°i~~ST: ~~d~~~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken aY Dorianne S. veto C:WiIN5JAN5.92 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 19, 1993 7:30 P.M. • • A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, January 19, 1993, 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 Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item Na. 2 an the agenda was final public input and discussion regarduxg the future of the Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge, a small pedestrian bridge running parallel to the newly refurbished International Bridge. Mayor Osterfoss reviewed the chronology leading to the decision to remove the bridge, and noted subsequent to the decision to do so, further public input regarding the disposition of the bridge had been received by Council and staff. In response to the additional public input, Council had directed staff to conduct a final public hearing detailing aptiona. Larry Grafel presented slides showing various views of the bridge, and explained in depth the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with four options Public Works had explored for the bridge including: (1) removing and reusing it, (2) renovating it, (3) removing it and building a new bridge, or (4} repairing it. After brief discussion regarding technical aspects of the options including the condition of the stream and the stream bank, streetscape intent, including why removal of the slab was important to bringing the stream closer to its natural state, Sherry Dorward stated she had not seen an understanding of what really animated public apace in Larry's presentation. She felt this bridge gave people a connection with nature, something not felt from the International Bridge which she felt diminished the experience of being near the water. In her opinion, loss of human scale, loss of intricacy, and loss of connection with creek would be a major mistake. She said the redundancy of two bridges did not bother her, and felt people wanted to be close to the water. Sybil Navas submitted a petition of over 600 signatures in favor of saving the bridge. For reasons echoing Ms. Dorward's, Linda Fried, Diana Donovan, Joe Staufer, Jahn Cogswell, Nancy Rondo, Chuck Crist, Goland Aasland, George Lamb, Paul Rondo, several other residents and one long time Vail visitor also voiced opposition to removal of the bridge. For the record, Mayor Osterfoss noted former Mayor Kent Rvse had phoned her to state he was in favor of removal of the bridge. Bob Buckley moved to keep the Gore Creek Promenade Pedestrian Bridge in place. Rob Levine seconded the motion with direction to staff to spend a minimal amount of fiends to make needed safety and visual improvements to it. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson and Tom Steinberg communicated their reasons far feeling the bridge should be removed. Rob called the question. A vote was taken anal the motion passed, 4-2, Jim Gibson and Tom Steinberg opposed. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991., to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Devel„~~;.,~ent Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Shelly Mello called for questions, Fred Otto directed Council's attention to the 1/19!93, letter regarding the status of negotiations toward the resolution of concerns expressed by Council relating to Westhaven Drive, through Cascade Village. The letter had been submitted at 4:00 P.M. on this date by Arthur A. Abplanalp, Jr. of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, P.C., attorneys for Westin Hotel 1 ~. F,.~Nerty and James Wear of Wear, Rosen & Travers, attorneys for Cascade Village Association {CVA}, The letter stated the Board of Directors of the CVA had discussed Council's request for a cooperative approach to the resolution of their concerns regarding Westhaven Drive, and indicated CVA's Board believed its members had arrived at a mutually • acceptable resolution to those concerns. Tom Steinberg asked how the figures stipulated in the letter were calculated. He asked if the applicants had obtained engineering cast estimates far the whole road including drainage improvements, curbs and gutters, compacting base, and general corrective action. Mr. Abplanalp stated he was not aware of those issues being covered. Mr. Abplanalp explained the research done to arrive at the figures detailed in the 1/19/931etter, but the letter indicated until such time as the road surface/subsurface investigation was completed and the conditions were determined to be acceptable to TOV, there was significant risk the cost of road improvements could be much higher than. estimated therein. Tom Steinberg asked if there was a figure of what it would cast to bring the road up to TOV Code entirely, and Mr. Abplanalp advised there was not because there was no requirement that it be brought up to TOV Cade before dedication. Lengthy discussion followed concerning details regarding bringing the whole road up to TOV Cade, various aspects of the applicants' proposal, and what CVA was willing and able to fund. Mayor Osterfoss felt, fL,,... TOV's perspective, there were constraints laid out within this SDD, including an issue relating to setbacks which were not what they would be an a usual TOV road, an issue relating to a curve that did not have an acceptable radius, and the pedestrian bridge height problem. She felt TOV would be willing to ,~„~k with the applicants within thane constraints, but she felt the issues of paving, drainage, curb and gutter, compaction, and whatever went into that process had to be fully addressed to det~~.uine the extent of • TOV's responsibility for those issues. She asked the applicants to clarify the level of responsibility they were offering for those issues in their proposal. She felt the proposal did not firmly establish whether the issues would be taken care of before a TCO was issued, or not taken care of if the cost was more than the amount they had estimated in the 1/19/93 letter - $48,000. Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was a dollar limit on their proposal. Mr. Abplanalp said he felt that the dollar limit was $48,000, the amount CVA was now spending on snow removal. Mr. Abplanalp felt the applicants' theory was that the association would be able to start setting money aside to address Council's concerns beginning with the amount they normally would expend for the year'93-'94, if TOV would take over maintenance of the road beginning in the summer of'93. Further discussion followed concerning the association's costs for this proposal, and the November ].,1993, improvements completion date as indicated in the 1/19/93 letter Mr. Abplanalp was not certain haw firm that date was. He said all applicants hoped to complete the improvements as soon as possible, but if TOV was in a position to begin maintenance and snow removal without the completion 'of the improvements, then the November 1,1.993 completion date would not be a strong prerequisite to the whole package being proposed. Regarding the November 1, 1993, date, Mr. Otto said if they had completed their heavy construction by November, 1993, then they would have no problem putting the asphalt overlay in at that time, but if construction was not completed by then, the asphalt would be put dawn during the summer of '94. Mayor Osterfoss noted the 1/19/931etter indicated a TCO would not be issued until there was asphalt on the road. Mr. Abplanalp referred to the November 1, 1993 completion date as a relatively soft date, but if there was a good reason to move that date back, it could be modified at Council's discretion. Mayor Osterfass asked if the applicants then considered November 1, 1993, a hard date for TOV to take over maintenance in order to save the applicants' money. Tam Steinberg moved to continue this hearing for one month during which the applicants could obtain engineering studies and a firm bid for the cost of the fatal construction of this project to bring it up to TOV Cade in all ways except for the pedestrian bridge, the curvature, and the narrow right-af--way. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson explained the purpose of this was to allow the applicants to provide TOV with the information. TOV needed to ascertain what its financial liability might be. Tom said the alternative would be that TOV would never accept the road. Mx. Otto felt the issue was not whether or not this road should be a public road versus a private road. He said what Council asked them to do at first reading was to indicate that CVA would take an active interest in trying to get the road fixed so it could be dedicated to TOV. He felt it would be impossible at this time to get firm bids to find out what that would cost. He said they were trying to indicate to Council that they were going to cooperate toward to the solution and would contribute financially. He did not think there was anything in this ordinance indicating this had to be a public road. He said it was a private road now, it was not accepted for TOV maintenance, and TOV was bound by the provisions of Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. Tom explained their proposal put a top limit on what the association would spend, and that 2 put TOV at liability if TOV accepted it. There was further discussion about whether the road was public or private road, but it was determined, whichever it was, it was part of the SDD, and the whole SDD was the issue. Rob Levine felt it would be negligent to approve any changes to the SDD without once and for all addressing the traffic and road problems. Then decisions about changes appropriate to the SDD as a whole could be considered. Mayor Osterfoss felt applicants had made an excellent, good-faith effort to move toward resolution of this process, and felt the motion an the floor was a request for additional information so TOV could make a decision as to whether it was a realistic proposal. Mr. Abplanalp did not feel a firm bid could be gotten as there were too many variables at this time. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the motion gave the applicants enough time to obtain engineering information, or whether the discussion should be continued until engineering information could be obtained and presented to TOV for analysis by the Public Works Department. Ned Gwathmey, architect for the project did not see how that inf,~..~ation could be gathered in a month. He noted they had been an hold since first reading, the developers would not allow them to proceed, and further delay might now allow building this summer. Individual Council member comments followed. Council indicated if there was a willingness among the association and developers to take care of the compaction, the base, the drainage, the paving, the curb and gutter, and those types of improvements, then TOV would have no need fox additional inf„~~..ation, The only reason far TOV to have additional inf„~~ation was to ascertain the extent of potential cost to TOV. Jim Wear, an behalf of CVA, stated all CVA had authority from their Board of Directors to commit to at this meeting was $24,OOQ. Rob Levine and Jim Gibson felt they could support the ordinance and have TOV take dedication . of the road with the existing constraints of the bridge, the curve, and the setback problems if there was a guarantee that the compaction, the surface, and the drainage were brought up to standards. Mr. Otto was concerned about the word guarantee. Jim Gibson reiterated the entire road was important to all of the Cascade Development, and therefore had to be considered important to TOV. He felt there had to be a resolution on the entire road. In response to Mr. Abplanalp's question as to whether or not TOV was in a position to participate in this, Mayor Osterfoss said it seemed clear that TOV was willing to participate with understanding this was a project with constraints. Secondly, she said, before TOV agreed to participate, TOV needed an estimate of the cost of that participation. Council was representing taxpayers and that inf,,...,atian was needed before any financial commitment could be made. Mayor Osterfass, Tom Steinberg, and Jim. Gibson were agreeable to continuing this discussion before one month if the information concerning TOV's potential cost was available by the next evening meeting. Tam noted this was an SDD which had been split apart and now the different parties were discussing the problems among themselves. But fi ~.~ TOV's viewpoint, it was an SDD, and the original developer had accepted the liabilities, those liabilities were not TOV's liabilities. Mr. Otto argued the issues being discussed were different than the charge Council gave them at first reading, but Jim Gibson clearly Hated Council had suggested that all entities of the Cascade Village borrow the money, if necessary, to bring the road up to standards and then use the assessment levied each year to pay off that Hate, and as soon as the road was brought up to standards, TOV would take it over. Mayor Osterfoss said the issue was not a question regarding conditions of ap~~~,aal. The road either met the criteria far traffic and circulation or it did nat. Mr. Otto said the traffic and circulation to his project had been addressed, but Council repeated the whole SDD had to be considered, not just Mr. Otto's project. After further discussion, Mayor Osterfoss felt TOV was at a stalemate without additional information, and it was determined that the applicants defer to Director of Public Works, Larry Grafel and Greg Hall, TOV Engineer for direction on the criteria needed to be met. Greg estimated it would take one week to obtain the requested information and briefly explained what would be needed. Tom Steinberg called the question and removed the stipulation of the original motion asking for a firm. bid, instead asking for a very solid estimate from the applicants. Mr. Otto asked if it was TOV's position that this road had to be a public road. Mayor Osterfoss said TOV's position was the road had to meet traffic and circulation conditions. Mr. Otto asked if the road had to come up to TOV standards to be a public road. Mayor Osterfoss said she did not think it should be assumed those two things were necessarily correlated or Han-correlated. Tom said the whole road had to come up to TOV standards whether it was private or public 3 in order to improve the circulation within the entire SDD to its maximum ability with the grade, setbacks, and the overhead restrictions already taken off. Before a vote was taken, ~t was agreed to allow applicants to return as soon as the requested engineering information had been presented to Greg Hall for top priority analysis. Tom Steinberg changed his motion to continue this item to February 2, 1993. Jim Gibson seconded the change to the specific date. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Bob Buckley apposed. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance of the T.,,wu of Vail, Colorado, decriminalizing traf~.c infractions; deleting the availability of jury trials and jail sentences for such violations; and m~k;r,o amendments to Title 1Q of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992, on first reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0, Bob Buckley no longer in attendance. Item No. 5 was a requested review of a sign variance request for Curtin-Hill Sports {previously Vail Ski Rentals), 254 Bridge Street/Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Jack Curtin and Teak Simonett. Tim Devlin advised the applicants were not present and requested the item be tabled to the next Vail Town Council meeting. Tam Steinberg moved to table this item to February 2, 1993, with a second fig.,. Jim Shearer. A vote was i~aken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. • There being no further business, Tom Steinberg moved to adjourn to an Executive Session regarding personnel matters, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Respectfully submitted, 1' .~.{.t~~ ~ - MargaretZA. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~~. t~ Pamela A.. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minuses taken by Darianrse S. Ceto C:tiM1NJAN19.93 4 ~~ `~.'"~ .. We the~'•hndersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in V_ai.I Village. The smaller bridge i.s an important part of the intimacy or tn~s c~r~exside area of the Village core. ~~ SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ~. 3. ~~~b1~tCC.~ (~~-' ~ ~J M DN I L~ I,N l~ LD~Ci.C~ t ~~n~ ~ ~ ~ eYs t ~~~1 t)o U ~ ~1 ~~ _ ~, -f=~31~ 4 . Gs ~ ~~ r ~1r'~r c.~ .S~ uo ~ 3 3 ~ l1 r.~ ~ , .~-~~ c ~tLS,.~ ~~ . ~C~z. 5. ~,~ k~r„~`i7,.~~~~ z~zr n~,F2a~r~r~~. ~n.t.~:~l~$ ~f~,~..~eo $t~7 ~zEz~~~ ~. ; M~ ~ ~ n ~.4 er,r~` ~~ ~~et~ .. ~~ (7~ ~~ l ~ ~~ Avg, ~ ~~b zn %Z/~~"/~z 8. r ~ ~CA.fo-n ~i9^1 tm?€n-7 P ~• ~X ~~~5 ~ f~~r5~ ~~ ~~ ~ Z~ jZ1 ~SI°l~ 7 . S ~ J~,~ ~.-. r /~~I:~° 4~I !~ ~ O ~~ J ~7 3 1 l/n ~` ! , l a Y /6 S ~ '~Izl~ ~. ~ ~L~S ,~, S~L~/ ~~ ~~x ~~Y~~~von, Co . l y3 i z . ~ ~ nom-, ~ ''~~. ~'~ .• ~~~ti y~ v , ~ x 7 ~~ ~ /-~- ~' ~N~ ~ / ~i ~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~'' i4. ~~,'_ ~~t~c ~~'y~~i0[~ iG7S CzoreGr~~~ ~~•~3~ ~`"z~~.~ i5. ~8. s ~-./J_ F zz . _, -7-~L/~~ ~;~ti.~l !? Sc ic~f~ ~~ ~ a~~ %~~~ ~i.~l~' [~a~ ~ ~llr~.~~~ ~ ~.3~9~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ f 2 4 . ~ ~ 1 -•C/ ~ r ~ Ul V1~1.~ d J[.~ A ~~ ~ ~ I JQ ~ 1 ~ -~ ~~ `~~ ~ ~ W RECEIVED JAN ~ ~ 'D93 INDIAN PAINT BRUSM 183 Gore Creek Dr, VAIt., CO 81 &57' 1303) 476-4660 _~ t _ ~, s f.f" .. We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. i SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: ),DAATE: r~ ! . ~r:P,(.e1r~'.n.. . ~~.(~C~-- -~, ~ 1 I r rnri ~<r ~ ~ ~rt.e~ ~ ~~~ 87 ~ r; ~ / "`t I ~C~J r. ~ ~ ~ i_I 4. - ~ -r~?~~~ Imo.' ~D~`-`b~ ~r~~, 1~~~ -~~1n ~~i V~~ ~ 5. ~,o""~ ~n.c..t ~ ~ 1~~M w I~rSC~'v ~~D~ ~vuT~~4~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~- s. ' _ ~i~ / ~~v, ~~ ~~~. x.cic.. X93 ~?~co~w~.. ~'r~/c. ~' . ~~ ~_1 x-- r J ~... ___ __. ~~ -~~ ~.~ v~e ~~r ~~dl~ S~r~~~~;d ~ ~ 111 ,1 ~~~-- ~..~ ,~ ! 3. ~, 0 ~~r~~- { ~~ ~~ ~~~ . V`ET'" ~ L.1 rf I jr~ `~~ 1 ~y, ~ { - ~ ` ~ l / v "/ 22. l 1. S ~ ~ of ~C~ ~' l i~~ t.C, 0~~, ~~to.~~ z~ r,~.~-~ 1 ~ S ~ ~ ~A ~ # , (~ ~ ./ ~ ~ ~ ~ RECEI'~~'~ ,~~N ~ 9 f993 . • • We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this ereekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ~ i ~` 2. /~ { ' ` -.....~ ~Qc ~1 \lr ~ C ~nCJX ~~ar?T ~~~ ~C~ ~ ~'~1(p5r'~ (r~~~J 1G!`;.~ } ~- -~- ~ ~ ~.. y , l . JL--J~ ~1v~ i5 ~ ~ W-~~Y ~~~•.~~ ........ .... .. `' ~ _ _ ~ 7 ~ S~ S ~i~4. ~~~J Jr ll~~ r ~ -lam ~~~~ 7. ~~~ v1~l~r~srm ~l~ 1~1v~~ ~ GUG~f ~~~~~~-.-~ ~3 U (f' ~ ~ S ,~~ ~ ~/R. Beac,ln,va,~a~s 13 ~ ~ ~ f !~ `-t`Y t -~. ~h~rn ~ ~-- ~ l l "'~ ~ /~cC.e ,n ~'~ ~ /~ ~.~ ~ l ~ C. i ~l~ r / ~ ~ `~ i ~. ~ ~R ~ u~; ~1 ~ 6~ 6,~ ~1 i ~ . 3 t ~ 's~?~ ~~ rL ill /L1 ~1JIU ~ 5 %. ~ Gv. f~~P,~,~r=~~ ~~ ~ i 6 •~J ~"Z..[. /~G.~~ L~J~~~ ~~7`_" `lI•'!_F_,.Z.G~J ~! C.N ~-GC=.i«.+.~/~~~~ ~r *i lei.-G'~-7rC~L-.--~ ./+~~I~L~ C~ ~/ Z - ~4 ~ ~ . , 11 27 . `~ .~ IJ~ ~o~ ~ ~ (ill. r.,,~~ ~~~ tC-GLi~ i+t,~~ I~.Vn~ ~ ~~+~~ ~L ~~! ~ 7~ U ° VU 22. r_~~,~~ ~_ ~~~~~ r"~~J ~~f~~ f~~z~ ~J,~~: ~~~-yap ~~r~~-sC~,r~- ~~~~s~ ~ ~~ ~ , III ~s P~,w~l ~ ~- 23 . ,,~ /~i J P r.~L~r~ ~ , IkS ~atr g 1~f,~rx .~ '7~~C~ J~ i~~sp ~w~~kf,v. ~,~~ y 2 4 . ~ ~.t..0~.~- ~l~~l ~ ~' r~S ~ L T 1 ~'I .~"~ ~~aS ~~.t' 7SZ S/ 25. ~, ~~~ ~ ~/GZc~ ~~ /C„rsrz~ . r-~~-' L AEI 1 l7 t ~~ ~~ ~ ~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the sma11 bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part o£ the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village care. SIG ! N ME: ,~ ~-DDRESS: DATE: ~~ ~}~ (J ,~ 4 . ~ -~ Gam- S~hc - ~G~ ~ ` ~ ;~ ~ ~~.~ ~ .~ ~ , ~- $ ..~l', ~ ° ~ ~~ffs~~ ~~o Rte. /~~ %,17~~~.~ ~~ 5~,. Z ~2 ®1 ~ ~' `? f Y ~- - ~` i/!` ! L ~c~~f::uC7r'r~J f/7' //{~U ~Y' !'d H c~ f G'G~r' ~ ( ~~~~,, . _ /~ 13 . r~ ~C.CI.(~-~_ J ~/f~2c.i d`~d/ .~ ~( -~ ~~`f '1~'t l L_ .~7J `2/ ~ ~-! ( l~ /%`/ 7~ ~. ~ ~oa~ ~aY~1 ~~5 ~ f~r~,~? ~.~ ~ y ~93 t /, ~ ~ ,,/ ~ . ~ ~~r~.c_. ~ . ~ , ~-~ ~r~s~- ~ `~ ~aQ~ fie. lr~.~~ ~~i~~~ . ~ p ~ ~.___C 9.~ U 16.,U~ \~e:'l~~~j} ~ ,chi\~e~m;~e~~ `7l~'o S.oa-~~-,3~~Ye~~s Svc. F~,L~v'P ~,r~'~~~,~ 17. ~~ - 1 ~ ,~ y 21 C ~~1~/~ ~~ ~ l c~~M.~~~ t Z 7D ~S~ ~,~i ~ ~" /~~/~-~~ ~?~ 33l'7G 2 2 . ~- " ,~ :'2 d s s-•.,a--~> (:s-fl i C_ C~p2 G ~~ awva-a-..~ ~ `~° s 6 ~. l .~ r g ~ ~t7 ~7 . P,n i ,4 .~.~ ( ~ ~ , ~3 ~ /1~ 23 / f ~ i7~ )~9~'~ r~j9-SS/~~~ ~15~ S, w. 192 6~h iZ~/~~l ~ ~3/,f~ ~ :~ / ~ t _~ , , REG~'IV~'~ JA~~ 1 9 199 • ,~ ,.. We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International, Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge. is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village .core. ~SIG]NATURE; NAME: ~. t~ 3. ~~. ~ ~ ~ Imo, 4. r~tf'.~Ltl.P ~.~~v s. ~~r,,,,,1.~-~.. ~aao~ 9. ~, ~P „ '~ 3 . ~ 14. /I,/~-,ri 1 s . ~~f;~-~-~ ve r~~ ,- ~ 8. ~ C ~,'rc ~ o ~ oc?~n 19 . ~aMn ri , l~^ ~.t /~ C/,~,~77, {.~f-~/,f V . ~ ~ ~I^7~ SRC ' zz. ~~ ~~ ~4yd~:~--. ~~ ADDRESS: DATE: ff ~ ~~~5.. ~C/Ijn-w'i a X1.0 ~ 9~ `~' ~ ~c~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ ?~, (I~ ~~~ Asa r c~ ~ ' ~a ~~~ ~~' ~,,~v`c w~Y ~~ ~~ .. ~,~~ 11.1_~o~J6~1rc-u~~J,~ 1.~~~r{v~ ~©I ~f~c /~5~~d~e~i~-~~r~ ~~~i ~~~~~9f~a ~ ~~ ,~~,-mss ~ ,~~~1 ~ ~/ `~ ~-~ ,, ~~ ~ l I ~ ~l ~-~ ~ ~ L S ~ S~_~ ~ ~~~~~rJ~-~ .. 8J S. n, 7 L~ 5.~~ ~ Rey 9 4~~! i 'o' p/6.kry, ~>} ' :Y sma~ _ Vail.: 13 ~inti~ l cy. a 2 3 4 5 9 net e~' so ~ ~ ;a~,#ace .~ t alle li~ dg eks d~~ yea y:/~,~ TSA~st/5 ;d.~(cp~r ~. ~~ `~~~~ ~~. ~~ ., Z ~~6 ~ ~~~ k !~ DATE e k ~! ~ N ~, a ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ IA ~ N 13 .~l~~o C~ ~~=~ ~ Y _ ~ ~ ~ s~ e /~~3 // 16.1" ll ~ P #"l~~ ~ ~~ t~ { " l ~ l~~ ~ , r~~~,~. ~~ ~3 22 ~~,1~"~2~C c. I //y~ J~J f l~ a 19 . ~/ {~ .. °~ C~~ ~~'"~ ~~O " 4' ~ ~?j ~ •~j~Yl.4C,~, .V ~ ~ ~G[i ~ ~ t~~~3 ., ~ ~ ~~ ~i,~~~ ~~ ~ ' ~ z4 . ~~ ~~ 2 5 . ~ ~-,. ~ ~~~~ .~ TAE r~ ~, ~ ~ ~~~r n the Town of~ Va~ ' to ~~~p the o the In~ rn ' io al <:Srid '' in e is an i ~- an }art v 4.~ the Vi~~I' ' e `.~. -~ ADDRESS: ~' ~~t/Gr.~ urn ~''~."' ~~~tztll,l,~- RECEIV~17 J~`~' i 9 ~99~ S~QN TURF?'a- f • We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small. bridge located adjacent to the International Baridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. ~S~NATURE : ~~ ~ ~ .2. ~fi,l`~J7 ~h n ~nf r' ~. S. 6. 7. 9 .' ~ ~'t ~•(,!~~- ~r~.c.,.sv-~ NAME: ADDRESS: /,s~ DATE: //jF 4~f/lrlS~/"1e Jar 1 ~3 ~~f ~~~% ~~./1~~7'~ ~~~ ~c~h~. L~o1~- ~Dk 3zR'~ f/'~ ~~~9 ~i~ ~~ ~ ~ r~~~ ~~~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~-4ti1~, ~~-~ ~~ L.it~ ~-- L rat ! ! ~ ZI4,.~ d"Cy f r'4~ ~t crh ~' •h L"3 / ~ 4J /~' LV' ~75 d'~~ ~L/,~e ~g `• c+ -. e !/ f ~6~ ~g~li~~r ~ era V L~I`~C~ 1N -e . [o'?f~ l,~t~l0~ ~' .«~~~~-T VC~r I. ~ (<<~ l t ~ ~ ~T ~ J~~ ~ -- ~ a , r - ;~ U ~ 1/_/Jal 13 . ~ ,v ) ~,~o ~--~ C~O u ~ ~ F_ /Ja ff ~C'. S ~~ ~9 t~ ~ ~ ~,~ 1 ~ ~r ~'` ~ Y J~C 16. ~'r-oa /V2wh~~.~ ~~ 5~ i-~gise~~T~i'~~J-rem o~~~ 1-~~/~- 9 3 r { ~ 1 (~ /f r~ / ~~~_i~c 1 7. ~ ~ Y~f~~._:!! 1/vr~ v1. i 1~-~ d- ~- ~1/~...1 ~ c~ S Via" /I'@--~c',.~-~-~~ ~ _~ `I~~.~' 18 . ~ ~IrIGt ~~ .1`tlV ~T (!~ ~~ 19 . , ,. -~/ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ij ~ ~ ~r ~1 ..~ 1 z ~ ~~-T t~~rrz~v~ ~ ; ~"~ 17 . U.~.N V-1~¢~ ~~-~v~c-r~~ E`i~~~-4~,1 ~j~ '/,?/ Z~d3~ ~~~S~~F~ ,. ~~~ 21 . ~le..rs41Z-~// ~I/U~ %~ 5 / ~~ de~~ i~i~ /"'di I Zr~~ c: ._~ !~~)J ' ` .~ 23. ~ ~ ~ 5 i /fin ~ ~~if~~ ~~ _ ~ _ ~ . 24. ~1k,f~Il~ ~;U~~~ o u N~ ~-~n id 25. l~a~ ~~ ~d ,~ f ~ ~~~~,,.~,~~ c~~ Cam. s RECEIVES JAN t 9 ~g~ • ~r We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vaal Village. The smaller .bridge is an important part of the ~aintimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. 1. IGNATURE: ~~J Jl./~ G~ i /{~~[ ~~- ~~ .~ ~ ~„ DATE: ~~~ ,.~./ `~~ {~~~~~_~ ~~~-~~ i--~-~~ ~~v~G~ NAMF,~' ADDRESS: (1 ~.~~~Ir~ r c~,1'! Pf f ~~ J ~ ~~ y ~~ 9zgfl oa ~ec.c~a~•,a.~2 sZ N,~ - ~ ~; t. ~fD. 5~~a X D~Q l5./(Ut~"~ ~~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~_ t10 ~ ~ 11 [ a3 ~ ;? ~ .~ ...~ .-.~--~r - ~~ 14. .7a~ !~-~ ~Pr~ ~ ~~~« r~~ ~ f ~ ~~r 9 15 . ~C `~~~~~c f v(~ V l ~ / " ~ `~-~ e/~ i~ l~~r~c..u~ Y-Jn ~~ Y ~ -~ G ~~~-~ ~ r ~ ~. ~ , ~ ~ ~Z~/ t 19. s~ 27. 22. 23. 24. 25. i-~~~ ~~ t~1~=93 R~'~~~11~~ JAS 1 ~ 19~~ ~ ~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small. bridge located adjacent to the Intez~national Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: t Y~~~ ~ . ,t ~ .~ L It ~~ ~~ 5 ~ 1 VYIA.~C-~~ ~)4.)-.~ 1!~],~ ~e~'G'~~ \ 1 1l._ ~c)~k" .~~ ~ ~4 ,fie l ! 6 , ~~ ~ +G f _ G~. ~Z ~/~ k,Il l'i ~G' ~ lu.A~ llif ~, ~ cz s • ~C= ~Or ~-l~i?i9-y~ t~~ • 131 g t ~~`~ Vt~cl~n ~i 5 ~{ ?`G~ r i c.%Lt cJA.~ S ~c3 ~3ax a. ~ .~Vdi1 4 I (pdU l z./~ 1 3 ~ ~ ~ ~} ] 3 . ~`-'' C~-'~'!V/~ .SGT ~lr'`~-~ ~cxS ~ ~'~ ,j C~ ~ ~ G~Q ~~ ~ J'`~'ac~.C~ ~ ~~1~ ~;~'~j~ ~~ ~z.~~ 1 ~ . ! 1 ~Y~-a. i ~~i ~ ~`1v~n~f, 1 ~f/~~~~~'lf~./_.//~/ G-~L'+^'~ I C9 ~©~ Y7~V ~r~ j ~U`l~ ~ `~ ~ t ~J ~ I ~~~ I 15 . ((%/1~,1y~( ~nA ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~r%~Y~~ ~J"~+4[.La Y i ~C7 ~ ~ i lam, I ~j ~ f-~ ~~ .~ ~Gt~°)C;Gj ~Clr ~~~~-~ ~ r~ - . ~ • _ ~- ,.. We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the sma11 bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: 2. cir~~i ~-~-~r,~c. ,l~c~txzrr~ I'~(a Gv C-~ Gz~ ~ pr /2 ~ l9.9z 3. ~~~~~~ l~QE-Gf ~I~.cyi~ X ~ y~/al ~f ~~~ L<f ~~ R l~. ~3/~6 1 Z- i5~sz 4 . ~i~!/1.~~"~ ~ /~,~/~,~ ~ `r'nL.~~ ~i ~ 1-~,~~ /?C~, Bow ~~ / ~ ! f Z ~ l 9 -~'~- r ~ /~ ~.~lt ~`d ~~_ .~ ~ ,~ /J"I ~~.~CL1~,2 APT `~~ 5~/G, tlA~~~'~ C~f`~~~`~--- i 7. .. ~,~-~~ ~t45~4 N ~1~27f! 325c~ +~ , C1t~f0~ ~" 3 ~ ~~ (~(~~5`~ IZ~~~~~ Z ~ . . ,~~ 7 a3~-~--- ~~. ~ ~c~ ~'~ m rat •~ ~ Z 1 N _ !°---~2?~r~ r2 t~. k.~ ~~° ~ ~l l `1 / 1~ r~-- ~~. ~c~~ ~~~ir~a~ ~a~ y~~ ~~~~~af ~a. ~~~~~ - r~/~r ~z ~ / ~,4~. c r 13.~M ~ t~Lthn~lt~~ ~~~.~~~ `~tI-P ~~ ~•~~ ~~~L~. I ~f~~~ l ~r~ 1 ~~_ - - ''ii ~ ~ <~ ~~ -~ _ _v ~~ ~o ~ ~ ~ .~~ 1~~ e•~Nk 21,E ~,_ ~_ ,~m a C~~ ~.m ~~x a~ t~ ~ Val - 2- ~ ~- ~2 f ~ r 22. ~ /' .,~~' T ~1 G~~ ~r ~~'~~ ~~~I ~ 1 Z-1 ~'' i Z ~J 2 4 . _%f/ //~l~ ~.v~-.ell /~/i ~//~91a~'' ~~~/.v~ l l ~` `~ W_~i~~~ ' ]~ ~ r I ~ r f ~ • `~' ~ ~i , ~p ~-v 25 .i G'7l-..~ ~! ~z-- ~C~~rin.~ ~r N~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~Yvr~S V~ ~ t Z. ~ I ~ ~ ~~ RE~~IVLD JAS f 9 l99~ • • We the undersigned petition the Town o€ Vail. to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village, The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: f~, Y ~ ~ /~'. -~~/ L2G!~~'.~-°`-~ /f!%~/~5/,~'f~d~v ~~ /d~ ~"J . ,~i1 dry t'~~ ~]~l-L ~,, / ~ I f / `--"",~"7 ~-~~' C yJ dO ~Yly l.~n G~~~9'~EJ ~f ~ ~~.i ~ ~ `~-.. ~ ' f i ~a •, ~„ ''~j 7 /C ~+~5!~ n v v ~ ~ ;~ , I ~ 1 ~DG ~ c.J c~v ~ .~r- /~fi ~s ~2 ~1. G`~ r~'a .~ ~.. 14 . ~ L j S ~ ~[,F ~-~~~Aa ~ ~ ~l S c, ;ice ~~- ~ AJl ~ ~~~ ~ . ~ 1~~~ I~P ~e~t S l f 5 // ~ ! 2 ~ ~ ~, 15 . J~~I-~ ~- ~ P~ ~ 6} ~ GC. ~ L P G~ ~ a ~ ~ 2 D ~~.1-r-.~ /T . ~L.~ 11~~~~. ~Q~ 1 ~. ~;~ ~Gn,~ ~~ - ~r~~x d7c~v { S ~ ( ls~ IU~ce.l~r~~nu..~ f ~ ~ I~r~~- 1 8 . ~ ~Z~J'd !/(~ C,4.J Y ~z~ 1.-~ ~+~ ~ /~ ~T ~ ~ 1 L ~ Y~I'T r- #~ NCi 7lt~N i~ ~ ~ ~ f°I _ -_ ~ ~ a 19 . ~t ~111~ f~ ~ ~~ r~. ~ ~~ ~ o~~ ~~-i l ~ r~ . 12 .~t,Ll' ~l ~U~ l~.J rl ,~- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S h1P .~,: c~~..~ .~~y~c~.9,cr1~c~~~ l ~~~ I ., ~~~ 24. ~.[~ _. 1.~',~~a ~~~l~~r loll ~J ~- ~se~~~~ ~~• ~ 1, j~~ tr~ ~)) 2 5 , °`x ~ ~ .rte... ~ G~ ~ 7~(~. J~Pr~ t7 ~ .`~-e..'-, ~-~ ~S ~ 1 ' t u cr~~ ~.~.. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ u We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village care. SIGNATURE: NAME ADDRESS: DATE: 1 ~~~~ ~r:~__ ~Y~/~P,~1 ` ~~ 51 ~t,~ `~~.~ 4 5 r~ ~ S ~.~~ .0,~.,..A~ . r~ ~s,:-~ i C'v t z - z. 3 - ~ z.. _ P - 4 0 J~-- ~I..~ PeT~~ ~ ~ !/~ ~ o~° ~ 6~K~-~,~ r~~ r~ / l e~ fz~a~/~z - G~~ `~ ~ i -- r I 9 . ~ o~nti~PJ~ . ~ rz,~~~r ~e i-~ Vl ~ ~cr~`- `~Cc Gf, S~ ~ f ~ ~ - ~o .~ V n ~„~s~ ~ ~~YLC.~.vr ~eyt_ +rts o~ ~ D--t ~ LU , ~ 1 Z~Z~ ~? Z `/~ .-r~ 11 . /~ ~1~1-- ~~{- ~J ~~ ~ VI.S C~~ ~~, ~fl f 1 ~C ' ~ L~ 2~6 1~)~- 12. ,~-~, J ~ , ~~ ..~- 13. G%G~ . -~ ~~•~~-~~IL"fC7"I~C'~, ~1l 1~~~ ~~t~1P ~!~ ~~/oz~~o~ r 4 y ~ r~ ~~ ~ i.U 1 ~,/(/~ ~ hct w^E~PVI`~. ! I~.t) ~!L'?L7`L° it Il~~'~7 GU •m~tn r r~ ~~1 ~'Gup~ S c~ 16. Gr•~t.Q~~P .P~~r~ .~ a ti ,. rte. -v ~ 17 . ~~ (An„ 1..~C ~iv~-~.....4-~ 2.Q/~ ~l ~ s /~ n P (~ P ~V ~ vin vrn ~ l ~ ~2 ~ ~ - `~LZ ~ .1f ~ `~ V1 ~1 ~ L'~ L~ I n 1 a . ' ~~~.tr~r;~~c ~~ ~G~r .,o.d~ `~L ~ls t ~ ~r-~,-~-,r,~.Q e :~~ c, j~'X ~~u l~~ l~rp~ p ~ / ~ ~t it ~- ~~% ~ ~ ~, f//J /,`{ /f /}~ i ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ ~~. ~®~a 2 I+ r ~ ~ -~~ YV ~ fJ r / f.l~ ~ 2 4 . ~ ~~~~'I - ~~ ~ ~. ~ i~,rn ~ S7D i~t~ ~ I ~59.~ ~trl~l ~P vrc~2 V Lt~.~ % ~-~/~ ~ 1 -' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ },, We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important paa~t of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. ~~ SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: _. ~ ~ 3 . - ~ ~ ~-S ~ 6. 43 o-x ~ ~ '~ J ' (0 ~ 2 ~ C~ /~ /~ ,, f~"" / .. 5 .~k--t-~-~Cr• ;~ • ~7~C° ~~'~ii ~ : SCr frC wit h , ~GrL-~-~G9'6~ /~~ ~ ~~x/S~'/~~~~~ ~. " / ~ _ -~ __ 7~,~' C- CiH ~J r~ L / /D ~ ~ ~ .G,+.~; . , ~ 1~ 4~ P.l ~i ~ / ~J 2. 7 . ~ P~~Ixr ~~ /Y c~ 2~I f ~r4-a~~P_.r/~P~'~ ~ ~ / ~' ~ ~~F~l ~~~~ f r t ~ w _. 11 . ~~ ~ !.J ~~ ? 5~ ~aCJO ~: UC' 2c ~:~--- )}~ ~5-~ ~ ,J % ~' ~75~G f z ~~1' ~„ '~ 2 . .~,~ }~`~L.L-~..a`tl ~~- + ~2.1 J ~~~ ~'~- ~ ~ 1 ~'~ L~ r2-a.~ C ~l~ f L.~ ~cr/S ~. r ~ ~ 14 . ~ ~ ~ I~ /~l~l II ~ ~ ~- ~l K r~ 'Z t 1~ 1 ~~ b ST '~~~-U~f ~~~?l ~ l z ~ 3~~9z 18 . ~i -Ck /?,1 ~ ~~1-~/~Ir~7 f~ ~$ ~ 1 V Z ~Q ~ r",~~~:.1 ~ trJ ~6 1~C~ ~ t! 1~ t P..(~1~ ~ ~ 1 ~ /`~ 1 ~ ~ i ~' i / I 1 9 . ~ ~ f..~li~CFT .~t3.1(b~,: ~i~iG c.•~t.c.3r~ i ,. j' . QJ~. ,/y, 1 ~ •~i~Q14~2~n„ ,~J Shan~~~~, ~[[~~/n lr~~l~ SC~~~('.?• ~~Q1Gs ~-k~~e~C ~- l ~ ~ 3 -- v _~ zz.. ~,~ ~~r}scr.~~-, ~~hv~ s~ ~~ Cam, t.~- d~cl~ic~.~vv~~.-~`~ E f ~~'~ J ,. 2 4 ,~~'.c-~-~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' rv. 2.L.- ~ ~`j5 1 ~1 '2.~ c_Q~,-~c~,~.y C~. ~~/~a..,•, I-...~.Q ~ ~ 1' ~? ~ J (()J ~--,~ ~- i ! ,~ . ,~ . We the undersigned petition. the. Town o€ Vail. to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the.lnternational Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an. important part o€ the . intimacy of this creekside area o€ the Village core. S,1~GNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: 2 . ~ . ~ ~D ~ ~k fig- ~il ~'1 ~ ~ ~~~2c~ ~ ~- ~J~ z~ - ~~ ~jJ ~ ~~ ~/~ 4 _ t~"3Q Svn~c~v S~" vt C~til , ~ ~z ~ `z~~ ~i~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a-ti fir ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 . l./~1~.~ - P ~v~ vi - ~l ~c .; c ~o n r s S ~c~C 3 ~ ~ V /~F r ~ 1 Z. ~ Z"~ . U 13 . R, a ~ ~f x.37 Sj~c`~'~~~Si,~t Cy~rc°. ~~.~~~ lf,~ ~~a~ i 4 ~ ~~ _.. G, ~~z t~ ~~5~ t1~~~~ ~r~ a ~.~~y~", _~ 16 . G~ _t ~ . ~..~-z- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~//~' J f/'J y / i 8.~ _ l ~~'"""~ . ~ L ~-F r i ~f ~J C'1 ~ ~~ 1_.~...._~ ~r r` /~..._ ~•~- 'r?~ ~ /( C. .~... r ) I S '/ S ~ 2 2 . C I~ ~ ~ ~) .~L , ~~~f (~' ~~. ~ YV4~- ~ ~ i_~ /.~,,C~ rC~ QI 6 ~ ) ~ Y~ _ 'r~~~ 23. ~)Z.~S.4~2. ~~ ~ ~~~ .tJ~ ~ .~ (~S~~k~-~~,5' ~~..~©. C l1~'~~ .~.~~~1 l~~ +~ ~ 7`" 2 5. 1 ~Cl~l r. ~~ .V )~.~P [ ~l G~ ~~!~-~~~ ~~~r~i ~~ ~ , ~ ~n nlT~ ~-~ ~~,,~1 ~!1 ~1 ` ~~ R~CEIV~C~ JAN 9 1993 ~.e"~vr h ' fiG~ INDIAN PAINtBRUSH 183 Gare Creek Dr. VA1lw, Cb 81657 (303} 476-4660 U L' We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the . intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: 1 2 . /~ -/~ ~+ /dam l/"_" ~ l C. V l I ~ ~ ~ , + { , ~ ~ f l 3. ~-~~~`~~ J ~~'~~ ~c~i~-~irYS` ~dv~Lf~ .Zi~~G,€"" Caal~ !/UO~9~ ~U / ~,• ~-, r 5. ."., ~ J~ ~S~'.~/t-~ -~i~ ~ 1~~~ ~ ]~~r.~~ d~i" 1 ~ ~1. Ccr'z for ~-~. 14 ~ ~-3, ~ ~ ~,. r v ~ 33`711 v 7 . ~iC~ ~ ~ f~r'r'~~n ~ C~ /~exi r~s_ ~~ ~ z .~r-~"7 ~l~sn ~t:1 ~_ ~l ~`~,3 ~j~ ~ d ~1,,/ 1 $. /~~~C,(/d~-C~ ~ ~ ate( c~ee./"~ ~y1~ IC'f ~l c~wr~ la. t3 (3 ~v- ,F/lo.,Jf~t~`F= e27. !/w7 /73 9 . ~} + ~ l ' ~~~r . 'ice. /~ ~tl ~ ("`J'~N~`JG~,,.. ~ •\ ~/4 / T~F ] 1 . ~~~ ~~ 1 SI SS~~ ~ ~n.G~p~ .S 33~ ~/~,~. Cro Jjll t~-S3~ ~ ~~~~ r~ y ~y i r i 12._ ~ ~fl^.~~ _ ,fA/N ~"~ ~~_ U1_!A ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~-f;~~l~i~! ~f;~~ D l ~.~)1~G~. ~J ~i~ Y f ~'fC~~f ~. f ] 3 . !-~C_ ~`~' ~ ~ ~ L ~ r ~ 1 ~ C.~ 4-3 C.(~ ~, ~-:.~ v (C~ G { +~ e le , 2j a c.a~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4. ~~1z.rybe~-~1 ~.,V-Sa~1-~ ~~r~~a YU~t~ Y3rr.~ ~r~ S~t~'11ri.~~P .. Fl ~ ~ ~~ s~ ! t ! ~~~,~ 7 5 ./ ~ (] /.GJIA. i WY~iU .~ ~ /A/j /,[~•4 I/P.( / ! '!i7?1.! T[.If i/!~/ `~/ . ~Y % /y1 ~.« G ! Y%~~ ~ ~ r n r ~~ 2 2~ ~~~. fir? ~r~~ ~~U~~ ,,~~e~~~?~ ~ ~~~1 -~ .~~G~~cJ~`lC~F~'r f ~~iC~ ~.1 ~~/1~`l ~~~ `.,?~..1`~,.~ ..;;. € _ 22 . l c : l\.-r \C.~J~f~'~. .:;:.d ` r ~ ~ V~~d~-'`ti ~ /1 ~1~ ~ f , .. ~ r. ' ~r~,,1.J~, t ~ -~~ LJ ~. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. p7, ~Q 9. ~• 11. 12. 13. r l We the undersigned petitio small bridge located adjacent t Vail Village. The smaller bridge intimacy of this creekside area ST~NATURE: ~ ` _~ ~cdl P ~~~ ~~~~ ~; ~ r [[, A ,~~. i r. i ~/ i l 74, _ U i5. ~ i6. ~)) ~~~~:~ 17.~~t~1lU[a ~5~~~ ~ I 1 s. "~-_~`s ~Le. ~ ~C~ 19. ~ :.tee I~~~ ~~li amS r 2i . ~ ~ -- ` 22 .~- ( `. z4 l(r~LG~/C ~~~~~,ti • n the Town of Vail to keep the o the International Bridge in is an important part of the of the Village core. NAME: ADDRESS:/v DATE: ~d , ~ G~~~~ ~/~~ - "~~.!~~r~ r~.~pl.~ ~ ~- tom.-- i 3 .~.. , ~ ~ ~ mod. ~~~ s,~ ~~~~ ~' ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~C r ~~ 7~~ V ~ 1 C~ /~1~~~ ~ . [~. d~~~~ fin/ r~ 1~. 3 - ~~. 1 ~ ~ ~n~ri,~c~..~15' f I ~/ 93 ~~ - ~ ~ ~~ fz ~ ~._-. ~~lf~ ~.r.G~l . ` [/~. ~~ ~~. ~T~S, QIV ~ ~Id ~ +~v~ l~yi ~ ~ ~I~ .~ i ~i G[ ~ ~ r° -~~~~~ ~ 5~ 3 ~ ~.e~ete.~ ! ~. ~, 4. ~'Icx~.u ~ :fit . t1-t e~P ~ j ~ 3 I `~3 ~~~iy~ J~~ i s ~~. We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the international Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the . intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. S IGIJ~,cTURE : NAME : ADDRESS : D TE,: i~3~~~ 2. 3~ 4~/ s .~ 6. 7. 8.~ s. ~~ ~~. J t r ~ ~3f[/ .f `tv~,Gl~ ~~~ff/~ ~!/'7 8` L~.aQCfz.tlod~ ~n~.~,~L~/l ~f~i ~./3~~.~~ ~...~ ~ ,~ /r1,~ s~,~~~ 773 ~.~, ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~,~ ' /( i,,,~ ~ {4-r~~,., O ~Ct~ ~~`Y[ ~ • ~/ 0 Lt N P .! I ,< ~ t ~7 ~ E. ~~v.~ ~~, W a ~ ` _ '~ 3 1 r ,~ ~~ ~~ r~ . ~"~ ~y'/Ir1Q~f'7„~~iV a~~Q ~l~~/~'~/L (°8. ~i~/N~J'iTr gf~;7 '! 2.~~ .1:7~i~ /„1~ ,G/ .Fshl~, s X33?S ~~~~.- Si.ftY'~-Ct eNc~~HC{~M 1~.~ ~azra~~' ~l~?~~ 13. +'r~-~-l~, /~~i~, .~-~C_.Q , ~b+.s `. r~ l J~~.,~_ l D ~~~ ~~'L~? ~~L~UC~1~ ~< ~ '~1~ ~~';~~~ : t U ~ ~,, ;~ ~ . ~, 14 . ! ~ ~~~() . l~A$~~ ~~1~ ~.V R, WI ~ r~ ~t~ ~~ Sew ~e.~ r ine .~-P I X ~~0.~, i ~ ~,'1 ~ ~,,..~ ~. s 2 4 . {~ / ~j l l We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. S IGNA~~jRE : ~, NAME : ADDRESS : DATE ~j~~ 3 ] • / ~~ /'/ i~! /~IcC~Jt~I'~t k]oX 3~ ~ . Va r ~ ~~ ~~'~eCs ~. ~Suza,me. ~c~tlre /~~ ~3~~>,< 1la~L / ~,~ 3 . ~ Z .~!.!~ ~ a.~e.c.~i~.-..~ ~.itlsC ~a.vic! Sen ~O?C ~ S/_~ •l/~J~~ ~~~~ 4. ~ ~~ ~~La,Q XS9o% 9~l~ 5 . ~~~- ..~~ ~ a36 T n R~~ l~J~t,~r- BUY t --l~--g,3 /~ /~ ~~~ 6 . _ ~ ( .~rlb 4 ~7 O rt2~r Reh ~r. (...off . ~ 'o l~ r 9 . ~ ~~"Y~~ ~`'~'~ !-LOL"!~ ~ _ ~ f ~ ~G~~-~{~t~ ?5'7~ ~iV ~rin~`~' fir. rC--~3 ~~ , C? ~ ~ r sue- zr ~ ~~-r Y ~ 3 ~ v 1 ' ~~ ~ _ ~st.ro ( [ .r'r, C,~ ~ ~ Yd l03 (1•x;1 ~~`~ ~' ~' ~-~ 15. 16. 77. 18. 19. 0. 1. 22. 23. 2~. 25. R~~I~f~"~ ~~ ~ 1 9 t~~~~ • ~ We the undersigned petition small bridge located adjacent to Vail Village. The smaller bridge intimacy of this creekside area ~ SIGNATURE: NAME: the Town of Vail to keep the the International Bridge in is an important part of the ~f the Village core. ADDRESS: DATE; ]. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~~~ 21. 12. 13. 14. . 15. 16.. 17. 1$. 79. 20. ~. 22. 23. 24. 25. ~..~..; } ~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the Tnternat%onal Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. ~~ ~1G TUBE: N ADDRESS: DATE: ,~ ~ . 2 . tai ~ ~t~.o. Yt,~ ~~~u- `3 7 `~/D ~ ~ ~'~. ~ ~9~9~ ~ - ~~ 4 . ~ / ~_~~'~-W ~ ~; _ ~~ - ~ ~~~~ // ~- j~ '~ - , ~ ~ ~. 11 . ~ .~~.8-t. f-7 ~ ~~1r~2..1 i~ ~`]hC ~i ~i ~ ~ ~~'tV ~ '= ~ ~ -~' ..~ ~'+ ~~~ ~ 13 . Q~ i Y ~lt~,~ c.~ ~..~~ CLI E1~ ~~i ~ ~ ~~.?r 1,710 ( ! ~ ~.,~ ~~ ~ ~ 14 . ~ ~'wL U ~~ ~--~i~,...o+~~ - ya °~ to`z-f 4' ~ (~- ~3 a ,, 1 ~ t ~:. ~.~~ 19. 0. 1. 22. 23. 24. z~. ~~~~~~~ E¢~~ ~ ~ ~9~~ r ~ ~ ~~~~ Mus4 be vri4hir~ 3D ~~ys ~ , Must have s~l~s r~c~ipt ry~~ ~ We the undersigned p~tition~'the.!~°a~a~Vai~ tdvkeep the ~~ C,~ small bridge located adjacent to t~h~ International. Bridge in ! • Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the~Village core. SIGNATURE:_ NAME: ADDRESS: ~~~~ /~u ~~ /~ / ,ar` 4 . ~ r f ~'Cv-~ j~.U 6 . ~ ' ~ _ 6° !/i~~ ~1~/1/th.~ ~ ~ ~ I'~'t l ~. . ~ ~~~ ~~~.~ - ~D i ,o. ~ 1 ~~f~~.~`7~~~ , 13. Ili: /~,(,~„ 7 4 ~~~~I.rt~1~.u~ _ 9- 15. 18. ~G ~.~ ~ ~ ~~_ ti 1 ~ n ~~ i)11~~1U }~ ~ ~~~ _~ . ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,~,~~ ~~ ,~ ~,._.~, s~uJ~~~~~~, v~~ ~~ DATE: ~/~ ~ ~~ --~ ~ `z. I ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ Z~~S~~ T V~~=~~~ Y -~~ ~~ ~ (~ ~ ~ 1Z •z~-~i~ l~ ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~~_ac - ~z Ga /~~~/c1 r~- rylz8 ~~~ ~~ ~i ~~~n ~~~, ~ ~ ~~~ ~E 1 ~ INDIAN PAINT BRUSH 188 Gore Creek Dr. VAII., C4 8165T (303) 4?6-4660 ~~ • ~~ ' ~ , a / : h We the undersigned petition-the 'd'own of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the~Iriternational Bridge in • Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ~ . ~ L~., ~.v~-r~ Mar ~e -~-jUh ~- G~ x ~a~ ~ ~~n ~~ . ~/~a-~ ~~/~- /~~~ ~~ - L[ ~ ` i 3. `~Y~~~~ lln~lo~ ~~ ti/lr~rr7_ ,,~~~] !~-~c~~,n~,~~~~ -~-~. g1~.5~ X21 ~-, ~ pia f ~- r 4. 9 l ~l~ l ~ ~~~~ 7i~ 4~Ic`~x3~r ~c~c~-I~~ ~VOn ~ ~~ ~l(.~.~0 ~a~~/9~- 1n~ ~~ r 7 . ~ ,rn,c_d.~ ~ ~~; ~" ~ - _ ~ si Z ~ ~seb u~- ~ I fr r 1 ~~ 1 r ~ S~ o . ~ _ r~ ~ 1Ja,n ,~ ~ ~ U~~ o .~ ~r r ~~. ~ 1~~ ~. ~~~ 1, r~.--mss ~~- ~.~~ 11 .~~ ~ . ,~/~ `t1`--- ~-I~c~~jt_ 1L{i~~C'nCL7~ ~~~_~( ~~iZZ ~ ~C'.~..1 ~.t~ 17_7.7_/ ,7 s~I.~a 12 . " ~,` ~~ 0°~(' (',i ~~i , ~ ~hP ~l'P .~'ti ~~i"Y ~Ckx~ i 71C `~~~ a~ ~(5 ?~ }r'7 /~ j (~ h ~5l (~~. 13 . Caw P11~~,,.A (~ ©Q ; ~ l ~ A~ 2 ~v ~ J'~j ~ ~ ~j'~ (~ v a.<.Q ~ 6 - ~ j k ~ ~ 14 ~l~",`~.li~t ~~ ~') ~VY~ ~1,~1~~ ~~1~~ (1~'~'7~ SC~~ 1~;~1~,I~~R~ ~Ibs~/~-~ 6. ~ /~~1/I9~Cei ~~,~ ~a/7i9 t C /Y J.l~~ ~~~~/ ~}/..1,a.o7'hrr~.~ ~P5~~61i% ~~'.5`/~O"~ ~S'~ 17. Mn/rtJ. ~jl~nn M. Snn.i~ , i~~/~`/~7 !-1;V~~~ ~ c~ ~917:~-C~ /~- ,~~~~ i 8 . ~~-t~~. ~af II.,.r~~ ,<~ G1 ~ d~L- r~C~' `~' T ,~ vG'~ ( ~0 ~~/ z C~ ~~~~-~/9 ~. 19. ~Ir~ l ~1~'4 (~. C7 ~, ~~,~I~~J~~. _}~k c~ i r ~ ~i~~C~~~w!r~r~4~ l~u ~~~~~ I ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ !!~ ~ ' ~ -~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the • intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ,. . 1 . %~ ~` ~ _ -~ ~ ~i L-_~•l6r~l S ~'~„~~ arc ~.~ti'~~ ~/2~`~'-~ 3. 4. ~ G~~~•~.-'~' !`~ICJ~]~f~c~ ~1/~S~.~C,~ `.:~'~c> Lf~rJSi-i~i.1,~ N1eat..f~. i'7 ~ ~ "S s, ~1~11~~' ~~~C ~G'IY~€~:L"1 l~i~r~ :~(~~l)d/1/ UI-F ~rr~1~ 7~? ~_ f I ~ ~ c ~ I ~ ~ v 0 1 T(1 LG /~Z ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ : « ~~7z~ . ~ 1n,~ , ,~ I , r r 13 . ~l~i~~1~ v ~1~ l S~1V ~ (l V~Iri~~'~Yl ~ ~ ~~ ~il-~1'~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~.~ 14 . Qit~ i (~-' r(9/~~ ~~~p t ~ 1-'~ ~ ti GNR~5611J Nab ~hr~v~,~ ~~r~oa~~ i 15. ~}`,'~ ~i.~ ,~ r ~~ 6~i~~~/.~-l.~I .5~~~=~. rriC%~- .3D ~+~~~..~~-~- N. S ~-G ~ f_3 1b.W ~.P°IC.~( r~.-.~ / 1 ~1CY~tiv-1 5~~~ `dU~ ~e~U~~-t' ~^~-ti~ f~t~ #'F-f`~~ r/~~~ l .~ ~ / r 19 .,.~.4:~~ ~.Gd~--c j cv~G.,, ~~ ~l~d d ~/ ~,ci,~ ~/~ C~ ~D D ~' ~' / ~~ ~ , 21 . W • / V ~ , ~~ (. ~~`l~" /~ Tl~ ~~r ~~i~ /71.x( GL ~/G) . ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ / /~7 ~9 ~i _ ~ ~ / ~ 22. `~' ~ Ca ~ ~, fvv/ 9 24.~/W y'^ ~~1Gr~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ (rte! 5 ~f ~'~~ r 25. ~ ~ CNZ/v~ia `-~!'~.(~s~n ~ 1`~. ~~n~~ ~r {1 f~ ~r\. ~~~ ~ ~7~~1 ~ ~g `~,~_ a a f t, • ~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in • Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ~~ 2 ~ ~ -y-l~l~~ ~;~1(~l ~Cf(~ V u~ll~,~~~ U/1' - r ~s Z~ ~Cf l~- G-' a ~ ~'o a~ 4Z . _l~r-~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~' ~i ~ ~~~ ~~. ~~ ELI 1~ ~ .~ 6. ~~ _ ~ .. 1 ~, 12 . ~ ~ ~~1~ Ill `7.~.~,~_ _ ~, ~ _ ~ i ~ l.J rl l 1. ~~ 1 ~G /~I o~.~.~ g /. ~ _~ . 13.~ ~L7 ~ v~\ l~ 1Q.~1'tt' iL~~~UU~ ~ 1~~~~I~Q ~1~1a~-l~~ 6. r. ' ~ ,/VI ~~/ f/[~Gc~ f ~~r.Pn~a .~ ~O D~ /~l.~P~/ Lv~~ ~`r.-'a') I~ 17. ~-~-~- LrYnl,..s ~~ nn~S~y L_~,.~ as,.1 Cub-~.~,r~ 1,1.11 ~~`~a.~- i 8 . ~7,~1, . ~ ~~- ~ /~r~rf ,~'~-~~ 1JC~a?~ ~c= ~ _ .~ ~ ~~/~1_ f'~r~ ~~ ~,~ - .~'ii i.2/..a.,~li`, 27 .~~Sq' ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~rv Sri-N~~t. c./d- ~~ ~oaJ`t~ ~ ~~~: eo ~c-c;~ 4=+~. ~ 3~ ~. r z J z3 ~ Q z 2 3 . ~ 1 ~~ ~ u J 25,t - `~'i~r ..l /J. ~~i1~7't~~ ~~~ ~,J1+ ~~t /i7er mf1<3 bid L ~ !- d`ou J ~ d ~--/-Z 7 / X12-. E~ ' - ~ ~ r We the undersigned petition the Towri'~d~ Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the Inte~z~ational Bridge in . Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an ~i~5ortant part of the intimacy of this creekside area of~the'Village core. tS~,GNATURE: NAME: DRESS: DATE: / ,~ r 3 . ~~C~" ~ .. ~~ Q _ ~ C~~ L~. ~' L~~~~OC'fl /~- ~!?./~l ~ U~ Ui~ lG l~ ~ZrJ/ ~ ~~ i r r . U - ~ > ~.r ~ ~ l/ - v f'~<a ~ ' ", ~V(J~ 11 . ~ fJ 11, _ i, t~i~ ~ ~fY ~. ~ PRn-~ ~~~G ~~SD ~C~ ~ W l~~ r~ ~~ d~~~~ ~~/~D/~ ~~ t 13.. ~"_ (,~iir~ar,/~A ~ ~~ ~~?Ccnr~j'I <r3J~ ~- /D~ r~f~~S"~ . _ ~~ - I 15 . Q;~~~~'~=~~ ~ ~~p,~l,~ ~ ~C~~r7_~ r~- ~cl ~YI~1~ ~~C .~-3~~~ IZfZ~/~ 16. ~t~7 ~ ~~ C~-Y`d~~ ~ ~~rA~„~G~ `~ C~~ 133'1 . 19. / ~~(~< ~iT`~"tn/)/1 ~~~0 ~~~ ~~GtA~~~/ ~~l/Jn-~-j ~c3/a,o~~Jc~` ~ 1 2 2 . /S.. w ~/~--~- . -~ ~-t?~ll~-F~t ~ - ~ u aJ ate/ ~lo ~7 ~ ~G u N ~ ~ !7 D i~ ,, l~ r , 1 ~~ ~ f r? 2 4 . ~~. ~ . ~~P~(\ ~ 6~ ~~ll ~ ~~t31f ~C~ ~ `J'{` ~tlii~ ~~ Z - , ~ ~ __ r i INDIAN PAINT BRUSH i 83 Gore Creek Dr. VAII.., CO 81857 (303} 476-4fi60 • • ~ We the undersigned petition the Town of Va~.l to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the Intearnationai Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the • intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SIGNATURE: NAME: ADDRESS: DATE: ~U ~ ~/~ v a s . ~ . ~,:p-~ ~'1_E I~.~a~~a..~ ~- . [,~ l ~i.T.~. ~F ~-~.. 1 zlz I~~~-.. ~ i 7. ~~ +~ u.tr~ C.L#kWyt14' ~.aIJC~ t'~1/~~ ~Z"N~ ~ 5f -~o~~-T!)w~l+~ ~'~ f~ 7~i ~, 8 . ~-LL~~~I ./~~ ~~~r~ ~a~o ~ '7 t~1r~~.. l/~/~C~C'~• ~ ~l~i~~j l f_ ~~ _ ' i3'C/.~v/~'~ ~©e ~vc-~•c~ ~//~ 7`v1~Do~(cu f r~~-f Cr~~~r~ f~f'~ /Z~~/~9~ 14 ~~,~. ~.( _~+.~- C-rL ~~UU !~ ~L.~- ~-1- / d oa~ asr~. t_/~S' li4-r, .P~--- f'~ ~ 2`/~-! ~~~- mom, ~ ~ J 15. (~.' ~ 6~ ~~r~ ~ r ~'~ ~Y1 I J !c,-S~_e~ ~ ~~ll~l-~ l1G'~~~ ~7~•Lrs~~, TX ~~/2~ l ~2- 1 ~ . ~i~~ra~-~ D I~'a~ l~i c r-f~~ ~ ~. ~~~ V ~S %~~3 SS~~~~ ~~~• ~~~L ~ ~ ~ `~ 18 ~ ~=- ~ ~i+~lA ~ n11GN ~~~-e .3~~j ~~~ ~~ ~~ z l y2 ,_ ) z° ~7 n ~' ~~ i ~ u ~"- ~. ~ -~C'~. ~ ~ N. l~£ k' ~~-~{-. [ 3(~ cp I~ •• ~1 ~ P .J ; L ~J C~ . v~,-,~ or ~ a~ zz. n ~i1w ('~lfll~l~\.~ ~~~`~ ~~d~ ~l~ PEd~~ ~(G-tv~i2~~~21 ~~~ ~ ~ { h i . jfy(~ . ~ ~ L3 L-u ram„ /' ~ v' ,~ / T 7 ~ ~ ~ l ~~~ f•.C W ~~ (~ ~ln G /" ~, ~^'.-!4. 1 7 ~ ~ ` ~ ~_. ~~jj ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~41~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ the undersi, need ep. t~~,.s~n__t_he..Tawn-w.of.=_Va~::~~;tc~--keep--t•~--- We small br.~dge located ad-~acent to the Inter_nationa~Bridge in~ . _.. `"~mp antt~s,rt..._~y ^._t e. V ': ' The smaller bridge a-s an ~." ~ ~ _ inta~macylo et ..;_ . . - .:la a core. ..~, - .. ~s creekside area o€ the Vil V. . ,,_.~ ,.. SIGNATURE: NAME:. ADDRESS: iATE: 2 . `~- v~-v~c~ ~ GtvY2e21 ~ j h~ i~. ~ . { I~~ ~ ~ CI~C~ ~t ~ f ~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 3 . ~~2~--~~' /u= ~-~--~ 1 ti ck c ~,~~'c ~c~.~ ~.~u' ;P a ~ a ~~ c / ~i~77. ~ 2. c9 ~`5~-l ~ ~/ Z /~~ ~eu~ ~A-A,~? I -~~Z ,~, Sr ~ ~r ~uc~~.rJ o~ 7 . /~ r ~1~ ~~Jt~ ~ I ~' ! ~~- ,~v~ ~n~~ ~' ~ . ~o ~ k~vr~~ ~.c ~ ~~ l,~~d~- `~a-- ,;, ~ ~~ :.~ - - Y ~ / ~~ 1 ~ . s. O-f VY1A~Y1S s . ~n h in 5 on ~~ l . ~. ~ ~ t~ ~ 7 la,. ~.Z.7,~,Z 16. r~. , ~1J R~ l ~ ~o~k'A ~ Y ~f 13 Qr'a ~. ~ 1~C~ fah . ~.~~ , 1Z. ~ , ! i ~, ~ - 22 . _ ~ jf P ~ ~''~~ ~,Q~~-~ _~ IIC~ ~ f~i ti r.p~Q ~ ~ i~j~.;~i fir, ~Z~7~~. . ,~ ~ ~ 23. ~~ ~/ G..~'-tom ,~/~1-~f~ ~ ~/.~ t,r~",. ~ ~vQ,! ~ //.~~ ~~n.,.. ~ Ff~~ ~,C~ • ~/~'yz~< i ~- 3~5 ~ ~ + ~ y d 2 5 . ~u~'Q~~ T-G~ .1,~~, ~~ ~ ei 1 d~ lA! ~1 ~ "~i~, a ~. ~ ~[ . I CU ~~7 ~t~'x ,~ P ... ~ 2 ~--3'~~, ,t. We the undersigned petition the Town of Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent to the International Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge is an important part of the intimacy of this creekside area of the Village core. SI ATUR NAME: ADDRESS: DAT/E: 1. ~l-=~ lt'fl~S~~ ~7,2~~~aslt-~~ ~c,. 7~9%a~l,~~ C~~ r~Pf~Z'~ . ~ " f~++~~ ` f 2 ~ ~ ~(/ l~ ~~ C>IZ~ ~ ~5~ `L. r/Lla ~w 1/~r vim,. \ ~ ~ ~ l L ~ l 9 l ~ Z ~i ~ nn 4. ~. -- Z i U ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~r~ y ~ ~. .~~~J ~'G~Gn/ ,~/ nor ~~i~~r. ~~ ~~~~ ~i~ ~~~,~~~~G'c~ ~-! s . ~'1~ _~~,~M,v~ ~ ~10:f ~ ~rr5 u0h i ~ I~ o~n ~ 1~~_~ ~~,~~ I ~ Z -/ I.~~a-' ~~ 1~h 9 . ~r~l~ i i~ '11~~1.P~.l,~.f/ .~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~tv~~ c(~~h ~',~! ~1~;~,f C(~ ~ z ~~ ~ (Z_ ~, ~ ' ACC 1 d ~~: s. ~,'//7~ ~3 f ~v~~ ~~ ~r~;.C~ , /~ -~~ P ~~ ~ ~ 12. '~ ~` 1~. ~^~ Oqs ~~. ~ $toa~, 1~ P~~YWaoi~ ~~, ~A~,r~~,d IJH. 12.~'~~ sz 13 . ~~ ~~`Y? ~~~ ~, ~ ~~~~OM ~ c , ~ i ~ ~ ~ 14. ~,~~~~ i'Ul l~z~i-u~. ire ~J~.~i S,t.~.--- ~~ ~ .,~.,f - ~~1 ~lc~~' ~, c} ~} ~ 15. Kra- ~I~~~ ` K~~~a-~ ~ ~ 1~~1~ow~~ ~~I~1~GR~,~cs~r~~~ ~~Z~i~~ i Z 16. ~`~ ~ ~ 3~~ ~ fiP~c~ ch Vn ~ I ~f ~ k Ircr C~ l ~~ ~ ? I,~i G7 18 ,~ 21 22 z3 24 _ ~ _/ ~." ~~~~ ~~ Y~~ ~ ~ ~ ~z 1 ~~ 1 ~z I"~I~x~~~~ Z 4 ~ ~t~r ~~ ~ ~ u (~i y ~ ~ ~ 3~~ rz~~y ~~ ~~ ~~a~~. Lvr~~~ ~-~~~ i3;~h~rN ~~ 1l~il ,v~r~~~~ r 25 . --~~ a a _~ a-,~~ ~. ~ ~~c ~-~ ~ ~ .C~t .~ ~~, ~ n t;; -~ ~~Z ~.~r~ ~ cc~ ~cvu~~ncv~lv,~vh , ~. 1Nd}AN PAINT BRUSH ? g0 Gare Creek Dr. VAIL, CO 81657 {303) ~76~466~ LJ • We the undersigned pet~.t.ion.; ~l~e~~ow~:a,~f Vail to keep the small bridge located adjacent° `~o`,~he: "r+nfernational Bridge in Vail Village. The smaller bridge: is, `:ani;:i~aportant part of the intimacy of this creekside area;c~f~,~the,~7,illage core. SIGNATURE~: / NAME: ADDRESS: f/ DATE .~ s~ 1 . :. , - i ~ C~~/G~. ~ . ~ ~ ~-1 ~ C 5.r~ ~1 1~ 6 ,fay ~t ~7`~ (/r~~ ~ ,~ . `~S / z'~~. r 2 (. ' ~~-~ ~`_ ~..~- l ~1v4-~ ~~ : ~-~~5~ ~ ~~ °~ I`~z~> v1I~ ,i.~. ~~/~~ ~~ /~ fir ~ ) ~ 4 . ~ 1 1) ~ ~ fl ~ rl IZ. 1~C DVS C Gl ~ Q.U.1~tiS`t~ _ ~ e" / ~j < . °, ~ i4 r ~ $ ~ i ke ~ Or rt s &~ I l4 4 [~>! t~ ~ r ~ S ~ e^J' ~ 1^e.n~c ~ t~5 . ~~~~ rn ~ z i 9 . f(~~-E~.~ze~,.._ • ~ ~`~~~ /4 . /lI~ o u f ~ c ~.-- !r o ~ u~ ~ ~ [ I c ~-~ v~- L cut ~~ ~.c~ e . ~ rr~ . ,.~ G ~1,.,~- ~r ~ +~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X11219 ~ p 2i . ~ f Icy ~--~--~,r-~-~c >~ ~ ~SL~e l9 ~ Zj~~ 22. . --_ 1Vfr-~,~C~ S ~1 ]c~ I~rr~,en,t ~ l / 9~~~~ 23. UPS ~~C~~O df'1 ~~ /~~~ `~ L f 2 4 . .,~ ;~,,~ .,u ~~-I N ~ ~ ~ L~'1~-~ j ~ `~ Co W ~J~ ~~~ LA ~ ~ur~e7 RFCEIVE® ~A~ ~ 9 1993 • INDIAN PAINT BRUSH 183 Gore Creek Dr. VA1L, CU 81657 (3Q3) 476-4860 January ~ 9, ~ 993 Vail Town Council Nfunicipal Building 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 8~b57 • Oear Sirs: Unfortunately I am unable to attend tonight's meeting to voice my opinion regarding the possible removal of the small diagonal bridge crossing Gore Creek in Vail Village. I would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to its removal. I've lived in Vail for 23 years, and the reasons that partially compelled me to move here and stay on for so long include the "original" appearance of the village which is rapidly changing. The new bridge is great - a beautiful piece of construction. However, when crossing by foot, one is sti1T enveloped by vehicle noises and fumes. The di agona1 bridge i s something of a short cut, unencumbered by those immediate noises and fumes and is also a good way to view the summertime Gore Creek activities. Where i s the financial sense i n i is removal ? if i't needs to be fixed, fix it in the most economical manner possible. But let's not remove one of the fun, traditional avenues of the village that so many of us love. Thank you. Mos ,'s i ncer , A f 4~2' I./ Elizabeth Wilt, Manager VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ~G ~,f} S `~ F/L~ W~/y1/ N u T~.S die a yyj ~,/ 9/9 3 Tc ~ v ~ ~ r~ ~~~~ ~f~~ y R~e~. r MINUTE S VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1993 7:30 P.M. • A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT; Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Tawn Attorney Pam. Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Before beginning with this meeting's first agenda item, Ron Phillips announced that Bill . Lowe, mechanic with TOV's Fleet Maintenance Department since October,19$1, had passed away on February 1, 1993. There was a moment of silent prayer in honor of Bill's long-term, committed service to TOV. The first item an the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 2 on the agenda was the presentation of plaque from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to TOV for its having achieved President Bush's 70% Seat Belt Usage Safety Honor Roll. Mary Lawrence, TOV Safety Manager, introduced Duke Smith of CDOT who described the program, and advised 75% seat belt usage eras hoped for by 1990. Marvin Leach of CDOT presented the plaque to Mayor Osterfoss, and he advised that TOV would appear on the National Honor Roll in D.C. Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of Minutes of the January 5, 1993, and January 19, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance of the Town of Vail, Colorado, decriminalizing traffic infractions; deleting the availability of jury trials and jail sentences for such violations; and making amendments to Title 10 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Jim Shearer moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, ~-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 1, Sexier of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirexnents for SDD No. 4 that concern the devel~~,.u.ent plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting Earth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Council had received a memo dated February 1, 1993, from Larry Grafei, Public Works Director, prior to this meeting advising that a meeting with Ned Gwathmey, Eustaquia Cortina, Jerry Mullikin, Frank Freyer, Kent Rose, Greg Hall, and Larry had been held on Friday, January 29, 1993. The memo stated that meeting was positive and great progress had been made by the parties trying to resolveidetermine what needed to be done, and at what cast, to bring Westhaven Drive up to TOV standards, but indicated it was not possible for all necessary information to be received and reviewed in time for this second reading. Ned Gwathmey requested this item be continued to the next evening meeting, February 16, 1993, axad asked for guidance as to what Council would ask fox as a guarantee that the required work would be done. Larry 1 y• r Eskwith recommended either an irrevocable letter of credit TOV could draw nn if certain terms and conditions were not met by the applicants, or funds set aside in a bank account TOV could draw on with certain terms and conditions pursuant to an agreement. Larry felt banding companies would be reluctant to enter into any kind of surety agreement for this type of project. Larry said an estimate which was not a hard bid would not be 100% accurate, but felt an agreement could be entered into which would require the posting of a letter of credit from the applicants that exceeded the estimate. There was discussion about what the range of costs might be. Tom Steinberg asked Larry if it would be wiser to stipulate that this road should be brought up to TOV standards at no expense to TOV before a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued for any new building. Larry said that was a possibility, but TOV would not have access to funds to get that done which could create a situation where buildings were constructed, no CO issued, and the road might not be completed. After brief discussion, Council and Ned Gwathmey agreed they wanted arrangements far either a set aside in a bank account or an irrevocable letter of credit and a developer's agreement laying out all of the terms and conditions of how that collateral was to be used. TOV would then be able to draw on that collateral should the required work not be done by a certain date. Mayor Osterfoss said, as part of this process based an estimates, an amount would be ascertained, and, in addition to that, a contingency would be set up so that TOV would have a dollar number Council was comfortable with. That was acceptable from Mr. Gwathmey's perspective. Shelly Mello said 125% of the estimated cost to cover the work and any overage or delays was the percentage generally used. Rob Levine moved to continue Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, until the February 16, 1993 evening meeting, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfass expressed appreciation . for the cooperation of all involved for working toward the resolution of this long unresolved problem. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Ttem No. 5 was Resolution No. 2, Series of 1993, a resolution authorizing the purchase of an unplatted piece of land commonly known as the Vail Commons property, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof {"the Property"). Larry Eskwith explained this resolution would authorize TOV to purchase a parcel of land located on the North Frontage Road, commonly known as the Vail Commons property. He noted negotiations had been ongoing for a considerable period of time, and terms had now been agreed upon by the Seller. The purchase price for the parcel, approximately 6.9 acres, was $3,161.,972. The closing was scheduled far April 2, 1993. Larry said the only contingency that could affect the potential purchase of the land by TOV, other than title, survey, or environmental problems, was that the Seller wanted to obtain an appraisal which would show he was selling the property to TOV for less than Fair market value because he wanted to take a charitable deduction for that portion of the differentiation between the purchase price and the value. Larry advised if that appraisal did not show the value of the land to be sufficient, then the Purchaser would have the opportunity to terminate the contract. Other than that, the contract was fairly standard. Tom Steinberg asked if TOV had an environmental report back on the property yet, but Larry said he did not want to expend funds on an environmental report until he had a signed contract, but the contract was totally contingent on TOV being satisfied, in its sole discretion, with the results of the environmental survey. Tom Steinberg moved to apN~,.ae Resolution No. 2, Series of 1993, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, s-0. Ttem No. 6 was a review of a sign variance request for Curtin-Hill Sports (previously Vail Ski Rentals}, 254 Bridge Street/Lat 1, Black 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. The applicants were Jack Curtin and Teak Simonett. At 8:05 P.M., the applicant had not yet arrived, and Mayor Osterfoss directed Tim Devlin to make an effort to call the applicant before beginning discussion of this item. While waiting for a response from Jack Curtin, Council discussed a Work Session item moved to the Evening Meeting, TOV reorganization. Steve Barwick distributed a proposed schedule entitled "Schedule of Activities for Development of New TOV Management/Sudget Systems" which showed how TOV might proceed with all of the reorganizations discussed within the last few weeks. Steve asked Council for feedback on the schedule, and, if Council agreed to the recommended Steering Team, asked for Council member arr~:ntments to the Team. He reviewed the recommended Team composition. He said this group would be charged with investigating the various aspects of the program and making recommendations to the Town about formal changes in TOV's management and budget systems. Establishment of the Team would take place at this meeting, per the time frame on the handout. Steve reviewed the 2 ,~ ~ ~ • time frame in full, beginning with a first meeting an February 18, 1993. Far six weeks, the Team would start meeting with each department to assist the departments with development of their mission statements and operational goals. In mid-March through mid-May, sub- groups of the Team would be appointed to start investigating TQM performance measurement, cast accounting, and expenditure control budgeting. By the end of May, the Team was to have prepared recommendations far Chase areas and how they would fit into TOV's plan. During June, the Team would integrate all of those recommendations into one f„~,.ualized program for TOV, and adoption by Council of the f„~~.alized program was scheduled for the first Evening Meeting in July, 1993. Steve said discussion concerning actual outcome measures of the mission statements and the operational goals would follow that. He felt if the proposed time schedule was adhered to, the 1994 budget process would largely be based upon this type of system rather than TOV's traditional line item approach to budgeting. Mayor Osterfoss said she had hoped for more representation from TOV staff than shown on Steve's handout, perhaps one person from each department. Rob Levine fait there was merit in that idea because one of the things Council had be told in response to the studies done was there was not as much team feeling between departments as there was within departments. Consensus was reached to include one staff representative in addition to the Director from each department on the Team, including Buck Allen from the Municipal Court Department. Steve noted it was an ambitious schedule, but felt if focus was maintained, it could be accomplished. Tam Steinberg was concerned about embarking on this project and the possibility of than changing direction after receipt of a final report from the staff working on it. Steve said there were no guaraxitees, but felt there was enough staff buy- in in the general principles of the programat this point that, as long as all concentrated an those items, what would be developed would be an acceptable product. Mayor Osterfoss said . she felt the efforts that would be started in the next few weeks were basically foundation efforts, and, if there was a need to make some changes in direction, that could be incorporated iota the process. In the spirit of moving forward on this project, there was discussion about haw department members would be appointed or elected. Mayor Osterfass asked Larry Grafel, given the diversity of his Department, if one individual could be chosen who others would feel to be representative of that entire Department. Larry felt he had to da a lot of talking about the focus wanted, but felt, at this time, one staff member could be representative to the whole PW Department. He asked that the option to have more than one representative fxom PW be held open temporarily. Mayor Osterfoss then volunteered to participate. Bob Buckley and Jim Shearer stated they felt Jim Gibson would volunteer if he were present. Mayox Osterfoss said she volunteered because she felt it would be meaningful for her to be in touch with the process. Merv Lapin stated he was interested in participating from the budgeting standpoint. Bab Buckley, having experience with TQM through VVMC, stated he might want to attend some of the meetings. Council agreed to wait to hear from Jim Gibson and would then finalize their selection process and advise Steve. Jack Curtin had arrived, discussion of agenda Item No. 6 began. Tim Devlin gave a quick overview of the proposed sign variance versus what was recommended for approval by the DRB as well as the staff. He said Curtin Hill Sports had prapased a sign variance involving . two sections of the sign code. The first was from size; the second from number. Community Development Department's memo dated January 6, 1993, to the DRB included full details concerning the description of the request, background inf„~~.ation, findings and staff responses, and staff's recommendation. Tim said staff recommended to DRS that four signs did not meet the criteria discussed in that memo's item 3 A,C,D, but staff did feel three signs did meet all four criteria, and they supported one additional sign, and recommended denial of the extra sign area. He said the DRB, en January 6, 1993 recommended Council approve three signs and left it up to the applicant as to which three signs they wanted to leave. Tim said the applicant, at that time, expressed to the DRB that he would like one free standing sign, one hanging sign, and one awning sign. Tim discussed the conditions of approval from the DRB agenda f~„~ January 6,1993. Applicant Jack Curtin was sut~,~ised to learn Curtin I~Iill Sports had 20 window signs. He stated the three signs (free standing, hanging, and awning) were acceptable to them, and added he was working with Town, staff to bring the various signs into canf„~~ance with. the sign code. After brief discussion, Rab Levine moved to approve the staff recommendation with regard to the Curtin Hill sign variance request based on the findings indicated in the staff memo dated January 6, 1993, establishing hardship and general appropriateness, with a second from Jinx Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if this decision set any precedent regarding signs. Kristin Pritz said they felt comfortable with the decision given the four building frontages, and felt the criteria for a variance had been met by the applicant. A vote was taken and the motion S passed unanimously, 6-4. 3 ,I M ~ ~ • There being no further business, Tom Steinberg moved to adjourn the meeting to Executive Session, with a second from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 8:45 P.M. • A~.~°i~~;ST: Respectfully submitted, c.(. Margaret A. 4sterfoss, Mayor C-ul~~~o~~~~,,c~.cu,~~ . Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto ~J C:IMINSFE62.93 4 r f~ ~ ~ • MINUTE S VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETIlVG FEBRUARY 16, 1993 ~~ 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1992, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order by Merv Lapin at 7:32 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Buckley Jim Gibson Rob Levine Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney ' Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Al Weiss recalled that during the summer of 1992, TCI Cable Vision used Channe131, the Weather Channel, as a paid channel to broadcast the Summer Olympics. After describing his pursuit for compensation for the loss of use of that channel, he explained he was contacted by TCI in Avon. TCI agreed to give Mr. Weiss one month free service. He agreed to that. Mr. Weiss said he asked TCI to inform their other subscribers about this agreement, but TCI was not willing to do that unless other subscribers called to complain. Mr. Weiss wanted TCI to comply with their legal responsibilities and obligations to their subscribers, and encouraged all TCI subscribers to call TCI to protest the loss of use of Channe131 during the 1992 Summer Olympics, and ask for compensation. Mr. Weiss requested Council check into a possible franchise violation. Mr. Weiss secondly inquired about TOV's proposed purchase of the Vail Commons property. He noted each time TOV made a purchase of property, that property was removed f'1~.., the tax roll. He felt the property should be allowed to be developed commercially by private enterprise and eventually become a means of revenue for TOV and the County. Rob Levine felt Mr. Weiss raised a gaol paint, and, if in fact that property was to cost TOV $3.6 million to purchase, it might only be appropriate to pay $3.0-$3.2 million since there would be additional longterm costs to TOV as a result of the lack of taxable income from the property. Rob felt that needed to be factored into the worth of the property. There was brief discussion about potential uses for the property. There was also discussion about property TOV purchased with RETT funds. It was explained that uses far property purchased with those funds were limited by what was set forth in TOV's RETT ordinance. Art Abplanalp spoke as a taxpayer and parent for the purpose of suggesting TOV review a proposal taming before the Eagle County Recreation Authority for the development of a portion of the Berry Creek 5th Filing, of which TOV holds a majority interest. He said on Thursday, 2/25/92, C~ 7:30 A.M. {at Eagle Vail Pavilion), the Eagle County School District would be requesting from the Eagle County Recreation Authority permission to develop a definitive and final contract to allow the development of a portion of Berry Creek 5th Filing for construction of a n.ew middle school. He said the District proposed a transfer of approximately 10 acres without monetary consideration except for the installation of infrastructure. k`irst, he discussed complaints Eagle County officials had heard about the environmental conditions in and around Malloy Park, particularly regarding the Minturn Middle School. He observed that the widespread perception of a health hazard might be just as important as the question of whether there actually was a hazard. Secondly, he discussed the School District's study which indicated the Middle School would be overcrowded this fall, and the over,,~„r,~ding problem would increase dramatically in the next two years. Mr. Abplanalp suggested TOV instruct its representative to the Eagle County Recreation Authority, Merv Lapin, to vote that any grant to the School District for permissions to develop the Berry Creek 5th Filing be conditioned upon the creation of a middle school facility which would serve all of eastern Eagle County, including the Town of Vail. .~ ~" • Mr. Abplanalp noted the Board of Directors of the Berry Creek Metropolitan District supported the position of making the additional 5 acres available if the School District decided to construct an appropriately sized middle school at this site. He felt similar support from TOV, which was the entity owning the largest interest in the Berry Creek 5th Filing, ~. seemed appropriate. In summary, Mr. Abplanalp suggested TOV examine this question and take two steps: {1) allow the Eagle County School District to use the acreage in the Berry Creek 5th Filing, and (2) permit use of the Berry Creek 5th Filing for construction and operation of a middle school. He felt this was a unique opportunity which should be taken advantage of to avoid the future passibility of having to build an entirely separate middle school at a substantially increased cost. Merv requested at least one or two Council members accompany him to the Thursday, 2/25/92, meeting of the Eagle County Recreation Authority to hear The Eagle County School District's proposal. Item No. 2 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans far The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Shelly Mello advised the applicants had asked for a continuance to the next evening meeting. Rob Levine moved to continue Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, until March 2, 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, Shelly explained the applicant had received TOV's requirements and estimate for the road improvements, and had also pursued a private estimate which appeared to be in line with TOV's. At this time the applicant was communicating with the individual entities involved to secure support for funding. They proposed to came back in two weeks with a proposal for haw the road improvements would be funded. Merv Lapin Hated Larry Grafel's memo to Council dated February 12, 1993, regarding Westhaven Drive Improvements stated the Public Works Department had reviewed information provided by the applicants and had analyzed it with regard to the subdivision ordinance standards for public streets. The memo provided details concerning what TOV felt was necessary to bring the road up to TOV standards. The cost far that was estimated at $97,500. In that memo, Larry Grafel also stated same type of assurance had to be provided to TOV, perhaps through performance bonding of 125% of the project cost. Further, Larry Grafel felt a time frame for completion should be established and tied to the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy {TCO} or Certificate of Occupancy (CO) of the project. Merv asked Kristan Pritz if she had reviewed all of the documents of the SDD to be certain that all of the requirements of the SDD were being satisfied at this time so there were no remaining requirements, including recreational amenities, tree planting, landscaping, etc. Kristan said there were a few things still to be done, but they were unrelated to these projects. Shelly felt the biggest condition remaining dealt with the construction of a sidewalk in front of Westhaven Apartments, and she said that was being addressed with this project. Because this was originally a single developer SDD and was now a multiple developer SDD, Merv asked if there was anything the original developer did not do that still had to be done. Shelly said there was one recreational amenity that was to be placed in the center courtyard area between the Cornerstone Project, the Conference Center, and the Terrace Wing. Shelly said that this was addressed at the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} level, and it was not modified by the PEC, but they allowed for it to be modified by the Design Review Board (DRB). The PEC left that open to the DRB. The PEC did not feel that water feature was necessarily critical ar even sensible with the current plan. She felt that was the only wide spread amenity throughout the project that was not completed in its entirety. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item Na. 3 was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance concerning the issuance of Local Improvement Refunding Bands of the Town of Vail, Colorado for the Booth Creek Local Im~,~„vement District; ratifying action heretofore taken in connection therewith; prescribing details in connection with said Bonds and District; prescribing duties of certain Town officials in connection therewith; repealing all ordinances and other action of the Town to the extent inconsistent herewith; and providing other matters relating thereto. Steve Thompson explained this was the refunding issue which would refund the bonds outstanding now. He said on April 1, 1993, TOV would call $65,000 worth of the bands because of the assessments TOV had received to date, so the refunding was for $300,000, and the new interest rate was 7.25% as opposed to 9.5% on the bonds. He said the bonds ra.atured on April 1, 1999. He noted the owners had ten years to pay their assessments off from 1993, so the bonds were due sooner than the assessments were due. If there were any bonds outstanding on April 1, 1999, TOV would have to loan the bond fund money to call the bonds. 2 ~+ Steve said TOV was considering charging owners 7.75% (an additional 112% over TOV cost) because of costs TOV would incur for bond attorney work and agent fees on this reissue. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. ~, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed. unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~, r Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayorv A~1°1•~;ST: C~~~I.tccr~rc~ Pamela A. Brandmeyer; Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:\Muvr~n1S.99 3 February 22, 1993 .d ~~C.~lVE~ f E B 2 ~ ~g,43 VAIL VIT .T AGE INN ~'iliage Inn Ptaza Condominiums Town Council } Town of Vail ~~ 75 5. Frontage Road Vail, Co. 81657 Dear Mrs. Mayor and Councilmen: I am writing to you in regards to the $47,500 that Vail Village Tnn is required to pay towards the cost of moving the Ski Museum. When we built Phase V we agreed to provide approximately 4,000 square feet, fee simple, to the Town of Vail so the Ski Museum could be moved across the street to our location, thereby providing open space. In addition, we agreed that when we built Phase IV we would contribute up to $75,000 towards the expense of moving the Ski Museum. At that time, Phase IV was planned to be a $20 million project, and $75,000 would not have been an excessive amount in the overall scheme of things. In the meantime, economic conditions have forced us to scale down Phase IV to a mere 16 rooms instead of the 180-200 that were originally planned; there- fare $75,000 in a $3 million project becomes a.substantial amount to add to the cost of the project. It was estimated by the Town's staff that the _ removal of the Ski. Museum building has cost approximately $27,500 - which we have paid. [Tnfortunately, due to circumstances beyond anybody's control, such as asbestos abatement, the American Disability Act, and other code regulations, we are faced with the fact that the project has in excess of a 30 percent cost overrun and although we have been successful in selling the condominium at a good price, we are faced with a $2 million debt service on 16 rooms instead of a $1 million debt service as originally projected. This of course has placed a tremendous burden not only on our cash reserves, but also on our ability to borrow additional funds. We have .put all this season's profits into the project and are now having to face bhe off- and Summer seasons with no cash reserves. I appeal to your sense of fairness to determine whether a relatively small project - only one fifth of the size of the originally planned Phase IV - should pay the same amount as for a project five times its size. In closing, I would like to reiterate that we have provided 4,000 square feet, which is presently occupied by the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau, and have paid $27,500 to the Town to offset the cost of removing the old Ski Museum building and landscaping Che area. v At this time, we are in the unfortunate position of seeing ourselves facing the off-season with no cash reserves and are totally unable to come up with a major payment such as $47,500. /Continued.. 100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-5622 FAX (303 } 476-466 i Town Council Town of Vail February 22, 1993 Page 2 Y hope that you wi~.l have an opportunity to discuss my problem amongst '~ yourselves and that subsequently T will have the chance to discuss this situation at your earliest convenience at a Work Session. Sincerely, .; Josef St ufer Presi ent i JSj~em cc; Kevin McDonald Senior Vice President 1st Bank of Vail 17 Vail Raad Vail, Colorado 81557 r- • a MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 2, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 2, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Bob Buckley Rob Levine TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager • C r The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Paul Johnston expressed concerns about street congestion and blocked parking lots and driveways caused in part by truck loading on Hanson Ranch Road in front o£ his establishment, the Christiania Lodge. He was also concerned about constriction of the street created by snow storage, and felt the whole situation would be further impacted by TOV's streetscape design. He distributed photos depicting the areas of his concern, showing skier drop-off, pedestrians, and citizens parking on the street, and questioned a recent change to the parking regulations there, which he felt caused traffic and noise problems during early morning hours. He urged Council to implement the 1968 agreement regarding Vail Associates, Inc.'s {VA) land {Lots P-3 and J). He indicated the delay of the implementation of that agreement was affecting completion of requirements the Christiania was supposed to meet with regard to landscaping and parking. Merv Lapin said one of the reasons for not going forward with the original plan was that the parties involved were still negotiating the future of that property. Mr. Johnston noted TOV had a $50,000 letter of credit from him as his guarantee to landscape, enhance, and improve both sides of Hanson Ranch Road. He did not feel it was logical or feasible for Council to have him do that under the present circumstances. Again he suggested the 1968 agreement be implemented and that a solution to the rights-of--way, the parking arrangeoaex~ts, and to the final determination of the property ownership be defined. Mr. Johnston suggested it would be appropriate for Council and the planning staff to experience first hand the problems associated with regulating the traffic an the street. Mr. Johnston next shared a photo of a 40' specimen blue spruce which had been scarred by trucks parked on Hanson Ranch Road, and he said he would like a crec~:it for the ruined tree against his $50,4001etter of credit for the improvements he agreed to install as a part of his redevelopment project. There was discussion about the parking lot issue. Merv noted negotiations were continuing and appeared to be getting to a point where there would be some resolution, but said it was difficult to elaborate on a timeframe for the resolution of the issue at this time. Mr. Johnston felt Council should contemplate a one year extension for him without his letter of credit, and he also produced photos of the driveway at an adjacent establishment, Cyrano's, which seemed to depict a violation of their conditional use permit. Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan Pritz if she was aware of that issue. Kristan was not certain about the agreement there, but said CDD would look into and follow-up on it. Some of the details of TOV's agreement with Mr. Johnston were discussed. A major issue was questions with the parking area. Kristan recalled the neighbors in the area were examining the concept of a parking structure with a park on top of it. Tom Steinberg advised Mr. Johnston to give his pictures to the staff and suggested that the staff arrange to visit the area in question at this time to reevaluate their plans in view of what the current on-site situation. Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan if there was an important streetscape concept for considering narrowing of the street. Kristan said in order to put the landscaping in, with the required parking, same of the road had to be 1 removed. Tom suggested if the end solution was a park on top of a parking structure, perhaps the street would not need to be narrowed to put in landscaping because the landscaping would be in the park. Mayor Osterfoss advised a site visit to the area was planned, and felt it would be an interesting learning experience far Council and staff to go S out and enforce regulations. Merv noted the Transportation and Parking Task Force was reconvening so this could be another issue for their review. Item No. 2 was the appointment of 3 new members to the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC). The candidates, interviewed by Council on February 23, 1993, were Bill Anderson, Chuck Crist, Kathy Langenwalter, and Gena Whitten. There were 3 positions available, each term for two years. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Bill Anderson and Kathy Langenwalter to the PEC until February 28, 1995. A majority of votes had not been received for any candidate for the third open position, and staff was directed to re-advertise the position. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was the appointment of 2 new members to the Design Review Board {DRB}. The candidates, interviewed by Council on February 23, 1993, were Michael Arnett, Sally Rich Brainerd, Alice Cartwright, Dan Doerge, Florence Steinberg, and Carmen Weiner. There were 2 positions available. Tom Steinberg stepped down due to conflict of interest. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Michael Arnett and Sally Rich Brainerd to the DRB until February 28, 1995. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-Q-1, Tom Steinberg abstaining. Item No. 4 was the appointment of 1 new member to the Housing Authority. The candidates, interviewed by Council on February 23, 1993, were Duane Piper and Dan Doerge. There was 1 position available far a five year term.. A ballot was taken, and Tom Steinberg moved to re-appoint Duane Piper to the Housing Authority until January 31, 1995. Bab Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was appointment of 4 never members to the Art in Public Places Board {AIPP). The candidates, interviewed by Council on February 23, 1993, were Alice Cartwright, Jim Cotter, Dan Doerge, Eddy Doumas, Lolita Higbie, Erich Hill, and Kyle H. Webb. There were 4 positions available. Two terms were for two years and two terms were for three years. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Jim Cotter and Lolita Higbie to the AIPP Board until February 28, 1995, and Alice Cartwright and Erich Hill until February 28, 1996. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of the Minutes of the February 2, 1993, and February 16, 1993, Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance concerning the issuance of Local Improvement Refunding Bonds of the Town of Vail, Colorado for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District; ratifying action heretofore taken in connection therewith; prescribing details in connection with said Bonds and District; prescribing duties of certain Tawn officials in connection therewith; repealing all ordinances and other action of the Town to the extent inconsistent herewith; and providing other matters relating thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0 Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the dovelopment plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained that it had been assumed that Westhaven Drive was owned by MECM, who was the developer of the Waterford site. However, it appeared there was now some question as to who had title to that road. He advised documents had been discovered in the foreclosure papers which made it uncertain if MECM owned that road. Consequently, 2 it would be impossible for MECM to dedicate the road to TOV if they do not awn it. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to table second reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, until March 16, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 was Resolution No. 3, Series of 1993, a resolution approving and adopting the 1993-1997 Town of Vail Transit Development PIan (TDP). Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Rose briefly explained the content of the TDP, and advised that it needed to be submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation by April 15, 1993, in order to compete for $900,000 in grant money the state had available this year. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 3, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin inquired about time schedule and affect if TOV were successful in receiving funds. After brief discussion, a vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item Na. 9 was a Town Council appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) decision regarding a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 S. Frontage Road West. Mike Mallica referenced his memo to Council dated March 2, 1993, detailing the February 22, 1993, PEC meeting during which they approved, by a vote of 4-3, a Conditional Use permit request including ten conditions of approval, for the Police Department expansion. Mike noted the first seven conditions were recommendations made by the planning staff and were carried forth by the PEC. Those seven conditions were fully detailed in the Community Development Department's (CDD) memo to the PEC dated February 22, 1993. The PEC added three additional conditions which were detailed in the above referenced March 2, 1993 memo. There was discussion. concerning additional landscaping, particularly with regard to snow storage, parking requirements, the heliport, anal communication with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) regarding some of their rights-of--way. Mike said the CDD was trying to keep all development proposed for this project on TOV property, including the parking spaces presently on the CDOT right-of--way. He confirmed that CDOT had agreed to allow planting and berming in theirright-of--way. Mayor Osterfoss noted there had been discussions with We Recycle and others about possible relocation because Council was in agreement with the PEC's concern that all on-site parking should be maximized. Jim Gibson turned the discussion to Ken Hughey's March 2, ].993, memo to Council regarding a cost analysis of the Police Department expansion based on the PEC and CDD recommendations. That memo explained that the PEC's approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for the Police expansion contained ten conditions, most of which were not included in the approved project budget, and detailed the cost of each condition. Jim Gibson felt a number of the costs shown in the memo did not belong in the Police Department expansion budget. Tom Steinberg agreed some of the items, such as crosswalks and sidewalks, were projects which should be done as a matter of course. Before further discussion of budget issues, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was Council consensus for the ten conditions approved by the PEC. Tom Steinberg asked if the architectural modifications to the existing building conformed to the new building. He asked why the new building was not automatically conf..x wing to the existing building to avoid expense. Mike Mollica explained there were numerous meetings with the DRB at the PEC work sessions, and it was felt that it would not be appropriate to carry the architectural design of the existing building over to the proposed new expansion. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the architects had a design that would match the existing building. Ken said they did, and, in short, that design just showed the new building looking like the existing building. Ken explained the $103,000 was for architectural modifications to make the existing building conform to the new building. If the new building were built with new architecture, the cost would be $103,000 to redo the exterior of the existing building to match the new building, $27,000 of that amount for modification to the west entry of the existing building. Tom Steinberg pointed out if this building were modified, the Municipal Annex would not match. Jeff Bowen, PEC member and Police Addition Task Force member, said the PEC felt it was important, even with consideration of additional cost, to note that this was, in essence, the creation of a new Town Hall. He felt the buildings should match, and rather than trying to make the new building look like the existing building, the existing building should be modified so the architecture of the new building would be carried through. Dalton Williams, PEC member also felt the two buildings needed to match and needed to be more attractive 3 than the present structure. Mr. Williams said he now supported the project in its entirety, and explained he originally voted against the project because, from a Planning Commissioner's point of view, there was no applicant before the PEC to agree to conditions. Greg Amsden, PEC member, noted the negative votes at the PEC meeting were because of parking concerns. He felt consideration should be given to satisfying additional on-site parking. He noted the proposed new building had been reduced in cost by $3,000,000 from the original cost projections, and the request for modifications to the existing building would be a major improvement to the project and should be approved. There was brief discussion concerning estimated landscaping fees, which Mr. Williams felt were low, but Mike noted Sherry Dorward, project Landscape Architect, advised the estimate was fairly accurate. Mr. Amsden expressed concern about the reduction of the original budget for this project, in what he gathered was the intent to purchase another parcel in TOV commonly known as the Vail Commons parcel. He felt the conditions being requested for the Police Departacnezat expansion at this time should be considered, because he felt they were minor adjustments to the overall benefit of this project. Further, he felt the cost Council had agreed to on the Vail Commons parcel was high, and that he had evidence to that affect. He offered to discuss that issue further with Council. Mayor Osterfass said she wanted to hear the DRB's response as to whether matching the existing building was appropriate. Kristan Pritz noted the DRB were present at two PEC work sessions where they focused primarily on design issues and did not get into parking issues. She said the DRB did discuss the design, and the CDD would solicit their response about matching the existing building. Mayor Osterfoss wanted to be certain the DRB had the opportunity to consider extending the design of the existing building. Jim Gibson stated he did not recall a decision made by Council to adhere to the increased budget to accommodate the PEC decisions. Ken Hughey said he would have to review the meeting tapes, but it was his recollection that, should the PEC and DRB add conditions to the project, that those "add-ons" would be above the $3,000,400 budget because Council had been asked what the PD could work with to build the building and what was needed to design the building. As Ken recalled, the $3,000,000 was to build the building, and if the PEC or DRB added anything, then Council would need to decide whether or not to add on to the budget. Mayor Osterfoss felt items that would be highly desirable to have, regardless of whether or not there was an addition to the Municipal Building, could come of out of the Capital Projects budget, if affordable over time. She felt architectural modifications to the existing building which the DRB felt were an important part of this project, were part of the project. She agreed with Jim Gibson that other things on Ken's list -fixing the roof, additional landscaping/north side, signage plan, sidewalks, and fire code compliance -were things that should be done as a matter of course and should not be part of the Police Building expansion budget. Tam Steinberg and Jim Shearer agreed the Police Building expansion budget should not be burdened with these dollars, including the facade changes. Lengthy discussion followed concerning whether to modify existing building to match the expansion as Council examined schematic and elevation drawings of the new building. In response to Kristan's questions, Mayor Osterfoss said perhaps it would be more useful to give the DRB direction as to whether Council wanted the new building to match the existing building. After review and discussion about the facade changes and agreement that there should be continuity for the whale project, Mayor Osterfoss directed the DRB to work with the revised plan, which Ken Hughey presented, without the incremental $103,000, except for examining the new entryway for the existing building. It was determined the new entryway would be paid for from the Capital Projects budget. Jim Gibson then moved to uphold the PEC's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department located at 7~ South Frontage Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building) with the following exceptions: that the architectural modifications to the existing building be removed and the new building be made to look like the existing building; that the roof improvements, fire code compliance, crosswalks, additional landscaping, and signage plan not be a part of the Police Department expansion budget but would be paid for out of the Capital Projects budget; that the increased structural framing for future additions be eliminated; that the $27,000 for the modified west entryway be approved as an addition to the $3,000,000 for this project's budget; and that there would be an owner's representative paid for out of the project's budget. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4 unanimously, 6-D. Before adjournment, several issues not on the agenda were raised. Caroline Fisher discussed the 1993 Community Survey, noting members of the community had requested better avenues to express their opinions to TOV. She advised a number of avenues had been implemented in the last three years including Speak Up Meetings, full resident surveys, input cards, and the resident input tracking system. However, she felt there was a popular feeling that it was time to take TOV's citizen surveying program to a higher level. She explained Vail Associates, Inc. had hired Nolan Rosall, of Rosall, Remmen & Cares, and had now embarked on an aggressive public opinion surveying process. Caroline said she had been speaking with Mr. Rosall regarding TOV's surveying process, and felt Mr. Rosall should be hired to assist TOV in implementing more effective avenues for bath accomplishing the public relations element of the surveying and as a tool far gathering information for budget priorities. The survey approach proposed by Mr. Rosall would include focus group meetings, a one page front and back mail out survey, and a phone survey combining public outreach of a mailing to a full population of 8,000 people, as well as random audio taped and transcribed focus group meetings and phone surveys. The total amount of this entire process would be $10,000. Caroline advised $8,178 had been budgeted, and asked Council to approve the additional expense for the upgraded surveying process. After brief discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to appropriate up to $2,OOD out of the Council Contingency budget to proceed with the Rosall study. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Larry Eskwith discussed the discovery, approximately two years ago, of an underground tank at the Old Town Shops site. He advised that when the tank was pulled, groundwater contamination was found, as well as a gasoline spill at the adjacent service station. Mr. Leonard Slosky was hired at that time to study the situation. It was Mr. Slosky's opinion that any contamination of TOV groundwater there had been caused by the spill at the adjacent property. Larry said TOV also thought that mediation that was being done at the adjacent service station would also cleanse the groundwater on TOV property. Larry recommended that Mr. Slosky return at this time to determine whether the mediation on the adjoining property had in fact cleansed the groundwater on TOV's property. Larry said TOV needed to get these tests done in a timely manner, and if the tests showed the groundwater had not be cleansed, Council needed to decide whether or not to litigate the matter. He advised TOV had obtained an extension of the statute of limitations to bring a lawsuit against Chevron, and he felt TOV could protect itself by bringing the action, yet he was concerned about litigating if there was no reason to. He felt the cost of proceeding with a lawsuit against Chevron would very quickly equal the cost of the recommended testing. Larry added he had hired the services of Flo Phillips, environmental specialist, for assistance with potential litigation. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to hire Slosky and Company to test the wells for the sum of $4,278 to be paid from Council Contingency funds. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Larry said he would speak with Mr. Slosky to determine whether this testing would firmly establish whether the groundwater had been zbediated or not. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Jim Gibson stated he wanted to discuss the proposed Vail Commons purchase. It was agreed to discuss this item in Executive Session after adjournment of the regular meeting. Mayor Osterfoss noted Helen Fritch, President of the Board of the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, had written expressing the Foundation's desire to maintain closer communication with Council. Ms. Fritch invited Council to appoint a Council member to act as an advisory member on the Vail Alpine Garden Board. Jim Shearer nominated Bob Buckley to accept that appointment, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 Q.----~` ~,~ Council agreed to addresy ~a letter dated Febituary 23, 1993, from Dave Cole regarding Smoking in Public Plac ~ at a work session after ski season. A letter dated Februry 22, 1993, had been received from Josef Staufer, President of the Vail Village Inn (WI), r gardirig $47,5D0 WI was required to pay toward the cost of moving the Ski Museum. Merv Lapin felt there were facts missing from Mr. Staufer's letter, and Jim Gibson suggested that the planning staff ,assemble all of the facts before discussion at a future work session. 5 ~ . There being no further business, Merv Lapin moved that Council adjourn into Executive Session to discuss a land negotiation contract. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,alb f ~P , d `~~I ~ ~-~-~ Margare A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly ~.. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by porianne S. ©eto ~1 C:WI IN5MAR2.93 6 " ~, A , MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 16, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 16, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 F.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Tawn Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Bill Hanlon noted he had spoken with Ken Hughey concerning increased policing in the Village and walk-throughs on private properties as a deterrent to any potential problems during the upcoming Spring breaks. Ken Hughey noted TOV did not have the staffing levels to meet peak demand times, but the Police Department had been trying to respond to all requests for additional walk-throughs in hotels and the parking structures. He added there were contingency plans to put staff on overtime to meet the needs of lodge owners and people the Village if needed. Mr. Hanlan also expressed his feeling that TOV was at a point where afull-tixne Mayor and Council, as well as a Town Manager, were needed. Item Na. 2 was a Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements far SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Coaaamercial Federal Savings. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello discussed issues addressed in the Community Development Department's {CDD) March 11, 1993, memo to Council requesting an insertion into paragraph 18.46.104 of this . ordinance to allow the applicant, with staff review, to modify common areas and add up to 1,400 square feet of additional common area in order to meet adapted TOV codes. Shelly explained, after further development of the structural plans far this project, the applicant had found that, due to the American Disability Act, Unif.,l ... Fire Code, and the Uniform Building Code there was a demand for an increase in common area and modification to common areas for the building. Shelly noted staff found this was a common request once building plans moved from planning stages to construction stages, and felt the requested insertion into this ordinance was an appropriate addition. Council agreed to the requested insertion. Fred Otto advised he had learned he did not own Westhaven Drive; it was still owned by Vail Ventures. However, he said a coalition of the four remaining undeveloped parcels, the MECM site, the Building C site {Cornerstone), the Ruins site {Westhaven Apartments), and the Triplex site {Millrace ITT) and the Cascade Village Association {CVA) would make a contribution of $9'1,500 to TOV to assist TOV with refurbishing Westhaven Drive and taking it aver. Mr. Otto stated the $97,500 would be contributed as follows: $24,000 from CVA, $23,000 from Commercial Federal who awns the Building C site {Corn.erstone), $5,000 from Mike Lauterbach for Millrace IV, $24,500 from MECM, and $21,000 from the owner of the Ruins (Westhaven Apartments.) The $97,500 figure was the figure derived at and detailed in Larry Grafel's memo to Council dated February 12, 1993, regarding Westhaven Drive improvements. The memo indicated the Public Works Department {PW} had reviewed the information provided by the applicants at a meeting with Greg Hall, TOV Engineer, Estaquio Cortina, Ned Gwathmey, Jerry Mulliken, and Larry Grafel on February 10, 1993, and PW Y r.y~' had analyzed that in£~A~ation with regard to the subdivision ordinance standards for public streets. The memo listed specific improvements required for Westhaven Driver and cost estimates for those improvements. The mechanics of transferring title and dedicating Westhaven Drive to TOV were discussed. Mr. Otto noted that Andy Norris had no problem himself deeding over the road, but Mr. Otto indicated that Mr. Norris could not supply information about the status of transferring title from other owners. Mr. Otto said this issue would require further investigation, which he felt was a responsibility he hoped TOV would assist with. There was discussion about the timeframe for payment of the $97,500. Mr. Otto said he had hoped to have that as a condition of Certificate of Occupancy {CO). He did not, however, have a problem either putting it up before that time or bonding it. He assumed if TOV received title, TOV would take over maintenance and snow removal. Mayor Osterfoss felt it would be sensible for TOV to consider taking over maintenance and snow removal once it received title to the road, and, in conjunction with that, felt that would be the appropriate time for the applicants to pay the $97,500. Mr. Otto said that would work, but felt it was important to the participants in this project to understood that the only thing that was going to happen was an overlay. There would be no change in the curvature or line of sight, no change in the bridge, and that existing encroachments lying within Westhaven Drive would not require a license or encroachment agreement. Mr. Otto anticipated the deeding of the road and payment of the $97,500 would occur in 1993. He felt construction of the road would not normally be done until heavy construction was completed, so he expected, if they could get started this summer . with the heavy equipment and steel erection, construction of the road could be done in the summer of 1994. Mayor Osterfoss asked if there would be any cost changes as a result of proceeding in 1994. Larry Grafel stated if there was a delay, current prices with an approximate 5% increase would be appropriate to consider. Mr. Otto pointed out the $97,500 estimate in Larry Grafel's memo contained a $19,500 contingency, and Mr. Otto hoped if construction was less than that, the difference would be returned pro rata to the participants. Mayor Osterfoss felt that was a reasonable request. There was further discussion about the project's timeframe, Tom Steinberg indicating TOV did not want to be held to this agreement indefinitely; this agreement was for 1993 as far as he was concerned. Mr. Otto also indicated his group felt TOV should participate in this in same f~~~. He said he has been struggling to get Glen Lyon to participate in this as they were the direct beneficiary of all of this, but to date they have not been able to find a way to get Glen Lyon to participate. Tam said the building permit was tied to TOV's receipt of the $97,500 and the title to the land, and if Mr. Otto could not get title until 1994, the project would not go until 1994. Mr. Otto felt TOV had to cooperate and conduct, at his cast, a condemnation proceeding. Mr. Otto and Lary Eskwith discussed the details and timing involved with condemnation proceedings including appraisals and public hearings. It was noted the condemned party had thirty days to obtain an appraisal, and Mr. Otto would be responsible for charges incurred for that. Larry felt it could be four to six months before actual receipt of immediate possession could occur. Mayor Osterfoss summarized the sequence of events to occur: the title for Westhaven Drive was to be presented at no cost to TOV, that $97,500 would be contributed to TOV by the group of interested property owners in the area, and following that a building permit would be issued. Larry Eskwith confirmed that MECM did not presently own the road, and because TOV could possibly be taking a Quit Claim Deed, Larry indicated he wanted a title commitment policy. The building permit issue was discussed. Mr. Otto felt it was reasonable to make that a condition of occupancy. All agreed it would be to the benefit of all to see building commence this summer, but Mr. Otto felt if TOV made acquisition of the road a condition of the building permit, he did not feel summer building would be possible if Larry's four to six month estimate was correct. Mr. Otto said the money would be there, but title to the road may take the amount of time Larry Eskwith thought. Mayor Osterfoss stated until title and the money were there, TOV would not be maintaining the road. She also said because Larry Grafel and Greg Hall had analyzed the cost for this project, at $97,500 it should be considered TOV was contributing the cost of design, testing, and project management. There was additional discussion about the 1993 cost estimates versus future costs. Larry Grafel noted, as Mr. Otto had mentioned, there was a contingency in the $97,500, it was preferable to do the project all at once, and he felt it would be passible to do it after the heavy equipment was there and construction was underway. Larry Grafel felt the damage would be minimal and it could be done at a later time without major cost implications. 2 ;, After further conversation regarding timing of the road construction., an agreement was reached that, upon payment of the $97,500, a building permit could be issued even if title had not been transferred to TOV with the understanding that maintenance of the road would not start nor would there be issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) until title was also transferred. 1t was also established that if TOV was required to proceed with condemnation, that would be at Mr. Otto's expense. Larry Eskwith said it needed to be clear in the ordinance that when Mr. Ottds expense was addressed, not only the expense of the proceeding was to be addressed, but also the expense of any bond as the escrow for immediate possession. Mr. Otto said he then wanted to have a heavy hand in the condemnation proceeding because he felt he could da it very fast and very cheaply and wanted to be able to select the attorneys. It was mutually agreed that the developer would participate in any necessary condemnation proceedings. After further discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the following conditions agreed upon by TOV and the property owner: an effort would begin to obtain title to Westhaven Drive at no cost to TOV, $97,500 would be paid to TOV by the group who had made commitments to pay that, subsequent to the payment of the $97,500 building permits could be obtained to begin projects in Waterford and Cornerstone, a Temporary Certificate of Occupancies would not be issued by TOV for either building until title for the road had been transferred to TOV and at that time maintenance of that road by TOV would begin, if the project came in for less than $97,500, those funds would be returned by TOV to those who contributed, condemnation costs would be paid for by the applicant and TOV would cooperate in conducting condemnation proceedings with the . applicant choosing attorneys and appraisers, the specific improvements required to Westhaven Drive were those things specified in Larry Grafel's memo dated February 12, 1993, including that all transverse and longitudinal cracks would be sealed with a pave prep fabric prior to overlay, that any asphalt distress areas would be removed and reworked prior to overlay, 2' of asphalt would be removed and the base recompacted and new asphalt placed from Station 0+00 {Bridge} to Station fi+75 {Westin Hotel Entrance) right edge and once that overlay was completed, the minimum section would be 4" asphalt over 4" basecourse, that 2' of asphalt would be ~G~oved and the base recompacted and new asphalt placed from Station 5+00 (Westhaven Apartments/Parking Structure Exit} to Station 7+00 {Tower Cascade Club Entrance) left edge and once that overlay was completed the minimum section would be 4" asphalt over 4" basecourse, that the existing concrete pan would be removed and replaced with Type II B curb and gutter at Station 0+00 - 5+00 right side, that the existing concrete pan would be removed at Station 0+00 - 1+901eft side and Type II B curb and gutter would be installed and appropriate drive cuts and drive pans would be provided as well as a 6' sidewalk installed, Type II B curb and gutter would be installed from Station 1+90 -5+00 left side and appropriate drive cuts and drive plans and a 6' sidewalk would be installed at Station 1+90 - 5+00 left side and a 6' walk would be installed from Station 2+50 - 5+00, that at Station 5+00 - 10+00 left side, the existing concrete pan would be removed and replaced with Type II B curb and gutter and appropriate drive cuts and drive pans would be provided • as well as a f' sidewalk, that at Station 6+75 right side, the pan would be reworked to ensure storm flows stay on Westhaven Drive, that at Station 8+40 right side, the curb would be reworked and drivecut to ensure water would not flaw into delivery doors of the conference center, that Type II B curb and gutter and a 6' sidewalk would be installed at Station 8+60 - 9+80 right side, that any broken curb sections in the cul-de-sac area would be repaired prior to overlaying and that it would be assumed there would be 301.f. of curb replacement, that the entire road would be overlayed with 1 112" hot bituminous pavement, that 2 hooded inlets with sediment traps and 15" cmp piping to discharge the flows to Gore Creek would be installed at Station 0+101eft and right side, that at Station 5+00 left side the existing valley inlet would be converted to a hooded inlet, that at Station 2+00 - 3+50 right side rocks and landscaping would be modified to improve sight distance, that at Station 3+00 - 4+751eft side racks would be moved back to improve snow storage capacity, that at Station 3+50 + 4+75 right side rocks would be moved back to improve snow storage capacity, that any settled pavers would be reworked and brought up to grade, and that applicant would work to control runoff/icing problem on the stairs to the Cascade Club, and there would be a paragraph added to 18.46.104 of the ordinance to allow the applicant to add an additional 1,000 square feet of common area in the Waterford Building. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Larry Grafel introduced TOV's new Town Clerk, Holly McCutcheon. • At 8:20 P.M., a motion to adjourn the meeting to Executive Session to discuss legal, 3 ~y personnel, and real estate matters was made and passed unanimously, 5-~. Council reconvened the Regular Evening Meeting at 9:45. Jim Gibson was not present during this part of the meeting. The following issues were addressed: Tom Steinberg moved to approve the Agreement and General Release Contract for Rondall V. Phillips' severance as modified, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Larry Eskwith explained that authorization far Cockrell, Quinn, and Creighton to begin litigation, if necessary, against Chevron and Amoco concerning the groundwater contamination on the Old Town Shop property was needed. Rob Levine moved to approve such authorization, with a second from Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-Q. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ;7 .~ Marga~t A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Ho11y L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by porianne 5. Deto C:1MI~fMAR~6.93 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 20, 1993, 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 Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Bob Buckley thanked Merv Lapin for his generosity, time, and effort coordinating and hosting the Vail International Hockey Tournament during the week of April $, 1993. Item No. 2 on the agenda was the appointment of one new member to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The candidates, interviewed by Council on Apri113,1993, were Walter D. Allen, Rivers A. Jardis, Donna M. Lang, Allison G. Lassoe, and Ken Sortland. There was one position available. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to a~,~,.,int Allison G. Lassoe to the PEC for a two year term ending in February, 1995. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from, the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and 1992 Bond Proceed Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson discussed changes to General Fund and Capital Projects Fund figures shown in the ordinance since first reading. He noted $4,500 had been added for the "Will Call Inspection Program," a cellular phone program for TOV's building inspectors, and explained the program, its benefits, and estimated revenue. He advised he had listed the $4,540 under supplemental appropriations, and asked Council if they wanted to implement the program now before TOV changed the ordinance to charge an additional fee for the program. If the fee structure had to be changed, it would have to be changed by ordinance. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1993, on second reading with the immediate implementation of the "Will Call Inspection Program." Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item Na. 4 was Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning three tracts from Hillside Residential Zoning, Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zoning, Section 18.35 within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north anal east of the main Vail I-70 interchange. The applicant was SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, represented by' Jay Peterson. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. This ordinance had originally been read and approved on first reading on April 16, 1991, as Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, but staff believed that since so much time had past since the initial reading, the ordinance should be reconsidered at this time anal republished in full. Mike Mollica explained this was one of the final steps in planning process for Spraddle Creek. As detailed in the CDD memo dated April 20, 1.993, to Council, the Final Plat for a major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved by the PEC with a number of conditions. One of the conditions stated that, "After final plat recording and before any building permits are released for site improvements or individual residences, the following condition must be met: The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone desrgnatron 1 ~ y. shall be Green Belt and Natural Open Space." The applicant agreed to that condition, and the PEC had recommended approval of the rezoning request. A map of Spraddle Creek Estates was posted and reviewed by Council. It was determined that Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) had a listing on this property, and Kevin Lindahl, attorney representing TOV due to a possible conflict of interest for Tawn Attorney, Larry Eskwith, advised that Bab Buckley should step down from further discussion and not vote on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. There was lengthy discussion concerning the ownership and maintenance of Spraddle Creek Road. Merv Lapin explained that his questions about this issue were related to ongoing TOV/Forest Service land negotiations. In response to Jim Shearer's inquiry, Mr. Peterson noted that when this ordinance was originally read and approved on first reading in 1991, the open space tracts had not been dedicated to the TOV. He said the land had been owned by George Gillett at the time, but now, the Homeowners' Association, as part of its covenants, were obligated to maintain the open space. There was also discussion about whether taxes on the property had been paid and related particulars. Mr. Lindahl explained if this parcel transferred to the Homeowners' Association, through recent legislation, there would not be taxes due on it. He said this being a new subdivision, if it was conveyed to the Homeowners' Association this year, there should not be taxes due on it as long as all previous years' taxes were paid. Mr. Peterson felt 1993 taxes would probably have to be paid on. the whale subdivision. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Mike stated that the appr„N~~ate findings were built into the body of the ordinance, Merv asked that the motion for approval state that the ordinance was conditional upon the payment of 1993 taxes, and that the open space tracts be deeded to the association, but after review of those conditions, Merv asked instead that staff' be directed to make sure the taxes were paid. Tom Steinberg suggested that as a condition of approval, the open space tracts be deeded to the Homeowners' Association. Mayor Osterfoss wanted to be certain the land would remain open space, and in the event of a tax sale, TOV would have an opportunity to acquire the open space lands. Mr. Lindahl felt it was unlikely that the State of Colorado would change its position on taxation. The State currently does not assess taxes on open space owned by Homeowners' Associations, given that the value of that property was reflected in the individual parcels value, and as long as it was held by that association far the benefit of those properties, those properties were worth mare because they were adjacent to open space. After additional discussion concerning taxation and zoning, a vote was taken and the amended motion passed, 6-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. Sob Buckley rejoined Council. Item No. 5. was Proclamation No. 3, Series of 1993, a proclamation designating May 1, 1993, as Law Day U.S.A. Mayor Osterfoss read the proclamation in full. After brief discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Proclamation No. 3, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Before agenda item No. 6, Mayor Osterfoss returned to topics of discussion not completed during this date's Work Session: * All Council members agreed to schedule their all day Council Long Term Goal Setting session for Wednesday, May 26, 1993. * Mayor Osterfoss noted that one issue brought to light during recent focus groups was that the public seemed unaware of Council's and TOV's goals, visions, and mission. It was felt the public seemed generally unaware of issues on Council agendas, and better ways of informing the public were being examined. Mayor Osterfoss suggested pursuing donated or purchased space in all three newspapers to list Council's upcoming agendas and goals Council would be working toward including notations describing progress made on those goals. She asked Caroline Fisher to report on TOVs ongoing informational efforts. Caroline noted she had been working to utilize PR avenues in TOV's communications with the public, including press releases anal free media coverage. She said TOV had received a lot of support from the papers and the radio stations in trying to get out the Town's message, but it had been unanimously expressed in recent focus groups that perhaps newspaper space should be purchased regularly to print Council's agenda. She urged residents to call the local papers to let them know they think this would be a worthwhile use of space. Mayor Osterfoss noted Cliff Thompson, ABC Times Editor, had told her not only Council's agenda should be published, but also the Council goals and an update of what Council was doing was important public information. He felt his paper, except during very peak periods would be willing to 2 '. ~' provide space at no cost to TOV. Mayor Osterfoss felt it would be unfortunate if TOV had to pay to provide this information in other papers. Caroline thought perhaps a compromise could be negotiated with the papers. Merv Lapin suggested TOV goals and the names and phone numbers of Council members be broadcast on Town of Vail Information Station, Channol 11. Council reached consensus to pursuing these additional public information avenues. '~ Caroline Fisher also reported the Citizen Surveys had been mailed last week, and responses were coming back at an average of 65 per day. She noted the response f~l,~s were pre-stamped for easier return. * Larry Grafel presented a number of Information Update items including a review of upcoming meetings, and information regarding the scope of advertising and response to date for the Vail Town Manager position. * Larry Grafel noted Evie Nott had xnet with him to discuss withdrawing the Vail Nature Center from the Vail Recreation District (VRD), and Ms. Nott had asked him to discuss this with Council for their input. Ms. Nott's concern was that the Nature Center program was not a recreation program, it was an education program, and she felt the Nature Center's intended purpose had been lost under VRD's management. There was Council discussion about the issue from a variety of viewpoints, at which time Jim Gibson asked that Ms. Nott be asked to supply factual information about her proposal. Larry Grafel agreed tQ arrange a meeting with Ms. Nott. * Under Council Reports, Tom Steinberg reported that NWCCOG was planning on revising theiur bylaws and dues structure. * Mayar Osterfoss reported on Eagle River Basin issues discussed at the Colorado River Water District meeting held on Friday, April 16, 1993. At 8:50 P.M., Jim Gibsan moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session for discussion regarding land negotiation issues. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Respectfully submitted, Margar~A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: l~~wo~ri~G~c~~._ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken aY Dorianne S. Deto C:IMINAPI320.93 3 W ~ ~: MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 6, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 6, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfass, Mayor Bob Buckley Jim Gibson Rob Levine Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Ralph Davis asked Council to consider implementation of a mandatory or voluntary vehicle/truck weight restriction policy to help keep large trucks from tearing up the roads. Greg Hall advised this was one of the issues which would be addressed on Thursday, April 8,1993, at the Community Development Department's "Summer Construction Kick-off' meeting in Council Chambers. He suggested Mr. Davis attend that meeting. Bob Baker, president and resident of The Falls at Vail, inquired again about issues he had discussed with Council at the December 17, 1991, and April 7, 1992, evening meetings. He felt the issues he had raised at those meetings, izacluding concerns about road maintenance, landscaping, and drainage problems at the I-70 180 East Vail exit had still not been addressed. He recalled Ron Phillips had advised those undertakings had been scheduled for completion during the spring of 1992. Greg Hall reported on the progress of efforts to address these issues. Item No. on the agenda 2 was approval of the minutes of the March 2, 1993, and March 16, 1993 evening meetings. Tom Steinberg moved to approve these minutes, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General I+~ind, Capital Projects Fund, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund, and 1992 Bond Proceed Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial, Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson briefly reviewed changes made to TOV's Schedule of 1992 Appropriations to be Rolled into 1993 and Supplemental Appropriations since Council had last reviewed it at the March 23, 1993 Wark Session. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was discussion regarding a Perf.,~ ~..anee and Conference Center (P&CC) Demand Analysis. Steve Barwick explained the P&CC Finance Committee's desire to hire a firm to conduct an analysis of the likely usage and economic impact of the proposed Vail conference facility. After brief discussion, Rob Levine moved to approve expenditure of up to $35,000 for the requested use analysis; $15,000 of that amount was to come from Council Contingency funds. Bab Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. After the vote, Cliff Gardner, P&CC Ca-Chairman, discussed this issue from the viewpoint of being an item far election this fall. The P&CC Finance Committee asked for and received approval from Council to attempt to raise funds from private sources 1 ,, to prepare this issue for the ballot this fall. Before discussion of Agenda Item No. 5, Larry Eskwith recommended Council adjourn for a brief Executive Session. Tom Steinberg moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss Hated that, due to conflict of interest, Bob Buckley would Hat participate in this Executive Session discussion or discussion of Agenda Item No. 5. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1; Bab Buckley abstaining. Council reconvened at 10:05 P.M. Item No. 5 was an appeal of the Design Review Board's (DRB) March 17, 1993, decision approving the primary unit at 784 Potato Patch/Lot 15/Vai1 Potato Patch. The applicant was Loper Development. The appellants were Andy and Lucinda Daly and Mr. and Mrs. George Wiegers, represented by Art Abplanalp, attorney with the law offices of Dunn,, Abplanalp & Christensen. Shelly Mello noted the DRB had unanimously approved the application for a primary unit on March 17, 1993, with the condition that the application meet zoning. There were also two recommendations to the applicant, the first being that the applicant amend the landscaping plan to include adjacent properties; the second being that stone be added to the lower level of the building. Shelly indicated there was an unusual situation with this appeal in that the secondary unit on this property was approved in October, 1992, prior to approval of the primary unit and was currently under construction. Mayor Osterfoss noted, in addition to the Design Review considerations on appeal to Council, there were other appeals pending that would be dealt with by the Planning and Environmental Co**~mission {PEC). Those other appeals would not be subjects of discussion at this meeting. Larry Eskwith confirmed that the only concerns to be considered by Council during this appeal were those items related to the Design Review Guidelines. Larry referred specifically to Section 6 of Mr. Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter of appeal. Section 6 of that letter referred specifically to Design Review Guidelines 18.54.050.A.1, 18.54.050.A.2, 18.54.050.B.1, 18.54.050.B.2(a-e), concerning compatibility with existing structures, building sites and unique land forms and features, location. and configuration of structures and access ways with regard to existing topography, massing, terrain, pro~+~ity to adjacent properties, drainage, and general impact of proposed projects upon adjoining properties. Mr. Abplanalp's letter of March 23, 1993, indicated two adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Wiegers and Mr. and Mrs. Daly, disagreed with the DRB's determination that the proposal and plans for a primary residence to be located on the an Lot 15, Black 1, Vail Potato Patch, conf~~~ed with requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade. In that letter, Mr. Abplanalp referred to aspects he felt central to requirement far the disapproval of the proposal and plans submitted by Loper Construction Services, Inc., including uncertainty regarding GRFA and compliancy with other land use regulations, previous representation and reliance upon location and size of building and building envelope, violation of height limitation, absence of a model, ineffective staking and inspection, and violations of Design Review Guidelines. His letter concluded that premature consideration of the Loper application without zoning review, the mass of the proposed structure, its proximity to Potato Patch Drive, its configuration on the t~~~«in, its height, and the GRFA proposed to be constructed violated either the letter or the intent, or bath, of the design review regulations and the zoning code of the Town of Vail. Mr. Abplanalp reviewed the chronology of this project, noting that between the time of the approval of the secondary unit in October, 1992, and the primary unit, there had been a change of architects. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner was the new architect engaged to complete the project, and because of the configuration of the lot and the plan as a whole, options for development of the primary unit were limited. The developer decided to maximize the square footage, but in such a way as it was not the same plan the applicants presented to the DRB in the fall of 1992, when the secondary unit was approved. Mr. Abplan:alp felt there were procedural errors related to GRFA determinations and zoning. Mayor Osterfoss advised that that was one of the issues being handled by the PEC. Larry Eskwith indicated the project, in fact, had been found to be in compliance with zoning regulations. Secondly, Larry felt the record would show that when the issue was originally raised at the March 17, 1993, DRB meeting, no one had objected to proceeding with the project. Kristan Pritz confirmed that no one had objected. Mr. Abplanalp felt this was one of the difficulties of having a de novo hearing. Mr. Abplanalp's recollection was that when the question was raised, he illustrated a problem on the plan relating to the GRFA determination. He submitted there was improper consideration because the people who were there had no opportunity to review the 2 determinations. In retrospect, Mayor Osterfoss asked if a GRFA check was done on this project. Shelly confirmed it had been, and the project was found to be under its allowable GRFA. She added the space Mr. Abplanalp was speaking of had been addressed at the hearing. Mr. Abplanalp fully reviewed the history of the property. He felt this residence did not coan.ply with the Design, Review Guidelines. There was a review of those guidelines. Mayor Osterfoss asked Mr. Abplanalp to highlight the sections he felt were not in compliance. He highlighted Sections 18.54A50.A.1, 18.54.Q5Q.A.2, 18.54.Q50.B.1, 18.54.05Q.B.2(a-e), and he offered specifics to illustrate why he felt those were not in compliance. He distributed two exhibits, a page of notes from a DRB meeting, and a list of thirteen proposed findings, any one of which he felt warranted reversal of the ap~,,..,val of this project. There was discussion regarding whether or not the landscaping on the site was adequate and whether or not the adjacent property owners could work together on the landscaping issue. Mr. Loper was willing to work with the neighbors on this point. Kristan believed that the DRB felt the landscaping plan was adequate. George Lamb, DRB Chairman, confirmed that the DRB felt that the landscaping plan was adequate, and added that the applicant was willing to locate landscaping on neighbor's property to create a natural edge rather than a straight line of trees. Shelly added the staff was concerned with how that was being handled. If landscaping was to go onto the Cohen residence to the west and the Daly residence to the east, then those residents needed to be co-applicants on a single application for the landscape plan. Mr. Abplanalp felt, that although the landscaping was deemed adequate and was not a condition, the affect of that was that one property would be permitted to be developed in such a way that it could be maximized only by incorporating other property awned by neighbors in the mitigation plan, making the plan dependant, not self-sufficient. Mr. Lamb disagreed. He felt the applicant agreeing to a landscape flow showed sensitivity on the applicant's part to the neighbors' concerns. He felt this was a way to create a mare natural streetscape. George Wiegers, property owner to the south of the proposed Loper development, felt the representations made in the October, 1992, hearings were not followed. His primary objection was to the mass of the proposed building. His secondary objection was that the mass of the buildings did not allow any room for drainage, which he said was a problem on that road. He felt the project would diminish the value of his property. There was discussion about allowable heights of retaining walls as stated in Section 18.58. Shelly Mello said an issue that comes up quite often was the question of when something become a retaining wall when it was part of the structure. In this case, staff determined that this element was in fact part of the structure, it was not a retaining wall, and because of that it had to be added to the setback. Shelly said the slope of the cut slope was less than 2:1, which Mayor Osterfoss added was a key paint related to the Design Review Guidelines. Betsy Wiegers asked why, after originally disapproving the project, the DRB then approved it a month later. To try to clarify this for Mrs. Wiegers, Larry Eskwith and Mayor Osterfoss explained height and site coverage issues were not part of the DRB's function. Larry Eskwith felt that zoning gave individuals certain. development rights related to height, site coverage, and interior volume (GRFA). He felt the Design Review Guidelines allowed individuals to utilize their development rights as set by the zoning code. He advised that the Design Review Guidelines picked up where zoning ended. He explained that the Design Review Guidelines came into play with regard to where a structure would be positioned an the site to be most appropriate in terms of its compatibility with the neighborhood. But the DRB, nor Council, had the right to determine the appropriate use of these items because those were "by right" criteria, not conditional uses, or special use permit requirements. Andy Daly, adjacent property owner to the east, said the results of the October 21, 1992, meeting which approved the secondary unit now under construction and near completion were based on a site plan and model showing a relationship of the secondary and primary units and haw the primary unit would sit an the lot. He said they had some objections to the secondary unit, but, Mr. Daly said the Laper's responded tQ those objections. They were sensitive to landscaping and to some subtleties in design. As a result, Mr. Daly no longer objected to the secondary unit because the project an its own seemed to make sense. He said the DRB went through the whole process anal began to see the relationships of the primary and secondary unit. He said he specifically asked the architect at that meeting about the 3 ' A building envelope, feeling it looked to small to accommodate a primary unit. The architect reassured Mr. Daly that it was adequate to handle that. Mr. Daly was not challenging Mr. Loper's ability ar right to build the square footage proposed, but he now challenged the lack of sensitivity and difference of the project from representations originally made. He thought those representations were the same as those made to the DRB. He pointed out that the DRB had only one continuing member of that Board, so he felt there was an incongruity in what had happened since four new members had been appointed to the Board. In addition, he asked whether the DRB failed to consider the massiveness and compatibility of the structure with the neighborhood. He felt the original plan considered that. He said he would not have been supportive of the original plan if there had not been certain representations he believed the previous DRB relied on. He distributed a computer generated photo based on the drawings provided. He felt this photo showed the massiveness of the project relative to the rest of the neighborhood. He noted other adjacent neighbors, Karen Josephson and Phil Freedman were unable to attend this evening's meeting, but they had sent a letter voicing their objections to Council. Dr. Cohen, another neighbor, also had signed a letter expressing concern about what was originally represented and what was before them now. He felt the DRB's mission was to see that structures met zoning requirements and to ensure that what was planned was consistent with what was already being developed or had been developed in the neighborhood while still allowing a new building to be designed in such a way that the owner could maximize what was permitted on the site. He felt the DRB was not protecting adjacent property owners. He acknowledged some of this was due to things beyond anyone's control, such as turnover on the DRB and loss of the tape of comments related to the representations that were originally made, and he hoped Council would realize that and ask the Loper's to re-examine the original building design so the neighbors were not faced with a footprint 70% larger than originally represented. Mr. Daly said there were approximately 40 changes made on the secondary unit after it had been approved. He felt it was important for Council to realize that the adjacent property owner's wanted protection and felt that the process had broken dawn through a series of mechanisms, and as a result, he felt the project should be required to be re-thought. Lucinda Daly expressed concern about potential loss of the view corridor at Potato Patch if the second phase of this project went ahead. She hoped the impact of the second phase could be reduced so it could go back on the originally proposed footprint and still get the square footage allowed. Mayor Osterfoss noted there were no r~„~isions within the Design Review Guidelines relating to impact from views on adjacent properties. Mr. Abplanalp reviewed differences in the maps from what Council had seen during a site visit earlier this date and repeated that the appellants major concerns were the mass and the siting. Mr. Abplanalp said the original architect represented to the DRB and adjacent property owners that this building could be constructed and effectively maximized within. the envelope originally represented to the DRB in October, 1992. He suggested without enforcement of zoning codes, people would find loopholes in the zoning code and misuse the process. Bill Pierce reviewed the history of the proposed construction of this project, responded to Mr. Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter point by point, and compared the particulars of the Wiegers' and Daly's residences to the proposed Loper residence. As everyone agreed, only the secondary unit gained approval in the fall of 1992, and Mr. Pierce did not believe the location of the primary unit was a specific of condition of approval for the secondary unit. On February 3, 1993, there was a conceptual review of the primary unit. He said the DRB required that both units be entirely compatible in architectural style and detail. He said he altered the size, style, and percentage of openings. Council reviewed and questioned various aspects of displayed blueprints of the project. There was a review of elevations of the project. Tom Steinberg initiated discussion about changes made to the prof ect without design review. He felt this was happening far too often and should not be allowed. Mayor Osterfoss felt it was important in this case to look at what was built and ascertain whether or not that was compatible with the proposal for the primary unit. She said, according to the DRB, the design was compatible at this point. Mr. Pierce felt it was important to note there was no discussion at the February 3, 1993, meeting regarding any objection to the massing, siting, or setback issues that came up at a later date. After further review of the chronology of the history of this N~.,ject, including some debate about technicalities cited in Mr. Abplanalp's March 23, 1993, letter, Bill Loper noted most of the numerous change made on the initial submittal were made because the DRB felt they 4 would be more appropriate. He also noted he called the Daly's when he first purchased the lot anal indicated the Loper's wanted to share his road. That proved not to be possible for legal reasons. He noted it was a difficult site to build on, and they have spent a great deal of time trying to work out the lot. He said they always intended to develop a house as large as was permitted, and the original footprint did not indicate he was not going to try to build approximately 3,700 feet. Mr. Loper explained the firing of his first architect and the engagement of Mr. Pierce because it was felt he understood the property, the DRB, and what the Loper's were trying to do. He said .most of the things they have tried to da had been in an effort to mitigate the impact his project would have. He felt the plans shown represented a fair attempt at trying to do what would satisfy everyone. After further discussion and review of several related sections of the Design Review Guidelines, she noted by right, zoning on this site was not superseded by the Design Review Guidelines. Larry Eskwith confirmed that was accurate. After individual Council member input was heard, Rab Levine moved to overturn the DRB decision approving the Loper application based on non-compliance with the Design Review Guidelines, specifically Chapter 18.54.050, Section A, Section B(1) and B{2), and Section I. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1-1, Jim Shearer opposed; Bob Buckley abstaining. Bob Buckley rejoined Council. Item No. 6 was an appeal of a PEC approval to allow a Type II Employee Housing Unit to be constructed on Lot 41/Glen Lyon/1210 Westhaven Lana. The appellant was Kristen Blume. The applicant was Larry Grace. Andy Knudtsen noted that the applicant's request for an EHU Type II required conditional use approval from the PEC. He reviewed the March 22, 1993, CDD memo to the PEC including a description of the request, a zoning analysis, criteria and findings, and staff recommendations. Andy tailed attention to the EHU Criteria and noted all of the criteria for this request were met without question. He said staff and PEC believed that the request met the conditional use criteria. He emphasized No. 3 regarding the effect upon traffic. He noted the amount of traffic the proposed EHU would generate in the neighborhood was the focus of discussion of this appeal from the view of two neighbors at this meeting. Kristen Blume expressed concern about the density and traffic flow throughout Glen Lyon. She did not feel the PEC had taken adequate consideration of the problems that extra housing would cause in the area. Mr. Grace felt this was a good area to accommodate employee housing, and explained his plans for having a caretaker on the site as he was only apart-time resident. He stated he understood the street there now serving one home was to be widened not only to permit access to his site, but other sites planned for devel~i,~ent. Howard Stone, a resident two sites to the west of the subject property, agreed with Mr. Grace about the buildablilty of the site, and felt the requested EHU would be compatible from an architectural standpoint. He did not believe, however, that anyone had taken into consideration exactly where this site was. He did feel the Town had a need for employee housing, that staff encouraged Mr. Grace to consider this, but he referred to a . number of problems with Westhaven Drive, including that it was the only road to the subject site. He, like Ms. Blume, was concerned about future requests f~ „~ other homeowners in the area should Council later observe problems with too many EHUs there. After further discussion, Larry Eskwith confirmed that under Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, Westhaven Road would be dedicated to TOV and brought up to TOV standards. Andy Knudtsen noted currently the private driveway leading from Westhaven Drive to four lots in the subject area was substandard. He said Mr. Grace's development, with or without the EHU, required upgrading the driveway to 18' in width plus 1' shoulders on either side. Greg Hall said standards for a private road was 22' feet wide, however, the easement that was dedicated in the plat which could not be changed at this point was 20'. Greg indicated the easement had been fully utilized as based on the plat, and that was part of a prior agreement with the Forest Service. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to uphold the PEC decision to allow a Type II EHU to be constructed on Lot 41, Glen Lyon Subdivisian/1212 Westhaven Lane with findings per staff's memo.. Rob Levine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 was a Vail Town Council appeal of a DRB decision regarding final design approval of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, located to the northeast of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. The applicants were SBC Development Corporation, represented by Emil Rothlisberger and ` Jay Peterson. Mike Mollica reviewed his memo to the DRB dated March 17, 1993, detailing 5 .< S the DRB's granting final design approval for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision on April 17, 1991. That approval was valid for a period of one year. This original approval did expire, the ownership of the subdivision has changed, and subsequently the current owner had to . come back through the DRB process to obtain DRB approval again. Mike stated the project was presented to the DRB exactly as it was in 1990 and 199].. He noted the DRB reviewed four categories on March 17, 1993, regarding the subdivision landscape plans and retaining walls; architectural site development and landscape guidelines -for residences; subdivision lighting standards and lot monument lighting; and the subdivision entrance sign, directory sign, and individual lot monument signs (residential name plates). Attorney Kevin Lindahl represented TOV on this issue due to a conflict of interest for Vail Town Attorney, Larry Eskwith. Mr. Lindahl advised Bob Buckley not to participate in the discussion or vote on this issue due to a conflict of interest. Tom Steinberg expressed concern about the possibility of this project being started and there being a possible bankruptcy. He wanted assurance that there would be adequate collateral to finish the project. Mike felt there would be adequate collateral to secure development of the project, and that the collateral issue would be further discussed under Agenda Item Na. 8. Tom Steinberg moved to uphold the DRB decision with the same criteria for approval as used by the DRB. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and motion passed, d-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 8 was a Final Plat review of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, located to the northeast of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. The applicants were SBC Devel„N~ent Corporation represented by Emil Rothlisberger and Jay Peterson. Again Kevin Lindahl represented TOV on this issue due to a conflict of interest for Vail Town Attorney, Larry Eskwith, and Bob Buckley did not participate in discussion or vote an this issue. Mike Mollica noted the Final Plat for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision was approved by the PEC on February 11, 1991. The plat was never finalized and retarded because of outstanding conditions. The 1991 PEC approval carried 26 conditions, all of which had now been met, with the exception of the final language in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement, which Mike noted was currently being fine tuned, as well as some changes to the covenants for the subdivision. Mike indicated he had communicated very closely with Mr. Lindahl about that. Mike said staff recommended approval of the Final Plat and stated that the plat would not be recorded until the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and the covenants were an place. Tom Steinberg asked what amount of collateral the developer would be required to post, to guarantee completion of the project. Mike said there was a guarantee in the form of a letter of credit at 100% ($~.7 million). Mr. Peterson agreed it was 100% secured by the letter of credit. The project was scheduled to start this spring. Jim Gibson moved for final plat approval, with a second from Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken anal the motion passed 5-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining. Bob Buckley rejoined Council. Before adjournment, Pam Brandmeyer reviewed times and dates of various upcoming TOV events. There being no further business, Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting, with a second by Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Margret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: C~ ` Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minuses taken by Dorianne 5. Deia C:1MlN5APR6.93 6 a ~~ . s MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 4, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:55 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Bob Buckley Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Rob Levine TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Larry Eskwith, 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 a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of the Minutes of the April 6, 1993, and Aprii 20, 1993 evening meetings. B. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance rezoning three tracts from Hillside Residential Zoning, Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zoning, Section 18.38 within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the main Vail I-70 interchange. Merv Lapin read the titles in full. Discussion followed regarding Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1993, second reading. Merv Lapin raised the question of ensuring that taxes were paid on subject property. Jim Gibson then moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Toxn Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-0-1, Sob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015 and 16.22.016 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prahibition of neon lighting and signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic lighting and signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic lighting and signs, and providing details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Shelly Mello presented the ordinance to Cauncil, directing them to the attached memo from the Community Development Department {CDD} dated May 11, 1993. Jim Gibson asked about the enforcement of non-conforming signs currently in place, stating that it was very difficult to enforce the removal of such signs without an amortization period. Shelly stated that the department felt that the ordinance would take care of such problems. Jim Gibson asked that CDD take a look at all non-conf.,~~ing signs in the Vail area and would let Council know how many there were, stating that they knew of many such violations. She stated that there had been several meetings held with business owners to discuss this matter. After further discussion, a Tom Steinberg move to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. -:~ Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Sections 18.04.137, 18.04.205, 18.04.251, 18.Q4.273 and 18.04.367, setting forth new definitions relating to the Zoxung Code; repealing Section .~ 18.54.050(0)(11}; amending Section 15.54.040(0)(1) of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Paragraph (m} providing far outdoor lighting plans to be submitted to the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail; amending Section 18.54.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Paragraph (J) providing a new Section of the Design Review Board Guidelines relating to outdoor lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen, representing the CDD, presented the ordinance to Council. Council was asked about anon-conf„~u.ing section to the ordinance. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, reminded Council that this had been excluded from the ordinance previously at the direction of Council. There was discussion with regard to including a time schedule in this ordinance. Larry Eskwith advised Council they could adjourn to Executive Session, not pass this ordinance an first reading, or table the discussion. Council elected to go into Executive Session. Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the public meeting and go to Executive Session, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Council left the Council Chambers at 8:10 P.M. The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 P.M. John Spillane, representing Henry Kravis, a property owner in Vail Village, addressed Council, stating that his client had invested a significant amount of money in outdoor lighting and did not feel the Town had any right to make the lighting non-conforming. He stated the neighbors had not complained of the lighting. After further discussion, a motion was made by Jim Gibson to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, on. #"irst reading with the addition of a time schedule of five years for removal of non-conforming lights with a penalty for each day of non-compliance to be included in the ordinance prior to second reading. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Under other discussion, Merv Lapin asked Council to approve a motion to continue the Vail Recreation District lease until December 31, 1994. He reminded Council that the Old Town Shops and the Nature Center had been removed from the contract. Approval was also needed to have the negotiations concluded for the new lease by February 1,1994. Jim Gibson moved to approve the Vail Recreation District lease through December 31,1994, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfiilly submitted, /~ Margot A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~~~ Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary Caster C:IMINSMAY4.93 2 ,+~ ~: • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 18, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 18, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIAL ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Rob Levine Bob Buckley Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Tawn Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Hermann Staufer expressed concern about possible flooding in the Valley, and inquired about the availability of sandbags and other equipment to handle any flooding emergencies. Larry Grafel advised sandbags and equipment for trenching were available, and directed the public to contact the Public Works Department for further information. Item No. 2 on the agenda was an update and discussion regarding the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center (VVP&CC}. Before presenting the ideas compiled from the many committees working on this project, Cliff Gardiner, VVP&CC Steering Committee Chairman, stated the group was actively soliciting input anal none of the ideas presented were cast in stone. He began his presentation with a statement of the group's vision, "... a performance center that will provide ayear-round venue for the performing arts in the Vail Valley that meets our high standards of excellence, and a conference center that will help grow ayear-round economy as well as improve occupancy and performance at all times." He reviewed the goals and history; design plans "A", "B", and "C"; the 93,700 square foot detail of plan. "C";local conference and theater space comparisons; plan "C"'s estimated construction cost figures totaling $22,000,000; total estimated project cost figures totaling $25,400,040 including construction costs, band issuance, and endowment funds; perf„~.,.ance center private funding figures and conference center revenue bond figures; review of the conference center annual cost showing an annual operating shortfall of $2,078,000 and proposed methods for raising those dollars annually including (in 1994 dollars} business license fees of $350,000, a 7110% tourism tax on attractions, lodging, restaurants, and rental cars for revenue of $1,057,000, and an 8110% lodging tax in Vail on all hotels and condominium visits for revenue of $671,000; and current anal proposed taxes and assessments far Vail, Beaver Creek, and Avon. Mr. Gardiner emphasized that the funding for the VVP&CC was a completely separate issue I'i~,... the funding of valley wide marketing. He continued his presentation with a chart showing regional and national lodging tax levels, and a July, 1992, straw poll of Vail businesses indicating that 82% of those polled at that time were in favor of a performance and conference center. He discussed the private funding goal of $16 million. for the performance center {$8 million by August 15, ].993 with assurance of meeting the goal). He noted the process included continued community input, Town Council endorsement, informed decision makers, community forums, and neighbor to neighbor contact, and that August 31, 1993 was the date set for final evaluation of the feasibility of this project. The decision to continue or to stop the project would be primarily based on whether private fund raising efforts had raised adequate levels of funds and whether there was public support of proposed tax amendments. Before discussion was opened for input and questions, project architects, Gordon Pierce and David Zehren displayed rough draft, preliminary schematic drawings of the perf~~u,.ance and conference center site plan. Exterior design ideas were discussed. Jim Gibson. asked Mr. Gardiner if professional input on the tourism and lodging tax had been considered. Mr. Gardiner advised there was an in dept}a demand use analysis study presently under way and was due by the end of July, 1993. Mayor Osterfoss inquired +.• if that same study would include information on who would use the facility and in what numbers. Mr. Gardiner said it would, and it would also include information about what users would like to see incorporated. Additional discussion related primarily to the specifics of funding and financial picture of this project as a whale. Mr. Gardiner advised the group's Finance Committee had a detailed report addressing projected revenue for the performance center which would be completed shortly. Rob Levine pointed out the $1,000,000 shortfall per year was f~~,,. both the performance center side and conference center side. Although he felt the economic merits of the conference center side could be weighed, he did not think anyone was proposing that the performance center side was an economically ,viable engine. He did not feel it was meant to make economic sense, rather it was a quality of life issue. Mr. Gardiner noted there were many opinions as to what either of these components would do for the Valley, but he felt, short term, more benefit to business would be seen from the performance center than the conference center because he said there was a marketing cycle that had to happen to build business into the conference center. He agreed with Rob, though, that the primary motivation for the perS~~,uance center was a quality of life issue that would make the Valley a better year-round community. He felt it would enhance the reputation of the Valley. Frank Johnson, VVP&CC Steering Committee member, spoke about the use of the performance center. He stated his committee had spent a great deal of time talking with local user groups and found a great deal of usage there; 120-130 days per year of local activities which could be accommodated by the perf„~~ance center. He said they did not attempt to quantify the usage from the universe of performing arts opportunities that might be attracted to this performance center. He added there had been no attempt to estimate the amount of usage the perf.,~u.ance center could get from convention groups, although he said there was a great deal of interest in fixed seat, general session-type theater events. Mr. Johnson said the seating capacity would not be sufficient for major productions, but was viewed more as a more intimate theater. Additional. discussion included comment about the potential of future scheduling conflicts, haw the size of the conference center was determined, whether requests for conference space were being received from groups and how much space was requested, and if there would be competition between the two facilities. Mr. Johnson explained that the way the convention center side of the project was determined was by contact with major hotel directors of sales and marketing with a scenario similar to the Jones & Phillips study. Jim Feldhaus discussed his research including direct mail inquiry efforts and responses. He noted his committee was waiting for the response rte,,... the demand analysis study to see if his research was validated. Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Johnson indicated a management plan, space release policies, and general philosophy far management of the facilities had not yet been developed. Rob Levine was uncertain that the $8 million could be raised by the stated deadline. He suggested the ballot issue be worded such that the facility would be built if and when the necessary funds were raised, but in the meantime the tax requested would be in place. There was discussion about the taxing scenario, and Mr. Gardiner noted many meetings had been scheduled for the immediate future to gather further public input, feelings, and points of view about funding and whether it was feasible to proceed ar not. Initial reasons for starting this project, including great interest in • economically leveling out the seasons, were reviewed. Mr. Gardiner anticipated he would return to Council in approximately three weeks with public feedback from the upcoming scheduled meetings. Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.160, 1626.010, 16.20.015 and 16.22.016 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon lighting and signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic lighting and signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic lighting and signs, and providing details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 1$.04 of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Sections 18.04.].37, 18.04.245, 18.04.251, 18.04.273 and 18.04.367, setting forth new definitions relating to the Zoning Code; repealing Section 18.54.050{C)(11); amending Section 18.54.040(C)(1) of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Paragraph {m) providing for outdoor lighting plans to be submitted to the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail; amending Section 18.54.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Paragraph (J} providing 2 a new Section of the Design Review Board Guidelines relating to outdoor lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin waved to remove both items fi ~~ the Consent Agenda far individual review, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, was discussed first. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Attorney Kevin Lindahl was present in TOV Attorney Larry Eskwith's absence. Shelly Mello stated the outstanding issue regarding this ordinance was amortization anal how many signs and businesses this regulation would impact. She stated she had reviewed signs in the Village, Lianshead, Cascade Village, West Vail Mall, and the East Vail area. She said her research showed that approximately 15-20 signs would have to be removed, either because they were in excess of size or quantity allowances or they were Wean. Shelly discussed several specific signs that would be impacted and why. Shelly clarified the question was should these signs become legal non-conf„~~ing in the future and the legal non-conforming section of the code apply, with the amortization indicating the signs had to be removed within five years. There was discussion about techniques regarding how non-conforming signs could be made legal non-conf„~~ing. Mayor Osterfoss pointed out that there could be mare than 10 square feet of Wean signs as long as each one was only 4 square feet. Shelly confirmed that. A proposed change to Section 7 of this ordinance to incorporate restrictions on cumulative number or size of signs was discussed. Art Abplanalp felt this ordinance was addressing mare than signs. He noted accent lighting and lighting located an the exterior of any building or structure were also addressed, and felt that that was . inappropriate within this ordinance. He felt the ordinance reached further than intended anal reference and required fairly significant changes; specifically that any reference to accent lighting located on the exterior of any building or structure should be deleted from the ordinance. Mr. Abplanalp felt the inf.,~.~..ation contained in this ordinance would logically be found in the Zoning Code, rather than ion. the Sign Code. After brief discussion, Kristan Pritz suggested the ordinance be tabled in order that Mr. Abplanalp could meet with Shelly and Larry Eskwith to refine the ordinance. Rob Levine moved to table Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, for one month until June 15, 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-0-1, Jim Gibson temporarily away from Council Chambers. Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, second reading was discussed next. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Attorney Kevin Lindahl was present in TOV Attorney Larry Eskwith's absence. Andy Knudtsen noted that the one change to this ordinance since its passage on f rst reading was the addition of new Sections 4 and 5 detailing the status of lighting not conforming to this ordinance and penalties for violating the regulations of the ordinance. Attorney Art Abplanalp, representing Tyrol Corporation and Renato Ibarra, owners of a landscape lighting system on Beaver Dam Raad, noted this ordinance had been in the process of development for over one year since TOV's design guideline, Section 18.54.050(c)(11), was declared unconstitutional by the Eagle County District Court. He felt the ordinance now under consideration did not fallow the advice of the court. He felt there were two critical aspects of this ordinance: {1} the strength of any light, and (2} the impact of that light on somebody else. He questioned the validity of a lighting ordinance intruding on to private property. In a lengthy commentary, Mr. Abplanalp suggested if there was to be same control of lighting it should be based on measured impact off of the property of the owner. He noted the Court specifically stated the problem with the previous ordinance was, in part, the ordinance was not adequately specific and there were no guidelines or standards to apply. He said Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, had standards, but they did not follow the court's logic, because the court, in an analogy, said lighting needed a measuring device like decibels in measuring noise. The TOV and the State of Colorado both have noise ordinances, and Mr. Abplanalp likened those to this Iighting ordinance and quoted the measuring techniques from a noise ordinance. Mr. Abplanalp suggested a technician might be a better source of regulation for this ordinance. Mr. Abplanalp did not know whether any litigation would result from this ordinance. He was curious as to what TOV expected to do with non- conforming lighting. In his opinion, the provision relating tt> that within this ordinance would affectively condemn the landscape lighting in place at his client's property. He inquired who was going to enforce this. He felt this ordinance should not be adopted because it did not follow the direction given by the Eagle County District Court, it was an imposition of aesthetic values, and it was inappropriately timed with reference to the question of whether .the people who would be impacted had any knowledge of it. • Next, John Spillane, representing Mr. and Mrs. Henry Kravis, owners of property an Forest Road, reviewed the comments he had made during first reading of this ordinance, and requested Council return the ordinance to the way it was written for first reading without 3 w the Han-conforming and penalty sections. He stated he agreed with Mr. Abplanalp's comments with respect to the enforceability of the new ordinance, and believed it was true there were certain standards set forth in this ordinance that would probably be subject to challenge. Mr. Spillane discussed the Kravis case and noted they had done a study of lighting at the time the old ordinance was under consideration, and that they had shared that information with TOV with the adea of testing the luminescence and the illuminance taming from lights, and haw it compared with any new study because they assumed that any new ordinance would be prospective only. Mr. Spillane said they had worked with TOV and had voluntarily decreased the luminance of the lights originally installed at the Kravis residence by ?5%, but felt they were now getting drawn back into the controversy. In the absence of the provisions TOV had added to Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, since first reading, he felt the Kravises would not object to the ordinance. He suggested a quick review of the law. He Hated that Larry Eskwith had advised Council about same of the potential litigation involved with this, and hoped Council understood the difference between the ordinance passed on first reading and how it read now on second reading with the additional provisions related to non- conf~~~ing uses. He felt he understood TOV's desire to have unif~~,,~ity in application of this ordinance, but felt TOV had tQ consider the legal implications of attempting to terminate legal pre-existing uses. He said that taking away legal uses of property required due process and just compensation, with the exception, in limited circumstances, which allowed far amortization of legal non-conforming uses in cases where, in furtherance of a municipality's police power to advance the public health, safety, and welfare, there was aphasing-out power that allowed owners to recoup their investments. He noted the only time that had ever been applied in Colorado was ixa. the context of billboards, and that was the case he had discussed . with Larry Eskwith in terms of whether Colorado allowed amortization of legal non- conforming uses. That case in Colorado which allowed for amortization of legal non- conf.,~L.ing use applied only to commercial context or to context in which the legal non- conforming use was generating revenue. This was a critical element because it could be determ~red how long revenue would be generated. As long as the revenue received back was reasonable, the legal non-conf„~~ing use could be required to be phased-out over that period of tune. He stated he was unable to find any case in which a legal non-conforming use could be amortized in a residential context where na money was being generated by the use. He believed Colorado courts would Hat approve an amortization program in a residential context, especially where there was no compelling public health ar safety consideration involved. He again asked Council to reconsider returning to the ordinance as passed on first reading. After further discussion, Mr. Abplanalp added he felt this ordinance should be a prohibition of unreasonable light off of a property and suggested thee issue should be dealt with in Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. There was discussion about light measurement techniques, and Andy Knudtsen emphasized that the consultants hired by TOV recommended very specific standards for measuring light. The benefit with the standards as proposed compared to a method recommended by Mr. Abplanalp was that staff could determine prior to installation if urooosed lighting would conforzaa to the ordinance. Additional discussion proceeded regarding attempts to meet direction given by the Eagle County District Court and the issue of enforcing this ordinance on private property. Andy indicated staff had spoken with the consultants hired by Mr. Kravis as well as another consultant. In comparing opinions of the these consultants, staff felt they had made the most appropriate choice. Andy also pointed out the specificity of this ordinance with regard to lumens and height. Mayor Osterfoss said she agreed with the original staff position regarding legal Han-conf~~,uing uses and suggested the ordinance changed back accordingly. Attorney Kevin Lindahl stated he was not aware of any cases which recognized economic obsolescence or amortization of a residential type use of property when something on the private property became anon-conforming use. The cases in Colorado were related to billboards, and it would be difficult t4 come up with a measurement far amortizing lighting related to residential use because, unlike commercial use, there was no real measurable economic value. Rob Levine then waved to approve Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, on second reading with the deletion in Section 4 of the verbiage, "Such non-conforming lighting shall be legal and may be continued and maintained for five (5) years after the effective date of this ordinance, but thereafter shall conform to every requirement of this ordinance. The five (5) year period • after the effective date of this ordinance shall be called "the transition period," and with the change of "non-conf.,~, wing lighting" to "legal non-conforming Iighting." Jim Shear seconded 4 r ~ the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Spillane suggested tabling this ordinance until Larry Eskwith could be further consulted about whether the additions and changes made since passage of this ordinance on first reading were subject to challenge. Merv Lapin agreed with this suggestions. Kristan Pritz had no objection to tabling the ordinance for further legal consultation. After brief discussion about the specific guidance given in the ordinance about measuring non-conf.,~~ing lighting, a vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending paragraphs 16.32A30(F) and 16.32.040(A} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 1V~ayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Shearer moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, to June 15, 1993, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No.4 that concern the deveh,~,~ent plans for the Millrace III Development Building site; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Michael Lauterbach. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Curnutte noted that in 1980 the development plan approved for this property, the Millrace III site, called far a tri-plea to be built on the property. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993, was requesting a ma=jor amendment to the SDD to allow Mr. Lauterbach to amend the 1980 plan so he could construct a duplex and asingle- family residence on the property. Jim indicated that on February 8, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) had reviewed and recommended approval of Mr. Lauterbach's application with seven conditions as detailed in the Community Development Department's {CDD} memo to Council dated May 18,1993. Jim advised that six of the seven conditions had been met by Mr. Lauterbach; the exception being the condition to provide necessary improvements to the portion of Westhaven Drive directly in front of his property to bring the road up to TOV standards. Jim noted that as part of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993, Mr. Lauterbach agreed to grant to TOV a ten foot pedestrian fisherna.an's easement along his property ten feet in from the shore of Gore Creek along the entire length of his property and a public access easement over the bike path which runs through his property. With regard to the unmet condition, Mr. Lauterbach had agreed to be bound by the same conditions agreed to by the developers of the Waterford and Cornerstone projects, with the exception that Mr, Lauterbach wanted to have a clause added to the conditions which would release him from the obligations contained therein when and if the developers of the Cornerstone and Waterford project applied far a building permit before he did. If the developers of Cornerstone or Waterford applied for a building permit prior to Mr. Lauterbach, they would provide the $97,500 necessary to upgrade the road and, therefore, it would not be necessary to bind Mr. Lauterbach to the conditions contained in Ordinance No. 7. Ordinance No. 7 would repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1.993. After discussion and brief comment from Mr. Lauterbach as to his understanding of Ordinance No. 7, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993, on first reading with minor verbiage change in Section 18.46.210(C}(5)(a) to state, "... at the time a building permit is obtained for Millrace III..." Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 16.24.010{G) of the Vail Municipal Code, setting forth provisions relating to signs displayed on balloons which are associated with a special event within the Town of Vail. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Tim Devlin reviewed ordinance item numbers 1-9. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No.14, Series of 1993, an first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 7 was Resolution No. 4, Series of 1993, a resolution apY~„~ing of the purchase by the Town of Vail from the United States Forest Service two parcels of land commonly known as the Spraddle Creek Parcel and the Golf Course Maintenance Parcel, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution Na. 4, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson, A vote was taken 5 r >t ,+ .~ and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 8 was Resolution No. ~, Series of 1993, a resolution recognizing "June Recycling Month". Mayor Osterfoss briefly discussed the resolution. Merv Lapin waved to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, ~-0. Item No. 9 was a request for approval of utility encroachment agreement for 2983 Bellflower, Intermountain Subdivision. The applicants were David A. and Leslie A. Danielson. Mike Brake explained the new owners wanted to receive permission for existing deck and stairway encroachments on utility easements. It was noted no other neighbors would be affected. Merv Lapin moved to approve the request for this utility encroachment agreement, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Before adjournment, Pam Brandmeyer asked Council for donation of a blue parking pass to be used as a raffle item for the upcoming Ride the Rockies event. Consensus was reached to approve this donation from TOV. Pam also advised Council of TOV's upcoming Speak Up Meeting dates: July 21, July 28, and August 4, 1993. Pam noted a letter had been received from Cissy Dobson indicating the bells at the Interfaith Chapel had to be replaced at a cost of approximately $15,000, and the Vail Religious Foundation was asking for a contribution from TOV. Pam asked Council is she should advise that this request be resubmitted during the summer when requests for contributions from TOV were usually hear. Merv Lapin felt the area of contributions was one which Amendment 1 would force drastic cutbacks. He also felt, in the case of this specific contribution request, that state and church needed to be separated. Rob Levine did not feel this was a religious issue. He felt the chapel was a landmark in Vail. Jim Gibson agreed. Consensus was reach to contribute $500 from Council Contingency Funds toward the replacement of the bells at the Interfaith Chapel. Larry Grafel: * Advised Clean-Up Day had been successful. There had been 422 participants. * Advised Pete Burnett had announced he would retire from TOV an July 1, 1993. * Asked Council if the Ski Museum Contract was to be continued as established. Council said it was, and Larry stated he would communicate this information to Bill Johnson. * Suggested that the all day Council Goal Setting Session scheduled for May 26 be postponed until after the Citizen Survey has been reviewed. Council agreed. * Updated Council on changes planned in NWCCOG's bylaws targeting communities not paying their dues. There being no further business, Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting to Executive Session to discuss Personnel Matters. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Marga~t A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: aN tide ~~~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:1MlNMAY13.93 6 ~. ,~ { ~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 1, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 1, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ken Hughey, Acting Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 2 on the agenda was the appointment of three (3} Members to the Local Licensing Authority. There were three {3) positions available, each term beginning in June, 1993, and expiring in June, 1995. The candidates were Bill Bishop, Linda Fried, and Davey Wilson. All three of these candidates were applying for reappointment. No other applications had been received. A ballot was taken, and Merv Lapin moved to appoint Bill Bishop, Linda Fried, and Davey Wilson to the Local Licensing Authority until June, 1995. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of three items: A. Approval of Minutes of the May 4,1993, and May 18, 1993, Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No.4 that concern the development plans for the Millrace III Development Building site; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach. C. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance axnending Section 16.24.010{G} of the Vail Municipal Code, setting forth provisions relating to signs displayed on balloons which are associated with a special event within the Town of Vail. Applicant: the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfass read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to remove item C from the Consent Agenda for further discussion, with a second f~ „~ Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and that motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Merv Lapin then moved to approve Consent Agenda items A and B, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There was brief discussion about safety issues related to height restrictions for tethered hot air balloons and quality of the balloons. Mayor Osterfoss asked Fire Chief Dick Duran for his input pertaining to expressed safety issues. Dick stated he did not feel there was a problem, emphasizing hot air balloons could only be operated by licensed pilots. He did not feel it was necessary for this ordinance to include mandatory Fire Department inspections of the balloons. Ken Hughey reminded Council all applicants would need to proceed through the full special events process before receiving approval, and Kristan Pritz felt the Fire Department could be requested to inspect for safety issues i.f there were any questions about safety. After further technical clarifications, Jim Shearer moved to approve Ordinance Na. 1 r 6 r 14, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second fi ~,u,,, Jim Gibson. Before a vote was taken, Jixn Lamont, representing the East Vail Homeowners Association, also expressed safety issue concerns, adding he felt a fire official should be present during filling of the balloons, and requested wording to that affect be included in the ordinance. He also voiced apprehension about noise factors and visual aspects associated with too many hat and/or cold air balloons. He requested the ordinance also contain language to specify that Council revisit the issue of hot and/or cold air balloons every five (5) years. Mayor Osterfoss suggested a record keeping procedure tracking the number of these balloons be instituted. Pam Brandxneyer was directed to keep track of the how many events there were each year requesting hot and/or cold air balloons and to keep Council advised. Mr. Lamont was satisfied with that self-evaluation direction. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance Na. 31, Series of 1992, to reduce the interest rate to be paid on installments of special assessments against affected properties within the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Barwick explained that negotiations to refinance the Booth Creek Local Improvement District bonds through 1st Bank had allowed TOV to reduce the interest rate an the assessments from 9.5% to 7.7fi%. He advised this ordinance was required to change the interest rate on the assessments to pass savings on to affected homeowners. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1993, on f rst reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. Before a vote was taken, Bob Buckley asked if there would be any Amendment 1 repercussions. Steve Barwick said there would not be because the bands were not refinanced internally. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Resolution Na. 6, Series of 1993, a resolution authorizing the Tawn Manager to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement for a Regional Planning Commission for the purpose of transportation planning. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Greg Hall explained that the ICETEA Act of 1991 required every State to have a statewide transportation plan; Colorado currently had no such a plan. Additionally, the Colorado Legislature had passed legislation explaining how to work out the required detailed statewide plan. Greg advised part of the legislation designated fifteen (15) regional planning areas divided by geographic and economic similarities. The Town of Vail was in the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region including Garfield, Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, and Lake Counties. Each region was responsible for development of a regional transportation plan, and Greg reported the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region had been meeting monthly to discuss plans for this region. Greg stated if a regional planning commission was formed, the region would receive $35,OOOAO from CDOT to fund part of the region's study. He advised those involved in this region's planning wanted to maintain local control, because if a regional planning commission was not farmed, the State would da the planning. The chairman to be elected from the each regional planning commission would serve as the region's member on the State's Transportation Advisory Committee. Greg said the Transportation Advisory Committee's main task was to take the fifteen {15) regional plans and develop a statewide plan, He advised this region's member was Joe Sands, County Commissioner for Summit County, and the alternate member was Ed O'Leary, County Commissioner for Lake County. Greg explained requests for federal funding had to go through the Transportation Advisory Committee, and before any federal funds could be secured, requests had to be in the statewide plan. Merv Lapin strongly encouraged continuous representation from this region. Tam Steinberg added, at the last NWCCOG meeting, there were representatives from the Rio Blanco and Routt County COG areas which parallel I-70. In general, Tom noted COG representatives felt the different regions ought to be working together because of similar interests, and if there was no choice to be one district, the regions could speak with one voice for two districts. Greg emphasized the one thing any plan had to be was financially feasible. He distributed a copy of the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region Rural Planning Work Program. After additional discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was a review of the Art in Public Places (AIPP) Board approval of the acquisition and siting of "Terre Haute" by Bryan Hunt. The piece had been given to TOV by a benefactor who wished to remain anonymous, and, in addition to the gift of the piece, the benefactor had committed funds to the installation of the piece. The AIPP Board found this piece met ali the criteria set forth in the AIPP Guidelines and that the proposed site would give the piece 2 f high visibility. Kristen Pritz noted Council had visited the proposed site, Mayors' Park, presently under construction, adjacent to 1st Bank. Kristen noted the AIPP Beard had voted unanimously, 9-0, an May 12, 1993, to accept "Terre Haute" I'i...u, the private benefactor for the proposed site, and Council's role in the process per the AIPP Guidelines was to ensure that the AIPP Board had utilized the procedures and criteria outlined in. those guidelines. She briefly referenced some of the points in the AIPP Board's memo to Council dated June 1, 1993, including the AIPP Board's feeling that, due to the a high concentration of art work in the Lionshead area, sites outside of that core area should be considered. Secondly, the AIPP Board discussed the p~~,uinence of the piece, and felt a high visibility location would allow pedestrians the opportunity to view the piece closely. Thirdly, the AIPP Beard had discussed the importance of locating a piece in the Mayors' Park. The AIPP Beard felt that should a piece be placed in the park at the time of installation and dedication of the park, this piece would become and identified element of the park versus an installation done at a later date, and, by installing it during the time of construction, the opportunity to install the piece more conveniently and at a much lower cost existed. Kristen noted an area in the park had been planned to accommodate the art work. Further, the siting of this piece as well as the development of an artwalk was reinforced in the Streetscape Master Plan. This specific site was listed as an art work location as well as a number of ether sites along West Meadow Drive. It was an intent of the Streetscape Master Plan to create an art walk or sculpture garden in this area. The AIPP Board, when reviewing sites for installation, considered visibility of the site to be very important. In locating this and other pieces, the A~.rY Board attempted to place the piece in an area where there was a lot of traffic, as well as a permanent businesses or public facility, to try to avoid malicious vandalism.. Another • important criteria Kristen painted out was the fairly law maintenance this piece would require. Kristen distributed letters from AIPP Board members who were unable to attend this meeting, Sally Brainerd, Kenneth M. Robins, and Cissy Dobson expressing strong support and reasons for the AIPP Board's decision. Mayor Osterfoss reminded Council their role in the process of the decision requested at this time, per the AIPP Guidelines, was to ensure that the AIPP Board had utilized the procedures and criteria outlined in those guidelines, Council's role was fairly narrow in this process, and the process was designed specifically as a check to determine that procedures and criteria had been followed. It was Hated Council had a copy of the guideline criteria before them. The question under discussion was not a question of whether or not Council felt the criteria had been met ar whether they liked ar did not like the aesthetics of the piece, but whether ar not the process that the criteria had been addressed and followed by the AIPP Board. Kathy Langenwalter, AIPP member, stated she felt the board had gone through the criteria as they viewed the piece and followed the procedure outlined in their guidelines. Jim Gibson initiated a lengthy discussion concerning safety of the piece in the proposed location. He recalled sculptures had been removed from the Children's Fountain because of fear of children falling on them, and he had the same concern about this piece. Kathy Langenwalter said the AIPP Beard had discussed the safety of the piece, and they did Hat feel it presented the same safety concerns as the Children's Fountain. Jim Shearer shared Jim Gibson's concern, noting people were always climbing an pieces to have their pictures taken and danger was ever present. Kathy mentioned a few pieces she felt were "less safe" that they did not have problems with. Erich Hill said the artist had generously decided to build a platform the piece, and it was felt that would address safety and aesthetic questions. Kristan added they were trying to make it passible for pedestrians to be able to walk underneath the piece when it was sited, and the artist was willing to assist with that; however, the piece was already 12'7" high by 5'6" by 3" wide, and they did not want to make it too tall. Rob Levine stated he was mare than willing to support the recommendation proposed at this time, but he asked if the AIPP Board was willing to take one more look at an another site, the pedestal site at the entrance to Lionshead by Vantage Point condominiums. He felt the Mayors' Park would be a wonderful site, but Lionshead needed help, and this might be a way to help that area. It also might take this sculpture out of the pedestrian traffic pattern, which might help with expressed safety concerns, end yet keep the piece very visible an the bus route, and even more visible from I7Q. He felt the Lionshead area would appreciate having it there. Kathy Langenwalter said she would be willing to bring that up to the AIPP Board and the artist. Mayor Osterfoss felt Council appreciated the fact that the AIPP Board program was going well and was the result of dedicated volunteer time on the part of board members and generous contributions f~~~., the community. She felt Council wanted to 3 support the AIPP Board's decisions, reviewing this issue was a goad opportunity for Council ~ ~~' to learn more about the process and to understand what, if any, role Council would have in the process. She stated TOV was honored to have a piece by an artist of this caliber, but she appreciated the fact that Kathy was willing to take Rab's input back to the AIPP Board. After further discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to uphold the AIPP Board's decision with regard to the "Terre Haute" sculpture, indicating that Council had done its duty with regard ~. to this issue. He added he was sure the AIPP Board would speak with the artist about concerns discussed. Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson stated again he was very much concerned about the safety, and said that concern was not satisfied by what he heard tonight. He said he would like to see this piece on display where safety concerns were eliminated ar non-existent. Tom Steinberg noted one of the things discussed was that this piece might be a very goad addition to the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center, if and when it was built, and even if the piece was put in the Mayor's Park right now, that did not mean it had to stay there forever. Bob Buckley echoed Jim Gibson's safety issue concerns. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-3, Jim Gibson, Merv Lapin, and Bob Buckley opposed. Item No. 7. was the appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) regarding a deck, hot tub, and required landscaping at the Kandell residence located at 4259 Nugget Lane/Lat 2, Bighorn Estates Resubdivisian of Lots 1Q & 11 (east half of duplex). The appellant was Dr. Robert Kandell, who was not present. Mayor Osterfass noted Dr. Kandell had requested this appeal be tabled for two weeks, until June 15, 1993. Jim Gibson moved to table this issue until June 15, 1993, with a second from Merv Lapin. Before a vote was taken, Tam Steinberg expressed serious reluctance about tabling the issue at a11, noting this issue had been delayed for over a year already. He noted the appellant built illegally, and felt strongly the deck • should be torn down. Tom felt if Dr. Kandell then wanted to build, he should apply for a building permit and go through the regular process. Tam felt this was the only way to stop illegal, abusive building. He felt abuse of the system was happening more and more, the problem was getting worse, and it would continue to get worse until owners of illegal buildings were required go through the expense of tearing down those buildings. Tam said he was willing to vote against tabling the issue at that time, because of the abuse of the system. Mayor Osterfass noted the issue under discussion was not whether the ultimate decision was to tear it down; the whole issue needed to be discussed to make that decision. She said tabling the issue, if Council chose to do so, was strictly one final attempt at courtesy to Dr, Kandell. If the issue was tabled, that was not a decision that this potential law violation was being overlooked. Kristan Pritz explained staff had been through this issue with Dr. Kandell several times, as explained in the Community Development Department's memo to Town Council dated June 1, 1993. She added Dr. Kandell had met with Mike Mollica on Friday, May 28, 1993, and Dr. Kandell requested the issue be tabled, however Mike had told him no. Kristan stated she had supported that decision. Kristan said tonight's situation was acceptable to staff as long as they could proceed next evening meeting whether Dr. Kandeil was present or not. Larry Eskwith had advised it was not required that the appellant or representative be present. Mayor Oster#'ass said she personally had an opportunity to apprise Dr. Kandell there would be na further appeal after tonight's decision or any decision in two weeks if Council chose to agree with that there was not an opportunity . for further delay. Merv Lapin asked staff if Dr. Kandell had been avoiding the process or acting in bad faith. Staff chose not to make that judgement of Dr. Kandell, but staff expressed it had been overly courteous trying to accommodate Dr. Kandell's schedule, and Kristan expressed that the neighbors involved with the project had been quite understanding and had been trying to work it out. Kristan hoped a two week tabling would allow Dr. Kandell to get things worked out with his neighbor to the east; apparently he had satisfied his neighbor to the west. There was additional discussion about previous Planning and Environmental {PEC) and Design Review Board {DRB) decisions related to stream setbacks and appeals from Dr. Kandell. Mayor Osterfoss painted out Council was deciding whether to table the issue at this time, not make a decision at this point. After further discussion, Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Tam Steinberg opposed. Mayor Osterfoss added she would be speaking with Dr. Kandell on Wednesday, June 2, 1993, and would reiterate that the issue was scheduled for June 15, 1993, at which time a decision would be made regardless of representation or other extenuating circumstances. Kristan Pritz suggested a joint work session with Council, the PEC and the DRB chairs and other board members to discuss how Council wanted the growing number of abusers of the 4 ~~ ~ system handled. She felt a joint discussion would be helpful to all in determin~*~g what was fair and equitable. Tam Steinberg agreed that the system needed to be tightened up. Bob Buckley agreed with Tom and inquired about penalties for violators. Larry Eskwith said TOV had the right to bring the abusers in to Municipal Court and fine them for each day of vialatian. Larry said he had no legal problem with that, but felt it could turn in to a political problem very quickly. After discussion, Council agreed to schedule the requested joint session. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:~0 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~ a. ~~ Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayo's ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto CJ C:WIlN5JUN1.93 rJ `r MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 15, 1993 7:50 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 15, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Orri;~ar-ce No. 31, Series of 3992, to reduce the interest rate to be paid on installments of special assessments against affected properties within the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 15.20.220, 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20A15 and 16.22.016 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to grovide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and ~,~„aiding details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested this ordinance and related Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, which was agenda item No. 4, be tabled until Juiy 6, 1993. She advised staff had met with attorney Art Abplanalp, and staff had found his input helpful toward refining this ordinance. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, and Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, to July 6, 1993. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0, Item No. 4 was Ordinance Na. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030{F} and 16.32.040{A) of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conf.,~ u,.ing sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The title was not read. The tabling of this ordinance until July 6, 1993, was passed unanimously as part of the motion, second, and vote on agenda item No. 3, shave. item No. 5 was Resolution Na. ?, Series of 1995, a resolution recognizing Gordon Britton as an honored citizen of the Town of Vail on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 7, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full, and briefly mentioned some of Mr. Brittan's contributions to the community as detailed in this resolution. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-D. Item No. 6 appeal of the Design Review Board {DRB}decision regarding a deck, hot tub, and required landscaping at the Kandell residence located at 4259 Nugget Lane/Lot 2, Bighorn Estates Resubdivision of Lots 10 & 11 (east half of duplex). The appellant, Dr. Robert Kandell, was not present; east side adjacent property owners, the McCue's were. Tim Devlin presented and discussed two sketches of the deck configuration and landscaping. He reviewed the chronology of events beginning with the building of the deck in April, 1992, without approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) or the Design Y~ Review Board (DRB). He noted there had also been na building permit issued. Full details of the chronology were detailed in CDD's memo dated June 1, 1998, to Council. ~`im advised that staff had been working extensively with the appellant and adjacent neighbors to resolve the issue. The issue had first been heard by the PEC in December, 1592, at which time Dr. Kendall was in town. At that time, his request was for two side setback variances, and a Gore Creek setback variance. The PEC's action on those requests was that the west side variance {Dunahay side) would be granted as proposed by the appellant; the oast side variance was granted with the condition that the final determination regarding landscaping be decided by the DRB. Tim noted that the staff at that time, working with the Kandeli's and McCue's, had reached an agreement on the planting of five (5) 10' evergreen trees tr, screen the deck and hat tub from the McCue's view. The PEC's determination on the Gore Creek setback variance was that the entire portion of the deck in the Gore Creek setback was not allowed by Code and should be removed. The matter was heard by the DRB in April, 1993, and at that time, a representative of west side neighbor Mr. Dunahay appeared to express that the Dunahay's wanted the deck cut back an the west side to his privacy wall. On the east side setback, the DRB thought it was appropriate that five {5)10'-12' evergreens should be planted in order tb mitigate the encroachment into the setback. At that time, Dr. Kendall had withdrawn his proposal to plant any trees there; he did not feol that any trees could survive there and dxd not feel that trees were appropriate there. blowever, the direction of the PEC to the DRB was that the trees would be necessary, but the specifics would be decided by the DRS. The DRB's determination, again, was for five (x)10'-12' trees. Subsequent to that decision, Dr. Kendall appealed both the PEC's and the DRB's decisions. However, the ten {1Q) day period of appeal for the PEC decision had expired. Therefore, at this meeting, Council was hearing only the appeal of the DRB decision. Tim noted George Lamb, DRB Chairman, was unable to be present at this meeting and had submitted a letter directed to Council in his absence. The letter described further the chronology of the issue, emphasized the duration ofthe matter, and encouraged it be finalized without further delay. Tim added a fax from Dr. Kandeli had been received at 15;45 before this meeting explaining he would not be present this evening. Dwight Kudel, representing Dr. Kandell, read Dr. Kandell's letter in its entirety for the record. Dr. Kandell's letter included admission of his error in building the deck without prior approval and appropriate building permits, but that this was Bane out of ignorance on his part with regard to the proper procedure to be followed. Tnm Steinberg asked Mr. Kudel if the electrical work on the hot tub had been done by electricians, if a plumber hooked up the water fnr the project, who the contractor was, if there was there an architect involved, and if any of those people were licensed. Mr. Kudel advised he only labored an construction of the deck, and was unable to answer any of Tom's questions, Tom Steinberg moved that the appellant be required to tear down the project completely with no further appeal process, and that the tear dawn project be done by a contractor licensed within the Tawn of Vail. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. At this point, Larry Eskwith advised Council adjourn to Executive Session to discuss the matter before a vote. Jim Shearer moved to adjourn Council to Executive Session, with a second from Bob Buckley. Mayor Osterfoss noted there was already a motion and second an the floor and called for comments from others involved. Tom Steinberg withdrew his motion; Bob withdrew his second, and the motion and second to adjourn to Executive Session remained. Under discussion before a vote on the remaining motion and second, Mr. McCue requested that a transcript of his comments to Dr. Kendall be made available for Dr. Kendall and Mr. Dunahay. Mr. McCue spoke in response to Dr. Kandell's letter, particularly referring to Dr. Kandell's repeated absence from hearings on this issue. Mr. McCue stated he had spoken with John Tinker, the individual Dr. Kendall had hired to build the project. Mr. McCue related that Mr. Tinker commented the Kandell project was to be a "stealth" project, such that no licensing fees would have to be paid, and knew the project might not conform to Cade, but the project was to be done quickly and quietly. Mr. McCue said he did not know if an application had been made for side setbacks with former TOV Planner Jill Kammerer, but if so, he felt there must be a record an file at TOV. Mr. McCue said that Dr. Kendall had called him over the past few days to try to find some mutually acceptable agreement to the matter; however, after his recent communications with Dr. Kendall, Mr. McCue felt Dr. Kendall had completely negated their previous agreement for landscaping, and now Mr. McCue felt he must negate any support of the project. He said he had tried to work with Dr. Kendall, but now felt he could not make an agreement with him, and wanted the deck torn down. 2 t There being no further public input, a vote was taken on the motion and second to adjourn into Executive Session regarding legal matters, and passed unanimously, 7-0. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:15 P.M. Council reconvened from Executive Session at 8:55 P.M. Jim Gibson moved to uphold the DRB's decision as detailed in CDD's memo to Council dated June 1, 1.993. The full final motion included that the deck be brought into conformance with the Uniform Building Code, subject to the inspection and approval of the Town of Vail Building Department; that the deck be cut back an the west to the existing privacy wail between the Kandell residence and the Dunahay residence and from that point on the privacy wall on the west, the deck would be cut back to the northeast corner of the deck according to the configuration agreed to by Dr. Kandell and Mr. Dunahay; that in no case could the deck exceed five (5) feet in height above existing grade, measured from the existing grade to the top of the decking; that a minimum of five {5) evergreen trees 10'-12' in height be planted between the deck and the McCue's property directly to the east to mitigate the visual impact of the deck; that a Building Permit be obtained by a contractor licensed with the T.,,~,~ of Vail before any work was commenced on the deck; a double fee would be charged for the building permit as penalty for construction without a permit; the building permit application was to be submitted with an accompanying site plan showing the new deck configuration, as well as the specific size and location of the five {5) evergreen trees; that TOV's Building Department would require that a drawing detailing the structural, electrical, and plumbing specifications of the deck and hot tub be submitted for their review as part of the building permit application; that the deck/hot tub be brought into conformance with the National Electrical Code and Uniform Plumbing Code (as well as the Uniform Building Code), subject to the inspection and approval of the Town of Vail Building Department; that if any of the five {5) required 10' to 12' evergreen trees should die or otherwise be removed within two (2) years of their installation, that they be replaced by Dr. Kandell with a tree(s) of the same species and comparable in height; and that all of the aforementioned conditions be completed or the entire new deck removed by a licensed contractor no later than Tuesday, June 29, 1993. If the new deck and hot tub were not completely removed, or if the approved project was not completed in its entirety with the above specified conditions of approval by June 29, 1993, Council direct staff to take all administrative actions and steps necessary to enforce the laws of the Town of Vail. Further, Council directed staff to issue citations to Dr. Kandell for every day after June 29, 1993, that said project remained uncompleted, unless the new deck and hot tub were completely removed. Council also directed staff to talk with the carpenter that constructed the deck without approval or permits from the Town of Vail, Mr. John Tinker of Eagle, Colorado. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Jim Gibson also indicated the project should be red tagged immediately because it had not been through an inspection process. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, ?-0. Item No. 7 was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) decision to not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge StreetlLots A- DB1ock 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. to bo . represented by Jack D. Hunn. The appellant had contacted staff' prior to this meeting to request their appeal be tabled until July 6, 1993, as they required additional time to prepare their presentation. Merv Lapin moved to table this appeal until July 6, 1993, at the appellant's request. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Before adjournment, Merv Lapin initiated discussion of an item not on the agenda concerning the Par-3 Golf Course area. He recalled TOV had given apr. ,, gal to the Water District to use that property as mitigation for the wetlands, and he inquired if Council was still in agreement with that decision. Tom Steinberg said the Water Board had already ordered the plants, had them grown, and they were concerned about time running out for transplanting. Kristen indicated that the Vail Recreation District (VRD) was aware of this issue, and the staff' had asked the two boards to communicate and resolve the issue of whether or not the wetland improvements in the Par-3 area would be part of the Water District's final mitigation plan. Larry Eskwith announced he was leaving TOV on June 30, 1993, to join the law fum of Bailey, Herring & Peterson. He noted that firm represents The Lodge at Vail and litigation involving the exchange of certain Forest Service land adjacent to 'The Lodge at Vail with privately owned land located within the National Wilderness area. This was a matter TOV has opposed, and he has been involved with the matter on behalf of TOV for ever six years. 3 r He explained that in order to comply with Rule 1.11 of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, subsequent to his joining the law firm of Bailey, Herring & Peterson, he would be totally screened from an participation in The Lodge at Vail litigation ar any matters relating thereto. He said that litigation of the matter had proceeded to a summary judgement an the part of TOV, and the briefs were now before Judge Nottingham. Larry discussed the press statement he released at Council's request regarding this issue. Council expressed general discomfort with the arrangement, but Mayor Osterfoss stated TOV had Larry's verbal and written affirmation and identification of the rule and it was clear that he planned to abide by that rule. Jim Gibson asked Larry Eskwith if TOV should employ an attorney who was not yet a member of the Colorado Bar. Larry said he could net say TOV should net do that, but felt it could present same problems, particularly with representation of the TOV before any administrative hearing or administrative action or before the Court system. Jim Gibson asked if TOV could call on Larry for support that might be needed in an such instances. Larry Eskwith said that was acceptable, and noted TOV would be billed for his time. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:3U P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~.. ~-~~ Margaret A. Osterfoas, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deco C:WIII+(.JUN15.93 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 6, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail. Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutchean, Town Clerk i • Item No. 1 on the agenda was the presentation of the Chuck Anderson Youth Awards. Michael Johnston and Ernest Medina, Jr. were this year's recipients. Ernest Medina was unable to attend this presentation. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was honored to present these awards to Michael and to Ernest, in his absence. Bob Buckley commented briefly on his association with Michael and expressed his pride in Michael's accomplishments and positive influence on other Vail youth. Michael thanked Council and residents far their support. It was suggested the Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations be held during school graduation time in the future when parents and grandparents would be more available to attend this important presentation. Item No. 2 was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the minutes of the June 1, 1993, and June 15, 1993, evening meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion. passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was an open community opinion forum regarding the proposed Vail Valley Perf„~~ance and Conference Center (VVP&CC}. Caroline Tremblay recapped the project, explaining Vail had been studying the feasibility of building a performance and conference center for the past three years. Based on the response to the project from many meetings and numerous presentations, she advised a plan had been developed to finance the construction and annual operating costs of the building through a combination of taxes on hotels, restaurants, and bars, as well as private contributions. Backers of the center planned to ask voters fora 0.9% sales tax on restaurants and bars and a 1.8% sales tax on lodging. If approved, that plan would bring taxes on Vail lodges to 9.8% and restaurants to 8.9%. She said the supporters were hoping that TOV was planning to commit up to $1,00O,OOQ.pO toward this project. She also expressed that she and wanted the community to come forward to voice their opinions about the Center to determine the level of community support before pledging such a significant amount of money. Vail residents and business owners generally said they liked the idea of a performance and conference center, but had a number of questions about the two proposed tax increases to pay for it. Those speaking primarily in favor of the Center included Harry Frampton, Kay Chester, Peter Vavra, Flo Steinberg, Sybil Navas, Colleen McCarthy, Diana Donovan, Pepi Gramshammer, Hermann Staufer, Jan Strauch, and Joe Macy. They felt there was a need for a Center for winter performances, that a Center would add great dimension to the community and would increase business during Vail's off season, as well as be a long term economic value to the community. Merv Lapin asked Joe Maey, representing Vail Associates, Inc. (VA} if VA would consider adding taxes onto their facilities to contribute toward the Center. Mr. Macy said VA had not discussed that. Paul Rondeau stated he wanted more visual aids to differentiate the two different entities {performance and/or conference center}, and to show plus and minus scales of experiences with performance and conference centers in other communities. He felt development of auser-friendly view of the proposed funding was necessary to simplify explanations of the funding proposal, and felt a specific point should be set to end spending if cost estimates began to overrun. His primary emphasis was about informing voters. Vail resident Cynthia Steitz was apposed to the plan. Paul Johnston was opposed to a bed tax, but not to private funding. Caroline Tremblay briefly addressed funding alternatives, noting the importance of private donations. She indicated the performance side of the Center would not happen without private funding. She asked Council for a resolution substantiating Council's support. After individual Council member input about the Center, Mayor Osterfoss observed there was Council support for the project, and it appeared sensible for this Council to recom.xnend support to future Councils. Rob Levine moved that Council prepare a resolution expressing Counci.l's enthusiastic support for the VVP&CC as presented at this meeting and as it goes to the polls in November, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Bab Buckley expressed concern about voting on this without completion of the feasibilitylmarketingscudy. Rob Levine amended his motion to indicate the resolution would indicate Council's enthusiastic support for the VVP&CC based on encouraging results of the VVP&CC feasibility study. Tom Steinberg amended his second. A vats was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was an overview final presentation on the 1993 Community Survey. Caroline Fisher noted the Community Survey process had been started in March, 1993. Chris Cares of Rosall, Remmen and Cares, said they had summarized much of the information graphically so the results could be seen as well as read about. He felt it was important to point out that this survey was extrapolated on community surveys conducted in the past. He advised, as a result of the focus groups, a number of questions had been changed from past survey questions, but he still felt the questions were well standardized and new issues had been addressed as requested by Council. A summary of the results, dated July 1, 1993, of the Town of Vail Community Survey was distributed. The summary contained a brief synopsis of each major topic addressed on the survey along with agprapriate qualitative input from respondents' comments on the survey and focus group input. Also included was a copy of the survey form that was used with question results summarized. An overview of the results of two focus groups conducted by Nolan Rosall in late June was also included. Nolan Rosall had conducted two groups prior to fielding the survey. In addition to the mailed survey distributed to residents of the Tawn, second home owners, merchants, and box holders, a telephone followup interview was conducted with a sampling of 100 households. The purpose of the followup was to elaborate an and verify the findings of the mailback survey. An evaluation of the results showed there was virtually no difference in the response patterns on the two surveys; therefore, the results had been merged and were summarized together on the survey form distributed at this meeting. Together, the sample consisted of 1,013 interviews, 943 obtained by mail and 100 conducted over the telephone. Mr. Cares reviewed charts via overhead projector which showed the summary of ratings and priority placement on the ixnportance of issues including water quality protection, traffic congestion remedies, prohibition of smoking in public places, growth/density controls, aequisition of open space to preserve sensitive areas, air quality protection, acquisition of open space for recreational activities, provision of affordable housing opportunities, expansion of tourism opportunities/facilities insummer/fall, expansion of year around cultural programs, expanded "regional" governmental authority, economic development/job creation, and expansion of tourism opportunities in the winter; ratings of conditions including street disrepair, inadequate off-site parking, unsafe walking routes, speeding or reckless automobiles, inadequate street lighting, animals, inadequate enforcement of parking regulations, lack of recreational facilities, pollution from road dust and woodsmoke, signage, snow removal from walkways, trashllitter and abandoned vehicles, snow removal from roads, neighborhood noise, and crimes/sense of security; ratings on quality of general services including snow remavaUsanding of streets, maintenance of park areas, municipal court services, snow removaUsanding of sidewalks/stairways, finance cashier window, street lighting, sales tax and business license services, street sweeping, and street repair and maintenance; a rating of the quality of the bus system; a rating of the quality of the Community Development Department, Police Department, Library, Fire Department, Administrative/Management functions, and perf..~~ance of commissions and elected/appointed officials. It was noted a series of questions were asked regarding respondents' understanding of and support for Amendment 1. Mr. Cares indicated one of the questions noted Amendment 1 limited total annual revenue growth to a f„~~ula which was dominated by the Boulder/Denver Consumer Price Index, and mountain communities such as Vail received much of their revenue from tourism, which was largely unrelated to that index. In order for Vail to utilize all the annual revenue increases it n.,.~a,,.ally received, Amendment 1 would require voter approval on an annual basis. Respondents were asked if they would be inclined to vote far a measure which would allow the Town of Vail to keep all revenue received as long as the following aspects of Amendment 1 continued to be in force: All tax rate increases or new taxes must be approved by voters; all new municipal debt must be approved by voters; any property tax mill levy rate increase must be approved by voters; and all election controls remained in place. Mr. Cares said there was a lot of support for this approach. In general, however, the survey indicated respondents wanted mare information about Amendment 1. Merv Lapin asked why • the Amendment 1 question was asked. Caroline said the intent of that question was to get feedback from eaters on what they were thinking. Merv said he was specifically asking about the aspect concerning tailoring the amendment far local purposes. Caroline said she thought there was sentiment all around in the community that TOV might be able to pass something locally at some point which would allow for some provisions for communities like TOV. Tom Steinberg explained it would have to go to a state vote to give special rights on a local level. If it came within a couple of votes in the legislature of passing, there was a possibility it might get through next year, according to Sam Mamet of CML, to allow TOV the vote on changes in provisions. There was some specific discussion about some of the issues an the survey, such as road conditions and affordable housing. Mr. Cares felt, as TOV goes through its budgeting process, there was a need far specific kinds of analysis, and that was really how the full benefit of this program would be obtained. Jim Gibson stated it was passible far a community to vote itself out of Amendment 1, and asked Mr. Cares what he thought would happen if that were on the ballet. Mr. Cares, noting his comments would be pure speculation an his part, felt there was a need for more discussion and a falling out period before TOV should try that. Clearly, people calling far more information and addressing issues of confusion suggested we can't move too quickly on overly aggressive programs. Mr. Cares also felt there would be a lot of clutter with these kind of issues and issues resulting from Amendment 1 that had to be placed on the ballot, so it was hard to get specific understanding. Jim Gibson noted there were far mare comments against Amendment 1 than . there were in favor of it. He asked Mr. Cares if that was how he saw it - a preponderance opposed to it as to these for it. Mr. Cares said yes, both in the survey results and focus groups. He said there was a lot of feeling that this particular state law did not work well in this kind of community and Council should be looking at other alternatives pretty aggressively. Caroline added it was expressed in each of the focus groups that there was an openness to looking at other options. People wanted to know what ether options might be and were hesitant to commit to anything. The majority of the people wanted to know what Council was thinking in this area. There was brief further discussion about particulars regarding opting out of Amendment 1. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010, 16.20.220,16.22.010,16.22.160, 16.26.010, 1620.0x5, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, until July 20, ].993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A} of the Municipal Code of the Tawn of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Cade Ordinance, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance Na. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. S was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Tawn of Vail. Mayer Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No, 15, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to • provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to Y~„~ide for the adoption of an elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and a commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call 3 inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per perz~ait; and providing details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on first reading, with direction to staff to clarify that the elevator and dumbwaiter inspection fees were annual, not per inspection. Tam Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion . passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 197$, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 19$6; an ordinance amending Special Devel.,~.~ent District {SDD} No. 5 and providing far a developxent plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessary uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Walid Said, Sixn.ba Land Corporation. Bob Buckley stepped down due to conflict of interest. Tim Devlin explained this ordinance was a request for a major amendment to SDD No. 5 and would supersede all previous ordinances and amendments that were presently in place far SDD No. 5. This ordinance would allow far the development of the remaining phase of the Simba Run SDD. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) recommended a~,~,,.~aal of the applicant's request far a major amendment to SDD Na. 5, and allowed for one (1) additional unit with total GRFA of 1602 square feet to be added to the ~,~~Ject in the future. The project introduction, description of the request, zoning analysis, criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal, site plans and architectural drawings prepared by Mortar Architects, correspondence from consulting geologist Nicholas Laznpiris, and letters of opposition to the project from Frank N. Clark, James Stress, and Maria I. Bloniarz, owners of units at Simba Run, were part of the Community Deve1,~N~ent Department (CDD} memo to the PEC dated June 28,1993. The CDD staff believed the proposed project substantially complied with the nine (9) SDD review criteria and recommended approval of the project with five (5) conditions of approval as detailed in the above referenced CDD memo to the PEC. At the time the CDD's recommendation went to the PEC, the applicant had been in agreement with the recommendation and conditions of approval. However, Tim said the applicant now wanted to address Council about condition of approval number four which would require him to permanently restrict the four {4) employee housing units (EHUs) in this phase of the project as Type III EHUs, according to TOV's adopted housing ordinance. There were presently six {6) EHUs already in existence, and those original six (6) EHUs had twenty year limited terms as EHUs. The twenty year terms were due to expire in 2003. Jim Mortar, architect for the proposed project, stated this ordinance was an amend.zx~.ent to an approved SDD. He briefly discussed points of the originally approved SDD and Hated the proposed project now consisted of 19 units instead of the 44 that were approved and had building permits. Mr. Mortar also stated that the present proposed GRFA was 34,$00 square feet instead of a passible 43,600 square feet, more parking than required was planned, and the required ten (10} EHUs were being provided. Mr. Mortar noted there were two ordinances and a letter of agreement which addressed the six (6) existing EHUs. Each of the ordinances limited the duration of the six (6) existing EHUs to twenty (20) years. Mr. Mortar stated that the condition of approval requiring permanent restriction of the four (4) new EHUs had slipped by him the first time he saw the CDD staff memo to the PEC on the day of the PEC meeting. The applicant wanted all ten {10) EHUs limited to twenty {20) years. Merv Lapin stated he wanted all ten {10) units permanently restricted as Type III EHUs. Tam Steinberg agreed. Merv stated he thought Mr. Mortar would find this Council fairly adamant about EHU requirements. There was some discussion about other projects which had EHU terms which had now expired, and many of those units were now going to non- employee use. Mayor Osterfoss stated there were very few options available for building of affordable housing, and felt Mr. Mortar was aware of that from his own experience. As a result, the need to permanently deed restrict all available EHUs had become a very consistent theme. She asked Larry Eskwith for input on changing restrictions on EHUs that had already been given twenty year limitations. Larry Eskwith indicated that since the applicant had asked this SDD be amended, the applicant opened their situation up to the suggestion of restricting the older EHUs for perpetuity as well. Mr. Marter pointed out, an behalf of his owners, that most of the units currently being used as EHUs within the existing buildings were luxury condominiums, two of which were empty because there were not enough employees in Simba Run to fill them. He argued strongly against deeding those six (6) units as permanently restricted Type III EHUs. Mayor Osterfoss did not think TOV had ever said these could only be EHUs for one's own employees. There was a need for affordable housing throughout the community, and she asked the applicant if he could rent these units to other than their own employees. Tim 4 Devlin pointed out that Section 9(B) of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 stated, "A minimum of ten {10) employee dwelling units shall be provided to be leased to employees of Vail Run or to permanent residents employed in the Gore Valley." There was a difference of opinion as to whether or not what the applicant was charging for rental of his units was TOV's concern. Tim Devlin discussed the applicant's request to reserve the right to add one (1) additional free market unit at a future date. Tim said there was some dispute concerning what could be built on any area to the east of where the project was being proposed now, but Tim said staff was comfortable with the request, as was the PEC. He referred to a xnodel available before Council. Mr. Morter said there was line going through the ~,~..,ject that provided the boundary for new development, and said there was some question as to what could and could not be built on that line, but he said at some time in the future the applicant may want to come back for another amendment tQ the SDD to allow for one (1) more unit if development questions could be resolved. Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was any conflict in the site plan with the proposed Simba Run underpass. She recalled Mr. Morter said during the site visit there was not. Tim confirmed that. Tom Steinberg asked what the underlying zoning on this was. Kristan Pritz said the CDD staff did not know what the underlying zoning was. She said it was similar to Cascade Village. She referred to the zoning analysis on page 4 of CDD's June 2$, 1993, memo to the PEC noting this parcel was annexed into the Town in December, 1975, and the original SDD was established in March, 1976, when zoning was created for it. She said as far as number of units and density, it would compare most closely to High Density Multi-Family (HDMF), but that was not an official underlying zone district. Tom asked, as presented, how this • project exceeded HDMF. Kristan said they would have to ga through the memo and figure that out, but she did not think it exceeded it in many ways. Merv Lapin referred to the Approved Development Standards listed in the CDD memo, and Kristan said those were the standards in the ordinance at that time. She said that was what had been used as a guideline, noting the project was in compliance with the land use plan designation, although there was no underlying zone district. There was some discussion about the project's site coverage, parking percentage for enclosed parking, landscaping, GRFA, number of units, and height. Jim Gibson said he agreed with Merv Lapin about permanently deed restricting EHUs, however, in this case felt only the four {4} EHUs proposed in Phase II should be permanently restricted. He felt the six {8} already in existence were part of an ordinance, and he felt it would be unfair to go back and change that. Jim Shearer agreed with that. He felt something already given should not be taken away. Rob Levine said that was his first thought, too, but then explained TOV was not looking to change this ordinance, the applicant was. Although it was new development, it was all one SDD, and when it was opened up by an amendment request, the whole SDD was open for examination. Rob was in favor of permanently deed restricting not only the four {4) EHUs being proposed now, but also the six (6) existing EHUs. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the number of units to be permanently restricted for a project of this size would be ten {10}. It was asked if there was a f„~~ula for determining the number of EHUs required, but Kristan said it was difficult to calculate that without the underlying zone district, because that was what was used to gauge overage. The guidelines used did not work on this project. Mr. Morter said his client acquired this property with certain understanding, i.e. the ordinances already established restricting the existing EHUs for twenty (20) years. The whole makeup of the proposed development was based on certain rules that were in place. Jim Gibson told Mr. Morter that Council was not trying to minimize his concerns, and felt it would discourage other people from coming forward to make improvements if they felt uncertain about Council's interpretations of past agreements. Jim Gibson. said a previous Council in 1975 saw fit to pass an ordinance which gave twenty (20) year limitations on the six {6} existing EHUs at Simba Run, and he did not feel the current Council ought to change that. Frank Clark, owner of a unit at Simba Run, said he was present representing a very few of the other condo owners at Simba Run. He claimed most of the other owners at Simba Run did not even know about this proposed project, having never been apprised. Larry Eskwith stated he had reviewed the condominium declaration, and the expandable declarations proposed allowed for the development of a portion of ground into additional units which would then be brought into the condominium association. Larry did not think this developer needed the permission of either the association or any of the condominium owners. 5 Mr. Clark said they were led to believe there might be a third building added to the two existing buildings when they purchased this N~~,~-erty, but had been told nothing about an easement or plans for separate townhouse units. He said that no one, not Mr. Said, the Association President, ar the Manager for the Association, made information available to the . condo owners in the existing two buildings. Mr. Clark said he happened to be in Vail by chance and was told about the proposed project by a painter working there. Mr. Clark said he called the President of the Homeowners' Association and was told by him that he had just found out about it. Mr. Clark said that was in May, 1993. He felt the people who awn these condos should be aware of the proposed changes. He said he had read through the materials available on this issue for the first time tonight, and only that afternoon in the manager's office had he seen the proposed new buildings far the first time. He said this was a big change from what he and other owners might have expected, especially the access easement proposed. He said he had seen nothing in writing about the planned development and felt there were too many unanswered questions. He felt the issue should be tabled until all the condo owners were notified and had proper time in which to respond. Mayor Osterfass said, as Larry Eskwith had tried to explain earlier, TOV did not involve itself in internal condominium association regulations. Mr. Clark repeated his primary argument was that present unit owners had not been inf„~~ed of the proposed project and had not had suitable time to respond. Mr. Clark said they planned to have attorneys look into this situation for them. Mayor Osterfoss indicated that might be an appropriate course of action, but that was not the issue at hand at this time. There was further discussion and explanation by Larry Eskwith about expandable . condominium declarations. He also indicated there was a reservation by the declarant to the developer of an access easement across the condominium project. Larry said that easement was reserved virtually auywhere an the condominium project. Larry felt Mr. Clark may have a right to bring an action, but Larry did not feel TOV could be a judge here to make a determination whether or not in same way the developer misrepresented something to Mr. Clark. What Mr. Clark said they would Iike was time to make everyone involved aware of this so they could have a chance to go over this mare carefully and give their input. Mr. Morter said he did not know why the building manager had not heard about this. Mr. Morter said he was required by TOV to notify the condominium association as well as neighbors when a projects was submitted far review. Mr. Morter suggested if Mr. Clark was not notified, the matter should be taken up with the building management, not Council, because Mr. Morter said they did make required notifications. Kristen Pritz said the letters of notification went out April 22, 1993. Mr. Morter advised that TOV also published notification inf„~,uation in the paper. Tom Steinberg questioned rockfall hazard at the proposed site. Mr. Morter advised there had been communication with Nicholas Lampiris, Consulting Geologist, and Mr. Morter said he had a letter from Mr. Lampiris stating he was totally satisfied with Morter Architect's solutions to rvckfall hazard concerns. Tom Steinberg asked Larry Eskwith what TOV's liability was for physical damage to the garages, cars, and possessions because Mr. Lampiris' June 18, 1993, letter stated although he was not concerned that damage could occur to living quarters, some of the garages still remained unprotected. Tom wanted to know if TOV would be liable because all the property was not being protected. Larry Eskwith did not feel TOV had liability, but suggested Mr. Lampiris be asked for clarification. Larry felt because of governmental immunity statues TOV was probably protected. Tom Steinberg suggested Mr. Morter ask Mr. Lampiris what he would recommend to totally solve the berm breach problem. Mr. Morter felt the problem was solved, but Larry Eskwith agreed with Tom about the garages. Tam felt the people who did not know their garages might be hit by rocks should be notified. Tom felt this potentially dangerous situation should be publicized in some way to buyers. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the walkway issue had been addressed. Kristen said there was a walkway through the project, the question was whether it would be public or not. One of the conditions of approval stated that if the liability issues concerning the construction and maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property could be resolved with the Town Attorney, the applicant would construct a pedestrian path and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. Mr. Morter said the applicant was willing to discuss with the Town Attorney these liability issues as well as issues concerning the privacy of people who own the property and live there. Mayor Osterfoss said if an underpass was put in that area that was both pedestrian and vehicular, it would be designed to draw people to its use, so it would make sense that there be a walkway connected with it. Tom Steinberg 6 said a walkway far public use was very reasonable, particularly when considering access immediately onto the interstate from the proposed project. Mr. Mortar agreed that was reasonable, but it was equally reasonable for the owner not to assume that liability. He felt these were points yet to be negotiated. Mayor Osterfoss felt there should be additional . discussion of this issue thinking it would be good to try to work it out now instead of setting it aside as a future negotiation. Merv Lapin felt that was primarily a legal matter that could be worked out between now and second reading. After further discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading with the five (5} conditions of approval as stated in the June 28, 1993, CDD memo to the PEC with the change to condition #4 that the applicant agreed to permanently restrict ten (10} Type TIT EHUs. He further instructed staff to come to an agreement by second reading as to the possible access across the property and that the rockfall hazard concerns be fully solved. Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if this had gone to the Design Review Board (DRB) yet. Tim Devlin advised it would be going to a DRB Work Session the next day. He added that Greg Hall wanted a drainage easement across the property. Tom Steinberg encouraged the DRB to "overdo" the landscaping. Merv Lapin added these to his motion. Rab Levine asked Larry Eskwith if he was comfortable with the notification process that took place. Larry said he would have to talk in more detail to staff about the notification process, and if there was a problem, there would have to be a renotifieation and another hearing. Rob Levine asked if that would cause a problem passing this ordinance on first reading. Larry Eskwith said if Council passed it an first reading and there was an invalidity in the notification, he thought it would have to go back to the PEC. He said this was a little different because the developer kept the right to develop additional units on a specific piece of property. That was incorporated into the condo declaration that was recognized by whoever brought that property that that was going to happen at some point in the future. Larry said that was fairly common procedure. Larry said he was concerned and needed to review the notification process, and if the notification was for some reason inadequate, then the applicant would have to go back to the very beginning, through the PEC and back up to Council. Jam Gibson said he was going to appose the motion. He did not agree with requiring permanent Type TTY EHU designation for all ten {10} units. Jim Shearer agreed with Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-2-1, Jim Gibson and Jim. Shearer opposed, Bob Buckley abstaining. Bob Buckley then rejoined Council. Item No. 11. was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} decision to not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Bnilding/286 Bridge Street/Lots A- D/Block 5A, Vail Village k'irst Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Jack Hunn. Merv Lapin moved to table this appeal at the appellant's request to July 20, 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-1, Bab Buckley abstaining due to conflict of interest. There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn to Executive Session regarding personnel matters was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~ Marga~'et A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minuses taken by Dorianne 5. Deto C:W1IM1kSJUL6,93 MIlVUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 20, 1993 7:30 P.M. • ~~ A regular meeting of the Vail Tawn Council was held on Tuesday, July 20, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg (arrived at 8:30 P.M.) Rob Levine (arrived at 8:30 P.M. Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafei, Aeting Town Manager Tam Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Blondie Vucich expressed concern about the increase of pet waste in public places and the difficulty with enforcing TOV's ordinance requiring pet owners to clean up and dispose of their animal's waste. She introduced and demonstrated a "user-friendly" product called "Pet Pick-Ups". She explained this product provided an. easy, sanitary, affordable, and environmentally responsible way for pet owners to pick up their pet's waste. She suggested placing these devices in public places to provide pet awn.ers with an easy opportunity to cleanup. She felt fines paid by individuals ticketed for choosing not to clean up after their pets would be one way to create a revenue source for TOV to pay for the devices on a long-term basis. Ms. Vucich noted the success of this product in Boulder, and indicated Eagle County Animal Control had express willingness to endorse use of the product. Ms. Vucich advised she would supply further information to Larry Grafel far Todd Oppenheimer's review. Item Na. 2 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance Na. 33, Series of 19'78, and Ordinance Na. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing far a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to rescind action taken on Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Merv Lapin then moved to refer Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 back to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for reconsideration. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and that motion also passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010, 16.20.220,16.22.010,15.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of ali other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance to August 3, 1993. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, to August 3, 1993. Bab Buckley seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32A40(A} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance until August 3, 1993. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, to August 3, 1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. 1 Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. C, Series of 1993, f rst reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz • noted Council had reviewed this item at a Work Session several weeks ago, and there were no major changes to the ordinance since then. She noted the right of way permit fee amounts referred to in the ordinance had been left blank. She said standard revocable right of way p~~~its, were now part of almost every residential project involving landscaping that goes from the property line out to the edge of pavement. She said that this type of landscaping was encouraged. Kristan suggested there not be a fee for that type of revocable right of way permit, but Council might want to consider a fee for permits involving major streetscape improvements that would encroach on Town land. Kri.stan referred to Section D(1) of the ordinance, and advised that staff was working with the Mill Creek Court representatives on this ordinance, and, at the Work Session, they had indicated that they felt design and labor costs should also be included in the total project cost that would be amortized. Then. on ordinance Section D(2), she noted the reference should be to paragraph D, not paragraph C. Jinx. Lamont stated he felt this ordinance was a major step f„~ ward in getting the private sector to participate with the public in making streetscape improvements that conform to the Streetscape Master Plan, and he urged Council to consider including design and, particularly, labor casts in the approval of this ordinance because if these costs were included on a case by case basis, this approach gave protection to the government because there was an understanding both from the government and private side as to what legitimate design and • labor costs were. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on first reading, with ordinance Section B(4) concerning right of way permit fees completed to read NONE. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan what her response was to Mr. Lamont's suggestion. Kristan said the design and labor costs could add up. She said staff had not changed the ordinance to include design and labor costs as it was Council's desire to try to cap the total amortization cost, and she suggested alternate wording for Section D{1) that would supply some flexibility, "The amortization schedule shall be based on the hard costs of the improvement and, on a case by case basis, design and/or labor costs maybe included in the total amortized project casts." She said there may be some projects where that cost would really be quite great. But Merv said it would always become an issue if we wanted to tear out the project. Kristan stated it was staff opinion that most of the improvements that would be allowed through this ordinance would not be torn out because TOV had a Town Engineer, a Community Development Department, a Planning and Environmental Commission, and a Council who all had an idea of what they wanted to see in the future. She stated the TOV has master plans which were used to make decisiozas, and Kristan felt it would be very unlikely, short of the unforeseeable, that these improvements would be removed. It was suggested that a clause covering TOV's liability should be included in the case of an emergency. Merv Lapin asked that "emergency" be specifically defined. Mr. Lamont said he could not speak for the particular costs, but said he felt that the ordinance was dealing with the reassurance to property owners making major investments. He felt there should be some degree of flexibility when and if emergency situations occur. He thought that when a property owner began to construct a project, the labor costs, depending on the sophistication of the project, were a major concern. Merv remained concerned as to whether TOV was responsible for repairing damage. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the utility companies had responsibility for repairing damaged improvements. Kristan said staff' would look at this more closely for second reading, but Hated Section D{2) of the ordinance stated in part, "Should the improvement be destroyed or eliminated for any reason other than the Town of Vail's revocation of the permit which (was) described below, the Town shall not be liable for any payment to the permittee. She felt the intent there was that if there was an Act of Gad or major emergency with the utilities the Town would not be liable for improvements. Mayor Osterfoss asked, if there was an emergency and landscaping or repairs had to be made, was it clear in the ordinance that that was not a homeowner's cost. Tam Moorhead advised that normally it would be at their cost. Mayor Osterfoss said she felt that needed to be addressed, and Tom was directed to consider situations involving emergencies with utilities and incorporate appropriate language into the ordinance for second reading. Again, Mr. Lamont said, on a case by case basis, if it was known there was a utility in a project area, that could be part of the contract agreement if it appeared to be a potential problem. 2 Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about a design cost limit. Jim Shearer felt a specific amount should be stated. He suggested up to $1,000. Kristan said $1,000 would be used up very quickly. Jim Shearer said he was looking at it in terms of either having no funds or having at least $1,000. Mayor Osterfoss noted, historically, once specific amounts . have been incorporated into an ordinance, a review of those amounts was needed every few years. Mr. Lamont felt, in any event, preferred to see Council in the position of having to make the final determination on the amount they would award in a particular negotiating agreement. It was conceivable to Mr. Lamont that some of the projects outlined in the Streetscape Plan and other Plans that could happen in the future could be major public/ private partnerships. He felt this ordinance provided the foundation for that discussion to take place. Bob Buckley agreed with Jim Shearer, but he did not want to discourage people from participation, and thought putting a limitation on design costs was a major disincentive. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support of the Vail Town Council far Plan "C" of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center, submitting at the Regular Municipal Election a new tax an restaurants and bars and lodgings, and expressing the intention of the Town of Vail to commit funds toward the construction of the Center. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead felt the resolution was straightforward and noted the language therein was not the exact language that would be considered far placement on the November, 1993, ballot. Rob Levine and Tom Steinberg arrived at 8:30 P.M. during discussion of this issue. After lengthy discussion concerning the amount of the revenue bonds TOV would issue consistent with the 0.9% tax on restaurants and bars and 1.8% tax on lodging which revenue would be dedicated to the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center, when the bonds should be issued, and possible shortfalls and projections, Council was reminded the primary paint of this resolution at this time was to show Council's support for the project. Mr. Lamont stated he was pleased to see the depth and examination being given to this issue, but he asked Council to reserve judgement until the voice of the community was heard. Bob Buckley noted this project had been under study far three (3} years and felt it needed strong endorsement from Council at this time. Caroline Tremblay added that the reason such strong endorsement was needed was so that potential major donors could more effectively be approached. After further discussion, Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, with a change to the amount of revenues bonds TOV would issue to the specific amount of twelve million six hundred thousand dollars {$12,600,00.00), and with a change to the language in contingency item C to read, "The receipt of pledges of charitable contributions from private sources in an amount that is the difference between the total project cost and the amount of money raised by the above referenced tax plus Tawn. of Vail's contribution." Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin said he was voting for the motion because he did not want to be perceived as being against the project. Mayor Osterfoss also asked that federal regulations be checked and Council be ' provided with any additional pertinent information as it became available. After brief • discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Bob Buckley announced that he had resigned from Vail Associates, Inc. effective July 12, 1993, and would not have a conflict of interest with the following agenda item. Item No. 7 was an appeal of a Planning and Envii,ro:nmental Commission (PEC) decision to not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge Street/I,ots A- D/Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. Mike Mollica summarized the Community Devel.,~,~ent Department {CDD) memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) dated May 24,1993, including a description of the request, a zoning analysis, criteria and findings, a review of s~m~aar requests, and staffs recommendation. The description of the request within the above referenced memo noted that Barry Florescue, owner of the A&D Building was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district. Vail Associates Real Estate currently operates a real estate office, of approximately 575 square feet, on the ground floor of the A&D Building and was now interested in expanding their existing real estate office through the conversion of a second floor residential condominium, of approximately 1,$20 square feet, located on the second floor immediately above the existing real estate oflce. Because the existing area proposed to be converted to a professional office was currently a three bedroom condominium, a conditional use permit would be required. Staff recommended denial of the requested conditional use permit to 3 eliminate the dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district. The PEC had voted 4-1-1 to not allow the request. Staff felt that although the request had no impacts on six (6} of the seven {7}review criteria, Criteria F, concerning continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain existing character of the area, would be impacted in a negative way. Further, staff felt the elimination of a dwelling unit in the Village Core did not further the Vail Village Master Plan goals and the purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district. Greg Stutz, attorney representing VA, noted the initial request for a conditional use permit was made by VA. He noted there would be only one dwelling unit lost, and he pointed out that another real estate business, Coldwell Banker Timberline, was situated directly across the wall from it. In return far removing the one (1} unit out of residential use to became commercial, he suggested the mitigation of placing either alock-off unit ar Mr. Florescue's dwelling unit into the short-term rental pool. He cited increased transfer tax revenues as a benefit of the residential to commercial conversion, and added the proposed new commercial area would be compatible with other commercial units in the area. Merv Lapin felt this request seemed to be in conflict with Andy Daly's desire to increase Vail's bed base. Kxistan Pritz stated this trade off proposition was not part of the original proposal the PEC had heard and felt it should go back to the PEC. Mayor Ostorfoss asked if Mr. Florescue understood the full details of a deed restriction on his unit. Ken Wilson asked for direction from Council before he returned to the PEC, because of what appeared to be a change in the request. After discussion by Bob Buckley concerning the personality and character of the Village, Merv Lapin moved to uphold the PEC decision to deny the request for a conditional use permit based on Criteria F of CDD's May 24, ].993 memo concerning continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg referenced another part of the staff recommendation in the CDD's memo. Staff therein stated in part, "Should the PEC decide to ap~.~., ae this request, the staff would recommend... that the applicant be required to pay into the parking fund the required amount. ." Tom stated he felt the $8,000.04 per parking space requirement was grossly inadequate. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • ~~ Mar~gax t A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~~~~~~~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:WlINJUL20.93 4 .~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 3, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rab Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk • Tom Steinberg was not present when this meeting was called to order. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Janice Ciampa Bauer expressed concern about increasing violent crime in the Denver area, which she felt would inevitably impact Vail and surrounding mountain communities. She asked if Council could address Governor Rona.er about this issue. There was discussion about what Vail and surroundng communities could do to be mare aware of potential violent crime in the area. She said residents and visitors needed to be more alert, and felt support from the community level up to Governor Ramer was necessary. Larry Grafel advised he had received, through CML, a copy of Governor Romer's 14-Point Proposal addressing juvenile violence. The proposal asked for assistance in the form of input, comments, and suggestions regarding the recommendations within it to help in the devel.,r~ent of a statewide approach to the violence. Larry said he would provide a copy of the proposal to anyone who was interested in reviewing and/or commenting on it. Mayor Osterfoss Hated there was clearly a perception of security on the part of visitors who come to Vail, and it was a considerable concern that that sense of security be something visitors and locals could rely on and have confidence in. Ms. Bauer felt greater police presence would be a comfort and that local crime problems and statistics should receive more publicity to help develop a mare cautious local attitude. Neighborhood Crime Watch programs were also suggested. Jim Gibson asked if there was any reason public places such as the parking structures could not also come under Crime Watch programs. Mayor Osterfoss suggested 911 phones be installed in the parking structures. Bob Buckley noted parents were responsible far knowing where their children were and what they were doing. He felt it was a societal problem, not just a police problem. Ms. Bauer noted the State of Massachusetts was considering a bill whereby parents would be responsible for juveniles' actions and suggested a similar proposal be made to Governor Romer. Jim Shearer Hated there was a rumor that gang members caught in crime in California were given a choice of serving time or the option to leave the state. If that issue situation was true, Jim Shearer felt Governor Romer and state and federal officials should be appealed to to put pressure on other states to stop that practice. Mayor Osterfoss indicated Council would discuss and respond to Governor Romer's proposal and ea~amine possible local actions for crime prevention during an upcoming Work Session. Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Merv Lapin moved tQ approve the July 6,1993, and July 20, 1993 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending . Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,1620.01.0,16.20.220, 16.22.010,16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide far the prohibition of neon sigzas and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfass read the . title in full. Shelly Mello explained that since last discussion of this ordinance, a number of sections had been added to clarify this ordinance. She said the additions were for clarifications, but the intent of the ordinance had not changed. Merv Lapin suggested passing Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, as presented, but without an amortization period. He felt signs presently in existence should be grandfathered, and if any of those signs presently in placed burned out, they would not be allowed to be replaced. Rab Levine agreed. Merv felt TOV was asking for problems with related Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, concerning five year amortization. Jim Gibson felt the result of Merv's suggestion would be unfair competitive advantage. Mayor Osterfoss directed focusing the discussion back to Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993. Merv stated he would be against Ordinance No. 5 if there was an amortization period established by the potential passage of Ordinance No. 13. Kristin Pritz explained the amortization period was already in TOVs Cade. Jim Gibson stated he was opposed to Ordinance No. 5 based on his belief that government had na business going that far inside private property to perform regulation. There was discussion about options to amortization. Shelly mentioned several examples of presently grandfathered signs including signs at the gas station and the Roost Lodge. She noted that other businesses do not get those size signs, so there was already a situation currently existing. Jim Gibson felt that did not mean TOV should p~~~ulgate it. Jim Gibson repeated his objection to creating unfair competitive advantage. He felt the signs were purely and simply a competitive advantage. There was discussion about the regulation of signage three feet back . into stores and the difference of impacts of signs versus lighted signs. Mayor Osterfoss asked what was magic about three feet. She felt if TOV had the right to go into a business far three feet to regulate signage, the whole interior signage should be subject to regulation. She felt interior signage should be totally regulated or not regulated at all. She felt the message had to be consistent. Nate was made of precedent set by Breckenridge having adapted an ordinance based on their concern with what people saw as they walked by a business. If that was TOV's concern, it should follow suit. Mayor Osterfass thought TOV had chosen to take a more conservative approach because substantial signage was not an addition to the ambiance of the community. Her point was the need for consistent regulation, whether free enterprise or ambiance were the choice. (Tom Steinberg arrived at this point in the discussion (5:04 P.M.) Rob Levine agreed with Mayor Osterfoss although he shared Jim Gibson's concern about government interfering with private ente~N~~se and insides of businesses. He said he would be in favor of Ordinance No. 5, but opposed to Ordinance No. I3. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on second reading, stating that if Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, concerning amortization was approved, he would present another motion to bring up Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, for reconsideration. Rob Levine seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, there was a discussion about the difl"iculty of enforcement of this regulation. Further discussion clarified that if a business was Bald and the name of the business was changed ar the merchandise being sold changed so that the previous owner's signage was no longer pertinent inf~~ u.ation, the new individual owning that shop would not have the right to another sign of the same size. Bob Buckley indicated he was uncomfortable with government going in to the back of stores and felt the existing Sign Code was adequate and ample. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Jim Gibson and Bob Buckley opposed. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance axaending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32A40(A} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide far the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Cade Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the deletion of Paragraph 1 regarding amortization of non-conforming signs and that all existing non-conforming signs as of August 3, 1993, at 5:09 P.M. be grandfathered, and that language under Paragraph 2 be changed to reflect that there was na amortization. Rob Levine asked what the purpose of that was as opposed to defeating the ordinance. Kristin Pritz explained this Section of the Code was basically in TOV's Sign Code now. She said Larry Eskwitb, former TOV Attorney, had bean concerned that the non-conf~~~ing sections specifically addressed amendments to the Sign Code in the future because the section relating to non-conforming signs and amortization was passed in September, 1977. Merv Lapin was concerned with the ordinance's second WHEREAS, stating • "...the Town Council wishes to amend the Sign Code to require that non-conforming neon and gas lit signs shall terminate five {5) years after the effective date of the amendment." 2 He said he read this ordinance as having to do only with neon and gas filled signs. Kristan felt what Mr. Eskwith was trying indicate that the Code was amended and he wanted to make certain that amendment fell under the existing section of the code so there would be no question about it. Rob Levine asked haw much enforcement there was of amortization of existing signs. Kristan advised when this section of the code was used when West Vail was de-annexed and brought back in, the amortization was not followed through with. Rob Levine suggested we do away with amortization of all signs. Shelly Mello said that it was Mr. Eskwith's feeling that the reason TOV should pass this ordinance was because TOV always had amortization but it was not enforced, therefore it should be re-instituted at this time so that there was a starting point for these types of signs. Jim Gibson asked about other types of non-conforming signs. Kristan said they would fall under existing sections of the code. She stated this ordinance was merely changing existing sections of the cads and the change was stating "any amendment thereto." Shelly added that any time the Sign Code was changed in the future and signs were non-conforming as a result of that, the amortization would be as of that date. Kristan noted there were no signs being amortized at this time and explained there was a procedure to go through to amortize a sign. Jim Gibson inquired about business who may ask for just compensation instead of amortization. It was his understanding once someone was notified their sign was illegal and they had five years in which to amortize it, they had the right to ask far just compensation instead of amortization. Tom Moorhead did not believe that was correct. Jim Gibson said the Beautification Act had set precedent for that, i.e. billboards along highways, ball fields, parking lots. He recalled those who took their cases to court received just compensation which caused the signs to come down immediately. Jim said the bill for just compensation . was ridiculously high because compensation was computed based on earnings. Jim Lamont said when the amortization schedule was first passed, around 1972-1973, TOV put that schedule in place. He said it was principally motivated because of the Holiday Inn sign in existence at that time. The Holiday Inn, because there was an amortization schedule, knew the sign would be coming down in five years, elected to take that sign down in exchange for a new sign program. Mr. Lamont pointed out that during the time Colorado was leading the Gauntry in the debate about amortization. As Mr. Lamont recalled, from an administrative standpoint, the amortization process was not effective while he had been in office because five years had not passed to that date. To that end, he was not aware if any notices were ever sent out as of the time the signs were to come down, but now felt the amortization could be effective in terms of recent legislation. He was unable to offer any insight, but felt that was something that should be looked into. Kristan said she was not aware of any TOV program that had documentation on signage or any knowledge of notification having been sent out to anyone regarding ana.ortization of their signs. She noted it would be very difficult for staff to trace this to see if that was ever done. Kristan said there really had not been that many problems with the amortization section. Mayor Osterfoss felt most of this issue was self correcting over tune. Merv asked if amortization would be abolished for all signs if Ordinance Na. 13 were defeated. He was advised it would, but that did not mean that the non-conforming section would be deleted. Kristan suggested tabling the ordinance for further • review. Merv Lapin then withdrew his previous un-seconded motion, and moved tg table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading, until September 7, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was a consensus an the direction. It was felt there was not. Rab Levine felt staff should be directed to go back and eliminate amortization in the Code altogether. Kristan said before they brought the ordinance back, they would do a Work Session to review the direction. Merv asked Tom Moorhead if nothing was done with Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, how that would affect Ordinance No. ~, Series of 1993; whether the signs would be grandfathered or amortized. Tom Moorhead said an argument could be made that the existing provisions as applied to signs do in fact apply to Ordinance No. 5. Rob Levine said the overriding issue in his mind was that there was not a big problem with signs, but Council was trying to be pro-active and address the issue before it became a problem. He felt if the amortization was eliminated altogether, some of the more distasteful signs would fall into the non-conforming section of the Cade and eventually be removed. Jim Gibson felt Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, should be defeated and that there should be a recall on Ordinance Na. 5, Series of 1933. Jim Shearer called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, ~-2, Rob Levine and Jim Gibson opposed. Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to make some recommendations about what Council's options would be, as well as to present to Council the materials under the non-canf„~~ing sign section. Jim Gibson told Kristan he felt it was important she bring an enforcement plan if this was to become an ordinance. • Item No. 5 Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3 15.42.020(A) and 15.02.020(G} o£ the Municipal Code of the Tawn of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section . 15.02A30(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an annual elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and an annual commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 far each dumbwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, Jim Shearer asked if, by inspecting these, TOV was taking any liability if something happened to an elevator. Gary Murrain said there was no more liability than TOV had on any other inspection. Gary said TOV's liability was much higher without the ordinance. After brief discussion including comment about NWCCOG's elevator inspection program's success, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ttem No. 6 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.x6 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Tim Devlin pointed out and explained the addition of Sections 12.16.010 B(3), D(1), and D(3) to the ordinance since first reading. Council had asked staff to review the existing Revocable Right of Way process and asked that an ordinance be created that would serve both the private and public needs by providing funding on TOV land for improvements recommended by the TOV Streetscape Plan, the TOV Village Master Plan, and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff had addressed the Council's concerns about design/labor costs as well as the question of who repaired improvements after unforeseen problems such as utility work, etc. Tim Devlin indicated Jim Lamont was present and had requested the addition of language to Section 12.].6.010 (D){1} to indicate that costs and maintenance agreement would be set after a review of Town Council. Mr. Lamont discussed the maintenance issue. He said the private sector became a donor to the public by completing an improvement on public property, and he felt the maintenance agreement should be fairly speeil"i.c as to who was responsible for repairs. He felt the maintenance issue needed to be spelled out, including when that responsibility may terminate. Staff agreed. After brief discussion concerning Section 12.16.020 regarding revocation of permits, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the addition of language to Section D(1) to state "... The costs and maintenance agreement shall be set after a review of the Town Council." Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson expressed concern about the timeframe for removal by permittees of encroachments, obstructions, or other structures as stated in 12.x6.020 A(1}. He felt the timeframe should depend on individual cases and should be determined by staff. Kristan did not feel it was a problem if Council wanted to extend the timeframe. Tim Devlin suggested placing a sixty (60) day cap as the timeframe. After discussion, Merv Lapin amended his motion to change the timeframe to sixty {60) days, . and Rob Levine amended his second. After brief discussion., a vote was taken and the amended motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an. ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mallica Hated this ordinance had passed on first reading on July 6, 1993, then action taken on first reading was rescinded on second reading on July 20, 1993, with direction to staff to refer the issue back to the PEC for reconsideration, and so that staff could give formal native of scheduled hearings to the Simba Run Condominium Association formal notice. He stated that had now been done. The project went back to the PEC, and at their last meeting they unanimously recommended approval. Mike said the ordinance was essentially the same as first reading with the exception of the addition of two (2) conditions concerning the granting to TOV of a drainage easement and a bike path easement. These were conditions that were discussed extensively at the PEC review on numerous occasions and failed to make the July 6, 1993, first reading, but were now included. It was Mike's understanding that the applicant agreed to those conditions. Mike said staff was now recommending approval with the two added conditions. He pointed out that the issue of employee housing had come up at the PEC meeting. The PEC felt that since it was not part of their original motion to include the 4 permanent restriction on the existing six (6) Employee Housing Units (EHUs} during the first review, they did not feel it was appropriate to include it now. However, the PEC had gone on record stating they supported the Council's direction to proceed with the potential permanent restriction on the existing six (6) EHUs. In summary, Mike said the PEC recommended approval with the permanent deed restriction on the four {4}EHUs that would be part of this final phase of the project. He recalled there was an issue raised at the last Council aneeting regarding the geologic hazard report and whether it was appropriate. He said Nicholas Lampiris, project geologist, was asked to review the potential hazard again. Included in staff s July 26, 1993, memo, was a summary report dated July 22, 1993, from Mr. Lampiris and staff was now comfortable that the letter of the Code had been met. There was discussion about restriction of the six (6} existing EHUs. Mike said that restriction was not in this proposed ordinance on first reading. He indicated the ordinance was written in accordance with the PEC recommendations which did not include restrictions on the existing six (6) EHUs. Jim Gibson stated the original SDD ordinance included those six (6} EHUs with a termination date of twenty (20) years. Mayor Osterfoss recalled when this ordinance was reviewed before, the restriction of the existing six (6) EHUs was not in the ordinance either, but the majority of Council had voted to have that added to the ordinance. Mike advised again that the ordinance was written according to the recommendation of the PEC and Council could modify the ordinance or direct staff to add such language between first and second reading. Jim Morter, representing the applicant, apologized for Morter Architects' error with the notification procedure which had delayed this ordinance. He reviewed issues raised at the previous hearing including the required drainage easement which he indicated was currently being resolved with Greg Hall; the required bike path easement on their property, which Mr. Morter said was now being taken off the property so no easement would be required; the pedestrian access across their property, which Mr. Morter said was being discussed with their attorney, adding the applicant was paying for the construction of that path; and the rockfall hazard report which had now been completed and Mr. Lampiris was comfortable with. The major issue raised previously was the EHU issue. Mr. Morter said his client agreed with Council in terms of the importance and dire need for employee housing. Mr. Morter further stated he was caught by su~N~~se at the last Council meeting and had not made two important points regarding the employee housing. Those points included ownership of the different properties that were part of this SDD. Mr. Morter said there was a property line that totally defined two {2}pieces of property; one piece being the new project being proposed, the other was the other Simba Run Phase I property. He inf.,~,,~ed Council that the two (2) pieces of property were under two different ownerships. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said was involved with the ownership of both properties, and there were partners involved. He emphasized these were two (2} different ownerships; two (2) different pieces of property. Mr. Morter discussed the number of units being proposed far this project. He noted there were conflicting documents regarding the original SDD, and, depending on which document was reviewed, the number of required EHUs ranged from eight ($) to ten (10). Mr. Morter painted out that the number of units in the new project had been reduced from forty four (44} to nineteen {19), and they were still providing four (4) EHUs, and he felt that was far exceeding the ratio of EHUs to market units that most projects required. He said they recognized that opening up a new discussion on a new SDD or a modified SDD was a negotiation process. Mr. Morter advised Council that what his client was giving TOV, without being asked, included a much better project in terms of scale, further development of architecture that existed on Simba Run, imr.~„ved landscaping; hidden vehicle access to every unit behind the units; correction of TOV's mistake regarding the bike path, reduction in number of units - a reduction of 8,774 square feet of GRFA; more EHUs per ratio than expected, and the right of public access through the site at their cost. With respect to EHUs, Mr. Morter said the applicant did accept providing four (4) EHUs far life duration, but the existing six (6) EHUs were under different ownership, and the applicant's whole financial plan was based an the assumption that a deal was a deal. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said did not accept the idea of converting the existing six (6) EHUs to lifetime EHUs. There was lengthy discussion about the size of the existing EHUs and consideration of suggested option concerning conversion or sale of those EHUs or building new permanently restricted EHUs on the project in lieu of those. Mr. Morter said that idea had been suggested, but that did not work on the new project from the standpoint of fitting them on the site. Mr. Morter reviewed site plans with Council to give a visual view of that, and stated that one thing they had looked at was adding one more floor to one of the buildings. However, that would require an elevator and would change the Building Code classification 5 of the structure. Tom Moorhead noted there was a change in the position of the applicant between the PEC hearing and this meeting. Tom Moorhead said Jay Peterson had represented that Mr. Said's ownership was 100% of the existing six (6} EHUs, and that was the way the PEC reviewed this issue. Mr. Morten said Mr. Said owned the existing six (6) EHUs, but he had partners in development of the new property. It was then established there were no partners in the existing six {6} EHUs. In that case, Rab Levine asked why there were any problems in changing the format of the existing six units. Mayor Osterfass noted also that Mr. Morten had mentioned the easement issue which she assumed was between Mr. Said's property on one side and the property he and partners own on the other area, that was currently n.ot buildable, because of ongoing negotiation between the properties. Mr. Morten confirmed that. Mr. Morten stated Mr. Said was only the owner of the units, not the owner of the existing Simba Run property. Jim Gibson asked Mr. Morten if Mr. Said would find it inviting to be able to sell the six units at market value versus having to wait ten years on a present value basis of even 8%. Mr. Morten said he could not represent Mr. Said an that issue. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was convinced the issue could be worked out from what had been discussed. She said the issue here was that Counal was interested in securing the permanent restriction of ten (10} units. Mr. Morten guessed that Mr. Said would be more open to restricting some of the existing EHUs instead of building more EHUs or converting new sales units to EHUs. Tom Steinberg expressed concern about passing this ordinance on second reading without coming to a final agreement on the pedestrian access across the property. Tom Steinberg moved to table Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading until staff could return with more specific figures, the owners' feelings on the EHU issue, and whether an agreement could be reached. There was no second to that motion. Mr. Morten said they were planning to get the project started this year and preferred action other than tabling the ordinance. Mayor Osterfoss reminded Mr. Morten that changes could be made between first and second reading. Bab Buckley felt strongly that a deal was made in a previous project and that it was unfair to go back and change that deal. He felt there were some basic rights property owners had, and he was pleased with the fact that the project had gone from forty four (44} units down to nineteen (19) units on the very visible site. He felt that was a very commendable, positive act by the developer, and he was opposed to adding a penalty for such positive action. Jim Shearer agreed. Jim Gibson suggested to Mr. Morten that Mr. Said might want to entertain the idea of permanently restricting the smaller EHUs. However, Jim Gibson said he would only entertain that as a Councilperson if the applicant brought that to Council and said that was what he wanted to do. Rob Levine noted this was not two separate projects. It was one project, one entity f~~..~ a zoning point of view, and these were the zoning issues. TOV was not re-opening the SDD, the applicant was. Mayor Osterfoss felt TOV SDD criteria has a provision whereby various mitigations/contributions were weighted so it could be determined what was appropriate in any given scenario. She felt Rob's point was well taken, but felt • there was opportunity for creative compromise based on ideas expressed at this meeting. After further discussion, Mr. Marten suggested that so this could be considered a first reading {so the applicant could keep on schedule and hopefully conclude at the next meeting), the applicant build four {4} EHUs, deed restrict them forever, and deed restrict three {3) of the EHUs in the existing buildings, those units being of the applicant's choice, and drop the restriction on the other three (3). Merv Lapin thought staff should look at the existing EHUs prior to making that commitment to see what TOV was being given. Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, be approved on first reading, with the condition that the suggestion the owner's representative, Jim Morten, made to permanently deed restrict four (4) new EHUs, release three {3) existing EHUs for immediate sale, and permanently deed restrict the remaining three {3} existing EHUs, and that staff be directed, perhaps with a member of Council, to go look at the units to see if they were appropriate, and that the pedestrian access across the property be finalized and agreed to prior to second reading. Mr. Morten asked that the motion indicate that the three (3) permanently restricted EHUs be at the discretion of his client, however Merv Lapin wanted staff and Council to see the units first. Rob Levine seconded the motion. After brief further comment, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District {known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase IT}, and the development plan 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. Andy Knudtsen 6 f a r distributed letters received from the public. He pointed out that all the letters he distributed had been written in the early part of ].993, and that the project had been changed since that time. In Andy's opinion, there was a definite break and change in the plan between the January 11, 1993, proposal and the one being reviewed at this meeting. He advised that all neighbors in the area were advised of this Tawn Council meeting. He thoroughly reviewed the SDD criteria as detailed in the April 12, 1.993, memo to the PEC from the CDD and reviewed the conditions of approval. Andy explained this was an SDD and a minor subdivision request. The reason being there were four (4) deviations from the Code: the first was that the applicant was proposing to develop in areas which exceeded forty percent (40%) slope; there was a ten percent (10%) setback encroachment in one location; there was wall height of four feet (4') in the front setback where three feet (3'} was the maxim,urn; and the minimum lot size was not met on one of the lots. He reviewed site plans with Council. He noted one of the complications of this review was created by the fact that development standards had come from the County. In the late 1970s and early 1984x, the County approved six {6) phases of The Valley along Buffer. This was a portion of Phase II. The other portions of Phase II were built as Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouses. The applicant was proposing seven {7}single family homes in the lower development area and two {2} single family homes in the upper development area instead of clusters. The information and data of the County approval were referenced in the memo to the PEC from the CDD dated April 2Fi, 1993. Page 2 of that memo showed the breakdown of the County approval. Eagle County approved twenty six {2f) dwelling units with thirty two thousand nine hundred nine (32,909) square feet, and a portion of that was broken out under the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse devel,.N~.ents. Steve Gensler, the applicant, had proposed a different type of housing, and staff had been working with him for some time trying to get the development to blend with the site and the existing neighborhood. He discussed the different zoning analysis for this project: County ap~,~..,aal, straight residential cluster zoning, the January 11, 1.993, proposal, and the current proposal. Andy added all the letters received today were addressed to staff regarding the January 11, 1993, proposal. Since that time, staff had communicated their concerns and the applicant had responded. The modifications made since the January 11,1993, PEC Work Session were detailed in the Aprii 26, 1993, memo. Andy stated the main concern was that the mature vegetation would be saved. After the January 11, 1993, meeting, the applicant had the site surveyed and all trees above a five inch (~") caliber were identified on the survey and then the homes were shifted accordingly to save those trees. There was a cluster at the lower end closest to the Grouse Glen development where several trees up to twenty four inch (24") caliber would be saved Staff felt that was significant. Other changes were that the road fill was reduced f~ emu,, twelve feet (12') down to eight feet (8'};landscaping was added; the GRFA was reduced; the road was reduced twenty feet (20') in length; and the amount of impervious surface was also reduced. Concerning the upper development area, the envelopes were shifted down off the top of the hillside and moved closer to the curb, cut and fill was minimized, and there was a condition of approval there which concept was that all finished grade be brought back to within four feet (4') of existing grade sa the end product would have relatively natural contours. Due to the steep grade on the upper development area, the PEC requested several detailed studies to understand exactly how the development would occur. Andy noted these were not architectural designs that would be required of future developers, however, they showed that development could occur without reauirin~ anv variances. The detailed drawings Andy reviewed had been studied by a based on a soils study as well as a structural engineer to verify that everything could be constructed as it was designed by Randy Hodges, the architect. Noting this was in a rockfall hazard area, Andy stated Nick Lampiris had evaluated the potential hazard and had recommended an internal mitigation. The northern wall of the homes would be fortified to withstand the impact of any rocks that might fall, and with that mitigation, Mr. Lampiris felt the building sites were acceptable. To avoid scarring up above the site, that wall would be contained within the foundation. With all of the studies provided, the PEC believed they understood what they could expect. The PEC believed the proposal would be better than the plan the County had approved which included five (5) houses that were located in the debris flow. Jim Shearer asked if inclusion of EHUs in the project had been addressed. Any indicated that issue had been discussed, and the applicant had dropped the idea when the applicant reduced the GRFA. Because the project no longer exceeded density standards, the EHU requirements were not discussed further. Tom Steinberg was concerned about any precedent that might set. Tom Braun, the architect, gave a lengthy presentation detailing the research done to determine if the lot was buildable. Kristan Pritz indicated that it would be difficult to pace any EHUs in the project, but Jim Shearer suggested the applicant consider off site 7 s EHUs. Unit sizes were discussed. Mayor Osterfoss requested a site visit to two (2) or three (3) other forty percent (44%) slope building sites. Jim Shearer agreed. Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading, until after said site visits were made at Council's next Work Session. Tom Steinberg seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, EHU requirements were again discussed and encouraged, even if the EHUs were off-site. It was suggested that Tom Braun consider various EHU options and consider what the project could offer in terms of EHUs. Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson expressed serious reservations about the project's steep grade. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-4-1, Merv Lapin absent during the vote. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mike Monica advised that the Eagle County Treasurer, Sherry Brandon, had requested TOV adopt a formal policy similar to Eagle County's procedure regarding their final plat approval process. The description of the request and further details were provided in the CDD memo to the PEC dated July 26, 1993. Jim Gibson moved to approved Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed, ~-4. {Merv Lapin and Rab Levine were absent during the vote.) Prompted by a number of letters f,.~K. residents concerned about a request far a Conditional Use Permit and landscaping variance to allow for the proposed expansion of VA's maintenance shop, Tom Steinberg moved to call up additional review of the facility. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Bob Buckley opposed. (Rob Levine was absent during the vote.) There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously, The meeting was adjourned at 14:2 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ma~s~et A. Osterfoss, Mayo ATTEST: ` .~ Holly L. McCutchean, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne 5. Deto C:IMIlVSAUG3.93 8 ~.r ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST ~ 7,1993 ~:sa P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Tawn Council was held an Tuesday, August 17, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayar Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tam Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBER ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Before Citizen Participation, Mayor Osterfoss reviewed the criteria far nomination of applicants for the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award. Ernest Medina, Jr., one of this year's award recipients, had been unable to attend the award presentations made on July 6, 1993, and, in town this evening, he was formally presented his award. Bob Buckley spoke highly in Ernest's behalf, and Ernest thanked Council. Agenda Item No. 1 was Citizen Participation. Christy Hochtl expressed concern about I-70 noise levels and safety issues. She felt the most immediate solution to her concerns was lowering the speed limit from 65 mph to 55 mph on sections of I-70 passing through Vail and the east and west Vail autskirt sections of the interstate. Ms. Hochtl noted 65 mph speed limits were lowered through most of the towns along I-70, and questioned why Veil's was not. She felt the cost of this option would only be related to changing speed limit signage, and, if the limits were properly enforced, would raise money and save lives. She also point out that out-of--state drivers, in particular, do not understand the driving dangers associated with the high speed limit and unsafe driving conditions related to weather and road conditions, and they do net attempt to slow dawn. She urged Council to examine options, include concrete walls to cut down on the traff c noise. Jim Gibsan shared Ms. Hochtl's concerns, but felt if the speed limit were lowered, joke brakes would be used all of the time. He also felt Vail looked better than a wall to cut dawn noise levels, feeling better enforcement was needed. It was pointed out the "Trees far Vail" program was, in part, designed to help absorb noise from I-70. Mayor Osterfass advised Ms. Hochtl this issue was one of Council's short and long term goals, and suggested she put her ideas in writing. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item. Mayar Osterfoss read the title in full: Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing far a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance Na. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District {SDD) No. 5 {Simba Run/Vail Run) and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; devel„N~ent standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said. Mayar Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica pointed out #.• - ',~ • ~ • changes to Section 9 -Special Provisions, including Section 9(A)(1}(a) and (b)(i) and (ii) and Section 9(A)(2) relating to conservation and pollution controls, Section 9(B} related to Employee Housing Units (EHUs}, and Section 9(F){2} and (6) related to additional requirements of the ordinance since first reading. A typo was also noted for correction in Section (9)(B} to indicate that unit numbers 1241, 1245, and 2245 (not 2202) would become "free-market" dwelling units. Mike and Jim Shearer had visited the development the previous week, and Jim Shearer noted they had met with representatives of the owners and representatives of the condominium association. He stated he had been pleasantly su..~,..ised at the units offered to TOV as part of this SDD request. Jay Peterson said he had spoken to Mr. Said, the developer, and Mr. Said indicated, of the existing six EHUs, he wanted to keep three (3) one (1) bedroom units, numbers 224'7, 2441, and 2402, as the permanently deed restricted Type III EHUs. There was Council consensus on which three (3) of the six (6) existing EHUs would become "free-market" units and which would become restricted dwelling units. Per the ordinance, the applicant also agreed, as part of Phase II of the project, to permanently restrict four (4) additional EHUs as Type III EHUs, according to TOV's adapted housing ordinance. Mr. Peterson, noting the ordinance also required the applicant to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and grant a public access easement to TOV prior to TOV's issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II construction, and additionally, asked TOV to indemnify the applicant on the pedestrian path. Tam Moorhead felt that the request was reasonable. After brief discussion., Jinx Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-4. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-74 interchange. The applicant was SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. The applicant was requesting a setback variance, a minor subdivision. and rezoning in order to locate a gatehouse, which would include the subdivision's caretaker dwelling unit, on the site. Mike Monica referenced the Community Development Department's (CDD) August 9,1993, memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), in particular the section of the memo regarding evaluation of criteria of the zone change request from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to Single Family Residential Zone District. The above referenced memo stated, at this time, all of the conditions of the major subdivision approval had been fulfilled and construction of the subdivision's infrastructure was underway. Mike summarized and stated that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning to Single Family Residential. He pointed out the applicant was proposing to restrict the property to a permanently deed restricted EHU. He also noted the GRFA was being significantly reduced. Under Single Family Residential Zoning this lot would have construction capacity for approximately 7,500 square feet of GRFA; the applicant was proposing a maximum total of ].,625 square feet. Floor plans were displayed and reviewed by Mike. He added the site coverage would also be reduced to 2,444 square feet, and the applicant had agreed to waive the "254 allowance" which would normally be available to any property with a dwelling unit on it. Mike said the ownership of the property would remain with either SBC Development Corporation or the Spraddle Creek Homeowners Association and that had been built into the covenants which TOV was a party to. The covenants could not be changed without the approval of TOV. The PEC reviewed this, approved the minor subdivision, and the variance with the condition that the zone change be approved. The PEC also recommended approval of the zone change. In response to Rob LeVine's question about TOV being a party to the covenants, Mike said TOV does not actually sign the covenants, but there were a number of sections in the covenants which could not be amended without the approval of TOV. As one example, Mike stated that there was language in the covenants regarding three (3} caretaker units in the subdivision, and there was a requirement that three (3) of the lots have restricted EHUs and that this language could not be modified without the approval of TOV. Additionally, the Design Guidelines were an exhibit to the covenants which also could not be modified without the approval of TOV. Jay Feterson noted the developer was under a ninety {94} day obligation under the covenants to transfer not only the gatehouse (Tract C), but the open space tracts to the Home.,~uer's Association. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken an the motion passed unanimously, 6-4. 2 . '} • i At 8:10 P.M., Jim Gibson moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session regarding Legal Matters, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Council reconvened the Evening Meeting at 8:30 P.M. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District {known as SDD No. ZS, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Steve Gensler/Parkwoad Realty. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen explained this ~,~.~.~,osed development was fox two areas at the top of the Valley - an upper devel„~,~ent area and a lower development area for a total of nine {9} single family homes. He focused on three points of discussion brought up at the August 3,1993, Evening Meeting. The three major issues discussed had been slope, natural hazards, and housing. With regard to slope, Andy noted that there had been a site visit earlier this day and that six {6) different sites around Town ~,~„~rided examples of how homes were built on slopes exceeding forty percent {40%}. As far as the natural hazards issue, Andy stated he had spoken with Tam Braun, planning consultant for Steve Gensler, and word had been received from the geologist, Nick Lampiris, indicating that this set of natural rockfall hazard was not as significant as many other examples in the Valley, and the proposed mitigation was more than adequate. Andy distributed a study prepared by Rosall, Remmers and Cares (RRC) addressing the last area of concern previously questioned by Council, EHUs. The study included a set of multipliers for different types of uses, and Single Family was included. Andy advised there was some discussion by the RRC as to whether residential should be included in addition to commercial, and the final recommendation was to give TOV ratios for all uses. Andy said the report was approved by Council, in its entirely. Andy pointed out the criteria of the SDD was in the memo dated April 2Fi, 1993, t~~,.. CDD to the PEC. There were also 1993 letters from neighbors, mostly dated January, 1993, and Andy indicated there was a significant change between January and April, 1993, when the applicant was able to identify many trees anal make changes to his proposed project to save them. Andy added neighbors were still fairly can,,G~ued about the project, but staff believed there were significant changes to maintain the buffer and the landscaping to keep the development as integrated into the hillside as passible. The PEC had voted 4-1 recommending approval of the ~,~,,,;ect; Jeff Bowen had voted against it feeling the forty percent {40%} slope was too steep for construction. Staff had recommended a~,N~„~al and asked Council far approval. Andy advised there were also several conditions of approval listed in the Apri126, 1993, memo which were also identified in Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, and all of those conditions of apNl~.aal would apply if this ordinance were passed on first reading. Tam Braun spoke about the specific challenges and adjustments made to this project and detailed efforts made to answer Council's previous concerns. He advised there was originally not an EHU in their plan and there still was not. He discussed the inclusion of EHUs in this and other projects. Mr. Braun felt there needed to be a relationship between level of development being asked for in specific projects and requirements for EHUs. He said he had heard a couple of reasons for why he should N~.,~ide EHUs, one being that they were asking far an SDD. He said in the past five (5) to ten (10) years SDD's had been the mechanism where requirements for affordable housing had came into play, but he felt those had been typically been associated with larger scale projects which included requests for additional density. He agreed affordable housing was a community need, but felt there needed to be parameters to establish under what circumstances EHUs were required to be provided. He said the requirement for an EHU in this project took them by surprise given what they were asking far. He asked Council to re-examine if it was appru~,~.xate and reasonable to impose such a requirement an this project. He strongly suggested Council amend TOV's SDD ordinance or establish a f.,~~al policy statement or provision to inform property buyers and developers what the expectations in this area would be. There was a lengthy discussion about considerations and specific suggestions for the inclusion of an EHU in this project, including the possibility of an off-site EHU. The final amended motion to approve Ordinance Na. 17, Series of 1993 was made by Jim Shearer. He moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, an first reading with the provision that the developer include a permanently restricted 4~4 square foot EHU, and that staffbe directed to work out the placement of that permanently deed restricted unit with the applicant {to be located on the lower portion of Tract B) by second reading. Jim Gibson seconded the amended motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg explained why he was going to vote against this SDD. He felt the area was already too dense, the road was a problem and was not practical, and he did not believe that the previous County approval should influence a TOV decision. 3 ~r i • ~ He felt the land was being abused and it would eventually be a horrible project. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Tom Steinberg opposed. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained that Section 18.24A58 had been found to be under the wrong Title in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, amended Chapter 8.24 to correct that. He stated there was no change to the original ordinance. After discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-2, Tom Steinberg and Bob Buckley apposed. They recalled they had voted against the original ordinance as being useless. There being no further business, a motion tc> adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, • Margret A. Osterfass, May ATTEST: Hol~. McCutcheon, Tawn Clerk Minutes taken by t)orianne S. t3eto C:IMINAlJG17.93 4 • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEaI a UMBER 7, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, SG~,lGmber 7,1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Buildiung. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob LeVin.e Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Mayor Osterfass and Jim Shearer were not present when the meeting was called to order by Merv Lapin. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Agenda Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 3, 1993, and August 17, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Devel.,Y~~.ent Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. Merv Lapin read the titles in full. Jixn Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item Na. 3 was an Executive Session regarding legal matters. That Executive Session had instead been held at the end of the Work Session earlier this date, and na Executive Session was called during the Evening Meeting. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District {known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the devel„t,~~~ent plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin read the title in fuIl. The applicant was Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. Andy Knudtsen noted a minor amendment to the ordinance since first reading. He recalled an issue of concern on first reading was related to Employee Housing Units {EHUs}, because an EHU had not been included in the SDD. He discussed the details of this particular EHU. Another change to the ordinance since first reading was the addition of a condition requiring that, prior to issuance of any building permits within this SDD, the applicant would provide a drainage plan meeting the standards of the Town Engineer. With those changes, Andy said staff recommended approval. He said they had spoken with Jay Peterson, Tom Braun, and Steve Gensler, who all were in agreement with the changes. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Rab Levine. Mayor Osterfoss arrived at this bane. Before a vote was taken, there was note by Jay Peterson of a correction to be made under Section 4 -Development Plan {11}(e) (footnote} to state that "the additional 309 square feet was made up of 159 taken from the utaver {not lower) devel„~,..~ent area and 150 granted by the Town of Vail." There was brief discussion about prior site visits to other devel„r~~~ents with 40% slope. Merv stated he felt it was a mistake to allow SDDs in residential zone districts. Jinn Shearer arrived at this time. Andy stated the developer had been very specific in his designs, and felt there was a Ievel of assurance regarding fill, cut areas, and scarring. He said several additional studies had been done in an effort to establish exactly how the project will be developed. Merv also expressed con..~x~~ed about building on 40% slopes. Tom Steinberg asked if this was an SDD, and if TOV did not allow building on 40% slopes, other than single-family homes and duplexes, how TOV was allowing this project on an SDD. Without further input and research, Tom Moorhead was unable to answer this question. Andy said 1 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9f7193 it was staff's understanding that this SDD allowed variations from the Code standards. After further discussion, Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Merv Lapin and Tom Steinberg opposed. item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.D58, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties #or the violation of this ordinance; and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tam Moorhead explained the original ordinance, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1992, had already been passed, was in the Code and that Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, would simply relocate the original ordinance to its correct place in the Code. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance Na. 19, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Bob Buckley advised he planned to vote against this ordinance, feeling it was unenforceable and a waste of time. Tom. Steinberg stated he was vehemently against this ordinance, feeling it had not worked. Mayor Osterfass pointed out that a vote against relocation of the existing ordinance within the Code would not eliminate the ordinance from the Code, but that another ordinance to eliminate it from the Code would be required. Jim Gibson recalled the whole purpose behind the original ordinance was an effort to cooperate with State agricultural concerns created by specific undesirable plants. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-3, Torn Steinberg, Bob Buckley, and Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 13, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32A3D(F) and 16.32.04D(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non- conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, on first reading until such time as staff had time to complete research an it. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 7-D. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 2D, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated during 1994 and each subsequent year in an amount not to exceed $ [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes] without any increase in such tax rate and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead indicated there were two issues to be discussed. Furst, in regard to the part of the ordinance stating "... in an amount not to exceed...", he said there was no direct language in Amendment 1 stating that the amount had to be included in a revenue change, as being done in this particular ordinance. He said the direction to include the amount was only included in those sections which described what had to be on the ballot when a new tax, an increase in tax, or renewal of a tax were being proposed. He explained that by putting a specific amount in this ordinance, TOV was placing a burden on itself if TOV were to exceed that amount. Another request of the voters to spend that amount would then be required. He noted Boulder and Commerce City were not including a specific amount in their ballot questions. He did not believe, based an the language in Amendment 1, that TOV had to include a specific amount in this particular ballot question. Merv Lapin felt an advantage of putting a specific amount in the ordinance was that if the question passed, it would differentiate TOV. He said Amendment 1's author, Doug Bruce, was making an argument against these ballot questions for not including specific amounts. Merv asked if the ballot question did declare a specific amount whether that would differentiate TOV and keep TOV protected from a challenge by Bruce. Tom Moorhead replied that would put TOV in an independent position as apposed to taking the same position as other municipalities. He said it was dear that if a specific amount was picked and it was exceeded, TOV would be in the position of having to make a refund unless the voters approved spending that additional amount. He repeated there was nothing in Amendment 1's language stating a specific figure had to be included in a revenue change. He said that a specific amount included in TOV's ballot question would have to be so large that it could cause concern among the voters. In addition, other issues that would be on the ballot would make it very difficult to predict what kind of revenue situation TOV might be in next year. After discussion about various reasons for and against including a specific amount, Tom Moorhead advised leaving the specific amount out. Steve Thompson felt Bruce would retort by saying the reason the specific amount needed to be included was because once that amount was exceeded, no matter when, Amendment 1 would require going back to a vote. Steve added that was how Bruce set that up, but the courts were not necessarily looking at what the intent was when they were reviewing some of these cases. Steve felt no matter which way TOV chose to word the ballot question, it would not be satisfactory to Bruce. 2 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9!7!93 Tom Steinberg stated TOV should not be allowing Bruce to dictate what TOV did. Rob I..eVine agreed. Steve noted the attorney for Boulder had been working on Amendment 1 since day one with CML committees, and he felt comfortable following what Boulder was doing. After discussion, it was agreed the ordinance language be changed to read, "An ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1994 and each subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes] without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects, effective January 1, 1994; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing." After Council questions about sales taxes, ski lift ticket taxes, and real estate transfer taxes, Jirn Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 2d, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the language changes as stated above. Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about the benefits of making the ordinance effective January 1,1993. Jim Gibson amended his motion to further change the ordinance to have it became effective January 1,1993. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. Rob Levine felt that could be harmful if it gave the perception that there were excess revenues in 1993. After further discussion about rationale for making the ordinance retroactive, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. S was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, a resolution waiving a restriction on residential condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion Inn Condominiums to allow a minor exterior alteration for the expansion of the residential condominium unit. The applicant, Jay Peterson was present. Jim Curnutte reviewed the description of the request as detailed in the CDD's memo dated July 26,1993, to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). He stated when this property was redeveloped several years ago, there was a restriction put in the Declaration of Covenants for the property which stated there would be no exterior modifications which increased the GRFA on this building. However, as detailed in the above referenced memo, the Condominium Declaration indicated the restriction could not be amended without the prior written consent of the Vail Town Council, and, therefore, Council did have the ability to review the minor exterior alteration requested. If Council felt the intent of the restriction was not being violated, they could aYN~..ve fihe resolution to allow for the alteration. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, Rab asked if the specifics of this proposal would apply to any potential waiving of restrictions in the future. Jim Curnutte advised that Resolution No. 19, Series of 1993, was prepared to be very specific to this request only. Any future request would have to go through this same process. Under discussion, it was noted there was a conflict in Section 1 of the Resolution. it was agreed to amend the language in that section referring to exterior modification. Tam Steinberg amended his motion to include the language amendment discussed. Rob Levine amended his second. After brief discussion about the project's GRFA and Hate that a new definition of GRFA had been adopted, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ttem No. 9 was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, a resolution to offer amnesty for a limited period of time from the 1.5% per month penalty provided in Paragraph 14, Ordinance Na. 31, Series of 1992, for delinquent assessments in the Booth Creek Laval Improvement District. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained there were presently seven assessed property owners who had failed to pay their assessments, and they would be certified to Eagle County as delinquent October 1,1993. He advised there had been several discussions with some of the property owners within the last week and they had indicated they wanted to come current, but they had Hat realized there was a penalty. They realized there was interest, but not a penalty. Tom Moorhead noted that Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, clearly called for the penalty, and based upon that ordinance, the penalty of 1.5% per month was in effect. He added that a letter had been sent out in December, 1992, announcing the Public Hearing in regard to the assessment, but that letter referred only to an interest payment, and not to the penalty payment. After speaking with some of those assessed, it seemed if there were amnesty offered, several of them would come within compliance. He said he had discussed this with Steve Thompson and Steve Barwick, and it was felt this was an opportunity to bring same of those delinquent property owners into compliance prior to the date of the certification. Passage of this resolution would also put these property owners on notice that they were not in compliance and that there would be no question that the penalty for 1993, as well as for 1994, would be in effect. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was a presentation of a meeting planner demand analysis for the Vail Valley 3 Vai] Town Cpuncil Eveaing Meeting Minutes 917193 Performance & Conference Center (WP&CC) as called far in TOV's Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993. Caroline Tremblay distributed a document summarizing selected highlights of the VVP&CC Meeting Planner Demand Analysis of the Conference Center prepared by Benton & Hire in August 1993. She noted a copy of the full report was available upon request. Caroline discussed, in detail, primary issues including the size of groups most likely to meet in Vail, when those groups were most likely to meet in Vail, how often the conf~~«~ce center would be used, the effect of the conference center on area hotels, how many new meetings would come to Vail because of the conference center, and what the meeting numbers meant for the local economy. The summary asked the question if the estimated return of $10,765,000-$13,456,250/year was worth the investment of $2.1 m~Ilion/year. The Benton & Hire report concluded it was. Noting there were many different ways to calculate what the proposed performance and conf~.G~~ce center's economic impact an the community would be, Caroline explained some of the details of haw the research was done. She stated that meetiung attendee expenditures were determined by the International Association of Convention Visitors Bureau's (IACVB) average expenditures from meeting planners. To emphasize that WP&CC planners were taking the most conservative approach to arrive at the figures they had, she compared IACVB's figures with the Colorado Tourism Bureau's (CTB) retail spending habits of visitors to this State. She felt that the estimated return each year was worth the $2.1 million. The $2.1 million would be funded by tax revenues, if the proposed 0.9% restaurant and bar tax and the proposed 1.8% lodging tax were passed by the voters, combined with private contributions, Town of Vail contributions, and revenue bonds would pay for the construction, marketing and operation of the proposed conference center. Tom Steinberg indicated that one of the continuing controversies he had been hearing was that this proposed conference space offered nothing for the visual arts. He felt it might be reasonable at the present time to divert same of the meeting space to an environmentally controlled space for visual arts. He stated he did not think the conference center size should be cut back, but perhaps converted far the next ten years or so to solve the visual arts problem, and then, if the space was needed far conventions, it could all be converted to convention space. Caroline #elt there were certain modifications that needed to be made in the design to acwmmadate the needs of the meeting planners and that would be the addition of break-out rooms, the addition of partitions, and the addition of permanent registration. areas. She said there was also some space which could be modified to accommodate local visual arts. She said that was something that was another phase in the design process but was something the Steering Committee was in favor of. She said they were in favor of having a small zoom in the existing facility for the visual arts. She felt that would happen in the final design. She stated right now they were in Plan C of the design phase and she was certain there were goring to be some changes. Tam Steinberg felt it was important for it to be said that a visual arts area was being considered. Caroline advised she had spoken with the local visual arts community and had met with the president of the Vail Valley Arts Council and discussed the Steering Committee's plans and expressed support for the visual arts space in this facility. The Vail Valley Arts Council's primary concern was that they felt they had been promised a space in the past which they had not gotten, and they were apprehensive about getting it now. Caroline said she assured them that they would get a space similar to what was presently available to them at the Library. She said the Arts Council cautioned against the WP&CC implying that they were offering something that would not be. Caroline totally agreed with that, saying the Steering Committee would like to have a room in the facility that could be used for local arts and traveling shows, but they were not planning to build a performance center, a conference center, and a museum. Tom Steinberg added that room for visual arts would need special heating and air conditioning because loaners of expensive art would not even consider loaning the art unless security could be guaranteed. Caroline said the designs were still preliminary, but those issues would be taken into account. Mayor Osterfoss noted that, in addition to the $10-$13 million incremental conference center return, it would be fair to say there would also be the return of performance facility, because, as she understood it, the two proposals were, in fact, linked together. She felt that it was worth mentioning that would create a substantial return in terms of cultural value to the community. There was discussion about endowments to support performances at the proposed performance side of the facility. Such endowments were set forth as requirements in TOV's Resolution Na. 8, Series of 1993. Caroline said current plans included endowments to support the performing arts. Merv asked Tom Moorhead about part of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, which stated that monies would be "... accumulated far no longer than three years before beginning construction on a facility ..." He asked Tom Moorhead what if the generation of revenues took more than three years. Tom Moorhead said the revenues would be earmarked far construction, maintenance and operation of the performance and conference center, and if revenues were collected and not used, he believed the • issue would have to gn back to the voters for an extension or for alternative use direction. Tom Moorhead confirmed that if it took more than three years to generate the necessary and required revenues, construction could not begirt. He pointed out that an ordinance and ballot question still had to be drafted to refer the issue to the voters. Merv Lapin asked haw sales taxes would be refunded if necessary, and inquired i# the farth",~~~ing g Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9M193 ordinance was where the p.,l~.~tial refunding issue would be addressed. Tom Moorhead said refunding previously collected taxes was a very delicate issue; it was a very difficult proposal, and na one had yet come up with strong suggestions on how those taxes would be refunded. It was suggested the taxes could possibly be refunded through the provision of additional services by TOV. jirn Gibson asked if Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, could be extended. He asked if there were any legal ramifications with parenting money. If at the end of three years building was not eminent, could the resolution be extended without going to the voters. Tam Moorhead said that would depend on the ballot question, but he needed to research this further. There was further discussion about ramifications to TOV should inadequate revenues be raised in the stated time period. Rob Levine said he wanted to add to Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, that the portion of such additional taxes which specifically paid far debt reduction would sunset when the debt was retired. He moved to strike Section 2{A) of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, given that contingency had been met by the presentation made by Caroline Tremblay at this meeting. Jim Gibson did not feel it needed to be stricken, it was just one of the contingencies that had already been satin€ied. Tom Moorhead explained that Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, had been passed, adopted, and was effective. He noted that a resolution reflected Council's position on matters that were of a temporary nature. He indicated changes discussed at this meeting would be properly included within "whereases" in the ordinance yet to be drafted. Merv Lapin asked how the proposed ordinance would address the issue of the inadequate generation of revenues raised by the tax related to carrying the cost of the proposed performance and conference center's building and maintenance. He stated he did not want those costs to end up as property tax. Torn Moorhead indicated further research was necessary. Caroline also had no. answer to that question. After further discussion, Tom Moorhead advised in light of Amendment 1, he did not think the ballot question needed to provide for the possible eventuality of needing more tax dollars in the future. He believed Council was limited by having to go back to the voters to ask for those tax dollars. He said a figure would have to be computed as to how much would be raised in the first year. He advised this would be addressed in the forthcoming ordinance which he hoped to have prepared for first reading at the September 21, 1993, Regular Evening Meeting. Caroline said there was always the chance their budget was not accurate, but the numbers had been reviewed and the figures were believed to be conservative. If there was error, she felt they were erring on the conservative side. She said she understood Merds concern, but that the Steering Committee had approached this as a private enterprise business and that the numbers presented were firm numbers they believed in. Rob Levine thanked Caroline for extensive work on this effort. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margar~ A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly' McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by ~orianne S. Deto • C:\IvQNS8EP7.93 5 Vail Town Counci] ]~ening Meeting Minutes 9M/93 • J ~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEt~ttJMBER 21, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 21,1993, in the Council Chambexs of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osl~f.,ss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Town Managex Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk L.J • • The first item on the agenda was an Executive Session regarding land issues. The Executive Session began at 7:00 P.M., and was adjourned to the Regular Evening Meeting at 7:30 P.M. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Tawn of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1993 and each subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem propexty taxes] without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects, effective January 1, 1993; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the appxoval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing fox notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised he had spoken with the Secretary of State's office Election Division to verify if setting up ballot questions in paragraphs, as directed by Council far easier understanding by voters, met State requirements. Tom Moorhead said he was advised that the Secretary of State had no objection to setting ballot questions in paragraphs, and, in fact, setting forth ballot questions in the most understandable fashion was being encouraged. After brief discussion concerning minor language changes, Jim Gibson moved to «~r~ove Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, an second reading with the recommended changes. Torn Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. With regard to the public informational process on this ballot question, Steve Thompson stated staff was working on scheduling meetings with various groups during October and early November, 1993. Item No. 4. was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the loth of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should increase annually by the imposition of a new tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new tax of 1.8% an lodging beginning on January 1,1994, and each subsequent year producing approximately $2,100,000.00 in the first year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing, and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $12,600,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing, and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the sunset of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead recommended changes in the ballot question set forth :in this ordinance based upon his review of Amendment 1 and conversations with Susan Baird, Staff Attorney in the Election Division of the Secretary of State's office. He recommended this ballot question be broken down into paragraphs in a manner similar to the ballot question in Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, so it, too, would be more easily understood by the voters. He suggested this ballot question begin, "Shall the Town of Vail sales taxes be increased $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning an January 1,1994, and each subsequent year?" and eliminating the wording, "... producing approximately $2,100,000.00 in the first year ...?" Jim Gibson felt that inasmuch as TOV did not have control over how much revenue the proposed sales tax increases might generate, this ballot question should include the less Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 812]!93 definitive language, "... approximately $2,10D,D00.00." Tom Moorhead said the language he suggested was exactly as the language was set forth in Amendment 1 on how to begin wording of any proposed new tax implementation. In response to Jim Gibson's inquiry about the p.,l«~tial generation of a greater amount in the first year than stated in the ballot question, Tom Moorhead indicated TOV may have to return to the voters to receive their authorization far TOV to retain any additional amount. Assuming the ballot question passed, i# greater amounts were generated in subsequent years, Tom Moorhead believed TOV would be able to utilize the additional amounts without return to the voters. He clarified that p~l~ktial revenue generated by the sales tax increases set forth in this ballot question were entirely separate from all other TOV revenues, emphasizing that Ordinance No. 2D, Series of 1993, dealt with the generation and spending of general revenues. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, was a complete and separate ballot question and potential funds raised by it were earmarked specifically for the construction, operation and marketing of the performance and conference center. He stated the best reasoned opinion concerning Amendment 1 at this time was that the first year's generated revenues must be specified and that was the only year that the specification of amount pertained to, and that it was appropriate for TOV to generate and expend an increase in those revenues after the first year. Ir>< this particular ballot question, he said TOV would be limited by the conditions earmarked for this particular tax. He noted the baIlot question included the contingency that if in three years construction had not begun, a decision about whether or not the revenues should be returned, whether ar not the revenues should continue to be collected and retained for the performance and conference center, or what other action should be taken would then have to be made by the voters. Tom Moorhead advised that the term "Article X, Section 20" in the ballot question was the technical name for Amendment 1. It was agreed to include as part of the ballot question that Article X, Section 2D was commonly known as Amendment 1. There was discussion concerning when these proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset. Steve Thompson felt that if the timeframes were known they should be included in the ballot question, but he could not predict exactly when these taxes would be reduced and sunset. It was established the bonds would be thirty year bonds. Merv Lapin felt the ballot question should be as explicit as possible with taxation issues, but Jim Gibson was concerned about the possibility of eliminating refinancing the band, which might be an option at some future date. Caroline Tremblay stated when the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center EWP&CC) Steering Committee worked with Steve Barwick concerning the recoxnrnended wording of this ballot question, the reason they did not specify when the proposed taxes would be reduced and finally sunset was because of TOV's early band retirement history. Jim Gibson said there was also the possibility that TOV might choose to extend the bonds and felt that passibility would be complicated if a specific reduction and/or sunset date was set forth. Bob Buckley agreed. Caroline asked for additional language clarification. She felt the word "sunset" was confusing and suggested the word "cease" be used instead. After discussion, Council consensus was reached to change "sunset" to "cease." Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the changes as suggested by Tom Moorhead and Caroline Tremblay. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin inquired' what would happen if it took more than three years to raise the necessary and required funds. Tam Moorhead said the three years was an imposition Council had decided to impose upon the collection and retention of these proposed taxes. He said because Council placed that restriction, at the end of three years i€ construction had not yet begun, TOV would have to return to the voters for direction on whether TOV should continue to collect and retain the funds with the intent of a performance and conference center being started or to return the funds to the taxpayers of Vail. Torn Moorhead pointed out that it was stated in the ballot question ixr Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, that if "... construction has not begun the tax will expire on December 31, 1996, and the revenues collected will then be treated in a mannex consistent with the revenue requirements of Article X, Section 2D." Jim Gibson noted that included any reason, not only finance. There was discussion about the passibility of extending the three year contingency to four years. Caroline Tremblay said the VVP&CC Steering Committee had recommended that particular paragraph to Council as a safeguard to the public as assurance that something would happen within three years. She said the WP&CC Steering Committee felt three years was the outside time limit that a local person could imagine the beginning of the construction of the facility and that the VVP&CC Steering Committee wanted to have a tight rope on themselves. She added that all of the VVP&CC Steering Committee's cost projections at this point were aimed at having construction beginning in the spring of 7.996. She explained that if they incurred mare of an operating expense than they planned, even using very conservative estimates of what meeting planners would pay for the use of a conference room, there would be some revenue there they could conservatively expect to have as income to cushion their budget estimates. After additional discussion, based on the substantial pro forma evaluation by the VVP&CC Steering Committee, Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-D. After the vote, Merv Lapin commented that the VVP&CC was a compromise of many people's ideas, and he still had major concerns about the conference center. He was primarily concerned that what was being proposed to handle groups of approximately 30D was basically what could be handled 'Z Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9121!93 ~e now im about three or four different facilities in the area. He wondered if there would be enough of an overflow from those groups presently being handled by local facilities to bring enough business for a conference center. He indicated he voted for Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, because he wanted to see it ga to a vote, but emphasized he did not feel at this point that voting for this ordinance should be viewed as his decision to vote for both the performance and the conference centers, only that he was in favor of letting the voters decide. Caroline Tremblay added that the demand analysis done by Benton & Hire had taken into account that the local facilities with existing meeting space would fill prior to the conference center because meeting planners would always prefer to meet in a hotel with meeting space before using a conference center. Merv Lapin directed Tam Moorhead to be prepared to answer what would happen if there were not sufficient revenues produced by this ordinance's proposed taxes to cover bands. Merv asked if that something that needed to be covered in the ordinance. Bob Buckley asked Caroline Tremblay to check with the VVP&CC Steering Committee before second reading to determine how strongly they felt about the three versus four year issue. Bob strongly endorsed the performance and conference center and did not want to see the project jeopardized if the monies were not available in three years but would be available in four years. Merv also asked Tom Moorhead to be prepared to address what Council could and could not do in terms of providing support for the project in the election process. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, an ordinance amending Sections 3.48.130C and 20.04.370 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide delinquent taxes and/or assessments to be certified to the Eagle County Treasurer no sooner than October 1st of each year, and declaring an emergency. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead said this ordinance was necessitated by a change in the procedures of the Eagle County governmen#. Eagle County had requested TOV adopt a procedure consistent with theirs. This ordinance would place TOV's ordinance in step with Eagle County's procedures. If certifications were received after October 1, they would not be coIIected until the following year. The reason this ordinance was declared an emergency was so it would be effective by October 1, 1993. In response to Merv Lapin's inquiry about negative aspects of approving this, Torn Moorhead explained TOV had been certifying by December 1 making it impossible for Eagle County to enter delinquent taxes and/ox assessments on their rolls for the following year. Tom Moorhead said this dealt with real estate transfer taxes and special assessments only. After discussion, Torn Steinberg moved to ayY~.,ve Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, as an emergency ordinance, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin emphasized that use of an emergency ordinance should be only under extreme circumstances because emergency ordinances only have one reading and do not give the public and opportunity to respond and voice their opinions. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time, Jim Gibson moved to reconsider the vote an Ordinance Na. 20, Series of 1993, with a second from Mexv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Merv Lapin suggested that instead of reading, "Those remaining restrictions continue to require:" followed by the requirements, that the last sentence of the second paragraph of Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, read, "The remaining restrictions are:" followed by the listing of the requirements as already approved. After discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on second reading, with this suggested language amendment. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Rob Levine and Tam Steinberg both indicated that they were pleased that so much time was being spent an the wording of the ballot issues so they were clearly understandable. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was Appeal of a Design Review Board (DRB) decision far the Stu Brown property, Lot G4, 2nd Filing/1330 Sandstone Drive. The applicant was Stu Brown. The appellant was the Vail Town Council. Andy ICnudtsen stated this was a project that had been submitted in the early part of summer '93 and that the DRB had reviewed it several times. He noted that during the site visit earlier during Work Session an this date, Council had an opportunity to better understand the site and location of the buildings, and there had been discussion about the project changes that had been made. He said staff, since the site visit, had responded to discussion with Council, and suggested ways this project could be made more compatible with the neighborhood, primarily by screening with landscaping. Mayor Osterfoss explained that since this was an appeal of a call-up of a DRB decision, what Council was focusing on was the Design Review Guidelines as they pertained to this project. She said staff had been specifically directed to look at the landscape plan and make recommendations to Council as to how that could be enhanced to more fully comply with the Design Review Guidelines. Council, staff, Hugh Warder, and Hal Engstrom, architect for the project reviewed site plans and discussed the landscaping and suggested changes. Kathy Douglas indicated i she did not like the density, however, Torn Moorhead advised that Council could not review that issue. ,After discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve the project with the twelve conditions already set forth by the DRB and detailed in the Community Devel-,r~~~ent Department's letter dated September 14, 1993, to Stewart H. Brown, Hugh Warder, and Hal Engstrom with the further condition that the project add landscaping consisting of 94 warranteed 3" - 4" aspen trees, 57 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 9f2ll83 t ~ r warranteed 6' -10' spruce trees, and that the timber walls be changed to boulder walls and they also be engineered. Bob Barkley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Tom Steinberg opposed. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:371'.M. Respectfully submitted, Marga~kt A. Osterfoss, Mayor T: ~0~1~")~ C~~~ Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto r w r 1 LJ C:\MIIdSEP21.93 L~ Vail Taws Council Evening Meeting Minutes B/23lJ3 R.~ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 5,1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 5,1993, 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 Jirn Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting 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. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the Minutes of the September 7, 1993, and September 21, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail sales taxes should increase $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1,1994, and each subsequent year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction,. marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $12,600,000.00 by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bands for the purpose of Nom., siding the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; providing for the cessation of such portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for rnnduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised he had spoken with Dee Wisor, attorney with the firm of Sherman and Howard, regarding wording of the ballot question proposed in this ordinance, and indicated that the resulting proposed alternative wording for the ballot question as presented to Council at this meeting was reworded to meet Amendment 1 requirements. Tom Moorhead noted that Amendment 1 required the proposed sales tax increase amount for the first year had to be specified, and noted that it was Mr. Wisor's opinion that this proposed ballot question include the proposed sales tax increase amount and repayment cost itn the first paragraph of the proposed ballot question. Tam Moorhead addressed other proposed wording changes including language that dealt with making certain TOV would not be limited to $2,100,000.00 if, in fact, more was raised from the proposed tax increases. Additionally, Tom Moorhead proposed wording was added to the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question indicating that the bonds would be payable from the revenues of the tax authorized by this proposed ballot question and other Town of Vail revenues as determined by Council from time to time. This wording had been added at the suggestion of Mr. Wisor, who had indicated that, t~.,..~ the standpoint of issuing the bonds, it would be important for the issuance of the bonds to recognize that they would not be driven solely by the proposed revenues if Council deter=~.,ined that other revenues should be used. Further change to the proposed ballot question would changed the collection and retention period for the revenues from three {3) to four {4) years, which Council had suggested on first reading. Merv Lapin was opposed to the portion of the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question which indicated the bonds could be payable with the revenues of the tax authorized by the proposed ballot question and other Tawn of Vail revenues. There was lengthy discussion about the coverage factor far these bonds. Steve Thompson indicated these bonds needed 25-50% coverage. Merv felt the proposed wording maintained that other sales taxes could be used in order to pay back the bonds. Mayor Osterfoss felt it was important to note that only existing revenues were being discussed. TOV would have to take the matter to a vote if another new tax was to be a coverage factor for these Vail Town Coune~ Evening Meeting Minutee 1016f'J3 bonds. There was further language clarification and bond issue coverage discussion. Merv continued to contend people were going to read the proposed ballot question as presented to say if there was not enough money to cover the payment of the operating costs of the facility, TOV could use other sales tax revenues above the proposed 0.9% restaurant and bar sales tax and the proposed 1.$% lodging sales tax to retire the debt, and that was not the intent. Rab Levine noted that in order to sell the bonds, the coverage indicated by the proposed language was needed It was the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center Steering Committee's (VVP&CC's} job to educate the public about the rationale for the proposed bond coverage language. Jim Gibson said what he read int the proposed ballot question was that any source of revenue that presently existed could be used to retire these bonds, and he felt that was a very serious negative. Merv agreed. Mayor Osterfoss maintained that the reality of the situation was the coverage factor. She noted there was always abackup-up position and additional callatexal required an any kind of bands or money lending. Further alternative wording was discussed. Merv Lapin asked how the time schedule would be affected if the ordinance was sent back to the VVP&CC Steering Committee for further work. It was noted the Town Clerk would have a very difficult time meeting required schedules if the ordinance were delayed, but it could be done. Tom Moorhead explained that the only reason the language addition to the last paragraph had been made was at the advice of Mr. Wisor in order to deal with the marketing of the bonds. Jim Gibson did not feel this ballot issue should be used as a method of education, but rather as a method of explanation. His concern was that the proposed language said any source of revenue today could be used to retire these bonds or make up a shortfall in operating expenses, and he wanted to know if that was needed in the ballot question. Steve Thompson said that it was needed in order to provide the coverage factor far the bonds. Rab Levine asked if Council would be obligated to pay from the existing revenue stream to make up a shortfall. Steve Thompson confirmed it would, in a worst case scenario. I# things did not work out, TOV would then be able to go into sales taxes, and again it was agreed that was not the intent. Caroline Tremblay said it had never been the intention of the Steering Committee or Town staff to use other sources of revenue beyond the restaurant, bar, and lodging taxes in this proposed ballot question to pay for the construction, ur~Aations ar marketing of the facility. She said it was the bond counsel who advised that TOV's revenues in some way be used as collateral. She said the Steering Committee did not realize that stipulation had to be in the ballot question, but bond counsel had told them they would not be able to sell the bonds without that because the bond rating would be bad. The marketability of the bonds was discussed. Mayor Osterfoss suggested the language state it was the intention that the taxes proposed in this ballot issue be full repayment far the bonds, and if additional bond coverage was required, other existing revenues could be pledged as det4AAA~ined by Council. She felt that was an honest representation of the situation. Merv Lapin felt the alternative was to have the wording say only the revenues G. VAA• the proposed taxes could be used to sell bonds and all other coverage would have to come from savings or donations. He was very much against the idea of being able to have the ability to resort to other TOV sales taxes. Other funding scenarios were discussed. Stan Cope, member of the Steering Committee, felt if the revenue bonds were made to pay exclusively, the wait far this faality would be three t3) to four {4) years longer. Mr. Cope felt that might even kill the issue. He said he would gamble on trying to explain that half the money proposed to be raised was to ga to debt service, the balance, while very necessary, was for appropriations and marketing. He said he realized that put TOV at a slight risk, but because this facility was a benefit across Town, asked if that small risk was worth killing the project. Mayor Osterfoss felt all voters were now responsible for studying and understanding implications of ballot issues. She felt if voters did not know what coverage factors were, they needed to understand that any bond issuance municipalities have ever had always had aback-up in addition to a pledge source of revenue. Jim Gibson indicated he would probably support this ballot issue, but it was not his understanding that TOV could use funds from any source in order to finance a shortfall either in the bond obligation or the operation backup. Bob Buckley said every revenue bond TOV had had been backed-up by sales tax, but Jim Gibson felt those bonds were for integral parts of the workings of the Town of Vail, i.e. parking structures, the police building, etc., but the performance and conference center, although an integral part of Vail, was not an integral part of the workings of the Town of Vail. Rab Levine felt anyone who did not understand coverage factors and how bonds were paid off would easily understand the fact that only half of the revenue being raised by this proposed increase tax was going toward the obligation of paying the debt. He said the likelihood of TOV dipping into other existing sales taxes was so remote it was a tiny little risk weighed on an outside factor that was substantial and he felt, Council as a group, had consistently said they would take calculated risks on well thought out projects, the performance and conference center being one. Jim Gibson was not concerned about the voters who understood the bond coverage issue, but was concerned about the education of voters who did not understand inn time for the November 16 election. `~ Vai] Town Council evening Meeting Minutes 1015x93 Caroline Tremblay noted Council had 1,~~.~ presented with a ball park figure of $1.2 million in additional casts to TOV if the performance and conference center were to be built. She advised, after further review, the Steering Committee was able to eliminate $500,000.00 i..,~~~ the $1.2 million figure by elimination of duplications in their budgets and from work that did not need to be done. She said it had been assumed by members of the Design Committee, the architectural firm, and members of the construction firm that costs assorxated with moving the entrance to the parking deck, roadway improvements, lowering of the Vail International roadway, an other miscellaneous improvements to the parking deck were to be paid for by TOV. She stated she had not found a written memo from TOV advising the contractors not to include that in their budget; they had been verbally told that. She listed their outline of construction documents, and reviewed how the $1.2 million was reduced to $700,000. She distributed and reviewed four praforma cash flow spreadsheets based on a 1996 construction start date and 1996 bond issuance. She advised that the Steering Committee was recommending the figures listed on the spreadsheet numbered "2" showing a total bond issuance cost of $15,535,000 with a total repayment cost of $38,800,000 far the proposed ballot question, and explained haw the figures were calculated. The figures wexe discussed. Caroline also advised that private fund raising had not kicked in to the extent that might be imagined because significant donors wanted to know that the community was behind this issue before seriously considering participation. Mayor Osterfoss noted the material presented was a substantial amount of new material to be considered and asked what the impact of not proceeding at this time was in order for Council to review and fully understand the new material. Beside the timeframes for the Town Clerk's mailing schedule, Caroline stated the window of public education on the issue would disappear. After further discussion, Rob Levine moved to ar~,~ove Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the bond issuance amount being $15,535,000, the total repayment cost being $38,800,000, and warding changes to the proposed ballot question to include the fact that funds would be collected fox no longer than four years, and if construction had not begun on December 31, 1997, a vale would be taken to deternnine the utilization of the unused revenues at the General Election in November, 1998, and that the last paragraph of the proposed ballot question would consist of an explanation which would state that the intention of the tax references therein would be full repayment for the bonds and if additional bond coverage was required other existing revenue sources could be pledged as determined by the Town Council. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson stated he wanted to delay a decision until October 19,1993, after Council had time to more thoroughly digest the options and the impact on TOV. Torn Steinberg and Jim Shearer agreed. When reminded about the decreased opportunity to provide information to voters as a result of that delay, it was suggested this be further discussed at the October 12, 1993, Work Session. Merv Lapin suggested Dee Wisor be asked to come to Vail on October 12 to discuss the bond coverage issue in greater detail. Merv did not agree that sales tax revenues beyond 0.9% and 1.8% were needed if the numbers presented to Council were correct. Jim Gibson agreed. Steve Thompson also noted with the shortened tirneframe, it would be difficult to produce and distribute the pro and con statement which were to be part of the mailing scheduled for October 22,1993. In fact, no con statements had been received yet because there was no ballot measure yet for anyone to respond to. After examining the potential problems with delaying passage of this ordinance on second reading at this meeting, Rob Levine withdrew his motion, although he said he felt comfortable passing the ordinance at this meeting. Bob Buckley withdrew his second. After brief discussion, Jim Shearer maned to table Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, until a special meeting on October 12,1993, following a meeting with Dee Wisor an that date. Jim Gibson seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 24, Series pf 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson advised that TOV did not presently exempt all non-profit organizations. Thus ordinance would remove the present restrictive definition of "charitable organization" currently in TOV's Municipal Code, and would allow TOV to follow the State of Colorado's, Aspen's, Breckenridge's, and Steamboat Springs' policy. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanirnausly, 7-0. Item No. 5 was a public hearing regarding newly proposed parking structure rates. It was noted the number one issue raised on this year's Citizen Survey responses was the need for action on parking problems. Mayor Osterfoss advised that Council had discussed the issue at a recent budget session, and it was agreed that an opportunity for additional public comment on the issue was in order. Greg Hall reviewed the newly proposed parking structure rates. He said the recommendation of the Parking and Transportation Task Force was based on the goals of reducing vehicle traffic in Town, reducing vehicle demand on infrastructure, developing good commuting habits, reducing dependency on automobiles, reducing automobile emissions, and encouraging use of alternate transportation 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1015!93 modes. As proposed and detailed in the Tawn of Vail news release dated October 1, 1993, free parking in the Vail Village and Lionshead structures would be shortened from 90 minutes to 45 minutes with a $1.OQ fee up to 90 minutes. A second part of the proposal would extend free evening parking in the structures to 21/2 hours between 6:Q0 P.M. and 1Q:Q0 P.M. This plan was expected to generate additional revenue to be used for increased bus service an outlying routes and reduce gridlock traffic as experienced in the past. The goal was to increase average daily ridership an the West Vail and Sandstone routes by 8%; and 4% on the East Vail route. Simultaneously, it was hoped this proposal would reduce the number of free parking transactions in the structures by 40%, thereby reducing overall congestion throughout Town. The proposal to expand free parking after 6:00 P.M. was intended to help shop and restaurant owners increase their evening business. Further, the plan proposed conversion of the 250 parking spaces at Ford Park into a carpool lot, with free parking for riders of three or more between the hours of 7:OQ A.M. and 2:00 P.M. seven days per week. Non carpool vehicles would be charged $14AQ. It was noted paid parking would begin the day before Thanksgiving, regardless of any decision by Vail Associates, Inc. to begin the ski season early. Mayor Osterfoss noted the suggested changes were not so TOV could generate additional funds as much as it was an attempt to respond to increased traffic congestion and problems people had reported over the last year as they had tried to get in to Town. After hearing the Parking and Transportation Task Force's proposal, Mayor Osterfoss said Council had an additional suggestion. The restaurant and retail community felt it would be helpful to introduce a longer period of free parking in the evening. This would be in face of what was perceived as increased competition from other restaurants and sh„r,r:ng areas located in other parts of the Valley. The longer free evening parking was proposed in order to encourage patrons to return to Vail in the evening to increase business during that time. Council had suggested going to 21 /2 hours free parking for anyone who came into the parking structure between fi:QQ P.M. and midnight. She also mentioned that Council felt the parking structure fit Douglas Bruce's "ent~.~~,~.se concept." An enterprise fund was one which could only get up to 10% of its funding from a government source. At this point in time, TOV was not free to turn parking into free parking because that would result in substantial subsidy coming from other Town of Vail sources. She added Council had been told that the existing level of bus service and existing frequency apparently had to be supplemented on a regular basis in order to accommodate everyone who was trying to use it. Greg Hall displayed and reviewed charts and graphs detailing the 1992-93 Village and Lionshead parking structure lengths of stay, number of vehicles, and fee paid details. He particularly Hated 167,000 parking transactions were free parking transactions, and those transactions were fairly even throughout the day. Input was received from Ken Koenig, Rod Slifer, Mike Stoughton, Mark Halsted, Sybgl Navas, Jeff Christianson, Rick Saekbauer, Stan Cope, George Knox, Beth Slifer, Chaz Bernhardt, Bab Moroni, and Jack Curtin, all who primarily collectively agreed something had to be done to compete with free parking. They felt the Parking and Transportation Task Force's goals were well stated, but did not solve the problems for reasons including: parking fees that would be an irritant to locals and tourists at the expense of small businesses in Vail and sales tax revenues that would be further eroded by encouraging people to ga down Valley where alternatives to eat and shop without paid parking had grown. It was felt peak traffic times in Town were at 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. when people were arriving or leaving work or skiing, but after 5:30 P.M. the traffic flowed smoothly. It was also agreed that the proposed 45 minutes of free parking in the evening was much too short - it took at least three hours to park, have dinner and browse; that the current bus schedule was too complicated, infrequent, and un-synchronized; that the proposed free parking times were confusing; that people who were least able to affoxd parking were being targeted the mast and encouraged what was referred to as "turning" -employees and others returning to the parking structures just before their free parking time expired and driving right back into the structure for another free parking period, only to repeat this ritual several times a day; that the bus system needed to be made more convenient to use as it was not getting locals around expedien.dy, only skiers; that the whole bus system was not user friendly; and that carpooling was difficult with the variety of different employee work schedules. Parking for use of the Library and other public facilities and events for locals such as hockey were noted as areas requiring specific parking use analysis. Park 'n Rides, 1 /2 price employee parking, one-time fee extended parking passes, outlying lots, were some of the suggestions other than those proposed, but all agreed alternative parking places were needed if the buses were not synchronized. Interspersed with public input were explanations by Mayors Osterfoss an efforts being made by the Regional Transportation Authority and how the parking structure issues were related to the bus schedule as it could reduce subsidies that would have to be paid to the ent~~y~lse fund. Some hesitancy was express by Council and public about making major changes all at once. It was felt changes should be made, but after further analysis. After all input was hearing, Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to review and analyze the input, get a grip on the 167,OOQ free parking transactions, and respond with suggestions to structure the ideas. She advised that Teresa Albertson at Town of Avon was taking bus problem input, and that Jody Daster could be reached to discuss bus schedules needed. t~ Vail Town Council Bening Meeting Minutes t0/&93 There being no fuxther business, a :motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was ad}'ourned at i*~:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,,,, ~~ ~~-3 .~~--~~ Mar aretQst~erfoss, Ma or g Y ATTEST: duu a~ `~7 ~~.c~~h.~t_ Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Dato U • C:1MIN50CT5.93 5 Vail Town Council E~rening Meeting Minutes lO1Sf9S • ~ 'f- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEN i tNG OCTOBER 19, 1993 7:3d P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held an Tuesday, October 19,1993, i~l the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfass, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Taro Jim Gibson Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBER ABSENT: Jim Shearer TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Tawn Manager Torn Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Bab Armour stated he wanted to keep the Davos Trail area as open space and, requested that TOV purchase the forty acre parcel in the light of proposed devel..r,~~~ent of the Trappers Run area. He noted the Davos Trail area was the last large pine forest undeveloped on the west side and felt it would be a great visual loss if developed, Davos Trail was a highly used recreational area, and envir„~u~~entally, it was the second largest deer migration area i.n the State. He felt the proposed devel„r,~~~ent of the Trapper's Run area would have a negative impact on the entire neighborhood there, including traffic and sa#ety problems. Kent Rose delivered a petition of 739 signatures to Council. Mr. Rose read the petition title into the record: "V1Te the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision know as Trappers Run. We hexewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations." The petition included a summation defining the "immediate neighborhood" as Chamonix Lane west of Chamonix Road, Garmish Drive, Arosa Drive, Davos Trail, and Cortina Lane. That immediate neighborhood consisted of 163 platted lots, 38 vacant lots or lots under construction, leaving 125 lots available fox canvassing of which 107 were represented by signature on the petition. Mr. Rase noted those 739 signatures represented 86% of the above identified immediate neighborhood. Gary Arthur, proposed developer of Trapper's Run, felt lack of communication was responsible for people's opposition to development of the area. He briefly discussed the proposed project. He asked Council what funds were available #or purchase of open space or what alternatives there were. He advised that a presentation of what was berg proposed would be made on Monday, October 25, 1993, and encouraged all interested parties to attend. Mayor Osterfoss indicated Council could receive the petition at this time, but the issue would have to be taken under advisement. • Item No. 2 was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance submitting to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to beheld on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail sales taxes should increase $2,100,000.00 annually by the imposition of a new sales tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new sales tax of 1.8% on lodging beginning on January 1,1994, and each subsequent year; the annual revenues shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; authorizing the Town of Vail to increase debt up to $14,400,OQOAO by issuance of negotiable interest bearing bonds for the purpose of providing the construction, marketing and operation of a performance and conference center; providing #or the cessation of suc~i portion of the tax increase that is no longer necessary to service the revenue bonds; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing fax conduct of the election; providing further details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Tam Moorhead advised that the warding of the proposed ballot question presented within Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, on second reading, was set forth as a result of discussion during Council's last Work Session. Jim Gibson asked if the final sentence of the r...,rosed ballot question indicating that if additional band coverage was required, other sales tax revenue could be pledged as determined by Town Council, had to remain in the proposed ballot question. Bath Tom Moorhead and Steve Thompson advised that John Buck, band underwriter with Hanifen Imhoff, recommended that Vail Town Couneii L~ening Meeting Minutes 10/19/98 .~ ' .,, a.. provision be left in to assure an "A" bond rating and to help avoid any need for TOV to have to purchase bond insurance coverage, the art,..,..imate cost of which was estimated at X110,000. It was noted the need for other sales tax revenue was a remote possibility, and Merv Lapin indicated TOV might still have to buy the insurance anyway. Steve Thompson confirmed that. Caroline Tremblay Stilted the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center Steering Committee rernmmended approval of this ordinance as presented an second reading at this meeting. After brief discussion regarding the possibility of a revenue stream shortfall, Rob Levine moved to RrY.ove Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1993, with the deletion of the final sentence of the proposed ballot question indicating that if additional bond coverage was required, other sales tax revenue could be pledged as determined by Tawn Council. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 3.40.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail deleting the definition of "charitable." Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from jirn Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Itexn No. 4 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, first reading, an annual appropriation ordinance: adapting a budget and financial plan and making appropriations to pay the costs, expenses, and liabilities of the Town of Vail, Colorado, #or its fiscal year January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1994, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Tawn ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. Mayor C}sterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance Na. 26, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Bob Buckley. Before a vote was taken, Steve Thompson reviewed the funds within the ordinance that were different from in the past, including the Parking Structure Fund, the Vail Housing Fund, and noted the mill levy decrease from 6.35 to 6.19. He noted that 18% gxawth in assessed valuation would generate more revenue than TOV could keep under Amendment 1. It was noted mill levies could no longer be increased without going to a vote. Steve also noted the Enterprise Fund was exempted under Amendment 1. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 31 (Golden Peak House) and providing for a development plan and its contents; devel.,~.,z~ent standards; and other special provisions, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Nail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaxitaville, Inc. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Mike Mollica reviewed the applicants' requests to accomplish the proposed redevel~,r~A.ent of the Golden Peak House as detailed in fine Community Devel~~.~~~ent Department's (CDD} memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} dated October 11,1993. The five requests included a request for the establishment of a Special Development District (SDD), a request for a Commercia Core I {CCI) exterior alteration, a request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1, a request to rezone a portion of Tract E from Agricultural and Open Space to CCI, and a request for a minor subdivision involving the inclusion of the rezoned Tract E parcel into the Golden Peak House (GPH) parcel, and the inclusion of a portion of Lat C into the GPH parcel. Mike also reviewed the twelve understandings as detailed in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, which the devel„~,~~ agreed to as a part of TOV's approval of the establishment of SDD Na. 31. This included the details of the restriction of employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance, streetscape improvements including the applicant's contribution of $32.,000 toward the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle, permanent dedication of open space to TOV by co-applicant, Vail Associates, Inc. {VA}, dedication of a public pedestrian easement across Lot C, located between the GPH and the Hill Building, to TOV by the devel„r~a, deed restrictions on two three-bedroom dwelling units to be included in the GPH short-term rental program at all times when they were not occupied by the owners or guests and, in addition, the developer would agree to restrict the remaining two lock-offs in the building as well as the two accommodation units in the building, also at times when they were not occupied by the owner or his guests. Mayor Osterfass asked for more information about that restriction as it was different wording than usually seen by the TON. Mike advised the standard wording normally used was in the 5ubdivisian Regulations which essentially allowed an ownex to use his unit only twenty-eight days during peak ski season and also stated it could not be used as a permanent residence, it could not be lived in longer than six months. Mike noted Clark Willingham, the developer, was proposing that these units be placed in the short-term rental program for the GPH whenever they were not used by the owner or his guests. Mike observed that left it fairly open as there were no assurances about the duration of time an owner would occupy these units. He acknowledged that was a deviation from what had been done in the past. Mike continued review of the remaining understandings in Section 8 including language regarding the possibility of a future improvement district for streetscape improvements and/or the implementation of the Transportation Master Plan, and language Mike referred to as direction to the Design Review Board (DRB) with regard to certain exteriox elements on the building, including the understanding that the proposed tar and gravel roof far the building was acceptable to the PEC. He pointed out that Section 9 of the ordinance included the PEC's action, as well as the recommendation of staff, that the retractable enclosure aver the outdoox dining deck not be a part of the project. He '~ Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 10/19/93 w. ' _, ;.. added that a letter of protest against the application requesting designation of the GPH as an SDD dated October 18,1993, had been submitted earlier today by Jim Lamont on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. Mr. Willin ham felt the main controversy was over whether or not there should be a deck enclosure g of same sort and discussed the details of a pxoposed compromise. This was followed by Council discussion regarding the size of the deck enclosure. Drawings of the GPH project were displayed. Mr. Willingham reviewed desired changes in their proposal and related those changes to the changes and understandings listed in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993. He was particularly concerned with the language of Section 8, Item 3, regarding the minimum area of open space designated to be dedicated to TOV. Mayor Osterfoss advised the proposed clarifications could be worked out with staff between now and second reading. She indicated if the SDD concept was to be supported, there needed to be reassurance that there would be some major contributions coming back to the community in t~==~s of permanent open space. Tom Steinberg felt an ~rY=aisal of the CCI square footage versus an appraisal of the open space should be conducted, and felt TOV might end up with all of Tract E. Mr. Willingham said the land VA was proposing to give TOV was approximately 3,OIX1 square feet. Gerry Arnold, representing VA, read in full a letter dated October 19, 1993, signed by Chris Ryman, Senior Vice President, VA, regarding the open space parcel dedication proposal. By that letter, VA agreed to convey to TOV no later than December 31,1993, that portion of Tract E (comprising err=oximately 2,000 to 3,000 square feet) bounded by the centerline of Mill Creek on the east, Hanson Ranch Road on the north, Cyranos property line on the west, and a line which would extend from the southeast corner of the Cyranos lot easterly to the centerline of Mill Creek on the south, as approximately represented on a map attached to that letter. The letter stated that because VA felt that TOV's vision regarding uses for the above described land were basically rnnsistent with VA's vision, they proposed the conveyance of the land, subject to six conditions detailed in that letter. After discussion regarding those conditions, Ms. Arnold stated she would take Council's suggestions, including the request that the land dedication include land south to the bike path and that there be a permanent easement or lease for Pirate Ship Park, back to VA management for review. Mayor Osterfoss advised that Tom Moorhead also needed to review the proposal. Mr. Willingham continued discussion about proposed changes and clarifications fox the balance of Section 8 of the ordinance. He pxoposed to either delete Item 9 of Section 8 altogether since their new plans would include a modified deck enclosure, or to amend Item 9 to read, "The Town Council's a~Y=oval for the establishment of SDD No. 31 includes the developer's request to enclose approximately 20(1 square feet of the Los Amigos outdoor dining deck on the south side of the building by the use of a ReKord glass door system." Further comment included expression of concerns about that request. Kristan Pritz was directed to informally discuss this issue further with the PEC members before second reading. Torn Sternberg suggested the developer be required to pay into a loading dock fund. Mike Mollica noted that the specific language in Item 8 of Section 8 of the ordinance included the Streetscape Plan improvements and the Transportation Plan improvements. Mayor Osterfoss asked Mike Monica to review what criteria the PEC used to recommend approval of this ordinance. Mike stated the SDD was the most important aspect of this. He noted the SDD was an overlay zone district which allowed TOV and property owners flexibility with regard to the development standards. It also allowed TOV to weigh public benefits associated with an SDD and to balance that with the devel.,r=.~ent standards. Staff felt an SDD was an appropriate vehicle in this case primarily because of the existing conditions on the site. He noted the GPH, as it presently existed, was well over on almost every devel.,r.=gent standard. He referred Council to review the displayed GPH Zoning Analysis chart. Mike stated that to review a proposal based on those devel.,t,~,~ent standards and to stick to the specific numbers was very difficult, but staff had been able to review the project based upon TOV's Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives. The criteria used in evaluating this proposal were detailed on page 7 of the CDD memo to the PEC dated October 11, 1993. Specifically, Mike discussed the Vail Village Master Plan's Goal No.1 and Policy No. 3-2 which called out the GPH as a primary renovation site. Mike said staff had looked at the pros and cons of the project and identified the public benefits of the project, such as employee housing, improvements to Seibert Circle and the rental restrictions on some of the accommodation, lock-off and dwelling units. He advised Council that the architectural changes and modifications that had occurred to the project over the last two years were fully addressed in this same memo. The SDD allowed staff to review the architecture, landscaping, streetscape improvements, etc. He said the PEC and staff recommended approval of the project with listed conditions and understandings. The criteria for CCI exterior alterations, zoning district amendments, and minor subdivisions were all also addressed in the October 11,1993 memo, He noted the property was encumbered with easements and that was the primary reason staff was supporting the request for a zoning change to CCi. He added the project would meet all of the minor subdivision criteria. Mike summarized the view corridor encroachment criteria, and stated staff supported the applicant's request because staff did not believe the encroachment would negatively modify or effect the overall purpose and intent of creating View Corridor #1. He stated the View Corridor Ordinance also gave staff the ability to look at view corridors or vistas from other public plazas. The PEC had identified the area at the top of Vail Town Council Evening Meateng Minutes 10!19193 ~ 4, ~ Bridge Street as an important view, and that was the primary reason the t...,~ect had been redesigned so the central portion of the building had been kept open, so that view was going to be maintained with the redevelopment of the site. Discussion followed about the view corridor modification processes. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, CEVHA} read in full the previously distributed letter of protest dated October 18, 1993, against this project. It was the position of the EVHA to oppose the creation the GPH SDD because the proposal exceeded all zoning standards for the CCI zone district, the existing building exceeded all zoning standards, the expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of anon-conforming condition was a grant of special privilege not generally available tv all property owners, and unfashionable architecture ar failure of the property owners to properly maintain a building was insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards. The letter of protest offered a number of recommendations to achieve the building's exterior upgrade and reconfiguration of the interior space. Mr. Lamont requested a meeting with staff and the applicant to review the numbers. He also stated he wanted to see a financial guarantee that the view corridor would be protected. He was not assured by design drawings, etc. that the view corridor would be protected during construction and felt fines should be levied against developers if the view corridors were encroached on. Mr. Willingham responded to Mr. Lamont's comments by citing the project's benefits to the community. Hank Frazier, George Knox, Kent Rose, Harry Frampton, and an unidentified seven-year Vail resident encouraged Council to pass this ordinance to renovate the GPH. All felt the existing building was not characteristic of Vail quality. Jim Gibson, Bob Buckley, and Rob Levine expressed strong support i for this project, indicating it was a positive change for the Town and beautification of Bridge Street. Merv Lapin stated he had no complaints about the architecture of the building, but was concerned about the level of development in the Tawn of Vail. The smallest building was the original one and the largest one {showing the most mass} appeared to be the latest one. He asked when the bigger and bigger buildings should stop. He felt TOV was giving up a lot far the density of such buildings. At what point was the obligation on the part of the land owner to improve buildings without additional square footage. He felt the result was going to be an eight and nine story Bridge Street. He agreed the GPH project was an attractive building, but asked at what price. He felt the density and number of people that could be handled and still have a quality experience for the tourists and locals was diminished by greater and greater density. More people would be in the restaurants and shops and TOV had not increased its infrastructure to handle those people. He felt the quality of life he wanted, and what he wanted for the tourists, was not represented by the increased density of this project. Torn Steinberg agreed. After further review of the purpose of SDDs and view rnrridor protection, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 2S, Series of 1993, on first reading, on the basis that it satisfied the nine criteria required for an SDD and also met the twelve conditions of ap~.~ ~ eal recommended by the PEC as listed in the October 19,1993, CDD memo to Town Council, and an the condition that terms of the amount of land proposed to be dedicated by VA be reviewed and confirmed by second reading, and that Section 9 of Item 8 of the ordinance be amended or deleted, and that the $32,000 Streetscape contribution be due upon issuance of the building permit. Bab Buckley seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, staff was directed to work with Clark Willingham on Section 8, Item 9. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 42, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin ~rr..sed. There was a brief meeting break from 10:05 Pm to 10:15 P.M. at which tune all reassembled far the next agenda item. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD Na. 30, The Vail Athletic Club) and the devEl„r,~.~ent plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership, aka The Vail Athletic Club. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Shelly Mello first reviewed the CDD memo to Council dated October 19,1993 regarding the parking history for the Vail Athletic Club (VAC) in response to Council's request for additional information. According to that memo, after researching the issue, staff found that the parking requirement as calculated in 1977 appeared to be less than the parking requirement which would be assessed for the same plans today. The research showed there was a net difference of 5.39 parking spaces between what the staff calculated on the 1977 plans and what was calculated for the existing building. The issue was briefly discussed after which Mayor Osterfass noted the difference between the existing and the proposed parking for this project was approximately nine spaces, and part of this proposal was to have those nine spaces provided. Shelly referred next to the CDD's memo to Council dated September 30,1993, wherein the parking issue was further addressed. It was noted parking had been a long standing issue on this site. As detailed in the September 30, 1993, memo, staff research on the issue had found that there were a number of variances granted to this project. Different arrangements had been made over the years for parking on TOV land as well as other properties far this project tv address the deficit. Variances had been granted for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's standards, there was an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project. There would be a nine space parking requirement increase as a 4 Vai] Tawn Couneil Evening Meeting Minutes 10!19198 ~,. result of this expansion. This was based on the difference between the required parking for the proposed project and the existing devel~,~~=gent. The applicant was proposing per the PEC's recommended action that an additional six on-site parking spaces be provided and three spaces lie paid for into the parking pay-in-lieu program which would bring the total to twenty-rune spaces. All of Ele parking spaces would be valet. Shelly Mello noted the CDD memo to Council dated September 30, 1993, outlined the PEC's recommended conditions on the project. The first condition required the applicant to restrict 52 accommodation units (AUs) for permanent short-term xental and that they would not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership, The Condominium Declarations had to be amended to include this point before an occupancy permit would be released for the project. The second condition addressed employee housing, requiring the applicant to provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom employee housing units {EHUs) and restricting them per the Town of Vail Employee Housing OrdinancE. The EHU restriction agreement was to be signed and submitted to staff for approval before a building permit would be released for the project. These EHUs were to provide the minimum standards specified in TOV's Employee Housing Ordinance and would provide housing for a total of six employees. Four additional PEC recommended conditions addressed pay- in-lieu parking for three spaces ($8,000 per space) and removal of two exterior parking spaces adjacent to the structure entry so that area would be designated for loading and delivery, landscaping on the south side of the building to improve the public access through the area and rehxrning of it to its natural state, DRB review of architectural details of the building, and requirement that the applicant work with the DRB to address signage and landscaping at the base of Blue Cow Chute as it intersects with East Meadow Drive. ICristan Pritz noted the CDD opted to try to get all of the pafking on site was in an effort to follow what was in the Vail Village Master Plan to get parking on site and improve the street area for pedestrians. Shelly Mello reported that three letters had been received from the public in opposition of this project, one from the East Village Homeowners Association (EVHA), one from Rohn Robbins on behalf of Joan Lamb, and one from Joan Lamb, an owner in the Mountain Haus. Shelly detailed the zoning analysis statistics for this project as set forth in the Se~,l«~~ber 30, 1993, memo. She advised staff had discussed at length the criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal and said staff supported approval with conditions. Staff found this application met the purpose of the SDD. It was felt the r~..~ect was in keeping with the same SDD intent previously discussed at this meeting. Staff felt an SDD provided flexibility for the project while providing amenities for the Town. Staff recognized that the existing building exceeded the underlying zone requirements, but believed that due to the site and location it was suitable to allow for such deviations as proposed in the application given the goals and policies in the Town's Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and Streetscape Master Plan. There was discussion regarding the Accommodation Units (AUs) stats. Merv Lapin disagreed that more AUs were needed based on occupancy on a year round basis. Shelly Mello indicated that there was an increase in occupancy of hotel rooms between 1991 and 1992. Mayor Oster#ass felt it was interesting to note that Beaver Creek occupancy levels were even higher for hotels during peak season and she was concerned about developing more first class four or five star AUs in Town. Stan Cope, representing the Vail Athletic Club, presented a model of the project far review. He advised the building was already condominiumi.zed. He discussed removal of condos from the market and offering of hotel rooms to accommodate people in Tawn. He also noted the project had three or four public sides with regard to landscaping and streetscape, being a corner building. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the developer was paying far the improvements. Rohn Robbins of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, noted he represented an adjacent lViountain Haus property owner, Joan M. Lamb, who was unable to be present at this meeting. Mr. Robbins felt the bottom line of this whale issue was the same as the question asked Merv Lapin asked during the discussion of Ordinance No. 28, 1993, regarding proposed SDD No. 31, i.e. when was enough enough? With regard to proposed SDD No. 30, he did not feel TOV was getting anything of value in return for the greater density, greater traffic, and greater parking problems imposed by the creation of SDD No. 30. He felt in the interest of preservation of open space, view corridors, and in consideration of the financial interests of landowners in the area, it would probably be a reasonable compromise to review this as he felt all of the units were excessive. Shelly Mello clarified that the additional GRFA was not attributed specifically in the project's dormers. There was discussion about Ms. Lamb's particular situation and the impacts on her view of the Gore Range. Mr. Robbins stated that view was a significant view in terms of the property value. jim Morter advised that he had been asked many months ago by three unit owners in the Mountain Haus to monitor the development being proposed, and, if necessary, to take a look at the design of the improvements if they were affecting those three owners' views. After monitoring the project throughout, he advised that Stan Cope and Mike Barclay, architects for the project, had been most cooperative and ingenious with some of the solutions they had come up with to address many of the 5 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 10/i9r9S n concerns of three of the owners. Mr. Marter said Joan Lamb, owner of unit 560, presently enjoyed a Goxe Range view From her master bedroom. He used visual aids to show how much of that view Ms. Lamb might lose, but it was concluded the view loss depicted was not scientifically calculated. Kristan Pritz explained TOV's approach when individual's views were affected by development. She advised there was not an ordinance protecting private views from all angles, but staff tried to address this issue to make sure na undue impact was created an surrounding properties. Jim Lamont, representing the EVHA, stated that the concerns as detailed in his letter dated October 18, 1993, to Council were essentially the same as far the proposed Golden Peak House SDD previously discussed. He reviewed suggested ways to bring the VAC building into Conformance with the envelopes that currently existed, including reversing the roof dormers to indentations as lead been done an the upper floor, south side, thereby reducing the bulk and mass and reducing the GRFA, denying expansion of the restaurant area on the north elevation bringing it back within the original building envelope, that the dollar commitment for $120,000 for streetscape improvements be specified in writing, that the VAC should be responsible far maintenance and care of the open space garden park and that Council consider dedication of this park to Mr. and Mrs. Fitzhugh Scott if this project was approved, and, he emphasized consistency with regard to parking and employee housing, which, as stated in his October 18, 1993 letter, stated parking and employee housing requirements should be met wither on-site or off-site and added that a "pay-in-lieu" parking #ee should be required of all parking located o#f-site. Rob Levine was in favor of the project and stated he felt TOV was getting some benefit and the project was an improvement far the area. He was concerned about the loss of the neighbor views. He stated he would vote for the project on first reading, but wanted to see the view impact mitigated. Bob Buckley was in favor of the project, noting the large gain of AUs. He agreed with Rob about the need to look at mitigating Ms. Lamb's potential view loss. He was not concerned about 6,000 additional feet because most of it was in the mass and bulk of the existing building. Rob pointed out the need for AUs because of the trend towards condominiums falling out of short term rental programs and not being rented as much as they had in the past. Bob added the reason he voted against the VVI was because commitments made on that project had not been lived up to. He liked the trend towards more AUs. Merv Lapin said he had nothing more to add to similar logic expressed regarding the proposed GPH SDD. He felt this building was already over what it was allowed, and felt the same effect could be obtained without the addition of the approximate 6,000 additional feet proposed. Tom Steinberg felt this project was a big improvement, but felt moving the EHUs off-site should be considered with conversion of some or all of those EHUs to hotel rooms to up the hotel room quantity, because he felt more hotel rooms was what was needed long-term. If there was any way to pull the two du~~a.ers impacting the views into the roof lines, he encouraged that. But, overall, he felt TOV was getting something #or what it was paying. Jim Gibson felt this project was a positive move. He #elt this building started out too big to begin with and it was being expanded so he had trouble with the mass and bulls, however the overall design of it was being improved and it would be a much b<i~~ looking building styled to the Village. He felt the park area in the back should be cleaned up and developed into a park area as an accommodation for the streamwalk. Mayor Osterfoss noted it was planned that the DRB would work with the applicant on that proposal. Kristan Pritz noted the direction was to make the proposed park look natural rather than formal. Torn Steinberg suggested signage stating it was a public park. Stan Cape said they would be responsible, but it was not to be assumed they would be developing an Alpine Garden. As long it was within reason, they obviously had a vested interested in making the back of the building look nice. After brief further discussion regarding modifications to be made by second reading, Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, on first reading, based an the staff memo indicating the project was in compliance for an SDD with the amendments to the ordinance as discussed: {1) That a minirnum of $20,000 was to be spent by the developer on the design and redevel.,t,~x.ent of the landscaping on the south side of the project; (Z) that a minimum of $100,000 was to be spent an the design and installation of the specified streetscape improvements; (3) that the reference to the "natural conditions" on landscaping the south side would be deleted; (4) that the reference to the parking fee and the Denver CPI would be clarified; and (5) that the owner would be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 8 was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993, a resolution renaming Kel-Gar Lane to Black Bear Lane. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 12, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 9 was the appointment of Election Judges far the November 16, 1993, Regular Municipal Election. Merv Lapin to appoint Karen Morter, Kay Cheney, Mary Caster, Joan Norris, Pat Dauphinais, as Regular Municipal Election Judges far the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 16, 1993, and Mary Jo Allen as an alternate judge for the November 16, 1993, Regular Muxucipal Election as detailed in Tawn Clerk Holly McCutcheon's znema to Council dated October 7, 1993. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 Vail Town Council Evaniag Meeting Minutes 10119!93 ~ ~tl unanimausly, 6-0. Item Na. 7 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agrictyltural and Open Space, Sectian 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.16 located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. The applicant was the Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No 21, Series of 1993, until November 2,1}93, with a second from Rab Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, a motion to ad}Dorn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~l . - _ v~.~-~ Margaret A. O terfoss, Mayor A i i r:ST: ~~ ~~~~~~ Tawn Clerk ' Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Dety Vsil Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 10/19/93 } > 1` -.- ---- : ~ crt O ~ Q m ~ _ p Q ,~ Q ~ O 6 O Q N Q. U ~~ O O O r« d '~ ~ _ €~ :~ ~. S] ,~ ~~ 3> Q '~ d f~, , ~ ~ Q 4 u+ ~, - C ~ 4 . ~- ~. ~ tD Q 3 p ? ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ Q C + N ~ ~ N ~ X {Q cD ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Z ~ / ~ jy ~ C2 x~1' ~,,,, G Q cD ? ~ ~ ~ mCy Q LSD Q 4- ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~N} Ri? ~ Q N (~D ~ ~ O ~ 4 ~ -O~ Fn Q ~ ~ N -~ p ~ t~U ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~. 4 , c O .a g ~ Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D.,, ~ p p- ~ cq p fl ~ ~ p C ~ ~ D. p0 ~ ~; 4 ~' ~ d ~ fir,. 4 g N ~ 3 ~, ° 3 nQw~3a~g~ ~ m 7 ~ ~ Q c9 ~, S3„ G p fl' 6 p, ~y cD p -9'n` ~ m m ~p c ~~, ~'~;= G ~~ fl 4~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ tD ~ fD ~ -* 0 0 -" d cD Q p~ 7 7 ~ ~ ~ p u ~ ~ ~ -~+~ Q G ~ ~. ~ ter, ~ ~, G . Q- fl. p~ Q~ 4 N O Cl ~ ~ G 7 i~ ~ Q Q O- p I O ~ ~ ~ Q O ~ ~'m ~- ~ ~ ~} ~ 4 m 4 h 4 ~- ~ 6 o aQmm ~'°°oo`"~ a ~ 0 ,, _~ ~ ~.. C 'r ..•~ • SUMMA~~a~N p ~,~Rt~ ~ ~~! ~ R,IV C ~~C~ S~ ~~~~~ . ~ ~, /v~, ~ A N-~' ~K t~ ~ ~ ~.- ~ CO~~ ~Rt~CTRO~~ ~~ V f~NS~~N~.D ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ti~ L ~~ ~ ~- ~~~ . ~..,........o - ~:~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ N fl ~ m I -.t to I !~ D ~ ~ o 7~ N ~ b x a v rn ~o N 07 Q fWi! m v w $o N }J`~ ....0 i, r A ~~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ x W uN ~, N L'; ~~~~ A ~ ~ Q ~ N 7~ = r m ?~ Q O ~ Y y A t'da a' a "~ 1 ~• ~ - ~ ~. A ~ ~ ~ O ~ N A /~~Vy N W W O A W C ~ .~. uz N A~ N N • ~~ -~i - ~ a m ~ N~ m x ~ ~ n ,~ ~ .~ * N lNil A N O VVV rte. a ~ a ~ y _p ~ ~ y y -~ D p ~ CJ~ ~~ W W~ ~~ ` A a G Z J ~ • ` ~ ~ 4 w , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ = a~N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .r ~ r..., ,~ ~- ~. C ~ W U Z ~;: .;:. . ~. ',a. _ . ~,; - ... ~..~., . , , ~ a, ~~ , ~ , .. ,. .., F,. ~ ., 1 ""~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ 5 S. Y ~ ~' ~~ •i.a .,y~ ~• ,~y~ ~ ~ * c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r NNN O ~ ~ ~~ z ~ W z~ m ~ ~> J y ~~ ~a rn ~' ,.,~ ~ w $ W~ ~~ ~ ~" h• Z z o ~ ~ AS N ~ z~ J S N QU ~ 9 H ~ a ~ $ TI ~ ~ N MIL N N Orn`~~ ~ ~ Z ~ r^'^ N v JV G 4 Q J a ` N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ o M ~, „W N ~ W ~ ~' a `/ v I ~ vyQ~ x z +Z .J Cfl 4 * * * * ~ P~TI rlar~ TO THE 'I~UWN CUtJNCIL TOWN OF VAIL ale the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subclivisivn knvwrr as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it Carr be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vaii Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. P#ZIHTEU NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATURE Ja~iv ~~,~~ ~~3 ~ ~~/~~ 'i~.x~ ~~v~ girls-~--c~«~ ''~~~---~.... . 1~~~ ~~-_-, imps' ~.~,,~I~-~.~~.~~ ~ //~z ~ /y? ~ ~,~ - ~`~' ~- !o 4 r .~ ~ - -- .~~~ r ~~ ~ ~~~ i3~~~1 1~~ ~ ~~ gax ~35~7~ v4tl~~~~--~C-~i i 5 ~iouc--~-I i~rcaz 6'?Av~i ~ ~ 1~~7~ ~ 12~ i ~ C~ ~ ~ /' r ~ ~~E~x/"'~ 1.212 ~~~ ~ C6 _ t~ tiCd$aS ~- i~~"L-. S ~RT>~ ~ ~G~; ~ ~ `~ (~ fifi-u tit ti~~v , ~ J W'f +$~1 ~a. ~3~ ~y~ t r~,~ (.cam ti ~~.~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~.1 ~ 7? ~~~L ~ . 'gyp ~`~Usg ~~ `64 __V ~'1 ~ ~ • (!~/I9/dLA-- C~~ ~~~? L~~_Oa. ~~.~, ~-~, '> ~,f~ri1 r9 f~.ai--~"7~. G1! L[ S ~. ~ ~Jf~ {yam T/ ~ /~~ ~.~-~'~ ~l~{~,, ~ ~ (fie ~-~r-~c 3~1.5~ ~. '~ ~ 1'- , C ~ ~'~ ° _~P,~ti~ "rig ~: ~~d'~iit! .~ ~ -~ 1 ~ , ) 0 TO ~ ~ .. TFiE TUWN COUNCIL TUWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail VaT'ley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances tiri11 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS ~~~ S GNATURE a, ~, a n~~,r,,l. d 9`~D /Y1r nns ~Qnr _ / n'~dd~~ ~ a~eL '~! ~' ~ .~ ,__ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~a~ ~i~ ~~~~ ~xraln ~'~ ~- ~,~C l (~av ~U~~ C v ~ l ,~~' f -w~ ~~ ~ v L/ 'L ~ ~~C f~[ .l. tl tR ~ ~ Y' 3 ~ i _ 1 4fL~ ~ L J ~ vf~ 'M~ ~,. ~ ~ ~ - -_._..._ --~ ~ .' i i /` ~~~~~~~ ~~ I~L~ ~z~ ~ ~~~~s~ ~~ V~--~ . -- ,. c~~~ A/~7 ~ ~ 'U~;~ n~ 19,1..- ~a~ ~?~ ~,~"'~ ~~ ~ ~., ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ ~=~~ ~-~ ~ ~~~„~ rum ~ ~ I~~~a~ - C~ ~~ ~~~7 _ ~ ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PEI~ITIOIY TQ TIDE ~I~UWH CUt1HC I= TOWN QF VAIL • i We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of fife in the Vail Valley, are opposed tv development of L-he proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We I~erewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances -vill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be ~~tilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advarfce that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAMI~ : ADDRESS S I GNIITURE 1 ~~- . ~~ ~~ ' y~ ,.. . c~ _ ~~i Gas' ~I L/~~i~SJ~~' ~r~X ~ C ~~ /~7J ~~ --~~ ~- ~~"~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-P.-~c> P ~ ~~-~-- coo E 8' ~,l _ ^ ,_ r ~~~ Ca-~co ~~,n ~~~~~z ~ . s~ ~ _. ` ~~~. . .~ .w -~~ ~`se~teY '~~~~ -- r -~ r '~ c~n~l~.k u~1 ~~ #~~t~- ~~- ~~ sir ~~ ~... ~r.~. r ~~~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ J ~v~s ~~ ~~~~,~ ~~~ ~3a~. 3 a ~~ r~~-,f~- ~.~,~,~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ I~~v ~~o ~ ~~ l~ ~ ~ _ t ~/~~~ ~~~~Ttan TU TIIE ~I'UWN CUONCIi. TOWN OF VAIL .~ We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity anti strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Palley, are nppnsed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances trill i,e granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. we further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. i'RINTEU NAME: ~/'AUURESS /~ SIGNATURE ~ roar lnf~ ~(n c, ~r~ I 1 1L~.~ C~~~K (`t ~QC~I~ \~d''~~~ ~~~ ._.. • _--- r /~ ~~ ~~ ., - --~ _ ~r , ~~ ~v t ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ -, y J~~ r? ~f~' , /,~~~~, ~~,.~ Flo ~~~~~ ~~~~ 1f ~ ~~. r ~_ T --- i :~ -- ~ -~ ri ~~ r-a ~ = s ~ °~ ~: --r ra r-~ E: ~ ~_ r-a ~ -r ~ z r--i ~• ,. ~~ ~ f'' I.1 1 f . I 'T ~' :.. ~ . i i ''. ,'; t'i i" "~ i '4 ' . 1 , i.. ';a ' I ~:+ r i?ti 1 f ~ E ~ * ~ ~ ~ n ~ r~ ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ i , i' C I I i T 6) ii 1 ' ~ i 1 l~ T i i i~~ f r ? 4~ ~l t~ Iut t,t tJ ~ : ! i , ~ Ct 1~ t~ tf 1 Y !t i f ,¢ i V~`~ tlr~ tlncl, r"~ic~s7~d 4.~ rtc r'tl~ar~ r: it t~E'~t5 wlttl ~~d)~1t.tv~i: ~,iir~ ~r•~~~r•.~rv~i~iGii , I~1 O~~~t ~.t~ Sl~'~fg~ ~.~~t:i~~~~"; ~~~ ~~~~~',r~t .~~. ~{f~~i5 ~ r~17~)~1~'~1117 t ~~y 5~~~~i :'~kr~~rf~,~iy . 'b~li~v~ irr ntdirtk~~iirtir~cl 1-C tlcatllil.p «;3i lit•'~+ Ott k, hi r;' Y+xi!T V~-l~q~y, ~r'wM '~itpostd 1; ~;tvv~ ~c~l~-r ert cry kh~~ t,r't:,i}u5t~cl uula~,i i u i 5 i+~-t fcrtt*rwtt ~~ r' ~Tra~;-et'~ i stn. 1~e r~:r• ~rri k~ l7~1, i k ~ r~tt tt-ci lf~i 1 i oa~rt Cuu~tt; i I tv `t;ort~i~~~' ~I''r~~f~rPt"s Rtr n rt>',i vd~t"~a17~eS rtliy if i~ r~s~~ 9~~ ~it~~ti`lt klt~'!R, , `t~'i1i bt? c~r'~~-~~tl, klt,~ ry a ~~~I,j~.~er~t~t, latri,li~; i<irt~~: ~i 9! ~~~ M~k~ 1 i~ftFi! car' ~ a ' ''rrr.herw9~t~ irYc~,'~~iv~'!y iul c~ tni4~r°~11.1C7tt ~iEC'I.t'r.li llf;31 willilif~~ +tRttl wilt.ilTi ~r~r}Ulr>s w f 1 7 rtir}t b~ -~t i~t, i Y~ I,Y illl(r~it., t {~+1 c~r~rl th.7l. Lltir') SUt't'+~lllrtl i rly {~t~iyf~t~r~rl~r~~~~4 tvi 1 1 r~f.r l; k ~ ~s~vt'r.;,', I Y ~~f i r~t'tt~~i. ~~ f ttk'tirt±r' t~~sl i k< icrr- tlte7 Yea i i '~ItaYif1 c;elu~yr. 9 tl t.t~ {,t?t~x, i ciwr~ 4?tlr't;ta ~tf.;e~ ~tl t r ,7i>i)r.!r"~~ ltur3 Gay E "~rl~1C~* l~,t~~9t l~r~~~r° 8t ii'~rM crf i,ll('11 :;l~cjr~E~>, ~tl1r;,~rtlY ili,~iz 1'~~'t;r~r±il~~i4?11;;3 ~opp~rt~nit+y arrc! ~n~ta tc~ t:h~ <~ual iky ut life i`c,r tl~t;ut~e yr,rle-~~Glt~-r~~ 3 . . ~ 1 pit I tt~'EI~ ~1 y ., ~ Mk , _ .,_ ... . „ 1~1,?llftifi~S ~ faN}~ E ~~1 i ! ~. ....~..~~.........._~~.. .~. ,. , , ~, ,,...~...,~.w,W .W.,~..,.,~.~„ ~ ~ , , ..~ ......... , ,,.., _ ,.. ,...., .~ .... .~~.....~.... » ., , ..,, , .._~..,~W . , .. .,....,. ,w,...w.,.~... ,_... _. .~...,..~d,~...,__~r..,._ .., .. I ... ~ ,.....,,,W.~,.. ~..,,,., ,......,. ...~.,~,~,. ~, „ , , .....,..,,~..y...._. 1 ....~.,.,~_ ~., ,~ .~~.,, .,,,, ,. ,_.,.., ,. ,~ ~ ,, ., .. ,. ~ .~ ~~~.~......~~i. ..W .i r~ ~ 1 ...... ~ • . ..~i.~i.....w~.~i.,. .. Nw . .... ............ .w ~ . AMIA.. .......... ..... .x ~ . ..1 rM~l ~, a.11 c •.i •I'Y. Mi ~.,'I.r.~i~.u~i~~~~~~~u~li. .i ~~~.i, .~ ~ ii~rau,~.~,u~~H.4IM .1 i . ii..in.~r~.~u~~.a .--~ V i,. w4 4r 1 ~ Ir~• .nrf~.~.Y YY ~+M ~.,.. ~ni{.:. Y.1 V~iV .. i i~~~.~v.~..,u• ~ii~ ~ ilehM X.Y. ~.l i.~ i • >nM`!l ~~.....ii ~~.~ii~ .... .. .~.w+.ww wry Mask .....~W ++s. ..~ 1 I 11 ~ ~ ~ I M i J .A ~. ChM min i.. .~~~.~~u r ~~i ~ i •~ i .ii i, i~iii. ., i..• ~ •.... _i n I ~ i .w~.n ~~~~~~ • . nl I it ~ .• ~ ~...• ~ YJ +~. ~ i~ i. •u. .... • r~i w ~ ~ M.1.f .a.14~~i..~~~ ~~ •~ ~ • .. • ' ~~ , ~~ r{ ;t PETITIQN ~r cl T1lE TUWN COUNCIL TOHN OE YA I I. we the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreatinnal opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Valley, are nppnsed to development of tfitn prnpnsed subdivision known as trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Cauncil to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that na variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilizr?d or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrouirding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. tits further petition the Vail Town Cauncil to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: Al}URESS /~ ,~S~I,~/G~NATURE . C~.~.-~~u~. ~.h~.l-5 J~G~~1Nn~-VJ~w'Dv .~.~,)~E IJe ~~ _/ ~ `~9%"~ ~~ o~'=- ~1.~ ~, ~tt1~~ 4~J~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~~~'.l~l~ yTc~~.¢~~~ f - C.-. .) ~~ ~~~~5 ~~my~, ~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~ ~ E p L . Gl. k2 {~ 3 ~ 7 f ~ 1 c, rd-o 2t-~ R D V ~ ~ ~.. l ~. ~ ~. ~ t.-.~ -~r~~e t ~. ~~ . ~' `~ . ~, /fix' ~~_ ~~ / ~~~~ 3~ ~~ ,~- p - ~~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~~~~~` ~ ~ _.~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ r~. ,~r ~~. ~[~l~tSi ~' ~.7 s~i 0~-^-2-~- (.~ c~.e~ ~r r ~J i -~~~~~ / , `I i O 1 ~ ~ ~vJ P ~.a> 5 V 1- k ,.Q t ~ ~Z_J {J V~ C_1gc.~ l 1 ,q-~_ i #e;': yN ' R E 7~ ": i ~i~r. :.E'.' _, ~~TITION To THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN Oi' VAIL • • We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage rer.reational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining tare quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision knawr~ as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only i1= it can be shown that na variances wi11 be granted, that nQ adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreat~ianal opportunity and entrance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNFlT RE 1_ ~ I ~... t a ,.- ~- .. ._-~- _ l v 1 A r1 c c5.~u ~~c d' c~~~.. , c ~.. 1 ~ G, f7 t--, r a !~, . R„~ ~ ~ ~ r t v~ ~ - ~ ~ ~1~~ 7 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~3~~ ~r ~~~e~~ C ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ Q o.~~-~- ~ ~ -e-S ] "~,fS b A1, (--C~~ ~ m,r~ . in ~ ~( '1J r~ 1 ~ ~1 G5 1_ ~ -~ ~C dt,Cp fit ~ I l~-~_(~~'[-~rd ~ C' Z ~ ~ ~~~ .I`ift53r f~/1~.. /~lr,~l'JV~lL7V ~~ v ~ "'-'~~ _ r PETITION TU THE TOWN COUNCIL ~ TOWN OF VAIL ~'I~, We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and atrangly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Ya11ey, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Gounci~l to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shotirn that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quaff ity of life for future generations. ADDRESS ~6~ ~~2~ ~{~vVJS~a~i~ ~~~?,u~ C~~lici~ ~1~.~'~~r~~~~2~ /~'l~7 ~IE7~~~-,~~ 077 /v -(~/'G~/7!~'Lr~ ~/.) _ cr~ ~~~ t ~I,Sc~vt ~ ~~~ ~'~, rs~Q . PRINTED NAME• ~1~-~~~ ~~~~u.~ .~ 5 SI~N/1TUR[= ~~~ ~ ~~~- --~~~~~ , ~~~.,~~ ~~~ r~v~ _~ ~ ,~ 1 _~~.er-Q~ir,~ U~,~t-a~-- f b~~ ~'1~~.~~e~r-1~r~( ~~r ~aze `~- Y~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~u~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ i t ~~~ ~~~~~'~ ~~~ .~' ~ ~~ ~: ~ ~~ ~~ 1 L ~~~~~ C~~ 1 , - ~, l t9 ~~ ~ ~ ~M~-~, ~" _~._ J G ~Za~J~~ ~ce.~ ~~ b~ f f-Ac~.~ n ~~' , Fes[ c n~v +rl 1`~I c~ c-c ~ (a4-~-~ ~ 8~f 2 ~~r1oc.~ ~--n . ~ 11a.= ~ ~.~ ~., _. -~ ~ ~ r ~~~ ~... PE~rITIUN TU THE TURN COf1NCIL TOWN OF VA1L We the undersigned concerned citizens wt:o support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it' c<in be show! that na variances will be granted, that no adjacent put~lic lands will be utilized :,r otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Yail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. PRINTED N ME: ~~~ ~~i~~ ADDRESS ~~.3~-r ~~,~~~~ i J'-1~~~~ SI~~O ~~ - . ~~j~~ ~~~ ~~r~~~t~ t ~~~~ ~ /`C1 ~'` Lei ~~'y~t°5 ~/1~.'~ ~ ` , 7 1~~~~ •~ ~~r ~~~~~~,;, ~~~ v~~~ ~.~ Cam-. ~~ ~A Gt91~1 A1~ 2 ~ ~3 kt~n~~e~s,vea~ `te~. ~lAiL C~ ~ ~~?~ - ~~ ~-~-~ T i ~n~1P_(-~,~-ar,~cr.<.ti. Doa ~ ~e~,r ? ~, a ~ , ~i4C,L~ v,~rc ~~c~ ~ n . ~~ `] ~~~ VII ~ 5[3? ~~ C~~ UQ tlglL ~ ~ ~~ ~. _ • ~} PE~rI-rzaN TU TIE TUWN COUNCIL • TOt~N OE VRIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider' . T r ap ti a ~- s Ry.n .. ~.o.3~-i~-~ ~-:i-tf__r:~-1a~~ c ~t~r~~;-- ~ e s a t.. --;~ ~ ~c :~ ~, .~. a ri c: ~ a~ _ ~ri11 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes `will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected,. We further petition the Yail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS GNAT, ItE ~~ ~ ~ .~C~, C~ 1 ~- . ~~ 3 3C~, ~1~. F~1 ,- l,,~j rr. s v ~ ~. ~~. ~~ ~~ - ~ _. ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~- ~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ l ~ G~ ~~ .~ t ~'~~ ~~' ~ ~ .~ CG~~ ~' PETITION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN flF PAIL we the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as l~rappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council tv consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public_lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. lie further petition the Yail Towrf Council tv consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~~ig ~~ ~~~~ I~Lc ~.lf(`Syv ADDRESS z~a-~ #.~~ ~x e~ ups ~. SIGNA , ~~ ~ (~ ~ ~~ ~~~t~ ~, ~GZ~Y'Ing. ~~! ~~,~~,f ~vhr~n~~r /.Dt T l ~ ~B~Jt~ • _ - ~. - 3~- -~ , R .. ~v~ .~ 4-r~ ._ .. ~. PETIT1pN Tp THE TpWN COUNCIL. TONN pF PAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation ~~' of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Palley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. we further petition the Yail Town Council to cvnsicler purchase of Trappers Run tv advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~llvlr~ ~ 1. (~rn~c~iV1 ~G ~ 1~,. ~ 1l C. lv C~c ~ ~. ..~' .. I~~~~ ~,~~~~ ~~.~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~r / / .r ADpRES5 SIGNATURE - ~~- ~~ ~ ~~s a ~~x ~o~ ~ ~ ~o " ~~~~,.~~~~~ R _ f J .. --~ y -~~u.r~ ~~~~ q43 ~ion~)~ ~1-~1~32 ~ ~ 7g ~ ~ spa ~~~ ~~~ ~~ u ~~ ~i S ~G> tJ 7 ~-r S V Y` .~.-- ~vlYln2~ ~ ~. . =!i i ~ PETIrIgN To THL TgWN CQUNCIL TOWN qF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreatiana~ opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality aF 1ife in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can 6e shown that na variances -ri11 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes wi11 not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further Fzetitian the Vail Town Council tv consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the qua1 i ty of 1 ife for future generations. PRII~1'ED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATURE l l.b,-~~ ~+~ rTc~1VD 18i5 Ci`~ ~.~ ~~K~,. ~. 1 ~.u~ . _ _ V" ! f ~V-' V/(~,t JrY ~~~-+~~ _ r'7'cf / Y~ i.-.c/ L.t.l~ l~! /V G C~'~ /~ L..~.._ ~CriNf1~~J~ ~l ~~~L132e~y{ ` ~ ~ ~. ~/ c1r ~ c~ ~Dx ~l ~ ~ - '_ / ~~~- . .~ ~ rti cJ G~, ©ct S c~~ ~ , B , ~ ©x 1 S `~ ~ ~ , ~ C. p . ~ ~r~~_/ ~ /fir ~~x /~ ~ ~ ~/.~~~ , ~~.~ ~~a /~~Y~/ ~~~H2v ~~ Co~T~~~ L~ l~~r~~i~S~ PET[~fIQN To TFIE TOWN COEINCIL TOWN Of= VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity an'd strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Counci] to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, ti~at wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of opFn space, encourage recrc~atianai opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. PRIiVTED NAME: C~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~-~~~s AI)UIZESS 5IG T[ll r _~ zSr$ /~~~s~..~'C ~~~ ~~~~ ~~` ~~ ~~ PETITION TO TFtE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL • • We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreatianaT opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vai] Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances brill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized ar otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreationai opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINKED NAME: AUURESS ~GN{lTUftE v ~ - ~P 7~ ~ 1 ~) ~ c ~,~ ~ ~ s .m ~ c, t~~,e P. o . ~.. o,~ 3 - ~ ~ • PETITIaN To THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL G We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Ron only if it can be shown that no variances brill be granted, tizat no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Yai] Tvwn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~LI/ ~~ ~'7 i /a/(,~ ~~~ l'1LQ ~ U ~ 1 ~l ~ _ 1 . ~~.1,~l,~la ~,(,~,~r ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~o~ C~ ~~1~~ G~~~ ~~~-~ ~~.~~ _i~ ~_ ~ ~/'RI=SS v~;~ ~ SIGNATURE f ~%~ ~ ~I c~c-~/ r ~t= 2 L X11 ~~_ ~.e.~ ~6~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ _ ~f.~.-< ~a~ l' nnsl'~clrn ~~~~~1. V ~ ,r,~ ~. , ~ ~~.~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,'<si~3 -~--.~ c~ ~ 1~, J r JP ,lu ~t~ ~~~ ~~, ~rnLl v~~rs ~II//~.~ t ~~I„r e 1~~~e~ ~ ~, L~ O- ~~x ~ J UCH' Pp • ~~ ~i .r// s `fir' _..~. ^V rC Nf///~J./~///J~ /~ (//` ~~ i11~-r I l~~ic~~ ~`'~~ .~ ~ ~lX..~~~ ~~~ PETITION TO T~iE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it .can be shown that na variances -vill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRIi~TED MIME: ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~ ` ~.~. ~~ ~~"`~~.~'A~-~~ Ifs ~7 ~V.1 ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~, ~c~~C~~ ~ ~ C+~-~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~ ~. ~~, 1 ~ ~ ~ rT -~ ra ~ ~,,,. ~'• .' ,) I~-~'~'VGr~.la~'~H~151~ ~"~~_11aC~t`~ {'~l/n ~ ~-~13 ~uwl~ l -~ ~-/ .~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~`.~ ~ < i -- PETITION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAII. We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly belieVE in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances brill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will oat be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. • I3RIN N M ADDRESS ~ ~ • _ j ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~--~ . r~ .~ ~~ c L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' .f 1 ~n ~ ~ ~ ~-~,r-- . M~Cc~A~C~C"~ c,~..1=a~F~ ~~-~~~ ~~tZ, !n1 ~ ~I~Y~~; fir~~c~~s ~~~~.~ ~c- ~G~n~,O J __ ~ -~ ~~ ~Z~~ W~,,,~ L~.~~~ ~L4~~b~~X ~!~ 7_ ~~ ~ C ~i~.~,X ~~"~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ,:~r 9~ ~~~~®~viX ~ ~ ~ISS~d:;x ,~Z. 2~ ~ y C~'1~~a~, x ~ ~- ~ Zr~~; z,~~~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~~ (_' r ,, x ~ L~~ $ ~GJ~I~TUK ~u,~, --~'~~. ~~~~~u' /C~.~-~~ .S-.~ - ~~, _.. ,~, ~ 4 ~''~ ~.~~~ .` ~~ r - l l~i~~ ~'~, I~ ~- ~~_.n.... . ~~ ~ . ° ~~~:' ~r _ ~ '~- `= s PETITION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF' VAIL * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * ~ ~ * * ~ We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality nf: life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not he negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tnwn Council to cans~ider purchase of Trappers Ruir to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recrE>ational opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. NRIiVTED NAME: A17DItESS ~~ SIGNATURE d ~ ~_ I''I`'10 ~a`~1 til ~ ?~~ ~ 1 G(/Lf/(~if l,~rC~ ~~1'Y ~i'v~c o~vG Hr` o? `/3 ~ C~A~ ~~`x GN n ~ ~ % -- 1 /~ ~ ~~-U~.~ e ~ 1 U1 e `~~{li Ltn.~~ ~,~ ~- ~ ~Q ~l.tG~~(~-( GI?~L.c~~ l,~ ,c : ! ~t. ~ C:~~~C.,eC~-'~/~ , /~ , _ ~, f _, ~ . IWIV~z-Irk^~ f v~ ~-G~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ L ~a ~.cc Opt ~r~ _. _- -- ~ ~i~l ~;'~1 . /~ .fir ~;. ~~~~--_.. Z 3 `~ ~ c~~~//~ ~ I~j~C r~ p~~~ cX , l ,ate ~ °~ ~ ~3 ~' 1 ~'~ :, ~ _ '~, a'g~l l ~ 4 ~'! L.~z ~i~/•, .L.J~' ~?c: A"w-_'Y~ ~G- ~~ 1,:~~[ ~~Y+4-,Lr"!.4/L-i~. fT'c3..~.-~ G Cr,r~-~ ~ _ _ ~2~ L.f ~~.!~ ~ ~-, ~ CJ` 2Z f / __ ~. `il a.. /'-'r con . ~/ ~ ~' i1.~..~ : (.J c, ~ ~ - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PETifiUN TU TiIF 1'UWN CUl1NC I L TOWN OF VAiL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity anti strongly be]ieve in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision knowr~ as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be she+vn that no variances brill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be nc'gativel,y impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely aFfected. We further petition the Vail Town Council tv consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recroationa1 opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAMi;: ADDRESS S~I~tr~~~~uc, .~~ =J (!o~llr~ • ~~i~~ ~~ i~-~~f~~, ~iCci~~ 775 f`)ecr ~~uc~' ~fJr7uti SiGNATI#RE :~/~',l~C~ ~. ~~cE.~..1 ~ /r~ 1'D~ tti ~i~_~€3~: Lv ~ r ~ z v p•D • 8~X 398l~ V,~ Co $!~$ ~~~ ~ ~~ oc~" . ~ v ~ v ~~~~ • * * * ~ ~ * ~ PET~~ riaN TO TH1= 1'UWN CUl1NC1L TOWN 01= VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity anti strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are oiyposed to development of the proposed stabdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Gounci~l to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent: public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will riot 6e negatively i~tpacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. I'ItINTEq NAME: .~~ ~ ~{ ~~ 1 ~'r ~~e rr,~ l r~ „r/- ~ Tom,,-~ rP ~ ~ccUv1 .~. .. _ ~rP ~ t _ e AUt)IZESS SIGNATURE ~4. _ i y~ Y ~~• s i ~~x~tz ' ~ ~~~~s~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ v~ ~rr~ rC//rT ~~~ ~vX ~ ~3~/ UGC ~~ Cc~ - ~ ~ ~ • • • ~~l~irla~r Ta T11~ TaWN cauNCIL TORN aF VAfL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support tare preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances 4vi11 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized ar otherwise negatively impacted, that wi ldl if:e and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted acrd that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future gener•atians. PRINTED NANif~. _ m~A~K ~~~~~ ~feor~,_ ~~ Qr --~G~-I't-~ SC~.nG~~-S Q L4L ~ ~+G 1 •~ J irl,1~ ~ ., P ~_.~.-1~r .~ X31 ~ ~ ~h~ . 1 ~.Jia ~P ~. ~~~P . Ll(~.1' D O~~ o~~ 1~ i ~, ~e ADDR€SS SIGNATURE ~ L/~1 fLii`~, ~~ ~ ~-~,~~C_..1z ~ ~ ~ `mecc~.c:~ ~~~F ~`~- -~ `~ ~. r ''44 ((~~ ~ I rr~~ ~U .. bl) X ~.7 `c ~ ~ lr,~ ~ ~ ~) ~ ~ ~ Lt, ,~ r ~9~~ ~f ~r~ ~oa~,~ Ual~ ~W ~ GLU Y ~ ~1 GL w -` `,~ ~ ~jD X (.Q ~ ~j ~ V [d. i ~, ~3 } [-(~ J ~j ~d~°~ " Laurine, Mean,a, Box ~$i38 Avon. gI~ZD ~.a~,~?~a. Gh.a,~-Ceram ~~~n~z- fax -~k _ ~ecu~ ~t~4a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Pr=TI rtoN Tn THE ~fUWN CUUNCII. TUWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportcnity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision knowrr as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shotivn that no variances brill be granted, that no ad3acenL public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes wi11 not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will nut be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of oiaen space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. pig I NTED NAND:: AUURESS ..~A ~1~5 ~I~tS DA-~~~ ~~~~ ~~~dYv ~ ~'7c~ l~ rm r s c l~. ~~li r rf~~r~/r~h2~ Z y5~ ~~5 sI nTURit - .~. ~~ i'~~_~ , ... ._ d~ ,~ .. PETITION TO THE TOWN CQUNCIL TORN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservatian of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the qualit.v of life in the Vail Valley,,_are nnnncp~ to development of the proposed subdivision known` as" Tr•aoaers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Cauncil to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized ar otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that 1.he surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservatian of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. RRINTED NAME: ~ffdm ~ . ~VGtcE( AOURESS SIGNATURE ~f X15'7 .7u~r~p~f1 ,C~4,~/~ ~k~c G~3 l/~ ;.~ / /,..~ PETITION TO THE TUwN coUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be, adversely affected. We further petition the Yail Town Counci}` to consider parchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PR I NTEI1 NAME ~ y - ,~~ ~~i„ V (~'~_[1 lam!/ ~.~~~ Vim. ~ ADDRESS ~. SIGNATURE ~~ ~ -~. ~, v ,~ ~ ~= •c.: ~ ~ 'u ~~~ yG~A ~ ~eS~~1wc~ ~~ . ~ ~jn ~hb:~ ~~~~ 9 ~t3 ~ef~ Lcca,~ ~Q..UC c~5~,r,~e-ems ~-- ,l ~~ 2121 r~ %C'~t~ ~~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ U~1 L ~ ~~ :~ ~ ~~~3~~1 ~~~~ ~~ L~J~ ~~ PETiTIgN TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TO4lN qF' VA I L " We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivisinn known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances 4rill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife ar~d wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighbnrhnod will not be adversely affected. We further letition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. i~RIHTEU NAME: ADDRESS ~Rip'"~ 1~iSl~o~ 2G1~~ ~av `l~~`~~. ~32~ ~r4~Lwr ~5~! V C-~-~~~15'C ~. ~~ . ~~ ~~ ~ f~~' • Z Gr_~7~~ ~ ~...a~ rJGL ,-- ~~ ~"u~~ GNATURE ~ ,,. ~ ~--~ ~~~ - ~~y f! i /~ C~ r We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the 11ai1 Valley, are opposed ~ta development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Pail Town Council to consider Trappers Run or~ly i f i t can be shown that no variances will be granted, that na adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration rou>:es will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. ` ~~ G ~ ~. 1 • PETITION TU TlIE TOWN COiINCiL TOI~lN OF VAIL ADDRESS ~~ 2~t~7 l~,~b~~ Q ~. ~~~~~~ ,~:~~ ~ `~, r i, . , P12IHTED NAME: ~. ~~~~ L ~J~Ne.~Z. ~~ ~ ~}A ~ ~~2n ~~ ~~ ~ C. `~'°`y IQ ~ V ~~ i ..~~___.,. s uNATu ~~ _ { ~~ 1'fTITIUN TU . THE TUWN COUNCIL To41N OF VAIL 41e the undersigned concerned c~it~izens who support the preservation vF open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to developraent of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers 'Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that nn variances tv~i 1 1 be granted, that no adjacent public 1 ands wi 1 1 be ut i 1 i zed or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife n~igratian routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. 41e further petition tl~e Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future gerreratians. G'~iP~ts }aF~GE' fiYGUN1~ r f~ol....~.i ~/3r~N /r' ~- __ ~Q~/11/1 ~ (5 V~ r ~~ ,f , Q r ~ ~~~0''i? ~7 ~C~ ~uRR' `~ .. ~~CLlIdPE~(~~f'~(7 rJ i ADgRESS SIGHATUR z hs3.4 ~ar~~Q. ~. ~~~ Z4 ~ ~ t1~nrs'c~ La! i,!~z2-~ Zg~~ ~M~~ c~ 1~~ Ufk+ '~ ~~ S ~~ ~~ ~a~/l~~'Q ~ m ~5~ ~ Raj 5~ eo°t '~A~1 vs `-t'RAt L vA s ~- ~ ~.`~ ) ~~~~ G ~ ,.. -yam • a t * * * * * * * * * * * * 1~ * ~' Pal ~ i-~orr TU THE 1"oWN CUUNCiL TOWN OF PAIL we the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity anti strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shaven that no variances ~ril1 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, tl4at wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not 6e adversely affected. we further petition the Yail Town Council to consider pur•chase~of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. Pft I HTED NAMk ,~N~S~ ~~~YJ.~iil ADDRESS SIG ~TURE NET~~rioN To THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OE VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision know~~ as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Tnwn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized ar otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. nRIN7'ED NAME: Af7pRES5 ~i~fl~~l/~/~ /d~-`' TG'~l ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~` lip/ _. r V it * * * # * ~F * * ~k ~ • PETITION TU TFIE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL 4Je the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will oat be negatively impacted and that 1:he surrounding neighborhood will oat be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Caunci1 to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open Space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~',IQ`1 ~a~~na~r ADDRESS i~71`~ 6e,.~~vA Q2. t' Q~b I-FUy~~ ~ ~-/C1t.~ I -71 ~ ~~~~~~ Vic. I//-i-~ I GNATUItE ~/~°~ ~~~ ~~ `~... ~~ • f'E~TITIUN TO THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances -rill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAf~E. AUURESS ~r~r viz i'S ~ a ~ . CL~ wa ~ ~.[ ~ t~ e ~ ~eu~c tax f~~IL ;~, SI UItC ~~~.. , 1. ~ ;~ ~~ ~~.Qiv~ -~-~_ ° ~. P>*~lITIUN TO I-HE TUWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strangiy believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Palley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances -rill be granted, that no ad3acent public lands will be utilized or oti~erwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Ru~r to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTEq NAME: AUURE55 a ~~ ,~ peer -~ ~vol ~; Z~kt7~?WS~i on~~ Co ~~ ~ `~~~ ~~ ~ - (~ k r~~ ~a ~~ La~~ `~ ~. U - SIGNATUIiC ~1(~l~D~ ;, ~~ ~r~,r~cu~ ~ C~e~d~ _ f!~ ,, ~~ ~ - -~- ~~~ PETI TI[)N fU TiiE TOWN COUNC I L TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to deve]opment of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that na variances trill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife m~igratian routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further i~etition tine Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Rur# to advance that preservation of omen space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality aF life for future generations. PRINTED NAiNE: ~~. ~~~ „~ A[)DRES5 ~~f~ 1~h~-v~.~ ~~ .~ _' ~ ~~~r~. ~vA~f,CLG~ SI NI-ITURE ~~~ ~~~ D~c~ ~r~o~~ 7~r» ,1~ ~~~ ~ 7 D / r~ ,~~~ _ ~~ -~ ~A ~.c~ ., 4 ~o, ~~s~~ ~a~ ~ ~.~ ~~ A~s~ ~__ 1 ~'~ 25~~ • We the undersigned concerned citizerfs whn support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tnwn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition tine Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~<~. h~-r ~©s c ~rei~ ~iPv ~/~.~ ~ rztu ,~vG~d n w ~~ -~ PETITION TU TFIE TUWN CUUNCIL TUWN OF VAIL ADDRESS z~z~A~©~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-r~a~A ~f~, ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~4g ~~a~~ .~. 2~i~~~~ ~5~3 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ i4 -~/ SIGN{1TURE ~.~~ J o~-~-- ~ ~~ /~ ~~~~~ .~ /~' .~~ ~ ~~],r~ ~j cr ~c , r~ C ~ S/n~2 ic] ~ O SCx der ~ ~ . ~,i ~.~ E ~ L . P ~.~~~~ vs ~. ~ ~ ~ .~~-v ~ 0~2 U ~- - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ., ,-- ~$ • i PETI~fiON TU TF1E TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF PAiL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and atrongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Palley, are nppased to development of the proposed subdivision knnwri as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tnwn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances 4Yi11 be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Pail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers ftur~ to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ~v ~ts,~ ~~TrY~uG~- 1 / ~ ~ ~ J! r ADDRESS ~x23S~ ~rc~S2, ~~~ C~ ~-~ -"t~. ~ ~~~L ~~ ~. ~~~~~ t a ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~f ~- ~~ ~ ~'~~~t.~ /62~~ ~ ~~ 7~ ~~~ / •- ~~ ~~ ~~s~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~,. f * * * * ~ ~ • i PE~iITION TU THE TOWN COUNCIE TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Yalley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not 6e negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood wi11 not be adversely affected. We further petition the Yail Tvwn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Ruil to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. K r ~.3~1 ~. ~ cad-'1G~~t S PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATIfI~E ~~~ 1~~6 ~c P~~ ~Z.~ ~i~~-~~~~~ ,4N~~ ~~~ ~~3~~~~~~~e~ ~1ty S /,3rafcJ It 7 R?,/ .P.~~ ~ c~t21! t~ w ~,~c,L, _ 7.++ ,~ ti ~ k ~~ ~cllalt~ ~. ~c~,a~.v~~o~,l ' f ~~ ~~ ~ ;..~r ~{ ~ o~~ ~~~~1 P~T1TtoN TU Tiff TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF PAIL • i We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as 'Trap;tars Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected, We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. U ~~,~ ~ ~o B rpro 9' ~4u~q~r.~s , ~a • ~'~f' ~.- ~^ _ j ~ (s S "l ~`TDNL^~~-L- ~. YJ ~ « CYVaI~ Ulf L ~"'~- V `-~ ~-T ~.iCZ~ r,~5 €~.~! X.C. ~oX ~ ~~ ~r~h , «• ~l~?J , _. ~(\~f G2-rc t' ~ ~ ~-~G rn ~ G ~~ ~'S1 VG{.~'.~ CU ~sl 1~5 ~ ~l,[.tG`c.~~-~tG'r ~ d.. - Jam', O (~-, ~.~ GG.~vr~/a ~voFF G-H~is .~cl~~ ~~ w~~ Plt IHTED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATURE . l~w~y ~l„k ~~1 ~. ~ ~ ~. T'ar3 2~3 ~I~lr l'~ n t ' w~ ~ ~ ~fq n~r G. h~,dse.v ~ !9~'' ~~~i'ia~~K-f~ ~" ~1 AIG (4. ' ~. • PETI~fION TD THE ~I~UWN CUl1NC I L TUWN OF VAIL • We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Rurr. We herewith petition tare Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAMi=: ADDRESS SIGNATUR`~ r ~ ,.... v ~ , Ict Q k~~ ~aX ;3~3 ~ ~/~91G y ~~ ~ci3orZt~c-(-E ~C-T~ raL-(~ 1N 5~1 < IP f'Ji~i°i'' C f I2i7~ C~f7>~~'~? .._ ~P o~ ~r~K ~r2~~ i~~ ~,~X z3~~ ~~t ~.i/ max i39/ ~ ./~ ~Cea~1 ~ ~~ r~ ~ ~~~ zbD~,.~A ~ra~a. 1, ~~~~~,~. ~/~.~ ~~"`~. .~._ /1 • i PETITION TU TFiE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that na variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vai] Town. Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future gerrerations. i~ftIl~l'Et} NAME: ~.~~ d1i1,~ .5 .~• I'C r C e r ! 1! ~JV~~ `/ ~` 1 . ~i G C ~ ~. --~ S ~~~ i!~rPL ~ , v~~ ±r ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ FGA ~ C}UC'_ el~- • i~ ~ Sflrnr~nn,R- ~~~ L ~!~_~~~ r c~~'~2.~ AI}DRESS STGNATUCZE ~.S 76 ~igl/0 ~ ~ ~G•r~r -, ~ "" ~-~~ ' r a vet y ~ ~C t.~--G.-r_~~ ~~a ~ ~.~~~ C~-~ ~~ ~S.Sf~ ~i'r~Sa ~ , ~ ?~ (~~ ~~~~~a ~, J We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances rri_Ll_be nr.anted, that no adiacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negat~.;rely impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be nQgatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected, We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Ruin to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NA~7E: ~, ~sd~ PE~iITION TU THE TUWM COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL ADDRESS a~~ ~U ChGirr ~'n i'rsX aL~ Z ~ G~.~.+~~ w k~ ~ ~ S I G N iA~T IE11t~E ~~~~ ~. ,., ~J avu~, ~ 'S ~ =,N Cn~~f~.~ti.R. ~~# ~~,'~ ~~-i ~i~~ ~r ,c~i r ~~ ~ ~~.5 ~ ~ c~_. ,- ~( (emu --t ~ ~c-~~-- /l/ a~~ ~e~~a~~ ~ ~t SS 1~(1 r.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ C-~Q -~~ ~ ~rr ~vc. ,~ l/ ~~ v ~ ~" i L,x ~ ~ ~' G~ 1 D S `7 ~~ ~jc>~.,~. ~~ acs L~ ~-4 ~~ Gq r ~ i sc G.~ ~~ i ~ ~~ .:~ f ETI~fIUN TU TtIE TOWN COt1NCIl. TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in rnaintaining the quality of life in tfre Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tnwn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can 6e shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be uti'(ized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Cauncil to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATUR>= ~~W'iK ~~,pj ~~a'D ehr~~Bnin~ 1h_ i4 1 ~~'vu-In~ C~`'tr . ~~ /^/ a^ ~ r i`, ~ _ _. ,~_ - J ~ r L- _.. ---- : ~ r, 4 ea ~ .. ~ ~- -- _ _. ,~ ~ ~ ' -- ~ ~ ~ ..., ~~ _ ~.~ ~ ~~1~~ ~ `l s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~_ _ ~ - r - - 1 ,~ . . 7 ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ "~'~ 4 f'EiITION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL • TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision kriawn as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tarn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that na variances 1Yill be granted, that na adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational apportuni ty and enhance the quality of 1 i fe for future generations . PRINTED NAME: ADDRESS SIGNA RE ~, ~~~~ 1 1 iJ t~St~~ t 1-C~~.~.~tc ~ ~q ~~ ~c~.~. ~-c~oc,.3 ~.iz --..., Cl1~d.~°. _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ /VII'/J r J~'~~'l/' ,C~<' ~//~"c ~ 1~ ~ ~~~r,7~i~~~ ~/ /-~~ '' ~ C~ -- ~ ~ - {{~~--~ ~~ ill ~ ~ L ~? Ll~ ~S S ~ ~,~e,~ ~; V~.~~~ ~t ? y `~ ~~ ~U ~h, ~ ~ f~~~r 5 ~ ~~yy~ ref ~-) .. ~,~~ ~~i~p ~~~~ ~ ~.~ a~~~ / ~ ~ ~~ ~o ~~~ ~AaNti~ ~~~ C~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ "~~ _ ~ o~ I / ,~~~- :, ,f~ ~~iZz~r ,~. . ~ ~ ~-~ ~N ~"~~ . 1. ,~ ~ ~ ~ .,, ~,~~ ~ ~~z ~ ~ l ~~. -..~ -- ~, , ~~ c=.._.~- ~. -- ~ • PETITION 70 T;IE TOWN COUNCIL TOL,iN OF VA I L We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will nat be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRIHTEQ NAME: 0~~ A ~/jfJ//}J,~ / ~~ Urf Cc/~s.~~ ~~e~~L~ ~~~~~ AD#]RESS ~~,~~ ~~ C~ ~~ . - ~~o ~~ U~ Il~-~ ~~~--~, ate ~ree~ ~~ _ ~~ fi ~~~~ ~~~.~~ ~~ SIGNATURE :-~~ ..~1~.-.___r ~,~ ~~ ~:1 ~ ..~fa~rnel~r~~s~y~ ~h.~v ec.~ C' ~ ~~~ -_- ~~~'~ ~~~ ~i 117 - `/~,~,~,J ~~f 5~ ~ Ir/~7r~vpNiX .--._.._~,iV "r'"1a`df ~r-J 1~2~?'~~i' :.~~%l~ ~~~ 1 's` L~~/ F7 s L .~LGZJ "~ ~ l , i .r~i~~ f ?~~~. i.L a y c~ ~3 rr e~ e ~ z ~+~ o c ~ ~,.,,.~ r ~',~ ~.~ -r ~ ~~.t,,,~..~..x. ~~~~....~.~.~--.,,.__, _~ ~~ ,. ~~ ~ ~ ~ " ~.......,.~,.a ...._ ..... /a ~ ~,f~ ~ ~~ ~ ~e t ~- " ~ ~,~~ PETi:~CIUN i' U THE TUWN CUl1NC1L • TU4~N OF VAI L 41e the undersigned concerned citizens wtio support the preservation of npen space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision kr~awn as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances frill be granted, that no adjacent public lands wi11 be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that 1:he surrounding neighbnrhnod will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers RuR~ to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. ,Pi~INT~D NAME: ADDRESS ~~7.5~'mrs # ~~~~~ ~ i~,~~-~ C~~ SLGNATURE ;.y, -,, '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ s 1l`. s ~_:A..._.__ n r r1 S r ~ P C° :-mow t ~a ~G~L.L~ ~N.ZLL 1~0. ~x ~~ U ~ V~r~ / !~% ~~-~~'"~"''s~, pan ~vlc~T~~2~- ~_ ~ S~~ ~/~~~L ~. ~ , ~ ~ y i r~ i d R r ~~// ~ .~ . _~l _ ~ ,. ~~ i ~ ~~ ~~~. L~_~~~~~~- ~~~~ v~~~ Rho-c~v~fi ~~-~~ ~~' ~ ~~ ~ETrTlort To THE TOWhI COi1NCIL TDMIN OF YA I L Ole the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Yail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as l-rappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Counci~E tv consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreatinnal opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. pRINTEO hlAME~: ..___~i-c ~-~~,~ _ rc_.~~ .~_ ~~~ .~1~ L~~f.~~ ,l~l~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ ~-~t ~~j~ I i~1 • l~f> '' '~~ ~~1 -I~ ~~ _ ~` /~ ^y ~~l~ru Lt ~ +I ~ cir~ ~i ~ r J~ ~S~ ~~ ADDft£SS ~~G~il~'I,U~E ~ ff ~ .... _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~~ C~~-P~--~ -~ ~~ i.~~ ,. -~~LCi'~-(I"~ ~'r~ ~ 17/ o~r~.~-J t.~' ~ Cr r~ ~ ~ ~~/t~`~! , ~ ~~ r 1~,,~ ~~,1~ `~~~' `.~~~ ~i r~~~:' j.~ . / ~' ""Y(lY~~! ~7DLtG, ~~ ~~ ~y ?~° ~<3 ~r~'Yl ~~1i~ C~L1.~~ /_...xrJ°'7 ~~ ~ { ~ ~ ~ i ,~ ~~ ~_ ~~~~ r -. - ,, ~% ~~ C ~~ . / /dam _.~._ ~_ _~Y ._..._~ ~~- - ~ , ~~~f~~ .~~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ,~ ~f~~--~, ~ ~I -gip ~.- J~ t~l C~,, ~'1~s 7 ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ p - ~ ~~ ~~' /~~~ s~~,~~~ M~ rev-~~~1~ j~~~l ~~~~ PETITION TU THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly. believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. IJe herewith petition the Yaii Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. PRINTED NAME: RDDRESS ,~~ SIG 1~TURE ~ ~~ ~~~~s-~~ ~~~ 1~1 ~~~ • r~~r~.fi~ vrSv~ (~~ ~ ~A ~~~-~~ ~~~77 ~ ~~ ~ ~-~~ v~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~..,~ ~ ~ d~ s fry' t _ ~ ~~~ :S 8-~ - ~ C'cJ B~Cr, S -- ~~~~ ~j~ -r fir .~ ~ ~ r` a33~ ~~~~, ~~ r ,r i i ~ ~3~~ ~~y~ ~ ~~~~ ~~a~~ ~w ~~ Co ~1~3~. ~o~x ~ ~ 0 9 ,~ ~o~ , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~or /~7•Z ~voa ~o ~/~~o ~~ ~~ l ~~-`U! ~ ~~~~YUI`L ~~3.iU[ 1C ~ ~C~N ~ f C7 ~,. /! ~ .~ v.. ~.c~i,~~. G~~~1_J 1 /l~.'~J ~~ I~ -~ ~~~ ~ e~t,c~ Y YU L'~ ~~ ~~-~-y po ~,~~z7~ C- j ~' ~~ ~~. ' PETITION TQ THE TOWN COUNCIL TQWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining tine quality of fife in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision knawri as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that na variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be uti]ized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encouraye recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. PRINTED NAME: Ai}iIRESS SIGNATURE _ ~Q~,2~T j~rL.r~ ©u,'L- a~~~ ` f~2~s~4 _ ~~~vccc~ ._~c~~ i n~ ~wirrl°~..~ ~~b~ ~ ~.~.4 ~B/~.. ./ ~~ ._ Cl~.f ~ c) ~ t /fir] . ~ ~ t~ =n ~ t~ Vrt' ~ O ~S ch ~ ' ` ~aro ~.artirner ZS~7 ~~s~ J ~l' l /~`~ ~/~cJ`~~/ ~ G .(!~ t 7 ~T ~~~~y~J/ ~ ~J_ .cSL~,~~I".-4~!;/1- ~ _ ,~~ . -- -. .. -~ ~: , ..__ , y. ,. _. * ~t * ~F it * ~F * # ~E * ~k * ~t ~~ PETITION TO THE 'OWN COUNCIL TOWN QF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining tFie quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of ]if,e for future gener•atians. PRINTED NAME: /~ ~rrL~ ~i7 U/t~.° ~ ~r y ~ir,rrx ~~Q _ ~.~ IrL~f ~ ~~ ~,~ / ~ r ~ S~e.n ~~-~c~c ~Q - A n 1 ADDRESS g1~~7 SIGNATURE ~ .~ ~UOD ~GIGrtiJ!~r~ ~ v' /Dg/ ye~c ~~~~ ~t-~- . -~ l~ r _ '+ .-~_ - ~~~~ ~~ ~~o ~. 4 ` ~ • r ~`~.~~ ~l ~ -Yj ~b1J , UC.) D `~A ~"C~ ~ .: `~9.~,~al ~- ~.." ,C` C S!V ~G,2, ~ ~ ~ ~ z~S 1~ ~i'~ ~)~71~-1~ ~ ~ ,C~`" ~w -rte` ~~ -„ -- - - .. - .r lc ~r~i G~~ ~ ~r s I~ o ~ 8~ t ~d l ~ ~c/©~ ~'~ ~ ~~~ _ ~ 1 t ~r ~o i ~ ~~V \ I ~J h ~ ~~ _ /Q v 1,~ ~\l}~ /~ ` ~~~ J~() t ~--~- ~". `mod .r.... \\ ~>a.~ ~ `~l\ v`/ ' ~1 \ r ~ :~"- ~ - _ ~t--- --- ~ r' _..' , t ~_ PETITION 1' O THE TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF VA[L ~J We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encnurage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in r~iaintaining the quality of life in the Vail Palley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision lcnowrr as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Yail Town Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances trill be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the Surrounding neighborhoosi will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational appor•tunity and enhance the quality of life far future generations. PRINTED NAME: ADDRESt~S SIG TURF/~ J L..) .~ ~ ~~ ~c~~~P.C t ~ ~ 1 ,~ _ rf ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ - ~ - r~~~;~ ~ -- /0~,~ , f~~~ ~l «~ ~~~~ mod/ ~i~ ~c c~ . , ~ ~~.. ~ C~ /~'%r_ r~ .~Ca,1~! /!~ zr ~~ /~ ~ r~ ~ L~~/~P ~icr~.~ ~s ~ . ~ SLR-v'-~z?~ --- - ~ ~n,~~': ~ iGO ~ ~ 1.31 ~r~~,~z ~ s / ~~~. C _ ~ ~ -- ~V~~c~(~~~ ~- . ~i v~tl~ ~~a~ SPL~~ ~1.~V~-~ l ~ ' ~, ' ~ ICS, ~~e ~~ e ~ (~ ~ ~ S~o~} G~,~c~ ~ a r~~l' ~ I ~ ~~ PE1IfIUN TO THE 1'UWN CUUNCIL TOWN QF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are opposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Run. We herewith petition the Vail Town Counci'I to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shotirn that na variances will be granted, that no adjacent public lands will be utilized or otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhvvd will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the quality of life for future generations. RRINTEO NAML: AddRESS SIGNATURE ~ ~ . ~Pfo uxzc~ 2~Z6 ,h4~,.~s ~2au..~ rY ~"~~.,~ U~ ~ I ~~-e-ee __ r }} / /~ ~~ • * ~ * ~t * * * ~ * * * * ~ 1'I~TITION TU THE TUWN CU111iC I L TOWN OF VAIL We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are apposed to development of the proposed subdivision known as Trappers Rurr: We herewith petition the Vail Tawn Council to consider Trappers Run only if it can be shown that no variances t~ri it be -grantee, tnii'~ -io adjacent pub`f~zc lands wil-1 b~ utilized nr otherwise negatively impacted, that wildlife and wildlife migration routes will not be negatively impacted and that the surrounding neighborhood will not be adversely affected. We further petition the Vail Town Council to consider purchase of Trappers Run to advance that preservation of open space, encourage recreational opportunity and enhance the qual ~i ty of 1 i fe. for future generati ons ~r n LJ f~RINTED rNAME: '~A`D'i~RESS ~1`t~~~11• Wt~ FS~r~.k'.~' :~~ Z3~P1~~ /~~ [~C . Jai _ ~i ~" - -C~~~2 ~~ f -..-- -. SIGNA URE `/ ~_ ~~r~~,r~.l ~` _--~ - ~~ _I .r ..... •.. i MINUTES NAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 2,1993, 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 Gibson jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tam Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager HoIly McCutchean, Town Clerk w C: The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 2 was approval of the minutes of the October 5, 1993, and October 19, 1993, Evening Meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the minutes of the October 5,1993, and October 19,1993, Evening Meeting Minutes, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.161ocated between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. The applicant was Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested this item be tabled because Jen Wright, Housing Authority Chairman, was not present due to illness. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until December 7,1993, with a second from Tam Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, second reading, 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, 1994, through December 31, 1994, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Tawn ad valorem property taxes due for the 1993 tax year and payable in the 1994 fiscal year. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. There was brief discussion regarding previous years' budget #armats which had included line item definitions and the outcome based budgeting process. Steve Thompson advised cost accounting procedures would begin January 1, 1995. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993, on second readir-g, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 31, Golden Peak House; adopting a Development Plan for Special Development District No. 31 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; rezoning a portion of Tract E from Agricultural and Open Space Zoning to Commercial Core I Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Nail Associates, Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica noted the applicants had eliminated 455 square feet of floor area overall since first reading, and he reviewed further modifications. He indicated the changes requested for Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, an first reading, had been made for second reading. Those changes included detailing what each of the four eo-applicants were responsible for. Discussion followed, particularly with regard to Section 8, item 3 of the ordinance related to Council's desire for more defiruite language regarding the open space dedication for the Mill Creek stream tract and/or the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E. Bob Buckley felt VA would have problems with a permanent restriction on Pirate Ship Park because of new technologies and ski area operations. Gerry Arnold, representing VA, explained VA's concept of conveying the area under discussion as a "dedication parcel" to TON, rather than permanently restricted open space area, and that dedication would occur prior to the issuance of a building permit by TON. She reviewed a letter to Council from VA dated November 2, 1993, regarding the proposed open space parcel dedication. In that letter, VA stated they understood the concern of Council regarding the reconfiguxation of the "dedication parcel" and had done a preliminary study for a walking path from Hanson Ranch Road vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes ll/~f83 to the bicycle path south of Cyranas. Based upon that study, VA was willing to adjust the configuration of the "dedication parcel" to a revised configuration calculated to be approximately 3,370 squaxe feet. A map outlining the proposed "dedication parcel" was included as part of VA's letter. Jim Shearer noted VA also owned the east side of Mill Creek and asked Ms. Arnold if VA would consider a walking path on bath sides. She did not think VA would object, but advised she would need to take that back to VA management far further discussion. Tom Steinberg expressed strong objection to an invisible line down the middle of the stream. It was suggested Ms. Arnold contact VA during this meeting for an immediate answer, however Bob Buckley and Clark Willingham. both objected to Council asking Ms. Arnold to do that. Diana Donovan, speaking as a member of the PEC, discussed the minutes from their last meeting, noting public benefits. She indicated the PEC recommended the "dedication parcel" should include the entire stream path, not just the area up to the bike path. Mr. Willingham stated VA had given triple what the PEC had requested and felt Council was holding up the entire project for the expanded "dedication parcel" Jim Lamont felt Mr. Willingham was receiving over and above the established GRFA and asked why VA could not unilaterally dedicate the Mill Creek stream tract over the phone. Mayor Osterfoss noted that TOV's and VA's goals were basically the same. At the time of this meeting, letters of opposition to this project had been received from Barbara C. Welles, Dolph Bridgewater, Frances E. Gunn, Foxhall A. Parker, Robert W. Galvin, Jim Lamont, Monica G. Benderly, Sara A. Newsom, Joy Hilliard, and Konard G. Prem. The opposition to designation of the Golden Peak House (GPH) as an SDD primarily related to its exceeding all zoning standards for the Commercial Core 1 zone district, that the existing building exceeded all zoning standards, that expansion of the building beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non- conforming condition was a grant of special privilege not generally available to all property owners, that unfashionable architecture ar failure of the property owners to maintain properly a building was insufficient cause to exceed zoning standards, and that expansion of the building encroached into the Vail Village View Corridor. Lengthy discussion regarding EHUs; shoxt-term rental program details, at-grade improvements, proposed declarations of public access, establishment of timelines, and view corridor encroachments led to further language changes ir- Section $, items 3, 4, 5, b, 7, and $ of the ordinance relating to developer agreements with requirements .which were a part of TOV's possible approval of the establishment of SDD No. 31. Glen Healand, current lessee of Cyranos, had questions about deed restrictions. Bill Whiteford, Cyranos Building owner, inquired about a lease with TOV regarding the trash building on Tract E. Tom Moorhead advised that lease had been entered into under the mistaken idea that TOV owned that land. As it did not, that lease was void. Jim Lamont was concerned that conditions were being set before issuance of building permits and felt they should be set at the time of issuance of building permits. Tom Steinbexg asked if there was a view corridor on Bridge Street looking south. Mike Mollica stated that View Corridor No. 2 looked toward the base of the ski mountain and chair No. X. Rob Levine directed staff to redraw that view corridor. Tom Steinberg advised that the view corridor be setup based an known elevations. Mx. Willingham did not feel amending View Corridor No. 2 was appropriate. Tom Steinberg wanted to set up a whole new view corridor, but Mike Mollica felt . surveyors could not do that based solely an the drawings of this project. Mayor Osterfoss suggested the amended view corridor be established simultaneously with the construction of the project. Jim Lamont stated people were resentful of projects like the Christiania and wanted set limits. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania, advised there was no adopted view corridor when his project (Christiania} was built, and that view corridor was established after construction was complete. Mr. Willingham admitted the GPH project would encroach on View Corridor No. 1 and added the existing building already encroached on View Corridor No. 1, not View Corridor No. 2. Merv Lapin asked why there was worry about View Corridor encroachments when there were more and more encroachments allowed all the time. Mr. Willingham felt that was because projects met certain criteria in order to be permitted encroachments. ICristan Pritz felt the view corridor in this case was improved by the new building. Bill Wilto voiced suppoxt of the project. Jim Lamont asked what kind of signal each one of the SDDs sent. He called for responsible action on the part of owners to maintain theix buildings and was frightened that this project and the proposed Vail Athletic Club SDD were setting harmful patterns. He read a portion of a letter dated November 1,1993, from Dolph Bridgewater, Jx., "The Special Devel.,r~~~ent District was a sound idea in concept, that has been ruined by excessive exploitation by development interests, and weak and flexible review by responsible authority. Excessively large struchxres of the sort proposed by the Vail Athletic Club and the Golden Peak House considered separately are seductively attractive, but collectively they have a special malignancy all their own... each requiring the next structure to be • larger and to eliminate a little more of our view and our open space. Aline of responsibility will have to be drawn somewhere at some tune. Will you please seriously consider drawing it here and now." After further discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 2$, Series of 1993, on second reading with Section 8, items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and $ amended and with the entire Section 8 to read as `Z Vail Tawn Council l;veging Meeting Minutes 11/7193 follows: SECTION 8 The developer, jointly and severaIly, agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of the Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 31: 1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the construction of SDD No. 31, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall cause to be permanently restricted, two off~site, two-bedroom, employee housing units per the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance. Each unit shall be a minimum size of 700 square feet. The units shall meet the Town of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements and such units shall be within the Town of Vail. 2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment project, the Golden Peak House Condominium Association will contribute $32,000.00 towards the redesign and redevelopment of Seibert Circle. The $32,000 contribution towards the redevelopment of Seibert Circle shall be credited towards the Golden Peak House, should a future Special Improvement District be created for this project. 3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the redevel„r~~~ent project, Vail Associates, Inc., will dedicate open space to the Town. The minimum area of open space shall be at least an equivalent area, to that of the area of the Tract E "overhang and deck" easements. A portion of the Mill Creek stream tract will be dedicated to the Tawn of Vail as permanent open space and the Pirate Ship Park area of Tract E will be leased to the Town of Vail for the purpose of maintaining the park. The terms of the lease are to be agreed upon by the parties. 4. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and Vail Associates, Inc. shall reserve a public pedestrian access, across Lot C, which is located between the Golden Peak House and the Hill Building, by declaration to be recorded with the Eagle County Recorder. Such declaration shall be permanent and only revocable upon written agreement with the Town of Vail. The declaration of public pedestrian access shall occur prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the project. 5. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy far the redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict two three-bedroom dwelling units (Units 201 and 401) to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all times when said dwelling units are not occupied by the owner or his guests. 6. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the remaining two lock-offs in the building (or equivalent}, to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all times when said lock-offs are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 7. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the redevelopment project, GPH Partners, Ltd. shall deed restrict, the two accommodation units (or equivalent) in the building, to be included in a short-term rental program, at comparable market rates, at all times when said accommodation units are not occupied by the owner or his or her guests. 8. That the Golden Peak House Condomirium Association, or their successors in interest, shall participate in, and shall not protest or reronstrate against, any improvement district{s} which may be established by the Town of Vail far the purposes of constructing improvements as set forth in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and/or the Vail Transportation Master Plan, if and when an improvement district{s} is formed. 9. That the Golden Peak House Condominium Association and GPH Partners, Ltd. shall cooperate with, and shall not protest or remonstrate against, any efforts by the. Town of Vail to establish additional view corridors or amendments to existing view corridors as enhanced by the project. Such changes and additions shall be pursuant to the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 10. That the pedestrian arcade (which was originally proposed over the first floor retail windows on the north elevation), and that the original ground floor plan, which does not include the curved retail windows along the eastern portion of the building, be reviewed by the Design Review Board and included in the final building design, if required by the Design Review Berard. 11. That GPH Partners, Ltd. further articulate the first floor "retail windows", by adding divided lights to the large single panes of glass. 12. That the Design Review Board review the proposed roof form over the main entry an the north elevation, and determine if the roof form needs to be lowered. 13. That the proposed tar and gravel roof for the building is acceptable. In addition, Jim Gibson's motion included a new Section 9 to read as follows: SECTION 9 Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in • accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the devel~Y,. gent plan, and that Section 10 of the ordinance be amended to read as follows: 3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes l lhJ/93 SECTION 10 The developer must begin construction of the Special Devel.,Y.=gent District within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. The developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg felt that due to the number of changes to the ordinance, the ordinance should be tabled until November 16, 1993. Jim Shearer agreed and asked again if Ms. Arnold would contact VA regarding dedication of both sides of the stream. Jim Gibson felt it was wxong to hold the project up because of a fear of loss of leverage an that issue. Bob Buckley agreed. Rob Levine agreed with Bob Buckley and added he was very moth in favor of the project. Merv Lapin advised he intended to vote against the project because of the same reasons he addressed on first reading. He felt the SDD process was being overused. It was noted the Regular Municipal Elections were on November 16, 1993, and Council consensus was reached to review the final ordinance language during a work session on November 9,1993, before its publication. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club? and the devel.,r~~rent plan in accordance with Chapter 1$.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and Setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership, aka, The Vail Athletic Club. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan discussed changes in the ordinance since first reading, including parking specifics, landscaping specifics, and streetscape specifics. Kristan Hated that there was an issue with the concern of an adjacent property owner in the Mountain Haus, Joan Lamb, about the dormers impacting her view of the Gore Range. Stan Cope and Rohn Robbins would further review this issue under discussion. Kristan also pointed out that Council had received letters of opposition from Barbara C. Welles, Robert W. Galvin, Ronald A. Prem, Foxhall Parker, Frances E. Gunn, Joy R. Hilliard, and Jim Lamont on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc. Merv Lapin asked if any resolution to Mrs. Lamb's view obstruction concern had been reached. Stan Cope advised that, per Council's request, he had met with Rohn Robbins, Jim Morter, and architect Michael Barclay, but during those meetings it had become apparent that there was no relatively minor design change to alleviate the concern of Mrs. Lamb. Specifically, Mrs. Lamb was concerned with a portion of her view of the Gore Range being blocked, and the only way not to block that portion of the Gore was to essentially eliminate six of the dormers across the north side of the project, effectively completely changing the project. Mr. Cope noted there had also been discussion as to whether there was same other settlement that could be made, and, until midday the date of this meeting, Mr. Cope advised Mrs. Lamb's answer to any settlement had been no. She had continued to press for removal of the project's d.,=.~.ers. Then, Mr. Cope indicated, he received a financial offer #rom Mrs. Lamb to remunerate her approximately $150,000. Mr. Cope said he did not have an appropriate response to that number in order to begin any negotiation. With a model, he demonstrated and discussed details of the building in relationship to Mrs. Lamb's unit in the Mountain Haus. He noted Mrs. Lamb's view was not a protected view. It was not part of any view corridor in Vail. He stated the underlying zoning would have allowed this building to have been built in such a way that would have blocked that view at any time without an SDD. He said he had researched where the property line was for the Mountain Haus, and it appeared that the Mountain Haus had no setback. He discussed the affected view in Mrs. Lamb's unit and stated it was extremely small. A picture of the potentially affected view was shown and discussed. Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan Pritz if, based on public accommodation zoning, someone could have built a building in the location of the blocked view. Kristan said that the current building would have had to remove GRFA to meet the zoning, but assuming that was done, the building could have been rebuilt in that location. Kristan said the GRFA was being allowed to increase through the SDD process. Merv Lapin asked what the requirements were far TOV to protect private individual's views. Kristan Pritz said there was na established view corridor in the area under discussion, but she felt it was important to look at the criteria which addressed design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity character, visual integrity, and orientation. To leer, that criteria was important; how neighbors would be impacted needed to be considered. Kristan added • that with most SDDs, there would probably be some view blockage from some vantage point with any project. That was inevitable with the construction, but she said staff felt, given all of the other elements of the SDD, the project merited appxoval. Diana Donovan said this view concern was not discussed in depth at PEC, but at anytime when more building occurs, someone's view would most likely be affected, but she noted there were no private view corridors in this area. Diana felt impacts could be minimized when possible, but there was always going to be some impact with respect to L~ Vail Tpwn Council Evening Meeting Minutes il!?193 V1eWS. Rohn Robbins, representing Mrs. Lamb, said there was a very clear view of the Gore Range from that property, and he felt that Mr. Cope's representation that the southern view was primary was without question, but that in no way diminished Mrs. Lamb's spectacular view from the east. Further, Mr. Robbins felt Mr. Cope's representation that there was no reasonable accommodation to Mrs. Lamb's concern was right, del~.~..ining what was considered reasonable. He discussed various project reconfigurations that he felt should be considered. He agreed a settlement demand had not been presented to Mr. Cope until the afternoon of this meeting. There was furthex lengthy discussion about the specifics of Mrs. Lamb`s impacted view situation. Mr. Robbins stated he wanted to correct ~, comments made earlier by Mr. Cope. Mr. Robbins said part of what Mr. Cope said was correct, and that was that a settlement demand was not presented until the afternoon of this meeting, however those discussions had begun on the Friday, October 29,1993. Mr. Robbins stated his client was very adamant about preserving this view corridor, and she was not initially seeking a financial settlement. He said the afternoon of the date of this meetinng, she agreed to seek one. Mr. Robbins said Mr. Cope was right that the substance of that settlement amounted to approximately $150,000, however, in terms of cash settlement, his client was seeking $70,000, not $150,000. The difference of $70,000 and $150,000 included health club membership at the Vail Athletic Club (VAC), which he felt would cost the VAC essentially nothing, and dining privileges in the restaurant contained within the hotel, which would incur some cost to VAC, but it was not a retail cost. He said the cash settlement they proposed was $70,000 plus attorney's and architectural consulting fees amounting to under $7,000, so the total cash package was something under $77,000. He said that should be taken in light of the fact that the appraised value of Mrs. Lamb's unit was diminished at an absolute low value of $100,000 by the view taking, and at a maximum of $400,000. He said they had asked for a cash settlement less than the lowest amount, and they felt that was reasonable. He also brought to Council's attention that it was his understanding that the VAC hotel did not plan to commence construction until x 995, and he wondered what the rush to grant this SDD was. He felt there were reasonable alternatives to be considered in reconfiguring areas to accommodate problems. He felt if there was any hurt to be absorbed, it should be absorbed by the people who stood to profi#, not by the neighbors whose view corridors were being taken. Mr. Robbins felt neighbor's ili the Mountain Haus had purchased their units believing that that view corridor was open, they had paid a price for that view corridor being open, and if this proposal was granted, that would be taken from them. He asked Council to deny the proposed SDD until such time as everyone could be accommodated properly. At least, he asked that any decision about this ordinance be delayed since there was na rush to construction and since he did not feel all alternatives had been fully explored. He also did not think that the applicant's had given full justification for not absorbing losses themselves. Merv Lapin asked if there was any legal basis for the TOV to respond to this issue. Torn Moorhead said he was not aware of any basis to respond. Mr. Moorhead believed the negotiations were properly where they belonged, between the developer and the property owner. Oscar Tang said he was present an his own volition to speak for Joan Lamb. He said Mrs. Lamb had spoken with him the previous evening. He stated the value of this piece of property was important in terms of her financial situation. He felt perhaps the SDD was justified in certain circumstances, but he asked Council to take into consideration the individual rights of a person who was representative of the people who make Vail what it was, other than locals and the people who serve the Town. He felt, when normal zoning was exceeded, which he believed was what was happening in this SDD, it was important to take into consideration the individual rights. He felt in Mrs. Lamb's case, it was very clear that she could be dismissed very easily, but he said Mrs. Lamb was a woman who had taken great pains, hired a lawyer and an architect to represent her because she felt it was important to the preservation of the value of her piece of property. It seemed to Mr. Tang, at a minimum, this whale thing had happened fairly fast. He understood the applicants had indicated she had agreed, against her will, to come to a financial settlement. He asked the approval of this ordinance be delayed until there was a reasonable chance to work out any settlement. He hoped, at a minimum, that another look at the design would be done. Mr. Cope clarified that this project was started in February, 1993. Significant changes as a result of many work sessions with the PEC, all of which had been publicized, had been made. He said Jim Morter had attended numerous meetings with the applicant's architect, the plans were changed dramatically to benefit the Mountain Haus owners on the southeast corner, they reduced the west ridge line, and pulled the dormers back significantly. At the PEC's final hearing, he recalled a one or two sentence protest about possible views being blocked at the Mountain Haus. The PEC passed the project unanimously. He carne to a work session with Council, and nothing was said, and then • on first reading, the view issue had somehow become a major problem. He did not feel they suddenly proposed this project as an onerous way of approaching what was now being called someone's rights. He believed the rights which were normally referred to as established property rights were done within the various zoning and how view corridors were examined within TOV`s planning and approval process. He said they had been sensitive to their neighbors in this process, not only with Jim Morter but with Jim Lamont, noting their input was solicited. He discussed some 5 Vail Town Council Evening Mee(~ing Minutes 111193 of the details of the redesign and what some of the space in their plan was to be utilized for. He noted the negotiations he had with ca-owners in the building were not taken lightly, particularly the penthouse owners. He said they had came to agreement with those owners and their needs had to be respected inside the building as well. Further, as he said he had mentioned to Mr. Robbins, it was possible they would not start this project until T995, but that was not a given. It was their intent, originally, to start in April, 1994. There was a good chance it would not, but that was not necessarily true. They would be examining contractor's bids, timelines, and the ability to do this project effectively in 1994, and to be in a position where khe whole project could be thrown out and tabled after $100,000 worth of fees and six to seven months worth of hard work, he did not think tabling this was a reasonable suggestion. He also took exception to the appraisal figures given by Mr. Robbins of Mrs. Lamb's unit. There had not been a formal appraisal done of this unit. It was approximately 1370 to 1400 square feet. In 1993, the highest square foot price sold in the Mountain Haus was $310/square foot leading to a value of less than $500,000. He discussed the orientation of Mrs. Lamb's unit's views, and added he did not think the impact to the unit was that significant. He felt the benefits of the project far outweighed the impacts. Jim Lamont said Mr. Cope was right, they had been in communication and Mr. Lamont felt his group had been very forthcoming and continued to argue their point that within the envelope of this building additional GRFA could be built and they would all be better off if any additional GRFA remained within the existing shelf of the building. He felt this particular argument was a perfect case in point. When this building was approved in T977, particular attention and concern was paid by the Council at that time to protect the views from the neighboring property. That was one of the criteria that was discussed. He stated he had quite a bit of respect for the architect, Michael Barclay, in this project who had gone the extra mile to try to address all the questions about it, and he thought if the challenge to accommodate neighboring views was presented, it could be met by the architect. He felt people feared losing their views to SDD projects. He felt there was a reasonable argument to make by noting that under SDDs there should be extraordinary circumstances to protect views. In this case, a demonstrable view was being damaged and he felt Mr. Cope, through the process, should have been aware that this issue needed to be addressed before getting to Council. Kristan i'ritz xeviewed a memo to Council from the Community Development Department dated October 19, 1993, addressing the parking history for the VAC. Mr. Robbins stated adjacent property owners felt confident views would be protected because so many variances had been granted on the original project. He asked Council again to table the ordinance and consider reasonable alternatives. Torn Moorhead believed this was an issue between the developer and the property owner. He felt the developer should be willing to indemnify the TOV. Bab Buckley noted the SDD process was a lengthy one and felt that adjacent property owners should have brought this issue up sooner, not at the last minute. He was in favor of the project. Rob Levine felt Bob was right. He felt the applicant was in this for the long run, which was in the • Town's best interest, the accommodation units were in the Town's best interest. It was a goad project and he did not think it was appropriate to expect the redesign of a building for the view that was being impacted. He was concerned that Mrs. Lamb's view would be impacted, particularly given that the building was out of the norm in L~.~x~s of zoning, that being an SDD, but he was comforted by the fact that event a building within the normal zoning could have the same impact on the view and that mitigated his concern. In his final analysis, he still felt Mrs. Lamb was due some compensation, but he did not want Council to be made responsible for making that determination. He hoped that could be done between the developer and Mrs. Lamb. He said he would put the decision off a couple of weeks with the hope that that decision could be reached, or at least a reasonable affex could be made on the part of the developer. He asked Mr. Cope how he felt about tabling the ordinance. Mr. Cope felt November 16, the date of Vail's regular municipal elections, would be a difficult day to bring something of this nature forward, and it would be quite onerous fox the applicant to continue second reading with what would obviously be quite a new Council. He felt if this Council indicated they were not going to support it, he would table it for lack of anything else. He felt part of the planning process of the SDD that may not be fully understood by some of those who had spoken was that they were talking about a major change which would require them to go back to day one of the 1'EC. Mr. Cope said this was not an SDD ordinance if they had to start altering the building as had been suggested. Further, there was $100,000 already invested in legal and architectural fees already. He was opposed to returning to square one. He hoped the ordinance would be passed tonight. Rob again said he did not feel it was appropriate to • expect the redesign of this building, however same compensation -financial or otherwise -seemed to him to be a fair way to resolve the problem with Mrs. Lamb, and he hoped that could happen. He stated if the vote was forced tonight, he would vote for the project and hoped that a resolution was still made between the developer and Mrs. Lamb, but he would rather see that resolution happen first. Mr. Cope noted that part of the settlement agreement offered to them was a $61,000 twelve year arrangement for food in the VAC restaurant. He said the athletic club membership was 6 Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 11/?!93 something he brought up with Mr. Robbins as something they might talk about. The tradeoff was something they would like to work out with the Mountain Haus, so he preferred not to table the ordinance. He felt what needed to happen was for the SDD process to be concluded and have any compensation arrangements left up to Mr. Robbins, himself, and the owners of the property. Rob felt he did not want to see the rest of the criteria and the rest of the work done on this SDD overshadowed by this point. He felt very comfortable with the project and wanted to see it happen. Merv Lapin said he would continue to vote against the project, however he addressed the issue concerning Mrs. Lamb. He felt the views and how they affected neighbors was extremely important especially when a project was allowed to go over underlying zoning. Howevex, under an SDD, and because an SDD was something that was always out there, and because zoning could always be changed, he did not feel it was app~..r~~ate for Council to be involved in a potential lawsuit or potential negotiations. Unfortunately, in his opinion, there were SDDs, but he felt there were some good uses far SDDs. He did not think the degree to which they had been used in Vail was good and he did not think this specific application was one where an SDD should be used. But his prinnary problem with the project was with the size of the project in terms of what the underlying zoning was and what should be on that site in size with respect to mass and bulk. He also was concerned about the deficit in parking. He felt letting this go with the applicant only paying far three spaces when the deficit was forty-six spaces was a terrible precedent because it would be faced over and over again with projects that were within CCI and CCII that could legally ask far that. Now it was being given to a project that was not even in that zone district. He did not see any need to expand square footage on the outside of the building and increase its mass or bulk at all. Tom Steinberg recalled he had voted for this ordinance on first reading predominantly because TOV was getting accommodation units. He stated he was torn at this point. He stated he was inclined to put the decision off until two weeks from this meeting to allow further negotiations which TOV should not be involved with. Jirn Gibson felt the ordinance should pass at this time. He sincerely hoped that the Vail Athletic Club and Mrs. Lamb could work out their differences. He said he had a great deal of empathy for her because of personal experience. But, he believed Mr. Cope and his associates at the VAC were fair people who expressed concern with this view and they were prone to try to work out an arrangement. Jim Shearer felt this was a good project, and he shared the empathy expressed by Council concerning Mrs. Lamb's situation. He encouraged Mr. Cope and his group to reach an agreement, but felt Council should take Tom Moorhead`s advice to add the requirement for indemnification to the ordinance. Mayor Osterfass felt the level of detail, time, and energy that went into these SDD discussions was incredible. She felt the pluses for this project included that it was addressing in a very substantial way streetscape improvements, not only on the Meadow Drive side of the building, but additionally was providing public access to the stream tract. Additionally, there was an employee housing component to this. Kristan Pritz clarified the new employee housing was for six units, in addition to four single units on-site. Mayor Osterfoss noted obtaining additional local housing had been a major goal of this Council and she felt this project moved positively in that direction. She was also impressed with the architect's ability to increase GRFA without a substantial addition to bulk and mass in the building and she was among those who believed there was a demand for additional accommodation units. She felt one of the greatest threats to Vail was losing market share to accommodation units located in other parts of the Valley, which also lead to other problems such as txaffic and transportation challenges. She felt there were several strong positives offered by this project. Mayor Osterfoss stated she felt sad about Mrs. Lamb's situation, yet she recognized that Council was faced with a situation of trying to balance the pluses and minuses of a project and come up with a decision that took into account the interests of the entire community. She felt Mr. Robbins made an impressive argument from Mrs. Lamb's perspective. But, Tom Moorhead had advised Council that the issue between Mrs. Lamb and the owner's of the VAC was a matter that needed to be resolved and she was in favox of taking Mr. Moorhead's advice on that point, including the indemnification because TOV could not involve itself in that negotiation. It was not TOV's usual practice to pxotect private views. She admitted it was an SDD where Council tried to address all concerns, but she felt this went beyond Council`s scope in the balance of other pluses of the project. She saw no reason for delaying this, and although there were pluses and minuses, this was a fine project and she was in favor of it. Jim Gibson moved for approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, on second reading. He stated it did meet the nine requirements of an SDD with the inclusion of the indemnification. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. Merv Lapin asked that Jim Gibson's motion include under Section 6 that the developer must begin construction of the SDD within three years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project and that the developer must meet the requirements of Section 7 Vail Town Council Evening It~eeting Minutes 11!7198 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Furthex, an additional section regarding indemnification should be added. Tom Moorhead, having heard no objection to the inclusion of indemnification of the TOV by the developer, suggested language for that additional section: "The developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town of Vail, including attorney's fees, in any cause of action or suit which joins the Tawn of Vail concerning the issue of taking any part of an individual's view." Jirn Gibson added that wording to his motion, and Bob Buckley seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Tam Steinberg. and Merv Lapin opposed. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance granting a franchise by the Tawn of Vail to Public Service Company of Colorado, :its successors and assigns, the right to furnish, sell and distribute gas to the Town and to all pexsons, businesses, and industry within the Town and the right to acquire, construct, install, locate, maintain, operate and extend into, within and through said Town all facilities reasonably necessary to furnish, sell and distribute gas within the Town and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public easements as herein defined as maybe necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Ron Carpenter, Public Service District Manager, re-read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised he had met with Chandler Lippit, Public Service attorney, and had axrived at the ordinance wording and twenty year term. Tom Moorhead advised twenty years was Public Service's shortest franchise term, and that TOV's Code allowed for that. Tom noted there had also been discussion concerning how far the gas service extended within the Town of Vail and what was anticipated as far as any future expansions. Merv Lapin asked if everyone was charged the same fee fox the same amount of gas. He was advised there were variable rates, commercial rates and residential rates. Phil Noll, Manager of the Mountain Division for Public Service Company, clarified that a resident rate for use of gas did not equal the commercial rate for use of gas because that was the way it was mitigated and adjudicated through the Public Utility Commission (PUG). He said they found there was more demand on systems by commercial users. Merv asked if that was an issue in Vail. Mr. Noll said it had not been up to this paint. There was brief discussion about commercial users who may receive a lower rate within Vail. Further, Mr. Noll confirmed everyone was treated the same way in [Gillis of the franchise fee. No one was getting a preference rate within Vail once they reached a certain level of use. It was noted on the previous franchise there was a $2,500 cap, but there was no longer a cap on the fee in the franchise as now presented. Merv asked, given times of competitiveness and technological advances, why a twenty year franchise fee was needed. Mr. Noll said there was a tremendous investment being made by Public Service which they were continuing to make every day and they also had facilities that backed up that investment. There was also the cast of going through the franchise process, and Public Service liked to make a long commitment to the community. They were here to serve the customer and the best way they could do that was to have the confidence that they could be here for a long period of time. This franchise was not fixed to the point that things could not be changed, even though it was a twenty year franchise. Merv also questioned Section 4.6 -Service to New Areas. Rather than it saying the company shall extend service to residents of the expanded area at the earliest practical time and in accardance with the company's extension policies, Merv wanted it to say the company shall extend service to residents in the expanded area within three years. Mr. Noll said the ~..lc..sion policy was on file with the PUG, and noted another clause in the franchise said Public Service had to follow the tariffs and rules on file wilt the PUG. He said they could not make, within a franchise, an exception that would not follow the rules of the PUG. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Bob Buckley. Before a vote was taken, Council was advised of State law requiring this oxdinance to be read in full. Merv Lapin moved to continue reading of the franchise in full until after agenda item No. 13, with a second by Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. After the reading, a vote was taken to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading and the motion passed 5-0, Jim Shearer and Jim Gibson absent duxing the vote. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance dedicating a public, non- exclusive right-of-way in and upon Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Greg Hall explained TOV owned the property, but did not have a road right of way from Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Nail Valley Drive across the golf course parcel, and there was a need to maintain sufficient access to construct, maintain, and service utility facilities on Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, Mayor O read the title in full. Greg Hall explained TOV did not have a road right of way fxom Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive/Nail Valley Drive across the gol# course parcel. With all the utilities in there, instead of doing easements for all the utilities plus and 'Vail Town Counc>1 Evening Meeting Minutes llh7/93 r '~ / access easement, it was easiest to dedicate a road right of way to TOV since TOV owned the property. Merv moved to approve Ordinance No. 3Q Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance to amend Section 18.57.060 B 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained this ordinance was only to correct a typographical error in Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993, .first reading, an ordinance amending Title 2, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.38 -Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised this ordinance would allow for proper codification in the Municipal Code. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 11 was Resolution No. 13, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town Council for the Vail Valley Foundation's efforts to secure and host the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 13, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 12 was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support by the Vail Town Council for the Vail Valley Foundation`s hosting of the 1994 World Mountain Bike Championships. Mayor Osterfass read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 14, Series of 1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 13 was a special event funding request for $10,600.00 from the Vail Valley Special Events Commission for the VVT&CB Festival of Lights in conjunction with the VRD-sponsored Winter Carnival (1993?. Jinn Shearer moved to table discussion of this request to the November 9, 1993, Worlc Session. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 A.M. Respectfully submitted, • A i i SST: ~ya~ir~ ~~~~ . Town Clerk Minuses taken by Dorianne S. Deto • C:WI ItVSNOV2.93 ,~.(~ ~,. Margare~'A. Osterfoss, Mayor 9 Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 17/2193 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL EVENING MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 1993 5:00 P.M. t A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 9,1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager • Before discussion of agenda item Na. 1, there was Citizen Participation. Roger Tilkemeier stated he was actively involved in Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's Rangeland Reform campaign, more commonly known as "the grazing fee issue." Mr. Tilkemeier noted he had taken the time to go through the Rangeland document line by line and had made extensive notes about his concerns, which he then communicated to Mr. Babbitt in writing on September 10, 1993. Mr. Tilkemeier felt rangelands were in worse shape than ever. He was especially concerned about the water rights issue in Secretary Babbitr's proposed reform. Mr. Tillcemeier referenced a memorandum to Senator Hank Brown, Senator Ben Campbell, and Congressman Scott McInnis dated November 8, 1993, from Andrew P. Daly, President of Vail Associates, Inc. (VA). In that memo, Mr. Daly expressed alarm at Secretary Babbitt's apparent lack of sensitivity to the needs and desires of the people who would be most affected. Because Secretary Babbitts proposal had been presented from an agricultural point of view, Mr. Daly's memo stated that, until recently, it was not fully understood how far reaching the Rangeland Reform proposal really was and what its direct effect would be on the industry here and in the municipalities of the west. Further, in Mr. Daly's memo, it was expressed that while Vail was designed in an alpine theme far skiing, it was observed that guests to Vail and the touring public also wanted a "Western Experience," including open space and pastoral scenes of grazing livestock. Mr. Daly added in his memo that that was all part of the recreation package in demand locally and internationally. The VA memo asked far satisfaction from Congress, Secretary Babbitt, and the President, regarding the issues of water rights, affected interests, property rights, lease tenure, grazing fees, and biological research legislation. The memo indicated further concerns centered around property rights, economic impacts and mitigation provisions, which were not currently included in the Bill. Mr. Tilkemeiex urged Council to write Congress with its concerns and to endorse VA's position. Mayors Osterfass advised the issue would be taken under advisement. Jim Gibson felt TOV should draft a resolution supporting Mr. Tilkemeier's concerns, and felt TOV should take a strong stand now. Item No. 1 was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing Vail Town Council's support for and urging voter approval of Ballot Question Na.1 which, if approved by the voters, will remove the revenue restrictio~ts of Article X, Section 20, which is commonly known as Amendment One and/ar the Tabor Arnendrnent. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead advised this resolution discussed and set forth concerns regarding Amendrr~ent One's impact on the Town of Vail's Ballot Question No. 1, to be before the voters on November 16, 7.993. Mr. Moorhead read the resolution in its entirety. There was discussion about the benefits of this resolution. Kent Rose noted Eagle County had voted down Amendment One last November, citing that it did not work for resort communities dependent on weather. He felt it was necessary to be able to keep revenues from "good years" to have to be able to spend during "bad weather years," and strongly encouraged voters to vote "yes" on Vail`s Ballot Question No. 1. Before a motion was made there was brie# discussion concerning the Denver/Boulder CPI. Steve Thompson discussed local growkh definition. Merv Lapin indicated .r?0% of Vail's revenue came from sales tax. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 15, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Item No. 2 was a presentation of the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. While technical equipment was being set up for this presentation, Council completed discussion of this date's Work Session agenda including the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} and Design Review Board (DRB) reports. Russell Forrest then noted Vail was approximately 90% built out and proceeded to introduce the Vai] Town Cm~ncil Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11!9!93 Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plan consultant, Marty Zeller. Mr. Zeller made a slide presentation including objectives of the plan, a process chart including an inven#ory of lands of the present draft plan, an analysis of background documents and surveys, a recreation needs assessment from the August, 1993, public meeting, a recreation needs assessment priority summary, an inventory of undeveloped lands, a hazard and sensitive area map, a concept diagram showing active urban and commercial systems with a proposal to connect trailheads, a trails plan showing the existing system and action parcel alternative trail system to relieve pressure on Forest Service land, a slide indicating identified priority actions, followed by criteria to evaluate and prioritize five priority actions, a priority plan map, a sum of action plan map showing 61 parcels requiring action in the East Vail, Center Vail and West Vail areas, proposed protection techniques, a proposed land mana~~~~~ent system consisting of two parts - TOV, Forest Service, and VA cooperative management and TOV property management, a review of Real Estate Transfer Tax Funds {RETT} availability, an action agenda of first and second year activities including affected parcels and budget, and third, fourth, and fifth year {1998) activities including affected parcels and budget, and a slide outlining next steps for the plan: a draft plan review by the task force, public meetings, amendment of the plan, PEC review, and adoption of the plan by Council. A large "Land Opportunities and Action Plan" map remained on display through discussion of this item. Mayor Osterfass called for public input. Bob Armour expressed desire to maintain the Davos Trail/Trapper's Run area as open space. He referred to a previously submitted petition to that affect, and asked Council to begin immediate negotiation with the current owners of that property to acquire that parcel. Russell Forrest advised this area was listed in the Plan's top priority list and was part of the~Plan's first year action. Mayor Osterfoss noted Council had directed staff to move ahead with the appraisal process of the area and that was now underway. A lengthy discussion followed concerning the stream walk proposal within the presented draft Plan. Kristan Pritz explained this was a controversial issue with the community and bxiefly discussed the history of the stream walk concept since 1973. Russell Forrest followed with a "slide walking tour" presentation of the stream walk areas to highlight and discuss some of the pros, cans, and alternatives related to private property rights and environmental impacts of the various stream walk areas. He noted this project would require Army C.,~r~ of Engineers approval. Bill Amos, George Knox, Johannes Faessler, Sheiks Gramshammer, Jeanne Bailey, Kathy Douglas, Greg Stutz, Rick Rosen, Carey Vaughan, Ben Duke, Bill Wilto, Kent Rose, Rick Travers, Bruce Benson, Jae Treadlove, Jim Wear, Ned Shwayder, and Nancy Tyler expressed opposition to the proposed stream walk through residentially developed areas, primarily agreeing this was public land, but feeling strongly that the privacy of homes already built there should be respected. These individuals also expressed strong concern about environmental impacts to the stream tract in the areas Y~~rosed for development. Ms. Bailey submitted a petition of 102 signatures. The petition read, "We the undersigned concerned citizens who support the proactive preservation of natural open space and strongly believe in maintaining the quality of life in the Vail Valley, are vehemently apposed to the proposed stream walk between the Covered Bridge and the Lions Head area. We respectfully petition the Vail Town Council to permanently delete this concept from the Town Master Plan on the grounds that it will destroy the environmental sanctity of the Gore Creek and its surrounding • lands, that it will adversely affect the wildlife habitats of this area, that it is not necessary to enhance Vail further as a destination resort, that it negatively impacts the surrounding neighborhoods, and because we believe that it is a community responsibility to protect and preserve as many of these pristine areas as possible for future generations to come." In addition, at the time of this meeting, letters of opposition citing the same primary concerns had been received from H. Benjamin Duke, Jr., Wendell and Arlene Haley, john and Jean Wisenbaker, Mr. and Mrs. Charles R. Martz, Todger Anderson, Bruce D. Benson, Adrian A. Kearney, Richard and Margaret Garbe, Lorraine and Harley Higbie, Jr., Ned Shwayder, Nancy Tyler, and D. Kistler. Flo Steinberg was in favor of the stream walk. She stated she did not see where problems expressed by those in opposition would be any worse with the proposed stream walk and felt those opposed were a special interest group that Council should not cater to. Ms. Bailey noted this area had all three wetlands criteria and an environmental impact study would be required. Russell Forrest confirmed that. He indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers would look at the planned use of the area, and if TOV could not get a permit, this project would not occur. There would have to be dialogue to identify issues, concerns, and alternatives with the Army Corps of Engineers as they do not want any change in the flaw of the stream or anything that would exacerbate the hundred year flood plain. There is not necessarily a permit required, TOV would need to consult with the Federal Emergency Management Agency {FEMA) to make certain that TOV's current insurance rating would not be jeopardized by development of the stream walk area. Jeanne Bailey, observed the need for Army C..~r~ of Engineers approval, consultation with FEMA, and an environmental impact study, and felt there was a very big expense in maintaining the stream walk. Further, Ms. Bailey felt that no one was going to stay on the stream walk path, they were going to get off that two foot to get even closer to the creek. She felt the path was not only giving Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 1.1!9!98 people an access to the creek, but it was inviting them to walk all around_ Rick Rosen suggested Council take it upon themselves to remove the controversial part of the stream walk and continue on with the process to get the Comprehensive Plan refined and approved to move forward, so there was not a situation where there was a remote part of the entire plan causing the entire plan to be stopped or delayed. Diana Donovan stated she supported the stream walls. She felt if Council was going to pull a section of the stream walk out, she believed that a provision of that should be that landscaping on public parts of private property between homes and the stream should be removed and returned to natural area along the stream. Kristan Pritz claxified that TOV had never used people's property values as design considerations. Mayor Osterfoss called far Council members comments on the whale Open Lands Plan and, additionally, on the controversial stream walk portion. She asked for specifics as staff had asked for direction. Bab Buckley felt it was a very positive move that TOV had undertaken such a comprehensive study of the lands in Vail. He strongly emphasized the need to purchase land. He said the real estate market was very volatile at this time, and opportunities to purchase land would pass by if TOV did not take advantage of some of the opportunities to purchase land at this time. He felt that was the number one priority. With regard to the scream walk, he felt the portions of it that were already in place were an incredible amenity for Vail guests, particularly guests who were wheelchair bound. At the same time, he was cognizant of the impact this proposed stream walk had on existing property owners and he felt very strongly that these owners purchased their land in good faith and there was no prior representation to many of these ownexs that there would be a public walkway between their homes and the creek. He found that to be a very strong argument for protecting those property rights. He felt TOV should stay out of those areas where property rights would be affected and should focus on the areas where property owners would not be impacted. He suggested taking a hard look at the section of the stream starting at Ford Park going past the Nature Center to the east below the tennis courts which he felt was an area where impact an private property would be minimal. He was very much against the section of stream walk proposed to be developed from the Covered Bridge down to Lionshead except in those areas where there were already stream walks. He felt the public was already offered variety. He also agreed strongly with Diana Donovan that TOV those areas where the stream tract had been landscaped should be restored to a natural state. He did not think people should be landscaping on properties that did not belong to them. He felt that landscaping was a misrepresentation to future buyers and it was a disturbance to the stream tract. He felt the stream tract should remain wild in public areas. Rob Levine said he was very much in favor of the stream walls. However, he felt there were other things TOV needed to do which were of equal if not higher priority, and was concerned about spending limited funds on this particular project at this time. He felt, in genexal, the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan was one of the best things that had happened before this Council. He felt the public should have access to public lands. He discussed the $' wide asphalt bike path behind first floor units at The Antlers. He said he was initially concerned about it, but in terms of property values, he said his property values had doubled since that day, so he did not feel that there would be a detriment to property values by the addition of the proposed stream walk. He added the wildlife in The Antler's area had xemained. The path had not altered or damaged the environment at all, so he did not feel environmental problems were an issue either. He sympathized with the people whose privacy would be bothered by the stream walk, but these were public lands and nobody told the property owners there to build their houses there, they chose to da that. Tn his final analysis, he felt it was not worth the money to further research and develop the stream walls at this time. He would like to see as much access to the stream as possible because he felt it was in the best interest of not only tourists, but people like himself, who would enjoy walking next to the creek, but he was willing to set aside the parts of the stream walk that would go right next to houses, at least temporarily. Jim Gibson felt the stream walk, as presented, did not stand a chance of being constructed. He thanked Russell Forest and all of the people who had worked on this project because he felt it was a tremendous job. He felt it was one best things TOV had done in a long time and he felt everyone should support the continuation of this plan to ensure that the kinds of things that could be seen happening would come to fruition. He did not feel the stream walk was appropriate for several reasons, privacy being one. Had this stream walls been built be#ore any homes were built, he felt that would be another matter. He felt people would have then built there with the knowledge that the stream walk was there. But, as that was not the case, he did not feel it should be constructed now. He noted, of the slides shown, it was obvious that the topography there contained some areas not meant for stream walks, and TOV should not try to put them there. He felt that in the areas where improvements could be made without impacting privacy and without impacting the stream, TOV should make improvements, but he suspected there were only a few pocket areas where that could Vai] Town Council Special Evening Heating Hinutea 1119193 be done. He felt it would be a great amenity far TOV to develop those areas, as it had in other spots. The stream walls had proven to be very successful. Again, he was totally opposed to it if it invaded anybody's privacy whatsoever or created problems for the stream itself. He did not think it was a necessary project because it did not provide access that was not already there in some form or another, and it would not create anything new in the way of an exciting experience. He wanted to look at it again in terms of the pocket areas that might be developed for some enjoyment, but he did not have a good picture of that. He suggested Russell Forrest develop a scenario that would let all of the owners and attendees at this meeting know where these areas were and how they might be developed, keeping in mind that, from his view, it should not impact privacy or the natural wonders of the stream itself. He was in favor of taking the stream walk out of the Plan except for those areas where it was felt something could be developed. Merv Lapin noted the great amount of time Torn Steinberg had spent on the open lands project over the last several years. Merv stated that because he had a financial interest in this isssue because he owned land at 232 West Meadow Drive, he did not intend to vote an this issue. If he did not have a technical conflict of interest, he felt he had a moral conflict of interest. He indicated the comments he planned to make would be made from the aspect of a private citizen. He stated he was against putting a stream walk in the proposed locations. He felt the proposed stream walk area was a major refuge to the animals who were bothered by asphalt. He felt many animals had been pushed there from other parts of Town where there had been devel„r..~ent and activity. He felt that should be a major concern. He felt this was a quality of life issue. He felt the more open space kept, the better off Vail's future was, because everyone gained from that in the end, and if that meant not putting a stream walk in when there were other alternatives or substitutes, it was better for all in the long • run. He was completely opposed to having the stream walk anywhere between the Covered Bridge and Lionshead. Toren Steinberg was far the stream walk. The overall open space and trails plan was the primary issue and he did not want the stream walk issue to be viewed as if it were the only part of this project. One question that had been raised by the consultants was how TOV was going to pay far the land purchases and trail systems. He noted it was suggested Real Estate Transfer Tax {RETT) be used as a source of bonding in order to speed this process up, and this was oat a new idea. When the RETT was first passed, it was done so in order to buy up open space in Vail to keep it from being developed, and, Torn felt, that was why Vail was what it was. He felt the best thing Council ever did was to pass the RtJ r i~ to buy open space and develop the parks, etc. He advised that the funding for the lands already purchased was approaching payout and he felt it should be seriously considered to use extra RETT tax to go out and buy up the open space that was left before it was all gone. He felt if that was not done, it would be regretted. He felt the plan presented tonight was an excellent start and appreciated the discussion, including compromises and alternatives. He felt Vail could get the best of the stream walk and not necessarily have to give it all up. He felt there were other things that should be proceeded with beside the RETT bonding. He hoped this whole Plan could move forward as rapidly as possible because he felt time was of the essence. He said he always felt that most people were reluctant to go near the stream because of their respect for private property. He felt TOV needed to let people know it was okay to fish in the streams, that the sides of the streams were public property, and that small unobtrusive signs saying "Welcome to Gore • Creek. Use it. Enjoy it. Protect it." should be installed. He felt people should know they had permission to use what they own. The people owned that stream tract. He noted responses from citizens of the Town to the annual citizen surveys consistently supported the stream walk and open space use. He added the idea was not to develop a stream walk like the one in the heavily impacted area between the Covered Bridge and Ford Park. There would be nn asphalt, no bicycles, not even gravel, just a woad chip one or two foot wide path that disintegrated and went back to nature wherever it was put it, particularly west of the Chapel. He~challenged the property owners an West Meadow Drive, to come in, and TOV would help with a joint improvement venture. Mayor Osterfoss thought that the Plan as a whole met the priorities Council had established. Those priorities included acquisition of land as a tap priority, open space preservation, and plans to look at zoning changes to permanentize certain areas to make it difficult for those areas to ever be sold or changed from an open space designation. Another priority was the existing trail and bike system. She felt there were many links in that system that needed to be completed, and the idea of the trail going around the perimeter of the Town was a very positive one. Further, she felt working in conjunction with the Forest Service and VA made a great deal of sense. She felt Torn Steinberg's suggestion about bondiung with RETT funds was worth exploring given the timeliness of the issue, but that was something TOV would have to wait until next November to take to a vote, Mayor Osterfoss hoped between now and then TOV would be able to consider some open space purchases. With regard to the stream walk, she was encouraged by the alternate route plan and Bob Buckley's suggestion about increasing the stream walk along the Fard Park area. She felt many enjoyed the bike path, which was also a stream walk through the ICatsos area. She felt the fact that TOV had put a parking lot in that area was positive in terms of enabling people to enjoy the stream along an existing bike path. She agreed with Jim Gibson's suggestion far looking for more pocket open spaces along the stream area. She also felt the idea Diana Donovan had raised about restoring to natural open space the areas of the stream tract on TOV property between private property and public [l. Vai] Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 11l919S property would be unanimously supported by everyone present at this meeting because there seemed to be great emphasis on environmental concerns and preservation. She felt the property owners who had landscaped onto public property needed to be located and asked to restore the areas to open space. She also felt Tom Steinberg`s idea about signage letting people know these were public areas would make more sense than trying to pursue a structured walkway through residential areas. She felt the Draft Comprehensive Open Lands Plans was a job well done to this point, and she looked forward to moving forward as quickly as possible. She hoped the new Council would have the enthusiasm this Council had for this issue. Joe Macy stated in the xesearch he had done, when Vail was originally platted, the stream tracts were held out from commercial and residential development to prevent devel.,Y~~~ent from happening there and to allow the public to enjoy that land. He stated the Gore Creek was recognized before there was ever a house in Vail, other than the original houses before Vail started. Gore Creek was recognized as an essential amenity, as the crown jewel of Vail and needed to be preserved far public enjoyment. The trails plan which identified the stream walk was also zoned to allow for the type of devel.,~~.~ent that the stream walk would entail and it would provide for public access for the fishermen, the locals, tourists, and the physically challenged. He felt it was eminently buildable, permutable, and he offered to help staff at no charge. It was the public's land and the public should be able to use it. After brief further discussion, Mayor Osterfoss summarized the next steps for the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. She said input from tonight would go back to the committee, and the committee, as a result of this input, may recommend some changes in the draft plan. That draft would go to the Planning and Environmental Commissiorn, there would be a public meeting to review that, then it would go back to the PEC to go through the approval process. Recommendations would come from PEC to Council involving additional public meetings in that process, and then final approval would be considered by Council. It was clarified that the input tonight was that the plan would be re-drafted to include the stream walk in certain areas of the draft plan presented tonight, perhaps with incorporation of pocket parks along it, but with some diversion around the most sensitive areas, i.e. privacy-wise and topography- wise, and that there would be further review of some of the alternative routes mentioned, and that resources for the stream walk would be re-prioritized. Further, West Meadow Drive would be upped in terms of a priority for action. There was also consensus that the stream tract should be restored to natural open space in areas where private property owners had landscaped onto public property. Signage to indicate the stream was public property was considered an important component. The stream walk would be deleted beside the Sonnenalp and the River House/Edelweiss and the Up the Creek. Jim Gibson asked Russell Forrest to bring the re-draft back to Council to Iet them know of their recommendations, but in general, most of what was discussed in the way of the stream walls would be deleted from the Plan. But the concept of public access to the stream was critical and the idea of having areas where people could have that access was critical. Merv Lapin added access to and exit froze the stream had to be arranged so that it was not done an private property. Russell advised their next step was preparation of a written document and they would try to address this meeting's input. Mayor Osterfoss added that Jim Shearer apologized for the fact that he had to leave before commenting. Before adjournment, discussion regarding the Vail Recreation Distxict (VRD? contract was scheduled for the November 16, 7.993, Work Session. Additionally, Jim Gibson stated he wanted to acquaint Council with a serious change of heart on his part. He stated for the last six weeks he had had serious misgivings about the Performance and Conference Center. After review of materials on this issue, he stated he was going to vote no on this issue because he believed, although the concept was great, the plan had become too grandiose. From a fiscal or financial view, he thought TOV should be issuing a bond issue somewhere in the range of $8,000,000.00 far a facility like this. He was also con~~t~.ed with the operating deficit of close to $1,500,000.00 per year. He felt Council deserved to know this because he had voted for it and voted for the ballot issue. He believed that from a fiscal view $8,000,000.00 was close to the limit TOV ought to be investing in a feature of this sort for the Town of Vail. He was also concerned about the private contribution portion of this project, stating he felt there was no real handle on it. He was concerned there would not br private contributions at all. His third concern was about the survey done. He was not convinced by some of the results, especially the quoted usage of over 200 days annually. Pam Brandmeyer noted that a portrait of Council would be taken an Tuesday,ll /16/93, at 7:00 P.M., in Council Chambers. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes l 119/93 Respectfully submitted, 1 i1 Margar A. C?sterfoss, Mayor • • A i ~ SST: Holly L. M~Cutchean, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne 5. Deto C:IMINSNOV9.93 6 Vail Town Council Special Evening Meeting Minutes 1719193 l~ - L~, r . ^~,ti. 4 l~J~T~~f /~/a f}l,~Fe,z ~~5 ~~FETITION ~d-rrR i c~~ TO ri,an~ SiC,~~~ ! THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL •~~ ~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~~1i~• WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT TIIE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ~ nii. PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN rrt~; COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPEc,,ir~JLLY PETITION ~tf~ VAIL TOWN COUNCH. TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY stir; ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND 'ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, TIfAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAHl FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSHiILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE - -'' ~ j _ _ ~~ ~ LA-Q ~~N ~ ~k~i~'GvLvwt~-fnr~~.. .~ f ~,, t . ~ ~ ~1~~1'~G~ ~~ L~ ,[~9a' ~P.~~ ~Jl~f~. i ti~C~~~l.. e ~ ~~ - ~ r~~C~v~ ~ cC~~' ~~ - \ 6 G~~,~,~ c~411~~ D.z~- ~. (,~ ~~ 1 b r ~ ~ S ~, ~ C'Jl,~.~ f1 t~~ u~ f~ - ~1'~. ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. r F ~`~ 1 rET~cTIoN To THE VA~.L TOWN COUNCIL WE TIIE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING inl+, QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAII. VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND Yri~ LIONat~AD AREA. WE RESPE~. i r tJLLY PETITION rti~; VAII. TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WH,L DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND 1TS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT WH..L ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE I3ELIEVE .THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE I r __., `~`~v ~~ L~~~J v ~~~..,~ ~,,^ _ .. ~ ~e ~.. . _- - ~gy~~~~~~~~ ~~~~. ~~~~ ~ ~1 +"' ~~s~' ~ ~-~9 ~bh4 ~L~N 1 n'~ ~ how ~~.~ ~ ~ ~~~ v~~- ~~s7 ~, a •oiee~eeeieeeoeeoeeeeeee• PETi 1 SON To TIE PAIL TOWN COUNCIL ••iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/i WE TIIE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN i r~r~ VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE 'PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESFECTFULLY PETITION ins VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE 'PHIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON iris. GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CKEEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, TIIAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT TILE WILDLIFE IIABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAI[. FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGA"I'iYELY - IMPACTS TILE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT iT IS A COMMUNITY. RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE.FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. ••iiiiiiiiiiiieieiiiiiiioiieiieeiiiiieiiiiii PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS ~-•~~NA'1'UR ~_ l~' ~'l f S~-L'. ~~t'~~.. )[ d? G~~. --=~ ~G( _tj~^`t~.c.~--~~`-~~'' ~ ~~d-~i~ \. ~~-~ :. s~`C~°--, f ~~' Z:; .. ~. ~ r 0 , (S, ~f~t~..~Y~ t ~~ .~-_-- . ] ~~ ` -_ :~~J~ ~~. ~~~ ~tS~~ OZ~ S ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ v~ r, ~ r `~~ ~ Wiz. ~i:~ ~- ~ ~:. ~~~,.~ c~`'~ ~ ~ J-~flNcv~~ ,~~,~ i ~~~~~~u~P~~~ / c~~l~~~ • ~1ii1111i1i1111i11i111i11• PET~T~4N TO THE VA;IL'TO.WN C0~1vC~L ••i1i1i11ii~i~ld~~1~•1}~i~~ii_~04+-:d~01~1®d~0o0+• WE THE UNDERSEGNE6~. CON~~R~U ~17t2,~;N~' ~ W~I()'~, SUPPORT TIIE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION ~OF J.YATUL ~1?~1V~SAC~:;,~+~v~ ST~,~L~~t',~~~IEVE IAI MAINTAINING THE .. ~ ,, ~, QUALITY OF LIFE IN tx~, ~~~~ALr~r~ AttE '4 ~~tl„~~~~ C1f'~~?S~D: TO itt~: PROPOSED ,. STREAMWALK BETWEEN ~~,'1~_;~CO'~~ $~t~ Et~N'U, ~'~`H'~ LxpNSHEs'~D AREA, WE RESPECTFULLY PEY1xxQN"f~E' -:VAI~;;~(~~N ~~C~.` T~, PTR1V~At!fEIVTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM TH~~}i~Vl~[ 1~CA~I~;~~N,{~~'~'I~~zGRVUi~f~S T~CA~'#~~''WILI,:DESTI~OY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SA~~'I'I;I`.t~' OF~txsL+ `~-1~x. C{RC,' E~ AND ;STS SU1t~~T~ND~NG..LANDS; THAT TI' . WILL ADVERSFiLY ¢.~b~CT T. wttjL~~r,E HARfTri,TS OF 't't~ta ~RE~-, THAT' IT IS NOT NECESSARY 1~Q ~ QE~ VAS., P~€IRTHEIt A~ A DI3$TINATION,RESOR'I'; TIIAT'1T.~EGATIVI:LY IMPACTS TI3E~[~~~~,~illt1VC,~l~CIGIIBOItt3'OODS, ANU BECAUSE WE.BELI~V~ THAT IT IS A COMMITNIT~'S "- , II~T~`~TO PRU'C`EC~T-AND rx.~.SERVE AS~VfANY OF 'T'HESE PRISTINE AREAS AS PUSS ~,F~'T~I;~tE GENERATIONS, TO.GO1titT~ .: , •1111 •~~~1~'i~~~~~z~~11~.11~11~1@~~1~1~~1~~•i1~r`1111 PRINTED ~ ~ I; a . _ ~~>•~l ~;~~~~ SfGfNA'~`:'iiRE ~~~-e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~~~. ~ ~ .i. is - r.wS „`~ - `'I~:, x ~` r.~ w c r d# n _~~~~~~.~ J~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~4 ~ ` ~ , ~ . ~~ z ~~` ~~~~1 ~- tea.. ._ .- ~ ~ ~° , .i. ~ 1 ~ ~ ~., [Ff/ l = ~Y ~ jiEr ~ ~ ~ r~ f - .~...°"i PrS~"' ~. J~rx' ~ Y! ~ ~' ~ f ^" r - .. ~~~~ ~~; ~. ~ ~ , 7~ •1111111111111111111`111• PET~T~ON TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ••111111111111111111111111111111111111111111• WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAiI. VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND THE LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COi3NCII, T© PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM iris TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WH,L DESTROY THE ENVHtONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAiI. FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT iS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSH3LE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. 11111111111111111111`11111111111111111111111 PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS ~ SIGNATURE r~ L~ • ~G~ ~i~x.7 Sail ~o-.z-rc~-rt ~r,G,~-.Sc~~~ GfJ(~ a~n ~ ~~i r ~n,~~.1 -- ~Sa~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ C ~~ 1 ~- C Ir'~r,. rr~,.~ , /~l~;t ~~ ~ ~~~ v ~ `f. J f.~P~ l~~ cJ Cc~~ C`~~~ ~2. ~~ 3 ~~~ ~~~~~ !J/!it C'e ~/radc~,~, /~ ~ a E.d ~ ~ L ~iG 3 i ~a ~~~~~~ ~~ ~ , ~a ~~ ~o ~ ~~ ~- i ~~~I~C ~ ~ x'16 3i ~ZI ~Fl(~~ C°D ~'1l~1 ~/ ~ !J ~.51~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ > 6,;1~~~'~, _ t , . p~~ J"d ~.~ ~~ ~ - ~~~~ ~,Y ~ r! l ~~~ ~ __ ~ ~ PETITION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL •e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAI. OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING THE , QUALITY OF LIFE IN ~ri~ VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN Yr~; COVERED BRIDGE AND iris LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPE~, i t+ JLLY PE ~ r ~ SON ~, nx; VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMA~v~;~v ~ ~..Y DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MAS'T`ER PLAN ON ~ kt~ GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DE~i.~OY rte, ENVIRONMENTAL SAN~,.i~i ~ OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LAI~TDS, 'T`HAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABl'TATS OF iris AREA, THAT TT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS ink SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT 1T IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATiIRE • ~/ ~ ~~l C'/~s>` ~~/ / ~ //AF--M ! ~6~ l 1~ .f /~`rU ~rr ( V _ ~.~2Cke~'~ ~ / ~~p ~~j ~ /~ ~' .~ - ••1111111111111111+~1~1~•• PETITION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL •111/111111/•••111111/11111111111/1/11111111• WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED C~~xr.ENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING xn~, QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAIL VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO x ~i'; PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND tn>!; LIONSAEAD AREA. WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SANt, i i x Y OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, TART II WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT xrYr. WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAII. FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS snr, SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PR[5TINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. •1/111111111111111111/11111111111111/111111• PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS `SIGN`ATURE <".w ( ~~~~b vi~f~',~ ~` ,~o..~.r'f.nt ~Y~n2... Unc ~ ! c~•~i~1,~~i~ r~ u • ~r~~ ~ ~-~ o ~~ c-~ z C I/a.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~r ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ C~ x ~~~ ~~5 ~~ ~.~ ~~ Y~~~ ~F~~~O ^P U , Px~,~ ! coi ~ 1At c~ ~} U ~ r~ , cam. ~''tiv~.P,~•~~~" v ~ ~ ~- L~1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .~ i ~,~ / c_ jfjr /! ' 1 ~ n ~a ~ ~ 1 '~~~~~~1~~~.rr s"1d.4 ~..~ ~ _ _ _ ~] ~ r ,.. ; r PETITION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WE ~n~ UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED C~~u.ENS WHO SUPPORT ~.nr. PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING ire QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAII. VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO r ~~ PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN THE COVERED BRIDGE AND irt~ LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCH. TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN QN THE GROUNDS THAT IT WILL DESTROY ~tt~ ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABTTATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAII. FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILTFY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRLSTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. PRINTED NAME 5TREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE ,ivy ~ ~ ~ J 3 ~ S ~~1., i }~ t ~ 1n~1 f~i ~~- ~ 1 ~ ~ ~_ ll v t 9~ 2,, 5 ~ d ~ fit .~ L ) ` ~~~ ~ a.i ~ ~ , ~~ ~~r~1+~~I~., ~ C'~.,tf~~ ~~g [ c~i~cAY~~ 1~~y^~~1 1'~'i~di' !'~ ~ ~~ / ~ f ~~~.~., ~1 k~l^ him ~ . ~~C?t 1 L~ ._~~ j ~~~ ~1-~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ r~ " V~e'~li.F.i_2 ~'GG~Ait CJ~I.eY ~_ ~L'c~-f AY1"~uu-f-- ~aTtiYya 71NArNP~{' 1~fi) ~~~3 ~, r~ Kok I3$s~ ~~~ ~ ~.~~ ~'1 t~ s-~r v~~ L~ ~~ ~ ~~ .t ~ Gcrac-_45~ C.. G~ ~~ ` ` ~ PETITION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WE ~~~: UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED ~.YiiZENS WHO SUPP©RT ~n~: PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRONGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING ir~r, QUALITY OF LIFE IN ~t1~ VAIL VALLEY, ARE V~:ti.~;MENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN inr. COVERED BRIDGE AND ~r~~ LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON THE GROUNDS THAT TT WILL DESTROY iti~ ENVIRONMENTAL SANt,~ii ~ OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THA"I" I"I` WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT inL+ WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THIS AREA, THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE PAIL FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATNELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS A COMMUNTI'Y RESPONSIBH.I'I`Y TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MANY OF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS '~ NATURE// • :~~ ~~ ~~ ~~-~~~ ~l~~~~ ~2 {: ~ .~ ~ G.ry'~ /~ 6' i ~7 ~ ~fl~ cS~J ~~ n ~ ~ ~~ cU~. r~ ~ ~„ Y„~ ~~~: t~~~ : x , ~~ ~~ ~^; ~~:~ /~ ~ ~ J- ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.~s ~~ ~~ /ardtN' 6 / ,. ~_ x s ~. ~b ~ ~~~ ~. ~ 1~~~~~ ~-~ . ~~~~, 'UY~ '~'~!~/~ NiJ'l~r`~~)D~l~I~ggM~~fp:~:a~~r1I~y~[~ y`~'g~~~~~ij~'~~~~11~~~yy ~~y~`{~~~`Yl],~y~y~p.~yy S~~C3]~,gy~Yi~LBX'1FyyyyF'~~ }}"/X~'~~p~yy /1~~nf#t~ryyryA~p(~[y~"~F']~''~~(9~11 i db~~~~ ! ~~II~iY M{ ~f9~Y`TAY~'~ld VaFi ~~ ~l 1~'~.~Wi ~IIOR ~y^^V'~~hP~ ~l`.~M1VMa4~ 1 ~ ~1 "~ ~.r~.f Wli~`'~\AIR~Yf4~ ~{$~4W C~~Jhi.~'R"'~' ~'~ ~~1~~ R;Md ?'~~~ W~l~~ '~~lt.~~.~'.~, A ~~~El~;;~i'~'~~' ~~',;~~1~ ~' °~'~~~ IP.it,~~'G1~~1- 9Ti~~r~~''~,'~~..~ ~"~fY~~£~ `~'~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ -~~ THE ~.~~~t~~~~.A~ ~~~~. ~4' ~Q~#~~;~T ~{~~E:3t°~~ ~'.C'R~; T'~~3~li~i' l°~a~`k"IC~~ ~°'t~d ~'V '~~~ ~~+~~1~i~S "$''~.~~" ~~' ~~a~ ~~`l'~t~~ `~'~~ £~~M{~~**~~~g.'~,~11~y&~:~y~pp~~~~1aa~t~ ~,~:4'~"~~e"~'~f~"5t"r+~F ~""~7,~y~~}y~~iEp~~~p~~i r~t~J~R+ ~~~y' ~~+Jy` ~'y~y(~.~~m}p~ty, ~"/~(~~+~p`~~' ,~'rf@n 97 ~~~G {'~I~M.iC. 66a,T IC~~j~ ~~~~G~4 Sii~ ~1`Fte1V~d~~l ~~1~A~A6~~~~.5~ T~,d~ Q7~~A~ ~,E4~~i A~~14 A~ ha3 t~~A yN''ppEqq'yp~~~ E,~:~~'~qy {~~k'+~~~~F~~~lf~~a~'~~~,~'~~i~~ff~~~Ct~ ~aa'4y~`,,{~~~`~~~~9~~~1'~ppl~p~yyy~},~yy$~y~1~~p'~~',1y~y~+~i~+~'y~'~p.In~1 i~~'4~',~+~y~'~~ ~y'+12~}~g"+~~', )~~~f~~tg~+A'~!'~ir~,iL~ d1IY 7rf~~iS~~ ~61 F. ~F,1 n`u1'1f~n1 x01.i~1 ~# LI~AJ A'lV~~i~'wYZ'LF~4ra SFAf'~4 PLi'n s,s ,67~N~~'p~f 4.1~ g~`~ ~ia~rA.Ga®#~i ~F WAA R~~ 11~ ~~ ~ ~~ ...~~.w~.~,.,.......,,._.,,,~..~,n.~T,..,,,T,~.v.,,. ~...n.,..._.M.~. ~...9..,.~..~ .w..,..w...~.~a~,~,~..~a...~..,n..~.r..e,__~. ~M~v~.~_~., ~.~~.~~.MWd~~__.~,, ~.~2~w~MMavewt.4.~w..,..,.., +r~pn[now~!nM. ... ,.n rnrr.~. ..................... .n~w.....w.. +... ~n1Rnn.thaN..x.n.,..w+.+~.,~+et.....wa:w.ww•'.8*hY~ 1YggI•iw.wwn.....+---... ~ivw~wewn._ .... ..ew.mMN BRA. •t rtMn.~u~i+.. ,.......~... rri r~W~mrnrnvm.a/rva......r uat.~r...., .. w.. ..e~..w..n n,.,...+.... w... .•cr~gV'MM4w~+v.~.w.9.,..n .wY~..~.. ~...,,...w.w, -„ ..Hrne.,.w......._~.... To .. .~ .. 60,64e1vA'n uwMn wi,..~,n•,. ... ..................,........ r4 r 'M ,.... s... ... . ....,,r N~evl~.a..s.-r~.na~..-mmw,w~,. H.,nw..-•nATnrt~a`RAPfYn,...... 'i2fAn,n........x.....r.wnnn•~/1M11r•M!••m.+nw.ruMtil~t N.vYm•.m~r.~.n.m.otl]YY.1d ..alW1~M1d.~ry sn~1~1M~~•nl nr. , ~i.-x•+r...n,.u..._ .. ~-„r.......9krisivwtnaYwiYrMliM.i.r..raew.... n. ....m.vra wiV.n!.AOrtMN VIPmnb..nme.m Nna..rww.+,nhvs.. mn~. •.r~n..r,fCinM+s+~nvntA~41A,dHAV allarn ax,nn..m n I H P.Y.w ~ rxn~~ ................_.,,,,.,....r~.w nsii.ana.....«,..,..:r~....s,.,,,.....,,.~.,~...r_.~..~_,.d...__„-.~nreia.a...-,..,,....,.w,..,...........a-a~..rww~, ....,..,.._.__.__,~mwa.Ernawesmrav..,......,au.r~,.........,.,.ac+..• f .. cr „ •i.......m...,_ .. ~v.~xna,sr...~na»-. ,., n.. .,. «, _ ... ,.+rnnnF nv.u~ner..F..,.«~. ...~..~...,. ..o..~n.w,,....,.z..,.«.wava,.,.,.,~~.~,....n~. ve.e,.~~.~ - aa...~.,........~... .s wmw.mn~w p w~nu m•-+nae ..~,..,.,.... ~. ..,~.. •. •haan. ..,. ... .,..~.•..~...~.. ~~q,VH`.Mni.~u~..Mi wewn. ... w....AnNtnw~3+•,••.~y{MMi.a. n...m...w..... .u.~swuR'[aln. a(swvnn.,n....._..-.~....~.MamxssPw,aa a.,....~n •111111111111111111111~~~11 PETITION TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ••111111111111111111111••111111/111111/11111• WE THE UNDERSIGNED CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THE PROACTIVE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL OPEN SPACE AND STRDNGLY BELIEVE IN MAINTAINING t n~ QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE VAH~ VALLEY, ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED STREAMWALK BETWEEN ~~ir~ COVERED BRIDGE AND ins. LIONSHEAD AREA. WE RESPECTFULLY PETITION THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TO PERMANENTLY DELETE THIS CONCEPT FROM THE TOWN MASTER PLAN ON ~nr. GROUNDS THAT FT WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SANCTITY OF THE GORE CREEK AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDS, THAT IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE WILDLIFE HABTI'ATS OF THIS AREA, THAT TT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENHANCE VAI[. FURTHER AS A DESTINATION RESORT, THAT IT NEGATIVELY IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND BECAUSE WE BELIEVE 'T'HAT IT IS A COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE AS MAN"Y DF THESE PRISTINE AREAS AS POSSIBLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. •111111111111111111111111111111111111111111• PRINTED NAME STREET ADDRESS iGNATURE G~2rc~~- ~~~ ~5?? 2~~~~~ i ~ u S #~ ~_~~ ~9~~~ /Ill/ I Li o7 ~' -- ~~ ~ ~~ ~ *• MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1993 7:30 P.M. Are ular rneetin of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesda ,November 16,1993, in the Council g g y 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-Tern Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bab Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Torn. Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Jirn Shearer, citizen of Vail, stated he would miss parting Council members Bab Buckley, Rob Levine, and Jirn Gibson. Jirn Shearer noted a lot of good Council decisions had come from this Council. Merv Lapin, citizen of Vail, felt Jim Shearer's comments expressed feelings of the Council members who would remain. He thanked Bob Buckley, Rob Levine, and Jim Gibson for their individual contributions to this Council. He added he had been disappointed that only seven candidates had run for new Council. He felt, because of that, many more candidates would run in 1995. He felt it was unfair to the people Council served not to have a wide range and a wide choice of candidates to choose from. He felt the community owed Mayor Osterfoss a gxeat deal of thanks and felt slue had put iun more time and energy than any other mayor. Outgoing Council member, Jirn Gibson, citizen of Vail, stated he had enjoyed working with all present Council members and he hoped the incoming Council would be as divergent and outspoken in their thinking as present Council had been. He respected each and everyone of present Council #or their expressed opinions, and he wished more could have been accomplished. What had been done, he said he had enjoyed doing with this Council and staff. Tom Moorhead thanked Council for having given him the opportunity to work with them and to serve the Town of Vail. During his career, he stated he had never worked with a group as individually and collectively talented this group. He felt Council had shown very divergent opinions with regard to different issues, and, through the legislative process, had been able to xeach a consensus. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance granting a franchise by the Town of Vail to Public Service Company of Colorado, its successors and assigns, the right to furnish, sell and distribute gas to the Town and to all persons, businesses, and industry within the Town and the right to acquire, construct, install, locate, maintain, operate and extend into, within and through said Town all facilities reasonably necessary to furnish, sell and distribute gas within the Tawn and the right to make reasonable use of all streets and other public places and public easements as herein defined as may be necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance dedicating a public, non-exclusive right-of-way in and upon Tract A, Vail Village 8th Filing. C. Ordinance Na. 31, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance to amend Section 18.57.060 B 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. D. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1.993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.38 -Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. Mayor Osterfass read all titles in full. Rab Levine moved to approve the Consent Agenda with a Vai] Town Council Evening 1ldeeting Minutes 11/16/93 ae second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin recalled a question previously asked regarding Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, regarding the Public Service franchise as to whether there was a possibility of financing fox any conversions to gas in general. He asked if the financing could be done through the gas company. Phil Noll advised there was a financing package with the FirstBank of Breckenridge and Vail. Mr. Noll stated the reference was probably to the demand site management program. By reducing demand on Public Service systems, there were credits given. So far, because it was a fairly new program, wholesale customers had not been included. Public 5erviee did not have a program to convert Haly Cross kilowatts to Public Service gas or other forms of energy to get a demand site credit. At this time there was no demand site management progxam or coninvesting or internal investing for the Town of Vail. After brief discussion about the demand site management program, a vote was taken and the motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed unanimously, 7-0. Before adjournment, Larry Grafel read in full a letter to Council dated November 15,1993, from Liz Krezowski, 7.320 West Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55419, "Dear Vail Town Council: Where would Minneapolis be if it's forepersons in the 1800's didn't plan far public access? Jim and I live on Minnehaha Creek/Parkway in Minneapolis and also East Vail. We don't own the land on the creek in front of our home either, but we can walls for many miles in front of other peoples homes and they ours on the creek and around the lakes in Minneapolis. Yes, we pay considerably higher taxes to live on "our creek" but it truly isn't ours alone. Vail luckily has the chance for some of the same awards and accolades if it too can put aside selfish motives for the good of the town. Let's give the Town of Vail a chance to benefit all it's people. Vote yes for public access. Sincerely, Liz Krezowski." At this time, Ma or Osterfoss recalled Larry Grafel had agreed in March, 7993, to become the Acting Y Town Manager. She said Larry had worked very successfully as a partner with Council, and thanks to Larry's work, she felt TOV had made a very positive turn. She wanted Larry to know that Council respected, admired, appxeciated, and were deeply grateful for the time he had spent working with this Council. She then presented him with a plaque from Council in thanks. Larry stated it had been both a privilege and an honor, and had been a rewarding and gratifying experience. He thanked Council for their confidence, support, trust, faith, and wise advice. He then presented with Council members each with miniature ATVs as a humorous reminder of the time he had served as Acting Town Manager. Mayor Osterfoss thanked Council for theix support, their dedication, and the tremendous amount of time they put in as Council members. She felt the dynamics of the group had resulted in much progress. Jim Gibson moved to adjourn the meeting. Before that motion was seconded, Joe Macy thanked Council for their service and dedication to the community. He stated all of their efforts had been appreciated by Vail Associates, Inc. Jim Shearer seconded Jim Gibson's motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,.. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor A 1 i nST: r ~~yJ~ ~~~Q~nZ . Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S.l)eto _~ C:IM I<VNOV16.93 'Z Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutee 11/16/98 ~;} Post-its Fax Note 7871 Date 7~/9~ Ipa°ges~ f' T~a~~l ~. ~ _..1> ~~ From' /s~_ ..,q ~~ Cam, ~a~'t LJ ° Co.lDept. Co. r ' MINUTES !!! Phone # ~ jf Phone #97D~u79 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Fax #~~/GB~ ~~~ 9 -a/3 ~ iFax # DECEMBER 7, 1993 7:30 P.M. h l il 1993 i h C ounc , n t e d on Tuesda ,December 7, e Are ular meetin of tYte Vail Town Council was g g Y 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 to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The #irst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Kent Rose welcomed new Council members, Paul Johnston, Sybill Navas, and Jan Strauch, and welcomed Peggy Osterfoss back as Mayor. He also welcomed new Town Manager, Bob McLaurin. Mr. Rose then r~~~ented specially designed T-shirts reading, "SOS -Save Open Space -Defend Davos," to Council. Porter Wharton advised that Bob Armour, Kent Rose, and he comprised the Executive Committee of the "Save Open Save -Defend Davos" group. Mx. Wharton presented a check to Council in the amount of $500A0, profits realized from the sale of 100 of the above referenced T-shirts, to be used for the purchase of open space. Mayor Osterfoss thanked the group and stated she could not recall when a group of citizens had ever presented TOV with a check, and she hoped it signified what could be more public/private partnership efforts. She briefly discussed the recent successful passage of the Amendment One modification, and expressed appreciation for the support of that ballot issue. As a result of the passage of that ballot issue, she indicated a substantial increase in real estate transfer tax (RETT) funds over last year was anticipated. It was noted those funds were used for purchase of open space, as well as maintenance of existing parks and recreation trails. She said it appeared there would also be some sales tax increase, and TOV would Hat need to go back to the voters to ask how those funds could specifically be used. She felt passage of the Amendment One modification was a tremendous show of trust and confidence on the part of the community. Merv Lapin moved to accept the $500.00 contribution from the Defend Davos group, and that it be added to TOV's RETT fund to be earmarked fax acquisition of open space. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the November 2,1993, November 9,1993, and November 16, 1993 Evening Meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the minutes of November 2, 9, and 16, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was a request for final approval and adoption of the Town of Vail Cemetery Management and Master Plan for the Tawn of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donavan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Andy Knudtsen advised that Sherry Dorward, Vice President of Alpine International had been the lead consultant who had coordinated two other firms, The Sloane Consulting Group, cemetery management sper~a~ysts, and HEPY, a cemetery design consultant. Andy noted the site selection process for this project began in 1989. The Donovan Park site had been recommended as the best site according to a number of criteria. Ms. Dorward advised that their team had been selected in October, 1992, to begin development of a Master Plan for a cemetery on that site. The mission of the team was to develop a physical plan for the layout of the cemetery, recommend capacity of the cemetery, types of burial places, and a way it could be feasibly managed and paid for. After a number of interviews with Council, other officials in Tawn, and with religious leaders in the Valley, The Sloane Consulting Group recommended that the cemetery be managed by the Cemetery District. Ms. Dorward noted it had been running on a tight budget for years, but that it was a feasible management structure. She explained that at the time the first draft of the management report came out, it was possible to fund the cemetery via the District through a one time mill levy assessment. Amendment One made that difficult, but it still seemed that was the best source of funding. Funding through bond issues was rejected, not only because of the long term interest costs, but also because, under the terms of Amendment One and the law pertaining to Cemetery Districts, the bond indebtedness could not be incurred. She further Hated the mill levy tax had not passed in the November, 1993, election, but the District remained The Sloane Consulting Group's preference for the management of the cemetery. This issue had been discussed with County officials and Council, and it seemed the District made the mast sense because TOV did not want to Vai] Town Caunci] Evening Meeting Minutes 1217!98 ;S w .~ be in the business of running the day to day operations of the cemetery. Fiscal projections showed that the cemetery could be self supporting for its operating expenses, but not far the initial capital investment. A memo from the Community Development Department (CDD} to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PIJC}dated November 8,1993, detailed the Project Description including the Master Plan and Management Proposal, the Review Process, and Conclusion. The project's Mission Statement and Guiding Principles, drawings and photos of the site character details, and photos of various types of cemetery characteristics were on display throughout Ms. Dorwaxd's presentation. She discussed the physical plan of the cemetery, emphasizing that plan came out of a number of conversations and meetings with neighbors and citizens which began in October,199z. The Master Plan -Tawn of Vail Municipal Cemetery Final Report, Octobex 7,1993, was summarized. It covered the purpose of the project, the methodology of the planning/design process, community involvement and public input, a summary of findings and xecommendatians concerning management, operational policies, design guidelines, phasing and initial capital costs, implementation, asummary of demographic characteristics of the Eagle Valley Area, management alternatives, pricing, fiscal issues, the conceptual design plan including a description of the site, design determining factors, development components of the initial phase, capacity and phasing, a report on initial capital costs and funding sources, environmental considerations, and next steps for implementation. There was discussion regarding percentages of the cemetery allocated to different uses and the cemetery inventory. Andy ICnudtsen noted the total area of the Vail Cemetery, proposed to be located at the upper bench of Donovan Park, was approximately 39 acres. Of that, the open meadow near Matterhorn Circle was 9,5 acres. The cemetery would use prr.oximately 2 acres of that far burial and memorial space and access. Those 2 acres would accommodate all of the proposed improvements which were expected to provide cemetery space over the next one hundred years. Ms. Dorward summarized the costs of each of the major components. She said they had estimated almost $470,000. for building this cemetery, plus design and engineering fees and contingency effecting a total estimated cost of $600,245. It was noted that that was the amount the bond issue would have generated if that ballot issue had passed. It was Hated if the cemetery was not built until 1995, an inflation factor of 5% per year needed to be factored in, bring the total estimated cast to $660,270. Merv Lapin inquired about the present funding situation, and what the next steps were. Andy ICnudtsen advised he had not heard back from the District. He said they were in the red and they had nine spaces left in their inventory in Minturn. Their current mill levy revenue would not cover their costs since they had updated and increased their hourly fees. Merv Lapin moved that the Master Plan for the Tawn of Vail Municipal Cemetery be approved, with a second from Paul Johnston. Before a vote was taken, Andy IGnudtsen pointed out that in the November 8, 1993, memo to the PEC ~~~_.~ the CDD, the public process was addressed, and he emphasized how closely staff had worked with the neighborhood. Additionally, he noted the PEC had recommended approval of this Master Plan, 5-2. One person had voted in opposition because of site selection, and the other was opposed based on a philosophical opinion about a cemetery as a use of Iand. He said there was one modification to the Master Plan that was made at the PEC hearing and that was that the term used in the report "entry monuments" be changed to "entry features," The PEC recommended a review of the trend between below grade burial and crypts/ ruches as the cemetery was developed. They also recommended that The Sloane Consulting Group review headstone height. Jan Strauch had questions about the procedure of proposing this and voting on it, and what the next step was. Mayor Osterfoss advised that after the motion an the floor had been acted on, the next steps could be discussed. She said basically improvements were being made to the proposed Master Plan which addressed the design, cost, and management recommendations. Jan stated he felt the presentation made was not a fair representation of what the site looked like. He said it was a heavily wooded area, and felt the cemetery would be a very visible, high impact use for a large part of the year. He felt it would be undesirable to neighbors. Secondly, he felt this was an inappr„~,=gate use of open space. He was not certain haw much recreational use the area had now, but he hoped at some point it would be used more for recxeation. Thirdly, he felt there was a great press for land in this community and he was uncertain a cemetery was even needed here. He stated he would not vote to approve this Mastex Plan. Tom Steinberg indicated he disagreed with Jan Strauch. Tom felt the cemetery would not be visible from the neighborhood or the highway or nearby roads. He noted all of this had been discussed in depth with the neighbors, and to his knowledge, most all of the neighbors were satisfied. He felt the one way to guarantee that this land would stay open space forever was to make it a cemetery. Further, he noted the need for this cemetery, as Minturn was out of space. He felt, overall, the presented design was beautiful and would be an asset to that community. He felt if the cemetery was Hat approved, it would be regretted forever. 2 Vail Town Council Evening iuxeeting Minutes 1217193 ,4 S a' ' Andy Knudtsen noted in the summary of the public process, there had been akick-off meeting on Octobex 27 and 28, 1993. He said initially the majority of t11e Matterhorn community was in opposition to a cemetery in the neighborhood. Ms. Durward and he had spent time with them individually, walking the site, and staff listened to what they wanted. He noted those people were not present at this meeting because their concerns had been met. He felt there had been a good public process to receive input as to what was wanted. Diana Donovan expressed opposition to the project. She agreed with Jan Strauch in that this was a bad use of space. She was against blocking up the whole 39 acres for a cemetery. She did not believe the majority of Vail residents or guests would go to a cemetery for a hike. She felt that no one was present tonight because they assumed since the ballot issue had not passed in the election, that the community was saying no to a cemetery in Vail. Mike Phillips was in favor of the cemetery, but also questioned why 39 acres were designated when only 2 acres were needed. Paul Johnston was in favor of the project. Sybill Navas felt the cemetery was important far the community, but she felt the whale 39 acres would be used, and felt the whole area would feel like a cemetery. She found it difficult to think that the rest of it would be used for anything else. She asked for clarification as to what the election results meant; were the election results saying that the community did not want a cemetery, or that they just did not want to pay for it. She did not understand why same people would vote for one part of the ballot issue and not the other. Ms. Durward felt the only way to know what the election . results meant was to ask people. Her suspicion was that the issue received practically no publicity and there were no informational campaigns. The fact that the Cemetery District had :~~~.~ xe-named the i;agie-Gore Cemetery District to reflect that it served the whale upper Valley had not even been used in the wording of the ballot question because that formal step had not been taken in time to be part of the ballot question, so the fact that the ballot question referred to the Minturn Cemetery District had probably mislead voters. Ms. Durward also responded to Sybill's question regarding the 39 acres, stating that much of the area was very steep and was above the open area to be used for the cemetery. Kristan Pritz advised that the Master Plan for parks and ~r~.~ space included no specific designation for that land not being used for the cemetery, but the concept was to keep that land open. She felt if the cemetery was going to be brought down to the lower area, closer to the houses there, that an amendment to the plan would be required, because that was not what the Master Plan showed at this time. Council wanted the boundaries clarified in the Master Plan. Mayor Osterfass asked that the intention that there would be no foreseeable use of the land on the lower eastern portion and south of the road be added to the Master Plan. Kristan Pritz advised that an additional paragraph could be added to indicate that the Master Plan did not allow burial sites in the lower portion. Andy Knudtsen indicated that the site plan shown on page 17 of the Master Plan did show a boundary drawn around the improvement which included in ground burial, crypts and niches, and the turn-around, and it was a very definite identification of the development area. Any expansion of this area would require a formal amendment to the Master Plan. Sybill Navas said she could not imagine anyone playing softball right next to a cemetery. Ms. Durward noted the site was too steep for any active recreational devei~t,~,~ent, even in the meadow. It was best for hiking, sledding, snowshoeing, passive individual types of activities. She felt the cemetery improvements were confined enough to one space that the majority of the site was still available for all of those uses. She said she would be surprised if people found it repugnant to hike there; there would be a series of trails leading up to a meditation space at the top. It was a matter of personal preference. Merv Lapin called the question. Tom Steinberg noted several people had mentioned they did not want a cemetery in Vail, implying it was ghoulish. He asked if people were aware there was already a private cemetery in this Valley. Mayor Osterfoss advised, that technically, at this point, a vote was needed on whether to call the question. Tom Moorhead advised that was correct. Merv Lapin moved to call the question with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Osterfass indicated she would have allowed further discussion, but the question had been called. Merv Lapin amended his original motion to include additional warding in the Master Plan to clarify boundaries far the cemetery. Paul Johnston accepted the amended . motion he had seconded. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-1, Jan Strauch opposed. Diana Donovan noted the cemetery was part of Donovan Park which had been named to honor her husband. She asked that Donovan Park be retained in the name of the cemetery. Kristan Pritz asked Council if they were interested in proceeding with the staff meeting with the `3 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12/7193 ~~ .4 ~' ` Cemetery Task Force to come up with financial alternatives with respect to building the cemetery. Tom Steinberg encouraged them to proceed, and if it was necessary to go back to anothex vote, then the facts of the issue could be better presented to the voters. Jim Shearer agreed. Merv Lapin asked if it would be worthwhile to wait until there was another vote before any further work was done. Kristan said they would not want to get into the position of promoting the project. She felt discussion should be pursued with the District and the Task Force as to what they might want to do and bxing that information back to Council. Merv inquired what the attitude of the private sector toward taking the cemetery over might be. Since it had been agreed that the Master Plan was valid, it seemed that exploring all financial opportunities to get it built was the next step. Mayor Osterfoss stated there seemed to be a high level of consensus, with the exception of Jan Strauch, that staff should move ahead and come back in the short run with some suggestions as to how to proceed. She also felt Diana Donovan's suggested concerning retaining Donavan Park as part of the cemetery name was appr„r~~ate. Item No. 4 was Ordinance Na. 4, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.24.065 and 18.26.{745, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for exterior alterations or modifications of buildings in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone Districts; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello stated this ordinance proposed a series of clarifications for the exterior alteration Section of Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II. She indicated there were a number of changes proposed which made the Code more explanatory. She highlighted some of the proposed changes which included changing the application dates for the bi-annual subrnittal, as well as including exterior dining decks and roof line modifications in the exterior alteration process. The remaining changes served to further detail the application materials and the review criteria. Kristan Pritz stated the staff would also like to establish the requirement of payment of one fee only fox dining decks. Mayor Osterfoss suggested information about the one fee be spelled out in the ordinance, and Toxn Moorhead recommended including that in the ordinance. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, an first reading, with the addition of language to specify that only one fee would be charged for exteriox dining decks. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin asked if staff had discussed these changes with any of the architects or people who would be affected by them. ICristan Pritz said there had been general discussions concerning this, but no specific meetings had been held. Merv suggested same of the local architects be contacked for their input on these changes before second reading. ICristan indicated this would be done. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning 7.710 acres from Agricultural and Open Space, Section 18.32 to Low Density Multi-Family, Section 18.161ocated between Tract C, Black 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B. The applicant was Town of Vail/Nail Housing Authority. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy ICnudtsen noted, at this time, the Housing Authority was trying to work out the details of this proposal and requested this item be tabled until February 1, 1994. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1993, first reading, until February 1, 1994, with a second from Jim Shearer. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if Council consensus could be reached as to whether this item should be withdrawn altogether, but Andy indicated he was not sure the Housing Authority wanted to withdraw this item and he did not feel that decision could be made without them at this time. A vote was taken and the motion passed unax-ixnously, 7-0. Item No 6. was Ordinance Na. 33, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.170 and Section 18.5$.020(C? -fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello indicated the proposed change addressed height definition and would not modify the building height aIlawance, but would serve to clarify this section of the Cade. The change to the wall height section of the Cade was proposed in order to correct the height limit fox walls in the front setback. The memo to the PEC dated May 24, 1993, and minutes which detail the discussions regarding the proposed change to the Code were available for review. This proposal was approved by the PEC by a vote of fro. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Merv Lapin. After discussion clarifying the intent of Section 18.04.170 of the ordinance by the addition of 'bertical" to clarify the definition of height, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan far the Town of Vail, Colorado; and . authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. L~ Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1?J7l33 Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential zone districts. The applicant was Lea Payne. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. As the applicant was not yet present, Council moved on to discussion of agenda item Na. 9. Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 16, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an Intergov~~~~~~ental Agreement between the Tawn of Vail and the Eagle, State of Colorado, far Animal Control Services. Tam Moorhead noted TOV has had a defacto agreement with Eagle County Animal Central, and this resolution proposed formalizing the agreement to have the County Animal Control officers administer and en#orce animal control services for and within the Town of Vail. He outlined the details of the proposed Agreement, including the various costs that would be incurred by TOV. He advised that Judge Buck Allen, Torn Sheeley of the Police Department, the Finance Department, and he had reviewed the final Agreement. Bob Slagle, Eagle County Animal Central Officer, further discussed the Agreement details including territory covered, scope of services, level of service, official staters, equipment, personnel, liability, termination, general provisions, and miscellaneous provisions. Mr. Slagle explained the total annual cost to TOV of $25,723.82 in depth. Per the Agreement, TOV would agree to pay the County the sum of $2,143.65 per month. After discussion about service provisions and service reporting methods, Paul Johnston moved to approve Resolution No.19, Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and the Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Control Services, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. At this time, Craig Snowdon, representing Leo Payne, arrived, and Council commenced discussion • of agenda item No. 8. Kristan Pritz recalled that Council had had some discussion regarding this item earlier this date during Work Session, during which there had been a site visit to the residence at 381 Beaver Darn Circle. She reviewed details from the Community Development Department (CDD) memo dated November 22, 1993, to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) detailing the applicant's proposal to rezone Lot 1, Black 4, Vail Village 3rd filing from the Primary/Secondary zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone district. The proposal also requested a minor subdivision #or the purpose of subdividing the existing lot into two lots. She said the applicant proposed to take the northern portion of the Lot and maintain it as a Primary/Secondary Lot, to be called Lot 1-A, consisting of two units. On the southern portion of the Lot which would be created, to be called Lot 1-B, one single family residence was proposed. That would result in a net increase of one dwelling unit on the property. Kristan noted a 10-foot wide road maintenance easement along the front property line of the two new lots, a 30-#oot wide drainage easement through Lot 1-B in the location of an existing drainage way, and an approximate 11,840 square foot open space and wetlands easement on the eastern half of Lot 1-A were proposed. Kristan also reviewed previous similar subdivision requests, noting except for one of those, they were different from the request under discussion in the sense that most of them did not have a unit increase. She briefly reviewed the zoning analysis information supplied in the memo. She discussed the evaluation of the zone change request including suitability of the proposed zoning. She said staff believed the proposed zoning was compatible with low density residential development which was how the Land Use Plan designated this area. She said staff also believed single family zoning was very compatible in that neighborhood and that single family units were a permitted use in Primary/Secondary zoning, as well as Single Family zoning. According to the memo, staff felt a convenient, workable relationship with the Land Use Plan was presented with the proposal and no majox problems were foreseen. It was noted the two units currently allowed on the property could propose to be separated. There was a possibility that the applicant could obtain approval from the Design Review Board (DRB) to actually separate the primary unit from the secondary unit, but that physical hardship on the site had to be proven. The memo stated that the CDD felt that since the proposed rezoning met the development standards for the proposed zone districts to be created on the lot, as well as complying with the intent and purpose section of the subdivision regulations, the proposal did provide far the growth of an orderly viable community and created no negative impacts or undesirable precedents for the community. Staff felt the rezoning complied with the Land Use Plan and policy statements from the Land Use Plan concerning controlling growth, environmental issues, and residential growth were noted. Kristan discussed three key areas reviewed as part of the minor subdivision request including Lot Axea, Frontage, and Site Dimensions. She said the second set of criteria considered were outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations, all of which staff felt had been met by the project. She focused on one of those regulations concerning many of the environmental issues related to the project. She advised staff had asked the applicant to provide an environmental impact report. Dames and Moore had been hired to prepare that study, and it was found there were two wetland areas on the property. The applicant had proposed to protect the wetland areas by providing the 30-foot wide drainage easement and a wetlands and open space easement which would also protect the existing stand of trees located on the eastern half of Lot 1-A. Kristan advised staff recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district and the Single Family Residential zone district with six conditions of approval including that the resubdivision plat not be signed by the Town and recorded until such time that the existing residence on the lot was demolished; that all aspects of development 5 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12!7193 on each lot, including at-grade patios and terraces and building roof overhangs, be contained within platted building envelopes; that the wetland and open space easement would be expanded to abut the eastern building envelope line of Lot 1-A and no construction or site disturbance would occur in that easement area; that the cluster of large evergreen trees located in front of the existing residence would not be removed ar damaged as a result of construction on either of the newly created lots; that the applicants surveyor would provide staff with a topographic survey verifying that each of the proposed lots met the minimum buildable lot area requirements in the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family Residential zone districts; and that approval of the minor subdivision would be conditioned upon Council approval of the zone change request. Kristan noted that condition #5, regarding verifying the minimum buildable lot area requirements had already been satisfied. She advised the PEC made minor changes to those conditions of approval which were summarized on CDD's memo to Council dated December 7,1993. The PEC changed the condition related to the wetlands to indicate that the open space and wetlands easement .could stay as shown on the plat, however, no site disturbance or tree removal could occur in the area between the Lot 1-A eastern building envelope line and the western line of the open space and wetlands area. It was noted the proposal was approved by the PEC on November 22, 1993, by a 43 vote, Diana Donovan, Dalton Williams, and Kathy Langenwalter opposed. Kristan stated she felt the PEC had concerns about impact on the character of the neighborhood and that the PEC felt a better solution was to allow one single family unit an Lot 1-A with a caretaker restricted permanently for employee housing and one single family unit on Lot 1-B and that the PEC preferred not to see any increase in GRFA. Minutes of the November 22, 1993, PEC meeting were supplied. Individual letters of opposition had been received from Dick Pownall and Mary Pownall, Lorraine N. and Harley G. Higbie, fir., and Charlie and Patti Langmaid. A form letter from a number of other persons reading, "Ladies and Gentlemen, You have before you today a request for a subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle. The purpose of this letter is to inl.,..~~ the Planning Commission that any decision that will allow additional dwelling units in the Town of Vail or that will increase the square footage allowed under the existing ordinances is unacceptable. The following signatures on this letter demonstrate that a number of people who are either full or part time residents of the Town of Vail are not in favor of this proposal and ask that you respond to the wishes of the people and reject this request," had also been received. Craig Snowdon of Snowdon and Hopkins Architects represented the applicant. A site drawing was displayed. Mr. Snowdon advised the drawing was a color rendition of the Lot in question, colored in such a way so the various proposed zones of the property were evident. Mr. Snowdon noted Mr. Payne and his family had awned this property since 1972, adding that 1972 was a time prior to most zoning ordinances adopted by the Town. He questioned whether the present zoning was appropriate zoning when originally established. He noted that Primary/Secondary zoning, which this Lot was, carne into existence in 1977. The GRFA placed on this property was created in 1980, and had been amended several times since then. Mr. Snowdon felt all of these issues had affected this property, which he emphasized had stayed in single ownership since 1972. The owners had adjusted to limitations and restrictions placed on them throughout their ownership of the property. As mentioned, the owner was planning on maintaining the northern portion, Lot 1-A, for himself and his family. Mr. Snowdon said the proposal had been reviewed three times by staff and the PEC and had gone through dramatic changes since the first presentation made in August, 1993. He said the PEC did approve this and staff recommended approval. He discussed the proposal at length. He explained by creating a Single Family zone for the proposed newly created Lot, that allowed the applicant to create a smaller lot which then allowed the applicant to move property lines and building envelopes and get those envelopes out of the existing tree growth. He noted the applicant had the capability within the 37,770 square feet of lot area to create two Primary/Secondary lots. He stated that the original lot of 37,770 would by this proposal be designating 15,550 square feet to other uses besides Mr. Payne's via various easements and open areas. He felt the established envelopes proposed on the property insured that a majority of the existing tree growth would stay in place. He said the GRFA was being limited strictly to the 425 square font credit for the new unit. He said the owner was complying with all Single Family Residential and Primary/Secondary zone regulations. The majority of construction would stay within what were already the disturbed areas of the property. He felt another minor benefit was that with the elimination of the existing residence, the TOV would lose two wood burning fireplaces and gain gas fireplaces. Discussion followed concerning other lots that could be subdivided. Mr. Snowdon felt Council, with this particular proposal, needed to look at its merits, not the possibility of another applicant collecting large lots and subdividing. He did not feel that was the situation with this proposal. Public input included comments in opposition to fine proposed project from Don Byers, who felt Council should recognize there were constraints on that site and they should allow Mr. Payne to build a Primary/Secondary improvement with existing zoning allowing separation of the two . proposed buildings to protect the trees and take care of the drainage problem. Kristan Pritz clarified if the existing zoning was kept, the applicant would z~ot get the additional unit they wanted. Merv Lapin asked if it was possible under what was being proposed if the applicant could come back and ask for another caretaker unit on Lot 1-B and call it employee housing. Kristan advised that that was a possibility, but that would require a conditional use approval from the PEC. It was established this proposal could create the potential for there being five units on the two lots. Ej Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1717!93 r Rohn Robbins, attorney with Dunn, Abplanalp and Christensen representing Mr. and Mrs. David Ransberg, owners of Lot 5. Mr. Robbins did not agree that this proposal would not create negative impacts or undesirable precedent for the wmmunity. He noted he had attended the PEC's hearings on this proposal and noted one of the developers in the community stood up and indicated if Mr. Payne was allowed this proposal, he would make a similar proposal, and the carne developer felt every other developer in the Valley would. Mr. Robbins noted in the history of the Valley a similar proposal had been granted with incxeased density. The same effort had been attempted on Lot 4 in 1988, and had been voted down. Having attended the PEC meetings, he said of the four positive PEC votes, he believed he had counted two voters who seemed uncomfortable with the proposal, but seemed constrained by the ordinance to do so. Mr. Robbins said the language of Section 17.04.010 of the Vail Municipal Code was written in a discretionary manner. He said neither the PEC nor Council. were obliged to approve this sort of proposal. He felt the key issue was language cited in 17.040.010 dealing with Subdivision Regulations requiring subdivisions to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. He did not see what was gained by this proposal other than one landowner would profit. The other benefits being proposed by the proponents of the proposal included the fact that certain trees would be saved. He found it di#ficult to believe with the ethic of this Valley that those trees would be sacrificed anyway. That would have to be approved by the DRB, and he doubted they would approve that. Mr. Robbins believed there was a prescriptive easement currently running through that property. If TOV had been encroaching on that land for 22 years, a prescriptive easement, in his estimation, existed. He raised another theoretical paint that this proposal was more restrictive than what was currently permissible. He felt that was true theoretically, but realistically he felt the DRB would not approve the sort of uses that might otherwise be approved. He noted in order to encroach on the wetlands, the applicant would have to apply for a 404 permit with Army Carps of Engineers, and he doubted if that would be approved. In sum, he felt there was no public benefit of this proposal as required under the language of the Municipal Code regarding the zoning ordinances. Before Council comments, there was additional public input in opposition to this proposal from Tim Tyler, Tim Driscoll, and Nancy Byers. Mr. Driscoll felt fine PEC's 4-3 vote to a~,~.~ove this proposal showed their ambivalence on this issue. He felt when the founders of Vail subdivided and platted the lot, it was their intent to keep it as one lot, not two. Mrs. Byers stated that she believed that Council was responsible to uphold the original covenants, ordinances, and zoning restrictions on which the Town was founded. She said they all bought and built on their properties assuming the integrity of their neighborhood would be maintained, and once the properties started being divided and extra density added, the neighborhood character changed. Merv Lapin asked if there were covenants on the property that would prohibit the proposed project. Don Byers said the covenants were dated March, 1963, and were signed in June,1963, by Pete Seibert and specifically said two apartments per lot. Merv noted TOV was not party to the covenants so that if action was taken, it would be between the private parties, it would not involve TOV. Paul Johnston noted neither the ordinance title nor Section 2 of it referred to the requested minor subdivision. ICristan Pritz advised the minor subdivision was already approved by the PEC, conditioned upon the rezoning being approved by Council. Tom Moorhead noted he was made aware that an appeal of the PEC decision in favor of rezoning and resubdividing Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd filing had been filed by the Byers. He referred to Minor Subdivision procedure which provided for an appeal of the PEC's decision by the Town Council. He said that Section 17.16.190 dealt with right to appeal, and he could find na provision within the minor or major subdivision sections that provided for appeals by individuals, only provisions for appeal by Council. The other provisions that dealt with appeal by adjacent property owners dealt with the SDD process and conditional uses. He stated he would continue to research and would be willing to review anything the Byers had that would indicate there was a right to appeal this. There was further discussion and clarification about the appeal process. Tom Moorhead said the action of the PEC as it pertained to the minor subdivision was final, but it was conditioned upon approval of the ordinance. Tom Steinberg said, since the neighbors were not able to call up this issue, he wanted the record to reflect that he wanted Council to call this up should the ordinance be passed. Mayor Osterfoss suggested waiting to deal with appeal issues until the disposition of the rezoning request was determined. Council comment commenced. Merv Lapin felt that the opinion that only 28 lots would be affected was incorrect. He felt the Beaver Dam Road neighborhood would be severely impacted by this proposal. He also felt moving and adding lot lines did change a neighborhood and was not in the spirit of zoning, because people built houses depending an views and how neighbors sited their lots. Already existing houses could be negatively affected. Merv asked Tom Moorhead if precedence was or was not an issue in this type of situation. Tom Moorhead felt any actions or decisions that were made in the past provided direction. In most instances, prior decisions muld be referred to for guidance. 1~ar historical purposes, he felt prior decisions should be looked at as far as what the community direction had been and whether or not that fit within the guidelines and overall plan presently under consideration. Merv did not feel that this proposal met criteria under the Land Use Plan. '~ Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 1?J7l93 ~ Jim Shearer felt Mr. Payne was responsible in his approach, but Jim was not in favor of the proposal for many of the same reasons Merv cited. Precedence or not, he felt over a period of time the entire hillside would be divided and resubdivided again and again due to individual financial gain goals. He felt the rezoning would be a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. He felt GRFA problems were part of the negative aspects of this proposal. Further, he said he was inclined to place weight on the neighborhood`s opinion, and there was a great deal of opposition. He was not in favor of increasing the density in this neighborhood. He was opposed to the proposal. Jan Strauch agreed that the intent a# the original development was not to force a lot of houses into every possible 15,000 square feet of land, and the only benefit he saw to this proposal was to the owner. He saw no positive impact to the community or the neighborhood and it was strategically against what he felt should be pxovided in incentives for people to downsize what people were building on their properties. He noted there were many restrictions on the Lot, i.e., trees, wetlands, drainage. He was opposed to the proposal. Paul Johnston supported the minority position of the PEC. He felt the Lot should be left the way it was now. Sybill Navas was opposed to the rezoning and saw no benefits to the community. She also observed the neighborhood opposition to the proposal. She advised she had spoken with some of the PEC members who had voted in favor of the rezoning, but felt they were qualifying theix votes because they felt compelled by the ordinances. She did not feel they were committed in theory to the proposal. She indicated she would vote na. Tom Steinberg disagreed that the rezoning would be consistent with the surrounding and immediate neighborhoods. He also disagreed that it would be a benefit to the community. He felt the requixed 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers would never be allowed to go through because this Council would object strenuously to that. He felt the benefits TOV was being told it was to receive from this proposal were not things the applicant had control to give away. He felt the original planners were intelligent developers who looked at that Lot and felt it needed to be a big lot. He felt they were right and asked why TOV should look back 30 years and change that for one person's private gain. He was opposed. Mayor Osterfass felt although rezoning was a theoretical possibility based on the size of this lot, this specific proposal did not address Land Use Plan criteria B referencing convenient workable relationships with land uses consistent with municipal objects nor did it address item D, compliance with Vail Land Use Plan. She felt it failed to meet these criteria based on adding additional units and additional GRFA. She agreed with Paul's comments and with the minority position of the PEC. She also did not feel there was benefit to the community. Merv Lapin moved to deny Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, on first reading because it did not meet Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Land Use Plan Goals, the Subdivision Regulations Purpose under 17.04.010, and under zoning criteria did not meet items B and D. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. . Merv Lapin further moved that staff have the PEC look into ways to avoid having these types of proposals presented again. There was no second to this motion. He felt the m;rt;mum building lot sizes should be increased on Single Family lots from 12,500 to 17,500 and 15,000 to 20,000 on a Primary/Secondary. He said those numbers were meant only as guides, but he wanted the PEC to look at this or other methods. Mayor Osterfoss asked Merv if he anticipated this being done as part of the review of the Land Use Plan planned for the next year. He said he would like to see this back to Council by February 15, 1993. lcristan Pritz felt staff needed to discuss possibilities with Tom Moorhead, and then work with the PEC. Merv agreed to that, but felt there was a necessity for speed with this issue. Kristan wanted the PEC and Council to have a joint Work Session to discuss possible solutions. She advised staff would have notice published to advise the public, but initially a Work Session in February would be preferred. Tam Steinberg felt an alternative to that was ko put a moratorium on any lot subdivision until such time as the Land Use Plan had been thoroughly reviewed and passed. Merv stated he was reluctant to use a moratorium process. Mayor Oster#oss felt that the idea described by Kristan was a helpful starting point to define what the concerns were and discuss different approaches. Tom Moorhead recommended tabling of the Byers' appeal as a technicality. Merv Lapin moved to table the Byer's appeal of the subdivision until December 21,1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was a sign variance request from Pineridge Townhouses. Jim Curnutte discussed the CDD memo to Council dated December 7, 1993, summarizing DRB action an this request. He said the DRB recommended approval of the request by a vote of 5-0, with two conditions of approval. Jim explained that the requested signs were not permitted subdivision entrance signs due to the zoning on the property. However, staff felt this was a hardship to the applicant. After brief 8 Vail Pawn Counc~ lvening Meeting Minatea 12!`7!98 f discussion, Merv Lapin moved to appxove the Pineridge Townhouses sign variance on staff recommendation as detailed in the CDD memo to Council dated December 7, 1993, memo, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, f~ Mar~A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: LJ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto ~~ • • G:IMINSDE.G7.93 9 Vail Town Coancil Evening Meeting Minutes 12!7!93 . G ~~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION /„~ ~~VV November 22, 1993 - ~ ~ U MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen .Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Allison Lassos Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Jim Cumut#e Mike Malllca 1. ~ A request far a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gottheif's/196 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Black 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing, Applicant: Paul Gotthelf Planner: Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request far a minor exterior alteration to allow facade changes at Gotthelf's per the staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding this motion. The PEC felt that the door design as proposed by the .applicant was acceptable. A 7-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a minor subdivision and a rezoning from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district, to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts, far a parcel located at 381 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Leo Payne Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this was the third time that this item had been before the' PEC. The first two times were worksessians. During those worksessions, the public, staff and PEC made several recommendations to improve the applications. Jim stated that staff was recommending approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning requests with the six conditions autiined on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff memorandum. It was decided that since Craig Snowdon, the architect for this project, had not yet arrived, that the PEC. would move on to Items #3 and #4. Upon review and action on items 3 and 4, the PEC returned to reviewing the Payne applications. Planning snd Environmental Commission Minutes November 22,1993 Craig Snowdon stated that he was concerned whether the term "open space and wetlahds easement" was correct because the plat tailed this an "open space and wetlands area". He added that he would like to see conditions 2 and 3 of the staff memo concerning roof overhangs and enlargement of the open space and wetlands area be deleted from the list of conditions an Pages 'i i and 12 of the staff memo. He said that he did net have any problems with the other four conditions outlined in the staf# memo. Jim Curnutte stated that since.the area to which Craig was referring.was not being dedicated to the public it did not necessarily have to be termed an easement and that calling it an open space and wetlands area was okay. Nancy Byers, an adjacent property owner {352 Beaver dam Circle), stated that she wondered if it was really necessary to subdivide this lot for the additional net increase of 425 square feet. She added that she was concerned that approval of this resubdivision request could be precedent setting and that it was her understanding that Twenty-eight. other lots within the Town could in the future come before the PEC with similar requests. She said that neighboring property owners bought their properties with. the assumption that the surrounding lots would remain as originaify platted and zoned. She said that she would tike to keep the uniqueness of theft neighborhood fn tact. Ron Robbins, attorney #or David Ransberg, stated that he was called at the gym and asked to attend this meeting so he has not yet had an opportunity to review the request In detail. He said that Mr. Ransberg is against this proposal as it would increase the density in this neighborhood. He added that this application may well be considered spot zoning. Mary Pownall, an adjacent property owner, she said that she opposes this project because ft increases the density in the neighborhood. She acknowledged that her property was also involved in a resubdivision and rezoning in the neighborhood but pointed out that no increased density resulted. She said that she felt that this resubdivision and rezoning would be a bad precedent. Craig Snowdon responded that there may be twenty-eight lots that could possibly resubdivide but that,not ail of these lots could~benefit the Town fn the way that this proposal could with regard to wetlands and open space dedications, drainage easements, the road maintenance easement and GRFA and density restrictions. He said that building envelopes are also being proposed because the applicant wanted to maintain as much of the natural vegetation on the site as possible. Mary Pownall asked i# an applicant just had to list the Town benefits of a proposal to get approval. ~ ~ ' Planning and Environmental Comrnisslan Minutes November 22, 1993 ~ ~ Jim Curnutte stated that approval of this request was not based on how many benefits the proposal would give to the Town. He explained that the staff recommendation of approval of the project was based on whether specific resubdivisian and rezoning criteria were met. Jeannie Bailey, inquired why a ten foot road maintenance easement had not been agreed upon at an earlier date. She wondered whe#her this was a deal that the . applicant and the Town were making in order far this request to be approved. Kristan Pritz emphasized that the Town was not approving this request so .that they . could get a drainage easement and a road maintenance easement from the applicant. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant has the right to request a resutxlivisian on this site due to the size of the property. Jeannie stated that she agreed with Nancy Byers comments concerning this proposal. Ran Robbins stated thattt is possible to make a case that since the Town had maintained the road for many years in the past that the road maintenance easement may not be needed. Craig Snowdon stated that this was a somewhat unique situation and that the Town was merely taking this opportunity to formalize the right to continue to come onto the pro}~erty to maintain the road. Nancy Byers stated that she was concerned with the applicant's statement that three houses would save more trees than two units. She stated that the two units wouid stilt need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Greg Amsden asked a question concerning the Zoning Analysis an Page 5 of the staff memo. He wanted to know how to interpret the figures for GRFA. Jim Cumutte stated that the applicant had voluntarily restricted the GRFA and that he was well below what was the allowable GRFA for aPrimary/Secondary and Single Family approach. Diana ©onovan inquired whether the units would be able to apply fora 250 at some future date. Jim Curnutte stated that there was nothing to prevent the applicant from doing this. Dalton Williams stated that he was not comfortable approving this request and that he agreed with the comments that the' neighbors had made. He said that he felt that this could set a negative precedent far the Town. However, he said that he would have a hard time denying this request because the proposal does meet the applicable criteria. He said that he felt that this proposal did offer the Town some benefit and wondered . whether there was a way to possibly get more Town benefit out of-this request. He Planning and Environmental Comrtsission N[fnutes November 22, 1993 3 suggested that the applicant agree to allow public access across the property in order to reach the oper< space behind the lot. Allison Lassos stated that she agreed that this could set a negative precedent for the Town but that she felt that the proposed request seemed to be a good solution. She stated that Mr. Payne had made a fat of concessions to address PEC concerns. She stated that she did not have a problem with the open space and wetlands area line as currently proposed, nor allowing building overhangs to go outside of building envelopes. . Dalton Williams agreed with Allison's comment concerning staff conditions ~ and 3. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the applicant had met the criteria set forth in the staff memo. He said that he did not have a problem with the proposed open space and wetlands area line, or the roof overhang allowance which the applicant was proposing. Greg Amsden stated that he fait that the applicant had complied with alt of the criteria. He,said that if the neighbors were unhappy with this type of request that the rules would need to be changed, but that was not the request before the PEC today. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of leaving the roof overhang allowance and open space line as proposed by the applicant as a part of the proposal. Diana Donavan stated that the roof overhang allowance does not bother her. She fait that the plat should include a note that explained what type of uses and structures i would be allowed in the open space and wetlands area as well as the area between the building envelope and the open space area. No trees should be removed for improvements in the easement area. She said that she did not feel that this area could accommadate:the additional density or traffic. She said that she was against the resubdivisian of this property but that she did feel that two single family units could be placed an this lot. Craig Snowdon stated that when .you increase density that you do get additional square footage and garage credits. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with the ether PEC members comments. He said that this proposal did seem to meet the.. requirements for resubdivfding the lat. He said that he fait caught between a rack and a hard place since he did not want to see an increase fn density in this nefghbarhoad. He said that Diana's suggestion concerning two single family units could possibly ice the best solution. Ron Robbins stated that it sounded like the Board members were struggling with approving this request and told them that they did have the ability to deny the request if they did not approve of the resubdivision. Plsnnfng and Env~ronmen#sl Cammissian Minutes November 22, 1993 4 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she fait that this request did meet the criteria for a minor subdivision and directed the PEC to refer to the PEG meeting minutes of . October 11, 1993. She felt that the proposed secondary unit should be a restricted employee housing unit. Dalton Williams stated that a petition signed by fifty or so citizens submitted to the PEC illustrated that there was concern regarding this proposal. He said that he agreed with Diana's and Kathy's comments. He said #hat he would like to see the secondary unit restricted as Kathy had suggested. He said that he would like to see public access allowed across the lat. He said that he felt that the Town rules might need to be changed because of the public's concem. ' Ms. Langmaid, concerned citizen, presented the PEC with more petitions, signed by people all aver town, objecting to the application and stated her own abjection. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed vyith Kathy's comment that the secondary unit should be a restricted caretaker's unit. Jeff Bowen, Greg Amsden and r3ill Anderson had no additional comments. Diana Donovan stated that she would support this project ifi the third unit was a restricted caretaker's unit. Jay Peterson stated that he was involved with developing a duplex in this area and that if thls sort ofi proposal was allowed that he would like to have the same opportunity to do this type of development. Jay was concerned about compatibility. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this request for a rezoning and resubdivision of Lot i, Black 4, Vail Village 3rd.lriling per the staff memo with a modification to staff recommendations 2' and 3 t~ allow building overhangs to go beyond platted building envelope lines and to allow the western sine of the open space and wetlands area to remain as shown on the plat. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Diana Donovan stated that she would vote against this request because the secondary unit on~the primary secondary lot was not proposed to be restricted. Dalian Williams stated that he agreed with Diana's position. Diana Donovan suggested that the motion be amended to include the wording that np construction site disturbance ar tree removal may occur in the area between the Lot 1- Abuilding envelope and the western line of the open space area. Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly and Greg Amsden amended his second to the motion. A 4_g vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwaiter, Diana Donovan and Dalton Williams voting against the motion. Planning and Enviranrttentat Commission Minutes November 22, 1993 ~ 5 ~-drian ~. & Marlene f3. Kearney 1460 Ridge sane #B V~ail~, CO $t 657 i November 22, 1 g93 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 6i 657 Ladies and 4entlemen: You have before you today a request far a subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing also known as 38t Heaver ~m Cirole. The purpose of this letter is to inform the Planning Commission that an~~decisian that will allow additional dwelling units in the Town of Vail, or that will increa$e the square footage allowed under the existing ordinances is totally un- ace a pte.ble. We do not believe that altering ordinances and ar statutes for the sake of continued development and inoreaeing density in the Town of Yail are in the best interests of our community) M Sincerely, ~~:,~ NOVEMEER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657. ' LADIES AND GENTT.F.MF.N, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT i, BLOCK 4, VAII: VILLAGE Txnzn FILING ALaQ ~.tiowN :;S 381 BEAVER llh~4 C:~.o~. THE PURPOSE OF THIS Lei a~R I$ TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW, ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS L~ ~-i r,ic DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ~i i xIER FULL OR PART TIlIZE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS. PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REIECT THIS REQUEST. ' SINCERELY, PRIN"1~D N VAIL ADDRF.$S ~~~~4~3'tCLc Csh i . ~S~~l ~~ ~~~~ ~. ~IGNATf JRF ,,~ ~Yd /Y) ~nr~ ~~~ n r h ~/~3D ,~'rr7{s ~- F: ~,.4.c.~~i~i~ ~~~~ ~-~" C~~~s ~~~ G~r~ r ~ ~ / , y6r~r- ~~~C/~ ~x• ~, 3~or ~ ~~ ~~,~zc~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ l-~~.~,~.1~ Ilai ~ n ~~ r~ ~~~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~~s,~~~ 1Z-~1-199 11~34AM FROhI - " r NOVEMBER 22,1993 PI..AN`TiNC ANA E[VVIRONMEIVTAT. COMNDSSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOU"fii FRON'T'AGE RbAD VA1L, OCII.OEtAt7C181657 LADIES ANI) GEN7~.F,.lvl~;N, Y(')[I NAVE I3~.FOttE YOU i~r~.,AY A REQITC.ST FQR A 5UBDIViSiON OF LOT 1, BLpCIC 4, Vhtl. VTT,LA,UE 'i'lilliU F1L.iNQ N.,SO KNOWN AS 38Y BE.AV~it DAM C1R~'LE, TT~IE PURPOSE QF THIS I~'I'IER IS T13 INFORM THE PLItNNINQ CdMMISSION THAT ANY DECISIQI~ THA'I' WILL AL.L{?W ADI)1'iZON'AI, I)WE~LIN4 ZTN~'TS IN THE TOWriY OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREA5E 'fHL SQ~JARE FOOTADE ALLOWED Efi17]Eit ~ F„~ISTINQ ORDTNA3~CES IS t„1NACCEI''I'AHLE. THE FOI.LOWXIVf~r S(GNATC~RES ON THiS Lr,i i~It REMONSTRATE THAT A N'tJMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ETTHER F[JLL. OR FART TIME RESIL7ENTS OF~ Tii~ 7'~1WN OF VAIL ARE NOT Iri7 FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RE.5PON1~'I'0 THE WISHES [1F TT~iE PIrE?PLF ANU RE.,TECT THIS ~ ~fiT- fl , b ~- I ~~~~~~ $, 17~.i VA.FC. At)T],~SS ~'?4- ~AJ~.. ~A~~ J~A SINCE(~ELY, CtOhIfA'i'i1j~,~ 11 ..~ ~: NOVEMBER 22,1993 PZANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAII. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL; COLORADO $1657 LADIES AND GENTLEMI~i, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK a, VAII. VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS Lr.a ~nR.IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WIT.L ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWEGL~IG UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNAC~r ~ ABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS Lei ~r,R DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ~t ~ tiER FCiLL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND .ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND RE]F.CT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, J ~ TTY ; VQII, ADD~.4C $ICTN ~~~~ ~ ~3u -v~ ~.~w ~.~~~N i~d~ C.vasti~~e ~~~ ,. Spy ~~ ~~« ~~C zaz~ ~r _ ~ ~. 1~ ~?c ~-1lt ~~~1 ATURE t~ v «~~~ ~ v ~- tt _4Y' ~rir~N~fi. ~r,c~e~_ . 7plJN OF VFIIL COM-~~V TD ~ 3[13-479-2452 ~ f~laV 22' 93 1A ~ 44 Ala .005 P .01 NdVLMT3S~lt 22~ 193 PLAI+~NR~1[~M1I~ GhtVIItONM~Fl~17'AL t`dNt1~R~SSI(lN TdWN f)I~ VAIL 7S S{~UI''H FRQN'1'AC3E ~,OAD V11IL, CQI.f3RAU() S1csS7 LADIES AND (:#fiN'I7.F.ML1N, YOU HAVE BGFUl2L Y()I.I T4UhY A REQUEST F~dR A S[RIUIVISION OF l ,O'i' 1 ~ J3),OCIC 4, VhII VILLA~i1! TJIIItT,) FILy.NQ ALSO KNC?WN A5 3A I I#F.AV]iFE YfAl+ui C,iRCL}~, - 'I'Nl~ PURI'USE C~I~'rHIS LL~tTFR IS '1'(,~ INFdRM'I`I-IL I'I.ANNINCI t'C}11'IMISSION THAT ANY D~:ISIt1N 'I'i#A't' Wll.L AT.I~t]W hDF.)I'TION~II. UWFI.LINC# UNITS IN TFIE'!ti)WN QP 'VhTL OIt "!'HAT'l'VII.T. INC~.ASE '1'HF SQi3AI2F. I~4[3'1'ACiE ALLO'VVI;D ~NDEIt `I'I3B EXIS'!`Il~I(i ORfl1NANC1sS I5 [JNhC:C`.£PTA~I.L. THE rOLLC)Wll~i(~ fiIC,}N,4TIJRk,4 pN'I'!#I$ I.E'i"L~Ii T}EMpNSTRA'i'13THAT A Z'1LIMBLI2 QF PI::f71=LE WI#U ARM irITI~Ft >"iJLL OIt PART 'T'IME I~ESIU}?NT5 C?I+ THIs TUWN.OI~ VI1II. ARL NOT IN PhVOR OJT THIS I~IiOP'OSAI~ AND A$IC THAT YUU RESI~ONI~ 'IiC) `l'HE W1SI31~.5 Ui~'I`1iI'~ PP.{?Pl.li ANp RH~JE(:T TIiIS SINGFI2ELY~ - ~,y ~ Pl{~,'l~.t7 N~~ VAR~AI~I7Ii~~`~ SYfT ~,.~~ ...~•~`" • NOVEMBER 22,1993 ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIEN'I'ALOOMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIIr, COLORADO 81557 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FORA SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VII:LAGE THIRD FII.II~JG ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS L~~ i~R IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION TIFIA'I` WILL ALLOW ADDTTiONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WII.L INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS L~ i i ~R DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ETTHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINC Y, / PR~r.~~ NAMF. VA1L ADi)~„ J~ . ~' TiJRE~/ I~~UG~ YI ~YI~VV~ 332 ~.. gad er ~~w'~~r+ / ~~~ J r ~~ l~fhe2 L - ~~ ~~z ~ ~~ .~ `~ NP u ~ C ~~~ VN ..~ ~ l ~. ~ ~ `7~ ~.c.~c..t~~ . .~.C~1-~ ~_ . '~- /l7a „ lei /c~i~,rl /~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Y ~~~(.i[__-3~'1 `,fib ~~ r~~.~~i~~,.r-~ ~ ~„ ~ ~ ~ ~ . '` I t'1~ a_r--~ (rum ~Tr•r.~~~T' `~ ~ ~,l ~~. V"!_ ~ ~ A.~.... ~,... .` ~r~-x~ 1<~ 303 ~ . ~ r ~~- ~.~ T~ f/ .~ NOVEMBER ~2, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAII., COLORADO 81b57' LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU ~ u~AY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK ~, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FIIaING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE, THE PURPOSE OF-THIS Lei 1~R IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL Dt~,LING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNAC~r x Ab LE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS L~~ ~~n DEMONSTRATE TIIAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO .ARE EI'I'IiER FULL 4R PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAII, ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASIC THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND RE.IECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED ~AMF ~~ ~~~ ~1~ ~f~I~~~ ~~ Y~_.B~pBF~~ s~~,NATURE ~. ~r/C' llnB'I/ ~ ~s /S~i~~2 C~~i~ P .1:~ r . NQV~Uii3i±tt 22,1983 ~ANNINC3 Aril? ENVIIt4NI+"3`Ax. CBMMI$514N oWN aF vAtl. :~~ ~a~r7~ ~oi~rrnd~ >zvnn nn., Ga~,c~rn~o s~as7 ~, ~; ~,An>~s A><~rn 4EN'1x,EN~I, YQ~J NAVE BEFORE YOU'~3AAY A RZaQ~S~' ~"OR A ~Ut3DIVISIt3N OF I.4T 1, DIrdCIC 4, 'NAIL VB,,1rA(~E '1'1•IIItU ~Ir~a A>r3d ICNQWN A5 3$i BEAVI~It D11I-rI CXitCGE. TI~~ S?URPC3SE OF T~iIS L~"X'ER IS ~'d,tNrQRlvi TFIL 1~LAIVNIN~ COMMISSxCiN TkIAT ANY D~CI3IdN 'SAT WII..~, A1..LQW ADDI"i'IONAL DLi.INC3 L~rli'>; S 1N ~f IE TQ1~1I~ 01~ NAIL Oft 1 IiAT WIr,L IrtCR~A,SE Ta IB S{~UAI2E FOOTApE ALL~?WED UNi7ER'FI.1I E7~IS~NCI OltI~LN~ENCI`sS i5 V~vACC~~'A33I,E, Z'iIE FQLl«OWxN(3 SIGNA~'1'()R~S dN THIS LE'i',I'ER DI;MON~ i'i~ATE TFi1~T A NY,,TMi3ER pT~ F~Ok~I.E WIiO ARC EITI•I1R F'U~L dl~ ~'ART'L"INlE RI~SY>~I~NTS QI; Ti•I~ T`~}1'4'N OF VAIi. rIRF N(~'I` iii 1 FAVQR 41~ T]~fIS ~RpItidSAI. ANI~ ASK'i'HAfi Yt3U R~S~ND Td TI•Il~ W~SkII~S aF'1',~iE IaIMD~'~.E ANY RFI~CT Ti-Ii3 1~TQU~$7C, SINCES~LY, F :. ~ jR ~ f~ •:< .r c ? ~. :~ ~. pfi t'i' -' • °i ~; ~` w ~.~ ~~u NOVEMBER 22,1993 PLANNING AND IIWIRONMF,N1'AL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 73 50UTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAII., COLORADO $1657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 3$1 BEAVER DAM CIIt~ ~, THE PURPOSE OF THIS Lax f~~ IS T4 INFORIv! THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING iINITS Il~I THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING S IGNATt.TR,ES ON THIS I.G i :rec DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ~i ~ riER; FULL OR PART TIIuIE RESII?~NTS, OF THE TOWN OF VAII. ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS ,. -PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, p V AIL ADDRE.S C ,j pry `- ~~w--y~~~r ~~~~ .~~~~~~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ G ~~ • NQVEiVIBI;R 22, i441~ t'1.ANI~IINCr AND ENVlR4I~(MP:N'i'AL COMMIBSI[3N TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH 1-'RONTAGE RQAD YATr,, COLOR ILDC) $165'7 LADIHS AND C.;EN'R,EI1, YQ[1 HAVL BEFC)ltL: YU[3 TODAY A RE(tUH:S'f FORA $l1BDIViS[QN OF LU'!' I, BLC~CI{4, YATL V1Li.ACiF TiilRD F17,ING AL5V KNOWN AS 38I BEAVER DAM Cft~GF~E. '!'HE PI]R!'C)SE (7F TN(S Lit tt:Et IS'IY3 Il~ti'4ItM TNIr FLANKING CUMMISSIC?N 'THAT A,NY 17F.(:ISION THA'E' WILL At.€_OW ~DUP€'IONAL ~V~LLING LJNI'1'S IN THE'1~WN Uk YA1L GK THAT WALL INCltI;ASF. THE SQUARE H~f:fUTA~TE ALLOWEll UNI)F:R 1HL' F.X'ISTiNC ORDINANCES IS UNAC'•E'diPTABL>r. 'rHl; POLr..UwiNG Sr~.;1vATURES GN Ti~rS LL"i'~"!R n~a~IOxsTRn'rL THAT A NI]MI3,ER o~ I'I-~~'LE wt~~0 Altl.: EITHER 1ZTl.€a OFL PART `i'IM~ AF.~StI)I;1~TS Cl~ THE '!'C)WN U#~ VAIL Alts: Nt]T rN rAVt1K (fir THIS !'ROPUSAl: AM7 A.SIC THAT YC7U R]~.~1~iiNU TU '!'IIE WISHES 43E '1'!IL' PEUPI,E ANU ItE'JEL'T 'T'HIS [tl:,QUI:ST. ~ . 1_ _J ~~~~~ ~~ VAiL ,~(aftE54 ~~ " " ~~• ~~ z~a QUANTUM USA TEL ~ 303-~7~-317.1 Nov ~1 93 21, ~ 24 ~Ja . x]01 P .02 i Novr,~a~~ z~ I~~3 PI.,ANNINa ANU ENYtRQNMEN'I'AL CQMMiSS1ON TawNV~ v~rrM ~s sr~~rTx F7toNrAGt: xaAn vAn,, CE>I~oR.Anc~ 81657 T.AUIES AND (~lrN'II.F.MEN, ,;,~'Ir?I,1,]~A,YL BEFC~tt)y YUXr TDI~AY A RBQUE.ST FiDR A SLJBDX~ISICIN DF I.OT f, BLOCK d~ VAIL VILLAGE !-~~ ,r,•~,;. ~ r''T~if ~D FiI:TIVCi ALSO ICiVt]V1-N AS ~$! BEAVER DAM GIRC[.E. ' ~ ''' '.'µ .,. ~ T~11s 1'rrRt~(?SE aFTHIS LI.I't'I~R r~ TO INFORM'1~1It?, t'LANNTNC3 COMMISSION 'ti~A~r ANY nF~:rSrr~N TI{AT Wtt.l . A~LUW ADDITIONAr, riWELLINU UNITS IN 7~-1~ TU~'VN OF VA1L OR TI IA'I' wl~.i, INCREASE T11I3 SQXIARF, FOOTA~L" ALLOWFI7 U1~fiER T1iL~ LlCtS't'tNC3 URr~INANCF•S IS UNACC13tr1'ABLE, ',Fitt; t'~L~.UwrNQ 5IC3NA'tUttE,4 (?N Trir3 I,.E'1"TI:k DEn~tc~NSTRATF? THA'I` A NUMELtt Uri r'EUFI..'E WHO AkL"s I'sITHF,R ~UI.I.OR PAK~r TtMF RFSTI]ENT5 QI~.'I'I~E;POWN OF VAiL ARE NOT IN FAVC~t~ OF THIS i'RC1I?OSAL AN1~ ASrC THAT YOU t2L.4t'OND TO Trfil? WISHES ON'tltB r'F.Ut'Lr? ANTS REJECT TtI15 IIF.Q[SE5T. ~ritht ;u NAME ~. /fir. SINCCI~LY, V~j,LL AllI]rtF.Sfi St 3h ~ ~,~21t~} ~ ~' ~~ -q ~~~ .. . ;7 • NovEM.BER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 'T'OWN OF VAIL 7S SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAU., COLU1tA.I)U 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMII~i, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VIL LAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS L~~ i.~R IS TO INFORM THE FL.AI~rNIN'G COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUAR7 FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES I5 UNACCEP'T'ABLE. THE FOL~,OWING SIGNAT[JRES ON THIS Lei i~R DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIII~E RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, v~g~pnRESs ~ ,~ ~~ /~ l G~ A r e ! // ,e1/ ~/' ~~ ' Psi©V ' I3ER ?,?.~ 1495 i~.nN3vllva ~ ENVxRaNYvrl~+rrni. ~a~ssloN xowrl of vnlr,. 7S SQUT"!~ FRON!'AC~B Rp~,b VAt7., COf.URhl;~ 81bST LApIf~S AiriD C3~N'IZF~it?N, . YOV i~IAYL~ i3L~I~QR~ "YQU TQDAY A R~Q'CJ~.S'~ FqR A 51~3DTYiSIpN OF Lt3T 1, I3I,C~i[ 4, VAtL V'I~I,IIC~L' 1'~iIR~ F1LINt3 ALSO KNOWN AS 3$113EAVEIt IMAM Oi~tG'~.,~, f 'I7Ii~ 1'[3R~'OSx'~ QF ~'fIIS I..I~T'I~it IS ~ INPpRlvl T,~ ~'bANNIN(3 OU~SSYC?N 7NA'I' ANY DT~C18lOt~ 'x7~A~' WiI~L AI,LQW ADT~!'~`i~NAS.~}~«'~3.,L~3~tGt~UNi'I'3 ~1 THE TaWN QF YAII, 4I~ T~tAr WII.I. IN~'RFASIs T~ ~ St~r,YARE F4OTAG~ ALLOVJEa U1~~ER Tri$ F,7tISTtNC~ t71tUINh.N~C~S IS UNACGliCYI'Ar3~F~, Ti r~ FaLl.gwxrr~ s:oNr~TU~r~s o~'~~YIS ~,xr7't'E~ ~~'-41QNSTRA,'Y"~ 7,'KAT A NUM~L~Fk ¢F ~IrO1~l~E WI~It~ JIi2~ Ll'1'kiX':R FUI..L Oit ~*AR~"1'IMIr ~.~$,IDEN'1'S-QP T~1~'1'Q1VN QF YAIL ARE Nt~x XN ~AYUR OZ; T}Ti$ ~R©1'VaN.1~NI7 AStC'['~tAT YOU I~S~L?ND'1~ TFI$ WISi~iG~S 0~'t'tCE P~OPI.1~ AND ~1LCT 1`IIIS R1?QU'~ST, SINCERI~..I..Y, M yy~~~~W~ ,! e~ F .r u..., i y ~. ~ +`....rr ...tip ~+"~ . r i . 1 ~ i r NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK Q, VAiL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS Lax i~R IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS L~ i i~x DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TA~IEE RESIDENTS OF THE `DOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASKTHAT-YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, ~ N~ ~~ ~r~~b~c ~~,~~a,a ~}~}I{i,,+~5 VAIT, gDDRF.s,~ ~~~ ~~ 5~~ .~1'Z.ol 1i 1~1Cx(;.k:,1~P,~r ~ne t S~a 8 fl ~ ~ ~ V.~ ~~.~y Ip~. ~~ ~~~~ . ~iVi/iL.P~ ~~C~"~ G~fC./,. ~ q 3.~ ~v~,.s ~iP~I30 # /C . ~'f~Vl t St' l71 kG~ert~`~`~{ Jr • N(~VF,MBER 22, 1993 PLANNIlVCI AND ENV7RQISri3I;N7'AsL COMMiSSI(~3 'I'(3WN Qf~ VAII. 75 SOUT~i IRR{7N1'AGC RpAD VAII., CALG1ItAI~ 81~5a LADIES At~D C3L'N'It.F.MEN, Y~}~ H{S,VE E3LI±ORE Yc:?U TQDAY ~~ RFQ[~kST FUR A SCIEr~IViSiQN UI= LUT 1, ELCICK a, VAIL V~~ ~ ~ °. ~ °~ ; ~:; THTRD FILIN(} AL54 KNOWN A.S 381 HEAVER DAM (:I1tC7..I:, THE; F(RiI?DSF 4F THtS Lt::i't~:Ft IS TC71~~~RM THE? PLANNTNC CUMMISSICIN 'THAT A~1Y i~ECiSION T~tAT W11:.L Aia t?W AD13i'I'IANAI. llWEi.LtNG UNITS iN T111~ Tt3WN OF vAa., QR T'ifAT wlTri,, iNCitFASE THE SQUARE 1-~lOTAt;E AI..LUWEi~ L1NT)ER'I'IiE I~,XI:~TYNG O~iU1NA~tt:F~,S !S L1NAC~.(~f~'AELL•". 7~HL POL1.(7WI~I{351Ca,1+tATUftFS pN THIS l.;L''TTI*Ft nFdvi4NSTttAT.E T~EA•r A NtJMEER OF t~kOPLE'WHO ARL ETI'HER 1*1J1,1.. OR PA1t'3' T1I~ It1:STDENTS .QP THB'rOWN pF VAiL AR1: NAT IN F'AVC3R, CAF THIS k~EtOI'bSAf~ AND AS1C THAT YOF) RESI'ON~3 T(3'E'HE WiSHk~:S C3Tz THh I'IrpPLE AND RF.~~:t;T TN1S REQUL~ST. ' 3INCPItIrLY, ~~TF.~ vA~,.~nRr.~~rt ~g,Nn~~ tl..BE ~. . ~~ r~ ~D. HICKS Ih9PORTS ID :151~$55Q025 HIV 22' 9~ 11 :15 h8~ .OC73 P .01 NpVFMBFR 22, Y493 RLANNINCr ANU ~1ViftQNMI~:N'!'111. ~'t)MMfSSIUN 'PUWN l)F VAIL '35 SUCJ'17i 1'HUN'1'Atih ItUAD VAIL, CU1~G1Z,Al_~t7 $rt~S7 LADIES a-NU GEN iLF..MEN, YQU I~AV>1 I31:r~R13 YUU TUDAY A RIaCZU1r.ST IY?R A SC3I3i~IVISIUN OF LUT i, BLC)C:K 4, VArt. Vrt 1.AC3I: TJ~IR~ Fu,TNG AI,~O KNOWN AS 381 BL'AVLtt 17AM C:1KC:I.F. THE PURI'USE OF THIS LL7T`i~lt 1C '1'Cl IIVI~(~IiM 7'IIF. PLANNIi~'Ci C.UMMI5SIt3N 'F1~A'1' ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW AUDi7TGNAT, nWrri.i,rNC UNITS IN TIIL 7Y)WN C)1' VAIL Olt 'I'HA'1' WILL INC'REASii THE SQIJARE nf)()TAGI~ AI.r.OWFT] UNF1EIt TIiI<EXISTING ()kll1NANC:I:,S 15 UN11C'C`H.(?TAHLF,. THE FtiC~LLOWIIv"G SICsNA'i'tll~l?.S ON -airs r.Fr~rt T)F.h4(~I~S`FItA~I'l:;'r1iA'i' A NLIMl31;li C)1< 1'1~)I'l..F WHU AItL LIT]II3R PULL OR PART TIME [tESi]3I~NTS.OF TIiI:'L~wN Uri VArL ARE Iv'()T if`i F11vQR 4F TNrs P1t01'f?SAL. ANA ASI( THAT YDU ItLSI't~Nll'1't:)'1'Fi>r WIwHE,S OF THE? PT:QPI,T? ANi') R~C'1"1'I1rS rtF~LfF.ST. 5INt'IItIrLI . p rr~'r~~~T~?l~"''i-: ' ~D IixCKS Vn}r~i '`~ SIGNA'1'Ultl: 225 FOREST IiD, VAYL, C©'......,.. ~'a~-:~'./~~ ~~:..• A 0 NQVEMI~ER 22, 1993 1~.AlvrriNG AND F.IWIRONMT,N'rA~ COMMISSION 'I'aWN ©F VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE RC7AIa VAIL, COL{)RADQ 8J~657 LADIES AND f„TENTL,FT, YOU HAVE ~~rU~ YOU TCIDAY A REQt1FS'r FOR A SUBDIVISION pF LO'E' 1, BLOCK 4, VAII.. VILLAGE THIRD 1~"IL.INa ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM C1RCr.~. THE PURPaST± pN TH1S L~ a A ~K lS TO YNFORM THE ~.AIVNINt3 COMMI5SI01'~ THAT ANY DECISION '1TIAT WI~,r. AZ~LC?W AL?I~klIONAL DWELLIlriG UNITS 1N THE TOWN OF VAII. OR THAT WILL INORF,,ASE THE St~UARE FOOTAGE ALLUWED t.]NDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES I5 UNACCEI?'1*A~LE. TIDE FOLLQWING SIGNI~TUR~S ON THIS LCTTER I]EMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER Ole PEOPLE WIZCl A~tE EITHER. FULL OR PAYtT TIME RESID~`NT$ pF THI~ TOWN OF PAIL ARE NOT IN 1~AVOR OF THIS PROPQSAL'AND ASK THA'Y' YOU'RESPpNB'T'0 THE WISHES ©F THE PEOPLE AND R~F,C'I' THIS IUEST. SXNCEKELY, PI7 Y~~.~g .-- V~~S Sj~iNATE TRF ~~ :~ Z0'cl 0S~$9LbT Ol ~I~~H 't~ SIJ~kt~~1~ 1d0~.~ Eti:£ti £66Z-0~-f10N NOV 29 ' 93 11 ~ 22Ah1 GORSUCFi 1.TMTTE~ V S V S P.1 • NQVEMBER 22, IA~3 PLANNIlr1G AND FNViRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAfL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAb VAIL. COLORAD(181~557 LADIES AND GEN'I'LF.MEN, YOU HAVE BEFf?RE.YO'i.7 TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION {7FLOT I} S~,OCK 4, PAIL VILLAGB TI-IIRb'FIf..E+TG ALSO KNOWN AS 3$1 BEAVER DAB CIRCLB, THE PURPOSE ClF THIS Lei t~R IS TO II~IFO~:M THE PLANNL'~TG COMMIS SIGN THAT ANY DECISION THAT W'ILi ALLOW ADbI'!'ION~,L, DWELLING UNI`I`5 IN THE TC?WTiT OF VA]L Qit THAT ~'V}LL a1VCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGB ALLOWED UNDER THE F..~IS'I'iN0 ORDINANCES TS UNACCEPTABLE, THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER ]DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUA~iEER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ETTH.ER ~I. QR PART' TIME RESII)ENT3 OF'.fl~ TpWN OF VAII, ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS FROPCsSAt AND ASK THAT YOU Rfy~}'OND TO THf~ WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THtS REQUEST, SINCERELY, p~ ~r1 Nt~ME VAIf ..~S 3IC a • NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNriVG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAiL 7S SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81bS7 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU i ~~AY A REQUIST FOIL A SUBDIVISION dF LOT 1', BLOCK 4; VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 3$1 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS Lc~ i~R IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION TI~AT WILL. AI,I:OW ADDITIONAL DWE[.LING UNITS.IN.THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDERTHE EXISTING ORDINANCES~IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLQWING SIGNATURES QN THIS Lei l~ec DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARC ~€ i rlElt FULL OR PART TIIVIE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN~F VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL ANp ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRIIy i~y NAME V~,~S fiIGNATUR_R 'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+Ea, ~~ 3 o z -~ R rI 4a N Ri~n~.l+ f~U ~ -'~r'~'~.,~ ~NoFt r-rz Gv.~ rNEn_. ~6d F~2~~r 1z~ - ~~: s • NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81G57 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK ~, VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 3&1 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF' VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR FART TIlVIE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAII., ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE FEOPLE AND RETECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME VAII. ADDRI~SS SIGNATURE ,- "~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ y~ ~~ G / , ~.~- ~.~ I ._~' _ ~~ ~j O~/I't/ J~ , ~ ;~G L' (Z i '~ > . 3 ira S~ ~. c'~, ~1 ~' dJGL ~ GG~, ,. ~(c,~ '1 r-~otir 0 ~ X/ L , .~"/,C. l- /~ ~~ ~` 4~ ~~ ~ ~~ ` ~'~ ~r. ~r ~ 1~ .i {gin,, ~ ~1~ 1 ~u~~ ~ C%(~ ~' e,IC" ,.;~ ~,~ti..~_ li~`'~ ~ ^-~-~'° ~S'f-e~ e G{-!~6--~~ ~J~. ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~, orb ~~ ~~R~~- ~M Q ~~~ cam. rv~~r-~~~ ~ rv~ S 1 ~"1 C~ c}~.~.. ~. FEZ. ~~<, ~ ~c~ ~-ncr.~Q. ~.r. i NOVEMBER 22, I993 PLANNING AND ENVIltONMEN'I'AL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAII.. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81fi57 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VII.LAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS L~1-1rx IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES iS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNA"i'LJRES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OP PEOPLE WHO ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIlVIE RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND RE7ECT THIS REQUEST. SINCERELY, PRINTED NAME ~~ ~ ~~ s~ ,~jJ VATT, ADDRESS Si/(~NAT[JRF.. ~1~~ v~:~~ ~bs~ ~~ ~ "~ ~b~ ~~-~L ~~~~ ~ ~~, s ~ s~~~~ ~ ~ )e~~ ~~ «~ ~~~~ ~7~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ I ~~ :~ 14Y114Y1,:i~d~i~~ ~~4 ~! ~~~~~ ~~.,Ai'~`:41~'`7'~ A~ ~jlr~~ll~{~~~~,a~~~.is CC~'=,~~S~~1TM~ Y ~ YOU TC~I3A~ ;~1. RL~L"~ST ~~ A ~dJ1~i~I~~iSIt~1~ ~~ LC~T ~, BLgC~ ~~ V,~~i~ ViiW~.t1~~ YO'~ ~,4V1= IBI.FQI '~tI32D kTI,I1vG ALSO ~w~ltiS~N AS 3Si ~3~AVER D11'~'t ~`1RC'IY~~ f X; STAN ~'i~i,'~T Aw'~~Y I~~CiSiN 'I`t•il: ~C13tPCJS~ 01~ T~~1S I.E7""i~R IS T~ ~'C~~'~ ~lil; Pl...~`+~I?~,~ GC1~ ^`.~ ~E~'AT#i~~. THAT W'C1~L r17~LL~~1 AUDITIC?ti1~. DZ~~~.L~'~ L'~iI`tS ~INCS# ~R~I~~ ~CixS SLR ~iA"~ 5~'~"('iw~,~ Z;+I~~t£A~1~ Tl I~ SQ'~~1~ ~'(l0`i'f~~r~ .~1LC~~T b Uiv'D~1~ ~ H~ ~~iS ~I~~: ~'Z~#(~ ?'I~t~ FOi.LUu'1~G~ S1~~A'r[~~5 pN'T:145 ~,~,T~R ~~'viC~awR QF' ~~I~ ~R~~ ~G?~` ~~ ~A ~1'~ l3~ "~`itlS A~tl: FI"illLi. l~~'..L p~ I~~,kT T~~1 ~Si~~:~ ~'S OIr'I~.C~ F'ROi'bS11I, A.~'~~ ~SK'1"~tAT YC~U Ris~~'~ TO ~'~r~."~'iSl> Qi `~~i~ Piati?PLI:J' A-? i~~~L~:'i TilIS Si~~~" "~'^' ^ t -~ - ~~yy r 1~ _.. n----~.-_____ W~ -~ ~ __,._~...___.~...~., .~~.,rw...... ~_~._,M_~..._.~. _....v.. . ~ __ _ __~. ... _ __. _. ~. y ~_~~ ~. r ~~ ti NOVEMBER 22, 1993 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIL 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAII.., COLORADO 81657 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUESTFOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK ~, VAIL VII,LAGE THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION THAT WILL ALLOW ADDITIONAL DWG .T ~ING UNIT'S IN THE TOWN OF V AIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS Lei 1~.R DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EI"rHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIl7ENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS REQUEST. PRINTED NAME r«~~~ V AII. ADDRF_.,S S J ~~ SINCERELY, SIGN. _~ 3a~ ~a r~,~.~~ ~,u : cc~,,. a,.;~ d1 vim, LL~ C~ Planning and Evironmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road '~ Vai1, Colorado 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: You have bei'ore you a request for a subdivision off' Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing, also known as 381 Beaver Dam Circle. The purpose o~ this letter is to express our wishes against any decision that will allow additional dwelling units or increased density on residential lots in Vail. The following signatures on this letter demonstrate that these people, who are either full or part time residents of Vail., are NOT IN FAVOR of this proposal. We ask that you respond to the wishes of the people and REJECT THIS REQUEST. Sincerely, Printed Name ~111L~S ~~ G1i~(~`~ ~~~~~.L T~.~~ ~ s ~j~~. IU Q c~,~o~ /~~ Vail Address 1 ~ 1 ~ ~~s-~r ~, n ~ Ern l~r . ~. Signature ,-~t~~ ~ ~~.P~ r~ ~ Q~ ,~~~ ~o~~ ~~ ~r~~~ ~ ~_ i ~~~~ G,~ /.rJ~ ~ .l ~ ~ ~ D~7 5 r ~11) ~m~ rS~ ~~dr r~JI/q]~~ ~,~... ~ Izz ,~ ~+ ar ~,~ ~~~ ~i~ To: From: • Sincerely, vita-~~-~ The Vail Tnwn Council 75 South Frnntage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Nancy Byers 352 Beaver Dam Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 i wYw ~B~D ~1 •- ;+ - ~ ~~~ ~' Re: Appeal of PEC decision to favor rezoning of Lat 1, Black 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from the Primary/Secondary zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts, and a minor subdivision to create two lots from the existing Iot. Date: November 22, 1993 Dear Town Council Members, As an adjacent property owner to the subject property, X formally appeal by right the decision of the PEC to favor the rezoning and minor subdivision of Lot 1. The PEC vote on this matter was very close ( 4-3) , and there was much discussion from the public as well as the PEC members that the increase in density on this lot is contrary to the goals and objectives of the TOV and the public to limit density to existing zoning in the Valley. Another concern voiced is that this decision will set a dangerous precedent in the valley which will affect twenty-eight additional lots, and create a flood of similar proposals which will be difficult to turn down given this decision. Property owners on Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road, and Rockledge Road have paid a premium to awn property in this area. The intent of the property owners here is that the area would remain as currently zoned, and not have the threat of density increases. This proposal as accepted by the PEC is a slap in the face to all property owners in this area, and as mentioned above it sets a dangerous precedent in the Vail Valley. our understanding is that we can voice our appeal on December 7, 1.993. We all sincerely hope that you as representatives of the public in this valley will reverse this decision and preserve the density and zoning of Lot 1 to its original status as Primary/Secondary. Nancy Byers b:lbyers 11/22/93.2 December 7, 199 To: Vail Town Council From: Dick and Mary Pownall Due to unexpected events we are unable to attend tonight's council meeting. Hncaever, we would like to express our strong opposition to the proposed subdivision request before you this evening. Consideration for this opposition; A. We have been property owners in Vail. Village 1st filing since 1962-63. It is easy to observe that many lets were designed in a configuration to preserve the natural integrity of the land, i.e. wetlands, large stands of t~.mber, etc. Consideration was given to the preservation of this type of resource and still allow space to build. The subject lot in question this evening is a perfect example of a lot which was oversized to a11ow preservation of natural resources that cannot be duplicated. B. There is not a "hardship" situation. The gained square footage tGRFA) easily compensates the property owners of oversized lots, thereby allowing for the preservation of the natural resource and a financial gain for the owner. Everyone is a winner under this consideration. C.Should this subdivision be passed the "new lot" would be a perfect target for purchase with town open space funds. This is probably one t~f the largest and thickest stands of virgin timber along Core Greek. Any disturbance of this natural resource is counter productive~i to today`s ecological goals. However the subdivision could occur and the land be purchased for green space preservation and again...everynne wins. D. The precedent that this will set could have negative results in the ~.ong term. Another rash of rebuilding will occur in those situations where this opportunity for re-subdivision will occur. Increased density is a guarantee, but are we guaranteeing a better Vail far the future? Again, we would Tike to express our disappointment at not being able to voice our opposition at the meeting tonight. Flease consider our objections very carefully. Thank you. Respectfully, ick P all -" Mary Pownall. • GONDOLA SKI SHOP UONSHEAD AT VAIL ~~` .r ~; ~, December 4, 1993 f To: Ms. Peggy Qstertoss, Mayor, and Members of the Vail Town Council Vail, Colorado Re: Request for rezoning of 381 Beaver Dam Circle from the PrimarylSecondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone districts and a minor subdivision to create two lots from the existing lot. Dear Council Members: We are writing to ask you to refuse the request by Leo Payne to change the zoning laws to allow him to build more than aPrimary/5ecandary home on the Beaver Dam Circle lot. It is time to be firm about the zoning laws, in spite of arguments about legal square footage and concessions that Mr. Payne will make concerning wetlands and trees. The fact remains that the parcel in question is zoned for aPrimary/Secondary structure and to change the zoning would set a precedent for zoning changes for similar parcels. We are writing on behalf ofi Nancy and Don Byers who live in a Primary/ Secondary home close to the Payne lot. We feel strongly, as they do, that increasing density in that neighborhood is detrimental to the quality of life, ie. less open space, more traffic, and that a stand should be made now to adhere to the zoning laws. Respectfully, Charlie and Patti Langmaid P. O. Box 159 . Lionshead Ma11 . Vail,.Colorado 81658 (303} 476-1700 ~arraine N~ and i~arley G. Higbie, Jr. ~6p0 Broadway, Suite 2'iDQ Denver, G~ 8~t~~ (3f~3) 861 w~2~~ C~eaBrt~ber 8, 1 g9~ Vail Town Council 7~ Frc~~7tage Road Vail, CCU 8157 Deer Cr~uncil Members: We are disturbed and distressed that ~ homeowner on l=are~t F~oad proptases to divide his property rota four Kama sites. iNe cannot carrcaive haw the covenants can be interpreted to allow far such a result, The original Concept Cif Vail enviSianed art attraotive uncrowded residential development, Squeezing four hums sites onto property that was best suited far a single hums site, and which remained that way for years, Could only result in a less desirable pl$ce to live and iower property values. Wa urge you not to permit such over-develaprrter~t of Vail. Sincerely, ~,orraine ~1. Higbie /'~ ~ / , ~" Harley .4~i~l~ie.~rf. gr I a MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 21,1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Merv Lapin. As the meeting was called to order, Mayor Osterfoss, Jim Shearer, and Jan Strauch were not yet present. They each arrived moments later. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Paul Johnston Sybill Navas Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Merv Lapin, as a citizen, asked Joe Macy about the status of signs at the Golden Peak building which did not appear to be in compliance. Merv was advised the matter had been taken care of. Item No. 2 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items; A. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.170 and Section 18.58.020(C) -fences, hedges, walls and screening, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and providing details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, The Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Heavy Equipment fund, West Vail Debt Service Fund, and Vail Marketing Fund of the 1993 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regard thereto. U Merv Lapin read the titles in full.. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, was removed from the Consent Agenda for further discussion concerning additional detail Merv had requested from Steve Thompson. Merv Lapin moved to approve Consent Agenda item A, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Steve Thompson distributed a detail of the 1993 Proposed Supplemental Appropriation Items and discussed the changes made to the General Fund amount since first reading of Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1993, noting the increase was partly a result of the enhanced bus service program. He explained that when that enhancement had been discussed, it had been thought it was a 1994 cost, but, the enhancement began in November, 1993, and had to be accounted far in 1993. Tom Steinberg questioned whether there was any problem with PUC because the enhanced service extended beyond the Town of Vail. Steve advised that Mike Rose had contacted PUC, and was told there was no problem as long as the service was free to riders. Steve was directed to look into TOV's insurance coverage of this service. Steve also noted funds authorized by Council far the U.S. Ski Team from the 1994 Special Events budget had to be accounted for in the 1993 budget because the check was being written in 1993. He said the amount far this would be reflected as an adjustment in 1994's budget. Further, Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance figures also had to be adjusted because the budgeting procedure for those had changed. Mayor Osterfoss inquired about the "Bus Grant Lobbyist - Avan" detail listed on the report Steve had distributed. Steve said, beside the grant for Avon, it was his understanding that TOV had entered into a contract for approximately $50,OOOAO for services provided by Liz Robbins for her professional services in trying to get bus grants for the Town. He added Ms. Robbins was uncertain of her poi~~dial success rate and charges would probably not reach $50,000.00 He was not certain, but believed to date $10,000.00 had been Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12!21!93 billed to TOV by her. Mayor Vstertoss noted the Avon bus grant naa not been approves m Congress, and conversations were underway with the Secretary of Transportation's office. She asked Steve if it was still necessary to continue paying Ms. Robbins until there was same success. Steve said he would have to check on that and on what had been paid year to date. He said he understood if Ms. Robbins felt that a grant could not be gotten for TOV, she was not going to continue billing TOV. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1993, with a second from Paul Johnston. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.24.065 and 15.26.045, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new procedures for exterior alterations or modifications of buildings in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone Districts; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello distributed results of staff's research with local architects, as requested by Council an first reading. There was discussion about the specific changes made to the ordinance since first reading, resulting in one additional change to be made an second reading to indicate that a filing fee shall bat be collected for any exterior alteration which was only for the addition of an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable fees would be required. The change would apply to both CCI and CCIL There was furthex clarification by Kristan Pritz regarding flexibility of remodel submittal dates and issues related thereto, and she added the Planning and Environmental Commission felt that it would be aY~..opriate to limit submittal dates for exterior alterations of less than 100 square feet to encourage people to do their projects at one time every two years. Staff had na problem with allowing minor exterior alterations to be submitted at any time as it was felt the minor exterior alterations upgraded the Core areas. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance Na. 4, Series of 1993, on second reading with the suggested change regarding exterior dining decks. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Resolution No. 17, Series of 1993, a resolution authorizing certain Town employees and officers to sign checks drawing on existing accounts or accounts to be opened in the future of the Town at the FirstBank of Vail and further authorizing cextain employees of the Town to make deposits in said account. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 17, Series of 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC} approval of the Payne Minor Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The appellants were Don and Nancy Byers. Kristan Pritz recalled that the PEC had approved the Payne minor subdivision conditioned on Council's approval of the associated rezoning requests in Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993. Council had denied that ordinance on first reading on December 21,1993, and, tllerefore, this issue was now moot. To handle this appeal through proper procedure, the issue was before Council for an official vote. Merv Lapin moved to dismiss this appeal as the question was moot. Jim Shearer second the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-Q. Before adjouL~u~.ent, Paul Johnston asked if the Lindholm land exchange issue would be on the January 4,1994, agenda. Kristan Pritz advised she had spoken with Bill Post about Council's desire to heax this issue while Mr. Lindholm was available. She was advised Mr. Lindholm could be present at the January 4,1994, Evening Meeting, and the issue format would primarily be that of a public input session. Merv Lapin felt it was important that the community was aware of Mr. Lindholm's proposal, specifically regarding land exchange issues near Vail's boundaries. Also before adjournment, at Paul Jahnston's request, Kristan Pritz discussed in depth staff's work with Dieter Menzel and Leo Palmer regarding TOV procedure to be followed for a potential minor amendment to an SDD at Palmos Carr.xccino Spirits. It was established that an application for that request had not yet been submitted for the desired minor amendment, although applications for the Liquor Authority process had been received by the Town Clerk. Kristan explained staff had been trying to help Mr. Menzel and Mr. Palmer through the process for applying for the minor amendment and dining deck in the courtyard Mr. Menzel wanted at Palmos. Details of the parking, seating capacity, storage spaces, and building codes related to this issue were discussed. Tom Steinberg noted past Council had encouraged the Community Development Department (CDD) to be mare "user friendly," however, in this case, he felt Mr. Menzel was taking advantage of the CDD. Kristan did not feel that was so. She felt the applicant in this case had become frustrated with the regulations and the CDD was making efforts to help the applicant proceed through the process. Tom Moorhead advised the extent of the potential modifications for the deck would need to be established before the Liquor Authority could even hear the issue. Tom Steinberg remained concerned about such extensive TOV involvement. Kristan said the CDD was willing to e~.t«.d a little extra understanding, which she felt resulted in achieving end results more quickly and amicably. Tom Steinberg was reassured by Kristan indicating that there was a limit to what they can do, and that `z Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12/21/98 was where the line was drawn. Merv Lapin stated he was pleased with the way this issue was being handled. Kristen advised sire would pass that on to staff members who had done the work. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mar aret A. Osterfoss, Ma or g Y A s > r;ST: ~~~~ _.. Holly L. McCutcheon, Town. Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto • Vai] Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes 12!21!93