Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 Vail Town Council Minutes MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 8, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Lynn Fritzlen Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was approval of-the minutes of the December 4, 18, and 19, 1990, meetings, with a corrected spelling of Edward Mayne's name in the December 19, 1990, minutes. Tom Steinberg moved the approval of the three sets of minutes, seconded by Merv Lapin. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. i s Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance requesting a Special Development District for the Sonnenalp redevelopment, located at 20 Vail Road; a part of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. - Johannes Faessler. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Johannes Faessler stated that a letter had been written requesting the Town Council table this ordinance indefinitely. Mayor Rose stated the proposal was close to something the Council could approve, but the applicant should be willing to enter into negotiations with the Town to determine just what changes would meet a consensus of the Council. Instead of tabling this ordinance indefinitely, Merv Lapin suggested it be tabled until July 2, 1991, while the present council members are still on the board. Merv Lapin made a motion to table this ordinance until that time, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.52.160, Parking Exemptions and repealing Section 18.52.180, variances of the Town of Vail Municipal Code and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. Kristan Pritz asked to withdraw this ordinance and go back to the task force. There was no discussion by Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to this effect, including a review on February 12, 1991, which motion was seconded by Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The next item to be discussed was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control, Applicant: Town of Vail, which title was read in full by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz proposed that a public discussion be held at the evening session on January 15, 1991, and that this ordinance be brought back for the next evening session on February 5, 1991. Rob LeVine moved to table this ordinance until the February 5th Meeting, with public discussion on January 15. 11 0 unanimously passed, 6-0. Item 6 on the agenda, Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance requesting a major amendment to SDD #4, commonly known as Cascade Village, Section 18.46 - Area D, to adjust the phasing in order to allow for an office addition to the Glen Lyon Office Building, 1000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 45, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership. The mayor read the full title of Ordinance No. 45. Shelly Mello said there was no change from the original. A motion to approve was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. The motion was The next item for consideration was Ordinance No. 46, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending Sections 18.54.020 E of the Vail Municipal Code to provide for Design Review Board Meetings on the First and Third Wednesdays of each month only; amending Section 18.54.050 A.6 to provide that asphalt and fiberglass shingles may be permitted on structures within the Town of Vail under certain circumstances; deleting Section 18.54.050 B.13 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. A motion for approval was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Tom Steinberg. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The final item on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, a resolution declaring the need for a housing authority to function in the Town of Vail, Colorado. Kristan Pritz asked that a public discussion be held on January 15, 1991, with consideration of this Resolution set for that evening. The council said this was acceptable, and a motion to table this resolution was made by Peggy Osterfoss and seconded by Rob LeVine and was unanimously approved, 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor i 0 ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Janet Cassady -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 15, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 15, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Fritzlen Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 2 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance. The staff requested this ordinance be tabled to the February 5, 1991, evening meeting. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to table Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, and Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The third item on the agenda was discussion of the proposed changes to Ordinance 42 relating to fireplaces. Discussion by Council suggested revisions would follow. Susan Scanlan stated if the revised proposal reflected the consensus of Council opinion, additional topics needed to be discussed regarding rebate funds. Susan asked Gary Hall, a Public Service District Representative, to speak about gas conversion costs and availability and to answer any other questions that anyone present might have. Gary said the average conversion cost would be approximately $600 plus the price of a log set, which runs from $300- $400. Additional costs could be encountered if extra gas piping lines needed to be installed or for installation of a meter. He also stated that since natural gas lines run throughout the town, installing gas fireplaces in the majority of Vail homes wouldn't be a problem. He said they would work with the Town to create a funding package of some sort to help encourage people to switch from wood-burning to gas- burning fireplaces and would try to prepare the package before the 46 February 5, 1991, meeting. This package would include an education program that outlines the environmental and health problems associated with wood-burning. Susan stated the staff recommendations would include a complete inventory, suggest a three-year time period to require complete conversion or removal of wood-burning units, implementation of a rebate program and establishment of a fund base for that program to encourage early conversion, and provision of safe and proper conversion permits. There were some special circumstances that would need to be considered, i.e., wood-burning in a commercial venture and wood-burning as a primary source of heat in a residence. Commercial circumstances would include Vail restaurants that have up- keep broilers, wood-burning pizza ovens, and similar devices, that create a financial income for the Town through sales tax revenues. Contributing to pollution would be auto emissions, wood-burning, and sand from the road. The Staff said health impacts depend on each person's individual health and outlook. Visual problems due to brown haze are also a personal issue as well as a Town issue. Mayor Rose asked Susan one technical question regarding a memo about carbon monoxide buildup in Steamboat, i.e., what caused a buildup of carbon monoxide in the units with a gas log retrofit? Susan referred the question to Gary Hall. Gary said a properly fired gas burning appliance should not have carbon monoxide buildup. Susan said initial conversions might have been improperly drafted. Gerry Bonser, District Manager for Public Service, said that the issue in Steamboat was prompted by down drafts. Wood combustion would produce more carbon monoxide than gas combustion. Chris Neuswanger, a resident of Vail, expressed numerous concerns, including cost of conversion, running new lines, fireplaces that are electrically heated, minimum charges when no use occurs, damper welding, enforcement, inspections, • and education. Builder Pat Dauphinais stated the Town should ban new wood-burning fireplaces. Gas appliances are aesthetically inadequate. Class A fireplaces with a good gas log burning device can be just as aesthetically pleasing as a wood burning fireplace. Charging for a fireplace with a set expiration would be inappropriate. Mayor Rose said we should halt the construction of all new wood-burning fireplaces and stoves within the Town of Vail. We should allow Class A Units to be properly installed within structures with retrofit gas burning log systems. We should try to establish a voluntary program and some educational types of things to get people to convert, and we should try voluntary conversion systems for a period of one year and then review. During that first year, we should find the funds to help people convert existing fireplaces up to one-half of the conversion or $500, whichever is less. He would like to see us work with the County on unincorporated areas on a similar proposal. Tristan Pritz restated the purpose of this meeting was to allow for public discussion and to bring this ordinance back on February 5, 1991, for the evening meeting. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Resolution No. 25, Series of 1990, a resolution declaring the need for a housing authority in the Town of Vaal, Colorado. Kristan Pritz requested approval of the resolution. Larry Eskwith had been asked if there was a way to control bonding issues by the Housing Authority. He stated there was nothing in the statute. He suggested entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the authority to provide certain restrictions on what they can do, which is perfectly legitimate. Another option would be to place certain covenant restrictions on the property. Rob LeVine move to approve the motion with a second by Merv Lapin. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. . The fifth item on the agenda was a letter to the Department of Wildlife concerning trapping in the Vail Valley. Blondie Vucich, President of the Eagle Humane Society, thanked the Council for addressing the issue. Her sole suggestion was that the letter be addressed to Perry Olson, Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in Denver, with a copy going to the Wildlife Commission and also a copy going to Bill Andree. Following discussion, Merv Lapin moved the Town send the letter to Perry Olson with copies to Bill Andree and the Wildlife Commission. This motion was seconded by Jim Gibson. There was no further discussion, a vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor 6 ATTEST: Pamela A. Ara!ndmeye, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Janet Cassady MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1991 7:30 P.M. 46 A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 5, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was a 10-Year Anniversary Award to Kraige Kinney. Ron Phillips and Dick Duran made remarks regarding Kraige's tenure with the Town of Vail. Item No. 2 was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was approval of the minutes of the January 8 and 15, 1991, meetings. Staff requested these minutes be continued to the February 19, 1991, meeting. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, a second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control, which title was read in full by Mayor Rose. Susan Scanlon introduced revisions to the former ordinance as per instructions of the Town Council. Public Service District Representative Gary Hall discussed the finance package from Central Bank of Colorado, tax-deductible incentives, and the mobile van display to be used to educate the public. Those speaking against passage of this ordinance were the following: Chris Neuswanger, Ron Byrne, Heidi Friedman, Jack and Cheryl Locke, Mike Lauterbach, Frank Pettee, Joe Macy, and Tom Frye. Speaking on behalf of passage of this ordinance was Peter Luck-Hille. Dave VanDyne, a representative of Frisco Fireplace and Stove Shop, clarified technology regarding catalytic converters for wood-burning fireplaces, which if used correctly, would produce no smoke. He recommended heartily to the Council the use of a Phase III certified EPA fireplace. Following discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve on second reading Ordinance 42 with deletion of Section 8.28.070 on page 5, and the rewording of Section 8.28.100, also on page 5. Peggy Osterfoss seconded this motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen voting against the motion. Item No. 5 was the appointment of DRB and PEC applicants. All terms were for two years, ending in February 1993. Sherry Dorward and Ned Gwathmey were reappointed to the Design Review Board. Chuck Crist and Kathy Langenwalter were reappointed as members of the Planning and Environmental Commission, leaving one vacancy available. Merv Lapin moved to approve both the DRB and PEC appointments with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was the appointment of Housing Authority Board Members. The following members were chosen by Council vote and subsequently appointed by the Mayor: Jen Wright (5 years), acting chairman; Jerry Oliver (4 years); Peggy Osterfoss (3 years); Duane Piper (2 years); and Mark Bristow (1 year). Item No. 7 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1991, relating to a smokeless weekend. This resolution designated the President's Holiday Weekend of February 16, 17, and 18, 1991, as the Eleventh Annual Smokeless Weekend. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 1, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer,'Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer. 9 • E Kent R. Rose, Mayor -2- MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 is 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 19, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: None Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Martha Jensen, Deputy Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 2 was approval of the minutes of the January 8, 1991, and January 15, 1991, meetings. Rob LeVine questioned whether ordinance 42 had been tabled at both meetings, and requested that the verbiage be changed regarding his motion to approve Resolution No. 25 in the January 15th minutes. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve both sets of minutes contingent upon these changes, with Tom Steinberg seconding. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code by the addition of Chapter 17.17 School Site Dedications; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained the ordinance, stating that it essentially used the same parameters as Eagle County's Resolution, and would only apply if land were subdivided into more than five lots. Mayor Rose stated that there are a small number of such lots left within the Town of Vail, and that this ordinance would have little or no effect, with its purpose being compliance with Eagle County. • There was some general discussion by Council regarding what constituted fair market value of the land and what entity would establish that value. Tom Steinberg moved to reject the ordinance, with Merv Lapin seconding. A vote was taken, with the motion being defeated 2-5, Lapin and Steinberg voting in favor. Mayor Rose stated that he believed there was some confusion in thinking this was a zoning concern rather than a subdivision concern. Jim Gibson stated that the passage of this ordinance would have a positive cosmetic effect to the rest of the county. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve ordinance No. 1 on the first reading, with the addition of a Town of Vail exemption from the requirements. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken, with the motion passing 7-0. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 9, Series of 1991, a resolution approving the Stephens Park Master Plan for the Town owned property located at the southeast corner of Kinnickinick Road and South Frontage Road West; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. At this time Jim Gibson left the room. Todd Oppenheimer summarized the Stephens Park Master Plan. Lynn Fritzlen stated that she was happy to see the progress made in developing this park, and felt it would be an asset to the Intermountain area. She then moved to approve the resolution. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken, with the motion passing 01 6-0, Jim Gibson being absent from the room. Item No. 5 was a modification to the Town of Vail Avalanche, Debris Flow and Rockfall Hazard Maps in the general vicinity of Stephens Park, located 1 at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The applicant: Town of Vail. Jim Gibson returned to the room. Andy Knudtsen gave background information on this modification, and stated that Art Mears, is P.E., Inc., of Gunnison, Colorado, had been hired by the Town to evaluate the hazards associated with the Stephens Park area. The Town mapped these hazards in 1984, but more sophisticated hazard evaluation methods and a detailed topography have been developed since then, necessitating this study. Andy stated that Art Mears suggested two additions to the Stephens Park Master Plan regarding the hazards: 1. Eliminate the debris flow hazard at the play area by constructing a berm 3 feet high around the eastern and southern boundaries of the play area. 2. Because the avalanche slope is a "backcountry" avalanche slope, uncontrolled by ski patrol personnel, place avalanche warning signs at the base of the slope on both east and west sides. Andy stated that the PEC had reviewed the hazard reports and unanimously voted recommending approval of the changes. Tom Steinberg moved to approve the modifications, seconded by Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was comprised of the following Resolutions, Series 40 of 1991, Authorizing Town of Vail Staff to Purchase, Sell, and Resell Investments to or from the following Brokers/Dealers: a. Resolution No. 2 - Dean Witter Reynolds b. Resolution No. 3 - Investment Resource Network C. Resolution No. 4 - Morgan Stanley & Company d. Resolution No. 5 - Smith Barney e. Resolution No. 6 - Paine Webber Rotan Mosle f. Resolution No. 7 - Liberty Capital Markets g. Resolution No. 8 - - Piper Jaffray & Hopwood Mayor Rose read the resolutions by title. Steve Thompson stated that the investment committee had recommended expanding the number of Brokers/Dealers with which the Town does business in order to increase competition and get a better idea of what securities may be on the market. Merv Lapin questioned the safety of the Town's purchase or repurchase agreements. Steve Thompson said that all of those purchases were guaranteed by government securities, and that Central Bank of Denver holds the securities; the Town does not wire money directly to Brokers/Dealers. Rob Levine moved to approved Resolutions 2 through 8 of 1991, seconded by • Merv Lapin. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an Agreement between the Town of Vail, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District. Applicant: Town of Vail. Ron Phillips stated that this is the same agreement that had been in effect until eighteen months ago. The District Board had been informed that the agreement was no longer in effect, and both sides had agreed to reenact the agreement. Ron said the District Board had waived the tap fees for the Village Transportation Center remodel, anticipating this agreement would be approved. Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve the agreement, seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken, with the motion passing unanimously, 7-0. At this time Ron Phillips asked Shelly Mello to report to the Council on the Art in Public Places meeting held this morning. The specific item of discussion was the request to place an elk sculpture on Gore Creek Promenade in front of Cogswell Gallery. The Art Board had denied this request for two reasons: 1. public safety 2. inappropriateness of site - the piece was too large for the proposed site Shelly had conducted a phone poll of the Art Board on a suggested alternate site, placing the sculpture in Gore Creek. The results of the poll were 2 2-2, with one person unavailable. Shelly stated that there are alternate designated sculpture display locations within the Town of Vail that would accommodate this piece, but that since the sculpture was on loan for thirty days for an opening at Cogswell Gallery, it probably needed to be placed close to that gallery. Following discussion, Jim Gibson moved to uphold the Art in Public Places Board's decision, but to encourage the applicant to find another location as he would like to see it displayed in the Town. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken, with the motion passing unanimously, 7-0. At this time Mayor Rose requested a motion for adjournment so that the Council could go into Executive Session to discuss land negotiations. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Martha Jensen C1 0 3 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 5, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 5, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Peggy Osterfoss Lynn Fritzlen Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 2 was the approval of the Minutes of February 5, 1991, and February 19, 1991, meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the minutes, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. 0 Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 17.17 School Site Dedications; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Mr. Lapin then moved to approve Ordinance No. 1 on second reading, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 18.67 Vested Property Rights; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Merv Lapin read the title in full. Following brief comments by Larry Eskwith, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 2 on first reading, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 5 was the appointment of a Planning and Environmental Commission Member. Following a written vote, Merv Lapin move to approve Gena Whitten for a two-year period of time, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer Respectfully submitted, O'er Kent R. Rose, Mayor 0 MINUTES VAIL TOWN MARCH 19, 41 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL MEETING 1991 A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 19, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Martha Jensen, Deputy Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was a ten-year employment anniversary award for Mike Chapman of the Fire Department. Ron Phillips and Dick Duran made remarks concerning Mike's tenure with the Town, and Mayor Rose thanked Mike for his work. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 18.67 Vested Property Rights; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith stated there had been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 2 on the second reading, setting the fee in Section 18.67.060 at $100.00. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.52.160 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to set parking in lieu fees for Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II at eight 41 thousand dollars ($8,000) per space; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith gave a brief explanation of the ordinance. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6 on the first reading, striking the sentence in 18.52.160 B. (ii) regarding fee refunding, and adding a provision for adjusting the $8,000 fee over two years to reflect the Consumer Price Index for the City of Denver. The motion was seconded by Rob LeVine. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was an appeal of the March 6, 1991, Design Review Board decision to approve the Christiania Lodge remodel, 356 Hanson Ranch Road, Part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Jack Morton Associates, Inc., represented by Peter Harris Rudy. Jill Kammerer gave a brief presentation of the project and stated that it had been unanimously approved by the Design Review Board. Peter Rudy presented the appeal. The first issue of the appeal, that the application violates the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail, was addressed by Larry Eskwith. Larry stated that the proper forum to appeal this issue was the Planning Commission and that Council should consider only Design Review issues. The second issue in the appeal raised by Mr. Rudy was that the application failed to resolve serious parking problems in the neighborhood, relating to Tract P-3 and J. Jay Peterson, attorney for the Christiania Lodge, stated the site becomes less non-conforming through the combination of existing accommodation units into suites. The net result is a reduction in unit count from 14.5 to 9 1 dwelling units. Nine dwelling units is the maximum unit count allowable under zoning. A reduction in required parking results from a reduction in unit count. Under the redevelopment proposal reviewed by DRB, this non- conforming site will actually become less non-conforming following the . expansion; traffic congestion and parking will be reduced. Jay stated the Christiania has also agreed, with the Design Review Board, to landscape any parking lots the Christiania may utilize once property ownership of Parcels P-3 and J is resolved. Larry Eskwith said determination of lot ownership is not within the Design Review Board's purview, and the Christiania's project expansion will not impact parking requirements, regardless of the ownership resolution. The final issue raised by Mr. Rudy dealt with a pending ordinance regarding the adoption of a view corridor down Hanson Ranch Road. Jay Peterson stated photographs of the encroachments into the proposed view corridor had been provided to the DRB for their review; the Board was satisfied the project did not encroach adversely. Larry Eskwith stated this view corridor has not yet been considered by the Town council or passed by ordinance, and is not presently the law of the Town of Vail. Merv Lapin. made a motion to uphold the Design Review Board's decision, which was seconded by Lynn Fritzlen. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Sections 8.10.020 and 8.10.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for increased fees in the provision of fire protection services out of the Town limits; and setting .forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith presented the ordinance to Council, stating the fees may be adjusted annually for inflation, and a provision was included allowing the Town of Vail to enter into contracts with property owners outside the Town limits. Upon questioning, Dick Duran stated the cost for an initial response for a structure fire outside the Town limits would be approximately $1700 per hour. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1991, on the first reading. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was ordinance No. 4, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance enabling the Finance Director of the Town of Vail to declare sales taxes immediately due and payable, if he finds that the collection of the tax would be jeopardized by delay; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Barwick stated the purpose of the ordinance was to ensure the Town of Vail receives sales tax due when a business closing is imminent. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1991, on the first reading. The motion was seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.40.130 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that fees for special development district applications, and for major and minor amendments on special development districts, may be set by the Town Council by resolution rather than ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith presented the ordinance to Council. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1991, on the first reading. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 9 on the agenda was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1991, a resolution increasing fees for certain Community Development services; and setting forth the parking in lieu fees for Commercial Cores I and II. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mike Mollica reviewed the resolution, and discussed five additions. Following discussion by Council and Staff, Merv Lapin moved to direct staff to - include Mike MollicaIs suggested changes and to table the resolution until the second meeting in April. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. *tem No. 10 on the agenda was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1991, a esolution opposing Senate Bill 91-220. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith stated the Senate Bill amendment, if passed, would change 2 the entire annexation package to resolve municipalities, i.e. Thornton and NorthglE the Town's ability to annex lands in the Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. was seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was 1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposed. one issue existing between two inn, and could negatively impact future. Following discussion, 11, Series of 1991. The motion taken, and the motion passed 5- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent Rose, Ma'?or ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer; Town clerk *Minutes taken by Martha Jensen It • 3 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 2, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 2, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Jim Gibson Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Martha Jensen, Deputy Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was a ten-year employment anniversary award for Gary Murrain of the Community Development Department. Ron Phillips and Kristan Pritz made remarks concerning Gary's tenure with the Town, and Mayor Rose thanked Gary for his work. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was approval of minutes of the March 5, 1991, and March 19, 1991, meetings. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken with the motion passing unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.52.160 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to set parking in lieu fees for Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II at eight thousand dollars ($8,000) per space; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz gave a brief explanation of the ordinance. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the ordinance: Johannes Faessler, Paul Johnston, Bob Fritch, Hermann Staufer, Paul Jeppson, Bob Lazier, Gary Haubert, and Galen Aasland. A letter from Pepi Gramshammer opposing the ordinance was also entered into the record. Following discussion by Council, Tom Steinberg moved to approve ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991, with the following addition: those projects receiving Planning and Environmental commission or Design Review Board approval by May 1, 1991, and a building permit by November 1, 1991, would fall under the old fee structure. Mr. Steinberg also directed staff and the Zoning Code Task Force to give further consideration to a Village and Lionshead rate differential. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken, with the motion passing 4-2, Lynn Fritzlen and Rob Levine opposed. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Sections 8.10.020 and 8.10.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for increased fees in the provision of fire protection services out of the Town limits; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Dick Duran reported no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1991. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance enabling the Finance Director of the Town of Vail to ,declare sales taxes immediately due and payable, if he finds that the collection of the tax would be jeopardized by delay; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full.. Steve Barwick stated there had been no changes to the ordinance since the first 1 A reading. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1991. The motion was seconded by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.40.130 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that fees for special development district applications, and for major and minor amendments on special development districts, may be set by the Town Council by resolution rather than ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mike Mollica stated there had been no changes to the ordinance since the first reading. Jim Gibson moved to approve ordinance No. 5, Series of 1991. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 9.34.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person under the age of twenty-one years to have in his possession any fermented malt beverage, and amending Section 9.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to make it unlawful for any person to sell any fermented malt beverages to any person under the age of twenty-one years; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Ken Hughey stated the purpose of this ordinance was to bring the Town of Vail Code into conformity with State law. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1991. The motion was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. A vote as taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Ii-.em No. 9 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for changes and additional conditions relating to street ope.iings, excavations, and pavement cuts; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Greg Hall presented an overview of the ordinance. Gerry Bonser, District Manager of Public Service Company, and Howard Scarborough, Assistant Manager of Holy Cross Electric Association, both stated utilities, in the past, had been exempted from performance bonds. They also stated their original franchise agreements allowed them to make street cuts when reasonable and necessary. Council stated their policy, in both cases, would remain the same. General discussion followed regarding compaction testing, suggesting that the testing be done randomly as allowing time for testing to be completed can be lengthy and expensive. Lynn Fritzlen moved that Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, be approved, with the inclusion of random testing to be done by the Public Works Department, passing the costs involved onto the permittee, and other wording changes. The motion was seconded by Rob Levine. A vote was taken with the motion passing unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J? '11 ` K \2 111) C112/r Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk 9 Minutes taken by Martha Jensen 2 e -MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 16, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 16, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the ten-year employment anniversary award for Todd Scholl of the Public Works Fleet Maintenance Division. Ron Phillips, Pete Burnett, and Kent Rose made remarks concerning Todd's tenure with the Town and Mayor Rose thanked Todd for his work. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Chuck Crist, with Vail Mountain Rescue, expressed thanks from that group for previous moneys the Council has contributed to the organization, also notifying Council they had just been recertified. Secondly, Merv Lapin introduced Galina Kozlova, from the Soviet Union, who is the interpreter for the Russian hockey team currently visiting Vail. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Debbie Comerford in a request to address the Town Council. Debbie expressed her appreciation of Council's time and asked for any comments or suggestions the Council might have in regard to the upcoming school board election and the conduct of that school board. In response, several suggestions were given. First, the school board must be very specific as to where the money goes and this should come in a readily understandable format. People feel the board does not have a handle on how the money is being spent. Furthermore, the board itself must understand the budget and each of its line items. A breakdown by schools or smaller segments, also known as site-based management, was discussed. Secondly, regarding the state funding issue, a pro active stance by the board would meet with voter approval. Debbie, if elected, was asked to come back to this Council, as well as to other councils and boards throughout the school district, to get support at such time as they may be appearing before the state legislature. The third item suggested had to do with before and after school programs, weekends, holidays, and so forth, that could be sponsored by the school district. Debbie then asked the board how they felt about an educational foundation and endowment for the school district and the council responded in a positive manner. Item No. 4 was the Consent Agenda. A. Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 9.34.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide that it shall be unlawful for any person under the age of twenty--one years to have in his possession any fermented malt beverage and amending Section 9.34.040 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to make it unlawful for any person to sell any fermented malt beverages to any person under the age of twenty-one years and setting forth details in regard i 4. Garages be reduced to 600 square feet allowable for primary unit and an additional 300 sq. ft. of garage if an employee unit is provided. The motion was then seconded by Lynn Fritzlen. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with all but Merv Lapin voting for the motion. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance rezoning three tracts from hillside residential zoning, Section 18.09 to greenbelt and natural open space zoning, Section 18.38 within a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, located north and east of the main Vail interchange and east of Spraddle Creek Livery. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz stated this rezoning was an implementation of the final PEC subdivision approval. The PEC had voted unanimously to recommend approval of this rezoning to Council. Merv Lapin requested a clarification on taxes regarding this open space and requested that Jay Peterson and Larry Eskwith look into the actual ownership of the land at issue. Merv Lapin moved to approve the ordinance, with the second coming from Peg Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1, with one abstention by Kent Rose. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance directing the Town Manager to sign an agreement regarding a former strip of right-of-way. Mayor Rose read the title in full. . Applicants were the Town of Vail and Manor Vail. Andy Knudtsen stated that in 1977 the Town conveyed a section of right-of-way to Manor Vail. The land conveyed was a 50-foot wide strip extending from Vail Valley Drive east past the front entrance of Manor Vail to the pedestrian bridge leading to Ford Park. When the Town originally conveyed the land, it conditioned the deed with six restrictions, including the requirement that Manor Vail dedicate a pedestrian easement through this area to the Town. However, a clause in the deed limited the restrictions to twenty years. Therefore, after 1997, the Town would not have a pedestrian easement to Ford Park. He explained the proposed ordinance would direct the Town Manager to sign an agreement which would release some of the conditions, and would make the pedestrian easement permanent. Tom Steinberg requested that signage be allowed at both ends of the easement, which was agreeaple to the applicant. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 12. Peg Osterfoss seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1991, a resolution increasing fees for certain Community Development services. Merv Lapin moved to approve this resolution, with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzlen voting against this resolution. Item No. 10 was the Neuswanger appeal of a PEC decision to deny a wall height variance request. Jill Kammerer stated the applicant, Chris Neuswanger, had requested PEC approval of a front setback and wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence located within the primary/secondary zone district at 2642 Cortina Lane, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision. The PEC had approved the front setback variance in order to allow the construction of GRFA in conjunction with a garage within the front setback and had denied the wall height variance request. In response to questions from Council, Chris indicated the proposed wall heights in excess of 31-0" were required and were not strickly an aesthetic issue. The wall height had to do with drainage for the actual lot because of the severity of the slope of that lot. Some members of Council did not believe a physical hardship had been presented and thought a break up of walls, more terracing, and landscaping with three foot maximum height in the walls, would be more appealing. 9 -3- i 4 Merv Lapin restated his belief that the level of design and grading work done to date was conceptual and needed to be investigated in more detail to see if the need for a wall height variance and the drainage problems could be eliminated through alternative design solutions. Peggy Osterfoss moved to conceptually approve the variances, based on the fact the need for a wall height variance was a physical hardship resulting from the grade of the site. Because of the slope of the lot, Peggy did not believe the high walls would be highly visible if the wall were terraced and properly landscaped. She conditioned her approval with the request the wall be in a minimum of two sections, four feet apart, with ample landscaping between. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the results ended in a tie with Rob LeVine, Lynn Fritzlen and Merv Lapin voting against approval, wick means the motion failed. Upon further discussion, it was recommended to staff and Mr. Neuswanger he return to Planning Commission and attempt to achieve a settlement through the Planning and Environmental Commission. There being no further business, Merv Lapin moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, IJ Kent-R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk -4-- • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 16 MAY 7, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the ten-year employment anniversary award for Kurt Gordon, who is the Fleet Service Technician in the Public Works Department. Ron Phillips, Todd Scholl, and Kent Rose made positive remarks concerning Kurt's tenure with the Town. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 3 was approval of the minutes of the April 2 and April 16, 1991, meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve these minutes; Rob LeVine seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was the Consent Agenda. Following a brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, second reading, until a final plat is recorded at the County. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Continuing Item No. 4 was the reading of Ordinances No. 10 and 12. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais-Mosely Subdivision to 46 provide changes to Special Development District No. 22, that certain lot size and corresponding GRFA, employee dwelling units and architectural guidelines, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1991, second reading. Modifications to deed restrictions on Manor Vail property located between Vail Valley Drive and Ford Park, immediately north of the main Manor Vail building (Applicants: Town of Vail and Manor Vail). Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinances No. 10 and No. 12, with a second by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1991, first reading, adopting a fifth view corridor and revising the current language regulating view corridors. (Applicant: Town of Vail). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen stated the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 6-0 on March 11, 1991, to recommend approval of a fifth view corridor. The view corridor would extend from Frivolous Sals looking east to the Gore Range over the Red Lion and Christiania roofs. Discussion of adopting this corridor was reinitiated recently when the Red Lion redevelopment was reviewed. Since that time, staff has been working with the property owners in the area to define this corridor. Discussion followed among Town Council members, Jay Peterson, and Paul Johnston, regarding the roof line for the Christiania. Photographs were produced showing the corridor as it exists today and as it will be after the Christiania expansion is built. Andy also stated the staff had reorganized the language regulating view corridors and had created a new chapter in the zoning code for this regulation. Lynn Fritzlen made remarks about the legal description on page 5, 18.73.030 Limitations on Construction, and it was suggested that "decks" be included as one of the structures. Jim Gibson requested Kristan Pritz look at protecting important views with a view analysis on the Village and Lionshead. Merv Lapin moved approval of ordinance No. 13, with the following clarifications and changes: 1) addresses of properties referred to by building name be included; 2) changes in the physical description of the corridor be made including the line along the Plaza Lodge and the line representing the proposed Christiania building; 3) Page 4 Section C reading "Northwest corner of 244 Wall Street" be changed to Northeast corner; 4) Section 18.73.070, Page 7 Exemptions, paragraph one be reworded; 5) a statement regarding natural light be added to the purpose section; 6) language describing the effective date of the view corridor be deleted and that the legal description be revised to allign with the proposed Christiania expansing. Jim Gibson seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. LI Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor' • ATTEST: C4,"J'P4. &U,c AUgQ,) Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Margaret Stevens c:\min57 0 TOWN OF VAIL 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 479.2138 office of the town clerk May 13, 1991 t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN there will be a Special Meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail on Thursday, June 13, 1991, at 7:30 1P P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The Berry Creek 5th will be discussed at this meeting. All interested,.citizens -are encouraged to attend. Pamela A. Brandmeyer Town Clerk 0 • • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MAY 21, 1991. 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 21, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Merv Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda was the introduction of Stan McKenzie, new manager of Heritage Cablevision. Mr. McKenzie thanked the Council for allowing him to speak to them, expressing his willingness to work with both the public and the media to improve working relationships. He explained the philosophy of Heritage regarding their methods of doing business. Tom Steinberg asked why the addition of expanded service was being handled the way it was, adding the service to customer's subscription and then putting the responsibility on the consumer to request a disconnect if the service was not wanted. Stan said the reason for this technique was to keep costs low, anticipating that most subscribers would want to keep the expanded service, thus making fewer disconnect calls. He stated there was no official time limit on canceling the service and any service charges would be backed out of the customer's fee, if requested. Kent Rose stated he felt this was a deceptive way of doing business and would prefer Heritage take the opposite approach in selling this service. Mr. McKenzie stated he respected that opinion; however, he had investigated the legality of this position and was not breaking any law by doing it this way. Peg Osterfoss stated that she agreed with Tom Steinberg's and Kent Rose's feelings. Tom Steinberg also stated he felt Heritage was skirting the issue again, as was done in the past in regard to franchise fees, and this would probably result in problems for Heritage in the future. There was further discussion regarding Heritage services. Mr. McKenzie thanked the Council for their time and encouraged the Council to contact him if they had any further questions or comments. The next item on the agenda was a request to approve Resolution No. 13, Series of 1991, amending the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, rezoning property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works Shops from Agriculture and Open Space to Public Use District. Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Andy Knudtsen, of the Community Development Department, presented the request to the Council, recapping the staff memo attached thereto. He stated the Planning and Environmental Commission had recommended approval of the request 4-0 at its may 13, 1991, meeting. After the presentation, Rob LeVine made a motion to approve Resolution No. 13, Series of 1991, and Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Kristan Pritz requested that the specific map reference be changed to the "Mid-Section Map" and that this change be reflected in the Resolution title. Ron Phillips stated that he was in final negotiations with Vail Associates in working out the final details for the lease and would have them resolved by the second reading of the Ordinance. A vote was taken on the motion and it passed unanimously. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve Ordinance #14, Series of 1991, on first reading, and Rob LeVine seconded the motion. Kent Rose asked the staff if for any reason the lease with Vail Associates was canceled, the land could automatically be changed back to open space. Ron Phillips stated that the Town has the authority to initiate rezoning at any time, but that a provision to make the change automatic could not be added. Andy stated that the Planning Commission had expressed the same concerns and that the uses listed in each zone district were similar. After some discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business, Jim Gibson made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Rob LeVine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent ",R. Rose, Mayor IP ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmey r, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster r? u • -2- • • 0 r MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda was a Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes of May 7 and 21, 1991, meetings. B. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract of land generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space, Section 18.32, to Public Use District, section 18.36. Applicants: Town of Vail and Vail Associates. Mayor'Rose read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve both items on the Consent Agenda, with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential (GRFA), and setting forth the details in"regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz stated the next three ordinances, 15, 16 and 17, were all interrelated issues, with the biggest issue being how the Town deals with common area when dealing with a variety of different Multi-Family developments. Kristan stated on May 13, 1991, the PEC had reviewed the amendment to GRFA to Multi-Family developments. The motion passed Planning Commission 4-0. Kristan referred the Council to page 3 of the May 13, 1991, memo from the Cc.U„«unity Development Department to the PEC stating a definition of common area, indicating as common area is calculated by taking 20% of allowable GRFA and allocating that square footage to common areas. The common areas or spaces included in the existing definition of common area were common hallways, common closets, lobby areas, stairways, and common recreational facilities. The intent of the amendment was to raise this allotment to 35%, now considering areas previously not counted. Kristan reiterated they were not adding square footage; simply, they were now counting areas previously not considered. She then discussed common stairways and elevator shafts, common meeting facilities, common mechanical areas, and management and support space areas. She stated the objective of modifying the common area credit was to insure that the common area percentage would provide ample flexibility for the development of common spaces. A question in regard to the 35% was whether the need for cvauiuon area doubles if density doubles. In most cases, Kristan stated, the need for common area would increase but it probably would not double. An argument could be made for doubling square footage for hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office 1 support; however, lobby areas, recreational facilities, and mechanical spaces would probably not require twice the space to serve twice the number of people. There would also be an increase in square footage for stairways. Therefore, a common area credit of between 30 and 35% seemed reasonable for the typical development. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.14.090, Density Control--Residential Cluster District; Section 18.16.090, Density Control-Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.090, Density Control-Medium Density Multi-Family District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz explained the goal of these amendments to the definition of GRFA had been to treat all properties equitably. As an example, GRFA was added to the Density Control Section of certain zone districts to compensate for the elimination of credits, and allowable common area for Multi-Family buildings would be increased to make up for the changes to how common area would be defined. The one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants consideration by the PEC is that over the past five years a development of single-family and duplex homes on lots zoned for Multi-Family development has become very common. single family and duplex homes are permitted in the residential cluster, low-density residential, and medium-density residential districts. However, such development "falls through the cracks" with regard to GRFA credits. Kristan indicated this would not increase or decrease GRFA, but the attempt was being made to come up with a more workable definition on how GRFA is calculated. It was recommended that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the Density Control Section of the RC, LDMF, and MDMF zone districts. The square footage would then compensate for the change in how stairways were calculated and would be available to single-family or duplex development only. It would also compensate for the 25 square foot air lock and 50 square foot mechanical. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 17, series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing section 18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.04.360, Definition of site coverage; Section • 18.14.110, Site Coverage-Residential Cluster; Section 18.16.110, Site Coverage--Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.110, Site Coverage-Medium Density Multi-Family District Section 18.20.110, Site Coverage-High Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.22.110, Site Coverage-Public ACCLUU«Odation District; Section 18.24.150, Site Coverage-Commercial Core I District; Section 18.26.120, Site Coverage-Commercial Core II District; Section 18.27.090, Site Coverage-Commercial Core III District; Section 18.28.120, Site Coverage-Commercial Service Center District; Section 18.29.090, Site Coverage-Arterial Business District; Section 18.30.110, Site Coverage-Heavy Service District Section 18.21.1101 Site Coverage-Agricultural and Open Space District; District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz indicated this ordinance would allow for a consistent definition of site coverage in all zone districts. The request was recommended for approval by the PEC unanimously on May 13, 1991. Kristan further stated that amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed Single-Family and Duplex Residential development only. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations would be to address Multi-Family and Commercial Development. The fundamental question in regard to this new site coverage definition is whether the new definition of site coverage is appropriate for Multi-Family and Commercial 2 Development. The staff and task force agreed the new definition is not only appropriate but also necessary. Three major changes are as follows: 1. Cantilevered portions of buildings are now calculated as site coverage; 2. Any portion of a roof overhang that extends more than 4 feet from the face of the building is now included in site coverage calculations; 3. Any portion of a covered deck or similar feature that extends more than 4 feet from the face of the building is now included in site coverage calculations. The justification for these changes is that these design features affect the appearance of the building. Cantilevered buildings, overhangs, and covered decks all add to building bulk and as such it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to establish some limit on the extent of these design features. Adopting the new definition would not prohibit cantilevers, overhangs, or decks, but would merely establish parameters that in some cases may result in these features being calculated as site coverage. Merv Lapin requested comparisons be provided before second reading of this ordinance, with common area allowances for Garden of the Gods, Manor Vail, Christiania, or some similar range showing examples of how this will affect future common area. Tom Steinberg moved to approve this ordinance, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 25 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Peter Jacobs, Days Inn. Mayor Rose read the title in full. At this point, Mayor Rose indicated the applicant was not yet present and indicated to Council they should move forward with Item No. 7. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991, a Resolution approving an amendment to the personnel rules by the Town Manager. Larry Eskwith explained this Resolution would correct a typographical error that occurred when these rules were amended. The current section of the personnel rules dealing with how appeals of employee discipline are handled was unclear. Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution No. 12, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5- 0. At this time Peter Jacobs had appeared at the meeting so Council moved back to Item No. 6, consideration of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, which title had already been read into the record. Jill • Kammerer, Town Planner, indicated approval of this SDD would allow the construction of a new three-story, 18,897 square foot, 37-unit, free-standing employee housing building along Chamonix Road at the northwest corner of the Days Inn property. On Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the PEC, by a vote of 6-0, had rec.-olLiended approval of the Chamonix Special Development District, subject to numerous conditions. These conditions are outlined in a memorandum dated May 31, 1991, from the Community Development Department to the PEC. Jill presented a brief overview of the project. Approval of the SDD was required in order to allow the development to occur because the proposed development did not meet underlying Commercial Core III zone district development standards: there was a slight shortage of parking, i.e. twelve (12) spaces, the development site exceeded its allowable GRFA, and some landscaping requirements had not been met. Jill indicated the employee housing units which were a mix of studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, would house approximately 49 people and would be permanently restricted to rental units for full-time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. These units could not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. Jill indicated the Community Development Department staff felt the project was ideally located and well- suited to the proposed development plan because of the site's proximity to services, bus stops, and commercial areas. Jill stated the proposed development was a good transition between the 3 1 M1 . adjacent higher density and lower density developments and with the primary access off the North Frontage Road, the development will generate few automobile trips into the lower density residential areas to the north. Because of the slope of the site and the proposed structure, the development would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Enclosure of trash receptacles would also enhance the project. Jill specified the four goals of the land use plan were met through this project. A geologic hazard study and mitigation study had to be done and would need to be done prior to the Town issuance of a building permit. The developer will also contribute funds toward this project. Jill indicated all conditions of approval could be incorporated into the body of this Ordinance. Peter Jacobs responded to questions from Council by indicating improvements to the facades of the Days Inn and the Shoppette, which housed the 7-Eleven, were not to be included because of the economics of the situation. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 18 with the following conditions: 1. Section 5, No. 3 - Trash Enclosure should be modified to delete the dumpster reorientation requirement;2. Section 5.1 (d) describing the $50,000.00 contribution to the road changes be modified to reflect Council's desire to have cash contribution available for Frontage Road improvements and not just for construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project; 3. New Item E, requiring a $10.00 a square foot upgrade of the exterior of the shoppette, or $90,000.00, to be accomplished by October 1, 1996, in conformation with DRB standards at that time; 4. New Item F, requiring a biannual report be submitted to the Town regarding unit occupancy and rental rates requirement; 5. Numbers needed to be checked on page 2, Section 4, in regard to density control; 6. All conditions of approval be put into the main body of the development plan Ordinance; 7. The phasing verbiage changed; 8. A new traffic study, as may be required by the Town Engineer, required. At this point Rob Levine seconded this motion with conditions. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item 8 on the agenda was an appeal of a Design Review Board approval allowing the Vail Recreation District to remove one tree in Ford Park and transplant a second one. Andy Knudtsen indicated on May 15, 1991, the DRB voted 5-0 approving the proposal to cut down a tree that was dying and to transplant another tree. The DRB conditioned the approval, requiring the VRD to plant additional trees if that transplanted tree died. The VRD would then submit a proposal for DRB approval if additional trees were needed. The tree that was dying had been cut down on May 22, 1991. Andy indicated that according to the VRD, the current softball field did not meet regulations for a standard men's playing field and the request to transplant the second tree would accomplish this. The Council indicated the request was appropriate and that Pete Burnett should oversee the transplanting project. Further, they requested an opinion from Todd Oppenheimer, Landscape Architect for the Town of Vail. The VRD was requested to bring back the issue at the following Tuesday work session to be held on June 11, 1991. There being no further business, Rob LeVine moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer,Town Clerk minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer 4 . f -f E MINUTES VAIL TOWN C%ju"CIL SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 13, 1991 7:30 P.M. A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Thursday, June 13, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Steve Barwick, Administrative Services Director • The sole purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Berry Creek 5th Filing. Special notice had been circulated on May 13, 1991, to encourage all interested citizens to attend. Kent opened the meeting with a brief overview regarding the history and current status of the land, bringing all in attendance up to date on concerns related to the 105 acre parcel. In particular, this parcel was considered prime land the Town of Vail wanted to preserve. He advised that TOV has gone back to some agencies and interested private parties re: sale of property to them. Kent stated that the cash paid by TOV for the property has depleted TOV funds, and has created a financial strain on TOV. The meeting was then turned over to Steve Barwick. He noted that TOV paid $1.867 million cash out of general fund, leaving approximately $200,000 at year end. Steve said the Town would like to have $1.5 million in this fund. He then presented three options examined by the Town Council as possible ways to deal with the land. The options presented (all with $147,000 annual debt service) were: (1) Keep the land in TOV ownership, after obtaining financing for it; net impact = ($34,000) per year; (2) Intergovernmental agreement /ownership; net impact = $28,000 • • per year; (3) Sell the land; net impact = $160,000 per year. Overall impact of keeping the land would be approximately $200,000 per year. According to Steve Barwick, the Town estimates it would be able to carry this cost, with some cutbacks in capital projects, but it would be difficult to maintain growth projects. Kent noted that the restrictions put on the land in the contract by George Gillett related to the development of employee housing and recreation. Specifically: (1) 10 acres of the 105 acres would be required to be set aside for development of affordable housing; (2) Certain number of years to do zoning; (3) Certain number of years to do recreational development; (4) If timeline not met, back to Gillett. Kent then asked for public and Town Council input as to whether the land should remain public property or not. All those who spoke on the issue were concerned with (a) the ten acre employee housing parcel restriction issue; (b) the need for open space and recreational area, (c) real estate values, (d) balancing vision with fiscal realities, (e) infrastructure development, and (f) continuing work on other priority projects and services. Speaking on behalf of participating in some sort of joint ownership/financial assistance/keeping the land were: Howard Gardner (Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District Board of Directors), Larry Brooks (Berry Creek Metropolitan District), Ron Bullington (Western Eagle County Recreation Board), Don Welch (Eagle County Commissioner), Helen White (Colorado Mountain College), Jim Gibson, Peggy Osterfoss, Merv Lapin, Kent Rose, Tom Steinberg, Lynn Fritzlen, Rob LeVine, Ron Phillips, and Larry Eskwith. Speaking in favor of somehow keeping the land were: Bill Williams (long time resident of Edwards Metropolitan District), Joey Carfano (Eagle-Vail resident), Tim Garton, Hermann Stauffer, James Johnson (Vail resident), Larry Brooks, Phoebe Peterson (20 year resident), Werner Kaplan (3 year Vail resident), and Peter Jamar. Kent Rose noted that there is an overwhelming majority of input from public and Council to find a way to keep the property. Some discussion ensued regarding trying another election at a lower dollar amount. Many present felt the high dollar amount at the original election was the primary reason voters turned it down. The committee approach to the election and recreational development may have been too grandiose. All in all, feelings were that groups (intergovernmental participation/ private donations) must come together to carry the fiscal burden of keeping this land. Don Welch agreed that another County-wide vote is worth discussing. Kent asked Ron Phillips to speak with Howard Gardner to pursue all options; work with Four Metropolitan Districts to develop a proposal or consider special District elections. Ron asked Howard to mobilize intergovernmental groups to look at all options. Perhaps each government entity should have the choice of raising new revenue or taking money out of existing funds. Ron also offered giving Districts the option as a third option. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor Ip ATTEST: Pamela A. I randmeyeV, Town Clerk Minutes compiled from notes taken by Dorianne S. Deto, Caroline Fisher, and Martha Raecker 0 C:\MINS613.CUT r-` r C: MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Ron Phillips DATE: March 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Berry Creek 5th Filing Tom Steinberg, Merv Lapin and I met with representatives of Avon and special districts in the upper Eagle County area last Tuesday morning to discuss the future of the Berry Creek 5th Filing. Merv and Tom explained to them what we had been through in trying to get George Gillett and Mike Shannon to remove restrictions, and that we have not been successful to this point. The decision of the Council to open the process to see what kind of offers might be elicited for sale of the land was shared with them, and the reasons for the Council's decision to elicit proposals were discussed. Those present included Howard Gardner from the Eagle-Vail Metro District, Gloria McGrory from Avon, Dan Corcoran from the Berry Creek Metro District, Jim Adams from the Arrowhead Metro District, and Lynn Robertson who acts as finance staff for a number of the districts. The entities represented indicated strong interest to be involved in the ownership of the land at a relatively minor-level. The two formulas of assessed valuation and a combination of assessed valuation population were discussed, and the group ended up suggesting that each of the four metro districts be involved in 5% of the ownership (20% total), and the Town of Avon be involved in 10% with Vail carrying the rest. The group asked that the Town Council have Larry Eskwith draw up an intergovernmental agreement that would allow their participation in ownership with some type of governing body, which would have voting weighted to the amount of ownership each entity has. In other words, the Town of Vail would retain weighted voting of 65%-70% since the Town's ownership would equal that amount. Merv and Tom made it clear that one of the Town's options would be to retain 100% ownership, and the other people present acknowledged that would be a possibility. They also indicated that they would prefer not to see the land sold to a private entity. i. r a Another item discussed was the fact that the other entities, if involved financially in purchasing the property, would also be asked within a relatively short time to contribute to infrastructure development and perhaps some limited recreation development to meet the restrictions in the contract with George Gillett. They indicated a willingness to do so, but also made it clear that they were individual board members and could not speak for all the members of their respective boards. It was felt the intergovernmental agreement should cover this issue, and they will present it to their respective boards in April. . It was also made clear to those present that George Gillett and Mike Shannon have shown no wilingness to remove any restriction now in the contract, and in fact intend to enforce the restrictions. I believe everyone realizes this is a dilemna that has to be faced and dealt with. It is my recommendation that the Town Council discuss this issue at next Tuesday's meeting in an open session and that consensus be reached to give Larry clear direction of how the Council feels an intergovernmental agreement should be drafted. It was understood by all present that this is one option out of at least three that the Vail Council will be considering leading up to the June 1 deadline. The other two options are the possibility of selling the land to a private entity or the Town of Vail It, keeping the land with 100% ownership itself. RVP/sas 0 Q? . OO H • i 9 0 V J ?o U) c 0 M? 0 L U L L im D C U ro? U ?? U? U? J C O j y .s7 w r C6 .? s ,30 r, ?• p 'tip p. ?+> ^'? ? O 1 D to ?os~ aCd ea C O w ? U 0 0.6 ° C e? 'J CL 'J h ,? ? ? D ?w C r .9 u lu go °,e o33'd C7 i7 Qa e ?' k+ ?r??3 o 4...r 4 ep .? .a . 'ON E.- Uc vS';? e-srnRcimoyy?al.aq? R. t 80 A y?'?L3? D? ?? c?E cp oLT????°? ?•? D D V U >+ c] co o r- D E. 4- r- 4- w ja 01 A r- 1,06 E 0 be ?npa 3 04 p a d a' aC, _d ?,a'p,?? a_T o,oi a?.`??Q 3 aU o•? yy Vi ?.r d a) np N e? r?i .+ " 7, d d ap'v C U d G t 'a3 .°r D a _y z fY+ h ?+ k-+ 'S 06 C1 'J ;?. A Ty"p' ul i+ '?' ?" .•?•?• ' rf'1, .?".icCr+?4 . O cC 0 a°p'G O U) LO 0 co co to w st ?Hr > 'I 'v O) Co L''? tD (0 a, N Q c. 00 C, u y v .? 4 C d ` I N ? CD .D c} Y... CO O rz r o ?4 rA O 40 co oo C"0 o`o O o X37 0 0 C). Lf) 101. ba c 'v w tn t4 bo= O CD ' t - 3 CO ,- CG'S C+) ?t 00 'M 13 'S 7 i O Q3 ?" :C' D ? ? :O O a °y ? ,v/ y 1fv/?? , M i ? ? A ? . ? ? 3 Ca a MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: • Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda, Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations, was postponed and will be rescheduled, as the recipients were unavailable to attend this meeting to acce-ot their awards. Third on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential (GRFA), and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail.. B. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.14.090, Density Control-Residential Cluster District; Section 18.16.090, Density Control-Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.090, Density Control-Medium Density Multi-Family District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. C. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing section 18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.04.360, Definition of Site Coverage; Section 18.14.110, Site Coverage-Residential Cluster; Section 18.16.110, Site Coverage-Low Density Multi-Family District; Section 18.18.110, Site Coverage-Medium Density Multi-Family Distract; Section 18.20.110, Site Coverage-High Density Multi- Family District; Section 18.22.110, Site Coverage-Public Accommodation District; Section 18.24.150, Site Coverage- Commercial Core I District; Section 18.26.120, Site Coverage- Commercial Core II District; Section 18.27.090, Site Coverage- Commercial Core III District; Section 18.28.120, Site Coverage-Commercial Service Center District; Section 18.29.090, Site Coverage-Arterial Business District; Section 18.32.110, Site Coverage-Heavy Service District; Section 18.21.110, Site Coverage-Agricultural and Open Space District; District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. D. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 25 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Peter Jacobs, Days Inn. Merv Lapin moved to approve items A,B, and C on the Consent Agenda, and requested item D, Ordinance No. 18, be removed from the Consent Agenda; with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Kent Rose asked Kristan Pritz to expand on Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991. Kristan Pritz noted the changes/corrections since first reading in Ordinance No. 18 which were as follows: requirement for permanently restricted employee housing units with semi-annual tenant reports; requirement that conditional uses are to be approved by the PEC; requirement for further information on the projected $50,000.00 figure for road improvements; requirement that the owner be required to expend not less than $90,000.00 by 9/30/96 to upgrade the exterior of the Shoppette. After further discussion about the $50,000.00 and $90,000.00, Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, on second reading; with second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, relating to fireplaces and air quality control measures, first reading of the changes/amendments to the ordinance. At issue: repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control. Presented by Susan Scanlan was the result of the joint Planning Commission and Town Council Work Session decision held on May 14, 1991, when discussion took place re: changes to the air quality ordinance to allow for the installation of certified units. Changes were as follows: definition of a certified solid fuel burning device now reflects the need for the device to be an EPA Phase 2 certified unit and to produce 7.5 grams of particulates per hour or less; Section 8.28.030 changed to allow for the installation of one new certified solid fuel burning device in new construction, or two gas log fireplaces; Section 8.28.030, No. 3C to add sections which require the gas log/fireplace installation in an accommodation to have automatic shut-off timers; Section 8.28.040, No. 1 to again decreased the number of gas log fireplaces that could be installed in dwelling units to two, and those for restricted units to one; requirement for timing devices or thermostats for gas appliance shut-off in accommodation units; Section 8.28.050B to say that during the remodel of a unit, if the existing fireplace is altered or moved strictly for aesthetic reasons, that unit shall be forced to comply with the provisions of the ordinance and be required to install a certified solid fuel burning device or a gas unit. Jim Gibson pointed out that one of support elements of this ordinance was a measurement over a period of time in monitoring to determine whether or not the program is successful. Susan advised that they will be conducting an inventory to get an accurate count of what is currently existing within Town limits. The Council's decision, Susan recalled, was that at the end of a three {3} year period, we would look for voluntary conversion of 500 of existing units in Town. This will be monitored by building permits. She added that they will let lodges know through public education effort materials about economics of conversion to gas. She noted that these materials would hopefully be together by end of next month or first part of August. It was agreed that completed DRB applications will be needed by July 15, 1991. Ken Friedman's wife said that her friend is willing to give her the rights to his open hearth fireplace, and convert his fireplace to gas. Larry Eskwith said there is no transfer of rights in this matter. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 42, with suggested changes /language clarification; with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the appointment of a new indexing agent and Amendment No. 1 to the remarketing agreement for the Town of Vail $17,000,000.00 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series of 1984. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 14; with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda, was the presentation of the 1990 Audited Financial Statement. Steve Thompson turned the presentation over to Chris Anderson, partner at McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson. She advised that the audit was completed in accordance with State statutes, the Federal Single Audit Act, and our home rule charter. In respect to the federal grants, the auditors must report every finding of noncompliance, even if it is a penny, because the Federal Government wants to be the one to decide whether or not there is a problem. It is now required that a drug free workplace policy with specific policies be adopted by the Town. Merv Lapin moved to accept the Town of Vail's 1990 Financial Report as prepared by McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson; with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an appeal of a denial of an exterior landscape lighting plan for property located at Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The Design Review Board reviewed the plan on May 1, 1991, and voted 4-0 to disapprove it. Appellant: Renato Ibarra, represented by Art Abplanalp. Andy Knudtsen distributed a letter from r George Lamb, DRB member, providing more detailed considerations by DRB on this proposal. The lighting at the site created too much of an impact on adjacent properties. At this Town Council meeting, before Mr. Abplanalp began his presentation, Kent Rose made it clear this was an appeal of a DRB decision, so the Town Council was limited to what the DRB had looked at. It was established the Town Council did have the right to visit the site during this meeting. Larry Eskwith asked Kristan Pritz if the lighting complied with DRB guidelines. She said that the lighting did not comply. Prints reviewed by Lyndon Ellefson, the landscape architect, were not the same ones presented to DRB in 1989, although Mr. Ellefson was the one who made the original presentation of the plan to DRB at that time. The original 1989 prints can not be found. Before Council recessed to make a site visit to Mr. Ibarra's, Kristan pointed out that she had called Mr. Abplanalp the previous Friday to be sure that the lighting Council would see tonight would be what DRB saw during their site visit. Kent also asked Andy to review the lighting guidelines for Council. Andy referred him to 6/18/91 memorandum concerning minimizing lighting impact. Council then recessed at 9:22 p.m. to visit the site. The party returned from the site visit at 9:56 p.m. Speaking against the lighting were Nancy Byers and Jay Peterson. After reviewing photographs brought by Mr. Abplanalp of lighting at other residences in the area, Merv Lapin made a motion to uphold the 5/1/91 DRB decision to deny the application of the exterior landscape lighting plan finding that the exterior lighting as proposed does have an impact. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1; Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Item No. 8 on the agenda was a request for a 4th of July fireworks display in the Town of Vail due to complaints received by TOV residents about there not being a display here. Kent Rose expressed some confusion, noting that his understanding was that VRA was contracted to do special events. Steve Barwick advised that VRA originally had budgeted for it, but Forest Service denied use of land for the display citing liability issues, so VRA reappropriated funds. Ron Phillips was advised that Forest Service might not allow the display, and asked them not to make a final decision yet. VA had said we could use Gold Peak property with three to five days notice. Pending contract negotiations and insurance coverage can be finalization, Jim Gibson made a motion to approve expenditure of $15,000.00 out of VRA contingency fund for a TOV fireworks display on 7/5/91; with a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. As there was no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: C-4?ww- Iclit. Pamela A. Brandmeyer; Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto • TRANSCRIPT OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF AN EXTERIOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL - MAY 1, 1991. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO {303} 476-2100 DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Ned Gwathmey, Design Review Board Chairman TOWN STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: CITIZENS PRESENT: Kristan Pritz, Director of Community Development Andy Knudtsen, Planner Shelly Mello, Planner Renato Ibarra, Applicant Art Abplanalp, Attorney for Renato Ibarra Glen Ellefson, Landscape Designer for Mr. Ibarra`, Jay Peterson, Adjacent property owner Nancy Byers, Adjacent property owner TOWN OF VAIL 75 south frontage road vall, colorado 81857 (343) 479-2138 office of the town clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) CERTIFICATION The foregoing is a full, true, and correct transcription of the Appeal by Renato Ibarra, Applicant, which is included in the final minutes of the Vail Town Council Meeting held on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, This is an Appeal of a denial by the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail, Colorado, of an exterior landscape lighting plan for property located at Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd filing, denial dated May 1, 1991. Date;.. q, lggl Time: C) `= {.l+J ((((0//11 U.+.J Pamela A. Brandmeyer,'Town Clerk of the Town of Vail STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me appeared Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado, this day of 6[d? , 1991. My commission expires: 9 Q NotarX r Is S. Address A ?- , r f Lr S ?(1 ly:. ilk ?t? 1 My GUiilir 7 S. Fran G- NDad, Vail, co g? ?7 .t 4 is i 1 .1 0 v? TRANSCRIPT OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY DRB OF AN EXTERIOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1, BLOCK 3,, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL MAY 1, 1991. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 18, 1991 ANDY KNUDTSEN: What I just passed out is a letter from George Lamb, 0 one of the DRB members, and that provides some of the... more details on what the DRB considered on this proposal. What I will do is just go through the background and give you the history as far as what happened when. Starting with April 5th, that's when'the Town received a proposal showing - it was a site plan showing the landscape illumination and that was submitted for Design Review Board approval. The Town believes that improvements like this need DRB approval, as I noted in the memo according to Section 18.54.030A. We believe it is an improvement of open space that within the corporate limits of the Town that requires DRB approval. The standard 0 '1 1 regarding exterior lighting is listed below that, and it comes from Section 18.54.050011 in the Design 0 Review section of the Zoning Code and that says that exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a manner to minimize impact of the lighting upon living areas within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures and properties. The night before the DRB hearing, on April. 30th, the Design Review Board went up to the site to evaluate the lighting and we scheduled it after it was dark so that they could get ;the impact or that they could see the situation as it was.during the nighttime, and we do have the minibus here, tonight and we think it might be good if you could see it at night to evaluate its impact on -the,,.neighborhood. At any *I rate, they were:out thereat night, discussed it 2 LI 1 f' - - F with the landscape architect, who showed the lights and showed how they could be screened. They talked i about the way,it affected the different areas, both along Beaver Dam Road as well as the valley and haw it was able to be seen from Potato Patch and that area. So it has small-scale impacts as well as large-scale impacts. The following day at the DRB hearing they voted 4-0 to deny the application, i mentioning in their vote that they believed it provides, Z mean, creates too much of an impact on the adjacent properties. We got an appeal ten days later and that is what brings us here tonight. KRISTAN PRITZ: We can do a couple of things here because of the time of year. Ft's still, it is almost twilight right now, so we could hear maybe the applicant's presentation. The applicant is represented by Art .' ! - 3 - a r.... * • Abplanalp and, Art, I don't' know if that is acceptable to you, but you can say your piece and then we could all get in the minibus and go up there. KENT ROSE: Yeah, Art, before you start, I guess a point of clarification. This is an appeal of a DRB decision, so what the Council, is looking at this evening'is limited to what DRB looked at. PRITZ: That's correct. ROSE: And I would assume that relates to all aspects, so it appears that maybe this was built before it was approved so did the DRB actually go out in the f ield and look at the lights? So we do have the right, I guess, to do that under the process. ART ABPLANALP: Yes. - 4 - is s ROSE: So,:I understand that. We will then try to limit our discussion this evening to the issues that the DRB considered. okay, Art? If you will? 0 ABPLANALP: Mr., Mayor,. ladies and gentlemen, this is Renato lbarra, who is president of the corporation which actually owns the property. The permitting which was done was done in Mr. Ibarra Is name and I believe you can arrange for the lights to be turned on shortly after the presentation? We also have Glen Ellef son, the landscape architect, who has worked either directly or indirectly on this project so we have a degree of formality or informality as far as the presentation that you would like. I think that we would like to start off with the general background, which goes back a good distance beyond the April date, which was just mentioned, if that - 5 - is acceptable to you. Then we can go out there perhaps at the conclusion of our presentation. It will be dark. ROSE: Again, as long as the issue is what the DRB had to consider. LARRY ESKWITH: I think the issue tonight, Art, is whether or not it complies with the Design Review Board's standards and I think that is the issue. ABPLANALP: Well, Larry, you can limit it as you are aware, to . the extent that you want. Our position is the same that it has been throughout. That this project was permitted by the Town of Vail. It wasn't something that someone went out and built. The reason it was permitted, like many projects identical to it or just built, was that it was the consensus of the Town and the Town Staff, that, until last December - 6 - ?J .F .or November, the Design Review regulations did not apply to landscape lighting. JAY PETERSON: I am going to object to this. I think this is an i appeal for a Design Review Board decision. if he wants to take that on, you go to Planning C,.,uu,.ittee first and then it comes to here. ROSE: I think that's right, Art, and that is what I tried to explain earlier, so maybe we ought to get back on track here. i ABPLANALP: Well, again, the testimony and presentation can be limited.-fJay and Jay's client have basically been dictating.to the Town what is happening, which we find some difficulty with. RON PHILLIPS: Art, that is a misstatement and I would appreciate it if you would change the statement to a more t correct..statement. - 7 - ABPLANALP: That is absolutely a correct statement. PHILLIPS: That is not. Jay, nor no one else dictates to the Town what the Town does. ' ROSE: Please correct your statement, Art. ABPLANALP: I will not because I think the evidence will indicate and establish that, Ron. PHILLIPS: I want the record to show that this statement that has been made is a misstatement and not correct. There is no one outside the Town of Vail to dictate to the Town Staff what to do. Period. ABPLANALP: Mr. Mayor, may I present the exhibits which we have and if you do not feel it appropriate to consider any of the evidence, that is obviously well within your discretion. ROSE: We will look at the Design Review Baord considerations, because that is'what we are here for g t i 0 a tonight. It is a DRB appeal. We will look at the issues that were discussed at the DRB. ABPLANALP: The difficulty with that, Mr. Mayor, is that there IP is no record of what the DRB, ah, took place. There is no tape because the tape was not turned on. The account which you have been presented by Mr. Knudtsen 'is inaccurate in reference to what the Town's own files have as far as the reasons for denial and that is among the exhibits. They were i . helpful enough to take notes on what the actual reasons were and all of that we are prepared to present, and that goes to the reasons that the Design Review Board denied it and why we are here tonight. I don't mean to be argumentative, but it seems fair, and that is what Kristan asked for last t Friday night, was an opportunity to be fair to the - 9 - DRB. We are asking for an opportunity to have some fairness directed to Mr.•Ibarra. ESKWITH: If I may comment. 1 ROSE: Well, yeah, we just have to take some advice from our counsel on this issue. i ESKWITH: I think that what you have done, Art, is you have appealed the decision of the Design Review Board relating to whether or not these particular lights comply with the provisions .of the Design Review Board or whether they do not. Obviously, the Design Review guidelines, excuse me. Obviously, the Design Review Board itself found that they did not. You have appealed that decision. I think that is what the Town Council needs to consider tonight. if you have a problem with the staf f determination, and you 0 feel that the staff determination was incorrect, 10 - 0 a :1 j. then, again, as we discussed once before on one of these appeals, the appropriate way to have handled the staff interpretation was to appeal it to the Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.66 of the Town Municipal Code. If you have a problem with the statute, again, I don't think this Board should consider the validity or lack thereof of any statute or ordinance of the Town of Vail this evening. What they can do this evening, on an appeal, is consider • whether or not the lights in question comply with the Design, Review guidelines, If you have any other type of action you need to take relating to decisions made by the staff, I think you need to do that in a different way than appealing the Design Review Board's decision to the Town Council. -il- ABPLANALP: Larry, my client made the decision to try to work with the Town of Vail through the Design Review process and that is where he was led. Z became involved in this actively after the denial by the Design Review Board, but that type of decision should not, in my mind, be penalized, where the standard has been, the argument has been made throughout, that this standard is not applicable and it never has been argued to be applicable, but we are going to try to work with you on that. Following Larry's argument, you are then penalized for trying to work with the Town of Vail. I ask you, is that the type of process you want? We are prepared to make a presentation. To the extent that you wish to ignore it, you may. To the extent you wish to take it into consideration, you Z hope will. - 12 - 0 0 r ' t ESKWITH: t But are you denying us the right, then, to make the presentation of the background, all of which relates to and was considered by the Design Review Board, Larry?. I think that all the Tu.+,. Council can consider tonight is whether or not this particular project complies with the Design Review guidelines. That's what you're appealing. You have many ways which allow you to attack other decisions made by the Town Staff, but tonight. the decision which is being appealed is a Design Review Board decision. I don't think it's fair. In fact, I think our ordinances specifically state that what they can look at this evening is basically the same presentation that was given to the Design Reiew Board. It is an appeal of a lower administrative body's action. It is not - 13 - ABPLANALP: ESKWITH: a presentation of an issue on your part of what happened from day one to Mr. Ibarra's house. The question is, do the lights comply with the Design Review guidelines or do they not as found by the Design Review Board? Larry, the question is whether the lights fall within the regulations of the Design Review guidelines, which this Council is entitled to decide. This is the same thing we argued the last time, and it is not this Town Council; which makes that decision in the first instance. It is the Town Staff which decides-whether or not an item goes to Design Review or not, and, if.indeed you object to the decision of the,Town Staff in that regard, you have an appropriate avenue, or your client had an - 14 - .s E i appropriate avenue set forth in the Municipal Code and that avenue is to appeal the administrative decision to the Planning Commission. ABPLANALP: Mr. 'Mayor, you, and the Council make the final decisions as to what you hear and what you cannot hear, and I feel that everything that we are prepared to present meets the test that Larry has put 'forth. If you want to disallow it, item by item, then that's maybe appropriate. PEG OSTERFOSS: I'think that`the point that is being made is that if we have the same presentation and the same materials, I mean, I don't know if they received these little packets that you have now, and that we go on the same site visit, those are the parameters of this appeal: ABPLANALP: I understand. And I understand you. - 15 - OSTERFOSS: And if there needs to be a different appeal, it starts through the Planning Commission. ABPLANALP: I understand his position and I understand you, but my question is, is the Council not interested in the fact that this project was permitted in 1989 and final approval was given in 1990? Is that irrelevant to this? And the.fact that Mr. Ibarra was pulled in five months after final approval was given? i PETERSON: I object. I prepared for an appeal of the Design Review Board. OSTERFOSS: It's just not the form. ESKWITH: I think I have made a decision,.at least I didn't make the decision, but I have given advice to the Town Council, to make a-decision, and my advice is that this hearing is an appeal.. from the Design - 16 - i X l • Review Board and should be substantially what was presented to the Design Review Board at the time. It should not be a total history of everything that has'occurred on-this item from day one if those things don -'It relate to the design review. MERV LAPIN: The question that I asked Larry when he came over I think bears some discussion also, or at least being on, the record for the general public to understand, and that is, is the applicant precluded at this point in time from bringing up these issue by going to the Planning Commission and then appealing the staff's decision so that we might hear the additional-information and, Larry, your answer is? ESKWITH: 'I don't know. Is there still time left, pursuant to the ordinance, to make the appeal? - 17 - V PRITZ: I guess that our point is that letters were, we started these letters back on November 16, 1990, 0 identifying the issue to Mr. Ibarra, and the fact that the staff did not agree that the lighting was approved and they have it up there on the site now, and I think that the way these things work is if an owner or an applicant feels that this staff is not making the appropriate decision given our regulations, then they need to appeal that decision 0 of the staff within a time limit which, I believe, is about ten days. ESRWITH: It is a ten day period. PRITZ: This has been going on for quite a while, this issue, and we do appreciate the fact that Mr. Ibarra has been trying to work,with.,the staff and j think tonight the focus is really on the DRB appeal. -18 ;t .. 0 ABPLANALP:. It is an interesting mechanism which penalizes the person in the,field who attempts to work with the Town when they disagree with the staff decision. It is something you might want to reflect on. We'll, we'll play by Larry's rules, but with one clarification. Now, the review process which is .listed on the letter which we were presented, and I am not sure what was circulated to you, whether it was the.same one or not, that says they, being i . the Design Review Board, concluded that the lighting which had been installed did not meet the code guideline listed above and was not compatible with the neighborhood. Now, among our evidence is photographs of other similar lighting in the neighborhood, including.some of which Mr. Peterson t was involved. And I don't know whether the Design • - 19 - M ,k r Review Board looked at those or not. There is no record. There is no tape. There is nothing except some notes where three members of the Design Review 1 Board said they would never approve lighting in trees. ESKWITH: These relate to Design Review guidelines and I think that is a different situation than going back to items that occurred. ABPLANALP : Larry, may I have an answer as to whether we are 7 precluded for getting into the question of what the neighborhood is like? ROSE: Again, we are saying that you can present testimony that deals with the DRB guidelines for the approval of that outdoor lighting and that we will take anything that you have to offer that was presented in that regard to the Design Review Board. - 20 - I • f; ABPLANALP: What if we don't know if it was presented? Many of these.lights,go on and off. There are lights that were on. The Town building inspector's, no, pardon me, the Town electrical innspector's lights have been turned off now. We can't get a light - those were not permitted. ROSE: Did you present anything to the DRB, Art? ABPLANALP:. I was not there. ROSE : Did anybody present anything to the DRB? I mean, can I. get down to that? I mean, and you are telling me that you don't know what you presented to the DRB? I want to hear what you presented to the DRB. Apparently, I think that is what I want to hear. If you don't know what that is, sit down, let Mr. Ibarra get up and explain what he presented to the DRB and we will limit what we hear to that - 21 - ? h testimony. ABPLANALP: Mr. Ellef son was the person who made the presentation to the Design Review Board and he, I think, can do that. We should probably have a table in front of the Council so that you can look at what was presented. Is that possible? ROSE: I think so. A.BPLANALP: Would you explain to the Council? Okay, well, this first document is an exhibit. First, would you like an area map to orient you as far as what properties we are talking about. Keeping an objective to the DRB? LAPIN: Yes, that would be helpful. Also, we didn't receive any of the complaint letters; did we? Has Council received any of the letters of complaint? -22- r 0 s ABPLANALP: PRITZ: ELLEFSON: PRITZ: PETERSON: ELLEFSON: ABPLANALP: i Now, this is a packet for each of you. You can draw out the exhibits, if you would, as I refer to them, if you think they, are appropriate. Well, to the extent. . . Are you going to give your presentation now like you did to the Design Review Board? Is that what you are doing now? Is that what is going on? As I understand it, I am supposed to let you folks know what I. had presented in front of the Design Review Board. Okay. Was this the plan.you presented? In front of the DRB? it is one of.three. Okay, the map that you have indicates the property which we are talking about, which is located in - 23 - f NANCY BYERS: ABPLANALP: yellow. The other properties in the area, which goes to the question of the neighborhood, which have similar or identical lighting or which, in one case, applied for it. They wanted it but couldn't get it because of Mr. Ibarra's objection and the objection of others, is the one property which is forward. The pink properties are properties where objections came from. The one property which is cross-hatched is the Byers, and Miller property, and the reason it is cross-hatched is because they objected, but they had nine tree lights of their own. So we don't know whether to call that against or for. They are against this project, but they, have tree lights which indicates that they approve of tree lights. Where are our tree lights?. You have one tree light at that point. -24-{; i a 0 i p,BpLANAZ,p : There is one tree light to the north of you, and we have photographs of those. BYERS: Have you ever seen them on? ABPLANALP: No. They've been off since this has become an issue. BYERS: That's because they are never on. Okay, go ahead. ABPLANALP: There are three floodlights going out into the forest off- the porch on the Miller side. There are four spotlights on the residence that come from . below the porch; also going toward the, ah the, to the south and to the east. So, that's the background we are operating against and that is the question of the neighborhood. We have photographs of most of these for you to compare this project to, which I think is important and it is within the design review criteria, as it's at least put in this -25-- 1 y +t Y document. Now, the design review criteria actually talks to whether or not the lights cast, um, interfere with the living areas of other-properties, and even this property. I don't know why they would be concerned if someone wanted to disturb their own living area. But, in any event, this map, which each of you has, illustrates those who have indicated there that they favor them by the fact that they have them; those who have indicated to the Design Review Board that they oppose them. It's one mixed issue. Glen, would you go ahead and explain what these maps are, and I would like to go ahead and number them the way they are in my exhibit. In this particular, the first item is a landscape plan which was dated originally November of eighty-eight, and revised by eighty-nine. Can you explain what - 26 - ; 0 ELLEFSON: that Is? ? .; In the fall of 1988, I had. started working with Mr. Ibarra on the Landscape plan, and the plan that you see in front of you is basically the final .landscape plan that we had prepared for Mr. Ibarra. Once the planting plan is finalized, then we can proceed in with conceptual lighting plans which I had drawn, which will be a second sheet to the landscape plan. This plan was finalized on May 3, of 1989, so basically six months had passed by since we had finished up the final landscaping plan. Did this go to the DRB at that time? What I had done is I had, on a very simple and pass- by approach, I had met Kristan Pritz on a staircase to the town meeting offices here and, I had for many reasons, I had just simply rolled these things out i OSTERFOSS: ELLEFSON: 1 - 27 - l M and just showed Kristan what we had to work with here. I am never quite sure whether I am supposed to bring a landscape plan that is an improvement in comparison to what had been approved in the past or not. I am constantly up against that issue so, in some ways I am starting to believe that, no matter whether I know or not, I am starting to bring them in regardless of what the answer is. So, although it was just simply a very simple pass-by type of meeting with Kristan on the staircase, I went into Rick Pylman. And, as far as I can recall that there was a staff approval, I would only assume that. if this was a two part, ah, two page proposal here, with design, that they were attached to each other. I think that where we have some problems is that those staff approvals on those sheets weren't really -28- '4. J • taken care of properly and so those documents cannot be found..;We had pulled a permit to start getting tree lights put in the ...(unintelligible). LAPIN: You know,,before we leave that issue, because that may be somewhat of a key, I mean, is that true? PRITZ: I think you should probably talk to Rick Pylman, because I don't think that's his opinion and I believe Art tried to get an affidavit from Rick i Pylman, which he did not agree to sign. I think you might want to let Rick speak for himself instead of indicating that Rick didn't do his job. ELLEFSON: Okay, I should clarify that. The only way that I know that, is that is what your town secretary has told me that he is notorious for. i PETERSON: Okay, Okay, can we get back to the main issue of we are appealing the Design Review Board? - 29 - 1 y ABPLANALP: Is Mr. Peterson a party, I mean. ESKWITH: Yes, he represents a party. He has the right to make a comment. PETERSON: I am an adjacent property owner. BYERS: He's a property owner, I do not have an opinion. ESKWITH: He has a right to make cwA%LLt&ents . ABPLANALP: Well, he has a right to make a presentation, Larry. I don't think he has a right to make an objection. PETERSON: I don't have the right to object to what you doing? PRITZ: I think my point is simply that, before you say all this is Rick Pylman's fault, I think he needs the opportunity to defend himself. because I do think there are two sides to the story.. And I just think that is only fair to Rick Pylman. ROSE: Let me just say one more! time, too, what you say tonight in'your'presentation did you say to DRB, if -30- .tip „ • u 1-1 you' attacked Rick' Pylman at the DR$? I suppose you may do that again tonight. If you didn't, let's get {r off of that and get back on the subject. ABPLANALP: Glen, did you discuss the history of this before the Design Review Board in your attempt to get permits? ELLEFSDN: Yes. ABPLANALP: Mr. Mayor? No. ROSE: I don't know what was presented and what wasn't. t It sounds like we are getting off track and let's stop it. OSTERFOSS: But this was not presented to the DRB? ELLEFSDN: That's correct. OSTERFOSS: Now see, that is what I was trying to get. Just kind of yes or no questions. ELLEFSON: In 1989 it was not. OSTERFOSS: Right. That was the extent of my question. - 31 - RENATO IBARRA: Has anybody from the Town of Vail presented these or had an approval from .that. kind of approving cwAtuttitte? Before? PRITZ: No, no, no. ...unclear.. if anybody put them on their landscape plans or if somebody brought them in, depending on how many lots there were, and location and things like that, if there were a large l number of lights and there was some concern about what it might look like, it would probably go to • E Design Review Board. If someone put a light in a tree or at the ground to maybe light up an entry or something like that, that is very, very subtle, the staff would probably staff approve it. We just look at it on a case by case.basis. .But there would be some kind of review by the :staff or the. Design Review Board. -32- • e f IBARRA: But when Mrs. Byers said they had an approval for their lighting, they did, went through your committee? pRITZ: I don't know whether they did or not because. IBkRRA: But they didn't go to DRB? PRITZ: No, she is saying it was on their original house plans. OSTSRFOSS: Like you have lighting on your original house plans I` and this was denied. IBARRA: It was approved. I don't want to disturb, Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for the intent to being here, and Mr. Abplanalp is leading this, but the only thing I want to go to is, we started all this in good faith with the Town. Now we are going into very legal details which, okay, we go there. We go t there. See, we thought we had a permit because we ¦ - 33 - a did have it. Now we go up to the Review Board chair and I only can tell you that from. the point of view of my English translation, I think we do absolutely, ah, are in to the ordinance of trying to reduce the impact of the lights. We did not only do that. We don't have any impact in the neighbors. And I think and I feel, personally, very confident that we are within the law and within the ordinance and that is my point of view.and I would like you both to check with that. ABPLANALP: Glen, would you continue with what you presented to Design Review Board? ELLEFSON: Yes. PRIM. Glen, can I just ask one question back to this plan? How many lights are on this plan and how many are on the site? I just would like to know that. What -34- • 1-1 is ,up there and - what was on this plan, that was submitted? ( ELLEFSON: -It looks like there is 42 that's on this plan. PRITZ: 42 tree lights? up in the air? ELLEFSON: You asked me for lights. It is 42 lights that's on the plan and there's 23 that's on the site right now. PRITZ: How many were approved for the trees? ELLEFSON: If this gained staff approval, then this is how many i . were approved for the trees and... ABPLANALP: I think what she is talking about is the permit. Is that what you are talking about? PRITZ: No, I am simply asking, on your plan, how many are up in the trees here, and is that the number that is up there now. So you didn't act or go beyond this plan? i . - 35 - .r ELLEFSON: Okay, down-lighting would be designated as this symbol here, so basically you have 21 that are down- lights on this plan. The other triangle without the shaded-in area would be an up-light. PRITZ: 5o it's all through that plan, basically. Nothing more than the plan. ELLEFSON: For the tree lights and the down-lights, that is correct. We actually have less in there, up in the tree, shining down today, though, then what this ' plan shows, because what I am about to get to is to r tell you that this is a preliminary drawing that I had drawn first for Mr. Ibarra and during the fall of 1989 and the spring of 1990, John Watson Illumination came in to present his work. Wait, I'll get to that actually. This was the plan that 0 they had presented to Mr.- Ibarra and this is -36- c: basically what was installed. Now, going quickly to what we actually submitted to the Design Review Board on the last account was this drawing which is just a reprographic of Watson's lighting plan, which I did show you. The only thing different is that where I had shaded in and noting that the view from the Byers, home,,what we were attempting to do is to readjust the shields and possibly screen and tone down the lights from their viewpoint. At the same . time there is some incandescent down--lights which are about three feet off the ground and because they are incandescent, we can rheostat those down to lower the light intensity even though they are just three feet off the ground. So, basically, this is the plan.. to answer your question...this is the plan that was brought before the Design Review Board - 37 - 4 1 at the last meeting. ASPLANALP: Could you describe the different types of lights? I think you have mentioned up-lights, down-lights, tree, incandescent, and there are also some in the parking area. Can you kind of characterize the lights in that part of the plan? ELLEFSON: An incandescent light has a little bit of a yellow light to it. It might be a little bit softer light, and that is usually used in landscape design. You a try to bounce a little bit of the softer yellow light up against what is considered a moonlight, the whiter light. Mercury vapor lights put out that whiter light and much of the time and because it's high in the tree and trying to get that scheme across, that white light, the moon glow, those 0 mercury vapor lights are-hung into the tree and up _38- • • F i through the': tree. But-again, just to get some incandescent-lights to create that warmer glow up t against- a -cool light (tape change) ... to characterize and that is what's we have on this particular project. ABPLANALP: What are the lights that are indicated here in the area in which there are eight of them? ELLEFSON: Those are incandescent lights that shine straight up through the, ah, actually, the driveway is a graded driveway. It is cantilevered over the top of the final grade and this incandescent light basically shines straight up through the grate to give kind of a moody effect, actually, on the driveway surface. IBARRA: I am sorry to disturb, but the reason we changed to :...system was one, because it was less lights, and 1 - 39 - second because definitely because the moonlight, as they call it, it was hidden into the trees, which would not give the source of light and the brightness into it, which appeals to me as the owner of the house, which, the only reason I wanted that lighting is to be able to see across and not be bothered by them. So the first one to be bothered by the bright light or something, the glare,. and to me, myself and my family, so the only one who didn't . 9 want that was me and that is why we did that. So I felt very comfortable that, it looks just very, very nice and I really thought that my neighbors would no longer object, but-be grateful for that. Frankly, I'm (unclear). , ELLEFSON: I think that what needs,,to.be understood here is that there is a difference between glare source and - 40 • illumination, and I think lights that actually look you straight in the eye and blind you are, is in my r way`-of feeling, an infringement on other people's privacy which is what we should really be concerned with. On these particular lights there is about five different adjustments that these lights can be counteracted and they also have shields on them. So,°our first objective is to allow Mr. lbarra to not see the light source from his home or around his • property and, secondly, would be the Town of Vail, people who might pass by and also neighboring properties and what we have tried to do to take care of some concerns that the Byers have had is to readjust those shields and in some instances, even move the light just a little bit so they would not see the glare source. But they would only see the - 41 - illumination into the tree. ABPLANALP: Can you identify any shields that have been moved 0 in order that they did project a shield from the Byers? ELLEFSON: Yes, a couple nights ago we did notice it when we were out in the field. A couple of tree lights had actually been, the shield had been rotated around. I think it was somewhat unjust for the Design Review Board to be looking at a project where, I think some . tampering might have been going on. ABPLAN.ALP: Has that been corrected now, and can the Council review that tonight? ELLEFSON: Yes. ABPLANALP: Is it complete? It hasn't been changed? PRITZ : So, the Design Review Board, will be seeing the same lights, exactly like, the.,DRB, I mean the Planning 1 -42- L?J s a? C,o......ission, ah, the Council. ELLEFSON: Well, with the shields turned around where they should be and where they were initially put in. You • see, when I had worked with Watson Illumination, that we had, I was concerned with the Byers because I had been on the project during the construction throughout and I knew that it was, had been Mr. and Mrs. Byers' concern all the way through with this landscape lighting. So, needless to say, when I was on the site, I would be at the Byers' home, making sure that they did not see the glare source. on the next time around with the Design Review Board, I came in and there was a tremendous glare source that was, that you could see the light fixture. So, what we did is while Watson illumination was out on the site here the last few nights, they readjusted the - 43 - 4 3 shields so you did not see that source as it had originally been placed. ABPLANALP: There really is no question that tampering has 1 occurred. A complaint was filed back in January or February because one entire fixture was ripped out. PRITZ: T want to make clear, Art, that the Council tonight will not be seeing the exact same lighting and the shields apparently have been turned around and in fairness to the Design Review Board, that needs to be pointed out. And I also wanted to put on the record that we called Art Abplanalp on Friday night and I said we want the same lights the DRB saw to be here for the Council. ABPLANALP: The same lights are there. ELLEFSON: The same fixtures are there. - 44 ,I 0 0 PRITZ: We are talking about the same shields, everything, Art, and I am sorry you went ahead and changed that, t but that's okay. We will look at it tonight anyway. i OSTERFOSS: Just a question about the position of these shields. Plus I think you mentioned, I think at one point, the five levels of lighting. I mean, who controls these things? It seems to me that it has been out of control, that there are five levels of light that are possible and if shields can be moved. I mean, this is not tamperproof equipment, these are not tamperproof fixtures? ELLEFSON: Well, to move those shields, you'd have to get a good grip on them and move them, or take a screwdriver to them and move them. It is something that a little kid could not reach. OSTERFOSS: I didn't mean tamperproof by a small child. - 45 - i u ,. r GIBSON: We can look at it tonight. ABPLANALP: Why not do that tomorrow? Is that not true? ELLEFSON: That is correct. IBARRA: I want to explain that. (mumbling) Jeez, saying that we are going to see something different, and you will see that, it is very easy, that light meant to be shined at the tree, otherwise it would have any real use and the way it is today, it is the way it is planned. It should be, I mean. (unclear) a light there when you want to looka here. So it is totally changed and we don't know who did it and you will see one on which wasn't, because the bulb was unscrewed and the other one was just ripped out and stolen. And those changes, I don't mean because I am not in business for this or anything, I just 0 want to live nice and quiet and don't bother -46- 0 • • n OSTERFOSS: ABPLANALP: anybody. (unclear) and I think that when you see it, you'll see it, all the light.... It just seems to have potential for change. I guess we could agree to that. What? OSTERFOSS: Maybe .... different from one day to the next. STEINBERG: Well, what happens from season to season. There's a whole lot of difference when we have tree lights in the leaves. There is a lot of difference when you have bright snow in winter. IBARRA: Can I answer that? Ah, in the winter last year, in December and January, Mr. and Mrs. Byers asked my wife and myself to dinner to their home in order to discuss a little bit this matter, which we dial, because we are friends, and I said, well, I don't understand, really, your complaints. But why don't - 47 - you tell me exactly what bothers you. So we can talk. And, what they said,... (unclear) their house and everything, that they didn't mind anything because it looks like but two lights when they were in their bedroom, they could see the source of the light. That means it was shining on them. And I said, okay, don't worry, because we will have the Watson company to move that around just what can happen. And, just, you won't see it if that bothers you. I don't want to bother you. it is no problem. And another light here, back here, which was low, and I told them those, in the winter, we can lower the voltage, you know. Because I don't need that. In fact, this year with the snow there were.. But I give that, and I intend to do it. That is no problem. And that was the reason I said, if I do - 48 - . x: 0 i 0 F- ? L BYERS: i that, are you all right. And they say "Yes," and it's no problem. Ah, and Mr. Ibarra is correct in that we did discuss it and we,' I mean, we are very good friends, and I hate being here. But, and so, when he is there, whenever I complain, he turns out all this side and I have a diagram of all the lights. I look at 17 lights. You don't see those here. ESKWITH: i BYERS: i Excuse me. Where is your house located? Right here. This is the pond. Okay. And my house is right over here. And I looked, okay, um, and we, my husband and I are the developers of this house, okay. We built it as a spec house to protect our view from what somebody else might have been able to build. We built about half of what we could have legally, square footagewise, because we didn't want - 49 - to look at alot of house. 5o it's very, the house is very unobtrusive. Uh, it blends in with the environment and, um, we even put deed restrictions on the house. They couldn't change, couldn't add to it. They couldn't do these things, here again, to protect our view, because I have windows 20 feet by 20 feet that look right at that house. My living room and my bedroom, and, um, so, anyway, but we neglected the lighting because we thought that was already established. The lights in the plans that were drawn up for us, and, um,,all of a sudden, it's very bright.. And, as.I -said, we had an agreement with Mr. Ibarra.' But my concern is the rest of the neighborhood. We now have a house going, you know, being remodeled right here. Mr. Peterson's. And 0 who's to say that he;can't put in lights the same, -- SO - ?i i 0 9 or the:,rest of the neighborhood, and it's this this glow that, you don't see the moon, you don't see the stars. Um, it detracts from the reason I'm in Vail. And so I am concerned about the Town. ROSE: What if you have anything else? ELLEFSON: Dr. Steinberg, the trees are evergreen spruce trees, so.there's no Aspen, there's not much in the way of Aspen planting through there that's deciduous or, although ... in answer to your question. ROSE: Before we go out, uh, Ned Gwathmey and some other i people from DRB are here. Ned, do you have anything that you would like to.. GWATHMEY: I would like to, ah, add. If we focus on the aspect of what we presented to the DRB and what was the basis of our denial, and that 's what is important. 1. Because the amateur will rely on the mere sky, which - 51 - ? h is the fact of going out and seeing the lights in place. The thing that, you can't do the thing today, that one of the times we went out, lights were um, inordinately bright. The other being the situation um, to magnify the intensity because Hunter lights which are straight on and shining down were big clumps of snow, and they were real, what we call, as T refer to, hot spots, because light is ten feet, or four feet or three feet from a big clump of snow. So, that you can't see tonight. What we have then is'.... and tabled and we were, have been there, to the Byers at night. We have been there twice at night, once with snow, and then, more recently, without snow. All of us went, both to the house, walked the neighborhood, and we went all the way over to the top of Potato Patch. And, -52- • E • uh, so, one thing that I think you have to do is see it from a great distance. The other is, imagine the conditions under. the tree source with good snow. They're right. (Unintelligible) don't have to deal with it because of the fact that it's all conifers. t 0 GIBSON: ELLEFSON: Is the tree lighting, Glen, on a rheostat? It's efferincandescent. Incandescent are the only lights that we can rheostat and, basically, what you have here, the incandescence lights are what's marked in yellow, and the ones that would be underneath the driveway bridge. The rest of them are mercury vapor and you cannot rheostat a mercury vapor. The only way that we can diminish the amount of light intensity from a mercury vapor is that we can basically layer screen material to delude a light so significantly that we can blacken - 53 - it completely. Or you can change out transformers. GIBSON: The reason I asked the question was, are we going to see the same intensity of illumination that Ned saw? ELLEFSON: Yes. GIBSON: There is no rheostat that!will reduce it for our benefit. ELLEFSON: No. No. The only adjustments we've made is just, is, is, trying to appease the Byers viewpoint from not seeing the bulb itself, by adjusting the shields. GIBSON: I have one other question. Do you have anywhere, a Town Staff signature on lighting plans or permit for this land. ELLEFSON: Yes, sir.' ABPLANALP: That's in'the file,,if•you would like to see them. -54- • 0 0 LJ GIBSON: `ABPLANALP: PRITZ: ABPLA.NALP : PRITZ: # ABPLANALP: . PHILLIPS: ABPLANALP: PETERSON: That is not the question. ... 1990 ...specific lighting for the place. The electrical ..inspector. went out on the site, signed :off on a.... For three lights. % No.. Since you keep bringing it up, and I'm going to keep correcting, because I understand this real well. Your secretary.. Art, do you have anything else you would like to add in this regard, because I think it is about time we went out. Yes. As far-as the neighborhood, not all of them, not all the neighborhood lights are on at this point, and I think that that is important. Um. Were these presented to the Design Review Board? - 55 - ABPLANALP: No, but they had the opportunity to look at them when they were out there and I'm not sure that they do tonight. I know at least one residence has been disconnected because of construction. It happens to be Beiterman Byrne. PETERSON: That was the one you were referring to. BYERS: These were just taken this morning. ROSE: Let's, uh. If you don't have anything else to add about this, I think we are about ready to go out and take a look. PRITZ: May I have one question. I want to understand from Glen. Is this plan the exact same one that you are saying you showed to Rick Pylman, or is it a different plan. This is what's out there. Is that right? i ELLEFSON: This is what's out there. -56- E • PRITZ: k ELLEFSON: PRITZ: ELLEFSON: PRITZ: ELLEFSON: PRITZ: L l ELLEFSON: ROSE: Okay. Is that the same one that you supposedly showed Rick Pylman? No, it is not. Okay. You're the one that yanked (?) the permit, though. There was no planning permit. Again, I, that's not my problem. Okay. I just want everybody to understand there's two plans. So, it wasn't, that isn't the one they, you showed Rick Pylman. All I know is that they got a permit to do the tree lighting when they were expected to have it. Whether there was a plan attached or not, I can't find the plan in this Town Council's or Town Office. Okay, Merv? - 57 - .. .. i LAPIN: Is this the, do we want to have further discussion with the neighbors right now, before we go out... ROSE: No, I think I'd like to go out. If we could all sit down for a minute, uh, we all will, come back in here. LAPIN: So the neighbors will come back, after we go out and ask you some questions. BYERS: May I say... ROSE: Yes, I think we could do that. . Everybody talking. ROSE: Andy, before we go out on the site visit, can you review for us, quickly, what the Design Review Board guidelines are in regard to exterior lighting so that we, uh, know what we are looking for when we get out to the site and what we need to compare? , -58- E • r. KNUDTSEN: Okay. Ah, it's the, ah, section here in the memo and it basically says that the applicant has to minimize the impact on the living areas of the • proposed project, as well as the adjacent structures and properties. So, we are trying, the way we would use it on the staff level is to try to work with the applicant to, ah, make the smallest impact possible on these, on the neighborhood. ROSE: Okay. I think we will call a recess here, then, i 0 and, ah, go out and visit the site, and we do have a bus out there. I don't know if it will hold everybody or not, but we can give it a try. How many people can we accommodate in that, Kristan? PRITZ: Gosh, I don't know. People are welcome to go up to the site in their cars. We will fit as many as we can on the bus. - 59 - ABPLANALP: Don't pull in the driveway. Park along the street. Because parking in the driveway does a number of things as far as the lights are concerned. You can't see them. ROSE: Okay. if we can all respect that then, and I do want to emphasize that when we return from the site visit, there will be more discussion, and if any of the neighbors want to comment at that point in time, we will allow that, and then try to sum up, so anyone who wants to make a ctjaiuuent that has not, will have that opportunity when we get back. So, we will take a short recess, or maybe a lengthy recess, for a site visit. RETURN FROM SITE VISIT ROSE: Well, I think we can continue. Jim Gibson's not back in the room, but I think everybody else is. -6o- . a For the record, we have been out to the site and looked at the, at the lights as they exist this evening. "Are there any c.,..-,.ents now from anyone in the audience regarding this issue? Jay? PETERSON: Ah, just, my name is Jay Peterson. I am an adjacent property owner. Um, first of all, Mr. Ibarra has done a spectacular job of landscaping his property. It is a beautiful site. What he has done is '. spectacular. Where I differ from him, I think, is • just the level of lighting that is used on the site. The ground level lighting, I do not feel has an adverse impact on my site, which is right across the pond, from north to south. The tree lighting, however, I feel it does have an impact on me. Um, Mr. Ibarra does not leave the lights on when he is not there. He has been, ,I think, very cooperative • - 61 - on trying to solve the problem, but he may not own that house forever, either. The next person may live there all the time and may be out all the time, and so I guess the intensity would get higher. But, the moonlights, the ones that he's put in the trees, some people may find as spectacular. I think they are spectacular. I just think it's too much. Um, I don't think it's necessary. The ground level lighting, as I stated, casts a nice even glow, provides, I think, enough light to get around the site if you are out there at night. Um, that is certainly acceptable. It does not have an adverse effect. But the other lights are bright. In the wintertime, they're much brighter because of the reflection of the snow. Even the Design Review Board was out there, and.I was out there one night - 62 - • when there was snow, and thank God there is a tremendous amount of snow here in the wintertime, r and it reflects everywhere. I think that does have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. He has turned the shields somewhat as he goes by the hot spots on the Byers' residence, but now, all of a sudden; on my part, I'm starting to get some of those hot spots from where you can see the bulb itself, and so, somebody is going to get it. Some . adjacent property owner is going get it no matter how you shield it. You can protect one side and you can't protect the other. Um, so, once again, it's the tree lights that I find objectionable. Um, I don't know how Nancy feels about it or other adjacent property owners, but that's how I feel about it. once again, he's done a spectacular job 0 -53- with landscaping. ROSE: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? BYERS: Uh, I feel much like Jay, and, um, it is the upper lights that are, have most impact into my house, and I guess my point is, as I said before, I'm really more concerned with the rest of the neighborhood and the rest of Vail and I would like to see the Council uphold the ordinances, too. ROSE: Okay, thank you. ELLEFSON: ... (unintelligible) ... from a designer's standpoint, the reason those ordinances are just too vague. What is minimizing upon a property or a structure might be different ...(unintelligible). As a, being a landscape designer who has worked in the Town and will continue!to workrin,?the Town,. I would like to see that there might be some course taken in the way --64- 0 0 • r is of trying to identify what it is a minimum and what is a maximum. r ROSE: All right, thank you. Art? ABPLANALP: Mr. Mayor, I, we had passed on this earlier. Is is my understanding that the Council will not permit the introduction of the evidence as far as what the neighboring properties and the lighting there looks like? That'is one of the things that was mentioned, I believe, in the Planning Department's letter,, that 0 it 'did not, ah, essentially fit in with the neighborhood. Um, that's, in a court we would make an offer of proof. That's not the way we are working tonight; but, 'I'm not here.. I feel as though I need to make a record, but I would like a response on that point, if I may. ESKWITH: (unintelligible). -G5- 5 •? ROSE: Okay. ESKWITH: May I approach? ROSE: Yes. ABPLANALP: We have, um, five sets of, let's see, ..four, five, so if you could share them. It woul d be helpful. Could you do a two-on-one. Um, okay, first, these are numbered in accordance with the exhibits that I attempted to offer but you decided you would not like to hear about those., Exhibit 29 is the first one, which is comprised of two pages, which is a photograph of the Ibarra residence. The top is the west elevation, which, is from the Byers', the bottom is from the Peterson, um, the Peterson... PRITZ: Residence? ABPLANALP: Ah, well, he has a partnership. Ah, Bossow, Peterson-Bossow residence.: The second page, um, of -66- f '.i L? page 29 is looking east, ah, pardon me, looking to the west from the east on Beaver Dam Road. Now, it 40 is not the same situation as though you were, as we were tonight. We were looking directly up into the trees. This would be a driver's view, approaching from the east. The bottom is the, ah, the view from across the street, which I believe is the Mitchell residence from Lot 9. The one that is, the house that is directly across the street, there is no 0 picture of that because you can't see it. The trees are so thick, unless you stand directly in front of the garage, which I thought was unlikely, as far as anyone having any impact on that. The next Exhibit 30, is the Kravis residence. Most of this lighting was installed in 1985 or 1986, it has been there, no, pardon me, 186 or 187, it has been there about - 67 - five years. Ah, that, this is also a property which is, where the people had been required to either come in and, ah, either conform or remove their lighting. Ah, basically, they received a similar demand to the one that Mr. Ibarra received. The next residence is one that you drove by tonight and was illuminated at the time, which is the Pease residence. This is also, I should also say the Kravis residence, according to the people who have dealt with it, was basically boosted within the last year to year and a half. The Pease residence, similarly, this was just before you did the loop back up Forest Road, ah, the top is a daytime shot, the bottom, this is Exhibit 31, and the Kravis residence was 30. Exhibit 31 indicates lights built on the west side of the house and on the east side -68- 0 0 r? ?J of the Pease residence, there's another residence, •- .. one of the, um, liberal party wall agreements, intervenes between the two, there's another residence to the right. In the top of the picture, you can also see a light on the other side of the house. I think there are about a dozen lights virtually, well, these are identical to Mr. Ibarra's. They were also installed by Watson Electrical, as was the Kravis project. They've done all three projects. Um, the next one is the Bieterman-Byrne residence, which was also in, I should say that, if I didn't already, the Pease residence lighting was installed in 186 and it was boosted in 1989 or 190. The Bieterman-Byrne residence, the next is a view from the northwest. This is Exhibit 32, page 1. The top is the - 69 - morning, the bottom is the evening. The difference in these is, these are also lights in the trees. Ah, these lights are a different type and therefore they cast a bronze glow instead of a moonlight glow. PETERSON: I would like to say one thing about that, is those lights have been taken out. They did not receive approval for them and they've agreed that they would disconnect them and come back through the proper channel for review. So, those lights are off... ABPLANALP: Ah, Mr. Bieterman disagrees with you, Jay. PETERSON: I think Kristan can... SHELLY MELLO: Actually, it was conditioned on the or 250 ... (unintelligible). ABPLANALP: That's right, on both sides. MELLO: Mr. Bieterman can, er, agreed with it when he had 0 his addition approved and Mr. Byrne agreed with it. -7a= that they've told me something since then. l t 0 t MELLO: You have it on tape, huh? ABPLANALP: The next page is Exhibit 32, page 2, which demonstrates, again, this is the northeast, northwest view to the Bieterman-Byrne residence. The upper right hand is a view from Forest Road, which indicates, illustrates, that the lighting on the south side of that residence, the bottom three pictures is the north side from the northwest. The next photograph is the residence which was recently constructed; as I understand it, by Mr. Bieterman. I don't know, Mr. Peterson was his agent. I don't know whether he was involved as a principal or not. This is just on the west side of the Lionshead ski run. Ah, the upper picture is a night shot; the - 71 - 4• lower picture is a day shot. The, ah, next one, Exhibit 34, is, the Glatzle residence. Unfortunately, this light has been off and we haven't been able to, actually, it's a series of lights, that entire grove of trees is illuminated by lighting which is interspersed there. Ah, that is, this particular one is in West Vail. That is Exhibit 34. The next item, which is Exhibit 35, page 1, is the Byers' residence. The upper i righthand corner, you will see a circle in the lower right of that photograph and the direction of an arrow, which illustrates how this light was configured two weeks ago. Since that time, the light has been tilted up and cast directly into the bottom of the tree. it doesn't cast over on the tall pine. anymore. It's about a.30 or 40 foot pine. -72- • C? t The next one'is an illustration of the Byers' and the Miller lighting. I think that I, I don't know how the lot is divided. Ah, the upper left is clearly on the`Miller porch, ah, the lower left is probably also on the Miller porch; the bottom right is a tree light, substantially the same as the Ibarra's, and is also directed up into the tree. BYERS: That's used as a security light. They only come on when there's movement. i ABPLANALP: Well, this one according to Mr. Ibarra, was on when he had dinner over there, I believe, these large ones, is that right, Renato? That's where you got the first idea of tree lighting? IBARRA: Yeah. It was then they had their lighting architect to, and introduced me to, and he did showed me that, ` which looked beautiful, and I said, gee. - 73 - BYERS: They do. They have some lights which do light the trees, but some of them are security lights. !, ABPLANALP: Thank you. Now, just as an example of other things in the Town, the next is Exhibit 36, which is Timber Ridge. Now, you talk about hot spots and what's going on in the Town of Vail. That's simply an illustration. I'm not saying they are unattractive, but I am saying that hot spots have never been a deterrent before. The next is Bald Mountain Town 0 Homes, which is Exhibit 37. The lower right is a daytime view, which is roughly the same as the lower left. There are either a dozen or a few more than a dozen on this location. The upper two are typical of what you find there. The upper left shows a light on the ground going into the tree, as well as one in the tree on, the upper rig. ht, shows one in the -74_ tree. The next one, Exhibit 38, is on the golf course, which is a, day at the bottom daytime view- of 1448 Vail Valley Drive, the upper one is a nighttime view of the Aspens behind that residence. The bottom one, although it's not the same type of lighting, these are just two examples of the Pease Christmas tree, which is the, you saw the Pease residence earlier, and another Christmas tree, which is on East Beaver Dam Road. Ah, these obviously, 0 are not illuminated now, but, none of these received any permits, that we have been able to find. The • only permitted application and the only permitted tree lights are those of Mr. Ibarra. Exhibit 40, now, this is an interesting effect. The Town doesn't like tree lights, but, actually, this is near Dr. Steinberg's. This is the intersection of - 75 - r Vail Valley Drive at Homestake Circle, and this is the result of a Town street light. Now, probably. LAPIN: Flo hasn't noticed yet what they've done. Laughter.. ABPLANALP: The final one, which is Exhibit 41, is just, again, I know, an illustration of what the Town apparently feels is tolerable in its own activities. This I believe, I've been told, is the Perot residence on the eastern part of Beaver Dam Road. And the upper part is illumination strictly from street lights. Much stronger, as far as the effect on adjoining properties than the Ibarra lights or any other lights you've seen here. So, when the decision of the Design Review Board is based upon the fact that these lights are not like others in the neighborhood, that it is inconsistent with the -76- 9? 11? F-J • 4 neighborhood, um, it's not supported by the evidence, and that's one of the things that you i ` really are challenged to look at. The locations of these lights, at least those .in the area, are located on the map that I gave you earlier, as far as the green, the lots identified in green, that one lot that does not have a light on it, this man's lighting, is the, ah, Lot 4, which is on the north side of Beaver Dam Road, The reason it doesn't have • lighting is they requested it and when they saw the objection from the Byers group, they simply withdrew that application. LAPIN: Well, the good news of this presentation is that, besides all the. Council members not having woodburning fireplaces, ...none of us had these,.. t. UNCLEAR:- illuminated. 0 - 77 - ROSE: PHILLIPS: Some of us don't even have a tree. Kent, I would just like to mention that, ah, I think r ROSE: UNCLEAR: ROSE: it is inappropriate to be trying to compare the effect of lights that are installed for public safety purposes with the effect of lights that are put in for either aesthetic or non-aesthetic purposes. Okay. ... purpose of responding to the engineer. What are 0 the purposes of these lights., They probably wanted some privacy and there seem to be... Um. I guess I'll start with a couple of comments. In going out and looking at that site, I, uh, of course, observed what was there this evening, but I tried to listen to what Ned was telling me and 0 tried to imagine what, ah,-the difference might be -78- • L J in the wintertime as they experienced it at one point. Um,.and as I was walking through the yard, I was really looking at what, ah, I was really aware 0 of and what I was not really aware of, as I was doing that, up on the road, in the backyard, and on the neighbor's property, and that kind of thing, and, it seemed to me, that, generally, ah, my eyes were not really attracted to the lights that were down low and shining up, but even just looking in a level direction, catching views out of the corners of my eyes, that the lights that were up high and shining down were most objectionable and it was very difficult just to look up and try to get a view of the sky. It was very difficult to just look t straight ahead without seeing those lights somewhere in my vision, and, uh, in standing at the porch r - 79 - across the pond there, and even just putting your hands up and masking out the lights that you would see up on top and allowing the bottom lights to come through, um, to me, gave a totally different kind of appearance, so I guess if I were in the design business or we were able to change what we saw out there tonight, or what have you, I guess my general direction would be to say that I'm really not in favor of lights that are in the. air shining down because I think they do tend to impact the neighborhood more. I think they do tend to attract attention to themselves, and I think they do tend to be just in the way of natural vision, when you are trying to experience that kind of thing, so, my thought would be, no more of those high, down light i kind of things anywhere,. and, then, maybe, -80- 'r ?i ?J CI discreetly placed some lower lights that could shine up, because I could see where some were, if a few t t. of those were discreetly placed, that it might not affect the neighborhood. Certainly, it didn't get s in my view as much as the up-lights, and, ah, were probably not - really that objectionable from a neighborhood, or either from a very close yard kind of an aspect. So, generally, that's what I looked at. We're not here, though, this evening to make 0 changes or suggestions, or whatever. I don't know what that process might be, but when there is a motion made, I think I will have to vote to uphold decision of the DRB and deny those lights, particularly because of the high lights that are casting down, and see where we go from there. So, t that's, those are my thoughts. Anybody else? 0 - 81 - Peggy? OSTERFOSS: Well, I think, I would, just really echo what you've said. I think, first of all, there is no question that decorative lights are a part of the purview of the DRB because they are part of the impact of landscaping, and, you know, since we are limited to dealing with the wording that is here in front of us. It says they should be designed and located in a manner to minimize the impact. Um. And I agree with Kent 100%. 1 think that lights that draw your attention to the light source, which are, in fact, the lights that are located high in the trees. But I think the major impact is the light source itself, certainly, are in conflict with minimizing impact on anything, whether it is someone walking down the street, living next door, etc..-And, ah, given the - 82 0 a criteria that we have in front of us, the DRB made the appropriate decision. Um, I would agree that l . i I think this is area that needs some further specification and objectification, because leaving this matter, apparently, to individual taste, has resulted in quite a range of perception as to what is minimal impact. I think that what we are looking at at the moment, in terms of the upper lights, is definitely not minimal. I think that's a safe statement.' ROSE: Any'-other discussion? FRITZLEN: Maybe I am not representing.. I'm not totally in agreement with that. I, um, do think that it's regrettable the level of antagonism that this has r caused. Um, and,'additionally, that this has, ah, not been looked at or not been perceived as a - 83 - .1 M- problem until after it was constructed. And I do think that the applicant acted in good faith. In my mind, I think George Lamb's comments here is that there is inadequate clarification is true, and, um, that the best solution, at least from my point of view, would be to adopt ,some restrictions on exterior lighting, much the same way we do have with signs. And, it was brought up earlier, well, you can't compare-exterior lighting to internal light emanating from a picture window, but we do the same thing with signs. We limit where signs can be from inside a window. We do recognize that impact. And I do think it's possible to quantify it. I think there's some, we could set some easily identifiable regulations; lighting can't be above, 20 feet above grade, or whatever, and with a light meter, it can't • - 84 - fE: E 4 i ROSE: emanate "x" amount of light from a certain distance. I don't think it has to be a totally judgmental process, and, in my mind, the best thing to do would be to look into adopting those regulations and getting everyone in conformance within a three- year period. I certainly wish my neighbors had the same sensitivity to their exterior light situation, lighting solution, as what I saw tonight. Okay. Is there a motion? LAPIN: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the Design Review Board concerning the lbarra residence. GIBSON: Second. ROSE: Moved by Merv Lapin, seconded by Jim Gibson to uphold the decision of the DRB. Is there any discussion of that motion? - 85 - OSTERFOSS: Should we include a finding or something in there? ESKWITH: Yeah, I think a finding would be good. OSTERFOSS: Would you want to put a finding in now? LAPIN: Finding being that the exterior lighting as proposed, does have an impact upon the adjacent structure and property. GIBSON: Second. ROSE: Okay, Jim, thank you..,; LAPIN: Do you want me to put_the section in there? PRITZ: I think that would be good. LAPIN: 18.54.050C11. ROSE: Okay, we have a Merv by, motion by Merv Lapin, second by Jim Gibson. Is there any further discussion of that motion? ;LEVINE: Yeah, beyond what Merv said to the effect that it does have some impact, and in agreement with what -85- AL Peggy was saying, is I think that impact could be minimized by dropping the lights to a lower level a and still accomplish whatever safety purposes and other purposes that is the reason for the lights. LAPIN: I would agree with Kent, if you're looking for additional cju ent and the applicant is looking for additional direction in terms of where to go from here, I think if the lights were taken out of the tops of the trees where they really don't have a security effect or don't have, and I question, really, what may be aesthetic effect to one but they certainly take away the aesthetics effect to the neighbors, um, I would have less problem with it. I do think that, ah, it is important to, ah, have lighting around houses for security reasons, especially in the areas where there are alot of -87_ trees and, nor do I have a problem with the lighting that, ah, I, ah, think truly is aesthetic, but the, t but the lights up in the trees is very top of the trees so, I, ah, ah, I don't think they really add, my personal opinion is I don't think they add to the, to either the aesthetics or the security of the area. STEINBERG: They give a very unnatural appearance to the property when they are up high. We have a moon in sky, but we don't have twenty moons per lot in the sky. LAPIN: We would approve if we were on Jupiter, though. Laughter. ROSE: Okay, all in favor of that motion signify by saying yes. YES _8S_ 0 ROSE: Opposed? FRITZLEN: Opposed. ROSE: Mayor votes "yes", so it passes six to one, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Thank you very much. ROSE: Next item on the agenda is a 4th of July fireworks display discussion. Ah. Steve? LAPIN: Excuse me, before you bring that up, uh, we received in a. letter from uh, uh, the Design Review Board member. I think it would be appropriate for the staff to use that perhaps as a basis for clarifying the current ordinance. By George Lamb. ABPLANALP: Do you have a copy? LEVINE: Yeah, I have an extra copy here. LAPIN: It's public information. I don't know what happened to mine. - 89 -- PHILLIPS: Design Review Guidelines are, plan to be addressed in our total look at our codes and so on, so that will be taken into consideration if something.... The Design Review Guidelines as presently constituted are (unclear) and enforceable and there is no question about the desire for more specificity, uh, if the desire can be recognized it has no affect on the legality of the Design Review Guidelines as they're presently constituted. ROSE: Okay, thank you. - 90- 0 MINUTES VAIN TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 2, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Eleven-year-old Danielle D'Anci, resident of Vantage Point in Lionshead, explained the lemonade stand she had been operating with her brother on Sunday, June 30, 1991, was shut down by Town of Vail police, who advised they needed a vendor's license. Danielle asked that consideration be given to making it possible for them to sell lemonade one day each summer without their having to buy a license, as they could not afford the $100.00 vendor's fee. Mayor Rose told Ms. D'Anci he thought her request was legitimate, and that the Town of Vail could probably make an exception in such cases. Ron Phillips said staff would research the issue and advise. The second item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal. Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Susan Scanlan explained the ordinance had been renumbered. Susan read the changes made to clarify the language which had caused confusion at first reading. In response to the question of why some individuals/businesses are exempt from a $30.00 annual fee to cover the cost of TOV inspections to assure that conversions back to wood burning fireplaces did not occur after conversions to cleaner burning units had been made, Ron Phillips pointed out that some individuals /businesses have an existing or grandfathered right. And, even though some have chosen to convert to gas log fireplaces, they still do have the right to convert back if they should desire. Presently, anybody who wants to build a new unit does not have any right except to put in gas log units with "A" class vents, and they do not have a right to convert. After considerable additional discussion of many of the same complex issues involved with this ordinance that had been discussed on first reading, Rob LeVine moved to table Ordinance No. 21, for additional clarification work by Community Development. The reworked ordinance is to be brought back to Council as quickly as possible. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, first reading, and ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to window signs. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Betsy Rosolack said that the ordinance proposed to correct a discrepancy in the TOV sign code discovered when the Town was trying to enforce the sign code. This would be a "housekeeping" ordinance to match the definition and location of signs in the code. Merv moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance, No. 19, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing). Mayor Rose .yl 4, k read the title in full. Lynn Fritzlen excused herself from this issue since her husband is the architect on the project. Mike Mollica reviewed in full the memorandum dated 6/2/91 from the Community Development Department regarding this project, making particular note of criteria used in evaluation of the project including a description of the request . from Josef Staufer, owner and developer of the Vail Village .Inn, for an amendment to SDD No. 6, background and history of the project, zoning considerations, SDD criteria, and Staff recommendations. Mike noted there is no phasing plan; applicant proposes to do the project all in one shot. He said that staff recommended approval. PEG had reviewed the plan at a Work Session and at a public hearing and unanimously recommended approval, 4-0. PEC agreed with staff conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 in CDD memorandum dated 6/2/91, but did not feel that conditions 3 and 4 were appropriate as conditions, recommending only that applicant take responsibility for these items as a natural part of his project. Further, regarding CDD's condition 8, Mike reported that PEC felt that allowance for employee housing unit off-site would be acceptable. Following discussions primarily regarding maximizing the parking, the landscaping and sidewalk issues, and employee housing, applicant Josef Staufer and Council got involved in a review of the provision that the applicant was responsible for paying $75,000.00 to the Town of Vail for the expense of moving the ski museum. Discussion of a payment plan ensued. Mike Mollica had notes from a 3/12/91 meeting regarding this topic which he read aloud. The collective agreement at that time was that TOV would receive $27,000.00 initially to cover demolition of the ski museum building and the balance of the $75,000.00 would be paid at the final phase IV or in the year 2005, whichever came first; the matter of paying interest on this money had not been resolved at that meeting. At this point, Merv Lapin noted that Council consensus seemed to be that they wanted Joe to pay the $75,000.00; the matter being over what period of time and if interest would be involved. Merv Lapin then moved that Ordinance No. 19, be approved on first reading with the following changes to 6/24/91 memorandum to PEC from CDD; that item 3 be deleted, that item 4 be deleted, that an easement along Vail. Road for an adequate sidewalk be integrated (motion giving CDD direction to come up with definition for "adequate"), that Council further direct CDD to maximize parking in the area which is presently the parking for the Food and Deli; that under Item G on page 14 the paragraph be changed to indicate that $75,000.00 be paid down now and the balance of the $75,000.00 be paid by 1/1/05 or at completion of Phase IV, whichever occurs first; that item 8 be deleted and replaced by an additional 500 square feet GRFA for a permanently restricted employee housing unit to be completed at the same time as Phase IV-A; and that a directive be issued to Larry Eskwith to review in detail Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, against Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, to make certain no issues are in conflict or unresolved. Peggy Osterfoss seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was consideration of the monitoring of the GHI bankruptcy proceedings. Larry Eskwith introduced Chuck Borgman from the law firm of Kutak Rock & Campbell.. Staff had suggested that Council hire an attorney in Denver to monitor the GHI bankruptcy proceedings in order to keep the Town aware of anything that might detrimentally impact the Town. Mr. Bergman advised that, in order to fill this engagement, his firm would enter an appearance of record in the bankruptcy proceedings as counsel for TOV, which would allow his firm to automatically receive notice of all pleadings filed, motions, notices of hearings, etc. After contacting Larry and describing the nature of upcoming hearings and reasoning for any concern, it would ultimately be Larry's decision as to whether the TOV wanted to engage them to attend said hearings. Time permitting, Larry would discuss with Council, otherwise he would have to make a judgement call. Price structure for. Kutak based on a senior associate level lawyer experienced in bankruptcy proceedings following proceedings and highlighting for Borgman only areas of interest to TOV. Cost: $480.00 - $1,440.00 per month plus out-of-pocket expenses; Termination of Kutak's services at any time. Larry would be advised in advance of their actual required level of involvement. The source of funding would be from the Council Contingency fund. Merv Lapin moved to direct Larry Eskwith to enter into an agreement based on the 7/1/91 letter from Kutak Rock & Campbell to monitor the Gillett Holdings Bankruptcy Proceedings, at a cost not to exceed $1,440.00 per month unless approved by Council. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was a mayor's Proclamation declaring July National Recreation and Parks Month and Anti-Boredom Month. Pam Brandmeyer noted that Rob Robinson had asked that the Town of Vail to participate by approving this proclamation to support the Recreational O r { tip. , District's efforts promoting the wonderful facilities and programs in TOV. Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve the Mayor's Proclamation, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 0 There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: (aft?, A .664W .-"? Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S_ Deto • 0 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 16, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESEN'T': Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was a presentation of the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award. Kent briefly recalled Chuck's service on the . Town Council, love of the community, and how Chuck was one of those people who realized that there are some outstanding youth in this community whose potential he wanted to somehow recognize. Kent noted there is a considerable amount of criteria seriously reviewed in the selection of the individual's recognized to receive this award; most importantly, that a recipient of this award be looked up to by his peers as well as have the earned respect and admiration of the older generation in Town, excellence in scholastics or the athletic field, and the candidates would also have had to receive recognition of some kind from outside of the community. Before awarding this year's two awards, Suzie, Jennifer, and Clark Anderson, took a moment to recall Chuck Anderson's wholehearted belief in the youth of the community and his desire to recognize them, knowing that the future of our whole community lies in such superb young people coming back to the community after letting everyone they meet outside the community know how wonderful this community is, and their being able to give back as much as they are able to take from the wonderful advantage they have of living in such a great area. Suzie then presented the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Awards to the outstanding recipients this year, Ryan zastrow and John Johnston, II. Kent congratulated them, thanked them for their dedication, and wished them the best in their future years. Ryan and John's names will now be added to the permanent Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award's plaque in the Town of Vail. The second item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. First, Steve Boyd, a Vail resident since 1963, asked for clarification of the business licensing procedure. Merv Lapin advised that Steve's question be reviewed for response by Larry Eskwith and placed on the Work Session agenda in the near future. Mr. Boyd is to be advised of date/time of said Work Session. Second to speak was Josef Staufer. His concern revolved around the pace and cost of the parking structure landscaping. Kent told him that a schedule of these issues had just been received at the Work Session earlier today indicating that work will be done this summer. Mr. Staufer also said he is receiving guest complaints about sirens wailing at very early morning hours. He suggested flashing lights on the emergency vehicles at such hours would be ample. It was unclear if the sirens were police, ambulance, or fire sirens. It was mentioned there may be state regulations with regard to use of sirens, particularly ambulance sirens. Ken Hughey said he would check this out, and asked Mr. Staufer to contact him with specific problems. The third citizen to speak was Renie Gorsuch, who expressed concern about the immediate front parking structure appearance. She felt it should be enhanced during summertime, not just when the winter rush arrives. Store owners/residents work to have the appearance of their properties ready for summer; Town and all need to have same priorities. 0 Third on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of three items: (A) Approval of Minutes of June 4, 13, and 18, 1991 meetings (B) Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 16.20.220 of the Vail Municipal Code relating to window signs (C) Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991 (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control; request to table until August 6, 1991. Jim Gibson moved to approve items A, B, and C on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, second reading, and ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987 and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989; to provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for SDD No. 6; adopting a revised development plan for a new phase IV-A of SDD No. 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Vail Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.) Mayor Rose read the title in full. Lynn Fritzlen excused herself from this issue since her husband is the architect on the project. Mike Mollica reviewed in full the memorandum dated 7/16/91 from the Community Development Department to Town Council as well as the changes made to the ordinance since first reading. As per said memo, Josef Staufer had made some modifications to the floor plans of the proposed remodel since Town Council's initial review of the VVI redevelopment proposal. These modifications included revisions to the accommodation units, employee dwelling units, parking, and landscaping. Mr. Staufer expressed some problems with Section 10 of the ordinance. After further discussion, Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 19 be approved on second reading, with the following conditions: (a) that direction be given to the Design Review Board regarding the west side of the property to maximize the amount of parking, but also to increase landscaping in such a way as to break up the asphalt between the VVI and the Vail Gateway; (b) acknowledge that Section 10 47 has already been done; (c) revise Section 10 #1 to read "Make available a minimum of 65 parking spaces that shall not be leased in the parking structure located in the Phase III building, for short-term parking use by the general public and hotel guests."; (d) that Larry Eskwith be directed to revise Section 10 #12 to indicate that pedestrian easement is temporary., and if a building permit is issued for Phase IV, the pedestrian access to the property will be reevaluated and maintained; (e) that direction be given to the Design Review Board regarding the north side of the property regarding additional low shrub landscaping to be added along the South Frongtage Road, adjacent to the VVI property. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Lynn Fritzlen abstaining). Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending the investment policy of the Town of Vail. Steve Thompson noted Town Council had received and approved the • amendments with staff at the 7/9/91 Work Session. Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 22 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was a call up of the PEC's approval of the Sonnenalp Lodge Expansion and Renovation, 20 Vail Road/Part of Lots K and L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Andy Knudtsen went over a detailed memo from the Community Development Department to Town Council dated 7/16/91 and one to the PEC dated 6/24/91 regarding the Planning and Environmental Commission's approval of three variances from the zoning code needed for this expansion proposal, including a height variance, a common area variance, and a parking variance. The PEC had unanimously approved the three variances, 7-0. Richard Rosen, attorney representing Villa Cortina, expressed that he did not feel the rationale for the height variance, including the need to install an aesthetically pleasing, screened rooftop chilling unit, was valid enough to grant that variance. He further stated that not enough testimony regarding Sonnenalp's physical hardship had been presented. He concluded by saying that his client's concerns were limited to the height variance. Council supported the proposal as it was in line with the Vail Village Master Plan. Jay Peterson said the Sonnenalp was completely walling to work with Jim Wear, an attorney representing the Talisman, regarding their parking, fire lanes, and access agreements with the Town. After lengthy discussion between Jay and Jim about this, they agreed to agree to work together to arrive at a solution acceptable to the Talisman, The Sonnenalp, and The Town. The Sonnenalp plans to start construction in April, 1992. The Sonnenalp has proposed to give the Talisman an irrevocable license to allow access across the Sonnenalp parking lot. All parties agreed that nobody wants to see cars on Meadow Drive, and there was some concern expressed about pedestrianizing Willow Bridge Road. It was agreed to tie the Talisman fire access turn around solution to the issuance of the Sonnenalp building permit. Jim Gibson moved to uphold the Planning and . Environmental Commission's decision approving the height, common area, and parking variances required by the Sonnenalp proposal, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley residence, 1816 Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a resubdivision of part of Sunburst. Based on a request to continue from the applicant, Merv Lapin moved the issue be tabled until 8/6/91, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, ayor • ATTEST: ? ft.?1t.P.t? Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 1I1 1 C:\MINS716 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 1991 7:30 P.M. • A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, 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 Minutes of July 2 and 16, 1991, meetings B. Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991, second reading, (formerly Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990), an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; setting forth certain provisions to control air pollution within the Town; and providing details with regard thereto Mayor Rose read the title of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1991, in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve both items, with the second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 5.32.030; providing for the issuance of temporary permits for the issuance of alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith advised the State passed a statute effective 7/1/91 permitting municipalities to issue temporary liquor licenses in situations where there has been a transfer of a licensed premise. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 23, with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 26; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 26; in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kent Rose stepped down from this discussion due to personal involvement. Abe Shapiro, applicant and property owner, had filed a request for the establishment of an SDD for a 6.8 acre unplatted parcel of land located in the northwest section of Lionsridge Filing No. 1; north of Sandstone Drive and west of Potato Patch Drive. Mike Mollica presented particulars regarding the ordinance including an explanation of four (4) variations from the underlying zone district (Agricultural and Open Space) this SDD request would require: (1) a request to expand the maximum allowable GRFA from 2,000 sq. ft. to 4,625 sq. ft. for the site, not including a 900 sq ft. attached garaged considered a "credit" not included in the GRFA calculation, (2) the proposed addition of one restricted (secondary) employee dwelling unit consisting of approximately 1,200 sq. ft. integrated into the main structure, and (3) and (4) requests for variations from the underlying zoning with regard to the maximum height of the proposed retaining walls and the maximum slope of 1 cut and fill areas. As detailed in CDD's memo to the PEC dated 7/8/91, the PEC voted 5-0, unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. After comments and visual presentations by applicant Abe Shapiro, Peggy Osterfoss pointed out that other options could still have been pursued, i.e., build by right or pursue variances. Following a . review and discussion of the purpose section of the special development district chapter of the zoning code (Section 18.40.010), and then specifically citing the key issues of this SDD proposal as those of compatibility, benefit to the community, re-vegetation difficulties/ driveway-road scarring of the mountainside and alternatives to accessing the property, as well as lack of evidence of any hardship to Mr. Shapiro, Jim Gibson moved to deny Ordinance No. 24, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1, Kent Rose abstaining. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 15.02; adopting by reference the 1991 editions of the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Codes for Uniform Building Code Standards, the Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Code; setting forth certain amendments to the Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, and the National Electric Code; and repealing Chapters 15.08 Building Permits - Review Procedures, 15.28 Water Closet Specifications, and 15.32 Model Energy Efficiency Construction Standards; and amending Section 15.36.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. • Larry Eskwith said that two minor changes needed to be made to the ordinance before submitted: First, to Section 15.02.020 (page 2 -- to both paragraphs C and D), publisher name added: The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, 20001 S. Walnut Dr., Walnut, California 91789. Secondly, there was a typo-graphical error in paragraph (a) under Required Installations. The Uniform Building Code referenced should be the 1991 edition, not the 1982 edition. Corrections will be made for second reading. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 25, with the second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Resolution No. 15, Series of 1991, a resolution setting forth the intent of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to issue bonds to finance various projects. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Barwick explained this resolution would allow the Town to include expenditures that may be made during the balance of 1991 for design of the Police Building and/or design of the possible additions to the Public Works Administration Building in the possible bond issue for the Police Building in 1992. Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 15, with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an appeal of the PEC decision regarding site • coverage for the Stanley Duplex, Sunburst Drive/Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a resubdivision of part of Sunburst. Mr. Snow was not present in Council Chambers when this agenda item was announced. Mayor Rose moved on to agenda Item No. 8. Item No. 8 on the agenda was an appeal of the DRB decision to deny a sign variance for Breeze Ski Rentals (Montaneros Commercial Condominium, Unit 100/641 N. Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 8, Block 1 Vail Lionshead Third Filing). Applicant: Louis Sapiro. The sign variance request would increase the number of allowable wall mounted or projecting signs by one (1), and increase the area of signage on the building in excess of the signage area allowed by 2.25 sq. ft. Staff did not support the variance request as they did not feel the location of the business presented a physical hardship. After brief discussion based on the CDD's memo to the DRB dated 7/17/91, Peggy Osterfoss moved to deny this sign variance request, with a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion to deny passed, 5-2, with Merv Lapin and Jim Gibson voting against the motion. Jack Snow arrived and Mayor Rose returned to Item No. 7 on the agenda, Mr. Stanley's appeal of the PEC decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Duplex. Jack Snow, the architect representing Mr. Stanley, referred to the CDD's memo to the PEC dated 6/10/91 which addresses the definition of site coverage. Mr. Snow responded to that memo by a letter dated 6/20/91, in which he expressed the site coverage definition seems 2 0 i 0 to be contradictory. Rob LeVine felt a verbiage change in the code would be definition. Council agreed that the Merv Lapin moved to uphold the PEC's deck does not count as site coverag Steinberg. A vote was taken and th request passed, 4-3, with Jim Gibso voting against the motion. this a was housekeeping item, and all that was needed to clarify the code verbiage does need changing. decision that the area under the with a second coming from Tom motion denying the applicant's i, Lynn Fritzlen, and Rob LeVine Item No. 9 on the agenda was a Proclamation of the Mayor declaring Labor Day Weekend as Physically-Challenged Access to the Woods Weekend, in recognition of P.A.W. Merv Lapin moved to approve the proclamation, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Not on the agenda, but raised by Merv Lapin, was a question from Larry Eskwith regarding Council direction needed in the Schmetzko vs. Town of Vail case. Merv Lapin moved to direct the Town Attorney to enter into an agreement in the case of Schmetzko vs. Town of Vail, Civil Action No. 90F2058, assuming that it meets the approval of the Town Engineer; with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent' R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:\MINS.86 3 a' U MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 20, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: • • Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Robert Levine Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin Lynn Fritzlen Ron Phillips, Town Manager Ken Hughey, Assistant 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: (A) Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 5.32 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 5.32.030; providing for the issuance of temporary permits for the issuance of alcoholic beverages under certain circumstances; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with the second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1991, first reading, an emergency ordinance approving a lease/purchase agreement with Alameda National Bank for the acquisition of equipment for the Town of Vail, Colorado. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Reasons for presenting this ordinance to Council as an emergency ordinance were given by Steve Barwick and Larry Eskwith as follows: (1) The lease has already been approved by Council and the cost was included in the 1991 budget, but the bond attorney requested this be done by ordinance, (2) The ordinance is needed now to close the deal in time to avoid having to renegotiate the terms, (3) The interest rate available now is far better than what we could achieve if the closing would have to be put off for another two to three weeks, (4) the need for the buses is immediate, and (5) the auditors now want to see full revenue coming in and full expense reports. After a brief discussion including notation that this particular lease will be a two (2) year lease at 60, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 26 as an emergency ordinance, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.58.020(C) - Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Code Supplemental Regulations, regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights and details with regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Jill Kammerer explained the issue was to delete language within a section of the code that relates to the Town enforcing private covenants and restrictions as the Town does not enforce covenants and restrictions to which the Town is not a party. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 27 on first reading, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Area D requirements that concern the phasing plan for site improvements for Area D; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Shelly Mello noted in 1 December, 1990, a major amendment to SDD#4 was approved. Details regarding the background of this issue are fully detailed in the CDD's memo dated 8/9/91 to the PEC, which also indicates the applicant is now requesting this amendment in order to allow the originally proposed expansion to proceed whale being relieved of the utility undergrounding requirement. At the time of the amendment, the applicants, Glen Lyon • Office Building (GLOB) would have been responsible for $15,000 of the expense to underground the utilities. Holy Cross Electric had committed to the remainder of the expense of $210,000 based on the proposed development for the project which included the Brewery, but that part of the project has been delayed and Holy Cross Electric is now unable to meet their original commitment. As a result, the applicants would now be required to pay $35,000 in order to underground the lines, an expense they are unable to meet. The applicants had now come back for another amendment so they would not be required to pay that amount to underground the utilities. After discussion which established this ordinance does not involve Holy Cross Electric and their original commitment toward the project, but is between SDD#4 and the Town of Vail only, Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve Ordinance No. 28 as presented with conditions directing Staff to begin negotiations with Holy Cross Electric and other property owners in the area to resolve the undergrounding of utilities as soon as possible, that Staff's negotiations with Holy Cross and/or the other property owners involved include working out fair allocation of the costs, and that the 1.6o of the proposed cost of undergrounding the utilities on GLOB property be held as cash by the Town of Vail. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 16, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to evaluate all its options in an effort to protect the public interest of the Town in the continuation of the Vail ski area and its effective and proficient management. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 16, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. Before a final vote was taken, Douglas M. Tisdale, General Bankruptcy Counsel for Gillett Holdings, Inc., spoke on behalf of Gillett Holdings to state. He noted they welcome the opportunity to expand on any dialogue between GHI and the Town of Vail. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Resolution No. 17, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the Town Manager or his agent to enter into negotiations for a contract to construct municipal offices within "the old post office building". Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained that passage of this resolution would allow the Town to enter into negotiations for a construction contract that would not go out through the public bid process. The primary purpose of proceeding in this manner is to avoid additional expenses of approximately $9,000 in working drawings which would be required to go out with bid documents and other requirements of the bid process. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 17 with the stipulation that advertising is done first in all three (3) local papers for a reasonable enough period of time so all interested contractors would have an opportunity to respond to it. Tom Steinberg second the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was Resolution No. 18, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the Town Manager or his agent to enter into negotiations for a contract to construct an irrigation connection at the Vail Transportation Center. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Peggy Osterfoss moved to approve Resolution No. 18 requesting contractors will be contacted within a reasonable enough period of time so all interested contractors would have an opportunity to respond, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6- 0. Item No. 9 on the agenda was a call up of the DRB decision approving a modified landscape plan for the Gasthof Gramshammer. (Applicant: Sheika Gramshammer) Andrew Knudtsen asked Council to table this item. Rob LeVine moved to table this call up for not more than thirty (30) days from the date of call-up, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 10 on the agenda was a call up of the DRB approval of McDonald's repaint of their roof beams from off-white to yellow. (Applicant: Hugh 40 Schmidt) Andrew Knudtsen advised that the beams on the roof at 2 M ? McDonald's had been painted yellow without a DRB application having been submitted. Staff contacted Mr. Schmidt, and requested he submit a DRB application, which he did after the fact. DRB approved the color change. Mr. Schmidt spoke briefly, stating he has the roof beams painted annually. He proposed to Council it be left as it is now and it will be repainted off-white again next Spring. Kent pointed out that precedent problems could arise from a situation of this nature. Merv Lapin moved to deny the DRB approval of McDonald"s repaint of their roof beams from off-white to yellow, and the applicant may have until December 1, 1991, to return the beams to the originally approved color. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5--1, Rob LeVine opposed. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at $:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 9 C:\MINS.820 3 f MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 3, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail. Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert LeVine Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Hermann Staufer read a letter from one of his patrons expressing hope that Vail will find a solution to emergency vehicles which are intrusive during late evening • hours. Johannes Faessler also spoke briefly, adding his concerns about the sirens. At this time, Mayor Rose advised that Council had reviewed Item No. 5 on the agenda during the Work Session earlier today. He related Council had decided not to pursue the item, which was Council's call-up of a DRB decision approving a modified landscape plan for the Gasthof Gramshammer (Applicants: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer), and the item had been withdrawn from the agenda. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Approval of Minutes of August 6 and August 20, 1991 evening meetings B. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 15.02; adopting by reference the 1991 editions of The Uniform Building Code, The Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Fire Code, The Uniform Plumbing Code, The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, The Uniform Building Code Standards, The Uniform Fire Code Standards, and the 1990 edition of the National Electric Code; setting forth certain amendments to The Uniform Building Code, The Uniform Mechanical Code, The Uniform Fire Code, and the National Electric Code; and repealing Chapters 15.08 Building Permits - Review Procedures, 15.28 Water Closet Specifications, and 15.32 Model Energy Efficiency Construction Standards; and amending Section 15.36.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto C. Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.58.020(C) - Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screening of the Town of Vail Zoning Code Supplemental Regulations, regarding enforcement of covenants restricting fence heights and details with regard thereto D. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1990, to provide changes to Area D requirements that concern the phasing plan for site improvements for Area D; and setting forth details in regard thereto Mayor Rose read all titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 was Resolution No. 19, Series of 1991, a resolution asking the 1 Colorado Wildlife Commission to take certain action concerning animal traps in and around the Town. Council asked for public input in order to finalize the resolution and get it to the Colorado Wildlife Commission before their meeting in Grand Junction on September 20, 1991. Forty-four (44) people specifically concerned with this item, not including Council . or Staff, were present at this meeting. Blondie Vucich, representing Eagle Valley Humane Society, fervently noted a lot of support is needed, and urged not only passage of the TOV's resolution, but further participation by all interested in establishing the desired trapping restrictions specifically by noting the importance of their attendance at the upcoming Colorado Wildlife Commission meeting. With the exception of comments from Lewis MesKimmen, who spoke against extended setbacks, public input was in favor of trapping restrictions which would provide for greater safety and enjoyment for all who utilize the public hiking trails around Vail, humans and domestic pets alike. Input from Bob Slagle, Susie Bruce, Marka Moser, Flo Steinberg, Jackie Padow Osterfoss, Joanne Knutsik, Maryanne Wells, Robin Weedle, and Robin Peters all reflected agreement that the main issue is one of safety; assurance for locals and visitors to Vail that it is safe to recreate here. After public and Council discussion of the specific requests to be included in Resolution No. 19, Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 19 as amended, with a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1; Jim Gibson opposed to show his support for even greater restrictions. Item No. 4 was an appeal by neighbors of a PEC decision approving a front setback variance at the Tupy Residence (Applicant: Leon Tupy; Appellants: Marka Moser, Cynthia Steitz, Bruce Allen). Andy Knudtsen reviewed the CDD memo dated August 12, 1991, to the PEC, including descriptions of the neighborhood concerns about parking, mass and bulk of the structure, the floodplain and wetlands and the impact of the development upon those areas, the amount of traffic along Buffehr Creek Road and the safety problems, the requirement to improve the public right-of-way with curb and gutter, and the issue of hardship claimed by the applicant. After hearing input related to safety concerns from several neighbors, and clarifications from E.J. Meade, designer of the Tupy residence, about the Army Corps of Engineers' definition of wetlands, the Council discussed using guidelines the TOV had set. Peggy Osterfoss then moved to uphold the PEC decision, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. Before a final vote was taken, note was made that notwithstanding constraints on the property, a project for the site that meets variance criteria was developed. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent'R. Rose, ay r ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 0 c:\MINS.93 W 0 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 17, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Robert LeVine Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynn Fritzlen TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was the TOV Ten Year Employee Recognition • presentation. Liz Schramm, TOV bus driver, and Tim Barca, TOV maintenance worker, were individually introduced by Ron Phillips, thanked for their years of dedicated service to the Town of Vail, and given the Town's ten year service awards. Second on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1991, first reading, and ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Special Parking Assessment Fund, Vail Marketing Fund, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, East Vail Utility Undergrounding District, Lionshead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund, and Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, of the 1991 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and Authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth therein. Mayor Rose read the title in full. After brief review of the schedule of the detail of the supplemental appropriations presented by Steve Thompson, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 30 on first reading, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. Before a final vote was taken, Kent Rose inquired about the status of the Spraddle Creek parcel. Ron Phillips advised we are waiting for results of final appraisal work. Larry Eskwith added the Golf Course Maintenance parcel is also at issue. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was the Eagle County Recreational Authority Intergovernmental Agreement pertaining to purchase of the Berry Creek 5th Filing parcel. Larry Eskwith reported the most recent draft of the Intergovernmental Agreement and Contract have been distributed to all members of the Authority for further consideration and review of changes. A purchase and sale agreement for the property has also been prepared and distributed to members of the Authority. Larry pointed out the agreement forms a separate governmental entity run by a Board to be chosen by each of the governmental entities. Larry answered questions asked about payment arrangements for administrative fees originated by the Authority. Larry said the closing bonds will go out November 1, 1991. Following discussion, Jim moved to approve the Eagle County Recreational Authority Intergovernmental Agreement with the condition that neither Vail Recreational District or Western Eagle County Recreational District become members of the Authority in order to avoid any conflict of interest as they are two possible long term managers of the property, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. Before a final vote was taken, Ron Phillips asked if percentages change among other parties or another party is added but Town of Vail amount is not changed, would the agreement need to come before Council again. Council felt it would not be necessary to 1 bring the agreement back to Council again under those circumstances. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was the Town Council call-up for a DRB decision approving the • addition of bollards to the Vail Glo Lodge landscape plan. (Applicant: Craig Holzfaster) Kent Rose pointed out that this issue was called-up because the construction was done prior to approval. Hugh Warder, attorney representing Vail Glo Lodge, noted that the bollards were part of a larger construction project, and pointed out the addition of the bollards to the landscaping plan were for purposes of safety, protection of the landscape, and protection of the structure itself. When contacted by Betsy Rosolack, Mr. Holzfaster did file a separate application with the DRB which was heard and approved. There was no further discussion. Rob LeVine moved to uphold the DRB decision approving the bollards, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was a scheduled site visit to the Kravis Residence at 424 Forest Rd. Applicant/Appellant: Henry Kravis had filed an appeal of a denial by the DRB regarding a landscape illumination plan at the Kravis residence. Kristan Pritz asked that this item be postponed until November 5, 1991; as Kravis has hired an attorney who will be working with the DRB. Merv Lapin moved that the Kravis Residence appeal be tabled until November 5, 1991, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Returning to the afternoon's unfinished agenda items, Kent Rose requested Council pick up the Work Session at the Information Update. Steve Barwick informed Council he had received another, entirely different approach proposal from an investment banker to refinance the bonds related to the Pitkin Creek Housing Project. Instead of refinancing the bonds, this banker proposed selling the mortgages backing up the bonds in the open market. Steve stated the banker is asking for permission to start examining the mortgages and make a proposal to TOV. After additional discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to authorize Steve Barwick to proceed with hard negotiations with this investment banker, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Ron Phillips asked Council if they recalled discussion of approximately one year ago about increasing Council salaries, when the issue was put on hold to be raised again just prior to election time, 1991. After brief discussion, Council voted 5-1, Jim Gibson dissenting, to have the issue brought before Council as an ordinance at the next evening meeting. Kent Rose noted he had received a call from Roger Tilkemeier who reported that while riding his horse above Potato Patch he came upon someone staking out a mine claim. Kent feels this may be a ploy to get some developable land on Forest Service property adjacent to the Town of Vail. Kent asked Larry to please check into this. Merv Lapin received a call about repairs being needed on bike path between Cascade and Matterhorn. Jim Gibson referred to the recent letter from Joe Staufer. It was not clear from the letter what piece of land is in question. Ron Phillips advised that the Community Development Department is talking with Mr. Staufer to try to alleviate the problem. Tom Steinberg mentioned that pick-ups/construction vehicles are pulling up on the grass at the west end of the Golden Peak parking lot. He suggested parking signs be posted there or that a row of boulders be placed there to permanently discourage this. Rob LeVine reported items from the last Lionshead Merchants' meeting. Some folks are interested in putting in street lights by the Treetops Building in front of Gallery Row. There was a suggestion that some of the lights around Montaneros, seem too bright, and perhaps some of the lights be taken over to the Treetops Building. Public Works was asked to look into this. i Also, Rob LeVine reported that there was general consensus and desire 2 ti that the Lionshead Master Plan be a part of next year's budget. There being no further business; Mayor Rose moved to adjourn the meeting to an Executive Sessions at 8:50 P.M. 0 Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayo ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto i C? C:\MINS.917 3 . MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on October 1, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Jim Gibson Ron Phillips, Town Manager Ken Hughey, Assistant Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. 0 Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Approval of Minutes of September 3 and 17, 1991 meetings. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Special Parking Assessment Fund, Vial Marketing Fund, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, East Vail Utility Undergrounding District, Lionshead Mall Project Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, Lionshead Mall Debt Service Fund, and Booth Creek Debt Service and Construction Fund, of the 1991 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vaal, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures of said appropriations as set forth herein. Merv Lapin moved to approve both items on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0, Lynn Fritzlen not yet present at this meeting. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance increasing the compensation to be paid to the Mayor of the Town of Vail and the members of the Town Council of the Town of Vail. Tom Steinberg read the title in full. After discussion, Peggy Osterfoss moved that Ordinance No. 29 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Lynn Fritzlen. Further discussion before a final vote was taken was focused on the suggestion that Council's compensation be made optional by an addition to Ordinance No. 29 noting no Council member would be obligated to take their pay. A vote was taken and the motion was defeated, 3-2, Rob LeVine and Merv Lapin opposed. The Council members present expressed their desire to discuss this issue further at a work session with all council members present. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, to provide typographical and wording corrections for Special Development District No. 22, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Tom Steinberg read the title in full.. After a brief explanation by Shelly Mello of the three corrections set forth in this ordinance, Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 32 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and re-enacting Special Development District No. 2 in its entirety. Tom Steinberg read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen explained the conditions of approval as detailed in the 1 Community Development Department's memo to Town Council dated October 1, 1991. He said all Special Development District criteria were addressed and met, as described in the Community Development Department's memo dated September 23, 1991 to the PEC. There was brief discussion with regard to responsibility for watering of trees to be transplanted as part of this ordinance. Lynn Fritzlen then moved that Ordinance No. 33 be approved on first reading with the requirement that all four conditions of approval set forth in the Community Development Department's memo dated October 1, 1991 be met, and directed staff to assist the applicant with a plan for watering of the transplanted trees. Merv Lapin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1991, an ordinance amending Section 18.04.360, Site Coverage of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Tom Steinberg read the title in full. Kristan Pritz noted the addition to the ordinance was meant simply to clarify previous confusion about what constitutes a covered or roofed walkway in the definition of site coverage. Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 35 on first reading, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Resolution No. 20, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the Town to invest its surplus funds with other government entities in JEFFTRUST; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Tom Steinberg read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained that JEFFTRUST is a more aggressive money management firm than Colorado Trust. JEFFTRUST was started by Jefferson County in 1988, but Jefferson County is no longer involved. Marv Goldsman from JEFFTRUST addressed . Council questions about the firm. Council felt there were too many unanswered questions, and asked Steve to further investigate JEFFTRUST. Rob Levine then moved to table Resolution No. 20 until more information was available, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously, 5-0. Moving to items previously scheduled for discussion at a Special Meeting on the 1992 Budget planned for 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 3, 1991, presentations were given for the following items: Community Relations, Insurance, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, the Debt Service Fund, the Lease/Purchase Schedule, and the Conservation Trust Fund. The other items scheduled for discussion at the October 3, 1991 Special Meeting, Special Events, the Lionshead Mall Assessment District Fund, and the Marketing Fund were all continued to the October 8, 1991 work session, and the October 3, 1991 Special Meeting was canceled. There being no further business, Rob LeVine moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, irk J Kent R. Rose, Kayo ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandme?fer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto I* C:\MINS.101 2 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Robert Levine Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Merv Lapin Lynn Fritzlen TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the TOV Ten Year Employee Recognition presentation. Tom Sheely, TOV Police Department Staff Sergeant, was • introduced by Ken Hughey. Ron Phillips introduced Bill Lowe, TOV vehicle maintenance worker, and presented him with his ten, year award. Both employees were thanked for their years of dedicated service to the Town of Vail. Second on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Joe Staufer thanked the current Council and, noting upcoming election time, wished them each the best of luck in future endeavors. Item No. 3 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of three items: A. Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991, to provide typographical and wording corrections for SDD #22; and setting forth details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting SDD #2 in its entirety. C. Ordinance No. 35, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.04.360, Site Coverage of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and setting forth details in regard thereto. . Mayor Rose read all titles in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.16.050 of the Municipal Code to provide that any contract for the construction of a public improvement with a value of not more than $100,000 may be negotiated by the Town Manager without submitting it for bid; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained this ordinance only pertains to situations where Town staff wished to enter into a negotiated contract without having to go out to bid first. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 34 on first reading, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. Before a final vote was taken, Rob Levine asked how the $100,000 figure was established. Larry advised he had discussed this with Greg Hall and Gary Murrain and, based on their experience, they felt $100,000 was an appropriate level. They felt contracts under $100,000 were low enough not to warrant the added protection of a resolution, and further offered substantial savings. Ron Phillips added not all projects under $100,000 would be negotiated; this ordinance simply gives the Town Manager the option to negotiate contracts under $100,000. He noted there were only two or three such contracts this year. Council was not comfortable with the 10 $100,000 figure. Lynn Fritzlen said she felt there would be too much liability involved. Merv Lapin then asked for the definition of "contract." Larry stated there was no definition of "contract" in the Code. Merv expressed concern about locals claiming they did not have an opportunity to bid on projects, and inquired about projects which might require several contracts due to multiple aspects of such projects, i.e. bricklaying, cement work, plumbing, etc. A vote was then taken and the motion passed 4-3 with direction to add the definition of "contract" to the ordinance; Rob LeVine, Lynn Fritzlen, and Merv Lapin opposed. r 1 u Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 27, Forest Glen (A.K.A. Timber Falls); adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 27 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto (Applicant: Timber Falls Association). Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mike Mollica reviewed the Community Development Department memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 23, 1991, detailing the description of the request for a major subdivision preliminary plan and a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located west of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek. After discussion, Mike was advised to add language to the ordinance to clarify that the caretaker unit GRFA comes out of the already established maximum allowable GRFA, and that the caretaker unit is different than employee housing. Further, all restrictions would have to be in agreement form which Larry Eskwith would need to draft. Peter Jamar, representing Timber Falls, pointed out the significant down zoning of this project. Mr. Jamar agreed to caretaker units voluntarily. Merv asked if there was any objection to an easement to the stream. The applicant was willing to work with that. Tom Steinberg inquired about public access to the forest through an access easement and suggested a 10' buffer on the back side of Lots 8 - 11 be dedicated to the Town. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 36 with the clarifications discussed, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. After the vote, Peggy Osterfoss commented that one down side to down zoning was the lack of maximum affordable units left available. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.32.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vaal by adding "Well Water Treatment Facility" as a conditional use in the agricultural and open space zone district (Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District.) Mayor Rose read the title in full and then stepped down due to personal involvement. Mike Mollica reviewed the Community Development Department memo to the PEC dated October 14, 1991. There was brief discussion about a back-up well arrangement and need for assurance that the well would not be used in tandem with other wells. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 37 as presented, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0-0, Kent Rose abstaining. • Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance authorizing the sale of certain property known as the Berry Creek 5th Filing parcel to the Eagle County Recreation Authority. Mayor Rose read the title in full. It was clarified that the ordinance includes parcels A and B. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 38, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, first 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 ending January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1991 tax year and payable in the 1992 fiscal year. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Discussion followed involving requests for clarification of the special events budget, the Council contingency fund, and concern with the increase in employee medical costs which the Town has to pick up. Rob LeVine said he disagreed with staff cuts made, i.e. the Assistant Town Manager position, and the shelving of the proposed Police Department expansion. Tom Steinberg was also concerned about the Police Department, stating he felt our liability in this area was high. He felt an outside analyst would advise us to move on this as soon as possible. Merv Lapin then moved to approve Ordinance 39 with an additional allocation of $2,500 to the Library for the Adventure Series and salaries, with a second coming 2 or from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, Rob Levine opposed. Item No. 9 was the appointment of election judges for the November 19, 1991, Regular Municipal Election. Rob Levine moved to appoint Kay Cheney, Karen Morten, Vi Brown, Joan Carnie, and Lee Bennett as judges for the election, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7--0. Prior to adjournment, discussion was initiated by Merv Lapin regarding the Council compensation issue. He stated he felt uncomfortable voting on his own proposed increased compensation. He suggested conditions for voting on this issue include that anyone presently sitting on Council would not be eligible for an increase, and that council members have the option to not have to collect compensation, giving to charity or not collecting at all. Kent said the process was already in the Charter. Ron Phillips said an ordinance could be done which would be more restrictive. Jim Gibson did not feel the proposed increase was significant enough to entice people to run and did not think it could be raised significantly enough without tearing up the budget. He was opposed to the increase altogether. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. • ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto E 10 C:\MINS10.15 3 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 5, 1991 7:30 P.M. '01 A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 5, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Robert LeVine Merv Lapin Lynn Fritzlen MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT Peggy Ostedoss Jim Gibson Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was a TOV Ten Year Employee Recognition presentation. Ron Phillips introduced Tom Talbot, Fire Department Fire Technician, and presented him with his ten year service award. Tom was thanked for his years of dedicated service to the Town of Vail, and congratulated by Dick Duran. Second on the agenda was presentation of a donation by the Vail/Eagle Valley Rotary Club from their 1991 Tree Planting Project at Timber Ridge/Post Office. Jeff Bowen first read a citation to Todd Oppenheimer in recognition of his assistance on the project, and then presented a check for $4,792.66 to the Town of Vail. Todd thanked the Rotary for their citizenship, stewardship, and a job well done. Third on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Item No. 4 on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of six items. Before Mayor Rose read the titles, Merv Lapin asked to have item B, Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1991, second reading, withdrawn from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. Mayor Rose then read the titles of the five remaining items on the Consent Agenda in full: A. Approval of Minutes of October 1 and October 15, 1991, evening meetings. C. Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 27, Forest Glen (A.K.A. Timber Falls); adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 27 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Timber Falls Association) D. Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.32.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by adding "Well Water Treatment Facility" as a conditional use in the agricultural and open space zone district. (Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District) E. Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance authorizing the sale of certain property known as the Berry Creek 5th Filing parcel to the Eagle County Recreation Authority. F. Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1991, second reading, 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 ending January 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, and providing for the levy assessment and collection of Town ad valorem property taxes due for the 1991 tax year and payable in the 1992 fiscal year. Mayor Rose asked if there were any other items on the Consent Agenda anyone wanted withdrawn for discussion. Peter Jamar asked that Item C be withdrawn. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of items A, D, E, and F, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Rose read in full the title of the first item withdrawn from the Consent Agenda, Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.16.050 of the Municipal Code to provide that any contract for the construction of a public improvement with a value of not more than $100,000 may be negotiated by the Town Manager without submitting R for bid; and setting for the details in regard thereto. Merv Lapin expressed concern • shared by Rob LeVine that $100,000 was too high. Both said they would support this ordinance at a $50,000 level. Tom Steinberg asked how many of the last year's contracts had been between $50,000 and $100,000, but an answer was unavailable. Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 34 with the change from $100,000 to $50,000, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. Before a final vote was taken, Merv noted he was concerned with the $100,000 figure because he felt the $50,000 would more likely ensure public notification of Town contracts over $50,000 open for bid. Lynn Fritzlen added she felt $5,000 was a figure with which she would have been more comfortable. She felt negotiated bids greater than $5,000 should require review by an elected body. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Withdrawn Item C of the Consent Agenda, Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1991, second reading, was discussed next. Mayor Rose had previously read the title in full as part of the Consent Agenda. Peter Jamar had asked this ordinance be withdrawn for further discussion in conjunction with Item No. 9 on the agenda, Resolution 21, Series of 1991, regarding the setting of a fee in lieu of the dedication of land for school sites. Ron Reilly noted he was not aware of the fee in lieu at first reading of Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1991. He asked for a determination as to whether the fee in lieu would be applicable to his current project, Forest Glen (alkla Timber Falls). After discussion about the history of this tax, Larry Eskwith summarized that the ordinance applies whenever there is a major subdivision. It would not apply if an area had been previously subdivided and the fee had already been paid. He pointed out the Forest Glen area has been zoned, but never subdivided. There was further discussion about the TOV's rationale for adoption of the ordinance, which was at the request of the school board to come in line with what the County was doing to require a fee in lieu of land dedication for the purchase of school land and construction of school buildings in the future. Peter suggested Resolution No. 21, Series of 1991, be made more equitable so developers do not see the fee as one more reason to go through the single family subdivision process. He felt the fee ought to apply across the board and be geared more to the impact, as opposed to the method, by which someone chooses to divide their property. After further discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 36, with a second coming from Lynn Fritzlen. Before a final vote was taken, Merv referred to discussion at a previous meeting about inclusion of a forest access easement at Forest Glen. Being advised there was no public access to Forest Service land from public streets at Forest Glen, Tom Steinberg asked for a ten foot easement strictly for access to the Forest Service land. Ron Reilly questioned if there might be potential liability to him if he agreed to the easement. Tom said Ron could dedicate an easement to the Town, and it would then be the Town's responsibility. Ron said he would consider this. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was a discussion of issues regarding changes to Area A requirements of Special Development District (SDD) No. 4 concerning the development plan for The Cascades, alkla Millrace IV, alkla Cosgriff Parcel; applicants East West Partners and Commercial Federal Bank. Mayor Rose pointed out the item was before Council as an information/discussion item only, and Council was not taking any formal action on the item during this meeting. Shelly Mello noted there were two parts to the discussion, the first being a review of current ownership and potential development issues, and the second being an analysis of a development plan submitted for one of the individual parcels. Shelly pointed out there are presently four different owners of the Cascade Village SDD, initially owned by one entity, Vail Ventures. She said now the SDD is running into a multiple. ownership situation, and the different development plans on file will probably end up being reviewed independent of each other. She reviewed a description of the request for a minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD No. 4 to approve a development plan as detailed in the Community Development Department's memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 28,1991, and the CDD's memo to Town Council dated November 5, 1991. Kristan thanked Mark Smith, Jerry Mulligan, and Nick Gwathmey for coming to help everyone examine and fully understand this issue. Shelly said there were a number of concerns staff and the PEC had, and read conditions applicable to the staff's recommendation of approval, referencing the previous CDD and PEC memos. There was additional brief discussion regarding GRFA. This item will be before Council on November 19, 1991, as Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Ordnance No. 43, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.04. Definitions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 18.04.277, setting forth a definition for plant products; by the addition of Section 18.04.289, setting forth a definition for "Seasonal Plant Product Business"; amending Section 18.30.030, Heavy Service District Conditional Uses of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Paragraph T, Seasonal Plant Product Business, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Jill Kammerer explained this ordinance was the result of a request by an individual to sell Christmas trees in the Heavy Service Zone District. There are currently four Heavy Service Zone District within the Town, with a gas station located in each. After determination that such sales would not create a problem in any of these areas, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 43 on first reading, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg questioned why the ordinance listed the sale period as two consecutive sixty day periods. Jill said Larry Eskwith was consulted about this, and he did not see why the sale period could not simply be listed as 120 days. Jill said she would ask the Planning and Environmental Commission for clarification, and added ?A ` r it was likely particular language regarding the time period called out in this ordinance might be changed for second reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Town of Vail, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1991; providing the form, terms and conditions of the bonds, the manner and terms of issuance, the manner of execution, the method of payment and the security therefore; pledging a portion of the sales tax proceeds of the Town and the net revenues derived from the parking facility for the payment of said bonds; providing certain covenants and other details and making other provisions concerning the bonds and the designated sales tax revenues and net revenues; ratifying action previously taken and appertaining thereto; and repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Barwick said the purpose of issuing the bonds detailed in this ordinance was to defray the cost of the Town's 1992 capital projects. He noted the security on these bonds is the first 2% of the Town's sales tax and the Town's net revenues from the parking structures. The term of the bonds was twenty years, and they would probably be issued on December 30, 1991. The rates of be issue and the discounts for the underwriter were scheduled for discussion at the November 12, 1991, work session when Steve Jeffers would be present. After discussion about pre-payment provisions and the schedule of principle and interest, Rob Levine moved that Ordinance No. 42 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1989, relating to the Town of Vail, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series of 1989. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Barwick said this ordinance was related to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1991, in that the Town could not meet the additional bonds test set up under the 1989 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds ordinance, which authorized issuance of bonds for the parking structure. He added, that ordinance allowed for amendment if MBIA, the bond insurer, gave written approval to do so, which MBIA has done. Ordinance No. 44 will amend the 1989 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds in order to allow the Town to do the 1991 bonds on a parity with the 1989 bonds. Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 44 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. Before a vote was taken, Merv asked if there were any conditions put on MBIA in terms of when they can or cannot approve additional bonds. Larry Eskwith did not believe so. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 9 on the agenda was Resolution No. 21, Series of 1991, a resolution setting a fee in lieu of the dedication of land for school sites as provided for in Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Larry Eskwith explained when questions were raised by Ron Reilly and Peter Jamar about the fee in lieu, it was found the details for the fee in lieu were not set at the same time the ordinance was set. Larry felt, although not required by the ordinance, the details should be in writing for the record. The amount set is the same as set by Eagle County. Tom Steinberg moved that Resolution No. 21 showing either a dedication of land based on number of units x .014495 for single family (number of units x.002676 for multi-family), or $5,000.00 per acre if land is not dedicated, be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Lynn Fritzlen. Before a final vote was taken, Lynn Fritzlen expressed concern about the long term impact of down zoning. Mayor Rose asked if anyone, in this resolution, wanted to provide consideration for down zoning. Larry felt the ordinance should be called back for amendment if that was to be considered. A vote was then taken and the motion passed 4-1, Merv Lapin opposed. Merv expressed interest in going back to the original ordinance and added if there is a down zoning, it not fall under this cash in lieu. Ron Phillips felt wording should be corrected to clarify technicalities of condominium subdivisions vs. major subdivisions. Down zoning was actually incentivized by the fee because the fewer units there are, the less the fee is. Larry Eskwith was directed to pull out that ordinance for review and come back to Council with any suggestions for clarification. Peter Jamar disagreed with the interpretation being presented, and there was additional discussion about how this related to the subdivision process. Kent asked this be brought back for discussion at a work session for review. Item No. 10 on the agenda was a review of the selected artist for the Art in Public Places (AIPP) Vail Transportation Center Project. Shelly Mello said the AIPP jury met on October 25, 1991, and selected Dan Dailey from three finalists to develop the specific proposal for this project. Sample drawings and a model of the project were displayed, as well as presentation of a slide show of some of Mr. Dailey's work to emphasize the range of his work. Shelly asked for a motion to uphold or deny the AIPP jury's selection of Mr. Dailey, explaining Town guidelines requiring Council to make such approval or denial as is done with all of the pieces of an AIPP approves. She added this request to Council was for approval of the artist to develop a specific concept only. Kristan added the project was already presented to Council during budget hearings. Tom Steinberg moved to uphold the jury's selection, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. After discussion regarding the need to fund raise for additional monies for the project, explanations about grant applications made, and assurance that public input was not being closed and the art selection process would not discourage more art in public places, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 11 on the agenda was appointment of two Local Licensing Authority members. Four applicants, Linda Fried, Douglas MacRae, Donna Meyer, and Steve Simonett had been interviewed at work session earlier in the day. Ballots having been reviewed, Lynn Fritzlen moved to appoint Steve Simonett and Linda Fried to the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. 3 Of There being no further business, Rob LeVine moved to adjourn the meeting Sessions at 9:50 p,m. Respectfully submitted, Kent *Rose, Mayor ATTEST: meyer, Town Clerk Pamela A. Brand Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto • • CAN5.115 4 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, November 19, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Robert LeVine Merv Lapin Lynn Fritzlen Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. As this meeting began, votes from the day's regular municipal election were being counted, and Dan Corcoran and Jay Peterson thanked Merv Lapin, Tom Steinberg, Lynn Fritzlen, and Mayor Kent Rose for their service on the Town Council. Kent was recognized for his dedication and concern, and received a standing ovation. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of three items: A. Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.04, Definitions, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 18.04.2777, setting forth a definition for plant products; by the addition of Section 18.04.289, setting forth a definition for "Seasonal Plant Product Business"; amending Section 18.30.030, Heavy Service District Conditional Uses of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Paragraph T, Seasonal Plant Product Business; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Richard DillingMest Vail Texaco). B. Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Town of Vail, Colorado Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 1991; providing the form, terms and conditions of the bonds, the manner and terms of issuance, the manner of execution, the method of payment and the security therefor; pledging a portion of the sales tax proceeds of the Town and the net revenues derived from the Parking Facility for the payment of said bonds; providing certain covenants and other details and making other provisions concerning the bonds and the designated sales tax revenues and net revenues; ratifying action previously taken and appertaining thereto; and repealing all ordinances in conflict herewith. C. Ordinance No. 44, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1991, relating to the Town of Vail Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series of 1989. Mayor Rose read the titles in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements of SDD No. 4 that concern the development plan for Millrace IV, Scenario I, alkla Cosgriff parcel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were East-West Partners/Commercial Federal Bank/Cascade Village. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Shelly Mello advised the ordinance incorporated all changes discussed at the November 5, 1991, evening meeting. Tom Steinberg moved that Ordinance No. 41 be approved on first reading, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. Before a final vote was taken, Rob LeVine inquired about the two scenarios detailed in the Community Development Department's memo to Town Council dated November 11, 1991. Shelly and Kristan Pritz advised Scenario 2 was listed as an alternative should Scenario 1 not be constructed as proposed. Merv asked if staff was satisfied that off-site landscaping requirements and improvements were realized. Staff felt they were. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 46, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending the Plan Document of the Town of Vail Employee's Pension Plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained the specifics of this ordinance, including that this ordinance involved a 611/o deduction from seasonal employee's pay which would be put in the pension plan, replacing the end of season bonus. Merv Lapin asked it employees have a choice as to how the money is invested, and was advised only if they are over 55. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 46 on first reading, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No, 5 on the agenda was Resolution No. 20, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the Town to invest its surplus funds with other government entities in CENTRUST (formerly JEFFTRUST); and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Steve Thompson noted he had further researched CENTRUST as Council had requested at the evening meeting on October 1, 1991, when Resolution No. 20 was tabled. After discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 20, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5; Jim Gibson, Merv Lapin, Peggy Osterfoss, Kent Rose, and Lynn Fritzlen opposed, feeling the risk factor was too great. Item No. 6 on the agenda was Resolution No. 22, Series of 1991, a resolution approving the Streetscape Master Plan for the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Mike Mollica and Kristan Pritz explained drawings of maps were not included in the distributed November 14, 1991, issue of the Streetscape Master Plan simply to save on unnecessary reduction and reprinting costs of illustrations which might require redrafting by the consultant. Joe Macy asked what those costs were. Mike said the work had to be done in Denver and would run between $200 - $300. Joe Macy asked Resolution No. 22 be tabled until the smaller maps were included in the plan book and made available to the public, but Kent said the original full size maps were now, and have been, publicly available long enough for anyone interested to have seen them, and further, there had been a • public site visit. Kristan added the narrative in the plan book fully details everything. Jim Gibson invited citizens to come in to see the full size maps, which he described as more meaningful than the smaller maps, adding a lot is lost on the smaller maps. After brief speculation about a 15-20 year timeframe for the project, Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 22, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was action on Council employees' compensation. A 40% increase for the Town Manager and a 5% increase for the Town Attorney were suggested. Action on compensation for the Municipal Court Judge was tabled, pending review of additional information. Jim Gibson moved to approve the suggested Town Manager and Town Attorney increases, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Not on the agenda, but raised for discussion by Merv Lapin was a question about the basis for approving or disapproving liquor licenses by the Local Licensing Authority. Larry Eskwith advised late payment of sales tax was basis for revocation of a license, as well as the character of an applicant. Jay Peterson said it was a privilege to receive a license, and he felt the Local Licensing Authority Council was consistent in approving licenses. Larry said suspension hearings are held. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R"Rose, Mayor ATTE t Rondali V. Phillips, Town Man er Minutes taken by Do6anne S. Deto CAMINS11.19 2 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING/WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 26, 1991 2:00 P.M. The organizational meeting of the Vail Town Council, which followed the November 19, 1991, Regular Municipal Election, was held on Tuesday, November 26, 1991, at 2:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Steinberg Jim Gibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Shearer Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: None TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk LJ The meeting began with the swearing in of the four newly elected Council members, Tom Steinberg, Merv Lapin, Jim Shearer, and Bob Buckley. The second item on the agenda was an Executive Session: Personnel Matters. The third item on the agenda was election of a Mayor and a Mayor Pro-Tem. Jim Gibson moved to appoint Peggy Osterfoss as Mayor, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. Merv Lapin moved to approve Tom Steinberg as Mayor, with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. Rob LeVine then moved that nominations be closed for Mayor, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and that vote passed unanimously, 7-0. A ballot was then passed to all Council members, and once tabulated, Jim Gibson moved to appoint Peggy Osfertoss as Mayor for a two-year term, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Regarding Mayor Pro-Tem, Tom Steinberg moved to nominate Merv Lapin, with a second coming from Bob Buckley. Jim Gibson moved to nominate Rob LeVine, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. Jim Gibson then moved that nominations be closed, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and this motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Following a paper ballot, Tom Steinberg moved to appoint Merv Lapin as Mayor Pro-Tem, with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item 4 on the agenda was the PEC Report. Item 5 on the agenda was the DRB Report. Item 6 was an appointment of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Board member and alternate. At this time, Jim Gibson excused himself from the meeting, leaving at 3:05 P.M. Merv Lapin moved to appoint Tom Steinberg as the regular member of NWCOG and Rob LeVine as the alternate. Jim Shearer seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was appointment of the Vail Resort Association Board member. Merv Lapin moved to appoint Jim Gibson as the regular member, with Jim Shearer as the alternate, with a second from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 8 on the agenda was appointment of the Vail Transportation/Parking Task Force members. Tom Steinberg moved to appoint Peggy Osterfoss, Merv Lapin, and Bob Buckley, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 9 on the agenda was appointment of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns member and alternate. Tom Steinberg moved to appoint Rob LeVine as the regular member and Peggy Osterfoss as the alternate. This motion was seconded by Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 10 was the appointment of Vail Recreation District/Town Council Committee members. Tom Steinberg moved to appoint Jim Gibson and Merv Lapin, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 11 was the appointment of the Art in Public Places Committee member. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Tom • Steinberg, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 12 was the appointment of the Cemetery Committee member. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Bob Buckley, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 13 was the appointment of the Bravo! Colorado Board member. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Tom Steinberg, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 14 was the appointment of the Committee to Water Quality/Quantity Committee/NWCOG member. Merv Lapin moved to appoint Tom Steinberg, with a second from LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 15 was the appointment of the Countywide Air Quality Committee member. Following some discussion, it was decided not to appoint at this time since the committee may no longer be functioning. Staff will check with the County. Item 16 was the appointment of the Avon-Beaver Creek-Vail Regional Transportation Committee members. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Tom Steinberg and Peggy Oste0oss as regular members, and Jim Shearer as an alternate to this committee, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. . Item 17 was the reaffirmation of the Eagle County Recreation Authority Committee member. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Merv Lapin as the regular member and Jim Gibson as the alternate. Merv Lapin seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 18 was the appointment of the Town of Vail Housing Authority member. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Peggy Osterfoss as the regular member, with Jim Shearer serving as an alternate. Merv Lapin seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 19 was the appointment of the Municipal Complex Committee member. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Rob LeVine, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 20 was the appointment of the Channel 23 Board member. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Jim Shearer to this committee, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 21 was the appointment of the Vail Valley Conference and Performance Center Steering Committee members. Jim Shearer moved to appoint Tom Steinberg, Rob LeVine, and Merv Lapin as committee members, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. At this point, Tom Steinberg stated he had been contacted by the Eagle Valley Arts Council, and this committee was interested in having a Council representative. Thereafter, Merv Lapin moved to appoint Jim Shearer to this committee, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the vote passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 22 was the appointment of the Municipal Judge. Rob LeVine moved to appoint Buck Allen as the Town of Vail Municipal Judge for a two-year period of time. Included in this motion was a reduction of his work week to 2-112 days per week, from the current 3 days per week at the existing hourly compensation rate. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. Discussion followed regarding the management consultant's review of this position, as well as requirements already requested of Judge Allen, and the timeframe during which the review of this position would be concluded. At this point, the vote was called and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 23 was the appointment of the Election Commission. Pam Brandmeyer explained that Section 25 of the Charter provided that two registered electors within the Town of Vail be appointed to the Election Commission for a period of two-years, and to sere without compensation with the Town Clerk being the Chairman of this commission. Those two appointees would be Karen Morter and Kay Cheney. Merv Lapin moved to approve both appointments, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 24 was a request from Vail Ski Tech to place awning support poles on Town of Vail land. Betsy Rosolack explained that Vail Ski Tech, in the new Lift House Lodge expansion, wished to extend their awning beyond the property line of the Lift House Lodge and that the support poles for that awning would be on Town of Vail !and. The staff recommendation was to grant the request. Merv Lapin moved to approve staff's recommendation, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motions passed unanimously, 6-0. 0 2 Item 25 on the agenda was a request from Mountain Hospice to place a sign by their Tree of Lights on Town of Vail land near the Children's Fountain. In explanation, Betsy Rosolack stated that Mountain Hospice had already been approved for a Tree of Lights at the Children's Fountain. Further, Mountain Hospice had requested permission to place a sign near the tree stating, "Mountain Hospice Tree of Lights - For Information See Forget Me Not Store". The staff recommendation was to grant the request as proposed, excluding the sign. Following discussion, Merv Lapin moved to return this decision to staff, supporting a 1 sq. ft. sign with telephone number only. Jim Shearer seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 26 was the discussion of the AIPP approval of the temporary installation of "American Jazz" on Town of Vail land, with the applicant being Davey Wilson of the Hong Kong and Louis Restaurants. Shelly Mello explained on November 20, 1991, AIPP voted unanimously to approve a request to site "American Jazz" in the center planter of the Wall Street stairway for the ski season. The applicant had agreed to pay for all necessary installation and removal, and to meet all the Town of Vail requirements. Further, the applicant was providing an insurance policy for $1,000,000 of liability prior to the installation of the piece. Following discussion, Rob LeVine moved to uphold the AIPP decision, with a second from Merv Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item 27 was the Third Quarter Financial Report. Steve Thompson reviewed the material and answered questions. Item 28 was an Information Update. Ron Phillips reminded Council members Steinberg and Buckley that the meeting with Mr. Galvin of the East Village Homeowner's Association would be held at 4:30 P.M. in the small conference room on Friday, November 29. Under Other, which was item 29, several items were discussed. Attendance at the Ski Museum reception on Friday, November 29, 1991, and the Betty Ford Winter Interlude were discussed. Further, it was decided by Council to hold no work session meetings on either Tuesday, December 24 or 31, 1991. Tom Steinberg asked for some clarification regarding the FDIC action on the Potato Patch caretaker unit, to which Larry Eskwith responded he was in contact with both the FDIC attorney, as well as Bill Post, who represents the condominium association. Bus scheduling problems were discussed both for West Vail Service, as well as for the Bald Mountain Road/Booth Falls area. Work session meeting formats were discussed, and it was decided that Carl Neu might be an appropriate facilitator to provide consensus building expertise, as well as to help open all lines of communication, to explain our form of government, and to let everyone know what his role should be. At this point, Bob Buckley suggested he would be interested in reviewing the Deming management model to improve quality and efficiency within the Town of Vail. There being no further business, Tom Steinberg moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 P.M., with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. At this point, the Council members adjourned to a joint meeting with the Avon Town Council and Eagle County Commissioners at Jhe Town of Avon, which was to begin at 5:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ()Cquq Margaret . Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pamela A. Brandmeyer C-ANS1126.ORG 3 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 3, 1991 7:30 P.M. C A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: • Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Bob Buckley Tom Steinberg Rob LeVine Jim Shearer Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tern Jim Gibson Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, 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 three items: A. Approval of Minutes of November 5 and November 19, 1991, evening meetings. B. Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plan for Millrace IV, Scenario i, alkla Cosgriff parcel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (Cascade Village) C. Ordinance No. 46, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending the Plan Document of the Town of Vail Employees' Pension Plan; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 3.40 - Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Ostedoss read the title in full. Steve Thompson explained the majority of the amendments to the code were made in order to adopt several uniform amendments as proposed and adopted by the CML Board of Directors so the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) would exclude from their expenditure limitation bill state control over all municipal sales taxes. We added all home rule municipalities that self collect sales tax were adopting these amendments to help simplify the tax collection process. The amendments do not change the Town's tax base, and were expected to have no impact upon the total amount of taxes collected by the Town of Vail. Steve briefly reviewed the six amendments summarized in his memo dated November 20, 1991 to Town Council. Rob LeVine questioned whether the definition of long term rental was changed, and Steve Thompson said he would research the question further before second reading. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 45 on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 47, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.52.170 - Leasing of Parking Spaces, of the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were Peter Jacobs of Days Inn and Alan Lyberger of Thrifty Car Rental. Mayor Ostedoss read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the Community Development Department's memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated November 11, 1991, describing specific changes to the code and other housekeeping changes to clarify the ordinance. Alan Lyberger of Thrifty Car Rental said he had received a call from Betsy Rosolack notifying him the zoning code did not allow a commercial car rental business to be operated out of the parking lot of the Days Inn Lodge, and he requested an amendment to the code so his business would be within code. After discussion, including a question from Tom Steinberg as to how the number of parking spaces were determined, Andy added this • ordinance only allows for applications which would still require review prior to approval, and which would be reviewed when leases were renewed each year. Rob LeVine then moved to approve Ordinance No. 47 on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Resolution No. 23, Series of 1991, a resolution declaring the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to create a local Improvement District commonly referred to as "Utility Undergound District No. 1 within the boundaries of the Town of Vail for the purpose of converting existing overhead . electric facilities to undergound locations; adopting the details and specifications therefore; and ordering publication and mailing of notice of hearing to the owners of the property to be assessed for the improvements in said District. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith noted the ordinance provided for notice to be sent to property owners within the proposed District regarding a public hearing on the proposed improvements, as well as notice their property would be assessed for the cost of the improvement. He added vacant lots would not be assessed, and Holy Cross would be burying the main cable at no cost. Peggy Osterfoss asked if the cost was being divided equally. Larry advised it was. After brief discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution No. 23, 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 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Margret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 0 CAMINS.123 2 .p .1L 1 • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 17,1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 17, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob LeVine Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk • The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Bob Baker, resident of The Falls at Vail and president of that association, first extended congratulations to new and re-elected council members. He said residents there felt left out of the public process and he would be bringing their concerns to Council more frequently, He expressed concern about bushes and sprinklers being damaged at the East Vail exit after recent work done there, and he hoped the area by the telephone and remaining mudhole would be finished with a drainage system and a covered bus stop. Additionally, he asked what was being done about the use of jake brakes, proposing they be eliminated except if headlights are off. He suggested the speed limit coming into Town from the top of Vail Pass to Booth Creek be 30 mph. Further, he felt the 65 mph speed limit sign at Dowd Junction should be removed, and he asked to have truck drivers present proof of their driving capabilities. He added Heritage CableVision should have competition. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items: A. Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 3.40 - Sales Tax of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. B. Ordinance No. 47, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.52.170 - Leasing of Parking Spaces, of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. . Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Tom Steinberg moved to approve moth items on the Consent Agenda, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For the convenience of anyone present concerning Item No. 10 on the agenda, Mayor Osterfoss announced the item was tabled at the applicant's request until January 7, 1992. The Rem concerned an appeal by applicant/appellant, Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc., of a denial by the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor dining patio for Russell's Restaurant Deck at The Gallery Building, 228 Bridge Street; a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jill Kammerer explained the ordinance modifies the procedure to be followed notifying individuals of the period of time conditional use permit and variance requests are effective. Jim Gibson asked if affected individuals needed to be notified in writing. Larry Eskwnh said there is no legal obligation to do so. Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 48 on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.60, Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.020(G) Application - Contents and Chapter 18.62, Variances, Section . 18.62.020(F) Application - Information Required; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the E. title in full, Jill Kammerer advised this was a housekeeping ordinance bringing two sections of the code into conformance. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 49 on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.52.060 of the Town • of Vail Investment Policy, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Steve Barwick and Shelly Raemisch explained this ordinance would allow the Town to invest in no load mutual funds in order to enhance the Town's investment yields. They said the Town would probably not invest for more than one year, maximum Investment would be $1 million, there was no penalty to withdraw at anytime, and the Investments would be monitored dally. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 50 on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 25, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to or from R.G. Dickinson and Co.; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. After brief discussion, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 25, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 7 was Resolution No. 26, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing employees of the Town of Vail to purchase, sell, resell, to or from Kirkpatrick, Pettis, Smith, Pollan, Inc;, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve Resolution No. 26, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Rem No. 8 was a request for a sign variance from The Chart House Restaurant located at 610 W. Lionshead Circle on Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Shelly Mello advised the applicant, Mr. Barry Host, had not yet arrived, . and asked Council to proceed with the next Item on the agenda. Item No. 9 on the agenda was a request for a sign variance from The Village Popcorn Wagon. The applicant, Ms. Jan Wening, had not arrived yet either, so Council proceeded to hem No. 11 on the agenda, as Item No. 10 on the agenda had been tabled as noted above. Rem No. 11 on the agenda was the appointment of one Planning and Environmental Commission member. Mayor Osterfoss advised Council had interviewed the three applicants, Dalton Williams, Linda Fried, and William Pierce for this vacancy created by Jim Shearer's election to Town Council. Following a ballot, Tom Steinberg moved to appoint Dalton Williams to fill the remaining one month vacancy and the following two year term on the Planning and Environmental Commission, with a second coming from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. A brief break was taken to await the arrival of the applicants for Item Nos. 8 and 9 on the agenda to arrive. Upon arrival of the applicant from The Chart House, Council returned to Item No. 8 on the agenda. Shelly Mello explained the applicant was requesting a variance from the sign code to allow a menu box to be located oft the business site and on Town of Vail property. She noted staff felt there was a physical hardship due to the location of the business and a variance was warranted, but recommended denial of the applicant's request to locate the menu box at mall level, instead recommending approval of the variance with location at the top of the second stair level in • closer proximity to the access of the business. After discussion about lighting of the menu box and getting electrical power supply to it, Council expressed concern about setting a precedent by approving this variance request. Larry noted each applicant for variances has to be reviewed individually, so one variance would not set a precedent. Peggy Osterfoss noted granting of this variance depended on establishing physical hardship, and asked for an explanation of staff's reasoning allowing placement of the menu box on the second level, but not mall level. Shelly said staff felt location of the menu box at second level would be amply visible to pedestrians. Further, she said staff considered historical references of sign variances of other businesses, and rationalized from that research the proximity to the main access of the business was important. Brad Groll, General Manager of The Chad House Restaurant appearing for applicant Barry Host, Regional Manager, said they appreciated the offer to have the menu box placed at the second level, but preferred the main level since that was really the entrance to his restaurant and would be a much greater convenience to his guests. Rob LeVine agreed with Brad on that point. Jim Gibson added having the menu box at mall level was a better solution to the hardship admitted to exist, and would not destroy any character at Lionshead. Rob LeVine moved to approve the applicant's request to place a menu box at the mall level based on the fact there is a physical hardship of being removed from the main pedestrian flow and for the convenience of the guests in the Lionshead area in accordance with items AA and C of memo from the Community Development Department to the Design Review Board dated December 4, 1991, with a second from Jim Gibson. Before a final vote was taken, there was additional conversation with regard to setting a precedent based on this action, Ron Phillips said he felt staffs recommendation to have the menu box placed on the second level was based on what this might lead to over time. Rob LeVine asked if a variance could be granted on a temporary, reviewable basis should the variance become a problem. Larry Eskwlth checked the Code and found an ordinance may be revocable or granted for a limited period . 2 4 of time. He suggested if this variance were to be revocable, standards should be set. Jim Gibson said if there are businesses truly faced with a physical hardship in terms of tlieir location, TOV should do something to help them solve it, so 11 it does come before Council again by someone else with a hardship equal to the one faced by The Chart House, TOV should look very seriously at granting lt. Peggy expressed the importance of establishing unique circumstances. Tom Steinberg felt such things as this menu box placed on TOV property needed to be covered by a lease so the applicant would be liable for it, and this should be revocable in case of changes made to the mall necessitating moving the menu box. Larry said he would prepare a lease incorporating such conditions, and the variance should be made subject to the conditions of the lease. Rob amended his motion to make the variance subject to a lease drawn up by staff. He moved to approve The Chart House sign variance request with the finding there was a physical hardship in conjunction with points A, B, and C under Section 2 A and B of the memo, and, because the menu box would be on Town of Vail land, there would be a written lease prepared with provisions therein allowing for modification at the Town's discretion based on mall improvements, that the applicant would be responsible for maintenance, etc., and the final actual location of the menu box on mall level would be determined by staff. Jim Gibson seconded the amended motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Rom No. 9 was a request for a sign variance for The Village Popcorn Wagon by applicant, Jan Wening. Jill Kammerer referred to the Community Development Department's memo dated August 21, 1991, detailing the original request from the applicant for three sign variances. Of the three variances requested, (1) a variance to allow the words "Beverages Sandwiches Pastries" on an existing awning, (2) a variance to the total amount of sign area permitted, and (3) a variance to the number of exterior signs permitted, staff had found variance requests 2 and 3 were not necessary as the metal signs affixed to the wagon were a part of the wagon design and should not be counted as signage. Further, the popoorn wagon was permitted to have two exterior signs stating the name of the business, and staff felt there was no physical hardship making wording on the awning necessary, given the allowable signage. Therefore, the final request before Council to uphold or deny the Design Review Board's recommendation denying the variance to allow the name of the business to be on the awning was under consideration. The Design Review Board had not been able to find grounds for granting the variance to acceptable information permitted on a sign because 100% of the awning contained information describing the nature of the business with no reference to the business name. Jill noted at least 60% of the sign must state the name of the business; the nature of the business could not exceed 40% of the same sign. Jan said she was in the process of changing the business name to "Wall Street Beverages Sandwiches and Pastries Company", and said that was on the awning now. She added she had replaced the old awning with one reading "Beverages Sandwiches Pastries" across the front not realizing she needed to make are application to do so. When lt was pointed out "Wall Street" and "Company", part of the business name, did not appear on the awning, Jan advised the awning company was currently correcting the awning to read "Wall Street" on one side and "Company" on the other, with "Beverages Sandwiches Pastries" across the front of it. Further note was made to point out the business's lease is not executed in the new name, and Jan advised she was waiting for necessary documents from the State before she came in to change the lease. Peggy Osterfoss asked lt there would be a problem having parts of the sign on cliff erent sections of the sign. Jill recalled a recent similar situation involving awning signage. In-that situation, Jill said Betsy had interpreted having the same signage on either end of the projecting awning sign as being one sign, but having additional language on the front of the awning was denied as that would constitute another sign. There was additional discussion about observations made at the site visit during work session, and, as the business of making a motion on the variance request began, Tom Steinberg expressed serious reservations about granting any variances to the applicant. He noted this applicant had repeatedly been in non-compliance with regard to signage laws. He felt requests for variances should not be considered until existing signage was in conformance. He felt strongly 9 this variance was approved, he would not like to see the applicant's lease renewed because the popcorn . wagon, although originally unique and pleasant, no longer presented an appropriate image in Vail with all of its signs. Further, approving the request allowing this on Town of Vail land would set a precedent making it diff icult to bear down on other merchants to control their signs. Bob Buckley agreed, and moved to deny this sign variance request from The Village Popcorn Wagon as no physical hardship existed and there were no unique circumstances, with a second from Jim Gibson. Rob LeVine asked if the applicant could in fact come back and put "Wall Street Beverages Sandwiches and Pastries Company" all on the front side of the awning. Jill said yes, provided it did not exceed 3.6 square feet, and the signs determined to be integral to the wagon could also remain. Rob referred back to and agreed with Tom's comments about the number of signs already on they wagon. He felt those looked like signs to him, and he deemed they are over the allowable amount of square footage and number of signs. He felt it would be a hardship not to leave those signs in place because they were an integral part of the structure. Bob Buckley wanted to withdraw his motion in light of Rob's point, feeling there would be too much sign clutter rf the whole name was on the front of awning. A vote taken on Bob's motion and it failed, 4-2, Peggy and Rob opposed. Jim Gibson said he felt the signs that were an integral part of The Popcorn Wagon Itself are part of the design of the wagon and he recognized there was a message there, but because The Popcorn Wagon was what it was, he considered those signs to be the same as the red spoked wheels which were part of the design, but certainly carried no message. Without those integral signs, he felt the wagon would be less colorful, and he was willing to consider those signs part of the wagon design. He agreed with Tom that the constant disregard for the sign ordinance by the hanging of paper signs in and about the windows had to be stopped. And, until such time, Jim was ready to uphold the Design Review Board decision that the sign they wanted to now add had to be in accordance with the ordinance, and any signs to follow would have also have to be in accordance with the ordinance. Larry Eskwith reminded Council about the need to make the findings F_ r -I L J 3 demonstrating hardship, that there were special circumstances or conditions applying to the structure, that special circumstances were not created by the applicant, that the granting of the variance would be In general harmony with the purposes of this Title, and the variance applied for did not depart from the intent of the Title. With regard to the number of signs and area of signs which were integral to the structure, it was found there was a physical hardship, and those findings were substantiated by Section 2 A,B,C, and D. Rob LeVine moved that the signs that were an integral part of the building could remain, that to charge them would be a hardship, that it was a special circumstance being they were part of the design of the wagon, that the applicant did not create that special circumstance, that the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the purposes of Title 16, and that the hardship found was in accordance with Section 2, A,B,C, and D, and that the variance applied for did not depart from the provisions of Title 16 anymore than is required to identity the applicant's business, and the request for a variance for signs above and beyond those signs that were part of the wagon itself be denied, and further the applicant bring the rest of the signage - both temporary exterior and window signs - into conformance with the ordinance. Jim Gibson asked if this motion specifically eliminated the signing at the head of the awning. Jill said no, the applicant could come back in and put the name of the business on the awning in an area no bigger than 3.6 sq. ft. This motion went unseconded. Tom Steinberg then moved the whole Item be tabled until all signs were In conformance with the present sign code and staff be informed they should enforce the sign codes as presently written on this project, and anything short of that was condoning illegal signs, with a second from Jim Shearer. Peggy said she wanted Council to act on this request rather than table It. A vote was taken on Tom's motion, but ft failed 3-3, Peggy, Jim Gibson, Rob opposed. Peggy then moved to grant a variance that would take into account the existing signs appearing to be incorporated Into the structure of The Popcorn Wagon although they apparently totaled more than was allowed in square footage, and were four integral wall signs totaling 8.3 square feet, and apparently 3.6 square feet of exterior signage would be allowed, therefore the variances for some additional square footage on signage was necessary because there was a physical hardship that resulted from the construction of the wagon itself, and special circumstances were not created by the applicant, that the granting of this variance was in accord with Section 2 A,B, C, and D. Further, part of this approval would mandate any Illegal window signs would be eliminated, and a second came from Rob LeVine. Peggy said Jan • would have to come in with another variance request if she wanted to put a header on the awning stating her business name. Jan asked if the problem would be solved if the lettering on the awning were removed. Peggy said that would solve the entire problem, explaining once the awning was without lettering, t was no longer a sign, Jan said then she would take off all the lettering from the awning. ft was agreed signs built in as an integral part of the wagon, glass etched signs, could stay as they were. A final vote was taken, and Peggy's motion passed, 5-1, with Tom Steinberg opposed. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p, m. Respectfully submitted, 01;z? ..? a. 6v Mar ret A, asterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dodanne S. Deco CWNS12.17 0 4 -+ - C) Q. N (? 7 I Q sa p Q m N 0oQ o x -b 2 Q? I k Q g l y„ m 0 OLI A Q ° CL roc ?i'? ?o top C) C `7 i i O O 2 c? a?_. -' `9.2a• go g:3 ? Q or Q m ? o Z I N Q o 0 Q m?S 1 .., m $ no Quo _ 2110D Q? m CD rt 0. O? am . m r pp a? ar (o? , ? dC Vim. :'3 m ? k Rl b m d p 9F y ?..? `{ O [ N p 07 0