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