Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 Vail Town Council MinutesVAIL TOWN COUNCIL Work Session Tuesday, April 14, 1981 2:0o p.m. Caplan: As Council, I think, if well aware, there are a great number of water issues that are all coming to a head, including the development of additional reservoir storage in the immediate Gore Valley, including this summer the Lionsridge area will have a new water tank, we are working with our water authority to develop what other reservoirs may or may not be needed and some of those do and don't relate to the possible Eagle-Piney project and then the most significant potential reservoir in the County is the proposed Edwards Reservoir. A couple of weeks ago when Keith Trgxel was here we talked about the Town Council taking a position to support the locals within the County develop that facility. I know the county commissioners discussed it a week or two ago and felt that the River Conservvancy District should take the lead role in that. We have not taken any position and we are obviously very concerned about the possible development of that in terms of the good it can potentially offer and potentially the problems that it may create in terms of how the water is used and who makes the decisions in terms of how it is used. So we held off taking any position and thought it would be wise to invite Rowley and yourself up to educate us a little more about the proposed project and give us the best thinking from the River District and the County Commissioners in terms of the alternatives as you see them. Grant: Well, first of all, I'd like to explain a little about the County policy. We've always been developing all the water that we can in Eagle County, but not the County as the developing agent. We have enough problems and lack of money without trying to do everyday business. The River District has been the one that looks after our water. On that River District John Benton was prior to me and Japk Olson was prior to Jahn Benton and as we get into the River District and learn mare about it, we know that that's the entity with which we have to go to to handle our water problems. They have a staff of attorneys and engineers on constrantly with which each one of us are paying 37 hundredths of a mill into that district to keep it going. Since I've been in the District T've felt that they're doing a very good job, much better than Eagle County could. We want you to know that we're not against development of water in Eagle County. I'm carrying this word from Danny also - he couldn't be here today. But the word`s got around that we seem to be arguing against development of water in Eagle County and that is not so. We've been fighting very hard, I think Rowley can verify my stand in the River District on trying to develop water but we're talking about Western Slope water entirely. T wasn't too happy with your stand on the Ruedi Reservoir because I've followed that since I was a kid. Just to give you an example, years ago when that was first being talked about, money was pretty hard to come by. T was taking $35 a year and that was equal to $3500 right now to me and putting it into fighting that Frying Pan Arkansas Project. It done us no good but we did get Reudi Reservoir out of it. So there's alot of history behind Reudi Reservoor which is going to take too long to go into right now, but I do wish that you would look into Reudi a little more than what's been done so far. Benedict: What is the problem? Where are we in conflict? Grant: With Aspen. Slifer: What, da you not want to see the hydro-electric development? Grant: No, we're not talking about hydra-electric. We're talking about the water in Reudi - keeping it full when it's Western Slope water. Wilto: You're saying it should be used by all of Western Slope and not just Aspen? Page 2 Grant: Aspen would like to keep it completely full for their yacht • club. Wilto: My understanding is, ar at least the presentation we heard was that it was not a matter of keeping it full, but keeping it full to the level designated by Fish and Game to preserve the fish and the wildlife. Grant: There's a certain amount of water that's going to stay in Reudi and there's a lot of problems - Rawley might go into that just a little, the River District does have mostly control over the water that's in Reudi or somewhat anyway. From there I'm going to turn it over to Rawley, I just want you gentlemen to understand that as far as Danny and I are concerned, we're for keeping all the water and building all the reservoirs in Eagle County-that money can, but the County is not in the position to do it. Rawley: I think that the following remarks that Dale made, Iet me perhaps ramble a little, to give you an idea of what the Colorado River Water Conservation District is, what it does and what we think we can do. The River District is the primary Western Colorado water policy, and includes the area that we all see on the blue shaded map and our responsibilities are to benefically use the waters of the Colorado River to which Colorado is entitled under the 1922 Compact. It includes the amp of the white to the main stand, the Gunnison, the PC to the big and little Delores. As such, we've been probably the forefront organization on litigating the question and opposing a transmountain diversion. We spent a lot of time and a lot of money litigating against transmountain diversions. And when it comes dawn to it, Colorado's constitution is very clear on the point and has been supported by statutes and case law, and perhaps mast significantly, the politics of water in Colorado, but water in the State of Colorado can be used any place in the State of Colorado, hence the Transmountain diversion question. And in the issue of that litigation and the politics came not only the River Distr.ict's Organic Act of 1937 but also at the same time the State ~Yater Board was created and I'm not sure exactly when, but not very long after the Conservancy District Act was created. And the Conservancy District Act is significant in that it provides that where a transmountain diversion is promagatod by a Conservancy District that the use of water in the Colorado River basin will not be increased in cost or reduced in availability with the transmountain diversion compared to without a transmountain diversion. The River District in its long history since 1937, and Eagle was one of the original counties in the River District, and kind of interesting, . I'm the third guy that's been in this jab since 1937, there's only been three of us, we're the reason that Green Mountain Reservoir exists, which is the replacement and compensatory pool, and I'll get into compensatory vs. replacement in a little bit, as related to the Colorado Big Thompson Transmountain Diversion. Now that's the largest single mountain diversion in the state. The Denver Water Board is very visible and very convenient, but the big diversion is the C.B.T. The west slope facilities are Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain and Grand Lake. It's Appleby Thompson. And the River District is the reason that Reudi Reservoix exists, also under a conservancy district act provision which is the West Slope facility the compensatory, pool is Reudi Reservoir. So .in all this process, we hold the decree for Reudi Reservoir and. it's been politicized quite extensively as far as Reudi is concerned. The River District has throughout its life appropriated a lot of water on the Western Slope and our history has been that we've appropriated water for classic irrigation projects and normally what we da is turn those decrees over to a conservancy district like Basil, we litigated the decrees fox the Caracanni (?) unit, the Big Cash Reservoir an the Gunnison River as part of the upper Colorado River Project and participating projects, we hold the decrees fox West Divide and we . prosecuted decrees for Dallas Creek which is under construction, and Savory Pothook, and a whole lot of stuff. In the whole process of working with water users, we have in the process oT protecting those decrees, spent a lot of time and a lot of wank on the litigation and Page S at this point in time the City and County of Denver has a decree on the Piney River site of Eagle-Piney but they don't have a decree on, they have a decree on the Eagle side of the Eagle-Piney, but they don't have a decree on the Piney River side. They've got a decree on Gore Creek but they don`t have a decree on the East Gore Collection System. They do not have a decree on the Straight Creek, part of the Robert Snow Collection System, they do have a decree on the Darling Creek extension of the Williams Gore Collection System, which is up in Grand County. And an and on, so there`s been a tremendous amount of litigation which. the Raver District's engaged in and there's been a tremendous amount of politics. At one time, the Western Slope was one congressional district and maybe this will occur again. But one of the big reasons that,,for example, the Frying Pan Arkansas, the project is the way it is, it was a compromise factor on the Big Gunnison Arkansas. The West Slope saved a million acre fee when we compromised that back to the Frying Pan Arkansas Project and the Quid Proquo is Reudi Reservoir. The original replacement facility was a reservoir 28,OOD acre feet above the Town of Aspen and whale nobody wants a big earth--filled structure, well it's not a big one - 28,000, sitting above a town, the real reason that Reudi, that the Aspen Reservoir wasn't built was that the access of the dam went through Jim Smith`s 1~.ving room, former Under Secretary . of the Navy. That's the reason it wasn't built. Sa the compromise back was far a reservoir to replace the anticipated 28,000 acre feet which was to be diverted out of priority by -the Frying Pan Arkansas Project. See, when, under an appropriation doctrine, you cannot divert out of priority and the FryArk in order to optimize the transmountain da.version to 69,000 average an any given year would be diverting out of priority and the call was Shoshone and the Grand So that in order for the FryArk or the C.B.T.ta divert at times when the water was still there but the call was on the lower river, they had to have replacement storage. So the replacement at the C.B.T. is Green Mountain and because bath of these were done under the Conservancy District Act, each one of them includes compensatory water and that's to compensate the Western Slope under the Conservancy District Act with the loss of the water. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be .free but it's there and available. So an the FryArk the replacement pool and the compensatory gaol are both in Reudi because nobody wanted the dam above the Town of Aspen, they moved off the Roaring Fork onto the Frying~Pan and they built it at a site they found and the decision was made politically to build it to the maximum hydro logic capacity of the location so it was built to 1.02,000 and the 28,000 is the replacement of the outbase diversions and the decrees and House Document 1.30 and all these neat things are that the remainder of that water is far beneficial use only in the Western Slope. So in all of the waters of the State, the entire State has an interest. In all the waters within the boundaries of the River District, the entire Raver District has an interest. Sa that in the waters of Eagle County, you've got a lot of players. You've gat the City and County of Denver, you've also got the Cities of Colorado Springs and Aurora, you've got I think the old Carlton Tunnels in Eagle County, sa there's a lit of interest in water., At this point in time, as I understand it, the Town of Vail, and when I talk about the Town of Vail, I mean from the confluence of Gore and Eagle River to the Continental to the top of Vail Pass, there are water resources issues that need to be addressed and maybe these are storage and maybe they're other issues in which the River Distract is not a player. .We`re not interested in the distribution inside the Town bf water, we're not concerned so much about the sewer plant problems which have been in the news once ox twice lately, except as it might impact others. But we're a water resource and water policy body and to that end, the River District has the ability to appropriate and Litigate and engineering, we've gat the ability, we probably have one of the most unique financial packages of any body in the western United States. As far as a water agency is concerned. So that in all this the River District has the ability to work with and help an organization like the Tawn of Vail or a Conservancy District or a Water and San District from the standpoint of making that water available to the people. Now the City and County of Denver, of course, is looked upon as being kind of a mean machine and they are. They're smarter than a whole tree Page 4 • • full. of owls. They've got one of the United States. There's no qu of the best lawyers and engineers concerned. They`re water is famo the issues that we negotiate with itself and the litigation. So ri Denver. is in my view in part hurt of not getting those decrees. No United States that will sell bond Colorado that doesn't have a deer But eventually they're going to g about it. And if I told you any They are going to get decrees for going to get decrees for the Eagl pretty high. They're going to ge Collection System. So that while about the City and County of Denv litigating against them an 5 or 6 track of it, and the City and Cou say, "Well, hell, and they aren't going to do that of their own city and county and the question and we think we're r involved here and the question of sensitive but Denver does have a have a decree to Piney River site the best domestic water systems in ?soon about it. They've got some as fax as appropriated water as xs for being high quality, But Denver involve the water resources ;ht now, the City and County of Rng a little bit from the standpoint a there isn't a bonding house in the to finance a water project.in ae. They just won't get the money. ~t the decree, there's no doubt iifferent, T'd be lying to you. the Piney River site and they are Colorado. The price might be a decree for the East Gore you al.l are greatly concerned ~r, and we are too, we're probably jurisdictions, T just can't keep ity of Denver they'll joshingly that water of the Town of Vail, Because they can't sell water outside ae're standing quite ready to litigate tght. So, there are a lot of issues Gore Creek is going to be very decree to Gore Creek. They don't of the Eagle-Piney Collection System. Gore Creek, in my view, just can't, there isn't enough. water there to pay for all the capital equipment and all the capital improvements that have to be constructed just to take the Gore Creek water. So the question on Denver is going to be whether they get a 1957 decree, a 1957 priority date or whether it's going to be 2980, there are those subtlities that are:going to be very importaint to the City and County of Denver. We've had some telephone conversations and T understand that Bill Miller of the Denver Water Board is going to come over and visit with you folks. Tf T were you,I'd tell him to stay home. T'd say, "I'm the Mayor of Vail and I'm going to talk to the Mayor of Denver". End of story. You might want to call the President of the Denver Water Board Peggy Plugley and the Vice President Jim Kenney and sit down with those people and T think that you might want to visit with the Board or you-might want to visit with the elected public officials. But you might want to tell the staff just to stay the hell home unless he wants to came over and ski. ~ha~xkindx~~x~i~~~g You might want to consider doing that because you might want to say that the Town of Vail is happy to talk to the City and County o~ Denver and you can talk to Bill McHinkles and you can talk to Jim Kenney. But you might not want to get the staff messed up in it. Tt's just like when the Eagle County Commissioners appoint a River District Director, they don't talk to the staff. They don't talk to me about that.. Dale Grant tells me what to do and T try to do it. But generally, Dale will say, "What do you think about this?". It quite often is, as far as the River District Board as concerned when it comes down to something like this, thank you for your opinion Fischer, now this is what we're going to go do". And very often it's not.what T thank ought to be done. So I think maybe you all ought- to think about talking to the top of the pale. You guys are the top of the pile. Why don't you just talk to the staff sort of thing. I throw out a lot of stuff and my advise ham is worth just what it cost you. But you might want to think about that. Now the City and County of Denver is going to be pretty damn careful about the approach they take. I should imagine that maybe 20% of the mortgages on these buildings are held by Denver S&L's and~~banks.in this town here - probably. So there's a lot of interest in Vail from the business community of .the City and County of Denver. And that was represented by the now Vice President of the Denver Water Board Jim Kenney. He's a dart contractor. But, very intelligent guy and he can be talked to. So I'd suggest, if you're going to talk to Denver, you might want to talk to the Pa^esi.dent of the Water Board or even Bi11 McNichols himself first. McNichols is in a position where he has publicly stated that he wants to heal these water wounds between the West Slope and the East Slope. He talked to Club 20 and he was very Page 5 strong on the point and it wasn't 30 days.-after that that he wrote a letter in support of a specific West Slope water project. The entire congressional district wrote to the Federa3. Regulatory Commission and . said the City and County of Denver supports - boo. And the Denver Water Board staff had absolutely refused to take that kind of position with the Mayor. So if you think you've got a problem with the City and County then what you might want to do is talk to the City and County and let the staff stay home. And then maybe the Denver Water Board wil tell that staff to take a position of increased cooreration. But on the questions of Western Slope water, I think as far as the River District is concerned, we're pretty much in the big deep middle of a lot of water and energy issues and this is really what you send 37 hundredths of a mill to the River District to do. As far as the water questions with an energy industry we hear what the industry is saying. They do clot of talking but what it's probably going to come down to, unless we're very careful, is theyre going to buy a lot of senior agricultural rights and they're prob ably going to buy pre-1922 and pre-turn of the century. This will mean that the water's going to be taken off the ground and the Qn1y other source of water for an industry is going to be storage.-and the storage would be the alternative source of water instead of just one source of water for an energy industry in Western Colorado, that being irrigation agriculture, then if there's the alternative source of stored water, then the political issues and economic issues can combine to hopefully keep the agricultural base under northwestern Colorado. The industry right now~is in a posture . where it could buy irrigation water and you can convert the consumptive use portion during the irrigation season only and that sort of thing and indeed the Town of Vail has done this. You all have acquired agricultural water and in the process you're going take the water off that ground. Now, the planning of that ground in condominiums, or if its farther dawn other places in the Western Slope, planning it to oil shale industry and that sort of thing, will some times improve or increase the assessed valuation, but eventually the impact will be quite serious. Especially in the energy industry, where in 50 -~ 100 years the industry is gone and you find that ground an the tax rules as dry land ground and no longer on the tax rules as irrigating ground and you find that a decision about the relative value of a bussel of peaches vs. a barrel of crude shale oil is made in Houston and Los Angeles and Washington. The synthetic fuels corp. could have had one hell of an impact on Northwestern Colorado. And I think we're going to find that companies like Exxon and Conoco and WR Grace, Phillips, they've got more money than God and it's the Golden Rule and he who has the Gold rules, no question about it. So the River District is in a positon where we're trying to tread this thin line of building storage and in my view the only way we're going to get this West Slope water protected is put it to beneficial use on the Western Slope. We've lost decrees on • the Western Slope for several. important projects including the Edwards REservoir which is presently in appeal in the state Supreme Court because we weren't able to show in that specific feature that we've been diligent toward the application of that water to beneficial use. If we would have had a contract, an agreement, with some water user in Edwards we would have held that decree. I don't know what the outcome of the supreme court will be, but we have pulled some out in the past,. I don't know if we're going to pull this one out, but the only way we'xe going to have water on the West earn Slope is to store it and put it to beneficial use. .There are alot of ansiliary issues about the call at Lee Ferry, the question about whether or not Denver stores outside ofthe ten year moving average, and moves it over to the two forks when its The question of the issue of the White River between Colorado and Utah. The issues of in- stream flow claims sometimes misnumbered, minimum flow, all these kind of things and I see in some of the newspaper articles where you all are thinking about the ground grater under the golf ccaurse up here and that issue about meeting Vail's water supply requirements and unless those wells are going to be 5 or 6 or 7 hundred feet deep, that water's going to be administered as surface water and they'l,l:call you out. You've got like 15 second feet I think on the main stem of the Eagle that's • probably senior to the waters that you've acquired as irrigation waters and I would estimate that if the press reports are correct that your technical people are thinking that that water under that Page 6 golf course is nontributary. T'd be very careful. The State Engineer I talked to yesterday intends this year to administer the Colorado River if we don't get more precipitation or find a call on that River and it's . going to be probably the first time if we don't get more precipitation, where we're going to see domestic wells shut down. Wilto: Would you define beneficial use? Rowley: The beneficial use question has been defined an case law and is a very affemeral {?} thing. Beneficial use can be a non-consumptive use like the power plant at Shoshone. Non=consumptive but beneficial with th.e 1903 decree. The beneficial use classically is irriga-~ion and domestic. Domestic can include the watering of cattle. Often people think about what as really municipal. Now in the Vail system, all of the water that goes into the municipal distribution system; whether it's used for taking showers or drinking fountains,. or water lawns or gardens, or i.n sanitary uses, they are all. beneficial uses. In all. beneficial uses there are return flows. That is, in agriculture. very often 40 to 50% of the water is consumed in the growing of craps. The remainder will come back into the stream.. That's the reason for the ability to convert only the consumptive use portion of irrigation water because the down stream junior has a right to rely on that return flow. And on a municipal system an the winter tame you probably returning 95% of the water you take out. It just goes right back to the sewer plant. In he summer time your domestic diversions might be 50% consumed because of the fact that people are watering lawns and gardens with it. Even washing the street is a beneficial use. Certainly fighting fires and in a big municipal use like we always return in Colorado to the City and County of Denver, the water consumed in the generation of coal fire thermal electrical energy is a beneficial use. So there are all kinds of beneficial uses. A cow drinks water, that`s a beneficial use. Wi1to: Where does the River District stand on what's happening in Eagle County? It.doesn't seem like we hear much from you, although we hear alot from other groups as far as lighting the Denver Water Board and stratgey. Rawley: Well, as T mentioned earlier, we're the reason that Denver can't build the Eagle-Piney. They don't have a decree for`it. Wilto: But you said they would get one. Rawley: Sure they wall. The question will be whether it's in 1957 or 1.98 And I don't think there's any doubt but what the City and County could prove that they'd made a appropriation of water and that's where it caught them last time. It caught them on two points. They had not specifically decided to make appropriation and therefore they were - the Denver-Water Board just didn't act. The staff was out here rattling around on the hillside but the governing body, the owner of the water rights had not made an open and notorious decision. Sa eventually, and-any appropriations system, you can get a decree on a dry walk. T can get a ].98~. decree for Wilto: Explain exactly what a decree is. Rawley: .~ decree is the document that is evidence of a water right. A water right is established when the water is put to the .demand's beneficial use. Slifer: Doesn't the decree come from the Court? Rawley: Yes, its evidence in the public record al your appropriation of water, You've heard of divorce decree, .maybe. Divorce decree is recorded an the court, well so is a water decree. You can have decrees for all kinds of things. Tt's an action of the court. Page 7 Wilco: It's also dated then, as far as the seniority goes? . Rowley: Sure. The state engineer administers all of the waters of the state based on decrees. In this paacticular part of the state, were in Water Division 5, which is the main stem of Colorado, and the key is that he will administer those water rights, those beneficial uses in the order which the Court says the priorities are and that goes by date. First in time is first in right. That's sometimes called the doctrine of prior appropriation. Wilto: What is your decree than for Eagle-Piney? Rawley: We don't have a decree for Eagle-Piney. We just kept Denver. Wilco: How did you do that? Rawley: How did we do it? We went to court and after a Jong and complex, hot trial dawn in Denver for the convenience of the parties, it was a Water Division 5 judge and something like x.9'75 or 76 and we' proved to the Court that the Denver Water Board did not intend to appropriate that water and they. could not prove otherwise. And the Court ruled yes, River District, you're right and that applied to. the East Gore Collection System which is the east side of the Gore Range between Green Mountain Reservoir and Dillon. Straight Creek, which is attri.butary to the Slue River that comes off of Montezuma Basin and the Pass and all that country, but is attributary to the Blue below Dillon where they were going to build a diversion back to Dillon. It applies to the Piney River side of the Eagle-Piney Project, but back in the -. Some long time ago, Denver did get a decree for the Eagle River side of the Eagle-Piney and that was a long supreme court fight wherein on the Eagle River fide of the Eagle-Piney Project the order of the big beneficial users is first of all the Homestake Project. Second, the River District and third, the city and county.. Now that decree was entered along time ago, but the River District's litigation against Denver also ran to the question that Denver's, November, 1960, Eagle Colorado system, and T've got all this on a blue lot here, wherein Denver did not get a decree on the Eagle, Colorado system which is the diversion from the Colorado State Bridge in Grand over to them reservoor in Wolcott and Eagle County and their Wolcott REservoir. The key to the whole thing is that no sensible engineer . or banker would build the Vail Pass Tunnel just for that little dab of water available to Gore Creek without reason. Wilto: Going back to decrees, why doesn't the River District have • a decree on the Piney River side of the Eagle`? Rawley: We've got a decree on a Piney Reservoir which is very to if it ever gets a decree, it might be junior, but bear in mind, now, that part's in the wilderness. Wilco: It doesn't seem to matter though. Rawley: Everybody says it doesn't, but I think it does. You're going to get a presidential order to build a water project in there, and ~~ a presidential order will probably not issue even in the Reagan adminis- tration unless your congressional deleation is ~00% in favor. Wilco: But they don.'t.have to be in favor, Rawley: The President can do it unilaterally, but I dont,t think any President would. Slifer: How would you suggest we attack that issue. How do we persuade the President not to sign that order? Rawley: I don't think the order's pending before h~.m, is it? Slifer: No, it's not, but they're working on it. Page $ Rowley: Well, it's in their minutes. Do you get the Denver Water Board minutes? Ask Jim Kenney, he'll send them to you. S Slifer: Ys the best. way just to lobby our delegation? Rowley: Sure, I think it is. Bear in mind, Denver's going to bring in some persuasive arguments to follow. Denver has more total people impact and energy than the entire Western Slope and I think they can prove it. They will try to be persuasive with both the Secretary and the President of the United States to bust that loose, but I don't think, in my view and. bear in mind I've been politically wrong before, that the President of the United States will do it without at least the 4th Congressional District and Armstrong and probably Gary Hart. If that's the way they decade to do it, I know one thing 7 would suggest though, to answer your question, you may want to consider making a deal with them. We have to remember that the issue is not limited to this end of Eagle County. The issue runs all the way to Grand Junction and Gunnison and Rangley and Craig and their associated counties. The question rose really clearly to Lee in Arizona in the 1922 and the 1948 compact. The entire water resources question in Western Colorado is linked to the ability of the Western Slope to use its water from the standpoint of the entire Western Slope - from the standpoint of the entire State of Colorado, T don't think that it will hold politically in the legislature to force Denver to pump from Wolcott • and put in a 3 thousand megawatt pumping plant. Someplace that electrical energy is going to have to be generated to utilize energy for pumping when we know that by far the best system in gravity. Naw, I don't know if the system would be built in the Piney River portion, Denver owns private land up there, they own the land that the discharge end of the Vail Pass Tunnel, the capital costs of - all water resources development is captial intensive, and the capital costs of constructing the tunnels would be very high. But the amount of money in municipality can pay for water, there's just no upper limit. A municipality can pay any amount of money. There could be a tradeoff with the filling of Green Mountain Reservoir, Denver holding the water in Dillon, that would take an agreement with the United States and would take an agreement with Northern Colorado because of the Green Mountain Reservoir situation. You see, the decrees are that Green Mtn. fills before Dillon and I don't know if you all remember anything about this, but about 1976, the last draught, Denver withheld 28,000 600 acre feet at Dillon and refused to release it downstream to Green Mountain. And we sued them and eventually they broke that water loose. But the key as far as you all are concerned on a water supply for this end of the Gore Valley, the key is the Shoshone call. The issue of the esthetics of water in Gore Creek itself is another matter. It's probable that all these questions can be solved, but what it's going to hake is a position • of negotiation. Now the River District is presently in a posture on this litigation where Denver's coming back in to retry the applications for the decrees on those where they were knocked out is tied with the River District's diligence on several other Western Slope projects where Denver's litigation to Di11an's River District. So we're litigating them and they're litigating us and in the meantime we've had some quiet negotiations going on on a staff level. And I've just say here and told you not to mess with staff, on: the staff level of the Denver Water Board and eventually we might be able to make a deal with Denver on Denver's constructing ala the Conservancy District Act although it does not. apply to Western Slope facilities. I don't think there's any question but what we can take into consideration the needs and the desires to improve the water supply for the entire end of this Gore Valley. You'd pay for it, you understand. We can't tax the entire 15 counties to build a facility in one county. We've got some very good financing tools. They're certainly available to all the constituents, aII the taxpayers. The west half of Rio Blanca County is going to build a $13 million dollar reservoir under a River District sub-district and the sub-district was created simply by petition of the Court. Slifer: Are you saying that we could form a district under your district • and finance water storage and those kinds of projects? But we'd just pay for it out of our taxes? Page 9 Rawley: You could pay for it out of either revenue or GO bonds. Wilto: The County could do that too? i Rawley: Ali I'm saying is we've gat the tool. Slifer: Back to the upper half of the Eagle County as a joint venture with the Water District and the various towns and so on. Grant: It is a sub-district-and of course just like Rio Blanco, that doesn't take in near all of Rio Blanco county. If you're ready to go into it, you might go into Cross Creek a little bit. Rawley: z'm just really kind of feeling my-way in this rambling monologue. Sl.if er: We started on Edwards. Can we go back to that? What's going to happen with Edwaxds7 Is that going to get built? Rawley: ~Ve are working with the Edwards Water District and we've supplied them information on cost update on the Edwards Reservoir, we have run some additional hydrology for those folks and I think what the River District would do if they want to build the Edwards Reservoir, we'd probably just assign a~ ti~cree. . Slifer: Is that whose proposal would go? Rawley: Yes, that's the only people we've talked to, is the Edwards Water District. A fellow named Si11 Williams, Hubert Peterson. Slifex: .Would that put it to beneficial use? Rawley: Sure. And what you do, you see, one of things that the Town of Vail has to consider is the fact that it is entire possible, we haven;t run any hydrology on this question, but my gut feeling just based on some limited knowledge of the river is that Shoshone will call you out. Rawley: Very. Slifer: Is therr's a very senior call?/ I.s it in the Gore Valley? Rawley: No, it doesn't have to be in the Gore Valley. Grand Valley in the Roller Dam at Plateau Creek will call you. ~h~x~~k~~~x~~k~g Slifer; If the water .got really low, they could just say, everybody stop, we want our water. Rawley: That's what I meant by the fact that the State engineer said that it's his gut. feeling that they're -:going to administer the Colorado issue. Because of the draught. Slifer: You said wells would be shut off. Are you talking about domestic wells? Rawley: I think he'll administer to domestic we11s this-year if they're trib.ittary to a stream. Slifer: bike a golf course or whatever. Rawley: Yes, Y think youx golf course bought some irrigation water, didn't they? If you drill a well in the on that golf course this year and you want to supp~yten condos with it and you've gat a 1981 water right, i don't think there's any questian they'c1. be shut off. Wilto: If it's contributary to the stream? Rawley: I don't see haw i~ could not be. That's the kind of thing you're dealing with. The issue, if Vail is looking for a water supply, if you think that watex wi11 be a critical issue in the future of the Town of Vail, that is to protect the economy, then I think you're going Page 10 to have to look to some physical solution and certainly as far as the Shoshone call is concerned, it is probable that if you have, say, . Edwards Reservoir, you could replace your upstream diversions with releases from Edwards Reservoir. This assumes cooperation with the Edwards Water District and clot of things. There would be a lot of players in the Edwards Reservoir game. So that if you're concerned about it, what you really ought to is to take alook and see where you think y.ou want to go and what you thank your water supply situation is. I think that all the water that you acquire fram what I can see, if that there's probably 1.5 second feet at least of senior agricultural water downstream in the Town of Vail senior to the .nights that you all acquire. That's in addition to Shoshone. The possibilities are limited by your imagination. We talked four or five years ago to folks up here about a reservoir in Sandstone Creek, got the River Districts decrees available to you that would include water from the lron Mountain Reservoir over on Homestake Creek, the River District decrees are junior to Homestake, but on Cross Creek a cursory look at a topo sheet you could probably grab any water clear to here around the nose and up which would probably require a little bit of storage. The water quality would be very good. Your issue's going to be probably twofold: 1.. The direct water supply to the Town so that you can continue in periods of draught, every draught that comes along is unusual, like this never happened before. We've got ~~ a computer model of the Colorado River that said we could have years lake 1934 and 1976, we could have 40 years like that back to back. There's just no doubt in my mind. If this country was any wetter we wouldn't have pinon and juniper trees, we'd have other stuff. The vegetation would be entirely different, The hills would not be sharp, they'd be rounded because of precipitation and erosion. Streams that are more than just intermittent. It's a possibility. What you'll have to do is think about what you want to do to protect the Town. If you do so that there's the possibilty that you're going to have the direct water supply question, then you're going to have ~~ the replacement question which is entirely the reason that the Conservancy District and the entire reason the Denver Water Board - you see, the Denver Water Board Williams Fork Reservoir is not a facility far diversion to Denver, its a replacement facility.. It's to replace Shoshone and the Grand Valley call. That's what that's all about. It's a big reservoir and in Reudi you've got the question of replacement water - 28.000 in Reudi.. So that the FryArk can continue to divert and the 52,000 out of 152,000 in Green Mountain. That's replacement water. So that there's all these things. So the key as .far as you're all concerned of the junior water right is the Shoshone and there will be some water you., can store on top of the hydrograph and that you'd want to get in a bucket soemwhere. These are the things that if you all are thinking • about it, then you might want to think about the entire top of Vail Pass down maybe all the way to Edwards. But Edwards can do that and the River District's Iron Mountain Reservoir could certainly do it, a junior Sandstone Reservoir could help, but you want to be real careful on the hydrology an that and the issue about the City and County of Denver should be approached very coldly and very objectively. You're going to have to recognize that of the hundred members of the legislature, you've got ten on the Western Slope and Denver will not hesitate to go for a political solution. They just won't. And when it comes down to it, all those metropolitan Fort Collins to Pueblo legislatures will vote right with them. They're very obvious, they're very easy to paint in a black hat, and we do it alot, but,. I'm advising my people to be .awful careful about that, can you can sure lose. We're negotiating with Denver ourselves to try to get some kind of sense driven into that staff.,associated with the Board, I've talked to the mayor, all that kind of thing, but when at comes down to it, the economical political cloud is on the other side of the Continental Divide..-The River District is in a position to help you, we think we that if you're .interested in taking, a look at some of these questions, that's exactly what we're here for, but we think we've had enough experience to know when we'd lose. • Slifer: Are we better off building multiple-small ones on the manor tributaries or are we better off .putting all our eggs in one big dam? Page 11 Rawley: That would probably come out of the study. I am not one whose very strong on studying stuff to death. I think you can salve that • problem quite quick.- real quick. It would just be a matter of cost. Wilto: You mentioned you were involved in litigation with the Denver Water Board. Would it be possible for us to get a list of those issues? Rawley: Yes, it would take a while to have them drawn up. Wilco: Just a brief synopsis. Slicer: Where is your office? Rawley; Third floor of the First National Bank Building in Glenwood. Wilto: Who all is on that Bard? Rawley: 15 Directors, one from each individual county, and I could start with Eagle -Dale, Summa. t•-Liz Etimo,. Grand-Gene Richard, Gratt- Westside, Moffat-Gene Peugh, Garfield-Geoxge Petrie, Pitkin-Bob Child, Mesa-Andy Williams, Rio Blanch-Ken Kenney, Gunnison-Rile Lay,•Montrose- Guy Mock, Ouray-Ron Steeley,---------- The directors are appointed by the Boards of County Commissioners far terms of three years. RaWl.ey: A1. ]. I can say is the more I learn about water, the less I understand it. It's one of these dump things where people build careers on water and you can get hooked on at from the standpoint of the litigation. The river's the most litigated river in the world and the questions -- the .river is surrounded by an awful lac of emotionalism. I hear alot of Western Slope people talk about our water. The water belongs to the people of the State of Colorado and what you have to do is try to pick those arenas where you think you can either litigate or negotiate or just '.plain outsmart the players in order to keep water on the Western Slope. The River District's problem, if we had the dollars we'd have this whole western slope full of reservoirs. But the River Distract levies 37 hundredths o a mi11. The intent was that we would work with the Bureau of Reclamation to put water an the ground to irrigate and you see a Conservancy District can go into debt but a conservation district cannot. A River District cannot go into debt. A Conservancy District is formed with the intent of going into debt and they go -into debt by contract with the United States. So a:t's a question of dollars, it's a question of what kind of deal you can make... Sometimes we can negotiate from a position of strength or relative strength as we do with the City and County or as we did with Northern Colorado and sometimes ou.r weaknesses are just obvious and the political arena is one of those obvious weaknesses.. When they redistricted the State of Colorado-the intent was to give Aurora and Colorado Springs a sure Republican se Then the split the West Slope horizontally and so Wayne Aspen/~~~t the primary and that was the dumbest thing in the world_the Democrats ever did. Wayne was. the Chairman of the House Committee. And when Wayne was on that committee and the East Slope was in front of the Congress and said they wanted Federal money to build the FryAxk he said, "You make youx piece. in the State of Colorado and don't come back here until you do." And that's what did it. So that you've got all these issues which nobody can understand. You've got guys like Frank Delaney who wrote the Raver District Statute and Barnard, Wayne Aspenall, a whole lot of guys. Some of them have been criticized from the standpoint that they were rapers and ravagers of the environment. This isn't true because you've got the issue of the ability to irrigate ground, the ability to put the water to beneficial use, and the water's very capital. intensity, as any town finds out when they want to build storage. Denver's able to build so much storage because they sell revenue bands that are backed up by GO's, the property of all the citizens of the city and county. They're getting . tired of that, the citizens of the city axe tired of pledging their real property for what they view to be the benefit of Aurora and Littleton Page 12 and that sort of thing. There are a lot of political issues there too, but the ability to work in Colorado's water is found mostly in . clot of these old heads that have been around long enough to know where same of the bodies are buried. The River Districts can-call on clot of this experience. The President of the River District Board has been president for over 20 years. While there is a perception along time in Colorado water the water belonging to':the West Slope ar the water belonging to Eagle County, it just doesn`t. The question of instream flow claim and the value of the ,State Board being able to appropriate water in..the streams can quite well be taken care of by the compact called state law. The net result is aver appropriating and over delivering the compacts in many cases, much to the detr~.ment of Colorado's tax payers and population. The question of the Central Arizona project, for example, very often criticized by my friends in the environmental community and T've seen California irrigation criticized in a Washington D.C. hotel in the middle of February with snow raging outside while the criticizers were eating California strawberries flown in that day. The issue of the ability to use water the question of what the framers of the Constitution intended and the ability to build an economy in this end of Eagle County whether you're making snow with it - T like it - I ski up here and the ability to continue to have an economy and the ability to continue to water this population so that these people here ~rilJ. continue to pay the • mortgages and the town and the county don't wind up with a whole l.ot.of empty condos at tax time, T thank that those are same of the things we're talking about here. The River District stands very much ready and we welcome the opportunity to provide what little expertise we might to help solve these problems. Certainly you get into, questions like Reudi Reservoir and the question of whether or not Grand Junction should be allowed to have a drink of water out of that reservoir is a very real issue Very real, from the standpoint of the intent of Reudi of whether or not 35,000 acre feet of water is going to enough just to sustain recreation and that sort of thing. The Reudi water, can supply Silt, Newcastle, Debeck, Parachute, Grand Junction, especially through the LTte Water Conservance District, and the question of making that low cost water available to those people down that valley as opposed to forcing them into the bond market and impacting their ad valorem taxes to build storage like $3,000 per foot, that's where we're talking. The guy in Grand Junction paid .fox the River District to litigate that question and he thinks he got a right to that water. Wi1to: It seems that there were other parties that also paid for that reservoir,' Rawley: Absolutely. Wi1to: They also have a right to the. beneficial use of that water. Rawley: They do, zndeed, as they set .out in the. decree. Wilto: Qne thing T wanted to say just so you don't misunderstand where at least a couple of us are coming from, T don't think that I or several of the other people at this table are questioning Denver's right to the waters in this area. We are questioning the method of taking the water. That`s where we need your help. Rawley: One of the things you're going to find is say„ that water is coming from a collection system off the National Forest, the national. forest is going to impose a bypass or something, there's no question about it . Page 1.3 Slifer: We met with the Forest Service and they absolutely took a hands off position and they will. take that until they're drug into.. Rawley: The reason is the question of the reserve rights is in litigation. Slifer: We11, we're talking to the Number 2 guy on the national level and they just don't want to take a position until they're forced to. They've lost on the minimum stream flow in California and New Mexico. Rawley: It was merely stream flows, it was reserve rights wasn't it? Slifer: I don't know, I'tn not sure I understand the difference. Rawley: Well the question on what the forest can use ats water for and the question in New Mexico came down that the forest can use water has a water right dated at the time of the reservation as the time the forest was created. They've got a water right as of that date for the purpose for which the forest was created and in that case was for growing trees. And that's probably why he's staying off that question right now. Plus the political climate is unsettled. They don't know . where they're going from the standpoint of the politics and they wi11 probably stay clear of it for quite a long while. So the issues of the utilization and municipal. purposes of water an Vail and the utilization for municipal purposes in Grand Junctipn ar Debeck or Grand Valley are all pretty much the same as far as the River District`s concerned from the standpoint of helping our people and our tax payers get a water supply for municipal purposes. and that's what we're here for. Slifer;. What's the status of Tron Mountain now? Are there any plans to proceed with that or is that open for possibility of conservancy district up here? Rawley: We11, it would be open for possibility of construction, I don't know if you'd want to form a conservancy district as the subtlities, and again, you all can`t be expected to have any kind of background in this kind of thing, but instead of a conservancy district you might want to from a River District sub-district or something lake that. Wilta: But that would still be open and debatable? Rawley: Yes, and for the Town of Vail, you may not want to look at - that much storage, you're Looking at 68,000 acre feet, that's a whole bundle of wator, but it's senior to them and it would take Denver right off of the Eagle River. The opportunity, to build it in cooperation with the City and County of Denver should not be dismissed. Wilto: Or, how about with one of the oil companies? I don't know if that's: public information at this .time, but is that some of the basis o~ your discussions on .the staff Level with the City and County of Denver? Cooperative join t. venture? Rawley: Yes, we've talked to them about Iron Mountain and they're not very enamored with it, we've talked with them about Euna, a reservoir in Rock Creek, Edwards, and that's about it. In a case like Asure Reservoir the only reason Northern Colorado's going to build Asure Reservoir for the benefit of the Western Slope is because we the State Supreme Court. They're very pleased now to cooperate because they were not going to get that 68,000 acre feet out of the headwaters of the Colorado. That's the only reason. They turned very cooperative after a while. One of the issues with Denver which you don't want to forget is that the inflation clock just keeps ticking away. That water has become evermore expensive Same thing applies to you, you understand, . if you build a facility now. As the the City and county, you've got the page 14 question of pay me by, they keep saying 1985, T don't know if that's true or not, certainly by 1990, they're going to have to have some new water. • Grant: This is the report that the River District and the western engineers who worked with the River District made for Bill Williams and Hubert Peterson after we had had a meeting down in Edwards and I think some from Vail was invited to that meeting. I don'.t remember, we had quite a few there. At that time Mr. Calhoun had offered to donate a certain amount of land to the River District for a reservoir down there. It had quite a few ifs and buts about that tao. There was quite a bit put on it - too much of a deal, so then the River District made this report and sent it to the Edwards bunch and you're welcome to that. We are definitely in favor of building that Edwards REservoir. As far as the County is concerned,' we're not in the water business and don't intend to me. Slifer: You'd rather see the Colorado River Water Distract or sub- district operate. Grant: Yes, that subject is~working very well an Rio Blanco. Wilto: From a practical standpoint, how fast or how distant, obviously could never happen, but how fast could the distract be set up and could . a sub-agency or sub-district, or could the River District proceed an completing the plans and actually getting something underway? Rawley: Tf you're talking about a sub-district, it requires a petition to the Raver District Board and subsequently going to the District Court, the petition being of all the landowners affected and, the District Court would have to issue a decree and then there's a 30 or 60 day protest period. It would take a certain amount of time to determine the boundaries. What. we dad in the West third'of Rio Blanca County, was we used the school district boundaries. We used the same boundaries of that particular school district. I think that depending on the speed of the court it would take to have all of the organizational tools in place, at would take about 9 months probably, realistically. Wi1to: You say all the affective land owners.- If our case, would that be all of Eagle County? Rawley: No, if you're thinking about - it depends on how far you intend to go with it. It would not be the entire county, because if you`re ail thinking about Vail, or if you're thinking about Vail plus Edwards down to Benchmark or something like that, that's what it would include. Wilco: One hundred percent of the landowners? Rawley: No, but I don't know what the number as. Slifer: I.s an election required? Rawley: No, but it requires, if you do a bond issue, if you da.a general obligation bond issue, it requires an election, if you do a revenue bond issue, it does not require an election. The River District could do a revenue bond .financing without a sub-district, there as one thing you al ]. should know abaut a River District sub-district. The Board of the sub-district and the staff of the sub-district are exactly the same as the Boax'd and staff of the River District. Page 15 Wi1to: So we would not have local control? Rawley: Do you think Rio Blanco County has local control; Dale? Grant: Yes, I certainly do. I've never seen anybody go against anything that any one of us brought to them, we certainly listen I have never heard any of them against anything at all since I've been on that board. When I first became a commissioner the Tron Mountain Dam was being considered at that tame to be built. T knew absolutely nothing about it at all. I had no idea what Iron Mountain meant or anything, but Loskey asked me to go down to the River Distract and tell them that Eagle County was against that Tron Mountain Dam. We11, I did that. Rawley Fischer hit the ceiling about twice before he settled down. They'd been working on that and the only reason that Al had sent me down there was because that some of them at Redcliff decided had decided that they didn't want that reservoir. They'd spent piles of money already and a called an my vote and went back to find out what I was doing for sure. Wilto: Ts there any restriction an your property tax mill levy? .Rawley: Yes, there certainly is. The total that the River District can lend is seven tenths of a mill. We levy .37 that max is .7. • Slifer: What does that generate .an revenues? Rawley: 4 hundred and something --- Slifer: Where does most of that money go? Rawley: Certainly legal is the .largest single category in administrative budget, but a great deal of it goes to support the staff, including me, we have four permanent employees and we're going to hire three more in the near future. We're going to have to go to House Council - we're going to hire an engineer. We have a fairly large construction budget anal I think the big end of it as the administrative budget. A lot of that is the operation of office itself and legal. We do cooperate a great deal with Colorado electric - we're trying to build a $2,000,000. facility an the Jampa River and that will be the largest single body of water in the state plus an afterbay o~ 200,000 acre feet. We're using Colorado Ute Electra.c Association's funds .for the front end costs of that with the exception of the litigation. And then we'll finance that on revenue bonds with the taker pay contract with Colorado Ute. Grant: Eagle County's bringing in $57,350. Slifer: You could double your revenue. Rawley: Yes, but the attitude o~ the Board is to make the budget and then the levy. And it has been the philosophy of the Board that we should not be carrying large surpluses forward because the tax payers would be better off to put the money in their own savings account instead of the River District's. That has created some small amounts of problem as to funding but basically my attitude is it's worked pretty well. We have had to made deals on water resources facilities, we've got snore options with the Colony Group at Exxon., other companies, by in large we've got a lot. of consultants, we've got an engineering firm in Denver, one in San Francisco, one in Grand Junction. $ lawyers. Yes, we could douple our revenues, no question about it. You've got to get past the 107% limitation, and we might do that this year. We think we've been doing what we were organized to do and the way the Board is configured we have an overlay of many Boards. Page 16 Grant: Our three commissioners decided that one of us should sit on the River District Board Commission because w~ understood what our land use problems were and also could stay up on what the River District was doing. We had this 208 program which the River District does not approve of because of certain legalities in it that probably we'll lose when we go over in court, I remember here the other day, the fudge threw us out so fast w~ didn't even know he was there, but we took it to the Court of Appeals and they are going to hear it so evidently he was wrong in what he'd done. Rawley: We're trying to battle with the Council of Governments to see if we can establish some means of litigation. Rawley: One thing I think you should try and consider working with the River District on your water supply is that you have to consider the relative position of your priorities of your water supply. The availability of water, you're going to hire your own entineers, your own lawyers, and that sort of thing but if you are thinking about increasing your water supply to the Town of Vazl so many zssues that the River District has some small amount of expertise in that we stand ready to utilize for you. We think that we can be of help and you're sending 37 hundreths of a mi11 to us you might as well use it. Slifer: I think you could help us a coming and I'm sure we'll want to get of things we want to do as a Town and may need a little mare ammunition. • lot and I appreciate you all back to you. We've got a lot your advice is well taken. We • r ~ ~~IrNUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1981 7:30 P.M. The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 6, x.981, in the Vail Council Chambers of the Vail f~4Municipal Building. The following Council members and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present: Bi11 Wilto Bud Benedict Dr. Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder Paul Johnston Also present were: Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney and Richard Caplan, Town Manager. First item on discussed was Item #10 on the agenda, as representatives from the County Housing Authority had come from Basalt and needed to leave Vail at a reasonable hour. Dale Grant, County Commissioner, made a presentation to the Council in relation to the need for housing for senior citizens. Allen Gerstenberger gave a more detailed presentation as to the statistics of senior citizens ~,~in the area and the potential needs of these people in relation .~to nursing facilities, hospitalization, etc. A Motion was made •:by Bill Wi1to and seconded by Ron Todd to draft a resolution to be presented at the next Council meeting to be .included in the formation of the County Housing Authority. All voted in favor of the Motion and it was passed. Rod Slifer stated that during the past two weeks the Town and the mountain have reported about the same number of people as last year and thanked the public for their support during this time. The next item was the second reading on Ordinance #45, Series of 1980, an ordinance relating to the issuance of Town of Vail, Colorado, Land Transfer Tax Anticipation Warrants, Series B, dated February 1, 1981, in the amount of $2,500,000. Mayor Slifer stated that alternatives to the warrants were discussed at the Work Session held December 23, 1980, and this seemed to be the best approach. Bob Ruder stated that he was very much against this Ordinance and Ron Todd also stated ` that he opposed it and felt that the Town was "overborrowing". After some discussion, Bill. Wilto made a Motion to approve the Ordinance and Foul. Johnston seconded it. The vote was passed with 4 in favor and 3 opposed - Todd, Ruder and Bud Benedict. The Ordinance was ordered ~` published in full with amendments on second reading. The next item on the agenda was Ordinance #1, Series of 1981, first reading, an Ordinance relating to noise control in the village core. This ordinance had been rewritten, as the council felt the previous ordinance did not meet the needs of the Town. There was some discussion relating to the chvnges in the new ordinance and it was agreed to change the distance from 50 feet to 100 feet from the location of property owners to where the sound was being emitted from and also that the Town Manager was to approve these applications. A Motion was made by Bill Wilto and seconded by Tom Steinberg to approve Ordinance #1. Mrs. Fritzlen asked that anyone applying for a permit have it published 10 days in advance by the Vail Trail so they were aware of the application. All voted in favor and the motion was passed and ordered published in full on first reading. The next item was presentation of Ordinance #2, Series of 1981, an ordinance which establishes a watershed district, which provides issuance of permits and procedures for enforcement and penalties for violations of such permits. Richard Caplan explained that this type of ordinance .. was been adopted by one other town in Colorado (Crested Butte} and we ~,vere the second town to look at the intent to extend the `protection of our water tributaries from potential major diversion projects so that the town would have the opportunity to review and/ar alter any .potential plans. The boundary has been determined to be a five mile radius. w TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 6, 1981. PAGE 2 A map outlining the boundaries was presented to the council. He stated -~ that he felt this ordinance was important because it would give the Town one additional mechanism should we ever enter into any legal battles an the potential Eagle Piney or other discussed diversion projects in Eagles Nest wilderness area. Larry Rider stated that the critical issue in this is working out an agreement with the Forest Service. Since most of the area is federal property-the only way this ordinance will have any effect is by having an agreement with the Forest Service. Bill Wilto said he would like to see a resolution by all water districts involved expressing the desire to do this. Ron Todd suggested that the time limit be extended to include an outside time limit on the appli- cation and site inspection to 180 days.:. After same discussion Ron Todd made a Motion to approve Ordinance #2 with the amendment of adding the 180 day tame period and with a redefinition of defining the horizontal radius of 5 miles on a horizontal plane in relation to points of higher elevation and point of intake. Paul Johnston seconded the motian and it was unamiously voted in favor of and ordered published in full on first reading. Ordinance #3, Series of 1981, was presented for first reading. An ordinance amending Chapter 1d.12 "Parking.~.on private property" to require the payment of a deposit of owners, tenants or persons to eesire the enforcement of the provisions thereof, providing for debits therefrom, and setting forth details relating thereto. There was some discussion relating the ordinance. Bob Ruder felt that the party involved should have to come to the police department to pay their fine rather than have a deposit for them to draw from. A motion was made by Paul Johnson and seconded by Bub Benedict to approve the Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unamiously and ordered published in full on first reading. The next Ordinance presented was Ordinance #~, Series of 1981, first reading, an Ordinance defining cannabis; making it unlawful to possess, use or attempt to obtain or procure cannabis; and providing penalties therefore. It was explained by Richard Caplan that this was an ordinance recommended by the Police Department so that these types of violoations could be cited and acted upon by the Municipal Court. There is no change to the state law but merely incorporates the law into the Municipal Code so that these types of cases could be handled by the Municipal Court which will result in speedier trial process as well as better insuring these matters will be brought to trial. It will also result in saving much travel time. After some discussion a Motion was made by Paul Johnston and seconded by Tom Steinberg to approve the Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unana.mously. It was ordered published in full on first reading. The next item presented was Ordinance #5, Series of 1.981, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 3 of the Vail Municipal Code by the adoption of a new Chapter 3.d$ "Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage License Occupation Tax". Much discussion followed, involving local restaurant and bar owners. The general consensus of the liquor establishments was that they were being singled out to pay a tax that should be divided among all businesses in the Vail area. Suggestions were made from the floor and from the Council as to alternative ways to raise the money to pay for additional police officers, including raising the business license f'ee. After much discussion, a motion was made by Tom Steinbergand seconded by Ron Todd to table the ordinance until they had time to review the alternatives. Paula Palmateer, VRA, volunteered to work with the Council to come up with a solution to this problem. All voted in favor of the motion. ~•. 4 TO~V'N COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 6, 1981 Page 3 The next item on the agenda was Ordinance #6, Series of 1.981, first reading, an ordinance making it unlawful to possess open containers containing malts, spirits or liquor within the Town. Rich Caplan explained that this was ordinance to "close the loop" between carrying an open container of liquor and actually being caught taking a drink from the container.Bil1 Wa.lto made a motion to approve this ordinace and Dr. Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full on ~fir,st reading. The next item was the presentation of Resolution #1, Series of 1981, a resolution approving a contract between Holy Cross Electric Association and the Town of Vail, outlining the responsibilities of each. Mr. Cap~,an stated that a meeting was to b e held on January 21, 1981 with all the utility companies to establish guidelines for each company. A motion was made by Bob Ruder and seconded by Paul Johnston to approve the resolution. A11 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and the resolution was ordered published in full on first reading. The next item was presentation of Resolution #2, Series of 1981, a resolution authoriza.ng the purchase of a parcel of property known as the King ,Arthur's Court Condominiums from the East Denver National Bank for a net purchase price of $28fl,000. After discussion of the resolution, Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the resolution-and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favor:..and the motion was passed. The resolution was ordered published in full on first reading. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION A group of residents from Va11ey Hi~Apartments were present at the meeting to present a petition from the residents of this complex regarding the bus route to their facility as a result of the West Vail Annexation Election. Jon Eberle, Director of Transportation, explained to these residents the reasons for the change in the bus route and agreed to meet with these residents to come to a amenabJ.e agreement on new bus route to service these residents. Paula Palmateer, VRA, gave a report on what they were doing to promote Vail during the "no snow" period and adverse publicity on news stations and papers. TOWN A~ANAGER REPORT ~:. Rich Caplan announced that John Gutman, KVMT newscaster, is leaving Vail and moving to Colorado Springs. He also announced that this January 17 and 18 would be the Legislators' Ski Tour being coordinated through CAST and Colorado Ski Country USA. About 20 legislators from Colorado will be attending the two-day tour. Tuesday at noon the Town Counca.l will be holding a joint meeting with the PEC to discuss items of mutual concern. The meeting will be held at the Vail Athletic Club. There was no Town Attorney Report. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ~. Respeo- fly su fitted, a`,yor - ~ MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 1981 7:30 P.M. A The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, an the Vail Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Council members and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present; Bill Walto Bud Benedict Dr. Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder Paul Johnston Also present were: Lawrence C. Rider, Tawn Attorney, and Richard Caplan, Town N~anager. First item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #l, Series of 1981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 8.24.060 of the municipal code and providing for restrictions of the making and creating of excessive noise within the Tawn; and providing for maximum permissible noise la.mits for certain times and zones; and providing details in relation thereto. There vas some discussion in relation to the Chapel and the restriction of the 100 foot distance for 100% approval Larry Rider, Town Attorney, stated that yes, the Chapel would need to obtain a permit to ring the bells from the tower. Discussion was tabled until Dick Ryan was able to fond a map showing the distance between the Chapel and First Bank. The next item discussed was Ordinance #3, Sera.es of 1951, second reading, an ordinance requiring the payment of a deposit by owners, tenants or persons to ensure the enforcement of the provisa.ons thereof, relating to ticketing and towing of illegally parked vehicles on private property. Bill Wilto and Bob Ruder expressed their dislike of the wording of the ordinance, stating that they felt it was a good idea but needed to be rewritten. Some discussion followed and Ball Wilto made a motion to approve the motion and Bud Benedict seconded at. The motion was voted on and was defeated unanimously, and given back to the staff to be rewritten. Dick Ryan located a map of the Chapel area and stated that they were in a 100 radius of the Fiist Bank of Vail and would need permission to play the chimes from the bank. After much discussion, it was agreed to amend the Ordinance to read that a public hearing would he held and notice mailed to all property owners affected by any bells or chimes to be played within the stated radius of where the sounds would be emitted. Notice shall be given in the local newspaper and published na less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. The Tawn Manager may grant the applicant a permit alter consideration of objections and remonstrances made by property awners._ It was agreed to have the ordinance become e,~fe~.,tive March 1.,. 1981. , A motion was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Paul Johnston to approve the ordinance as amended. A vote was taken and all voted in favor. The ordinance was approved and drdered published in full on second reading with amendments. • The next item fiat discussion was c~i-u.~r~a.~~c:e a~~, series of ~~~51; secants reading. Richard Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance after first reading. Tam Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance and Paul. Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinanced was ordered published by title only on second reading. The next item for discussion was Ordinance #6, Series of 1981, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 9.32.010, of the Municipal Code making it unlawful. to possess open containers containing any malt, vinous, or spiritous liquors on public property, Bill `Vilta made a motion to approve the ordinance and Bud Benedict seconded it. Some discussion followed, including a citizen asking how the possession of liquor was being controlled at the Dobson Ice Arena. Richard Caplan stated that it was definitely being watched by the Police Department and they were doing everything they could to • • C~ MINUTES TOWN COI3NCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 1981 Page 2 control the taking in of any alcoholic beverages. There was some discussion as to whether alcoholic beverages were allowed in public parks and at special events. Mr. Caplan explained that a special use permit must be obtained for special events and that 3.2 beer was legal to sell at public parks. After discussion, Bud Benedict asked to amend the motion to strike "Public Place" from the caption of the ordinance, and Bill Wilto amended it to insert in paragraph 9.32.010 - "public building". A vote was taken on the motion was was passed unanimously and the Ordinance was ordered published with amendments on second reading.. Next item on the agenda was Ordinance #7, Series of ]?981, first reading. Dick Ryan , Director of .Cc~i#~u~z~:~:y«Ddv~e3opment , explained to the Council that due to the annexation of West Vail it was felt that the members should be changed from 5 to 7. There was no discussion on the Ordinance. A motion was made by Bill Wilto and seconded by Bab Ruder to approve the Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion passed and the ordinance ordered published in full on first readin Althou h not on g the ~ vacancies during the work new members. A to th e DRB: g• the agenda, Rod Slifer stated that interviews for of the Design Review Board had been conducted today session and that the Council would now vote on the vote was taken and the following persons were elected William Adams - 1983 seat - seated immediately Steve Boyd -- 1983 seat - seated immediately Richard Matthews -- 1982 seat - seated upon Ord. #? taking effect Bi11 Pierce - 1983 seat - seated upon Ord. #7 taking effect. The next item on the agenda was presentation of Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, first xeading, an ordinance providing far the removal of time sharing Pram the Conditional Use section of public accommodations, Commercial Core I and Commercial Care II Zone Districts. There was some discussion on the ordinance. Paul Johnston made a Motion to approve the ordinance and Tom Steinberg seconded it. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 to 1 - Ron Todd opposing. The next item.-for discussion was Resolution #3, Series of 1981, first reading, a resolution opposing any redistribution of the State Conservation Trust Fund proceeds for other than parks and recreation purposes. After some discussion, a motion was made by Bi11 Wilto and seconded by Ron Todd to approve the Ordinance. The motion was passed unanimously and ordered published on first reading only. The next item for discussion was Resolution #4, Series of 1981, first reading, a resolution declaring the need far a housing authority to function in the County of Eagle, Colorado, and for the Town of Vail, Colorado, to be included within the boundaries of said housing authority. There was some discussion and a motion was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Ron Todd to approve the ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion passed and the resolution was' ordered published in full on first xeading only. Paul. Johnston asked Richard Caplan vrhat had happened to Ordinance #2, the watershed ordinance, as it was not on the agenda for second reading. Mr. Caplan explained that there was some discussion with the ,Forest Service as to definition of responsibilities and as soon as this had been resolved the ordinance was then be presented for second reading. Rod Slifer announced that there had been 10 applications received for the formation of the 9-seat District Review Committee. It was decided to extend the application deadline to January 30 and asked that the staff contact the applicants that had given a P. O. Box as an address to determine where they lived in Vail. MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ~3ANUARY 2a, 1981 Page 3 There was no citizen participation. Ptiod Slifer reported to the Council that the CAST/Ski Country USA ski tour was held Last weekend and he felt it was a very worthwhile effort. There was a total of l~ state legislators attending the event. There was no Town Manager report. There was no Town Attorney Report. Mayor Slifer announced there would be an Executive Session held immediately after adjournment of the Town Council meeting. Meeting adj ou~^ned at 9 :10 p . m. Respec~f~y lly su itt-ed, {{~~~~ Mayor ~ %/ ~ (/ • • MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL MEETSNG TUESDAY, I'EBRUARY 3, 1981 7:30 P. M. The Vail Town Council convened fox its regular meeting at 7:30 p. m. on Tuesday, February 3, 1981, in the Vail. Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Council members and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present: Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Dr. Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder Absent: Paul Johnston Also present were: Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, and Richard Caplan, Town Manager. First item discussed, which was not on the agenda, was the continuation of the emergency street cut permit request which had been presented in the work session that afternoon. Mountain Mechanical was ask~.ng for an emergency permit to perform work in front of the Tyrolian Inn in Vail. After much discussion, a motion was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Bud Benedict to approve the permit with the following conditions: 1. As much as the work as possible be done during the evening hours. 2. The patch be done with cold mix from Glenwood. 3. The licensing issue be straightened out. 4. Work has to be completed by the weekend or close up over the weekend. 5. If it snows, it must be stopped. 6. The work should proceed on a 24-hour per day basis. 7. Must have lighted barracades and two flagment on site. 8. A letter of credit from the bank or a deposit on file with the Town. 9. Pete Burnett be assigned to check on project periodically. 10. Subject to a Stop Work Order if it exceeds estimated time and involvement. A vote was taken and the Motion passed with a ~ - 2 vote. Those opposing were Bob Ruder and Dr. Steinberg. Next item on the agenda was Ordinance #9, Series of 1981, first reading, an. emergency ordinance disconnecting that parcel known as Tract A, ~Iighland Meadows, and setting forth details thereto.. Larry Rider, Town Attorney, explained that this was a portion of West Vail that had been agreed to as not being annexed and that it was in the best of interests of both panties to approve the ordinance. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by Bud Benedict to approve the Ordinance. A vote was taken and was passed 5 to 1 - Bob Ruder apposing. The ordinance was ordered published once in full in the Vail Trail. Next item an the agenda was Ordinance #3, Series of 1981, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 10.12 "Parking on Private Property" to require the payment of court costs by a private complainant who requests dismissal of the complaint. Mr. Caplan explained that this ordinance had been rewritten and taken back to the Council for approval. Bud Benedict stated that he felt a limit should be added as to what fine could be assessed to an individual. The amendment to read, "not to exceed $50.00." Bi11 Wilto made a motion to approve the ordinance as amended and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was passed and the ordinance ordered published in full. Town Council Meeting February 3, 1951. Page 3 l~ Next item on the agenda was Ordinance #8, series of 1981, second reading, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 26, Series of 198©, providing far the removal of time sharing from the conditional use section of public accommodations, commercial core I and commercial core II zone districts. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading. A motion was made by Dr. Tom Steinberg and seconded by Bob Ruder to approve the ordinance. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5 - -- Ron Todd opposing. The next item was a resolution by the Council, Resolution #5, Series of 19$1, approving the resolution of the legal act_i.on Brown v. Town of Vail relating to Lot G-4, Lion's Ridge Sub- division, Filing No. 2. Bud Benedict stated for the record that he felt it was unfortunate that the Town had to approve this resolution; but that he would vote in favor of it. A motion was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Bill Wilto to approve the motion. 'The motion was passed with a 5-1 vote. Bob Ruder opposing. Mayor Slifer stated that Ordinance #2, Series of 1981, the Watershed Ordinance had been tabled for two weeks and would be on the February 17th agenda. He stated that more time was needed to coordinate with the Foxest Service an "overlapping responsibilities" as stated in the ordinance. During Citizen Participation, Don Hlinger, store owner in Vail Village, asked how the Town's hiring freeze has affected the additional police officers that were to be added to the staff for Village protection. Charles Wick, Personnel Director for the Town, stated that the screening process had been completed for the new officers and as soon as the freeze was lifted the officers were ready to start work. Mr. Caplan stated that the Town would have to wait for December's tax figures before any decisions could be made relating to the hiring freeze. Next item on the agenda was the appointment of the Council District Review Committee. A secret ballot was taken and the following members were appointed: James Bain Siri Campbell Jack Curtin John Donovan . Bill Hanlon Dan Moody Mirka 11~oser John Siverly Joe Stauf er The Council agreed that a quorum of seven members would be needed to be present to bald a meeting. Pat Dodson, Director of Recreation Department, gave the Council a general overview of what programs were being offered at the Recreation Department and the daily attendance of each event. He stated the use of the facilities was up from the numbers from last year. He stated that many programs were planned for the coming months. Ron Todd stated that he had received two calls from local citizens regarding liquor at the local hockey games. Pat acknowledged that this was a problem and there were four police officers and four firemen in attendance at the previous week's hockey game with Aspen for crowd control. Many possible solutions were discussed with Russ Mott a, Police Chief. Pat Dodson stated that the games would have to be closed if there wasn.'t a • way to con.tral this problem. •r R • Town Council Meeting February 3, 1981 Page 3 Town Manager Report - Rich Caplan reported that this Wednesday and Thursday evenings, the Town would be sponsoring zoning meetings in relation to the West Vail Annexation and asked that each council member attend at least one session. Mr. Caplan also stated that a telegram had been sent to President Reagan from the members of CAST urging him to take another look at the Glenwood Canyon Project before any more money is appropriated for this project. Town Attorney's Report - Mr. Caplan announced on behalf of Larry Rider that the Rader"s would soon have a nine year old daughter added to their family of four children. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • s ~~ . Ro nay E. /lSlifer, ay~r ATTEST Colleen Kline Town Clerk i MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1981 7:30 P.M. ` The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, February 17, 1981, in the Vail Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Council members and Mayor Rodney Slifer were present: Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Dr. Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder Also present were: Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, and Richard Caplan, Town Manager. First item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #3, Series of 1981, an ordinance regarding parking an private property Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the ordinance and Bud Benedict seconded it. A vote was taken and was unanimous and the ordinance was ordered by title only. Second item on the agenda was the Watershed Ordinance, #2, Series of 1981. Richard Caplan stated that this ordinance had been discussed in the work session that afternoon and it was felt by the Council that copies of it should be sent to the five water boards for their input before being voted on by the Vail Town Council. After the first review of the revised ordinance, the Forest Service did state that it was more suitable to them... Bill Wilto made a motion to table the ordinance and Ron Todd seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was Ordinance #10, serios of 1981, first reading, an ordinance amending the annual business license from $25 to $100. Much discussion followed the reading on the ordinance. Linda Kaiser voiced her objection to taxing the businesses more and asked where the money went that was now being paid for licenses. Mr. Caplan stated that the money was mostly used for administrative record keeping on the licenses. Paula Palmateer, VRA, stated she had done a preliminary poll of local businesses and did not think that they were opposed to the increase in the fee. They would be doing a formal pall this week and she wouli~. report back to the Council when this was completed. Coleen Kline stated that a physical inventory was done twice a year to make sure no business was operating without a license. Bud Benedict stated that the Council was trying to do the best thing they could for what the citizens stated they wanted and the money had to come from somewhere. He said he also felt that the liquor establishments were the contributors for the majority of the police problems and felt they contribute the major portion of the funds needed for the protection. Dr. Steinberg stated that he felt an increase in the business license should be incorporated with a tax an the liquor establishments to cover rising costs of police protection. Rich Caplan stated that the Town had already made a $300,000 cut in the budget and would be making additional cuts after the sales tax figures for January were in. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the Ordinance and Bob Ruder seconded it. A vote was taken and the motion passed - 5 to 2 - Bud Benedict and Tom Steinberg opposing. Vail Town Council February 17, 1981 Page 2 Next item on the agenda was Re~olut~:.on#6, Series of 1981., first reading, a~!1~esolutian regarding industrial development bond financing for snowmaking equipment for Vail Associates, Mr. Caplan stated that this was a resolution only and no monies would be committed at this time. There would be ordinances brought to the Council at a Later date as the program progressed. Sob Parker of Vail Associates gave a presentation on how and where the new snowmaking equipment would be operated. Bob Ruder stated he felt the resolution should be changed from 8 miles to 3 miles relating to the area where the equipment will be Located. Bud Benedict stated all resort organizations including VA should generate an education program to get the word out an how much Vail. had and will be putting into the mountain for snowmaking equipment. Paul Johnston made a oration to approve the resolution and Tam Steinberg seconded it. A vote was taken and it was approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda was Resolution #7, Series of 1.981., a resolution supporting the public acquisition of the Reudi Reservoir. Mr. Caplan stated that this was in support of the City of Aspen and several other cities in expressing an interest in obtaining the Reudi Reservoir. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the resolution and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Mayor Slifer introduced Ernie Chavez,'Vail Postmaster, who gave a report on the new zip code which had been assigned to Vail. Mr. Chavez stated that this additional zip code would save the post office hours of sorting time each day. He suggested everyone go ahead and exhaust their supplies of printed stationery before ording new with the new zip code on it. All box holders will change their zip code to 81.658 - the home delivery will remain at 81.657 . Mayor Slifer stated that he would like to review the street cut permit granted to the TyroLian Inn two weeks ago. Jay Peterson stated that he and Pete Burnett were in constant contact with each other as the work progressed and felt that it was unfortunate that the sewer line turned out to be a problem, but it was unforsoen by Mountain Mechanical and they had done the best they could to correct the problem. The Council stated that according to the Police Department report, the project had not been done according to the rules outlined by the Council and had caused a problem with traffic direction. The council felt that from this point on, a fee should be charged to individuals requesting an emergency street cut permit and an ordinance to that effect should be written. During Citizen Participation discussion, Bob Parker representing The Valley presented the Council with a petition regarding filling the speed dip on Buffer Creek Road. Some discussion followed regarding the problem with the dip. Mr. Parker said the dip had been installed by Eagle County and stop signs had also been put up at a later time. He felt that the stop Slgn5 were sufficient and the dip was more of a hinderance than a help. Mr. Parker felt that the area should be patrolled and ticketed more heavily. It was decided to have the Police Department take a closer look at the area and publicize further discussion at another Council meeting to get public opinion on the dip. Th.e next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Casolar honing Request by the Planning and Environmental Commission. It was requested that the minutes be reported verb atirn during this portion of the meeting. Vail. Town Council February 17, 2981 Page 3 • SLIFER: The next item on the agenda is a Casolar appeal. And let me read into the record an appeal. a letter that~~we received today. "Gentlemen: The following telephone conversation between Roger Tomash attorney for Mr. Dean Knox and Larry Rider, Attorney for the Town of Vail, Dean Knox is requesting that proceedings on his petition for variance on Lot Z2, Phase 2, Casolar Del Norte be returned far action at the Planning Commission level. The basis of this request is that Mr. Knox wishes to submit a significantly changed proposal to reduce the GRFA and the number of units in the subdivision which are now requested." I would assume that would require a motion on our part to send the matter back to the Planning Commission as requested by the applicant or by the appellant. RIDER: Mr. Mayor, I would say that what occurred in this case was that I got a call yesterday afternoon from Roger Tomash. representing S Dean Knox. He indicated that he had discussed with his c1~.ent the matter of this variance and said that what they were going to do or informed me that what they were going to do tonight was to propose to cut the duplex proposal in half and make it a single-family residence and drop the GRFA requirement request by 600 or 700 square feet and I told him at that time that the Council would not hear the proposals without Planning Commission input. I felt that was a significant change and he said, well, they had no objection to Planning Commission hearing. Then I got a call from them ~~at they were going to be here. Then I got a ca11 at noon today indicating -that he was having some difficulty in getting out and at that time I informed him after discussing the matter with Rich that .there should be a written application to have it sent back to us. Since that appeared to be appropriate that the Couzicil would consider that tonight. The issue being the significant change and it appears to be a very significant change. SLIFER: Any commments? Would-someone like to, -_-- Mr. Ruder? RUDER: Yea, I'd like to just .... we got in our packet this many, many page, many, many year document relating to this project and I think that our zoning laws in the area are pretty clear as to what is allowed on that particular piece of property and, I think that as I read all of these many, many documents that the owner of the property was advised at that time and that he just, he didn't take good care and caution in planning and when it got down to the last lot he had some problems and now he's trying to find a way out and I would be, T think we should act and uphold the Planning Commission's ruling. Otherwise I think we're kind of passing the buck if the applicant wants to come back and reapply to the Planning Commission,...that's part of the democratic process and he can do that. RIDER: Well, I would state that I told Mr. Tomash exactly what Bob has indicated, but, if the Council turned it down he can come back and he could do that immediately on the March 9th agenda with the proper advertising. The only benefit in turning it down which they indicated they would do, it. would be to get another application filed because they would come back with the same . thing. I guess my feeling and the reason I advised them it would probably go back was that that was going to happen anyway and they might as well get it done. y Vail Town Council meeting February 17, 1983. Page 4 WILTO: I don't have any problem sending; it back to the Planning Commission. RUDER: The reason, I guess, that it bothers me is that we have two ways in this town of allowing densities and they're pretty clearly explained in all zones and that we're really opening up Pandora's Box when we allow an increase in grass residential floor area in one of the zones and that's what this application would do and as I understand it, reduction of 600 or 700 feet or the changing in units that was going to be the new proposal would still be an up-zoning of the property in respect to Gx'oss residential floor area and I think that we have to treat up-zoning grass residential .floor area in this valley very caref~.lly and, I am one person who would be very in favor of doing that and I think that this would be a way of us telling this applicant that, . you know, the rules have beep very clear threu~h all of these proceedings ,,,,,; WILTO: We can't act on what he's proposing now, all we could act on would be .., the Planning Commission ,,,; RUDER: That's right. WILTO: It has to go back to them anyway. RUDER: That's right. But what we're telling the Planning Commission by upholding them that we, you know, we agree with the way they're treating these kinds of situations when something is brought in, front of .them :wP agree ~r~itH the way they treated that . As soon as we send back to them without, you know, without good explanation they may sit there and say, "Well, you know, maybe the Council does want us to consider giving additional gross residential floor area variances, T guess it would be, and in isolated special cases." I don't know how they would read us sending it back and I think it's a very touchy situation because it's one of our two guidelines in all of our zones to zoning. TODD: I have a question. As far as what was said to the representatives of the people who were appealing to us, because it would seem to me that if we were to proceed and consider the review as it was originally scheduled, that that requires that both the Town and the applicant would make a presentation tonight because we'd need to see what was presented to the Planning Commission and if the appl~.carit was led to believe that this would be a mere formality and therefore is not here which I assume the applicant isn't here, ~ and he was led to believe that this was a normal thing, it would go back to Planning Commission without the applicant being here and for that reason I would prefer to send it back.to Planning Commission which is really an option it seems to me that's open to him anyway and that he would be withdrawing his appeal and just going back with a his revised plans. SLIFER: Could you make that a motion? TODD: I so make that a motion. WILTO: Would you like to add any instructions from the Council to the Planning Commission? . TODD: I think that the minutes of this meeting should be included so that Bob's concern are voiced at the Planning Commission and that any other concern that councilmembers would like to express along those lines. Vail Town Council meeting February 17, 1.981 Page 5 WILTO: I would like it to be expressly said somehow that, we do approve their decision - prior decision. STEINBERG:Why don't we just table it for tonight and have the Lawyer here next time and make their presentation so we can vote it down? TODD: That would be good too, as long as they're fairly represented and haven't been misled thinking they can STEINBERG:T feel with. Bob that - I feel strongly that we should concur with the Planning Commission in their turning it down and I think if they want to come and plead their case, that's fine, they ought to have their day in court, but I think my mind is made up pretty well SLIFER: Larry, could we send it back to the Planning Commission with, with the understanding that we did support their decision? an d RIDER: I don't think, I don't think that this case/as Bob has eluded you've got .t his whole packet of things - this Casolar I and II is a proverbial bucket of worms, I mean it's a, it's a very screwy situation and I don't know whether Dean Knox got himself into it ar we helped him get himself into it or what it is. I don't think the Planning Commission in any way feels in jeopardy because of Council's consideration of this, I think they feel pretty confortable in their decision on the GRFA. `We have received various comments in the packet, you're not in any way questioning their decision in sending it back, and, you know, I don't know what you, I guess maybe T stepped outside of my prerogative in telling them that you'd prob ably send it.b ack if you came in with a proposal, - but at the same time what have you gained by putting it over for two weeks and turning it down and they just turn right around and reply. Probably what they would do if you table it for two weeks if they would withdraw their application and their appeal would be fine. You don't gain anything with the Planning Commission by playing that game. WTLTO: Ron made a motion and I'll second it. SLIFER: Do you want to restate the motion? TODD: The motion was to return it to the Ilanning Commission, but with the minutes of the concerns and comments of the various Councilmembers as they have spoken tonight -- Bab, Tom and anyone else that has addressed it. SLIFER: Okay, a motion by Ron Todd and second by Bill Wilco. All understand that? Tf there's no other discussion, all in favor of the motion vote by saying aye. Those oppose. Two oppose - Steinberg and Ruder. RIDER: Just for clarification. You want the transcript verbatim of the comments enclosed? SLIFER: Of that portion of the minutes. Vail Town Council Meeting February 1?, 1981 Page 6 The next item on th.e agenda was the discussion of the appropriation of the remainder of the 1981 community contributions fund. Mr. Caplan stated that in early January when the decision was made on the nail Resort Association donation, th.e Council left a remaining unappropriated $8,000 in the fund with the discussion of three community groups in particular that they would like to give some resources to. Because of this, the Town did not go out and publicly solicit all organization because of the limit on the funds available. The three groups - Vail Mountain Rescue Group, Sopris Mental Health, and the Eagle Valley Arts Council have submitted letters requesting consideration for this unappropriated fund. Mr. Caplan stated that Sopris Mental Health was waiting on this decision before making firm plans for this year. Tim Cochran from the Vail Mountain Rescue Group gave a presentation on what their organization had been doing ahd what they planned to use their donation for, Dr. Steinberg asked Mr. Cochran if his group had made similar requests to the Towns of Avon, Eagle and Minturn. Mr. Cochran stated that they had not. After some discussion the Council decided to award a portion of the money tonight and ask that the remaining groups be postponed until after the March 10 date when January sales tax figures were available. The next Council meeting after that date would be March 17, 1981. Bill Wilto made a motion to give Sopris Mental Health Clinic $3,000 and not to give any additional funds at this time. Bud Benedict seconded the motion. A11 voted in favor of the motion. Mr, Cochran was asked to resubmit his request to the March 17th meeting and to contact some of the other surrounding towns in the meantime. As there was no other business on the agenda, Mayor Slifer reported that he had attended a Club 20 Meeting as President of CAST. The meeting was held in Grand Junction. His object in attending the meeting was to defend the Town`s and CAST`s position on Glenwood Canyon. The rumor is that the Canyon may cost as much as $650,000 before completion. Mr, Slifer thought that the Town of Vail should consider joining Club 20 to defend these issues. He stated that the fee schedule is a voluntary contribution and the average of municipalities is $250.00. The range is from $30 - $5000 in contributions. During Town Manager's Report, Rch_Caplan his concorn with. several of the state's highway projects being cancelled or put off due to the expense of the Glenwood Canyon project. Mr. Caplan asked that a representative from the Council be designated as the official staff person and an alternate for Club 20. Rod Slicer was appointed the representative and B~11 Wilto the alternate. Mr. Caplan stated that.th.e County Commissioners were asking for support of House Bill 1202 which is a proposal to allow fox local elections regarding sales tax elections to be held on an annual basis. Those elections could include going above the state 7% limit with the approval of the voters. in the county. He stated that he has talked with. Paula Palmateer, VRA, to see if she had any comments from the VRA standpoint on the bill and would like some Council drECtion on the matter. Paula stated that she would bring it up at their board meeting on Friday. Mr. Caplan. stated it had been approved by the committee and would go to the floor of the House sometime soon. There was a feeling among the comm.i.ssioners that this bill h.as a very slim chance of passing. Mr. Caplan suggested drafting a letter and waiting until after the VRA board meeting on Friday to send it off. Rod Slifer asked Paula t.o get back to Rich after her meeting on Friday. It was decided that the Council would support it if VRA was not opposed to it. Mr. Slicer stated that h.e was sure one of the County Commissioners would be happy to give a talk at the VRA. board meeting i.f paula wanted to invite them. -.. Vail Town Council Meeting February 17, 1951. Page 7 Mr. Caplan then brought up for discussion the matter of Senate Bill 11 and 1.88 regarding imposition of a 7% property tax limitation on home rule municipalities. If was felt that there should not be this imposition on home rule municipalities and we have been asked by the Aurora Town Council to support their position on this. Mr. Caplan said he felt it was a first "in road" on imposition by the state on home rule municipalities and an insult to the concept and tradition of home rule government and recommend that the Council take a position as requested by the Municipal Leage and City of Aurora in oppostion to the 7% proposal in the State legislature. A motion was made by Dr. Steinberg and seconded by Bill Wilto directing Rich Caplan to send a letter from the Mayor to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Finance Committee as well as the City of Aurora expressing our position and opposition to that Bill. The motion was voted on and carried unanimously. The last item Mr. Caplan had was in relation. to the King Arthur's Court property. The Council did approve a resolution in January on the acquisition to be acquired na later than February 1, 1981. He dial receive a request at the end of January from the property owners to delay the matter a few weeks to complete some additional paperwork and some other financial. reasons. He felt there was no problem in honoring their request and close on February 26, 1981. So he wanted to report that contrary to the resolution we did not close prior to February 1, but it is the Town's intention to close on February 26 - 28 and everything technically and legally is in order in terms of the financial resources and the legal documentation to close on the property. Ron Todd inquired as to the delay resulting in any additional casts to the Town. Mr. Caplan stated that there was not. No Town Attorney report. Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Res ctf y sub , ~ ~~ M ' o r ` ~ + ~/ ATTEST Town Clerk ~~ VAIL TOWN COi~NCIL Regular Meeting ?:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, 1981 The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at '7:30 p.m. an Tuesday, March 3, 1981, in the Vail Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The following Council members and h4ayor Rodney E. Slifer were present: Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Dr. Tom Steinberg Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Absent: Ron Todd Also present were Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, and Richard Caplan, Town Manager. First item on the agenda was a presentation from Joe 5taufer, Chairman- elect of the Council District Review Committee. 114r. Staufer gave his report and stated that the Committee had voted 7 - 2 in favor of not districting at this tame. John Siverly and Siri Campbell were the two voting in favor of districting and Siri Campbell read a letter she and John Siverly had written giving their reasons as to their vote. Frank Caroselli stated that the committee had not spent enough time on the review and felt the Council should reject the report and restudy the issue. Mayor Slifer stated that the Council would take the report under advisement and would get back to the people at the next meeting. Bud Benedict stated that he felt the committee had done a good job with what they had to work with and stated that there had been very little interest from the public in applicants willing to serve on the committee. The next item on the agenda was the presentation of four West Vail zoning ordinances - #'s 11, 12, 13 and 14. Mayor Slifer read the titles of each of the four ordinances and then went back for discussion of each one. The first ordinance presented was Ordinance #11. Dick Ryan, Community Development Director, addressed the Council and presented this ordinance • to them. Commercial Core III is the area bounded on the west by the Inn at West Vail and bounded on the east by the Brandess Building. Area is currently zoned commercial in the county with the exclusion of the two service stations which will be discussed later. It is proposed that this area be rezoned into a much broader use zone than we have for CCI and CCII. The reason for this being that this is really the community business zone of the Gore Valley plus heavy shopping trade outside of the Gore Valley. Mr. Ryan outlined the area just described on the map for the Council. Doug McLaughlin, owner of Lot 40 along with Tim Garton, Tom Harding and Arthur Kelton, expressed regarding the zoning of this lot which lies just east of the CCIII zoned property. The staff is proposing zoning Lots 40, 41, 7, 8 and 9 as one unit of residental cluster. Mr. McLaughlin felt that this ignores the fact that Lots 41, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are all built, the least of which are 15~ units per acre. He felt that when you take these Tats and downzone them two levels below their present construction and including Lot 40 it puts them in a peculiar position. He would like to see Lot 40 zoned commercial. If not zoned commercial he felt he should be zoned something similar to the Tots up to the Roost Lodge are. Mr. Ryan stated the county zoning on this is RSM which is 5.5 units per acre before the annexation took place. He felt that the residential cluster zoning is very comparable to the zoning the County had given it and should not be upzoning the property. He felt they were not downzonirig the Iand at all. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 2 Mr. McLaughlin stated that all of the zoning in that area had changed from what the County had Qriginally planned. He presented a county zoning map which should the way these lots had been zoned originally. Laurie Goodell from Buffer Creek subdivision directly behind Lot 40 representing residents of Buffer Creek stated their oppositon to changing the zoning of Lot 40 to commercial. She stated that the area was a quiet, residential area with permanent family dwellings and a lot of children. There is a lot of traffic in the area because of the commercial area there now. She felt it would downgrade the enjoyment of their property as well as the value of the property. She would like to request that the Tawn consider purchasing that lot and making it into a park which is needed in that area. Mr, McLaughlin stated that they would be more than happy to sell that, piece of property to the Tawn and had talked to the Town about it a couple of years ago. Maxka Moser, a.resident of Buffer Creek, stated that she would also like to an record in opposition of any zone change to upgrade Lot 40 to a commercial zone. public As there were no other comments, Pdr. Slifer closed out the/discussion on Ordinance #11. Mr. Wilto commented that if this is zoned residential cluster that would not stop him from coming in at a later date with a more specific plan and requesting a variance at that time. Mr. Slifer stated that the one concern he had was the amount of traffic on the frontage road now and what it would be like with another c.,~~LL,~ercial building on it. Ordinance #12 was then presented to the Council by Peter Patten, Zoning Administrator. Mr. Patten outlined the property in question on the zoning map, that being on the northside of the highway; 6G lot and Cliffside subdivision. The proposed zoning for this area is residential cluster zoning. Mr. Patten stated that Lot 40 was held back frs~m the Planning Commission recommendation for a week for further discussion at its meeting of Monday, March 2. Their recommendation was consistent with staff's recommendation that it be residential cluster. Mr. Slifer asked for comments from the floor. Doug McLaughlin stated -that just for the record it be stated that he was opposed to Ordinance #11. Mr. Patten continued with the staff's recommendations: Vail Heights, Etc. - primary/secondary recommendation by Staff and Planning Commission. - duplex zoned district. Vail City Corporation - agricultural/zoned recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. and. open space Service Stations - 3 stations zoned heavy service district. Matterhorn Village, Vail Village West, Gore Trading Co., - all of the area with the exception of the Highland Meadows subdivision. Recommendation from Staff and Planning Commission is primary/secondary. Peter Gosgriff, representing the Gore Trading Co. which owns a small tract of land bordering on Gore Creek and surrounded on all three sides by Highland Meadows 1 & 2. Gore Creek Trading Co. requesting they be given same zoning as the surrounding property - Highland Meadows. It was the owner's understanding that this property was duplex zoned. Want to be consistent with property around them. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 3 Pet Ltd. - primary/secondary recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. Mary McClintock, representing Pet Ltd., presented the Council with a plan that was submitted to the Countyfor approval. She stated that last year she signed a purchase agreement to purchase one-acre of land in West Vail. She spoke with the honing Department in Eagle and was told there would be no problem in rezoning this RSM, that everything in the area was RSM. She asked at that time what affect the annexation would have on the zoning and was told that if her property was in the process of being built and she had her site plans in that it would be considered "in process". The zoning was approved in July of ].980. The hearing date was set for November, but because of the floodplain permit coming into effect, they wouldn;t be able to approve the plans in November. She then went to EPA and got information necessary to obtain a floodplain permit and filed it in November. She felt that it was unfair for the Town to rezone her property. She stated she would only get four units because of the floodplain. If her requested is granted, she would have cluster zoning with same number of units. Peter Patten stated that the reason they felt Primary/Secondary was appropriate was the size of the buildable area of the lot. Very eondusive to duplex units. Vail Intermountain, except Block 3.0 - primary/secondary recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. Jeff Flagg, a landowner a.n Intermountain, addressed the Council regarding the appropriateness of primary/secondary zoning for the area. He stated that the purposes of the down zoning category stated it was a primary dwelling unit with a caretaker unit attached. He stated that the people who live in the Intermountain area are all "caretakers" as workers and locals in the valley. He stated that he has 6/10 of an acre zoned primary/secondary would give him X800 sq. ft. of GRFA, two thirds/one third would allow him to build one 1600 sq, ft. unit and one 3200 sq. ft. unit. No one would want to buy the 3200 sq. ft. unit in Intermountain. He suggested a conditional use be permitted within the primary/secondary zoning requirement. He stated what conditions would be allowed in such a zoning. Frank Caroselli commented on the primary/secondary zoning. He stated A question from the citizens was raised, "What is the value of primary/ secondary over duplex zoning?" Mr. Slifer stated the purpose of primary/secondary was to eliminate the large, mirror-type images of duplexes, to create some long-term housing. As an example, the Booth Creek area was noted, as large lots and large buildings. Bill Wilto stated that several homes on the golf course area were a good example of primary/secondary zoning. that West Vail has now become the employee residential community, if .you weren't able to obtain housing in the core area West Vail was the next area to try. He stated that the Council could pass a resolution accepting the present status of zoning through `hest Vail until the Council. had enough time to observe the area and make a sensible, intelligent decision. Ms. Caroselli asked why we had to have a blanket primaryjsecondary zoning as each project had to go before the Design Review Board. Why not keep it as a duplex situation, where a person could sell something to pay for ha.s half of the unit and take care of same of the people that aren't just employees that are trying to stay here for rest of their lives and perhaps parlay land as a lot of the members of the council had done. She stated that residents of West Vail were farted to except the responsibility of the mistake that has been made in the core as far as employee housing is concerned. Mr. Slifer stated that the same zoning ordinance applied to members of the Council as it did to all others. He also stated that the Design Review Board does no't have the power to make the sides dissimilar VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 4 Slifer moved into the Vail Intermountain Residential Cluster, Peter Patten talked on the Interlochen Condo, the Steven's property, one other parcel, Robert L. and Jean M. Martin. These were recommended for residential cluster. There were no comments on the Vail Intermountain area. Dick Ryan commented that in addition to what Peter Patten said of the initial zoning did not include. the areas owned by BLM, which would be zoned green belt natural open space and would be included in Ordinance #12. Discussion foT1owed on Pet Ltd., and how the difference between primary/secondary and residential cluster would affect the plans submitted. Bud Benedict explained his views on Highland Meadows duplex - Gore Trading possibly should be duplex and Pet Ltd., because of not increasing density should be residential cluster. Ruder expressed that he liked the proposed zoning., primary/secondary, but maybe they should go back and look at the primary/secondary ratio.. Next item on the agenda is Ordinance #l 3. It was brought up that prior to going to the Planning Staff, in reviewing the West Vail area, it became apparent that there were a number of areas that had gone through substantial review and approvel processes in the County and because of those processes being completed and reliance of the owners of the property on the approvals given in those review • processes, that individual developments or areas would have vested rights to the approvals or agreements made. Peter Patten stated that as a staff, we reviewed all the approvals and all the parcels of property. Two people from the staff went out and reviewed each parcel of property and went through County records to determine if the rights had been vested. The properties-that we viii now be talking about are properties that in the Staff's opinion and the Planning and Environmental Commission opinion, in fact, had approvals given under some kind of special review process and that the approvals given should be recognized by the Town and then maybe an underlying zoning adapted to cover any loopholes that would exist. The properties referred to in Ordinance #13 are as follows. The Valley. The Valley has 6 phases. Phase 1 (old phase) 33 units have been constructed on that property. Phase 2 is under construction, presently approved far 26 units. Phase 3 (only phase that is vacant) approved for l0 units. Phase 4 (The Ridge at Vail) approved for l3 units. Phase 5 contains- 8 units of duplex nature. Phase 6 contains approval for 42 units. The Town recommended that the approvals as stated above from the County stay in effect for The Valley. The phases are in different stages for the approvals received. It .was stated that the difference between Pet Ltd. and The Valley is that for Pet Ltd., she did not receive any approvals from the County. The Valley had .approvals and signed con- tracts between themselves and the County. Pet Ltd. only had zoning and she did not have the subsequent approvals which needed to follow. Vail Commons. This.is the new name for what was formerly called West Vail Common. It is a major new shopping center which will complete the development of Commercial Core III Zone District. It is a b.6 acre parcel. We are accepting all of the approvals and agreements from Eagle County on that parcel. Recommendation is for zoning Commercial Care III. . Spruce Creek. This project consists of 12 existing units and 21 undeveloped units making a total of 33 units. We are again recommending Residential Cluster. Meadow Creek. This project is located in Intermountain. A portion of this project is under construction. It was approved for 76 units in the County and the developer wishes to build 70 units. 28 are currently constructed. Vail Intermountain Swim.and Tennis. These are the log cabin designed condominiums. There is a total of 24 approved units.. The developer has expressed interest in including 5 employee housing units in this project. S vAIL Tow~u cou~clL Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 5 friar Patch. Approval for 14 units on this property. We will work with the developer on the design of this project. Casa Del Sol. This project has a total of 21 units. It is a basically completed project with the construction of a bike path. and burro needing completion. Residential Cluster zone district again recommended. Lionsridge #4. This is a 40 acre parcel. There are l7. approved lots under Eagle County. Recommendation for this is to adopt single-family-zone district with a special provision fora small or caretaker (1/3) unit possible. However the single-family zone district would govern the development of the property. G4. This property has been under litigation. -The Town Council adopted Resolution #5 which is the agreement pending at this point. The zone district governing the property would be residential cluster-with, of course, the Court Order and Resolution #5 governing density and the other contents in those agreements. Block 10 Vail Intermountain. Consists of 16 lots. This was zoned residential medium density multi-family. It was recommended that primary/secondary zone govern the development of those properties. Elliott Ranch. This is a 5 lot subdivision. Zoning recommendation is primary/ secondary. Mayor Slifer interjected at this time that at the work session this afternoon the Council apparently decided not to take action on Ordinance #15 tonight. We will not vote on it as far as a first hearing, but we will take input based on your comments. The next item on the agenda is Ordinance #14. This Ordinance refers to Highland Meadows and Lot 40. The staff recommendation on Highland Meadows is primary/secondary zone district. The Planning Commission and the Staff have disagreed on there recommendations. The Planning Commission has recommended that the Highland Meadows Filing 1 and 2 be straight duplex or residential district. A brief background of Highland Meadows was then given. It was stated that zoning through the County was a planned unit development but they did not .accept specific PE1D guidelines, however the covenants that the County required as submittals were reveiwed by the County but deemed to be unenforcable by the_County. The actual guidelines for the PUD are one point of dispute. They also stated all the problems involved with the installation of utilities. The County did approve 2 units per each lot. In reviewing this, it was- the only thing that appeared c1 ear from what the County did approve, The Staff felt that as long as there were two units on each lot they were recognizing what. the County had approved. Many owners voiced their objection to this primary/secondary zone district. The Planning Commission voted in a 4 to 2 favor of leaving Highland Meadows Filing land 2 a straight duplex or residential zone district. Barry Permut, Mona Look, Dave Shoemaker, Jim Herkert and many-other owners also voiced their objections to this primary/secondary zone district. Uoting then took place on each of the four Ordinances just reviewed. Ordinance #11 is an ordinance imposing zone district CCIII for newly annexed area. Bi11 Wilto moved that we approve Ordinance #11 as submitted. Second by Tom Steinberg. Motion passed unanimously. Ordinance #12 is an Ordinance imposing zoning on-the following areas: . Cliff Side and.Gi, Eiger Chalet, Roost, Lots 40, 41, 7 and 8, Vail Heights, etc., Vail City Corporation, Service Stations, Matterhorn Village, Vail Village West, Gore Trading Company, Pet Ltd., Vail Intermountain except Block 10 and Vail. Intermountain which was RC, Dick Ryan a1 so stated that there are two green belt areas that should be included in this Ordinance. Voting was postponed until after the vote on Ordinance #14 because of the involvement of Gore Trading Co. and Pet. Ltd. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 6 Ordinance #13 is an Ordinance imposing zoning on projects from .The Valley through to the Elliott Ranch. Peter stated that in Lionsridge #4 the remainder of • the 48 acres (17 lots} are being recommended as green belt natural open space. Bi11 Wi1to moved that they approve Ordinance #13 as proposed with the amendment that Vail Commons, Vail Das Schone Filing #4, be designated with an underlying zoning of Commercial Core III. Second by Bab Ruder. Motion .passed unanimously. Ordinance #14 is an ordinance imposing zoning on-the Highland Meadows project. This recommendation of the Planning Commission is that the zoning be residential or straight duplex. Peter Patten stated that the only requirements of the covenants was that they be submitted and reviewed. The County never in so many words stated that these were PUD guidelines. Paul Johnston moved that Ordinance #14 be approved as submitted. Second by Bill Wilto. Mayor Slifer stated-that it would then be zoned residential ar duplex, mirror image duplex as expressed during the hearing. 12 letters from property owners objecting to the primary/. secondary zone district were submitted for the record. It was requested that an Amendment adding the Gore Trading ,Company be added to this motion. Mr. Johnston did not want to amend his motion but wanted to deal with the Gore Trading Company when they got. back to Ordinance #72. The motion was restated by Mayor Slifer. as to approve Ordinance #14 as submitted which is residential. zone. The motion carried 4 to 2. At this time Council went back to Ordinance,#12. .Ordinance #12, involves all the areas including Cliff Side and G1, Eiger Chalet, Roost, Lots 40, 41, 7 and S, Vail Heights, etc., Vail City Corporation, Service Stations, Matterhorn Village, Vail Village W fit, Gore Trading Company, Pet Ltd., Vail Intermountain except Block 10 and Vail Intermountain which was RC. More discussion concerning Gore Trading Company and Pet Ltd. and what zone district they should be in ensued. Paul Johnston moved that Ordinance #12 be approved amending that Gore Trading Tract be changed to RC, that Pe't Ltd. be approved according to the plans submitted and that we anticipate considering the change of density to lot 40 at Staff recommendation between now and second reading. Second. Motion passed unanimously. Paula Pa1mateer was given a plaque rewarding her for. her .services during her term as a Councilwoman. Next Item on the,Agenda is Ordinance #2. This is an Ordinance amending. Title 13 of the Vail Municipal Code establishing Chapter 13.04 "W"Watershed District, which District encompasses all territory occuppied by the Town of Vail Water Services in an area 5 miles northerly, southerly and ,.easterly boundaries, prohibiting certain activities without permit requiring a permit for certain activity within the~District providing a permit at hearing procedures for certain activity with .in the District establishing fees for permit application review, establishing standards for the issuance of permit, providing procedures. for enforcement and providing penalties for the violation:thereof. We have now received a written letter of endorsement and offer.of'.cooperation from the Forest Service. Paul Johnston brought up the question of the permit fee feeling that it should be higher. It was decided that the fee structure could be amended at the second reading. Paul Johnston moved that the Ordinance be approved as submitted. Second by Tom Steinberg. Motion passed unanimously. Next item on the Agenda is Ordinance #15. This is the Ordinance that was tabled due to the staff not completing some technical revisions that were recommended to be included in this Ordinance. Public opinions were still heard. Ran Riley gave discussion as to the threats this Ordinance-posed. It was asked if the Council could take the time and sit down with these Restaurant. People and try to find a better solution than to just pass a new Ordinance. It was stated that this Ordinance only requires you to get a City License. Dick Ryan suggested that. he meet with Herman and get a committee together from the Restaurant people in town and go over the Ordinance in more detail. All restaurant people represented were in favor of local control, but against the way the Town was going about it. Mayor Slifer suggested that this Ordi:nanee be tabled until Dick Ryan and Herman can get a committee together and help the Council come to a better solution to the problem. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3, 1.981 Page 7 Tam Steinberg moved that. they table Ordinance'#75. Second by Bud Benedict. Mot-ion passed unanimously. It was asked that the committee get back to the Council within 6 weeks if possible. • The next item on the Agenda is Ordinance #10, second reading. This is an Ordinance amending section 5.04050 of the Vail Municipal Code increasing the fee for the annual Town of Vail Business License to $100, providing that the increase shall become effective for licenses issued for the year 1982,-setting forth details relating thereto. There was a great amount of public input objecting to this rise in License Fee. It was asked where th is extra revenue was going, and there was no clear answer given for this question. Linda Kaiser read the names of some 129 business.'s that had written her objecting to this fee increase. Bill Wilto moved that the Council approve Ordinance #10 as submitted. Second by Paul Johnston. Motion was three to three therefore it fails. It was stated that Ordinance #l0 failed on second reading. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was a great amount. of laughter at this point. since most citizen participation had already taken place.. It was brought: up„however, that the Town might look into a cheaper. Police Car rather than the Saab..Turbo. Bob Ruder commended that the only American made car that could withstand our use is the Chevy Malibu. • The next item is an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision on a variance request on Lot 3, Block 3 Bighorn 3rd Filing. Peter Patten gave the audience and Council a brief background on this request. Mr. Bill nuke did appeal the Planning Commission denial.. He stated that Mr. Luke would be present at today's meeting but had not shown yet. All attempts to get a hold of Mr. Luke were in vain. Bill Wilto stated that Mr. Luke could be stuck on the road between Denver and Vail if this snow was bad enough. A motion was made that the Council table the Luke Appeal. Second by Tom Steinberg. .Motion to table the appeal passed unanimously. The next item is the Appeal of the Exterior alteration request of the Sitzmark Lodge. Dick Ryan stated that Mr. Fritz is appealing .the condition that was placed on the approval by the Planning Commission which is the condition was agreed not to remonstrate against the improvement district if the improvement district was formed for Vail Village improvements...' Mr. Fritz feels that any variance he requests should stand on its awn feet and any improvement district to be formed should also stand on its own feet. He does not feel that it should be attached to his variance. Discussion of the Vail Village improvements then ensued. Mayor Slifer stated that Bob is appealing the decision of the Planning &.Envirorimental Commission who added that requirement or condition that he not appose the improvement district if and when it is formed and he is appealing that condition. Tom Steinberg moved we uphold Bob Preachers ,appeal granted on the bases that it be totally eliminated. Second by Bill Wilto. Mayor Slifer restated that the motion is to grant the appeal which would be to overturn the condition imposed by the Planning Commission. Motion passed unanimously. The Town Manager Report: The Town Council needs to take some action relating to our Towing Contract. We received notice from D&E a month ago that they would be ceasing business operations in Vail. Tam Hunt from Chevron and Sonny Caster of the Exxon Station formed the Vail Towing Company to buy out the D&E Contract which runs until September 1981. We feel it would be to our best interest to a71ow this transfer to take place. Paul Johnston moved that the Council approve this transfer. Second by Wi1to. Town Attorney Report: The Town was-sued by I-70 Towing over a dispute they were having with D&E for the storage of some towed-cars there and we got served with a complaint for $1,000. We are now 'in the process of handling this complaint. Bill Wilto moved that the meeting be adjourned. S I MFLY 0 R ~ Attested To: ~'vl/~~~'~-( Town Clerk ~iaw~ of rail ,~ ~~ ~: ORDINANCES- -AND -RESOLUTIONS -- --- .. ----------- - ._-- - --__..._.~.__~.__.. --._.-. - _.-._-._. _ _.. (x} PRESENTATION OF REPORT FROM_THE COUNCIL DISTRICT REVIEW _COM.MITTEE. t~} ORDINANCE #11., SERIES DF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONE- DISTRICT. CC Z I I FOR -NEWLY ANNEXED AREA . - _ ~ _ (3} ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST-READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON NEWLY ANNEXED. LAND EXCEP'T'ING CCIiI, COUNTY-APPROVED PROJECTS AND HTGIiLAND- MEADOWS SLTBDIVISIDN:: ~-~= ~~-~ (4} ORDINANCE #1.3, SERIES DF 19$1, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING 7DNING ON PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IIY EAGLE COUNrS`Y.. .. (5} ORDINANGE #1.4, SERIES OF 19$1, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DN IiiGIiLAND MEADOWS-SUBDIVISION. - - - (6} ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OI+'~1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 1.3 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 1.3.D4 TIIE f9W" WATERSHED DISTRICT. (7} ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 1.981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AR~iENDING TITLE 5 OF THE VAIL ~'iUNICIPAL CODE WITH THE ADDITI.OIV OF CHAPTEI?~ ~ . ~8 RELATING TU FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; INCLUDING LICENSING TI~.EREDF, DEFINI- TIONS, TEES, ^FFENSES, SANITARY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREI4IENTS FOR LICENSING, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION DF .~ LICENSES AND MATTERS RELATING TIIERETO. ($} ORDINANCE #10, SERIES or 1.981, SECOND READING, AN DRDTNANCE AMENDING, THE BUSINESS LICENSE. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, PARCH 3, x9$1 7:30 P.M. box 160 • Valk, calarada 81657 0 $03 A76.5613 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (9 j APPEAL OT' PEG DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OT' LOT 8 , L3LOCK 3 , BIGIiORN 3RD FILING. - .. (lQ} APPEAL DF EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST OF TIIE STT~MARK LODGE. ~' TOWN MANAGER REPORT - ` - -, -- - . s TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNhiENT- L RICIIARD CAPI~AN, C ~ ~~~~-~ TO~i PAII7AGER • ~~ TC ~_ ~-~/ VAIL TaWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:39 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, 1987_ The Vail Town Council-convened for its regular meeting at 7:3n p.m. on Tuesday, March 3, 7,981, in the Vail Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal. Building. The following Council members and Mayor Rodney E. Slifer were present Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Dr, Tom Steinberg Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Absent: Ron Todd Also present were Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney, and Richard Caplan, Town Manager. First item on the agenda was a presentation from Joe Staufer, Chairman-- elect of the Counca-l District Review Committee. Mr. Staufer gave his report and stated that the Committee had voted 7 -- 2 in favor of not Y districting at this time. John Siverly and Siri Campbell were the two voting in favor ^f districting and Siri. Campbell read a letter she and John Siverly had written giving their reasons as to their vote. Frank Caroselli stated that the committee had not spent enough time on the review and felt the Council. should reject the report and restudy the issue. Mayor Slifer stated that the Council would take the report under advisement-and would get back to the people at the next meeting. Bud Benedict stated that he felt the committee had done a good job with what they had to work with and stated that there had been very little interest from the public in applicants willing to serve on the committee. The next item on the agenda was the presentation o~ four West Vail zoning ordinances -- #'s 11, 12, 13 and 14. Mayor Slifer read the titles of each of the four ordinances and then went back for discussion of each one. The first ordinance presented was Ordinance #11. Dick Ryan, Community Development Director, addressed the Council and presented this ordinance to them. Commercial Care III is the area bounded on the west by the Inn - at West Vail and bounded on the east by the Brandess Building. Area is currently zoned commercial. in the county with the exclusion of the two service stations which will be discussed later. It is proposed that this area be rezoned into a much broader use zone than we have for CCI and GGII. The reason for this being that this is really the community business none of the Gore Valley plus heavy shopping trade outside of the Gore Valley. Mr. Ryan outlined the area gust described on the map for the Council.. Doug M~Laughlin, owner of Lot ~a along with Tim Garton, Tom Harding and Arthur Kelton, expressed regarding the zonizag of this lot which lies ,just east of the CCIII zoned property. The staff is proposing zoning Lots d0, 47., '7, S and 9 as one unit of residental cluster. Mr. McLaughlin felt that this ignores the fact that Lots 41, 7, 8, 9, 1d, 11 and 12 are all built, the least of which are 15~ units per acre. He felt that when you take these lots and downzone them two levels below their present construction and including Lot 4d it puts them in a peculiar position. He would like to see Lot d0 zoned commercial. If not zoned commercial he felt he should be zoned something similar to the lots up to the Roast Lodge are. Mr. Ryan stated the county zoning on this is RSM which is 5.5 units per acre before the annexation took place. He felt that the residential cluster zoning is very comparable ~,,~ to the zoning the County had given it and should not be upzoning the property. He felt they were not downzoning the land at all. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 2 Mr, n+lcLaughlin stated that all of the zoning in that area had changed from what the County had originally planned. He presented a county zoning map which should the way these lots had been zoned originally. Laurie Goodell from Buffer Creek subdivision directly behind Lot 40 representing residents of Buffer Creek stated their oppositon to changa.ng the zoning of Lot 40 to commercial. She stated that the area was a quiet, residential area with permanent family dwellings and a lot of children. There is a lot of traffic in the area because of the commercial area there now. She felt it would downgrade the enjoyment of their property as well as the value of the property. She would like to request that the Town consider purchasing that lot and making it into a park wha~ch is needed in that area. Mr. McLaughlin stated that they would be more than happy to sell that piece of property to the Town and had talked to the Town about it a couple of years ago. Marko Moser, a.~resident of Buffer Creek, stated that she would also like to on record in opposition of any zone change to upgrade Lot 40 to a commercial zone. public As there were no other comments, Mr. Slifer closed out the/discussion on Ordinance #11.. Mr. Wilto commented that if this is zoned residential cluster that would not stop him from coming in at a later date with a more specific plan and requesting a variance at that time. Mr. Slifer stated that the one concern he had was the amount of traffic on the frontage road now and what it would be like with another commercial building on it. Ordinance #12 was then presented to the Council by Peter Patten, Zoning Administrator. Pdr. Patten outlined the property in question on the zoning map, that being on the northside of the highway, 6G 1ot and Cliffside subdivision. The proposed zoning for this area is residential cluster zoning. Mr. Patten stated that Lat 40 was held back from the Planning Commission recommendation for a week for further discussion at its meeting of Monday, March 2. Their recommendation was consistent with staff's recommendation that it be residential cluster. - Mr. Slifer asked for comments from the floor. Doug McLaughlin stated that just for the record it be stated that he was opposed to Ordinance #1.1. Mr. Patten continued with the staff's recommendations: Vail Heights, Etc. -- primary/secondary recommendation by Staff and Planning Commission. - duplex zoned district. Vail City Corporation - agricultural zoned recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. /and open space Service Stations - 3 stations zoned heavy service distract. Matterhorn Village, Vail Village West, Gore Trading Co., - all of the area with the exception of the Highland Meadows subdivision. Recommendation froth Staff and Planning Commission is primary/secondary. Peter Gosgriff, representing the Gore Trading Co, which owns a small tract of land bordering on Gore Creek and surrounded on all three sides by Highland Meadows 1 & 2. Gore Creek Trading Co. requesting they be given same zoning as the surrounding property - Highland Meadows. It was the owner's understanding that this property was duplex zoned. -.~ Want to be consistent with property around them. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3, 1981 Page 3 Pet Ltd. - primary/secondary recommended by Staff and Planning Commission. Mary McClintock, representing Pet Ltd., presented the Council with a plan that was submitted to the Countyfor approval. She stated that last year she signed a purchase agreement to purchase one acre of land in West Vail. She spoke with the Zoning Department in Eagle and was told there would be no problem in rezoning this RSM, that everything in the area was RSM. She asked at that time what affect the annexation would have on the zoning and was told that if her property was in the process of being built and she had her site plans in that it would be considered "in process". The zoning was approved in July of 1980. The hearing date was set for November, but because of the floodplain permit coming into effect, they wouldn;t be able to approve the plans in November. She then went to EPA and got information necessary to obtain a floodplain permit and filed it in November. She felt that it was unfair for the Town to rezone her property. She stated she would only get four units because of the floodplain. If her requested is granted, she would have cluster zoning with same number of units. Feter Patten stated that the reason they f eIt Primaxy/Secondary was appropriate was the size of the buildable area of the lat. Very conducive to duplex units. Vail Intermountain, except Block 10 ~- primary/secondary recommended by Staff and Planning Comr~lission. Jeff Flagg, a landowner in Intermountain, addressed the Council regarding the appropriateness of primary/secondary zoning for the area. He stated that the purposes of the down zoning category stated it was a primary dwelling unit with a caretaker unit attached. He stated that the people who live in the Intermountain area are all "caretakers" as workers and locals in the valley. He stated that he has 6/1,0 of an acre zoned primary/secondary would give him 4500 sq. ft. of GRFA, two thirds./one Baird would allow him to build one 1604 sq. ft. unit and one 3200 sq, ft. unit. No one would want to buy the 3200 sq. ft. unit in Intermountain. ~~e suggested a conditional use be permitted within the primary/secondary zoning requirement. He stated what conditions would be allowed in such a zoning. Frank Caroselli commented on the primary/secondary zoning. He stated that West Vail has now become the employee residential community, if you weren't able to obtain housing in the core area West Vail was the next area to try, He stated that the Council. could pass a resolution accepting the present status of zoning through ~'7est Vail until the Council had enough time to observe the area and make a sensible, intelligent decision. A question from the citizens was raised, "What is the value of primary/ secondary over duplex zoning?" Mr. Slifer stated the purpose of primary/secondary was to eliminate the large, mirror-type images of duplexes, to create some long-term housing. As an example, the Booth Creek area was noted, as large lots and large buildings. Bill Wilto stated that several homes on the golf course area were a good example of primary/secondary zoning. Ms. Caroselli asked why we had to have a blanket primary/secondary zoning as each project had to go before the Design Review Board. Why not keep it as a duplex situation, where a person could sell something to pay for his half of the unit and take care of some of the people that aren't just employees that are trying to stay here for rest of their lives and perhaps parlay land as a lot of the members of the council. had done .. She stated that residents of West Vail wexe forced to except the responsibility of the mistake that has been made in the core as far as employee housing is concerned. Mr, Slifer stated that the same zoning ordinance applied to members of the Council as it did to all others. He also stated that the De~i~gn Review Board does not have the power to make the sides dissimilar VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ~, TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1.9$1 ' 7:30 P.M. i ~.~~ ~ o ~,~ ~1~3 bOX 1OQ s V~1~, GO~OfaC~O $1657 a 30347656'k8 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION'S (1} PRESENTATION OF REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL DISTRICT REVIEW COMI~4ITTEE. (2) ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONE DISTRICT CCIII FOR NEWLY ANNEXED AREA. (3) ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 3..981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON NEWLY ANNEXED LAND EXCEPTING CCIII, COUNTY APPROVED PR0~3ECTS AND HIC#I-ILAND h1EADOWS SUBDIVISION. (4) ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 19$1, FIRST READING, AN ORDIi~7IlI`TCE IMPOSING ZONING ON PRO~jECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY EAGLE COUNTY. (5) ORDINANCE 71.4, SERIES OF 1D 81, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE I14IFOSING ZONING ON HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. (6} ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING CI:IAPTEP~ `!3.04 THE "I'V" [YATERSIiED DISTRICT . (7) ORDINAI~TCE ,x`15, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST• READING, AN ORPII~?1'AIdCE AMENDING TITLE ~~ OIL THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE .WITH THE ADDl•TIC'N U~:~' CHAPTER. 5.25 RFLATINCx TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; INCLUDING LICENSING 'i'Iii~,REOF, DEFINI- TIONS, FEES,- OFFIJNSES, SANITARY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIR'~i41.raNTS FOR LICENSING, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, SUSPENSION AND RE~IOCA":LION Ole LICENSES AND MATTERS RELATING THERETO. (8) ORDINANCE #1Q , SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORi~i:IeTAIdCE ArYIENDING TIIE BUSINESS LICENSE. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (9} APPEAL OF PEC DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF LOT 3, ULOCK 3, BIGHORN 3RD FILING. (1.0) APPEAL OF EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST OF TIiI~ S ITZMARI~ LODGE . TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNAiENT • ' ~.~~~~~ L ` G~~~~~ RICIIARD CAI:7LAN, 'i'O~S~I`I MANAGER VArL TOWN COUNCIL ~ WORK SESSION MARC~I 3 , 19 81. 2:00 P.M. 1. Discussion of Pe~~i's Sports Alterations. 2. Discussion of Horizontal Zoning. 3. PEC Items. 4. Executive Session. ~r- Ir ~' !f i F~, C } 'i {, ~, ,~~ ~ G ~ r ~. i -~ , t' '' l~ 9 /' ~ ~:. ~~ ~ ~. ~ ,~ ~_ ~~ x~v -~ `t.. ~~~-: ~~~ ~: Yu•~,~F i ~ ~ T ~ 11~ I~~~II1~~~~ ACCC71~/IMO©ATIC7NS, AGTIVITII~S, 'I"RAP~lSI~'C~RTAT'ION P. O. E3UX X69 D VAIL, COLORADO 8 7 657 1303) 476-1 ~3t1 March 4, 1981. Ms . L,znda Kaiser ~unx'ise, I.,td ~i75 Li.onshead Place Vail. , Colorado 81.65 i Dear Ms. Kaiser: I just received your letter and petition abaut the praposed increase of the Town o:~ Vail business license from X25.00 to $100.00. This 300% increase is simply too i~~uch and I support your petition. Tf, as you sugY;est, the Town wishes to extract $100,000 from the business community, ~ihy on earth did the Town give $1.00,000 to the Vail Resort Association which supposedly is the Vail business community? As you told me, Paula P~.lmateer made the statement at the :E'ebruary 2~ Town meet.i ng that tl~e majari.ty of its merr~bers supported this increase. However, very few people I have talked. to favor the increase and none of them were polled by the VRA. I can't believe that VTiA would fabricate membex• support as quid pro quo for its X100,000 grant from the To~,vx;; of Vail.. Or, is the 'M`own sim~15~ tryinE; to cover this qu~:stio~zable grant in a low revenue year? Certainly food I'or thought? Finally, as you icnow, eve booY~~ many thousands of guests into Vail s4 'X can tell you of increasing re4~i:~tance to Vai1's high (and ever- risin~;•) prices. vatura.lly an increased business license cost will. ultimately cantributc~ -ta higYier pricc,s and nnil;ht we11 turn out to Y.~e the proverbial "goose that breaks thy; golden egg". Since~r.•el~yl, f ~ rJ'! /~~ .. ~~.~ ~' ` f ` r ~~•A -4r - I~ . 0 . Pene]~oyc: Iloclge Enc/ Pet iti_o>!i cc : 1Zicl~ard f:~~plan Va1.]. '1'i za.l. '7`h e News f f~ ~\. ,~ ' . . t ~~ tls 1 ~ ~~ ~~ H . ~ 'FJ Q9 N CO t~ rt q A! r' H (D W N t+ ;:7` ro t-t3 t4 ro M t7 +-~ W N 4-' ro U~ N t-' N" (i N N ;, ro ~ 5 ,.,,. h ~ r' 1 a 4 ~ _~ ~ ~~ 1 //,f ~' f v ~/ .I L~ ~~ ~ y~ ,~ ~ ~.. . s r! .,r ~. ~~ ~ . ~~u~~~~~~e W ;_ °~ `~ --.. .. _ y 1 .•~_ ~~ ,- - ~ f~ ~, _ ~ _ - yy..,~,,,, ~- . c~- ~ ~.~ , % 'Z ., ." rev` ~ °~ ~~l ..~:. / , N"J7 ...... . ~ ~ ~=: i /~ ~jf,~ f ' ~ .._ -_- ~. .~~c_e_.. . ; ~ :~~~ . , ;. • , r~~ -~-- - ~~~,~ ~, .~ ~~-CG,'C? ~-~ ~'~,~~°~'(-- CSC-?C.~ -.:~ ~. ~J ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~~L.~t~ ~~ .~ :.~ 1 ~~ ~ =' ~. ~s^~. ~ r {~ l\ f t ., L A Y I ~ v: Y ~ i_. .. +.~f~ . . ~ 1 ~~ I :~ _ ., ~ ~ y i, s f ~ 'i ~ i +" .. .~ .F a r - ,. -~ Cti _ ~ ~ ' . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ `1[ ,._ -~' v~ ? ~ ~~ ~_,: ~~ ~~~ ~., .~ , ~~~~~ ~~~ - . r, 1., .. ,. _ ..-age n ryb -,y .y ..,d.. ~ ~.._ .. ~,,. ... ... ' ~, -. - ~ 1 • R ~ ,;: I •'am op~~osfjcl to nn increase in the ice for ~ husi~n~ss license in Vail. .~ ,' .~. .. . ,. ~.~..~..JYiMYa1~Yf~1~ i~,m ~.u a ~.., .~ risr .~.~~ ~. ~,. ~ ~~ •.I .~: . , .~~~ ~l ~'~-~e~ ~ /~r Psi r.~ ~ ~ ~"~ <~ ! ~ ~ ,~~ ~'~~f .. •~~~- • ' % -e . Nameof business /' ! ~ ` PCC ;81110 ~,~„~., ~,.,~,,,~~~~ ti~ .... ~ ... V .. . .. - ,, . - ~ ~~ j~ _ (l1 ... . . .. ..r ~r ~ /L~c~'~l~s-cJ /~'/ _ c_3e.C~9~//~7 ~/~1,~ ~~/'c'~~~ C.~^~7 Name o£ tius'riness Name . -_ . . rte, ~~1~ ._ ..: '. .: • ~ Tame ~' „~._.~ • ' .,-_v__.~. .. ..w__~~...._. ~. ----- ~ 1 C - -----____ dame ~£ business "N ain e ~"-w -~ 1 / , ., ~~ . , ._._w_ Name. `" ~/ Name o£ business '~ • .. ..., -- -'~;~~ ~ ~~ Name of t u mess Name of, busines -: .~~_ _ .~~~ ~ ' • u~ `~ Name o£ business ~" ~ ~ .~'i.~.z ~ ,...~r n..~~Name ofl business ` . ~,~d Namo Name o£ business , '`. ... .. y;E . .t , .' .. sf, .jr-: . Name l~ ,. ~ ~ a j t ~' .,.,.. ~ p " Name of business Y ~C~U ,~o/~ %~ ~c~ . ~~ \~Name 1~fame of husinessi ~,~ ._ ._.. ~~...w_~~a .._e...e..._,,,.,.e.~_._.., _.__.__._.._.~..._... .1 _ '!; • ~ - p ~ Name of business ', -~ -r, ~ ..... Tame / ~ ,,. ~..~_ - . ~.. ...~~ __..~_._a, ~Z ~~ ~_ ~- 0 ,r°"1 hP~ ~e~_ '~-~--' ~ - Name of b~isiness -~ ' ~ Vie- ~f~~-- r _ ~ ~ .O ~ c~ - - ~ Q-~-~..w.,. _ ,. _.___.~....,_ ......:.:: -~:~~.d_~ .Nance ./ „~,„ ..v .........~» • •- `~\ ~ -~~~,~` ~ _ ~ _ Name of b~~siness . ';•;-~&n1e ~ i Name of business ~. ` ,. , , . , .,,. m_: ~~., ~ii.s~vt.+k#*~. a , .,,...........^,.-..~.sa~.,~L.~.,... .. .,.a~...~,...a._._._,.. __m_...,,.._..__.....ALa.1~l.Gd.~nf hiz c i ~pq~. ._ s • ... ~)) .. ~. ~t~,kie ,:, 7 ,„ . . .. N b . ,. am usi ., ~~, ... ne ~_ ,,'` ~ ~ ... ~ ~ .. Name ~.. ~ ~ Na . . , me o G~L~i~ , ~• % ~~ . • 4,., ~.4~' u ' 'H[3J[1C-` ' ' NremC c) 11 :; 1. S7E;SS .. ~ ~ ~} ~, .. .r . ~ , .. ._... -_----- - _, _. .,~ ~, ~. .. ; . , - w..:+:,x-o...,, ,.,.. ..,,...:,tinyo~a+urr~._. ...... •r.w.,w»... ~..lh..,.' . ' _~.~ Y. ..~ I - ._- T '`~ °' r,_,e,~L„1.. _.w_.._. _.~..,..~_.~. _.._--- --- - .. _ _...__ _.... _.....i1,~.tmr- n _..i~S.~yt1L~ ¢p pw ,~~"t~ z Ste: ~ 1!A{~"` c';~~ i}~65~r ~ .s~ ~~ ,~ ~~ - ~• - - . . rims Narnc n£ ints:i~tess 4 . ,~ e J l Name - Nrlmc o£ ht~siness~ ; r S .., ~.......~u.. '. ' N ie ~ Name of htrsiness --- ... t (~,n:J~.~~~t . fI\ ~~W ~~~'l~ -----~! ~ S `~ U tr.. ~~ ! ~ ~ 4 irrt.. d ~v' !~~ ati ' ~,~ ~ _ Name o£ ht~5zness . ,~ ~ ~ . 1 ,~Rl~' d , , • ' p,_ ~ Q ,' 1, ~ •~.~..lsr~~,... ~~~ ~~~~-r.~-c~...~ ~ ~.~~ ~2+,~..~ ~ ~..~..~?-tYU~C7~1L.Z,.~ . ...,~ .. t_,r~~_______.__. _ r .... -... _.__ _._.. ,.=._~. - - Name o£ business~~ __, y.,_..._ ...____~...~~. .. • . e ,, ... .. - --- _ .._ .___ . r . ^ ~ r e' _ ~, ~' M _ _ _ ._.._e._ _._____..___.____ ___~__.._.__.._...__..._.._.....__, _...._....._..._.__.._..._~_......_ ' j` --- _,:. , -- . .. ~ i~ .. ~__.__ , -~...,,Wa~_..:~._ Lr ~......., Name O£ ht~S1F1~55 .... r ~_ ` ' , ~' :_.__ .3 i Hart C' ~ at17cA 'O£ hUS 11eS5 ~ . • ~ v • .. , "i:Ji i/n. •A .~~"""~, ~aT1te ., , • . ; , ~ ~. .. ~ '~. ~. °~ 'Name ,..~ _ .-_-~ .__.v,v~.~..-_....___. ~-_.....~_,. ,. -~ , -Name. C ~-----~ ;~~trne f bus5.ne_ s ~ ,~ ~ ~~~ ~ L. lei ~ ~ /~G~= i •~ ~~ ~~ ~ / '. ~,. ~f ~r • r`~ .~ ~ -~ f -~ ~~~~ Na ~ f bus Tess ` ~,, j~.~II ; l~37 Gt-~ r ._- f 5 ~~~ ------ a E' O£ ~1t151[leSS /~ - ~....~b .._,,...~..~ ~ . ..,...m.,~.;., _ .... ,..._ . r...~~. .... ,.kK .. _.. „~, __ . - me . • -_ ~ t/ ~ ,' ~ ' ~ v~~ ~_ , N~3me f business ~ ~.......~~ , ., .- .Name •-., --~,. _M~ ~r_ ~ .- Y r •. 't' i~ . ~ ._.~__~ ... -~ ...- --.._...__-~..e~-._,_ _.._. ..~ ., ___p. -_.._-.-._,._., __.._..--_m ..._ _T ~• TEC; y ~__._~._.__..~__...._._._ ~''' ~-- Name o£ business . ~ Name . ~_ :- ~ ~ ~u. ~ ~ ~ Name of bus~.TZess 1 LL ~ ~ t ~~ ,, j .,. ...• M~ v (~, y • ~ ----.~~...._ ,__..w, _ ,.. _G, ..., , «~_..~ . _.... ~ .. _~-,.. ~. x _.._ ww... '' Name __.~_ ..~ ~ ~~ C.~., F~ ~ ~ Name ,~ G ~~ ~,~~~ N~,~-z ~_.-, . i7v s '-y L/f} • ,d •• ~, N amp o bti s i n e s .~..~.-.-~-.~.~..--_ i ~-~~,. ~~~ ~ Name of business ~. -a,`~ _~~ ~.. .. ~. f -~~ . l`` /N~ ;.tr,~'e of business !, ~ ! ,,{ , l % fr . t1 ~~ / J ~..... ~ .. -. .~~._~.....~w...._.-..W...._..r....M._..._........_... ~ ~;. -. - --v- _... ~~ .-~--1--------- ~ -_....__ N.ume. p£._.l~usiness~-~------•---_.,_.,, • '• , / 4 . ..~ Kama Name of ~hsinas ! /J C./ . r ~ ~. ~'L4.. - ._.. _-_.._.._,__..--..._.~.,~.~„r< ice/ ~~:. • .~Na.7ite name hu_ mess ... . • ~~ • :1~an~e Nr:t e o£ husi.ness .. ...._..w- .~-.....__- -.....-_ ~._.-..~rt...~.w.~_-.__._. ..._...._.-- _. v~ ~j . ~ m ~~,~~ ~, ~~~~~ ~ Narnc of business ,.. .. .. ., . . - _ -~..._..__.~-._..~..~.....A~~r......_..__-, .. _..,...~... ,~~-.~M~,~.w~..w_, ......... ~,._.._-~.._.-.~,. d ~.. _ N fie =-`- ~~- ~ -.~; • f' N~ttne a.f busi~es$-_~~,,~~. .--- `t -_.. _.._~...._ ...-_... . ~. .._.-..~.~_.,.a-~__._~.,- __. _....... .. ~ amo f bus-ir~,~.;z -----~ -... •. ~V ame _.-_w_-_.._......-..,__-.-. --- - - -- ~.._..___..-_ _ . , --~. ~ 6 ., ' ~J.~'7~l-C~ ~~ ~ ame of busi.~leS~. ~......: N ~ -... .......... _-_.,_..e ,m.,.~..a.._,.~.._.. _..~............ __.. ' r. - •~ ~•~ r _ .:. '. Nag N~am/e~~af business .. ,f: , ~- . ~ .~ • - ~ 1 atn apposed to an increase in T}re :[`ee fox' ~ business license in Vaal. ; ' . , . _~l{/ l ~ ,i r ~ 1 U ~~ /~~C~ ~~ .. ~.:.~ ~ . _ .,.,a.~,..~. .. . _~_ . ~, . vn-. . j ~r.~.. :~3EiP ...i3am~ - ~ ~:i~aitte Name of business • ~ ~ ~- is-~. ,L.~ • ~ k1 ~ '. • i .. ~ ~/ VATL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING _ TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1.981 7:30 P.M. •towa of nail • ~J box ioo . Waif, calorac4o a~s5~ sos.a~s-ss~s ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (1) ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE VATL MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 13.04 THE "W" WATERSHED DISTRICT. (2) ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1981., SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONE DISTRICT CCIII FOR NEWLY ANNEXED AREA. (3) ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON NEWLY ANNEXED LAND EXCEPTING CCIII, COUNTY APPROVED PRO- JECTS AND HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. (4) ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1.981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY EAGLE COUNTY. (5} ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (Ca) APPEAL OF PEC DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN 3RD FILING. (7} APPEAL OF RED LION ADDITION. ($) 1980 ANNUAL REPORT ON THE LIBRARY. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT lr`yI'~~~ ~ CLS. RICHARD CAPLAN , ~I'OWN~ MANAGER MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL March 17, 1981 Regular Meeting On Tuesday, March l7, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 P.M, in tho Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney Slifer Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bob Rude r Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bill Wilto OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney Dick Ryan, Director of Community Development Mayor Slifer called the meeting to order with the first order of business being a resolution honoring April 11, 1981 as the "9 Health Fair Day". He then gave a brief explanation of what that entailed. Bud Benedict made a motion for approval; second by Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Mayor Slifer introduced Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1981, second reading into the record. Richard Caplan noted that there had been a change on Page 5, which the Council requested, which changed the minimum fee to $50. He also noted that a member from the Denver Water Board would attend a Council meeting sometime in April. A motion to approve Ordinance No. 2 was made by Paul Johnston; second by Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded. Ordinances 11, 12, 13 & 14 were read into the record by Mayor Slifer. Slifer then noted that the Council had made another tour of the West Vail area since their last work session. Dick Ryan gave a brief explanation in which he noted that in Ordinance No. 12, the land of Pet Ltd had been changed to Residential Cluster. He then outlined some of the other changes within the various ordinances. Comments were heard from Jay Peterson and Jim Jacobson. The discussion turned to Highland Meadows and the Gore Creek Trading Company parcel whereby Ruder and Wilto expressed their concern about the steepness of the lots. Dick Ryan noted that the only change to Ordinance No. 13 was that the staff recommended the addition of Item J whereby the lots in the Cliffside Subdivision would be allowed a minimum GRFA of 2,000 square feet each, There was no comment from either the Council or the public. Dick Ryan noted the staff's and the Planning Commission's recommendations for zoning the property in Ordinance No. 14. Staff recommended primary/secondary and the Planning Commission recommended residential. There was discussion from various property owners in the subdivision as we11 as from Joe Stauffer, who commented on the zone district of primary/secondary. Frank Caroselli quostioned whether the zone district primary/secondary was a down-zoning of the property. Slifer felt that it was not. Larry Rider then noted Peter Cosgriff's concerns about the Gore Creek Trading Company's property which surrounds the Highland Meadows Subdivision. Minutes Vail Town Council March 17, 1981 Page Two Dick Ryan outlined the area contained in Ordinance No. 11 and noted that Lot 40 was not included in the proposed zone district of CCII1. Doug Mc Laughlin expressed his views as did Lori Goodell, a property owner in the Gore Creek Subdivision. She presented a petition to the Council against the CCIII zoning and a petition as we11 as a proposal for a park in the Buffer Creek area. There was no further discussion of this ordinance. Ordinance No. 12. Bud Benedict made a motion fox approval; second by Ron Todd. The motion failed. Bob Ruder made a motion to approve Ordinance Na. 12 with two chances: the Gare Creek Trading Company parcel. to be zoned primary/secondary and the Pet Ltd. parcel to be zoned primary/secondary with the balance of the land to remain as stated in the Ordinance. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A 5-2 vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Ordinance No. 13. Mayor Slifer outlined the property affected by Ordinance No. 13 and noted the staff's suggested amendment of Item J. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve with ordinance with the amendment; second by Todd. The motion carried unanimously. Ordinance No. 14. Mayor Slifer outlined the property affected by Ordinance No. 14. Wi1to made a motion for approval with the zoning to be residentia~;second by Todd. After some discussion by the Council, a vote was taken whereby the motion failed. Bob Ruder then made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 14 with the area to be zoned primary/secondary; second by Steinberg. There was some comment from Tim Garton and Dave Schumaker against the primary/secondary zoning. Comments from other members of the public and Council were also heard. The motion to have primary/secondary zoning sailed. Ron Todd then made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 14 with the residential zoning and that Tracts B & C be zoned agricultural/open space. Slifer stated that he would support the motion with the provision that the Design Review Board not allow mirror image duplexes. The motion was seconded by Bud Benedict. The motion passed 5W2 with Ruder and Steinberg opposed. Ordinance No. 11. Mayor Slifer noted that the owners of Lot 40 had requested that it be included in the CCIII zone district and that a petition had been submitted to exclude Lot 40 from the CCITT district. Tim Garton, co-owner of Lo.t 40, expressed his desire to be included in CCIII. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 11 and to include Lot 40 in the CCTTI zoning district; second by Wilto. A unanimous vote was taken. Mayor Slifer and Cauhcil extended their thanks to the staff and the Planning Commission for their work in the West Vail zoning process. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Mayor Slifer stated that the applicant had requested that the appeal of Planning Commission's decision of the variance request of Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing be tabled as he was unable to attend. Wilto made a motion to table; second by Todd. A unanimous vote was recorded. F1o.~Steinberg commented that the Councilmen didn't speak up and therefore, couldn't be heard. She also questioned why some members didn't have personalized name plates on their microphones. • Minutes Vail Town Council March 17, 1981 Page Three Red Lion Appeal Dick Ryan introduced the Red Lion Appeal and noted that two appeals had been presented which the Planning Commission heard on February 9, 1981. The Planning Commission approved the exterior modifications and alterations as were proposed by the Red Lion Inn. He then outlined the proposed changes: an additional 2,980 square feet of commercial space on the first floor; three additional dwelling units of approximately 3,580 square feet which would be on the second floor of the new addition. Ryan outlined the staff's findings and recommendations and how the proposed plan fit into the Urban Design Considerations. Slifer noted that the Council had received four requests that the Council review the Planning Commission's findings. Jeff Selby, co-owner of the Red Lion, made some comments and then introduced Bi11 Rouff, architect of the proposed improvements, to make the presentation. Rouff gave a lengthy, detailed presentation whereby he touched on many items including, among others, the Urban Design Considerations and affected view corridors. At the end of Rauff's presentation, the Council had no questions or comment s, and discussion was open to the public. Various specific questions were asked including: what was the advantage of adding three dwelling units; did the owner have any specific retail uses in mind for the new shops; how long the construction would take; etc. Rouff stated that the plan for construction would be to start the day after the slopes close and to have the "super structure" enclosed by Thanksgiving. George Knox questioned the affected view corridor and how it would affect the view to "Gold Peak". Other specific questions related to police and fire codes; how the structure would affect the sun on Bridge Street in the morning; and the visual impacts to Gore Creek. Discussion was then opened to general comments and concerns of the public. Jack Curtain, representing Curtain-Hill and Mrs. Courtland Hi11, felt that the proposed addition would inhibit movement around Seibert Circle, would cut off the walkway to the Mill Creek Commercial Building and would not, as the developer proposed, increase the pedestrianization traffic flow, would impact the sun exposure on Bridge Street and that the proposed addition would impact the "Curtain-Hill" view corridor. Also representing the two doctors who had written the Council opposing the Red Lion's approval, he stated that the views from their penthouse:units would be impacted by the addition. Jay Peterson felt that all the previous standards that people had been made to follow in the past regarding development were basically being "thrown out the window". Curtain closed by saying that it was his opinion, as well as Mrs. Hill`s and the two doctors, that the Urban Design Guidelines had not been fairly followed. Roger Numan, an attorney representing the Plaza Lodge, corrected Mrs. Hill's letter of appeal by stating that her objection was under Section 1860.070 and asked that the correction be made for the record. He then submitted five exhibits to the Council: Exhibit 1, Ordinance No. 16; Exhibit 2, Ordinance No. 21; Exhibit 3,' letter dated 12/18/80 from Mr. Ryan to Jeff Selby; Exhibit 4, minutes of the 2/9/81 Planning Commission meeting; Exhibit 5, restrictive covenants of the Vail Village Filing No. 1. Mrs. Joanna Hill stated her objections and concerns. Mr. Numan then gave an explanation of his exhibits and how they were pertinent to the discussion and appeal process. Julia Takahashi, an architect, was the next witness for the Plaza Lodge's objections. She stated her views about what she thought the "essence of Vail" was,and felt that the Town was setting a new precedent with the new Urban Design Guidelines which was not equitable. She then gave a small presentation of what the Plaza Lodge felt would be a more suitable roof structure. Minutes Vail Town Council March 17, 1981 • Page Four Max Garrett, friend of Joanna Hill, spoke to Mrs. Hill's and the Plaza Lodge's impacted view and referred to Exhibit 5 as well as the Urban Design Guidelines. Mr. Garrett felt that the Tawn had a responsibility to ensure that existing restrictive covenants were being upheld and that maybe an architectural control. committee should be enacted to protect and see that those restra,ctions were being carried out. A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Garrett closed by asking the Council not to permit the taking away of the Plaza Lodge's view to the Gore Range. Shirley Freeze, owner in the Mill Creek Court Building, voiced her concerns about the Red Lion Addiion, how it would affect their views and its impact on the already existing traffic congestion. The owner of Christy Sports spoke to the economic impact that construction has in the summer months. Jay Peterson spoke to the Urban Design Guidelines and supported the Planning Commission's decision. John Muler expressed his views. Mark Cadmus, shop owner in Vail, felt that the additional shops to the Red Lion were going to be a plus and supported the remodeling plans. Frank Caroselli responded to Jay Peterson. Ed Drager supported the remodeling. Diana Donovan felt that the Planning Commission had not upheld the Town's rules and regulations. Ella Knox felt that building has got to stop in Vail. Dick Ryan responded to some of the exhibits ~b,hat had been presented by Mr. Numan and defended the Urban Design Guidellnns and the staff's position on the proposed improvements. Jeff Selby stressed that they were not asking to change Seibert Circle, commented on the construction constraints imposed by the Town staff, and felt as property owners they also had rights. Comments from Council included Wilto's support of the project and Ruder's support. Slifer voiced his concern about the view corridors and opposed the second story of the structure. Steinberg was also concerned with the impact on the view corridor and felt that the second story ought to be redesigned, Todd understood the importance of preserving the views but felt that people aught to compromise. As there was no further comments, Rod Todd made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision; second by Ruder. A 4--2 vote was taken in favor of the motion. Slifer and Steinberg were opposed and Bud Benedict abstained. 1980 Annual Report on the Library This was postponed. Larry Rider voiced his concern about the between the Plaza Building and the Casino Bu new deck addition. He felt that the Council up for a hearing. A motion was made by Paul Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded to review. addition of a building ilding as well as the should call the matter Johnston; second by call this issue up for TOWN MANAGER REPORT: ~Ilayor Slifer noted that the Council, at their work session,: h.ad reviewed the report from the Districting Committee and they concurred with the report. A member from the audience felt that the Council should invite some of the school children to a meeting so that they could see the democratic form of government in process. Minutes Vail Town Council March 17, 1981 • Page Five TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT: None Diana Donovan questioned the Council as to how they are going to eni'orce construction restrictions and deal with the violators. She also wanted them to think about how year alter year construction affects the citizens and shop owners in Vail. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: T n lerk ~' ~~ ~~.~ ~+Ia for '~ ~HNO al nail VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 7, 1981 ?:30 P.M. box goo + vail, Colorado $~s57 303.4765633 i ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (1) ORDINANCE #17, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1980 SUPPLEMENT TO THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE. (2} ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PERSON SERVICE OUTLETS IN CCI AND CCII. (3) ORDINANCE #16, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDITION; SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF ROOFS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL. {4} RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 1981, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DEVELOP- MENT OF COUNTY WATER STORAGE FACILITIES. (5) RESOLUTION #10, SERIES OF 1981, A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE WESTERN SLOPE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (6) APPEAL OF PEC DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN 3RD FILING. (7} APPEAL OF RED LION-INN DECISION BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. (8} APPEAL OF PEC DECISION REGARDING CASOLAR, LOT 12, REQUEST FOR VARIANCE. {9} CALL UP OF GARTON'S DECK PROJECT. {10} AMENDMENT TO THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR THE AREA BETWEEN PLAZA LODGE AND THE CASINO BUILDING. (11} APPOINTMENT OF LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEMBER. (12) APPOINTMENT OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBER. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT /w i~iGG~'+! RICHARD CAPLAN, TOW MANAGER _~ MiNBTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 7, 1981 7:30 p.m. O~Tuesday, April 7, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Runicipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slier Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bill Wilto OTHERS PRESENT: ~ Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney The first item an the agenda was the reading of Ordinance #17, first reading, an ordinance adopting the 1980 Supplement to the Vail Municipal Code. After an explanation of the ordinance by Rich Caplan and some discussion, a motion was made by Paul Johnston to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded b Tom Steinberg. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously and ordered published in fu11 on first reading. The second item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #,18, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to person service outlets in CCI and CCII. This ordinance pertains to barber shops, beauty shops and beauty parlors being permitted on first floor buildings. After some discussion, Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading and Paul Johnston seconded it. A11 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full on first reading. Next item was the first reading of Ordinance #16, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to the construction and repair of roofs in the Town of Vail. Mike McGee of the Fire Department commented on the ordinance. He stated that it would probably take the Town approximately 1~ years to have the whole town in compliance with this ordinance. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance #16 on first reading and Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was carried unanimously and the ordinance ordered published in full on first reading. The next item on the agenda was Resolution #9, Series of 1.981, a resolution porting the development of county water storage facilities. Mr. Caplan ted that this resolution was written in County Commissioner's Troxel's support for a reserval,r.site in the Edwards/Wolcott area. Mr. Caplan stated that Mr. Troxel was in the minority over this issue. Tom Steinberg made a motion to postpone action on this resolution until the issue was studied further. Bill Wilto seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously. It was decided to present the resolution again at the April 21st meeting. The next item on the agenda regarding the Western Slope this resolution was adapted need of a ~tiestern Slope res the ~~'estern Slope district. and Bob Ruder seconded it. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION was the reading of Resolution #10, a resolution Congressional District.- hir. Caplan stated that to support the position of CAST relating to the ident member of the legislative committee from Ran Todd made a motion to adapt the resolution All voted in favor the the motion passed unanimously. Joe Staufer had two comments to make - first was regarding the status of a new PA system for the stated that that had been one item to be removed dget because of the low revenue year. a question to the Council Council Chambers. Mr. Caplan from the Capital Improvement i VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regulat Meeting April 7, 1981 .Page 2 i The second item Mr. Staufer brought up was his concern over closing the Dobson Ice Arena on the same date as the mountain closes. He stated that one of the issues in the bond drive for the arena was that it was to be an alternative to skiing after the mountain had closed. Pat Dodson, Recreation Department Director, stated that there was a need to close the arena down annually to melt the ice and clean the rink and that this was the least used time of the year. Also, because of the low revenue year, it was costing too much money to keep it open during the off season with the minimal amount of attendance that they normally get this time of year. As there was no further citizen participation, the Council moved to the next item on the agenda, that being the Appeal of the Bighorn 3rd Filing, Block 3, Lot 3, owned by Mr. William Luke. Peter Patten, Zoning Administrator, gave the Planning Commission's report on the zoning of the property, stating that the property was on a very steep slope and was not capable of supporting three developments and had been reduced to two. Mr. Luke stated that he met four timed with the Planning .Commission to resolve this problem. He then addressed the minutes of the Planning Commission: 1) Why does RC have to compete with multiple dwelling next door? • 2) You can't downzone without .prejudicial downzoning from people without their help and official interest, not legally. The response from the Planning Commission Member was: Two meetings before with the Planning Commission Mr. Luke asked for a delay so that he could provide more information showing two surveys of the property. Mr. Mayor and I visited the property on February 9 and. we did not see anything that would allow special treatment . A motion wa_s made to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. The motion was made by Ron Todd and second by Tam Steinberg. No further discussion, the motion passed unanimously. The next item that was brought up was the Amendment to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan for the Area between Plaza Lodge and the Casino Building. The Council has received a letter asking that we table this issue. We have asked the applicant to evidence to the Planning Commission and the Council that they have the legal right to build on that property. There is some question in our minds whether or .not they have this right. we have also asked for documentation to that effect. Pending that information a motion was made to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. The motion was made by Tom Steinbert, second by Paul Johnston. The motion passed unanimously. T~ next item that was brought up was the appeal of Red Lion Inn Decision by the Design Review Board. Peter Patten stated that the motion was to approve the addition pending that it meets Section 18.54010 of the Vail Municipal Code provided that the engineering be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. A presentation was made by Bi11 Rouff representing the applicant regarding the Appeal. The presentation told.of how the design took into consideration the various DRB and Vail Municipal Code Guidelines. Also for the first time, the architectural drawings. of the landscape plan were presented. Jeff Selby c~~~u«ented that the meeting for the approval before the Design Review Board and Planning C~~~u~~ission went into much further detail then Bill Rouff. Max Garrett thus stated the position of the appellant that the DRB acted in disregard of Ordinance 18.54010 Section B and of Ordinance 18.51010.basically the blocking of private and public views. Lastly he objected to the Design Review Board's ignoring the Urban Design Guide Plan Number 11. Next was an, appeal from Curtan-Hill, presented by Jack Curtain. Jack saw three options for the Council: 1. Reject design; 2. Send design back to DRB;. Approve plans as submitted. brought up the roof design and how it does not fit with the surrounding buildings. He also said that the facade did not fit and that there was a loss of a patio on the Red Lion. He also touched on the landscaping plan and stated that he did not think it would do what it was supposed to do. .• VAIL TOWN COUNCTL Regular Meeting April 7, 1981 Page 3 D~ Ryan commented that this was just a rehash on the previous on the R Lion. Jeff Selby commented on how the Red Lion developers did not develop the site to its fullest extent and that the developers felt the landscaping plans dial do the job intended. Max Garrett next c~i~u«ented that the DRB has the law to follow about views.. Julia Takahashi read a statement from Mrs. Joanna Hill against the development. Dale Palm. commented on the loss of view from the Mill Creek Building. Diana Donovan c~~,~,~ented that maybe an environmental impact report is required because of sewer and utility systems now existing. She also addressed the sun/shade requirement and the loss of a large patio. Pepi Gramshammer commented. Audi Keen c~~EU~~ented, George Knox ct,~~~«ented. Questions were then raised from the Council. Paul Johnston c~~~u«ented .that the upper end of Bridge Street needs improvement to increase its attractiveness. He said that he would vote in favor of the Red Lion expansion. Bob Ruder made a motion.. The motion was that we uphold the Design Review Board Decision as it relates to the expansion of the Red Lion. building. The motion was seconded by Paul Johnston. Motion carried 4 to 2. Bub Benedict abstained from voting due to conflict of interest. The next item brought up was the Appeal of PEC Decision Regarding Casolar, Lot 12 request far variance. ,The Council has been asked by the Appellant's attorney that this hearing be tabled until May 5, 1981. A motion was made t uphold the Planning Commission's position on Casolar. This motion was made b~aul Johnston and seconded by Tom Steinberg.. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Knox has requested a variance. on the gross residential floor area for his Casolar unit. It was the opinion of the staff not to grant this variance. The next item on the agenda was the Garton Deck Project. This is an exterior alteration request under the Vail Village Urban .Design Guide Plan for David Garton to allow construction of a tiro-level office addition on the existing deck of Carton's Saloon, the Casino building. The proposal was for 1515 square feet of office space divided into 5 offices. Peter Patten gave c~~~u«ents of this proposal relating to the Urban Design Guide Plans in reference to pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, focal points, etc. Peter stated that it did not create anything contrary to the purpose of the Design Guide Plan. The view met for the Urban Design .Guide Plan does. show a major view corridor from the area of the Children's Fountain. toward Vail Mountain. The proposed addition does not significantly alter this view., it intrudes to a very minor degree upon this view corridor.on the eastern edge. The Planning Commission has voted three to two. to approve this addition. The 5 conditions that were agreed upon were: 1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against the special improvement district if .and when formed for Vail Village; 2~ The applicant will submit a request for conditional use pexmit to allow the use of an office building on the third level in Vail Village. 3. The applicant will work out an agreement mutually acceptable to the Town, the applicant and other business owners in the Casino building as to construction schedules and practices so that disturbances of existing businesses are kept to a minimum. 4. The applicant must improve the area from the Plaza to his entrance with similar materials used in the Plaza,. 5. If the alley project is denied the applicant cut back the proposal on the first level to let adequate light and air into the alley opening. There was a discussion to the effect that "was the.d-ck strong enough to support the office building". This area was researched and it was .found that there was mare than enough capability to hold up this office space. It was stated that they need a letter from the Association confirming the approval of this expansion. David will get this letter for the Council. A motion was made that the Council uphold the Planning C~,~~uuiSSlOn approval-subject to the 5 conditions on Page 3 in reference to the Casino building dated 3./5/81 and also the improvement with mare detail planned for the alley if the alley project doesn't take place and the Condominium Association's letter. The motion was made by Bill Wi1to and seconded by Ron Todd. Motion carried five to twa. r, ~, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 7, 1981 Page ~+ T~ next item was the appointment of a Liquor Licensing Authority Member. The Council felt that for the record it should be stated that approximately a month ago the Twon Council, the Mayor sent a letter to a member of the Liquor License Board., Liquor Licensing Authority whose attendance had been very irregular causing some decisions to be delayed at the Liquor Licensing Authorities, and I think it would be appropriate for the Council to take official action, even though individually all the Council members did approve that action but at a public meeting to declare that David Cole's seat is vacant prior to taking any formal action in the appointing of a new member. A motion was made that the Council declare that seat vacant in accordance with our actions to date. Motion made by Bud Benedict, second by Paul Johnston. Unanimous. The seat that we are appointing would be for a two year term to serve until June 1983. The two applicants are: Tom Atchison and Jim King Ballots were counted. The vacancy will be filled by Tom Atchison. The Mayor thanked both applicants for applying for this position. T~next item was the appointment for the Board of Appeals Member. Th e were four applicants: Steve Cavanaugh Bi11 Rouff Jerry Walters Mike Wineman This is to fill the vacancy of Bob Ruder who resigned after he became a member of the Town Council.. It was also-discussed that we chase an alternate far Mr. Williamson who has nat been available for a meeting since September 1979. We are currently trying to contact Mr. TnWilliamson to see if he would like to resign.. We will pick two gentlemen, the top vote receiver will fill the vacancy presented by Mr, Ruder's resign and the second vote receiver will become an alternate for Mr, Williamson. Steve The alternate will be Bi11 Rouff. The Town Manager's Report: Last week we received the official 1980 Census Report. It indicated that the Town of Vail, as of April 1, 1980 has a population of x,261. After we protested this figure, it was indicated that we had 150 more p~le. Town Attorney Report: We have been sued by the Gore Trading Company, challenging the zoning on their piece of property. Larry was asked to prepare a report for the next meeting on legalities of a building moratorium for the sole purpose of just peace and quote for a summer. Larry stated that he would do this. It was brough up that the Coor's Bike Race has proposed a new course and T think all the merchants were sent out a letter outlining what was going on along with a map showing the course. There were not comments and the Council's decision was to approve the bike path. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST: { Town Clerk_ '~~ Mayor C. Moro of nail ~~~L TOWN COUNCIL Even~.ng meeting Tuesday, April. 21, 19$1 7:30 F.M. fox goo nail, colorada s~ss~ ., aaa•a~s-5s~a ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ( ~.) ORDINANCE NO. 16 , SERIES OF 1981. , SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1979 EDITION; SETTING FQRTH STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR OF ROOFS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL. (2) ORllTNANCE #17, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE, ADOPT, ENACT AND TO MAi~E FILL FORCE IN EF~'I'ECT TN TIIE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, A SUPPLEMENT TO TI-iE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE, CONTAINING THE GENERAL AND PERMANENT ORDINANCES SI7BSEQUENT TO ORDINANCE N0. 36, SERIES OF 1979, TO AND INCLTJDTI~G ORDINANCE NO. 34, SERIES OI' 1980. (3) ORT)INANCE # :1.~3, SERIES OF 1.981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMT~ATI)ING SECTTO~~ 1.8.24.034 PERMITTED AND {:ONI7ITIONAL USES FIRST I'LOOR OR STREET LEVEL - OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TO~~rN OF VAIL, COLORADQ; MAKING 33ARBER SHOPS , BEAU'1"~ SHOPS ANJ) BEAUTY PARLORS FIRST FLOOR OR S'T'REET LEVEL CONDT~~TC]NAI. USLS IN CCT ANl] CCII ZONED IIISTRICrj'S (5) OI~.DINANCE NU. 19, SERIES OF 1981., FIRST READING, AN Ol-~1~T.NANCE REPEALING AND REEN.~CTING SECTIONS 3.36.0,4, 3.36 , OSO AND H,EPEALTl~~G SEC'T'ION 3.36.090 OT THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE T0~"~N OF VAIL AND MUNICIPAL COOT. Off' THE TOWN OF VA I7~ AND ADDING A NE~'~ SECT T ON 3.30.105 TO TII:r_•, ~~UNIC7:PAL CODE; P~~OVIDING FOR THE ADDJT:CON OF ZONE DISTRICTS iVIIIC~I DAVE 33L3aN FO~~R~ED SINCE Tz3E ADOP`T'ION OF 7`frE RECRE~'1TION AR4~~N3'.1.'TES TAB ORDxNANCE. C;ITrZEN PARTICI~-'ATION (~i) APPEAL OF TIIE DRB T)E'CISTON Oft' TWIT: `!GALLON PRU~IEC7'. {'7) DRI3 REPORT ON FOUR SEASONS SIGN VARIANCE. (8) 1980 ANNUI~L T3I~~PUR`1' ON THE LIBRARY. ' TOWNT MANAGER REPORT TOWN' A.TTORNi~X REPORT Al)~TOT7RNMEN`!` ~~ . ~.t.~ ~' RICHAI~.,I? CAPLAN; TO~YiV' MAlVACxER MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 21, 1981 7:30 p.m. On Tuesday, April. 21, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal. Building. As Mayor Rod Slifer was out of town, Bill Wilto-Mayor Protem presided over the meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Tom Steinberg Ron Todd OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney First item on the agenda, wa Series of 1981, an ordinance 1979 Edition; setting forth repair of roofs in the Town had been no changes to this Bud Benedict made a motion t reading and Tom Steinberg se the motion passed and the or title only. s the second reading of Ordinance #16, amending the Uniform Building Code, standards for the construction and of Vail. Rich Caplan stated that there ordinance from the first reading. o approve the ordinance of second conded it. All voted in favor and dinance was ordered published by Second item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #17, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending Section 18.24.030 Permitted and Conditional Uses - first floor or street level - of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; making barber shops, beauty shops and beauty parlors first floor or street level conditional uses in CCI and CCII zoned districts. Rash Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading. Bud Benedict seconded it and all voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published by title only. Next item on the agenda was the first reading of the Street Cut Ordinance. As this ordinance had not been rewritten, it was postponed until. the May 5th meeting. Next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #19, Series of 1981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Sections 3,36.04, 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and adding a new section 3.36.105, providing for the addition of zone districts which have been formed since the adoption of the recreation amenities tax ordinance. There was some discussion on this ordinance. Jay Peterson asked how this would affect Pitkin Creek, as it had complied with all of the Town's requirements to this point and felt that it should not have to comply with this ordinance at this time. Ron Todd suggested that the effective date should be postponed to July 1, 1981. A motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the ordinance on first reading with the addition of the July 1, 1.9$1 effective date. Paul Johnston seconded it. Larry Rider stated that the word "Repealing" should be struck from the second line of the ordinance title and the addition of the body of Section 3.36.090-Tax Credit-Maximum Rate should be added to the contents of the ordinance. Ron Todd restated his motion to include the above additions. Pata13:~Johri~~tbnseconded it and all voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full on first reading. The next item, which was not on the agenda, was the reading of Resolution #11, Series of 1981, a resolution authorizing the Town Council to make available a deferred compensation plan to all permanent employees of the Town of Val.l. Rich Caplan stated that several plans of this nature had been looked reviewed and he felt that the one being offered by Great West Life best fit the needs of the Town of Vail. April 21, 1981 Page 2 Ron Todd made a motion to approve the resolution and Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Rich Caplan stated that the Town had received several requests from the residents of Buffer Creek in West Vail, along with the Gore Valley Preservation Society to have the street signs changed to the original spelling of "Buffehr" as that was the original spelling of the name. He stated that if enough interest was generated to change these signs by the residents that they should present their request to the Town Council. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the DRB decision on the Tallon Project. Peter. Jarnar stated that this was a 40 unit town home project in Lionsridge subdivision 3 which was approved by the Design Review Board April 1 by a vote of 4 - X with 1 abstaining. The approval was with one condition that the Tallon Project come back at a future date with plans for , the pool house which was to be provided and get final approval on that. This has been appealed by Council, and their concern over the whole landscaping plan and the recreation amenities provided. Richard Matthews and Bob McHenry, the landscape architects on the project gave a presentation on what had been proposed for landscaping this project. Richard Matthews stated for the record that he was a member of the DRB and had abstained from voting on this project. Bill Wilto stated that his concern was that the number of trees had been reduced from the number the council has originally seen for the Project when it was up for preliminary review. Paul Johnston stated that the specs on the original plan had called for larger species as he recalled. Mr. McHenry stated he thought Paul Johnston was confusing that with the Simba Run plan that had also been presented, and it was decided that that was, in fact, the case. Bob Ruder asked to have the recreational areas pointed out again on the map. He also felt the project had a lack of area for snow removal between the buildings. Bob McHenry stated that he had questioned the Town regarding requirements for snow removal and was told that the Town had no set requirements. The Town engineer is required to review the plans. Bob Ruder stated that he was not on the Council when this project had been discussed at length in its preliminary stages and felt that it was unfortunate that it had been built totally in townhouse fashion, as it created such . heavy site coverage on the buildable portion of the site. Tom Steinberg voiced his concern about the size of the pool. Bud Benedict made a motion to uphold the DRB's decision. As there was no second, Tom Steinberg made a motion to hold on the project until they have a chance to see the design of the pool. area and it has been presented to the DRB. Bob Ruder commented that it was unfair at the 11th hour the Council is talking about things that have gotten this far along. Bill Wilta called for a second to the motion. As there was none,. BuH Benedict restated his. motion that the Council accept the DRB's decision of approval with the exception of the swimming pool area which will be reviewed again before given approval by the DRB. Bill Wilto secanded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4 to 1. Steinberg voting against and Todd abstaining. The next item on the agenda was the DRB's report on Four Seasons Sign variance. Peter ~~mar stated this was a variance to the sign code requesting a variance allowing a secondary sign at Four Seasons Real Bstate. They had requested an additional sign in the form of a flag to be erected. DRB voted 4 - 0 to recommend denial of the variance. They did get appr~val for the erection of ~~~ six state and national flags at the same ~~~ the variance was ` denied. April 21, 1.981 Page 3 Larry Rider stated that it was the Council's position to either uphold the DRB's decision or overrule the sign code. He further .~ stated that this was a section that the Town had never gone back tochange because it was. seldom used and was coming to the Council as a matter of course. Peter Jamar. stated that according to the code, the applicant is supposed to show undue physical hardship to support this variance, which they have not done and there was no one at the meeting to respond to the variance. Ron Todd made a motion to uphold the decision of the DRB with reference to the Four Seasons sign variance request.. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion... Mr. Caroselli questioned the Council as to the applicant's recourse to the decision.. Larry Rider stated that the DRB did not feel that the applicant had proven that there was an undue hardship because of the denial and, therefore. was not granted the variance. Bill Wi1to stated that Four Seasons was free to reopen the matter at a later date if they wished. The motion was voted on and passed unanimously. • Next item on the agenda was the 1980 Annual Report on the Library given by Charlyn Canada, Librarian. Rich Caplan stated that the staff had been requested to give a monthly report to the Council on each of its departments and he felt it was timely to give the library annual report at this tame. He stated that the new library was on hold until 1982 but the existing library was still functioning as usual. Ms. Canada went over some of the library's statistics regarding user percentages, stating July was by far the highest user volume month of the year and November and December being the lowest, the book purchasing policy, and staffing. She also stated that the Town of Vail was waiting for an opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the ability to withdraw the Town's mall levy contribution to the County Public Library. It is estimated that the County's operating library budget will be $1.70,000. of that amount $103,000. comes from Vail Valley. Meanwhile the Town's annual budget has been reduced to $94,000 due to the drop in sales tax revenues. A survey revealed that one third of the Vail, one third from West Vail, and one third from the Eagle River Valley. Eagle County sent out the same survey, and it was revealed that only 2% of their users were from Vail, including users at their branches. Under Town Manager's Report, Rich Caplan reported that a satisfactory price had been reached for the Lionshead Parking Structure Auxiliary Building with Hyder Construction. He asked that the Council give him authorization to enter into a contract with Hyder in an amount not to exceed $490,000. That would enable them to start ordering materials, etc. before the next regular Council meeting on May 5. At that meeting a resolution would be presented formalizing their action. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the contract and Bud Benedict seconded it, All voted an favor and the motion passed unanimously. The second item the Town Manager had to report is that the Council has been invited to meet the Lord Mayor of London next Tuesday evening hosted by Western Airlines and VRA. Under Town Attorney's Report, Larry Rider announced that the Town has been sued by John Hall, Potato Patch owner, challenging the slope regulations. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, _-..~ ~ ~ ~. ' ' f' Mayor Town Clerk 4 ~ ., MI~vuTEs VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 5, 1981 7:30 p. m. On Tuesday, May 5, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slifer Bud Benedict Pain. Johnston Bob Ruder Ron Todd Bill Wilto ABSENT: Tom Steinberg - OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was a 10-year silver belt buckle presented to Roy Vasquez for serving the Town of Vail since May of 1971. Mr. Vasquez was .employed by the Vail Water Dept. before its consolidation with Upper Eagle Valley! Second item on the agenda was an Honorary Resolution declaring the week of May 17 - 23 as National Public Works Week. In line with that, Rich Caplan stated that the Town would hold its annual Clean Up Day on Saturday, May 16th. Paul Johnstan made a motion to approve the resolution and Bill Wilto seconded it. All voted in favor and the resolution was passed. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #19, Series of 1951., an ordinance relating to the Recreation Amenities Tax fees. Mr. Caplan stated there were no further changes to the ordinance other than those made on first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance 19 and Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor ~.n~litehon~~tion passed unanimously.and the motion was ordered published by Next item was the first reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to an easement adjacent to the platted Snowberry Drive, Lot 13 in the Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision. Mr. Caplan stated that this was a long standing easement that had never been used and the owner needed to have it vacated pending the ..~~ sale of his property. Larry Rider, Town Attorney, stated that all the utilities had signed off on this easement and it was merely a formality for the Town to approve the Ordinance. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the ordinance. Paul Johnston sECOnded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed and the ordinance was ordered published in full on first reading. Next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #20, Series of 19$1., an ordinance amending the street cut ordinance . ~1Ir . Caplan stated that this ordinance was amended after several problems had arisen over street cut permits and the repair of same after the work had been completed. Mr. Caplan asked Ernie Fregg~aro, Director of Public Works, to comment on why the amendment was necessary. He stated that prior to 1980 there were no log books kept on street cuts and there were a number of areas that were never repaired. There was a need to keep track of these cuts and to see that they were repaired. There were also some adjustments in the fee schedule. He stated that his department had made an attempt over the past year to work with the utility companies by means of utility coordinating conferences. A representative from Mountain Bell asked a question as -~ to easement of right-of-way. Mr. Rider stated that this meant public easements of right-of-way that are used for vehicles, etc. A permit would be required if the easement was in the public street. Page 2 Mr, Rider stated that some clarification would be needed on the ordinance before second reading. There was also a question on the $75. permit fee. '~ The utility companies felt that this was too high a price for them. The feeling of the utility companies was that the charge would be $50. Ernie stated that there was a provision for this but that it was not in the ordinance. There were several more questions that were answered by Ernie Freggiaro and Larry Rider. The representative from Mountain Bell stated that he was very .appreciative of the cooperation he had had with the Town of Vaal Public Works Department in working out these problems. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance #20 an first reading with further definition of easements. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was passed and the ordinance ordered published in full. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #15, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to amending Title 5 of the Vaal Municipal Code with the addition of Cahpter 5.28 relating to food service establishments. Mr. Rider stated that the Council and the Restaurant Committee of the VRA and other persons have been working for the last 6 weeks on a restaurant ordinance. He stated that there were some concerns expressed that enforcement of health regulations and sanitary regulations and restaurant licensing should be handled at the local level not necessarily in Denver. In order to that a provision needs to be adopted whereby the Town would issue a license or permit to do business as a restaurant within the boundaries of the Town. The result is an ordinance that provides for Town approval, requires Town approval of any restaurant. That approval is obtained by filing with the Town Clerk a copy of the application for a State Food S~rvi.ce Establishment License. Upon filing that copy, a town approval will be granted and no fee would be charged, The only time a fee would be charged would be on follow-up inspections. Far each inspection beginning with the third the fee would be $50. ~n addition, a license could be suspended or xevok.ed by the Health. Officer only with the concurrence of an appeal board would be made up. of three members ~ one member would the Chairman of the. Restaurant Committee of the VRA, one would be a licensed restaurant owner in town and th.e third would be the local public health.officer,, Bill Wilto questioned th.e ordinance stating that food service establishments do not include hospitals or health facilities. h4r. Rider Stated that this was because they were separately licensed by the State. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, Ron Todd seconded. the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was carried an the ordinance ordered published in full, ._~ The next item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. As there was no citizen participation, the next item on the agenda was a report from the Denver Water Board. Mayor Slifer stated that they were here on behalf of the Town's invitation. Mr, Bill Miller Pram the Denver Water Board gave a presentation on the organization o~ the Denver Water Board, its purpose and its plans far the future. Miller stated that the Eagle-Piney project will take water from several waterways in the area and the water would be stored in a dam north of Vail with a capacity of about 40,000 acre feet. The Denver area would then pull water from this dam through a tunnel to Dillon Reservoir, which the water department owns. The Eagle-Colorado project would take water from the lower Eagle River near ~Yolcott and from the Colorado River near State Bridge. A reservoir north of Wolcott is planned, connected to the Eagle--Piney system and the Dillon Reservoir. Miller expressed the concern o~ his department for the people in this area and stated that "we must all work together to solve this problem". Water conservation was encouraged and Miller stated that a tremendous amount of water was being let out of state each year ,during the runoff period. because there was rho place to hold it. A question and answer period followed with many comments by citizens. Mayor Slifer thanked Mr. Miller far taking the time to come to the Council meeting ~nd talking with the citizens of Vail. w Page 3 The next item on the agenda was a discussion of animal control services in the West Vail area. Mr. Caplan stated what controls were not in effect in CCI and CCII, East Vail and Ford Park. He suggested a.public meeting be held to include West Vail to see what kind of animal control they wanted in that area. He stated that there was only emergency service being done there at the present time. Ron Todd stated that he receives numerous calls regarding animal control in East Vail and felt that stronger controls should be set up in that area.. A citizen stated that she has had no response when calls have been placed to the Fire Department for animal control. Rich Caplan stated that a meeting time would be announced for West Vail animal control discussions. At this time, Rich Caplan introduced Mr. Dick Duran, newly appointed Acting Fire Chief for the Vail Fire Protection District. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Town Manager's decision on the Amplified Sound Permit for Bell Tower Associates, Ltd, Mr. Jack Fritzlen stated that he had appealed the decision by the Town Manager to allow the playing of the chimes at certain hours of the day because he felt that enough people had expressed their opposition to the noise. He expressed his appreciation of Mr. Cap~an's efforts to resolve this problem, but disagreed with his {Caplan's) feelzng that there was a need for the ringing of the chimes. He felt Caplan's . decision should have been based on the way the majority of the people felt. He requested that the Council deny the permit altogether. There were several comments from the citizens stating their opposition to the permit. Ron Todd made a motion to overturn the decision of the Town Manager to allow the noise permit. Bob Ruder seconded the motion. Bill Wilto asked why there was no representative from Bell Tower Associates, Ltd. at this meeting. Mr. Caplan stated that they were unreachable. Rod Slifer stated that it was not fair to make any decision without a representative from Bell Tower Associates present and killed the motion. The Council agreed to suspend the perm~.t until the next meeting on June end to hear the appeal with both parties present. The next item on the agenda was a Departmental Report from the Public Works Department. Ernie Freggiaro, Director of Public Works, asked that his report be postponed until next council meeting because of the lateness of the hour and the absence of one Council member. The Council agreed to do so. The next. item on the agenda was the appointment of the new Design Review Board member. Diana Donovan was appointed as the new member. Under Town Manager Report, Mr. Caplan thanked Bill Pyka, Finance Director, for balancing the budget in such a low revenue year. Mr. Caplan also asked that the Council appoint a Mayor Pro-Tem in the absence of Bill Wilto and Mayor Slifer during the majority of the month of May. Bob Ruder was appointed as Mayor Pro-Tem. Mr. Caplan also announced that Joe Lewandowski of the Vail Trail was leaving the area and thanked him for his work~.ng relation with the Tawn during his time with the Vail Trail. Joe also stated that he had enjoyed his relation with the Town and thanked everyone for being so open and easy to work with. There was no report from the Town Attorney. Mayor Slifer thanked Bill Wilto for doing such a fine jab as Mayor Pro-Tem which he was in California. As there wars no further bus~.ness, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. '+ ~~ M yor G. ATTEST: Town Clerk VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1951 2:00 p.m. ~J A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was called on Tuesday, May 12th, 1981. at 2:00 p.m. A11 Council members were present except for Bud Benedict. The purpose of the meeting was to approve Resolution #13, Series of 1951, a resolution approving the Hyder Construction Company Contract for construction of the Auxiliary Building in the Lionshead Parking Structure. Richard Caplan, Vail Town Manager, stated that the project was not to exceed $488,800. and is within the budgeted amount. He stated that the Town would probably end up saving approximately $60,000. - $70,000 on the parking structure building itself. The contract for that was $5,955,000 and it was estimated to be a minimum of $60,000 and maybe as much as $80,000. -- $90,000. in savings. Mr. Caplan stated there was a problem on the bottom floor on the west end of the parking structure where there is. some se~tlenient. He stated that appropriate compaction tests were done and there is no explanation at the present time as to where the problem is. He said testing would be done on it to find the problem - it might be relatively minor and hopefully can be taken care of relatively easily. H r Construction will plan to start the beginning of June and complete the px~ect by the end of October. Mr. Caplan stated that there are no signed tenants for the Auxiliary Building as yet. There has been communication with the Colorado Children's Musuem _regarding the use of a portion of the mezzanine on a trial basis. There are two definitely interested sandwich-type places. One being Rat & Wi11y`s which is a current tenant in the Vail Transportation Center and one other group of individuals in town. The Town should have their final proposals by the end of the week. Ron Todd asked what minor things had been taken out of the contract. Mr. Caplan stated that the final square footage was just under 6,000, which is approximately 4400-4500 square feet on the first floor and about 1500 sq. feet on the mezzanine. Bob Ruder asked what Hyder Construction was saying in regards to their strike. Rich Caplan stated that the Town could accept the contract with the understanding that work beginning no later than July 1 and be done by the end of October, 1981. Ron Todd stated that it should be understood that this time table overrides that stated in the contract. Mr~Caplan stated that he had been in contact with the Postal Service and they were interested in putting some kind of postal .services in the structure. Letters have been sent to all national rental. car agencies but no response has been received. The two things of sensitive deletion are the wood between the beams which will now be panelling and a brick the for the interior floor which wi11 now be of a concrete. Bill Wilto stated that the Council should still keep in its mind moving the location of the Ski Museum to the Auxiliary Building. A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to approve Resolution #13, Series of 1981, as amended. A second was made by Ron Todd. All voted in favor and the resolution passed unanimously. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. ~~ Ro ney E. ~"lifer,~~'7a~'a~r ATTEST: Town Clerk MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 2, 1981 7~ p.m. On Tuesday, June 2, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Punicipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slifer Paul Johnston Dr. Tam Steinberg Bvb Ruder ABSENT: Ron Tadd Bud Benedict Bi11 Wilto OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Tawn Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney First item on the agenda was to be a presentation to Byron Stanley of his tear belt buckle. Mr. Stanley was not in attendance at the meeting so t presentation was rescheduled for June 16th. The next item was the second reading of Ordinance #21, Series of 1981, an ordinance vacating the easement adjacent to the platted Snawberry Drive, Lat 13, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading.. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Ordinance #21 an second reading. Tam Steinberg seconded the motion. A71 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #2O, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the street cut ordinance. ~Ir, Caplan stated that there had been three additions to this ordinance from the first reading and read those additions. There was some discussion on the ordinance. Bob Ruder made a motion to approve Ordinance #20 with additions on second reading. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A11 voted in favor and the ~~ian~Cedp~hseeuti~atymcomp~'n~ea ~oae~~iei~u~npute~o~yt~islor~~nyariceRod Slifer The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #15, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to food service establishments. Dick Ryan sued there had been no changes to this ordinance from first reading and t. nked the citizens who worked together to come with this viable ordinance. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance and Paul Johnston seconded it. A11 voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. The next item was the first reading of Ordinance #22, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the municipal code of the Town of Vail relating to the granting of exceptions to the density control regulations in the two family residential zone district and primary secondary zone district. Peter Samar of the Community Development Dept. presented the ordinance. There was some discussion on the ordinance. Dr. Steinberg suggested that the postage rate be changed from 18 cents to "an amount equal to the then current first-class postage rate" in 8--e on page 2. Also that 10-a. should read "not less than 20 years from the date that the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for said second unit". Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance #22 with the stated amendments on first reading, Bob Ruder seconded it. A11 voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in full. • Page 2 The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #23, Series 0 981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Sections 18.13.080, 18.12.090 a 18.59.050 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail providing that the GRFA distribution for primary/secondary dwelling units should be changed from a ratio of 1/3 2/3s to a ratio of 40%/60%. Peter Jamar presented the ordinance to the Council. There was same discussion. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading. Tom Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and-the ordinance was ordered published in full. Next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #24, Series of 1981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.12.050 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail providing for the reduction of the minimum lot size in the residential (R) zone district to 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. Peter Jamar explained the ordinance to the Council. There was some discussion. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading. Bob Ruder seconded the oration. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #25, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending Special Development District 7 of the Series of 1977 concerning the number of fireplaces and tennis courts for the Mariott M Resort. Dick Ryan reviewed this ordinance with the Council. Ken ~ worth and Ross Cuny made a presentation to the Council. Kaiser Marcus stated that he did not feel a b~bb7e tennis court was needed at the~Mark. Dr. Steinberg suggested that the planned parking lot be open at the west side rather than the south end, which would be more appealing to the residents south of the parking structure. There was some discussion and Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Ordinance #25 on first reading. Tom Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in full. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #26, Series of 1981, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 11 for a 34 unit residential development located on Vermont Road and Vermont Court in Highland Meadows Piling No. 1. Peter Patten presented the ordinance to the Council. Roger Denton, landscape architect, also gave a presentation on what they had planned for this area. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance #26 on first reading. Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in.ful1. Rod Slifer stated that the architects had done an excellent job of developing this area, with all of its hazards and Site problems.. T~ next item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Walter Evans, o er of Vail Whitewater Adventures, spoke to the Council regarding his concern over not being allowed to put up his booth in front of the Bell Tower Building to solicit business for his rafting trips this summer. Rod Slifer stated that this item had been discussed by the Council in this afternoon's work session and it was generally ogreed that it was unfair to allow-some businesses to do this and others nat. Slifer suggested that maybe he could move his business inside. It was decided by the Council that this type of soliciting would not be allowed. The next item on the agenda was th.e report on the planned Donovan Park site. Pat Dodson, Recreation Department, gave the report, He stated that the first phase of this development would be the athletic field and parking area. There were no cost figures available at this time and no work would be started on it until next year at the earliest. R question was' raised regarding the potential plan of a swimming pool in the park. Mr. Dodson stated that that matter had been brought up by Dick Gustafson at several earlier meetings, as a possibility of the Rotary Club being the catalyst for the construction of such a pool, but he had not spoken to Gustafson recently. R suggestion was a]so made that a soccer field also be constructed on the site in honor of John Donovan. The council stated that they .were in eral agreement with the park plans but would like to have it presented a~in in a work session when all council members were present. Page 3 The next item on the agenda was the discussion of animal control in West Vail. There was much discussion from the citizens regarding what controls s uld be established. The control that is in effect at the present time i~the leash law in CGT and CCIT and "under control of the owner" in East Vail. Some of the suggestions were, leash law for all areas, stiffer fines, under control of owner in outlying areas, leash law in CCT, CCTI and CGTIT. Bob Ruder stated that he felt, and he was sure Ran Todd agreed, that the control should be stricter in East Vail. Joanne Swift from the Humane Society stated that it was the dog owners who the Town needed to crack down on, not the dogs themselves. There was some discussion regarding reporting dogs running loose and the signing of formal complaints. Rod Slifer stated that the council would review this again at the June 16th meeting and an.ordinance would be presented at that time far first reading. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the amplified sound permit for the Bell Tower Building. Mayor Slifer stated that the appeal had been tabled from the May 5, 1981 meeting because .of the inadequate notification to the parties involved. Rod Slifer stated that he and Paul Johnston had received a letter from Jack Fritzlen stating that he (.Fritzlen} thought there might be a conflict of interest with Johnston and Slifer as the real estate office of Slifer and Company who listed the .Bell Tower Building in it`s .most recent sale. Slifer asked Larry Rider, Town Attorney, to comment. Mr. Rider stated that he did not,in his opinion, feel there was a conflict of interest as the c 'mes and any remuneration received from this sale did not constitute a c~lict of interest. Mr. Fritzlen stated that he would like to have the Item tabled until the next meeting when a full Council would be present to hear the appeal. Bob Ruder made a motion to table the appeal until June 16th. Mr. Ed Drager, representing the appellant, stated that he did not understand the comment made. by Mr. Slifer as to the "continued" appeal of the permit. He stated that this was the first notice he had had of any appeal. Mr. Slifer explainted that there had been discussion of the permit at the last meeting but the Council felt that they should table any decision until this meeting when the applicant had a chance to be heard. Mr. Drager questioned whether it was appropriate to have any discussion without the applicant being present. Mr. Rider stated that the appellant made has presentation at that meeting and fallowing the presentation the question was asked whether or not Mr. Willingham had been notified of the hearing. There was an indication that an dttempt had been made to notify both the applicant and Mr. Drager but was unsuccessful and at that time there was a lengthy discussion as to whether ar not the matter should be continue or decided that evening. It was determined by the Council at that point that the matter should be tailed until the next meeting. Mr. Drager stated his objection to any action be~,ng;~aken while h•e was out of town. Mr< Ri-der stated that Mr. Drager was welcome to listen to the tapes of the May 5th meeting~to see exactly what htranspired. Rod Slifer stated. that the issue now was whether or not t o ahead with the hearing tonight or table it until two weeks, which would depend on whether or~not he (Slifer} and Paul Johnston were to partake in the discussion and secondly, if it's continued, we would notify both parties who were at the meeting and hear it two weeks from tonight. Mr.Ruder restated his motion that this be .continued until the June 16th meeting in which there will be more of a quorum. Larry Rider stated that there was no need to.renotify the appellant or the applicant because they were both there. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Pepi. Gramshammer stated that it thought the matter should be settled tonight and done with. A vote was taken and all members voted in favor of rescheduling the appeal until the next meeting of June 16. The next item of discussion was a presention by Dick Bryant, Principal of Battle Mountain High School, regarding the proposed track and field facility being proposed for the high school. Also making the presentation were Mr. Lamb and Ray Story who have donated their time to work on this project. A list of jobs were presented with ideas on how time, materials and equipment could be solicited to complete the project. Out .of a $90,000. cost that has been quoted for this project they feel that with volunteer help they can get it done for approximately $40,000. Rod Slifer stated that he was sure the Town would be willing to donate equipment and workers. He thanked these g~tlemen for their report and pledged the Council's support of the project. There was no Town Manager Report. Page ~ There was no Town Attorney Report. ~~~~oor Slifer welcomed Pepi Gramshammer back to Vail after a water skiing a~ident while he was on vacation. As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Mayor ~ ' ATTEST: Town Clerk ~17fl D VAIL TGwN COUNCIL. EVE:NTNG SES5ION TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1981 7:30 P.M. bax goo vai€, ca€orado s~s5~ soa•A7&-a6~s ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ,~ _ _r.~.~.-~ {1) ~ D NANCE rr22, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE r~IUNICIPA}- CODE. OF THE TOWN OF VAIL RELATING TO GRANTING OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE DENSITY CONTROL REGULATIONS IN THE TW0-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND PRIMRRY/SECONDARY ZONE DISTRICT. {~a $~~O~t~a~INANC~E"~`#23, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING 5ECTIONS 18.13.Q30, 18.12.090 AND 18.69.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PROVIDING THAT T€-[E GRFA DISTRI- BUTION FOR PRTh1ARY/SECONDRRY D1~ELLING UNITS SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM A RATIO OF 1/3 2/3 TO R RATIO OF 40%/60% AND PROVIDING DETAILS TN RELATION THERETO. ,fit..:.... -.~... {3~ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1981, SECOr}D READING, AN ORiJINANCE REPEAL.TNG IaND REENACTING SECTION 18.12.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL PROVIDING FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE ~-~ RESTDEN~rIAL (R) ZONE DISTRICT TO 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDABLE SITE AhtEA AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. ,~~~r~. _..r-- {~~ ~~RDINANGE #25, SERIES OF 1983, SECOND READING, AN ORDTNAhdCE AMENDING SPECTRE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT N0. 7 Of- THE SERIES OF 1977 CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF FIREPLACES AND TENNIS COURTS FOR THE MARIQT'I MARK. IN ADDITION, REVIEW OF PHASE II OF T}iE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (,~~.`~O~RDI;,NArdCE #26, SERIFS OF 1981, SECOND READI}~G, AN OR[)INANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPh~}ENT DISTRICT NO. 11 FOR A 34 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVC~[_OPPSENI- !/ - LOCATED ON Vk~.RMONT ROAD AND VERMONT COURT IN HIGHLAND MEADOWS FILI€~G N0. 1. ~ ~~}}~~~~ '` {S~ORDINANCE #27, SERIES OF 1982, FIRST READING, AN ORDTNANCT: RMENDING THE h1LJNICIPAL CODE AND EXTENDING THE I.E,ASH LAW TO COVER CERTAIN AkEAS OF A NEWLY ANNEXED TERRITORY OF WEST VATL AND RAISING THr' PENALTIES WHICI! MAY BE IMPOSED DN PERSONS CONVICTED OF VIOLATING SECTIONS 5.04.190, 6.04.200, 6.04.201 AND 5.04.300 flF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. {7 #2~SOLUTIQN~ x`14, SERIES OF 1981, A RESOLUTION AMENDThJG THE SPELLING OF BU€=FER CREEK ROAD AND HOMESTEAD ROAD IN wES'( VAIL. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ~,c ~_,,t.-~r {~3) !APPEAL GF THE BELL TOWER AMPLIFIED SOUND PERMIT. {9}~` APPEAL OF THE. ALLEY PROJECT. {10) r'~~E:QUES1` FOR VARIANCE GF SPRAI?GEE CREEK SIGN. {11) APPOINTMEhdT OF FOUR LIQIfOR LICENSING AUTHORITY BO RD MEMB%RS. TOWN MANAIaER REPORT TQ41N ATTORNEY REPORT ~GCl~ ~~ -~~ {~I(:Hit(~D CA,PLJ~N, TOWr M1~,NI~GER MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 15, 1981 7 0 p.m. O uesday, June 15, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for Zts regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Muni.cipa7 Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slifer Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence Rider, Town Attorney First item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #22, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to ranting of exceptions to the density control regulations in the two_family residential zone district and primary/secondary zone district. There was so,.me discussion as to the interpretation of the ordinance. Ron Todd made a tian to approve the ordinance vn second reading. Bud Benedict seconded -'"~ Tom Steinberg asked to amend the motion to read under Section 18.12.090 B ~w id 18.13.080 B,. "the term of the lease not less than 20 years plus the life of Trent Ruder. A vote was taken on the amendment to the motion. Ron Todd and Bud Benedict were opposed. A vote was taken on the motion with the amendment. All voted in favor and the motion was passed and the ordinance ordered published The second item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #23, Series of 1981, an ordinance. relating to the GRFA distribution for primary/secondary dwelling units being changed from a ratio of 1/'3 2/3 to a ratio of 40%/60%. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading. Bill Wi7ta made a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading and Ron Todd seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was passed and the ordinance ordered published by title only. The third item on the agenda was the second reading of ordinance #24, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to the reduction of the minimum lot size in the residential (.R) zone district to 15,000. square feet of buildable site area. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance since f' st reading. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the ordinance on s~Ond reading and Tam Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was approved and ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #25, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending special development District #7 of the Series of 1977 concerning the number of fireplaces and tennis courts at the Mariott Mark. Mr. Caplan stated that there. had been no changes to this ordinance since first reading. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading and Paul Jah.nston seconded it. A17 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and, ordered pub.li.shed by title only.. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #26, Series of 1981, an ordinance. establishing Special Development District No. 11 for a 34 unit residential development located on Vermont Road and Vermont Court in Highland Meadows Filing No. 1. Mr. Caplan stated that no changes had been made to this ordinance since first reading. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve Ordinance #26 on second reading and Paul Johnston seconded it, All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and the ordinance ordered published by title only. a June 16, 1981 Page 2 The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #27, Series of 1981, an ordinance relating to the leash law covering certain areas of a newly a axed territory of West Vail and raising the penalties which may be imposed o~ersons convicted of violating Sections of the Municipal Code. There was some discussion an the ordinance. Rad Slifer stated that he was opposed to the increase in the fine rate. Dr. Steinberg said he felt the leash law should be in effect throughout the valley. There was some confusion as to the paragraph relating to the length of the leash. It was agreed that the word "not" should be added to the paragraph B of Section 6.04.190 Running at Large to read as follows: A dog shall be deemed running at large as prohibited by Subsection A when it is off or away from the property ar premises of its owner or keeper and is not on a leash of not more than seven {7) feet in length that is held by a responsible person. A motion was made by Bill Wi1to to approve Ordinance #27 with the addition of the word "not" on first reading. The motion was seconded by Bud Benedict. A vote was taken and the motion passed five to two - Steinberg and Slifer opposed. The next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolution #14, Series of 1981, a resolution amending the spelling of Buffer Creek Road to "Buffeter". Mary Jo Allen stated that enough interest had been received in that area and a petition signed by residents of that area to have the street spelling by changed back to its original spelling. After some discussion a motion was made by Tom Steinberg to approve the resolution and seconded by Ron Todd, All noted in favor and the m Lion was carried unanimously, Mrs. A11en then asked about her request for t amending of Chamonix Lane back to Homestead Road and stated that a petition ha been submitted in relation to this also. Mr. Caplan stated that it had been reviewed by the staff and was felt that there would be too much confusion in relation to the fire department, police department, etc. with the changing of that street name. Rod Slifer stated that the Council would take it under advisement and get back to her. Joe Staufer stated that while the Council was considering this they also take a look at the way the street are numbered. pick Ryan stated that since Community Development had taken this procedure over from the Fire Department they had a very good working system at this time and there should be no future problems. The next item an the agenda was Citizen Participation. Don Klinger asked the Council to look into the repair of the green belt area on Goire Creek where the grass is in poor shape due to trucks turning. around in that area. Also, there was a need for additional benches on the grass area. Dick Ryan stated that the sod had been ordered to repair this area and they would check into obtaining more benches. Dan Corcoran asked about the status of the bike path schedule between Bighorn and the Town. Dick~Ryan~~stated that Holy Cross is to fix any damage that they h.~ done this week and Dye Construction will .pave it next week. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Bell Tower Building Sound Permit issuance by the Town Manager. Paul Jahnstgn and Rod Slifer had decided to abstain from the discussion, as per the request of Jack Fritzlen because of a conflict of interest. The meeting was then turned over to Bill Wilta, Mayor Pro-Tem. Mr. Ed Draper, the applicant's attorney stated he had a few procedural points he wished to raise. He restated the history of the permit request, stating that the first appeal was held on May 5th without himself or his client being notified. That much discussion was held at the May 5th meeting before it was determined that the applicant had not received sufficient notice to attend the meeting and felt that several members of the Council had already made up their minds as to how they felt about the appeal. Bill Wilto stated that he felt and spoke for the Council that was at the meeting, that the applicant had received notice of the meeting and as soon as it was determined that he had not, the discussion had been tabled until the meeting of June 2, 1981. Rod Todd stated that he felt strongly that it had been determined that the majority of the residents in the area did not want the chimes and, thus, disqualified himself from the discussion.. Bill Wilto asked Rich Caplan to give the history of the request for the permit. There was much discussion regarding the appeal. Jack Fritzlen was asked for a copy of the letter which w sent out by him to the mailing list of residents in the 100 foot area. H~did not have a copy of it with him, but stated that in general it asked for people's help to protect the environment in Vail by not allowing the playing of amplified music or chimes. Bob Ruder asked Larry Rider is, under the ordinance, the applicant could reapply for a permit. Mr. Rider stated that yes, he could da so. June 16, 1981 Page 3 Bud Benedict stated his concern for the amount of time this issue has been gong an. He stated he himself had enjoyed the music coming from the tower felt that if it was objected to so strongly by the residents living in t e area that it should not be allowed. Bud Benedict made a motion to reverse the decision of the Town Manager and deny the request for ~ permit. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Bob Ruder stated his concern for the decibel level being raised aver a period of time. He suggested taking a second look at the noise ordinance regarding the decibel levels allowed. Biil Wilty stated that he enjoyed the chimes, but felt he should respect the wishes of the property owners. Wi1to and Ruder stated they felt the Town Manager had made the proper decision based vn the information provided him. Tam Steinberg stated that he liked the old ordinance which .stated that you would not create any noise beyond your property limits. A vote was taken and a71 voted in favor to reverse the decision of the Town Manager and deny the request for the amplified sound permit by Be1ltower Associates. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Alley Project. Dick Ryan presented the appeal and. stated that there was some confusion as to the legal owners of the property being discussed. He stated the Planning Department was not in favor of the A1..1ey Project and the PEC.had voted unanimously in favor of it. There was much discussion relating to the lighting of the A71ey, the upkeep, snow removal, etc. As there was reason to believe that the Casino Building would be sold and remodeled in its entirety, the. Council felt that t~ would like to see the plan as a whole, not piece by piece. A motion was m e by Paul Johnston and seconded by Tom Steinberg to uphold the appeal. A vote was taken and passed six to one Y Ron Todd opposing. vArL TOWN r,OUNCIL REGULRR ME~ETS`N TUESDAY', JULY 7, 1981 5:00 P.M. Due to the Jerry Ford Gall Tournament, the Vail Town Council regular meeting w held at 5:00 p.m. s,a th.e mem4e.r5 of th.e Council could attend the various f~Gtions of the tournam.e.nt. MEMBERS PRESENT; 6,11 Wi.lto B.ud Benedict haul Johnston Ron Todd Bgtz Ruder ABSENT: Ore Toy Steinberg Mayor Rod Slifer QTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, TQ~tn Manager Larry Rider, Town A`~:torney The first item on the agenda wad. the. second reading of prdi.nance #27, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the. municipal code and extending the leash law to cover certain areas of a newly annexed territory of I~:est Vail and raising the penalties w-hich may bye iimpased qn persons convicted of violating certain sections of th.e Municipal Code.. Ri~cti. Caplan stated that there had been no c rages to this ordinance from the. ~i'rst read%ng. Bud Benedict made a motion t pprove Qrdinance #27 and Paul ~3ohnston seconded it. All voted in favor an the motion passed unanimaus.ly and tkie ordinance Q.rdered published by title only. The second item on the agenda was the first r~ of 1981, an ordinance. provi.di.ng for parking an for impounded automgbi'les. After discussion approve the ordinance on i/i:rst reading and B.ud in favor and the motion passed unani;mously and fished in Full on first reading. ading of.Qrdinance #28, Series private property signs and fees Paul eohnston made a motion to Be.ne.dict seconded it. All Woted tie ordinance was ordered pub- The next item on the agenda w.as the reading of Resolution #17, Series of 1981, a resolut%on of th.e Town Council authorizing the realignment of the right-of-- way for the Intermountain Bridge. ..Larry Rider explained the need far the resolution. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the resolution and Bill Wi.lta seconded i;t. The motion passed 3 to 1 - Ruder opposing and Ron Todd abstaining. The next item on the agenda was Citizen Participatipn and there was none. T next item was the sign variance request for the Camera Shop. The owners o the Camera Shop had asked to have their hearing postponed until the next regular meeting. Bob Ruder made a motion to postpone it until the Juiy 21, 1981 meeting and Bud Benedict seconded it. Aii voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. Under the Town Manager Report, Rich Caplan updated the Council on the 17 letters received from citizens in the community per Council's request, half of them dealing with complaints of the existing company and half of them far requests of particular kinds of service that people would like to see in the new franchise agreement.The new owner, Heritage Communications, is expected to submit a proposal this week on what they plan to do to meet the citizens requests for new services. The Council meeting on the 21st of July will be a formal public hearing at which time public input will be taken. iJnder the Town Attorney report, Larry Rider stated that the Jest Vail Annexation suit is still on Judge Hart's desk and we are waiting for an opinion from him. On the TDR development rights, the Council was given a memo from Larry Eskwith on what he has found on the subject. Rider asked the council to look it over and write down any questions they may have and at the next Council meeting it w~ be discussed in detail. A copy has also been sent to the hospital. M Caplan stated that several discussions had taken place with the hospital and the Council was committed to give the hospital a yes or no answer by September 1, 1981. I~INUTCS 7-7-81 Page 2 ~1 Wilto reported that VRA was discussing the possibility ofi the centra3 ervations system becoming a possible spinoff of VRA. He would appreciate any comments the Council had on the matter, Rich Caplan stated that here would be a combined VA/VRA/TOV meeting on Wednesday, July 8, regarding the past week`s activities. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. /~ ~ - M~yor ATTCST: Town C1 er~c • w Iowa of uaill% 75 south frontage road • vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476-7000 office of the mayor 6 July, 1981 Consent to change Time of Regular fleeting of the Vail Town Council from 7:30 PM on Tuesday, July 7, 1981 to 5:00 PM on Tuesday, July 7, 1987. The undersigned have been duly notified and Consent to the change in time for the above described meeting: >~'~ - Gib ~ ~~ C~~~ aTT~sT: 1 Tow l erfc ' ~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~ Evening Session Tuesday, July 21, 1981 - 7:30 P.M. ll6'~~ Ol VIII REVISED AGENDA box goo nail, co#orado s~s5~ 0 303.476.56'!3 (1} PRESENTATION OF TEN YEAR AWARD TO BYRON STANLEY. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (2) RESOLUTION #18, SERIES OF 1981, APJ HONORARY RESOLUTION REGARDING JERRY FORD INVITRTIONAL GOLF TOURP~IAMENT VOLUNTEERS. (3} ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR PARKING ON PRIVRTE PROPERTY SIGNS AND FEES FOR IMPOUNDED AUTOMOBILES. (4) ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, RN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING A PRIOR RESOLUTION; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO 2.6 MILLION DOLLARS AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE TOWN'S SPORTS FACILITY_REVENUE BONDS. ~(5} RESOLUTION #19, SERIES OF 1981, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAI"TON FOR GRRPJT UNDER THE IIRRAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964 'AS AMENDED. (6} RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 19$1, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF LOT 40 BUFFER CREE[C BY THE TOWN OF VAIL. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (7) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED TRANSFER OF CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. ($} PUBLIC HEARING ON FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY. (9) SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE CAMERA SHOP. (10) APPS=AL OF PEG DECISIOPa REGARDING THE LODGE AT VAIL RESTAURANT Ai)DITION. (11} APPROVAL OF THE REPEAT OF A PORTION OF HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION TO {3E NAMED HIGHLAND PARK FILING N0. 1. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNML-NT ~ RICHAf~D CAPLAN, TOWN J~'I~NAG~ Vail Town Council Regular Meeting July 21, 1981 Minutes On Tuesday, July 21, 1981 the.Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Members present were: Mayor Rodney Slifer Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bab Ruder Tom Steinberg Ran Todd Bill Wilto Others present were: Rich Caplan, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Acting Town Attorney ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 18, Series of 1981, an honorary resolution regarding Jerry Ford Invitational Golf Tournament Volunteers was introduced by Mayor Slifer. Paul Johnston made a motion for approval; second by Benedict. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of~the motion. Byron Stanley was presented an award for ten years of service to the Town of Vail. Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1981, second reading, an ordinance providing far parking on private property signs and fees for impounded automobiles was read into the record by Mayor Slifer. There was na discussion. Bud Benedict made a motion for approval; second by Steinberg. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1981, first reading, an ordinance confirming a prior resolution; authorizing and directing the issuance of up to 2.6 million dollars • aggregate principal amount of~the Town's sports facility revenue bonds. This was read into the record by Mayor Slifer. Rich Caplan gave the background information on this ordinance and Jack Acuff, representing Vail Associates, made some comments. It was noted that this particular bond issue is for expenditure on Vail Mountain only. As there was no further discussion, Bud Benedict made a motion far approval; second by Todd. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 19, Series of 1981, a resolution auth.orizi:ng fi:li:ng of an application with the U.S. Department of Transportation 1`or grant under the Urban Mass Trans- portation Act of 1964 as amended. Mayor Slifer read this into the record. Rich Caplan pointed out that the Town was: fortunate enough to receive a $1 .4 million grant from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in order to buy 12 new buses and 15 bus shelters. This is approxi~ately 75% of the cost. The Town is now applying for a $455,000 grant which the Town would have to match 25% of that. The purpose of this grant would be to expand the bus barn. There was no discussion. Bi11 Wilto made a motion for approval; second by Todd. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution Na. 20, Series of 1981, a resolution approving the purchase of Lot 40 Buffer Creek by the Town~of Vail. Mayor Slifer read this into the record. It was noted that the purchase price was $117,884.00 which is well below the fair market value. Rich Caplan made some brief comments. A general discussion followed. A motion for approval of the resolution was made by Tom Steinberg; second by Todd. The motion passed unanimously. Vail Town Council July 21,.'1981 Minutes Page Two CITIZEfV PARTICIPATION: An unidentified person commended the Council on the 4th of July celebrations. Transfer of Cable Television Franchise. Mayor Slifer pointed out that the purpose of the discussion tonight was not to take any action but to have the purchaser of the CATV company say a few words and give some information on his company and what they intend to do. He then introduced Jim Cow~~ie, from Heritage Telecommunications and new owner of the Cable TV Company, who gave some background information on Heritage and their feelings on~.'and desires with the "Vail take-over". He spoke to what they intended to add to the present cable selection, "plant clean-up", and noted that they, would try to accommodate the needs and desires of the full=time Vail resident. Questions and comments were then heard from the Council and the public. Comments ranged from the quality of transmission to endorsement of the local access channel to possible revocation of the .franchise agreement if Heritage did not fulfill its obligations. Frank Thompson, previous owner of the cable system, spoke to Heritage's integrity and experience in cable operation, Mayor Slifer noted that the reading on the resolution relating to the transfer of the CATV system would be held August 4th. Flood Insurance Study. Rich Caplan noted that a preliminary flood insurance study had been completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Denver that related to insurance, on property and other potential planning matters. He then introduced Virginia Motogama of the Division of Insurance and Mitigation who discussed the study that had been completed for the Town of Vail and various legislative matters that should be implemented. Tt was noted that this flood insurance study wa-s in general agreement with the flood plain information recorded for Gore Creek which is what the Town`s flood plain maps are based on. General discussion followed, Sign Variance Request for the Camera Shop i:n Crossroads. Peter Jamar, from the Community Development Department., introduced the variance request and noted that the Design Review-Board had denied the ,request, A memo from the Town staff was read into the record and-the cri'teri'a for granting a variance was outlined for the Council David Belson, the applicant, ex.plai-ned hi;s.need and desire for the variance. The Crossroad's sign program was discussed. Questions and ,comments were heard fram~tkie Council, A lengthy. discussion followed regarding sign programs in general, the Crossroads sign program and Crossroad's .unwillingness to change or update their present program. As there was no further~~.diScussi`on, 611 Wilto made a oration to allow the si:gnage for the Camera Shop to stay as it is-until February, at which time it ~e reviewed with any other signs that-are legal, non-conforming. and that the applicant understand if at tkiat ti.me~there.has.been no cooperation with Crossroads, he may have to remove the signs at. that time, This.was seconded by Bud Benedict, A 3-2 vote was recorded. in favor of the motion. (.Ruder, Jolinstan were against; Tadd, Steinberg abstained.) ~. ~~ Appeal of PEC Deci.sion~Regardi.ng the: Lod e at Va%1 Restaurant Addition. Dick Ryan, Director bf the Department ot'.~,ommunity Devel.opment,.i:ntroduced the appeal.~of~t~he, July 13th Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. He outlined the Lodge's proposal and noted that the.requ.est was to .add. approximately 625 square feet to the restaurant. The addition would 6e in.conforma~nce with the Urban Design Guidelines and tiie staff di'd~recommend approval. .Questi:ons and comments were heard from Council. Bill Ruoff, architect for the addition, answered the design:.concerns. As there was no .further discussion, Tom Steinberg made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's deci:si'on and to allow the request i:n accordance with the staff's memorandum. This was seconded by Ron Todd, Bill Who felt .that if the Lodge at Vail were proposing any- ne.w addi'ti'ons or changes to the exterior of..the buil,di'ng that they should be consolidated i~n an overall master plan. A unanimous vote was. recorded i.n favor of the. moti:an. Thor Loberg ,owner of tMe E.odge, outlined some of the proposed changes to the Salt Lick bar and restaurant, • Uail Town Council July 21, 1981 Minutes Page Three Approval of the Replat of a Port ion of Highland Meadows Subdivision. Dick Ryan introduced this matter and noted that this was a replat of Lots 38-42 of Highland Meadows. Planning Commission voted 4-0 in favor of the request. After a brief discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion for approval subject to the drainage problem being cleared up by 15 days after the final plat is submitted in accordance with the staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations. This was seconded by Tom Steinberg. The motion passed unanimously. TOWN MANAGER REPORT: Tom Steinberg made a motion to name the open space iri East Vail "Bighorn Park". This was seconded by Ron Todd. The motion passed unanimously. Rich Caplan extended an invitation to the Council from the Minturn Town Board to attend their August 5th meeting in order .to participate in the presentation from the cities of Colorado Springs and Aurora on the anticipated Homestake II Project. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT: None Tom Steinberg noted the abundance of. helicopters and low flying planes that have been landing and taking off from within the specified limits of the ordinance. Discussion followed. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. ATTEST Town Clerk ~~~ .,~`~` ; 1 c;% / ~ ~ - ~v ~ ~~ _ ;: :. ~~, ~° ,.. ~ ~ j(~ ~~ (~~ •~~~ J ` _ _ ~C.c '~ `~t ` ~ -- 1 1 ra { ~ ~~ L~ - ~~ ~ ~ , s r ~' ~ :' ~ l/J. ~ ~- . ! .~ I ~/ ~ ~ Y~ , ~ ~. .~~ ~. _.~ ~,, ~/yy.. .. . __ _ _ ._ _ _ 6~ ~= `-}--s ~ - ~ _ ~ f ~( -- - -- -- ~ _ ~ -c -~~` _ ~.~ . -- r-~ _ -_l, - - - "` (/ ~.~-P~ ~ % ~ - - - _ . ~J ~ -- - - __ y~~:C.L _. - _2 - __ - -- .. - _ ___ - _. --- ~ - -f - - - - -- - - - -j. _.. _.. - - - - -~ - - (~!1.-t__,Z, .{{{'~°~f~l r:!:.; _r~. -_ .~_ ~~'-f Get t.c ~~~. f ~{ f _ /i ; 4Y ~- _ .. i ~ f i '~~ r ~ ~~ ~,!_/ !o°f,: i ... ~~:.e.~--1 ~'!~%' ~ Hi ..~-z. ~ ~"'C~~,L~..-L° r i_,!<~R.. ~ .~~ .., i e f ! ~ N I ~ ~~ ~~-,'~` J: ,yam ~ J ~ .:'r. ~ S~ .,-. }. J_ ~~::"~!.e ~ 1 -~..~ ~ F;1 ~.,-~e'~. ~ \ ,~-Jr! :ter ~ -~-~ ~` f ~ ~ ; t ~ ~t ~ . `~1 r().Cf .. ~ .r t C~' ~ ~' ~~ ..., , _ >~_ U ~ .~ ~- f~ \ '~ Ff ~! ~..,- C / : r ; i~(~ r ~_} f»e. l' tom' . : `ti. f l 9~-~;{-~ ~ ~ - ~ l ~rl ] ~ -, ,_ ~'.l.... t t'. ~~ ~t ~~r -~E <'rh".i / '`GI I~ L. ~/ Lr 1 ~~f._ ' - .. s S/ ~i.L/ I~ '~~ ~ ~ r t1: ? ~> ~ = Lr t` G.`~ •l L ! ,~ -'1a' ,~JLJ' ~ .?-.~ .~~, .a'~1 - Lfl J%t. /Jl. /! . ?:w -f L'r Gfi~2_.~~ ~- /~ o~}L..%~ - c'~,~JJ6~:^~ ~ J:~t.re,~ q~ •.. z:J.,. r 1. LJ.( ~?fit,.: h i -~~ _._. a f + :. _. _ - ' ~~, ~~ _ _ ,._ -- ., _ .. - __ ~ .~j ~~.... ~~_ ~~ rJ ~~ 1 - _ ~ - ~: - l ? ~ _ ~y~~fff//// ~ r r _ ~ i~,/ ~s y/~ ~ '~ ~_:_-: ..- ~~_ err ,~.,__~ ~-_ ,,~i-, , e F !!! r ~~ (~{~ L.-r'~_.~-1 ~ Riy~ - ~ s. 4 - .. _ .. .. 1 ..~~.--. lL t7tit -..} ~-l F f e f _ _ ~ ~7 ~ __ {1 _.. J 1 ~~) F y .. ~- . ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ } ,; r~; I ~;~ .~ c~. ~:..~ . . ~ ~ - - -. ~' t. ? ~~ ~~` 0 s.r ~ ~. L~ ,'7;. I.,,+j ..tr ., ~. :.# . , '-C G'L .c < ~-t-.'.! ,r,~~-f( -~l +E 3. .ti.,.:.t_'~t. '~' ... ... - , ~ . t 1 _ ~. ..~ ~ . i ~. r ~f .~, r. . f .`~~ -' ~ _., .-_....-i. ...__ _. __.. _ f ~ = - _ ~ _.-~_ ,qi-' 4--~ ~ --- - _~ _ - -- --~ - __ - _ ~ _ _ -- - - ~~ ~ `. ~~c ~ - ~ - _ ._ - _ _... __. .. _ ,y~~ '! f ~ ~ __ _ ~ 1 7 f ( :: _. _ A ~~ ~ ~ -- ~ ,, _ r -- - - .:~-- ~-~~ ~ r :r _~: tee. _~.~~. , _ - -/}i/ ~~ f ~~} ~ :_ ~ ~ ~,~ .. r ~ .~ r ~ C / ,... ...+ t `~~ ill.. J „F 4_.,; ..:: ~.~ ftt~. C~ ...~ _ ~ C ,/l// /' ,; j~_. ~` V ~ -' Z.e .. ,~,. r" _ ~ . ~= 5 i y i ~ ~ rr~ ~ ~ , ~~, i ~~ ' ~~~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Evening Session Tuesday, August. 4, 1.981 ` . ~cm a(sail 7:30 p.m. box too . ~a~l, Colorado ats~~ . 3o3.a~s•ssi3 ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 1• ORDINANCE #~29, SERIES OF 1.981, SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING A PRIOR RESOLUTION; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO 2.G MILLION DOLLARS AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE TOWN`S SPORTS FACILITY REVENUE BONDS. 2. ORDINANCE #3O, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONE DISTRICT FOR LOT G-1, LION'S RIDGE FILING.#2, FROM RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TO PRIMARY/SECONDARY. 3. RESOLUTION #21, SERIES OF 1981, A RESOLUTION REGRRDING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE TELEVISIOPd AGREEMENT. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ~~5. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE KIANDRA LODGE. 6. DEPARTf~+ENTAL REPORT - POLICE DEPARTMENT. 7. APPOINTMENT OF DESIGN REVIEW BARD MEMBER. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT 1 l ~~ ~ .~ ~/~~r RICl~IARD CAPLAN, TOWN,~'IANAGER • l/ ~ _J ~~ ~ /~/ l ~,.~ - ~~,1_.~ ,.~ ~~~c.P. ~v ,~~ ~wG~.-c.=r ,ate„ U;~ _..r.~ -~.(r _ L.~.~ .f f ~2~' , - ~.,,~ ._ ~ dad l =_ i e...~a _, ._ _.._. 'f O-~G ~ "~ ~ C~` ~.,. ~ _ Q~~~ -C CL[. c> 's t, t r ~ _ J i~-~, s ~.- ~C,Gr- .~ r-._ __ /,,i__ ~C~ ~_ ~.-. ~- ~ i ~~P ~ ~.?. ~' !` t°n't .t fa..~ ~' ~_~...rR-mac.-.+CIf~ -.. _ . I ~~/ ~ i ~" \.~ ~' i ;' ,~ ,_ c~ t.--- /.e/ r~•G-LC.,~.•Olt~.~!' a:_.~ i.~~ ~~~~~: ~L_~~.y ~~iL.~..~A..jjj,C~~"~,,,_ '•, ~+ ~ /r' -- - - - - E ~.. - -- ~ -"~~.-GC~~ ~Zc_~ '-~°~~ `- _ ~c_-t_: C~.~aJ. ~~1t--~rr.,~ r:rf,~.i ~~Y~~~ ~ ._ :~ _ ~~ ~ ~ - - _ \} i 1 r_I /7/ -- - -~ -. -.-_ - .__ _ __ a ~ r---- ,. ~~ ,_.~ /~/ - - ~ -`"~-~~~-~'r_rr,-: III ,. ~~-~ '~r'[ .'_ fit ~' ,~v - f - ~ - ' ~ ~~ E . /~ i ~ % ~ e x ! d .~" i f/J L/- i~4i, IT [.-; «, ~ C,f~...(,~_ i?~,~ .~C" .!f~ fs~r r~.-~C: ~- /~ Jj ~1 C~~i-Q~ ~ l~% f~f i ~~F''1t I! ~ l.:F ri ~, l~t t'J~!" ~ ~..C.CFaj-.: ~-i„t. ~'1C_itF r? [. C ~ ... - '~ t i ~ s l ~. 1 `/ ~. - f f ~ .:~ :rte ~r lx~, c.~L4~. V . - -._. ._. _ __ - - - - --- - _ .L . - --- - -- yy _, f ~ 1 ~ __ ' - - - _ ~ -: _. i _.. _._ - t~ ~ - _ _ ~g'hL .~ s~ ~_ ~ ~ _ -- _ - -- ._ . - //~ ~i JJ) ~q° ~ _ _ __._ __ --_ - - - - i - _ - _ - - - - ~ ~ I - ~ ~ //may/7 [/ ! ___ _ n • d - - __ - - _ ~E ~J qy - / / ; f ,r7 /~ /, f 1 ~} ///'~ ~J //,, 'L.,'. i /J / i 11,E ~' ~: • ~--~L. ~,~ -~~c~,,~ l ~ E~ ~ f r ..-~; f' ~ ~' ~f-~ L r _~.~~} . ~. ~j~ ~ _ -: G~ ,~ C ds ~ ~ r e;~ _ .~ c" ...., y ~k ..t. - -r t<.e_ ~~/c~~/ . ~.e!..~JtrC',. ~.e:~rz~. .. ~ =~ .~ ~ f ~ _ ., ,.. ~ //~ // L,.fi{_~C~t.~~~~R..' 6-~E.E.°'^~"iC.PLJ~.f Gt+j r-. 4/ W ,,. l~ N ~~ I -_ - ~ -- -. _ - - _.. _ - I - -- _ ~ - - - - - --- - - _ - - - - - -1 - - _~. VATL TOWN COUNCIL Regular Meeting August 4, 1981 Minutes On August ~, 19$1 the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. Members present were: Mayor Rodney Slifer Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Ron Todd Bi71 Wi1to Others present were: Rich Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1981, second reading, an ordinance confirming a prior resolution; authorizing and directing the issuance of up to 2.6 million dollars aggregate principal amount of the Town's sports facility revenue bonds. This was read into the record by Mayor Slifer. Tt was noted that this money was to be used for Vail Mountain only. As there was no discussion, Bud Benedict made a motion for approval of the ordinance; second by Wilto. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. Mayor Slifer suggested- to the Vafl~Associates' representative in attendance that a meeting`be set up in order to talk about the feasibility of a trail being cut to allow skiers to exit off the mountain down into I;he Park Meadows residential area. This would take some of the stress off of the Town's bus system. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 198i~, first reading, a.n ordinance amending the zone district for Lot.G-1, Lion`s Ridge Filing No. 2 from, residential cluster to primary/ secondary. Larry Rider noted that the Planning Commission's recommendations v,~ere in error and that there should li.e a couple of ,amendments- before this matter goes any further. The "2nd Whereas and the 1st section should 6e cY~anged to indicate that the Planning and Environmental Commission considered it and made no recommendation respecting the rezoning...". Peter Patten, xoning.Admi:nistrator, explained the ordinance. The staff.'s recommendation was for approval with a series of conditions. Those condi.ti:ons were then read into the record. Ed Drager, attorney representing the applicant, explained .that the abstaining members of the PEC were contacted by Drager and ~ated~that~i~P_`they had.6een.able to vote; t-hey would have been in approval of the request.. Comments and questions were.li_eard.from Council. As there was na further discuss-ion, Ron Todd made.a motion~ta approve the zone change with the modi:fi:cati:ons as pointed out by the Town Attorney in the opening statements and with the changes in tY~.e conditions listed such.that they correspond with the. Department of Community Development's memorandum dated Rugust 4, 1981; second by Wilto. The motion carried 5-1 , (.Benedi:ct was opposed as he felt that i t shout d go back to the Planning Commi;ssion.~ Resolution No.'21.,Series of 1981, a r.eso1uti:on ro.garding tfie transfer of the cable te.levi'sion agreement. This. w.as read into th.e record by:~l~ayor Slifer. Rich Caplan recommended that th.e Council table this resolution,and he outlined the reasons. _ Frank Thompson, previous owner of the CATV company, made some comments. Comments ..were heard from Council. Bill.W:ilto made a motion to~table consideration for two weeks; second by .Todd, The motion to table carried unanimously. Vail Town Council August 4, 1981 Minutes Page Two CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Don Klinger questioned whether the Town had ever considered charging a fee far the Vail/tionshead bus service. Mayor Slifer addressed this and opened it up to comments from the Council and public,. A lengthy discussion followed. Sign Variance Request for Kiandra Lodge. No consideration of this matter as the application had been withdrawn. Department Report - Police Department Russ Matta, Police Chief, out1i~ned some~of the developments within his department during the last six months since his. last department report. It was noted that the Police Department has 19 out of 23 officers certified; two are in basic training and one is seated to go to basic training in September. At the beginning of the next ski season, they hope to have 22 out of 23 officers certified. He then outlined what had gone well with, the department; what had ,gone wrong, what things they had changed and what they need to do. It was pointed out that Motto has been accepted to the FEB Training Academy. Niotta discussed some of. the 1aw~enforcement ordinances and specified the ones that his department was having problems with. Tt was decided that Larry Rider, Russ Motto and dodge Buck Allen get together and discuss the various ordinances. Questions were addressed to the costs as well as the performance of the Police Saubs. Appointment of Design Review Board Member. Frank McKebbin was appointed.. TOWN- MANAGER REPORT: Caplan. pointed out-that the Minturn Council will meet on August 5th, and they will discuss the Homestake. TI Project. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT: None Bill Wilto felt that the Council should take a look at a vendor's fee before the November election. It was, suggested that Bill Pyka and Rich Caplan put together a memorandum in regards to the cost factors.. Bud Benedict had same comments an the "inconsistent" enforcement of the noise ordinance. Rich Caplan addressed some of his concerns. Ella Knox suggested that the Town turn their Matterhorn property into a "wild flower exhibit". Pat Dodson reminded the .Council that the West Vail Recreaction District election wool d 5e held August 11th . As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. , ~~~~~~ aft yor - > ATTEST: Town Clerk VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES Tuesday, August 18, 1981 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, August 18, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rodney £. Slifer, Mayor Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Tom Steinberg Ron Todd ABSENT: Bob Ruder Paul Johnston OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney Mayon Rod Slifer presented two participants of the Up With People group visiting in Vaii with a welcome setter and asked the members to comment on their group and their program. Mayor Slifer also introduced three representatives from the Republic of na who had been visiting our country during the fast year and who were ~o in attendance at our Council meeting in December of 1980. The first item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #30, Series of ].981, an ordinance amending the zone district for Lat G-1, Lion's Ridge Filing #2, from residential cluster to primary/secondary. After same discussion Ron Todd made a motion to approve Ordinance #30 on second reading and Sill Wilto seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. The next itme on the agenda was the presentation of Resolution #21, Series of 1981, a resolution adopting the transfer of the cable televison franchise to Heritage Communications. After a:lengthy discussion Bill Wilta made a motion to approve the resalution and Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Paul Johnston appeared at the meeting at this point. The next item on the agenda was the presentation of Resolution #22, Series of 1981, a resolution adopting the Town of Vail Personnel Rules and Regulations. After a presentation by Charlie Wick, personnel Director, Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the resolution and Tom Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. next item on the agenda was the presentation of Resolution #23, Series of 1981, a resolution exercising the option and obligation of the Town Council to redeem certain of its Town of Vail Street Improvement .District No. 1 local Tmpravement Bonds, Series of October 1, 1976, prior to maturity. After some discussian, Bi11 Wilto made a motion to approve Resolution #23 and Bud Benedict seconded it. Ail voted i.n favor and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Steinberg was called out of this meeting at this point. Under Citizen Participation an unidentified citizen asked that the Council look into the matter of a Tot Lot being put in the Sook Creek area. The Mayor asked that the Community Development Dept. check into this matter and report back to the Council with a recommendation. Another citizen asked the Gounci.7 what the status was on the speed bump situation. Bill Wilto stated that the Council had agreed to put these in certain areas on a trial basis and that the Council would see to it that this would be acted on in the very near future. The next item on the agenda was the signivariance request for the Kiand~a Lodge. A presentation was made by a kiandra spokesman. The Council agreed that the sign had been there for 12 years and seemed to be in appropriate s e and appearance. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the variance and Todd seconded it. The motion was passed 4 to 1, with Paul Johnston opposing. MINUTES 8/1$/81 sage 2 next item on the agenda was the discussion of the proposed VA 1981-82 udseeding Program. Joe Macy, from VA, and lorry Hjermstad, from Western Weather Consultants, gave a presentation on the anticipated cloudseeding program for Vail Mountain. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the cloudseeding program and Paul Johnston seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4 to 1, Ron Todd opposing. The next item on the agenda was the Wagon lease. Richard Caplan gave a present owners and the proposed new Johnston to approve the new owner a Benedict seconded it. All voted in unanimously. discussion of the Lionshead Popcorn recap of his discussions with the owner. A motion was made by Paul nd the changes to the lease. Bud favor..and the motion was passed Under Town Manager Report, Rich Caplan stated that the $50,000. matching grant from the National Endowment of the Arts had been officially approved far the Town of hail and that Claes Oldenburg would be visiting Vail this month to review a possible site in the Lionshead Mall for a sculture to be erected in 1983. Caplan introduced Ruth Cogan, the new Environmental Health Officer. Under Town Attorney Report, Larry Rider stated that the Lawsuit between the Town of Vail and Sunbird Lodge had been settled and the owners had accepted the 7own's proposal to remove all of the food preparation units from the Lodge. Rod Slifer stated that the Council had received a memorandum from the Town Manager regarding the Benefit Program for Appointed Officials. The memo states that persons who serve on the various boards and councils of the Town deserve some sort of compensation. There has been no decision made but the Council will be reviewing the recommendations. As there was no further business, the meeting was ad,~ourned at 9:30 p.m. ~ ~ ~. . ~~ Rodney E. S~ifer, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1981 4:00 P. M. -Tuesday, September 1, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular ting in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rod Slifer Bill Wilto Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder ALSO PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Resolution #2b> Series of 1981, a resolution supplementing Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1981, determining the principal amount, bond numbers, provisions for redemption and maturities of, and rates of interest pn $2,600,000. of the Town's Sports Facility Revenue Bonds (Vail Associates Project, Series of 1981}. Rich Caplan stated there were no financial changes to this resolution from the Ordinance #29. Paul Johnston ~e a motion to approve the resolution and Bill Wilto seconded it. A71 ed in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Jack Acuff, Vail Associates, thanked the Council for acting on this resolution in a timely manner. Next item was the appointment of new PEC members. Jim Morgan was reappointed for a 4 year term and Wi1i Trout was appointed as a new member for a three year term. The next item was a discussion on water matters. Rich Caplan stated that Tom Glass, NWCCOG, was called away unexpectedly and would have to reschedule the discussion until the next meeting. As there was no Citizen participation, the Council moved on to the next business, that being the completion of PEC items from the work session preceding the regular meeting. Among those items discussed was the plan for the Casino Building project. The Council requested that a full presentation be made at their next work session on Tuesday, Sept. 8th. The next item was Town Manager report. Rich Caplan stated that the CML Policy Committee would be soliciting members and if no one on the Council wished to serve that he (Caplan) would serve again. The Council voted to so do. T~e was no Town Attorney Report. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. ~~ Rodney E. ~1 i fer,'~+'lay~b~ ~ ATTEST: Colleen K3ine, Town Clerk . Y' t MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 1981 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 15, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular ~ting in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder OTTERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Tawn Clerk The first item an the agenda was the reading of Resolution #26, Series of 19$1, a resolution of the Town Council adopting a Minority Business Enter- prise Program for the Town of Vail. Richard Caplan stated that as part of the Elrban Mass Transportation Dept. grant and the expansion of the bus barn, the Town must comply with a state regulation that this program be put o effect in the Town of Vail. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the ~olution and Ron Todd seconded the motion. A11 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. The second item on the agenda was Resolution #24, Series of 1981, a resolution vacating an easement across Lot 16 Vail. Village ThirdE'Fi7ing; approving a vacation and abandonment of existing easement agreement. After some discussion Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the resolution and 6711 Wilto .seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was Resolution #27, Series of 1981, a resolution approving the granting of an easement for sanitary service purposes to Chevron Oil Company across the Town's Old Shop site. After some discussion Tom. Steinberg made a motion to approve Resolution #27 and Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. Mayor Slifer announced that the Casino matter had been postponed until the October 6th meeting at the request of the applicants, as they had not completed all the items that were requested of them from the work session of a week ago. There was no Citizen Participation. 1~ next item on the agenda is the review of the proposed development plan for Lionshead Study Area #5. Dick Ryan reviewed the plan for the Council, including the changes planned for the commercial area of Lionshead. Bill Ruoff, architect on the Lionshead for the Improvement Distract, gave a presentation with a model of the planned development area. Dinah Chapman, President of the Lionshead Merchants Association, voiced her approval of the planned changes. A motion was made by Bud Benedict and seconded by Paul Johnston to approve the Develop- ment Plan for Lionshead Study Area #5. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the DRB decision on the Johnston duplex. . SLIFER: I'd like to make a couple of comments on this hearing and set some groundrules. This is an appeal of the decision by the Design Review Board on an issue of.whether or not the house was built in accordance with the plans as approved. For the record, the Council has received a verbatim document of the DRB hearing. They've all had an opportunity to read that. We visited the site this afternoon of the entire and are very familiar with the property. The hearing is to review the Design Review Board's decision and we will only hear the same facts. This isn't a court of law. We are reviewing the decision made by them and in order to make this decision we want you to state facts and we don't want a whole lot of new information introduced. We want the same presentation. We would like for you to keep your presentation as brief as possible, however, complete, again keeping in mind that we have complete verbatim minutes of the DRB hearing. I will absolutely l r l MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 2 ~FEB: people talking personal~it~ies or talking about other people. If n't.} that sort o-F~cammendation goes on, I will terminate your response and ask you to be seated. So, speak to the issue, don`t speak to people, this is a house and- I will be very strict about that. T will ask you all to, I will have the Planning Department give us background on the matter and I will ask 'the applicant to present their side of the case and' then we will open it up for discussion of the Council and to the floor. We will ask that you only speak once, again, collect your thoughts and speak on whatever issue y,ou plan to speak to, but we aren't going to allow you to pop up every 3 or 4 minutes when you think of something else. So you will be allowed to speak once. Does everyone understand how we will run this? With that we will proceed with the hearing. peter. PETER JAMAR: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is an appeal of the September 3rd Design Review Board decision denying the requested changes to a duplex wlzich is being constructed on Lot 4, Potato patch subdivision. Requested changes dealt specifically with four major items, and I`ll briefly go through these four items. • The first item was that since the final approval of the Design Review Board for this new duplex on July 30th, 1980, a deck was constructed on the southwest side of the structure and this deck was found to be within a required fifteen-foot side setback. The deck was ordered removed by the Town staff and was removed and the applicants requested revision to this deck area and submitted the revision to the Design Review Board. The second item was that materials used on the exterior of the house were substantially different from those approved by the Design Review Board July 30th, 1980, which was the original approval. The applicant has proposed to restore the structure to the originally approved materials and design. The third item is that the topography of the lot has been altered substantially from what was originally approved. Prior to construction fill was brought onto the lot which resulted in a 4.7 foot increase in floor slab elevation in the primary unit and 2.5 feet in the secondary unit, and correspondingly, the roof peak elevations in those units, the alteration of that topography has caused a severe drainage problem between lot 4 and the adjacent lot 5 to the southwest. The fourth item is that the retaining wall which was constructed within the required 20 foot front setback exceeds the maximum height allowed of 3 feet and the applicant has presented plans to the Design Review Board-for addressing stepping this wall down to the maximum three foot height. 5o those are basically the four issues that were presented to the Design Review Board for revision. The Design Review Board after hearing the pre- sentation voted 3 to 2 to deny the requested changes. The Design Review Board cited specifically three sections of the Town of Vail Design Guidelines and I'll read these into the record. "The Design Review Board felt that the proposed changes were not in Compliance with specifically Section 18.54010E which reads, to insure that the location and configuration of structures are visually harmonious with other sites and sur- rounding structures and do not unnecessarily block scenic views from existing buildings or tend to dominate the townscape or natural landscape." They felt that the proposed changes were not in compliance with also Section 18.54.0708 in residential areas, location and configuration of buildings should maximize the privacy of surrounding dwellings and should intrude into their views with a minimum extent feasible. ..And also Section 18.54070M which reads, "On hillsides excessive grading should not be permitted for building sites, access drives, offstreet parking, pool sites, recreation areas, or other improvements." The applicants have appealed that Design Review Board denial to the Council. SLIFEB: Far the record, we should also note that we have received several letters in regard to this matter. I don't have the file with me but those letters are on file. We just received one from the Vail Village Homeowners Association asking that no approval be given. We have received a letter from Fred Meyer MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 3 BENEDICT: I'm sorry, what did the Vail Village Homeowners request? S~FER: They asked that no approval be given to the resulting changes in the plans originally approved by the Design Review Board. That they should conform to those original plans as all other persons are required to do. BENEDICT: And who was that from? SLIFER: Vail Village property owners. It's signed by Lee Association Secretary. Diana Donovan gave it to me.- DIANA: It is an association that we have formed and there are about 55 members now. SLIFER: Is this regards to and so on? DIANA: Not specifically, no. SLIFER: Fred Meyer representing Hope Cheslin, submitted a letter. MEYER: No, Rod, Mr. Velasquez. ~FER: From Victor Delamorma, Pual Johnston, Harold Federman, Ruth Federman, Joslyn Boyer and George Boyer, another one from the Federman`s, Richard Strauss, Westner, David Lynsey, D.T. Traylor, Ellie Wexner, that appears to be the correspondence we have received to date. Do the applicants then want to present their side? LARRY KELLY: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my nape is Larry Kelly, counsel to Paul Johnston, Paul Johnston is the owner of lot 4, the lot in question. I`d like to make some preliminary remarks with respect to the statements that you just made, Mr. Mayor and perhaps T can get some clarification on this issue. I'd like to point out for the record that our last Design Review Board meeting consisted of the applicant's time being cut dawn to about a half an hour. We expected a much lengthier presentation and it wasn`t until immediately before the hearing that we were told that it had to be very short and we had to just get right down to the essence of things and obviously many things were left out of that presentation because of the occurrence of that short notice of.:how short the meeting was going to be. Tn that regard, and speaking for the applicant, T would be appreciative of certain leniencies with respect to what was introduced last time and what might additionally be introduced this time. I believe that fairness would require that. I can speak to a couple of issues as to what I would like to present and have you rule on them individually, I'm not sure pracedur~ly how you'd like to address that. SLTFER: We want the statements that were made to the DRB. Tf you want to make a new presentation and ga back to the DRB and have a lengthier time to present your issue then T would suggest you do so, but we do not want to hear a tremendous amount of information they did not hear. KELLY: I appreciate the general thrust of your statement. There were certain statements that were made at the last DRB that pretty much went unaddressed after they were made and they include such issues as whether Paul Johnston knew that this thing was being built in excess of the height, things of that nature that we are prepared to address summarily here, and I don't believe it would take alot of time, but T didn't want to tread contrary to your original policies. SLIFER: I'm not sure that's part of the issue. KELLY: I'm not suggesting it is, but SLIFER: I don't think that`s the issue, and if it's not part of the DRB presentation MINUTES Vail Town Council September I5, 1981 Page 4 LY: Okay. I'll start into my presentation then with that under- ~ standing of those guidelines. ~ migh.t ask that depending on haw this meeting goes, that we have some additiohal~ guidelines and that is i.f we need a record on appeal we've had some difficulty with respect to whether people identify themselves or don't identify themselves before they speak and I'd very much appreciate that people be required to identify themselves and when they refer to any of the exhibits that they refer to the numerical order of them. They`re clearly marked up here and that would be helpful also. One other thing that I'd ask of you is as a matter of procedure is that Peter Jamar has out- lined four issues in the 9-9, memo to the Council. And if the Council would think that it would be easier to deal with, we would like to present each. issue and have it discussed and analyzed and perhaps even voted on separately so that we don't get down to the last issue and not know whether certain pre- discussed issues were decided one way or the other or what the basic thrust of the thing is. If you find that unduly burdensome, I appreciate that, but if we could address each issue at a time and relate and vote on it, that would be .helpful, I believe. SyiFER: I think it-would be more appropriate to address all the issues at one time. I think that one issue may inter-relate to another and the decision that the Council might make may hinge on a previous issue, so I think it more appropriate to address them all at once as I assume the DRB did. KELLY: Okay, very fine, yes they did, very fine. I'll skip over my prepared text on who is Paul Johnston=and what he was attempting to accomplish and what he knew and what he didn't know, whether Council approval will diminish DRB respect or integrity and get truly into the substance of this thing. I would like, Mr. Mayor, to address the issues in the order of the deck, the materials, the retaining wall, anal then, lastly, the issue of topography, that`s the most complex and I think if we deferred that to the end that anyway may be of same assistance. If that's acceptable, I'll proceed that way then. The deck as Peter Jamar pointed out, was built on the southwest side of the building. The original plans, as I understand, did show that a deck was in that area. The problem with that deck is that it was supported by concrete foundation, and if it was supported by concrete foundation, then it was not "a deck acceptable to being in a setback area". So the Town staff asked that that be torn off and it was summarily torn off. We have introduced deck revision .plans and I believe that that's in the file in front of you with respect as .to how we would handle that. And basically, that's just tearing off the deck and setting it back in to the structure where it will not set out into the setback area. And there really isn't any more presentation to it than the revised deck plans which takes the deck out of the setback area and sets the hot tub back in to the integral aspects of the structure. STEINBERG: Are you saying that the new deck proposal does not intrude into the setback at a11? KELLY: That's correct. If there are no questions an that issue, it`s just simply that it`s not going to setback into the deck area, or excuse me, into the setback area. The materials, number 2, I hope can be handled summarily. also. And that i~, this simple statement, that the applicant apoligizes for the errors made by the.contractor.with respect to utilizing materials and designs inconsistent with the prior approved plans and the applicant will use the original materials and will build the building according to the original design. It will be quite expensive but it~is feasible. We have retained engineers and- architectual construction consultants for the purposes of defining whether it possible to do this and what the cost is and they've told us it's costly but it's possible to do so we're saying that we will do it that way. We will build it the way it was originally approved and we`r.e not asking for any changes in that regard. MINUTES Vail Tawn Council September 15, 1981 Page 5 LY: I don't know whether that would generate a question yr not, but ~ n't.) if there is one. SLIFER: Not at this point. KELLY: Okay. The third aspect is the issue of retaining walls. The Town requires that any retaining wa11 within a twenty-foot set- back not exceed a maximum height limit of three feet and there was a retaining wa11 and there still is a retaining wall within the twenty foot setback that does, in fact, exceed the three fact height limitation and with respect to that issue, we have prepared a set of landscaping designs and plans that will eliminate the need for having a retaining wall in excess of three foot within the setback, so we're not asking for any variance on that, on that code element. Again, I don't know if that would generate any questions, but, PAUL Is that issue supposed. to address the drainage, does the JOHNSTON: drainage issue come under (Council- member) ~LY: Mr. Johnston, I believe it truly is an aspect of the drainage and it truly is an aspect of the landscaping, but inasmuch as the memo set it out in the Community Development memo, it is a separate item. I dust dealt with it as a separate item but I think it is integral to the rest of the presentation, yes. SLIFER: We saw these plans this afternoon and you propose to have those plans or have someone speak to those plans? KELLY: I propose tv address them, ah, the fellow who designed them is here and he's over there, and if it's something that I cannot field I'll ask Gary Rosler to prepared them to address specific questions, but I would like to first attempt to describe to you what they are and how they work. I'm a lawyer, not a landscape architect and so I may be not as good as describing some of the features but I want to get to the essence and I think that I may be better at getting to the essence of it and Gary can give it an overview perhaps. JOfiNSTON: I dust have a questinn..before we get started on that. Peter, where is some factual..substantiatinn that there is a drainage problem? JAMAR: Where is there some substantiation? I think visually on the lot if you were to go up there you would notice evidence of fill dirt that has eroded from Lot 4 onto and across the lot line of lot 5. I believe there are pictures in the file. KELLY: What I would like to do at this point in time while we're on that issue of drainage, I think if we could then get into this last area that is generally referred tv as topography, which includes areas of landscaping, retainage walls, the height of the structure, I believe that covers it, with respect to drainage which is a subissue of topography, we have had KKBNA, the engineering firm, review the plans as prepared by Gary Rosler because it was discussed at last DRB, well this is all fine and wonderful, but the water is still going to run onto Lot 4, Okay. Gary said no it would eat, but that did not seem to satisfy the audience that it would not, so we've had an engineering consultant look at the drainage problem, the drainage matter I'll call it, and address whether these plans wi11 or will not solve any potential drainage plan and if you'd like I could submit these then for your persual. STEINBERG: Were these submitted to DRB? MINOTES Vail Town Council September 15, I981 Page 6 LY: No, they were not submitted to DRS. Just the issue of whether ~ there was a drainage problem. We're not bringing up another issue. (Pause to lack at plans} When it's appropriate, I can address I think, what the essence of this is. As I understand this think, what KKBNA is saying is that given a 100 year flood 24 hour peak rate, the discharge would be approximately 1. cubic feet per second. If things get really tough it's going to generate almost a foot and one half cubic feet per second runoff. The arrangement as designed by Gary Ros7er, it says in the 1, 2, 3, 4th paragraph, will handle 13 cubic feet per second, nearly IO times what would be required in a I00 year flood, 24 hour. peak rate discharge of water. I don't know how I could say it any more clearly than that, that this will handle the drainage problem. That has been our opinion all along and this is just another way of stating it. Are there any questions on that issue at all? Disagreements, interpretations of this document? I suppose the one other critical aspect of that is that the owner of Lat 4, Mr. Sayer, had contended contrary to our contention that the water and the original topography would flow from him lot, Lot 5, onto Lot 4, and what Mr. Boyer was concerned, i think I'm stating this properly, is that not it appeared that water would flow from Lot 4, the subject property here, onto his lat. What KKBNA JAMAR: At the present time. KELLY: At the present time. Okay. What KKBNA is saying is that originally the topography, the water would flow from the Johnston lot dawn the property line to about the bottom 25 percent of the lot where it wod1d flow over onto Lot 5. It would flow in essence to Lot 4 to Lat 5 at the bottom of it. And this plan is intended such that no water as much as reasonably passible, will flow from Lot 4 to Lot 5 whatsoever. So hopefully that will satisfy the Bayer's concern about the drainage issue. If they have a representative here, I don't know whether they do or not, perhaps it would be appropriate to give them a copy of this. Seeing none and hearing none, I guess I won't. GEORGE Raising hand). ~I don't want to use up any of my speaking time. SOYER, JR.: 'FER: No, you won't. TODD: The calculations here are based upon the original. topography as opposed to the existing and modified formula, is that correct? KELLY: The calculations that are based upon the plans that we are presenting for your approval. TODD: Okay, Those here are based what your current confirguation site is? KELLY: Yes. TODD: Even though he has attached a site plan of the original topography? KELLY: He has attached a site plan of the original topography for purposes of showing that the original topography showed water running from-Lot 4 to Lat 5, but for no other reason. Okay. That being, I think, the first issue of the topography, the drainage, I think its pra~ably appropriate to deal with the landscaping issues at this point, saving for last the ultimate issue, the issue of height, and if that's appropriate I'il demonstrate to the best of my ability what these plans depict. MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 7 LY: The first document is entitled Number 1 and it is intended to ~ ntinued) show an overview of. the planning schematic, it's intended to demonstrate that the planning that is being suggested here, oh, before I go into this I ought to point,~something out and I'll do this .as you wish. What we have done is, the DRB last time said you know it would be nice to have some pine trees up there also, We originally didn't put pine trees in because we thought the DRB guidelines said use the vegetation that's local in the area and we decided that that meant the vegetation in the area proper of the subject property, so we didn't put pine trees in. So we have overlays here showing pine trees. Now I can take those off or keep those on, or flip them back and forth, or whatever you wish that I do on that. It`s inappropriate forme not to tell you that there are pine trees on-here that were not an there originally, but we can remove them quite easily. -Fine as it 1S? SLIFER: Yes. KELLY: Okay. Drawing No. 1 is intended to show an overlay of the planning schematic. The purpose of which is to show that the plants, in and of themselves, do not create a visual i impact, that they are clustered close to the home and they are for the purposes of emmularating the impact, the visual impact, of the extra increase in height without themselves not being a view obstruction. That is to say that as you can see, they're clustered in close tv the home and that's the purpose of that drawing. Drawing No. 2, I'm going to move this back here, Drawing No. 2 is a sketch of the east elevation. This ~is the elevation when you drive up Potato Patch Raad before you make the turn to come back to the cul-de-sac at the top. Luc Meyer's home would be up this way and this would be your first view of Lot 4 as built. Now what Mr. Rosier has done here, is that as you gentlemen are aware, we had a pretty massive retaining wall set up right here in the corner and what they're intending to do is to make two more series of rock walls or rock planters, if you. will, in front of the wood retaining wall and also lower the wood retaining wa11, such that no wall here exceeds the three-foot height and that within each planter, shrubs and plantings will grow to reduce the impact of a three wall setup. It wi11 be , the intent is to smooth those lines out and in doing an attempt to reduce the impact of:~.that height, large trees are shown here. With respect to the size of those trees, the question always tames up, are those trees going to be planted that height or are we going to do little bitty ones and let them grow? Mr. Rosler has informed me that those trees will be about as large as can be put in originally for purposes of getting them going, but they're about 3 or 4 years short of the height as shown there, is that correct, Gary. ROSLER: Yes, in most cases, except for where there is a high impact, there are larger trees there. KELLY: Okay, what I'm trying to say is that those are pretty much the trees that we'reigoing.to plant. We're going to plant large trees, not small ones. With respect, can you gentlemen,see this, by the way? Okay. With respect to Drawing No. 3, this is the south elevation. We can call this Lot 4, Lot 5 border. Okay. This is the thing that is almost impossible to walk today and pretty tough and brutal looking and what we intend to do is with respect to the two walls that I mentioned to you on Figure 2, they will be wrapped around thusly, there will be a wall in this area and a wall in here. By the way, here's where the hot tub will sit. Back into the home there as opposed to sitting out away from it. Again, trees are wrapped around and ' s up in that we've used predominately. the native Aspen trees that area and the pine trees that are shown are not the pine trees MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 8 shown to the ORB, but of course we`re quite willing to put them in. Onto No. 5 here. A is just a cross~sectivn of the retaining wall and all that means to me is that it is a retaining wall. I don't see any great significance other than that`s how it's developed and there is a weeph6le through the retaining wall that collects water and it runs through that system. I don't knew whether there's anything very significant about that. O; an Exhibit 6, is what is intended to run along this area here. It is what's called a French drain, ar a natural-drain. It is subterranean and it collects water in this system here and it flows down to the street. Now the fact of the matter is that will carry water in normal runoff. Hugh, high peak ru-Huffs is going to be carried in .this area that is a swell, it's a little indentation here and the boys were concerned where that was relative to their lot line anal it`s clearly on our lot line, or excuse me, it's on our side of the property. The detail here on the righthand has to do with the front of the building. with the cul-de-sae being up in this area. Originally there was that massive mound of dirt here. That is being cut back this way so that it won't have that substantial impact. That. was just dirt that was brought out onto the property or dug gip, but it's certainly. not intended to stay that way in any fashion. The water comes off this roof, it tames into this area here and flows down the south side and part of it wi17 flow tv the other direction. Oh, and I think the other important thing of this is that the planting is in close to the house and it's within this lower area here so that itself doesn`t become a site impact, but it tends to emme1irate the impact of the house. On to 7, this of course of the garage side and there is hugh mounds of dirt out here right now and this is being stepped and sloped down to a maximum slope of 2 to 1? ROSLER: About 2 to 1. KELLY: Two to one. Okay. As it grades around the house there and., again, the trees are tucked in tight. With respect- to what you may have noticed underneath this deck looked like there was a rather sizeable hole, ar I don't know what you'd call it, but underneath the deck there was an area. This wi71 be covered with shrubs and things of that nature. The west elevation, again, it just demonstrates, this woul d be the cut-de-sac looking in at this angle here and this is what these trees will do with respect to minimizing the impact of~:that house, that additional 2.5 feet. If you have specific questions an landscaping or what any of these docum ents are intended to show, Mr. Rosler could address those. I don't think I did a wonderful presentation on landscaping., just trying to demonstrate what they were. So if you have specif ic questions, perhaps Gary would answer them for you. SLIFER: Any questions on the landscaping? STEINBERG: I'd be interested in the tap terrace. Would there still be the woad you have there? KELLY: I'm sorry, I couldn't ..... STEINBERG: KELLY: The top terrace is wood and the bottom two are stone? Oh, the retaining walls. Yes, the plans are presented to the Oesign Review Board was that the top terrace would be wood and then it would step dawn into two..stone. The idea was that plantings in between the two stones would reduce that impact. Of course, we're. willing to do .stone, but that wasn't the presentation and 1 don't know how to respond to that mare than that. MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15,1981 Page 9 ~SLER: The Review Board did ask us to made that top tier stone. So we did agree to do that. We will make all the will be stone. STEINBERG: That's what T thought T read and then it looked different. ROSLER: Tt was not presented that way,originally but with the spruce additions ... SLIEER: Any other questions? KELLY: Now I think that you have this in your file here. These specific numbers, I'm not sure whether you da or not, so T'll mention them. The primary unit, its slab was approved at an elevation 8630 feet. Okay, from sea level, It was built on 8634.7. That means the lower slab was raised in the air 4.7 feet. The secondary, or upper unit, the actual highest part of the structure, was approved at 8642.8 and was built at 8645.3. Now I'd like to point out some things about, well, let me also say that the differential increase in the height of the two units gave a nonuniform increase in total structure. The larger unit was built 4.7 feet up, the smaller unit was built 2.5 feet up. ROSLER: May T make a comment? KELLY: I don't know. RO5LER: Everything that's been done here has been done to city cads as far as slope angle slope and things like that. The landscaping and everything like that is to the existing city code. SLIEER: We understand. ROSLER: Within the building h-eight and everything. KELLY: Okay. I think it's understood by all that the height '155Ue here is not an ordinance height issue. That is to say, that the structure is in fact 'not violating an ordinance height limitation. It's just higher than originally approved. Okay. I thought that went without saying at this point, but wanted " " for Uh to make sure. Uh,:T.promised myself T wouldn't say the transcript, but ... I think it's important to note that the highest point of the structure is the secondary unit and if we're dealing with the visual impact of the height increase we're really dealing with an issue of 30 inches from say Luc Meyers home. Anybody who would look dawn on the project and out with respect to the height itself, this is a short presentatio on height T want to tell you. It is simply this, that the economics of the home, tearing it down, redoing it, chopping it up in fashions, just simply makes it impossible, short of demolition of the building, to do anything with the height. It is where it is and there is nothing we can do about it. Would that we could, we`ve consulted everybody in sight, but there is nv way to lower this structure. You know we played with ideas of lowering the pitch of the roof but that flattens it out, we've talked about bringing up cranes, lifting up the structure and pulling the dirt out and setting it down, but you can't get a crane big enough up Potato Patch. Road, on and on and on, the ideas have gone to the bizarre in terms of methods of possibilities and engineering feasibilities and whatnot. It just simply cannot be done. The home is not in MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 10 violation of an ordinance height, I must stress, and there there isn't anything we can da about the height. In a negative vote with respect with what we're attempting to do to reduce the impact of that additional height, we're attempting to do every- thing that we possibly can to eliminate this problem and I must say that it was caused by a bad mistake on who did it. Every- thing that can be done has been done but we can't do anything with the height and a vote against these revisions is a vote in favor of demolishing the building and I must tell you that if it were passible to demolish the building and still keep Paul Johnston in tact financially, maybe we'd consider it, but we can`t keep him in tact financially if his entire future is up in the air here financially, so we don't intend to tear it down, uh, I hope that you will see that as a statement of a sincere attempt to deal with and handle the problems that have befalled Paul Johnston. I think it could have happened to anybody. I really da. And it really is a good faither attempt to deal with this and if there are any suggestions about how we might be able to handle it in a better way, we'd be willing to entertain them. I know that's not your position to tell us how to handle this problem, We've asked every consultant that we could imagine, We've asked the neighbors to kick in any thoughts they might have on the issue.a~d the relationship of the neighbors have been very difficult and very trying. It's been difficult and trying for them, I understand that, but with respect to try and get some feedback as to what was acceptable to them, we could not do that, we could not get that information. We submitted prior plans to the pRB with respect to the Lot 4-Lot 5 border, that showed every tree that was known to man planted there. It was a bit garish, and of course they said calm it down a little bit, sa we calmed it down a. little bit and the last DRB meeting said why don't you spruce it up a little. It's very difficult dealing in this arena. And I tell you every day that goes by is very, very expensive for us and the loss has been very substantial and I feel that this is an important issue, though, it really wasn't addressed and if you would give me the grace to just discuss one small issue of what would the acceptance of these plans by Council do to the DRB respect, I would appreciate that. If you feel like that's too far field, I won`t go into that. SLIFER: I think you can address that .issue. ~LY: Okay. It seems to be its been postulated that how can the Council possibly accept these revisions.::"If they did, wouldn't that encourage every-one to disregard the DRB? R very important function of the Town would be disregarded and everybody would say they wouldn't have to deal with it. Well, I suggest to you that the truth of the matter is that if anybody thought that it was a wise thing to do to fallow in the footsteps of Paul Johnston and through his agents disregarding the prior DRB approvals, they`d have to be insane.. If anything, the lass to Paul Johnston has been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars thus far and obviously, this could be held out as an example of what happens to people who don't follow the DRB. That there is a substantial punishment and penalty for this. And I cannot for the life of me imagine that anybody would seek Council approval to these revisions as.impuning the integrity of the Design Review Board. I think that they have done their task and it's a.comp7icated task and they've done it well. But I hope that the physological impact of this is not that you feel you must approve the prior DRB denial ar you would do them an inservice or an injustice. In any event, I assume there may be some questions on this height and I er may wish to speak on this issue for his know that Fred Me y client, Senor Valasquez from Mexico City> who is the intended purchaser of the unit. Does the Council have any questions on anything that I'.ve said? MINUTES Vail Town September Page 11 SLIFER: ~LY: SLIFER: GEORGE BOYER, Jr. SLIFER: BOYER: SLIFER: ~Y ROSLER: Council 15, 1981 Are there any questions. I think we understand it. Thank you very much for your patience. Thank you. I think we will just open it up to the floor far input from anyone out there who wants to make comments. I don't think I need to remind you of the groundrules, so if you'd like to start. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to get up and read my letter to you. I didn`t hear my name mentioned in your list of letters. My name is George Boyer, I'm George Boyer's son and not the property owner of Lot 5. However, as a citizen of the Town I did write a letter addressing the issue of the Design Review Board decision of early September: (Letter attached to transcript). I believe that covers what I had to say. Okay. Thank you. Do we have a copy of that letter? I sent it to you. I` ll give you a carbon. Any other comments? My name is Gary Rosler, the landscape architect for the project and I"ve been doing projects.in the Vail area for about 4 years now, including the planting plan for the Berry Creek Ranch Golf Course, the Dobson Ice Rrena and some other projects and I don't think any project I've done here or in any ski resorts throughout the state, as much has been spent per square foot on this project for landscaping. The, ah, Paul approached me with the idea to do what I have to da to fix it in the best way possible and there was no expense spared on the landscaping: We've got the largest possible trees we can use, we have an erosion control blanket an every slope that's beyond 2 to 1. Every slope within the pro- ject with the exception of the entry cut there on Drawing #2 is less than the slopes of the adjacent property, and in all cases practically. As far as the landscaping approach goes, there is nothing T can do to make it any better than it is, I don't feel. Any questions on that? Thank you. SLIFER: Thank you. Anyone else like to make any comments? DIANE My name is Diane Boyer and I have power of attorney for Joslyn ER: Bayer. First of all I'd like to address three points. Ah, in ~ regards to erosion and topography, you the Town stall and I'm not sure if it's in the hands of the Design Review Board or the Town Council, have a series of photographs which specifically show the erosion clearly in the fill dirt that was p1 aced between Lots 4 and 5, some of which is on Lot 4 and some of which is on Lot 5. Also there is a photograph and unfortunately I no longer have copies of these. They are a matter of record. They show the retaining wall that was originally built to hold this fill back. Let that be a matter of record. Clearly, all these photographs show erosion in all that fi11 area. Um, we have seen here this evening many very nice landscape plans. T did not realize that the issue was landscape. Perhaps I misunder- stood reading all of the Design Review Board and previous reports from the Town of Vail. I believe other issues - the height of the building, which was also addressed as well as the topography of the land are much more important. Thirdly, I'd like to read a letter which is addressed to.the Town Council Town of Vail, on behalf of Joslyn Boyer. You do have a copy of it but I would like it read. {Letter attached to the transcript.} MINUTES Vail Tawn Council September 15, 1981 Page 12 Thank you. ~FER: Are there any other comments? My name is Velasquez, I am a civil engineer. I am a contractor also. I agree partly with what the Boyer family has said, but T would like to make a few comments. You will excuse my very poor English. I still don't know of any project that has~been worked to the last detail so that it has been constructed accordingly 100 percent to the way it was projected. It always happens that as you build whatever you are building you just can't improve it a little bit. I just want to establish one thing that has not been saidaat all. The building is within regulations. The building is not according to the original plans but is within regulations. The person responsible for the building not being according to the plans is being punished and has already been punished and his construction license has been removed. At the most, if it should be fair, he should be fined and I know that his is a way most countries deal with this type of problems. Thank you very much, ar is there any question? I am the prospective buyer of the place. Thank you. SLIFER: Are you buying both sides? No, just one and the other one is a very close friend of mine. Thank you. I have lived in Vail several years. SLIFER: Any other comments? Fred? FRED MEYER: My name is Fred Meyer. I am attorney for Velasquez. Technically, he is not a party to this, but obviously has a very real interest since he executed a contract with (.pause to change tape) SLIFER: Why don't you start over, Fred, sa we're sure to get the whole thing? FRED MEYER: My name is Fred Meyer. I'm the attorney for Valasquez who has entered into a contract to purchase this property as of March of this year. I came into this at the request of Luc Meyer who, as you know, is an opponent. Luc recommended me to because I think he thought I could be a peacemaker, a mediator and I have attempted to do so. T've only been involved for the past five weeks and I spent the, first week or so trying to investigate all of the issues without coming down on either side. I told when we first met that I considered myW self first and foremost hopefully a good citizen of Vail and would not represent him in a matter in which I thought would hurt the interests of Vail. T have to tell you it's :been a very frustrating four or five weeks because what I had hoped to accomplish initially T have to say that I have not been able to accomplish. I thought that I'd be able to bring the two parties together in same way, but T failed to da so. As soon as I undertook this T met with Paul Johnston and his attorney and insisted an behalf of that every single possible thing be done to bring this.buil-ding back to the way that it had originally been approved. 7o this end, Paul Johnston, retained a landscape engineer. He retained Channon Associates for soil testing, KKBNA for some construction problems, Gary Roller, whom you've already heard, and several other people, .both directly and indirectly. In my opinion, they have done everything they possibly could to bring this building back the way it had originally been approved. By way of background, Paul Johnston, and I've made ~y own independent investigation, is a CPA from Kansas City, he has never built anything before, he bought a piece of land and it's almost humorous, he was given a recom- mendation far a Dan Gagliardo as being one of the best contractors in Vail. Ue showed me an ad by one of the major -MINUTES Vail Town Council September 15, 1981 Page 13 FRED MEYER: real estate firms in Vail advertising the buildings built by Dan Gagliardo and you'd think they were all Taj Mahal s. I . don't ever remember seeing any such extreme advertising in the Vail Trail. This contractor went out on his own and decided to do his own thing i.n actually about a dozen different areas, fortunately most of them were minor. A couple of them, however, were substantial. I would certainly include the changing on the siding on that, and one, of course, was very significant, and that was the change in the height of the building. Some- people have said Paul Johnston knew or should have known that the building height had been changed. I want to tell you that I am a graduate engineer a.nd I spent a long time surveying and quite frankly, I wouldn't I'm sure be expected to know by looking at a building that it was several feet higher than it was supposed to be and interestingly enough, I`m certainly not taking any unkind cuts at the building department of Vail, but the building inspector, I think had been up there about 15 times and he had never noticed until the building was almost complete after it had been under construction for, oh, something like about nine months. I consider that having made my own investiation that Paul Johnston is innocent of this and I think I ought to tell you that I`ve also learned that Paul Johnston took a lie detector test tv determine the integrity of his statements and he passed it with flying colors. 5o I think we should clear the air of that once and for all. Now, as far as the Design Review Board meeting. Larry Kelly told you that it was far shortened, that we were not able to either of us tell our clients full stories and I was really very disappointed not so much in the decision 6f the Board but the reasoning or more specifically, the lack of reasoning that was given. Tt was vague in terms of painting of certain provisions. It didn't say where the plans failed. Consequently, I was very interested to get Peter Jamar's memorandum a few days later and I sat down and I discussed it with him. But as I went through it and I think you have this before you, his memo of September 9th, and I said, well you know how can the deck be an issue? The deck has been torn down, plans were presented to show that the hot tub was going to be put clearly within the limits that were allowed. The Design Review Board did not say, "We don't like the design of that hot tub". They simply ignored it. Secondly, and this goes back long before I became involved, it was made clear to the Design Review Board that the materials which Gagliardo had used on the outside were going to be torn off the building and they were going to be replaced with the materials that had~been approved back in 1980. The Design Review Board said nothing specifically about that and yet we have here as if this is still an issue.' It may be, but T can't understand why it would be. Tf we ga to Number 4, we're talking about a retaining wall. We've talking about a redesign of what had formerly been I believe a nine foot railroad~tye retaining wall of which there are many in Vail and admi~tteaiy not very attractive. Consequently, came back in and said we will build this clearly within the building code and we believe within what the Design Review Board wanted, i.e. a three-tier step back all of stone, about four times as expensive as the original wall. in other words, certainly since the time T've been involved, and T believe preceding that date, every effort has been made to cooperate only to meet with a great deal of frustration. I'm saving the most difficult, of course, for last, and that`s .Number 3. I told you a was a graduate engineer. I told you a was a surveyor, I was also a map maker during the War. I can read maps and I took another look at the original map of the contours on Lot 4 Johnston and Lots 5 and 6, Boyer, and it was absolutely self evident that according to those mays water had always flowed off Lot 4 onto L no question about it and now there is an to support it. Nevertheless; the Sayers any evidence whatsoever, that this was a That water was now flyinng from 4 onto 5. where the water flows, it is such a tiny reasonable people would ever think about at 5. There can be engineering report insisted without new state of events.. As a matter of3fact, little strip that no arguing. Nevertheless, MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 14 D MEYER: in order to try to be good citizens we said, alright, we'll go ~in't.) to the expense of building this swale, this french drain, sa that r..egardless of how water may have flowed in the past, in the future no drop of water will ever flow from Lot 4 to Lot 5. We tried to present that to the Design Review Board, but the Boyers tried to obfuscate the whole thing. It made it almost impossible for anybody to understand what we had already said would be done. So, again, it shows up here. Nevertheless, the Design Review Soard never said the water from 4 is flowing into 5. It shouldn't. It never said we don't like ~rrench tiles or French. drains or anything of the sort. It simply pointed to some very broad provisions. That brings us of course to the, height and this is something that I obviously have not been able to resolve. Larry Kelly did make the point that the first day that we sat down and T said I want everything brought back, and Larry Kelly said, "Gee, we can`t". And harking back to my engineering days, I said, you know I don't understand the word "can't". Why can't you move the house off the property, lift it up in the air with a crane or something like that and then oft course he informed me that it was on a concrete slab. I went up with Peter Jamar and took a look at it and the slope of the roof which is 4..and one half and twelve, the height of the walls which are only eight feet and I suppose nobody can use the word absolutely impossible, but this would be absolutely impractible and well nigh impossible. What we have attempted to do is as we have heard from Gary Roster, to come up with the best landscaping plan maybe any single resident of Vail has every attempted to do and if that isn't good enough we told the Design Review Board tell us what you want to do. Want us to do and not a word. All of a sudden, court`s going to be in session and we've got to take a vote and before the issues could be properly addressed, much less debated, the vote was taken and it was 3 to 2. Y want to end the way I started. I came in hoping to be a peace maker. Hoping to bring two sides together. My experience and living in Vail and working with the Council on a number of things, somehow or other we always seem to be able to get together. Somebody gave a little. I have to tell you in this particular instance, I have been up against something that T have never been up before in Vail or in any other place. There has been no movement on the other side. There has been no compromise. They won't even discuss~it. There's no willingness to even listen. There's no attempt at anything constructive. They gust want t whole thing and say it's built above where Board approved. They're careful not to say these people a half .of million dollars, but what they're saying but they don`t have the you like it is. SLIFER: Let's not get into personalities. a stonewall the the Design Review tear it down, fine this is exactly guts to tell it to MEYER: Okay. I'm going to close by saying if any member here feels that he can offer some additional solution to what issues he thinks may still be open, my client, Harvey A. Valasquez, would be the first to come up h-ere and say we`ll da everything we pan to try to meet your demands. I just_ hope that you give our request the most thoughtful consideration and hopefully approve what we are trying to do. Thank you. SLIFER: Thank you. Anyone else like to to make a comment. doe. JOE STAUFFER: My name is Joe Stauffer and I am here primarily for Luc Meyer who wanted to come himself. He, the Council may have gotten a copy of this, he sent his wife over with a Tetter that he felt. was rather intimidating and basically threatening for him to, that he would be sued if your decision is contrary to the applicant's wishes. I don't know if you haven't seen the letter, I'd like to pass it on to you. Luc suggested that I read it for the records, I don't think it's necessary, I think we can make it part of the record by reference. He says he has not been intimidated by the letter, has not MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 75, 1981 Page 15 ~AUFFER: given up his right as a citizen to speak in the council chamber and on (cont.) behalf of Luc Meyer, I would like to voice his opinion that you should uphold the Design Review Boards decision and deny the ap~.T-ication which brings me to my own decision as a property owner on Potato Patch and my name is Joe Stauffer if you want a showing ,of me in the suit. For speaking my mind. I think that the issue is whether we feel our zoning ordinances and our codes and rules and regulations are valid. If we find they are valid, we have to have the courage to enforce them and, if necessary, the courage to defend them, and whether that means going to court far five years, so it be. You know we have to defend them. If they, in fact, have been deliberately violated and intentionally bypassed, now I'm not the judge to make that decision that burden rests on you, that`s why you got elected and I sympathize with you and (laughter) I'm sorry I can't help you. Thank you. SLIFER: Any other comments. Dan DON: ........... SLIFER: Well let's h d Go right a ea SLIFER: No, let's let him go ahead.. KLINGER: My name is Don Klinger and just from the standpoint from why I wanted to be incorporated into Vail, living in West Vail we had a number of problems that came up, much in the same area, nothing like this, and the reason I fought so hard to be incorporated into this Town is what, this thing did not happen. So builders did not arbitrarily go out and build whatever they wanted to for whatever reason, I'm not saying anybody's wrong. But we .had no way to correct it in .West Vail. Now we have a way. I hate to pick on anybody, and I don't know whether we should pick on the contractors making the error, pick on Johnston, whether he is the builder or whether he is the contractor, what position he has, but somewhere we have got to stop it. I hope we stopped it in West Vail by becoming part of Vail. What you are going to do know, I don't know, but it has got to be stopped. SLIFER: Any other comments? Yes I don't think so. ~MOND I''m Raymond Gotay. I`m an owner of Potato Patch Lot #2. I've been a GOTAY: tax payer here in the Town. of Vail since '63 and I've-got to go along with what those last speaker's have been saying, but I would like to bring up an old axiom the lawyers present I'm sure have heard. If you have the facts on your side, you hammer on the facts. I think those facts have been adequately brought forth what they are, what they are not. If you have the law on your side, and in this case it's the ordinances, you hammer on those ordinances., but if you have neither .on your side you hammer on the table. And frankly I've heard an awful lot of table hammering tonight. It has to do with ameliorating,changing and everything, but it's after the fact. Frankly, I go with the facts and I go with the ordinances. They should be upheld. Thank you. SLIFER: Thank you. Any other comments? TAYLOR: I'7l try to make this short and brief. I'm Phillip Taylor. I'm an architectural consultant for Paul Johnston. I'm also a native of the western slope of Colorado and paying taxes here all my life and enjoying Vail along time before it was ever a ski area. What they proposed here. I was asked to determine what the problems were and I've had a Tot trouble doing it. One of the things I've done is gone to the Potato Patch area, walked around, perhaps in violation of some people's private property, but trying to determine: We have some ordinances, they are rather vague, they're rather broad, they have to be. I've been a contractor long enough to know that when you're a Design Review Board you have to be given some leniency. I'm trying to find a definition of some terms and I'm looking at properties in the Potato Patch area. What i;s excessive grading? MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 16 ~YLOR: Well, I looked at every single home that was built on a sloping {cont} lot and none of those homes have this amount of grading. They have greater grading. Some of them double and triple this grading. There is a home in Lot 1, Potato Patch that's been in existence for quite a while, that dominates the valley scene. If you look at Potato Patch you see this home. There is a twenty-five foot retaining wall on that. home. What we propose here is three feet. The adjacent property has an eight foot cut behind it. What we are proposing is seven foot cut. I noticed somebody commenting about drainage. The ordinances say that you are not to disturb the natural drainage. I noticed two homes up there that filled a forty-foot ravine in order to create a front lawn. The ordinances state that you are not to have an urban type landscape. That forty foot ravine was filled for the sole purpose of creating an urban type landscape.- That tvrenty-five foot retaining wall on Lot 1 was placed there for the sole purpose .of creating an urban front lawn, tree lined drive, blue-grass lawn. It's huge. It`s offensive. When this happens, when you're a builder and you're approved by the Design •.9eview Board to build according to plans and specifications and you do not do it, you should be punished. You're a builder that violated Town regulations. You should lose your license. That's been done in this case. Now what we are doing is we're going back to the. man that hired that builder and punishing him, when he is standing here saying, T have spent in excess of $200,000 to .ameliorate what this man has done, because.I don't think it was right either. Please help me. I have gone to: every expert and not picked cheap experts, but gone to the very best. The report you were handed tonight was done by a man that is ranked third in this State far topography analysis and. drainage analysis. That is why we went to KKBNA. We went to Chen and Associates to do soils investigations because they're the best. We want to do it right. ode stand before you saying, it isn't us that created this problem.- It's us that want to correct it. We are on your side. We're on the Town's side. We want to see these ordinances enforced. What we have proposed, complies with every single ordinance that you have. We can't change past history. All we can do is correct it. We're asking that you allow us to correct it. That's all I'll say. Thank you. SLIFER: Thank you. Any other comments? Diane? DONOVAN: I think you probably already, oh, Diana Donovan. I think you probably already know this, but T'm on the Design Review Board and T just wanted to mention this from my point of view on the Design Review Board. The deck was not an issue for me cause they could fix that up fine. The siding was not an issue because it could be returned to the approved materials. We made suggestions for the landscaping .and they accepted that. However, the topography was changed in direct violation of the ordinance. That change .created other violations that solution was presented for and indeed there may be no cheap or easy solution, but that's not our problem. The Design Review Boards job is to uphold the ordinance, not give solutions, particularly to problems created by the builder. That is why I voted the way I did. SLIFER: Thank you Diane. Lou? MASKOMAN: My name is Lou Maskoman and I was on the DI R, DRB at the time this stuff was brought in and this is coming up to an issue of one of the things I feel that a lot of the committee's that the Town has that we make our decisions, we spend our time,. we try, doing it the best we ean, we have tried to enforce the regulations,.the zoning covenances that are put up through the Town and we have numerous incidences that I can't name, because I don't have them, of violators, and unfortunately this gentleman, was caught, and the whole crunch of the issue is not how much money he has spent, how much money he is going to spend to try to correct them, but that he and his builder violated the covenances. Are we going to enforce the covenances or turn this into a wide open town? And this is a concern that is coming much more with those of us living here and trying to make this nur home. The money issue is something that should never have been brought up. It's unfortunate that it's going to cost him a lot, no matter which way. The only other think I can suggest is we have already had this person in violation of several different covenances things that he and his builder have said, that they would do. What MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 198T Page 17 ~SKOMAN: guarantee are we going to put on him and on his word that he would do ont.) the landscaping and the other suggestions that might came out of this if his approval, or repeal is approved. We have to.know what he is going to have and how he is going `to make sure it is done. So far, he is biding a minus record on word of his project. Thank you. I would never SLIFER: Well, let's not argue back and forth (laughter). JOHNSTON: I didn't intend to say anything myself because I have, SLIFER: What is your name? JOHNSTON: My name is Paul Johnston, and I own the project. Um, I personally intended from the beginning, and have throughout the whole process of building this thing to have a good-property, with no violations of any sort. Uh, These things occurred., I was not aware of them. When I discovered them, we'have made immediate efforts to correct them. The height was something .that I didn't know about until the City, or one of the neighbors brought it up and a survey was run. We got rid of the Contractor. We have gotten new Contractors., we've tried to do everything to compensate for-this. We are leaving very Tittle problem up there for the people in the surrounding area. I understand that this really., technically is only the view issue, is only an issue that should be considered by people that have structures a1 ready vn there Tots. I think I read something .about that in the Design Review Board regulations, that view is a concern of people that have existing structures. We're talking about just two residents up there, Luc Meyer and the Federmans. And Harold Federman gave me a letter that if we would correct the siding problem which was another violation on the part of the General Contractor that I wasn:t aware af, that we could proceed with the construction. So the, to my knowledge there is only one party that even should have a question on this issue of view and that would be Luc Meyer. His property doesn't face our property, it faces off more to the south. You have to look from his front door to see our place and it is two and one-half feet higher than the .original plan, and. with the vast amount of horizon that there is up there, it is virtually insignificant from his stand point. I, I just can't believe -that we've gotten involved in all this detail and all this problem over something that really is not significantly affecting anyone negati-vely. We have a beautiful property • we're going to landscape it in a manner that is just going to be absolutely gorgeous. It will be a credit to the area. Should increase the value of the surrounding property and I would like you to take these things into account and not cause me such a tremendous disastrous economic problem over something that is not going to be a disadvantage to the City. So I would like to personally appeal to you to consider that what we are doing to this thing will end up being a very favorable addition to the City, and that's about all I can say and I would like to appeal to you to allow us to go ahead and finish this thing so that we will not have this mess sitting out there for any longer than we have to. That's all, Thank you. SLIFER; Craig? SNOWDEN: My name is Craig Snowden. I'm a member of the Design Review Board also. I would like to comment, I was one of the members of the. Board that voted in favor of this proposal.. I would like to comment on two things. One that, with the building as it is presented, it 1s still not in violation of ordinances. It meets all .the Town Ordinances, it does not comply with the drawings we looked at. But it still meets all the Town Ordinances. The other thing is, granted there was a mistake made, I felt in voting that the owner of the property was doing more than an adequate job of trying to remedy that mistake and that's why I voted the way I did. SLIFER: Thank you. Any other comments? If there are no comments from the floor then I would ask the Council if each of the Council would like to make comments, starting with Mr. Ruder. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 75, 1981 Page l8 ~ER: Thanks. Rod, it, it's one of the subjects that I have not looked forward today to discussing this evening, it's one of the more difficult decisions that I've faced in the almost six years I've sat behind this table. Because I think in that time that, people sitting behind-this table have had picking a few words that's come out of the conversations we've heard, have had the courage to fend our ordinances and resolutions and I think we do have courage to defend. Ah, when I first heard of this thing and after inspecting the property today, it's very hard to take a look at that building in its present state and leave the site with a very favorable impression, because there is a tremendous amount of detail- that needs to be attended to and it's hard to look at all that shody workmanship and try to figure out what the issues are. I'm a builder and a Contractor and I believe, I think I believe that the problems the building problems can be remedied. They're difficult and they're very expensive because I saw all kinds of structural problems and roof sagging and piers and posts without supports-under them and it's an endless project to try to remedy the building, but if you pour enough money into it with people with enough expertise, I suppose that those problems can be remedied. In looking at the Design Review thing, ..and looking at the memorandum we gat, I think. that the owner of the property has put together a very good team, if that is the right word, to address the ~, problems from a technical standpoint. I know KKBNA and Chen and Associates and the Contactor that they have selected to do this work and I think they can do 1t. One of my big concerns is that if we don't allow this person to repair the problem, and it's a question I guess I would have of Larry, is how long, T mean T don't know what their legal council would suggest that they do obviously, but T'm very concerned as to how long that piece of property would-sit up there and at the moment, I think that it is somewhat of a hazard to children perhaps in the area and things like that and the longer it sat .there, especially if it had to go through this winter the larger that problem would be. And T don't like to subject the citizens and kids in this town to those problems and yet I.know-that kids like to go around those kinds of places. Ah, T also have some concern as to haw, if we were to allow Mr. Johnson to proceed and perhaps repair all the damage that has been done to the best of his ability as he's outuned today, how we would spell this out and I would have to ask Mr. Rider to put together quite a complete briefing as to how he thinks this could be done and haw we would cover the additional costs that the building department the Town of Vail might have, cause I think they would have some additional costs because, someone would have to hired to watch over the repair of this process like a hawk, and that we would have to have some kind of bonded . guarantee or something that this could be done. I think that Mr. Johnston and his players have made a very effort to try to rectify the problem, it`s a very difficult problem and I think that I'm, I don't know what's going to cause precedence with what the Design. Review Board has set out to do, I'~m very happy I guess at this point .that it is not a violation of an ordinance ah, and T think for alT of these reasons, at this point T would be in favor of, with some bonded guarantee, and some contractura1 arrangements to how the Town would oversee the-process, that we would allow the project to finish and be completed, because I'm not an attorney, but I guess that it would take years to get the thing all the way through the court process, and T think that at the end of those years, the neighborhood would be damaged more than it's going to be damaged if we a7l~ow the thing to be repaired. I just think we need to guarantee the very best way we can that these repairs are made in a quality way. And ah, as proposed by these people and as, I think the Design Review Board would get one, should get another look at approving finally these repairs and that the cost to the Town would be covered. SLIFER: Ron? RQN: I too agree from the standpoint of feeling some sympathy for Mr. Jahnston's situation, but I differ with my findings on the facts that have been presented this evening. To begin with, in looking at the original topography, I agree that perhaps that Mr. Boyer's compliant of the drainage is unfounded, at least from my standpoint, and I say that being an architect and dealing with topographic maps in my practice of architecture. But the existing topography points out MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 7987 Page 19 RON: something else to me, I think it`s very critical here. Now look at ~nt.} Mr. Boyar's lot and you can look at the contour lines. and you can see that it is, probably by virtue of shaping of that knoll, the most prominent lot along that side of the street, and I don't know what sort of prices were paid up there; but I would suspect that Mr. Boyer may well have had to pay a premium for that lot and he,paid a premium for that lot because he wanted that prominence vn that particular curve of the road. It also became obvious to me today, that i.n standing on the site adjacent to the building that Mr. Boyar's concern about the amount of fill that were brought onto that property are totally valid, because its easy to see from being up there next to the house and looking dawn at the marked property line between the .Boyer property and this property that a tremendous .amount of fill has been brought in and that house has been placed upon this mound of fill and in so doing is obviously created for Mr. Johnston some foundation problems, which Bob and all of us evidenced. But the thing that it did is it took away the prominence of Mr. Boyar's lot in my estimation, because now there are two .knolls, in essence along that side of the road and I don't think that's fair to him as a property owner and I feel that that is a violation of the ordinance. I've heard people say tonight that, that this project is conforming it's not in violation whatseever. Now I contend that it's in violation in that we have no guarantee that if .this house were presented as it's been presented tonight ,that. it would have been approved by the design Review Board because of the excessive grading because of the mounding up of the property, because .at that time the Federman's may have fait it wise to complain because of blockage to their view. I agree that perhaps the blockage of Mr. Meyer's view is marginal. I think that that is true, but the Federman 's view is certainly inpacted upon and to say that by coming back and making these changes it still conforms to the general ordinance items such as height, set-backs, etc. doesn`t address the entire picture of what you have to da with the project in this community, and that's to came in and satisfy the Design Review Board at the time you are ready to build and to satisfy the neighbors and to put together a project that is acceptable across the board. As far as prcedence, we have trouble with enforcement, Lou pointed it out, he voiced very well the frustration that we sometimes feel by sitting on these boards and trying to enforce the ordinances by what we do in these meetings and then seeing the ordinances violated many, many times over out in the field, because we don't have the staff to enforce all of these violations that occur. Fred addressed that, painted out that it took a.number of visits before it became apparent to the building official. It was pointed out by Mr. Taylor that he saw numerous other violations and that's terribly unfortunate because • those things should not be allowed to happen. But we haven't had the manpower to do it. The minute that we back-down.on our ordinances and every contractor in this valley sees that he has an escape valve, I think we will see more of a propensity to try to violate these ordinances, to try to make changes during the course of construction because if we enforce these ordinances tonight, the contractor is going to realize that he is going to be held to the letter of the law. But if he sees that we back-down tonight and .say well it's an unfortunate situation, and we have to deal with that, he is going to realize that number one, his chances are very good that he won't get caught, and number two, if he gets caught he can always come to the Town Council and they'll probably be big hearted about it. I sympathize with Mr. Johnston's situation. I am convinced from what has been. presented tonight that he was certainly not guilty in his, in concurring with the Contractor. I don't believe he was aware of these violations, but I do think that Mr. Johnston is guilty of negligence, because, to me, Mr, Johnston is the individual that is responsible to this community as the developer of this property and the fact that he is an absentee owner did not have the architect provide any sort of construction administration, that he .didn't have substantial visits to the site to make sure that his contractor was following the ordinance, • I feel that there is guilt there through negligence and for that reason I will vote to uphold the Design Review Board decision. SLIFER: Bud? BENEDICT: I'm glad you didn't ask me last because if it was a tie vote I'd {laughter} MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September T5, 1981 Page 20 BENEDiCT: There is no question that we`ve seen violations of the ordinance ~nt) of the building code and there is no question that these people have represented to us there ability and willingness to correct all of the issues that can possibly be corrected. The one of course, that they can not change, and that being the height. I don't feel that the height is that much of a problem, in that I don`t feel in, from visiting the site that it does take away enough view to be a major, a major situation. My concern is that same concern that Ron Todd expressed, and that is that I feel there has definitely been negligence in controlling the job and that responsibility has to .be addressed and has to be met and even though I would like sit here and be very compassionate and say that, uhm, let's clean it up and spruce it up and accept it, I don't feel that I can, and consequently far that reason, I would uphold the Design Review Boards decision. SLIFER: Pa u1 PADL JOHNSTON: For the first time in my life I found somebody who has the same name as my signature. I'm not related by blood or contract to Mr. Johnston, so I'd just establish that in the beginning. Now I. don't think it's-sad that the errors were caught or that Mr. Johnston was caught as we said, I think it`s a sign that our system works and I think we should be excited that the system works .and not be confused that we are abandoning Taws, or considering abandoning laws or consider abandoning enforcement, we are in the process of enforcing and by bringing him to a position to where he complies with that which was approved by the Design Review Board in three out of four counts, I think it proves tha~.the system is working. The height is not a violation of the ordinance, that's been established. That's a violation of what was intended and i guess of what the Design Review Board approved, thought I would be very doubtful that the Design._Review Board had a comprehensive knowledge :of the elevation on that house on that lot. I don't see anywhere in the ordinances where it requires consideration in the design of one house of unbuilt houses on adjoining properties. I can't see that as a factor at all. I think that the ordinances and the building codes would be upheld by the solution that has been presented and for that reason I would move to reverse the decision of the Design Review Board. (change tapes) That is the motion ~FER: OK, could we ask you to reserve that motion JOHNSTON: Sure, you bet. STEIP~lBERG: I still have a few questions in my mind on the whole process,. and whether they were actually brought out to the Design Review which I did not read in the transcript, was there testimony by the Building Inspector as to when and when he discovered the problem and why he didn't discover it earlier? Did he come to testify? SLIFER: No STEINBERG: Any reason that he was not brought in? I don't think that. the time of the discoverance of the deviation from the approved plan was at issue. It was the fact that the building had been built differently than originally approved-and that that was the issue. At no~~time was it brought up as a question at what point was it discovered so that the Design Review Board STEINBERG: It would have certainly made a lot . it would have been discovered the one, because it would have made a have been adjusted so that, I just Town staff, the Bui1din~ Inspector I`m not a builder and I don't know of difference i would think if first inspection instead of the last tremendous difference on the way it could feel a little bit hurt that the did not find the problem earlier. if it was possible that he could have? But, so maybe part of-the problem is part of our problem. Ah, Was there, or who was the Architect on the project and did he do architecture inspections. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page ~1 To my knowledge he did not. Duane Piper was the Architect and in speaking with him he was not retained by the Owner to do any inspections prior or subsequent to Design Review Board approval. You might want to add SLIFER: Is that correct Larry. You might want to ask the Owner. LARRY: That is correct. Mr. Johnston retain Duane to prepare the .plans though we did not make it part of the presentation No, i can't swear to it as a fact. As I understand it, Mr. Johnston asked Mr. Piper if it was was standard or usual to have and Duane said about 7O% of the cases it is not done that way. SLIFER: bell the answer is he did not make onsite inspections. LARRY: Yes, that is correct. SLIFER: OK, I think that answers the question. STEINBERG: So that Mr. Pipe is not liable .at any situation therefore,. it was never .quite clear to me why the fill was brought in. It was not brought out at least in the transcript any explanation was .the builder brought in to testify as to why he brought in the fill or was it ordered by the Mr. Johnston The answer to that is really very simple. We don't know because Dan Golardo doesn't know, because when it was done he said he wasn't there and the person who did it he fired,. and we were left in a vacuum. With respect to what was actually done, STEINBERG: Was he brought in to testify to that? He did testify at his own hearing when he, when he had the license taken away from h.im, while they said.Plr. Golardo how could this happen? and He said, You know, I don't know. And that is our only source of information Sir, and that's why it's very difficult for us to to without. STEINBERG: The two incriminating things that seem to be that somebody did this in a premeditated. way, is the fact the building is built on two different levels and the two levels were not elevated at the same time. So somebody had to be aware of the fact cause they wouldn't have matched otherwise. So someone fiagrantly made an. effort to do this on the building level and on the retaining walls that were put in before the fill was put in, so it was obviously premeditated on someone`s part, and if the architectural drawings did not call for this, it seems inconceivable that it would happen. It does in fact, seem inconceivable that it would happen as, as.I hope you will accept, Johnston did not know this and whether a decision was made in the field because of some site problem, large rock has been kicked around a"s maybe. the problem that they were in. We simply don't know. SLIFER: Does that answer your question? STEINBERG: That answer's my quest ion. It was not answered basically. It's a tough decision to make Uh, I suspect Mr. Johnston has got a lot of liabilities, it seems to me the Court of Law would have eventually bring him back, some of his losses by suing the builder, or suing the Architect, or whoever is responsible for his problems, I'm torn between .solving the problem immediately for the community and getting the house ,built and getting the mess cleared up, but .the other problem is are we breaking our ordinances • and setting us up for this to happen over and over again. I guess being practical, if I lived up there I would rather have it finished & fo fatten the best you can. So I very reluctantly would vote I think to accept the compromise. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 22 ~FER: OK, Bi11 Wi7to: WILTO: I appears to me that as it has been said before, three of the four problem areas seem to be adequately solved, and .Perhaps the one remaining problem, the height, could be resolved through landscaping and I'm carry there hasn't been more cooperation between the adjoining properties and Mr. Johnston. Any way we vote is a situation for us. Uh, I feel inclined but have not made up my mind to vote in favor of upholding the Design Review Boards decision, but if that happens, I think this would probably end up in the courts and might end up there for years and that would certainly not benefit the neighborhood. I wish there was some way to send it back to the Design Review Board and if that were the case I would ask that it be done so eliminating a1.1 those problem areas that have been discussed with the exception of the height. This is the toughest decision I've had to make in six years. SLIFER: It didn't sound like you made it. WILTO: I didn't. (laughter) FER: My comments will be very brief, because I think everyone else has said ~ what I want to say. I think the three issues of the deck, the materials, and the retaining wall and drainage have been resolved satisfactorily. I think the issue of height is the entire issue in my mind anal I think that, that we have to, have to look at all the factors and try to consider whether or not you uphold the DRB decision or ah reverse it and I feel very strongly that this is not a minor violation, it i5 a major violation and that the DRB decision should be upheld. I think if there are no other comments from council I would entertain a motion, and I think Mr. Johnston started to make a motion, would you want to make that motion? JOHPJSTON: I move that we reverse the position of the Design Review Board and grant the compromise solution to Mr. Johnston. RUDER: I would second that motion, but would like to amend it that we add the language as outlined by Mr. Rider to guarantee, I guess via bonding that the project does reach completion as outlined and that any costs that the Town would have during that period would be covered by the property owner. SLIFER: Would you like to amend the motion. ~fSTON I don't have any real problem with that, but by the same time, our primary premise is that the law is working. I think that is way we are here talking about it. The law is working. SLIFER: So you do not want to amend the motion. JOHNSTON No. I'm not opposed to amending that their watch dog or however it says as far as RUDER: I guess that my concern is Paul, that I think that the Town is going to have some additional expense because the technical,so1ution to the technical problem up there is a difficult one and if it isn't watched very closely more than in a normal building process, Uh, we could once again bury some sub-ground problems. And I'd like not to see that happen. JONNSTON: Well another side of that is, had the Town not approved the slab pour incorrectly we might not be where we are today. . Under the building code regulation, if you look at, process does not approve the slab. It approves footings and then once the footings where. put in and • obviously I can't see below the earth up there, once the footings are put in we don't always inspect slabs. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 23 DER: And if the thing was improperly filled after the footing process and the stemwal7 process i don't think that the Town necessarily would have had to send an inspector to approve. JOHNSTON: Let me just ask. SLIFER: After we have the motion we will have discussion. If you could just wait until them, JOHNSTON: Let me just ask either of the Peter's if they fees they need additional they would additional assistance in monitoring the revision & completion of the project. In expense or additional assistance. PETER: I don't think from the planning standpoint or some building SLIFER: Building inspection. PETER: Inspections that need to be done on the building may require SLIFER: Dick Rider might be able to address that. ~ER: I think we are going into a period where most of the major construction, major inspections are going to.start to slow down and we will have the time for inspection, building inspection in order to do problem inspections and provide onsite inspections JONNSTON: But do you feel that would be an inordinate cost to this project, to your inspection department. RIDER: I think we are going to watch it more than normal, just because of the of some of the situation that have been shown on the site so we will probably make more inspections on the site then that is correct. We will be doing more than probably the normal inspections. WILTO: I would suggest that if it comes to the need to call in an additional engineer on behalf of the Town or additional landscape architectural services on behalf of the Town to review it, then that, those types of cast be incorporated in the JOHNSTON: It did occur to me that it might be to the benefit of the builder or the future owner if they were to retain some engineer to satisfy the Town that they were in fact doing what they said they were doing. That might be in their best interests. SLIFER: After, could you restate the motion. JOHNSTON: I move that the Council repeal the decision by the Design Review Board and that the compromise, compromise submitted by the developer be accepted, that any unusual or additional costs to the Town to supervise the implementation of that solution be borne by the developer. SLIFER: Do I hear a second. RUDER: Yes I would second that SLIFER: Motion by Pa u1 Johnston and second by Bob Ruder. Any discussion on the Motion. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meetina September 15, 1981 Page 24 ~D I have just one comment to make as it relates to the building codes and the responsibility of the building official. Uniform building code which we operate under specifically exempts the building official from the responsibility in that, Tf he grants the permit through plan review he is not saying that those plans.~are totally in conformance with the code and is making no warranty of that. In addition, by giving approval of various stages, in the process of the building, the building official is not warranting that that building is being built according to code or that it is being built according to plans and that`s written very clearly in the first chapters of the building code. SLIFER: 41hat is he warranting? TODD He doesn't warranty anything. He is an employee of the Town that is essentially being a watchdog to keep an eye on construction projects, and I think we should keep in mind that at the .same time this project is going on we've had some, how many million dollars of construction underway this summer Wundred Million TODD How Much? Hundred Million dollars of construction going on at the same time with the building department staff of how many? Two full time inspectors: TOpp Two full time inspectors. SLIFER: If we warrants nothing what is the value of the inspection? Well for this very reason, to catch the obvious violations. RUDER: The book also defines what is allowable to build and what is not allowable to build and he does as he makes each inspection, inspect that, that particular process is technical correct as outlined by the Uniform Building Code, but he doesn't tell you whether or not the~,slab is at grade A or grade S, he tells you how much steel. might be in the footings or whether or not the stemwalls are properly designed or whether or not the framing is properly nailed off, or those types of things, but he does not address you know, specific little items such as ,.they ~e not specific little tonight, but specific items such as .perhaps grade or siding, or those kind of things. Those come in other process in the Town and that is outlined under the Uniform Building Code as Ron Said in the first chapter. And that they're not warranted to be according to plans & specs,. It is not addressed the plans & specs of the house. RUDER: He addresses the plans and specs as they relate to the Uniform Building Code And the Building Inspector. yoE~ ought to understand is a technician whose job it is to insure that the building code, the technical, very specific requirements of the building code are complied with, zoning code, height, those are really secondary and it would be probably the rare building official who would catch those kinds of errors. That's why we have a zoning administrator, but I think as indicated we have only one person to do, you know, all the enforcing, two people to do all the enforcement of zoning, so building official is really not there to catch DRB kinds of considerations. We urge him to do that, but that is the secondary process. ~FER: Any other questions from the Council? Bill. WILTO: Well not on the motion, but just from staff or anyone else who would care to answer. At the southern elevation of the house, or the variation heights seem to be the greatest, what percentage change does that represent from what was presented? I think, well maybe it's not the southern, the most, yes, your right area, eastern elevation. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 25 . This ridge would be 4.7 feet lower than if the house has been built according to the original WILTD: And what is the height of the house at that paint? . I would have It's only 2-1/2 on the east This ridge is 4.7 WILTD Yes. This ridge here would be 2.5 WILTD: No the other one. The one you first pointed to. 4.7 SLIFFR: You want the distance from the ground? WILTD: The ground to the peak? ~ER: I think that is the same distance Bi71 in both deals. The difference is the ground change. From the peak of the roof to the ground is the same distance. WILTD: WILTD: SLIFFR: I'm just trying to get an idea what the percentage change was, if it had been . It's about 2-1/2 stories Bi17, you could estimate maybe it's 25 feet 4.7 out of 25 feet roughly. The building itself, from here to here remains the same as what was originally presented. I understand that, I'm just trying to get an idea, to an adjacent property owner what that difference actually represents in a percentage manner. It's about 20%. Any other comments on the motion? Any comments from the floor. Mr. Boyer? BOYER: On behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Boyer I would only add that .should the reversal be appealed, be approved by the Town Council, then perhaps we should consider the possibility of raising lot 5-A~.S feet in elevation before we begin to construct on lot #5. SLIFFR: Any other comments? Ok, if not, I call the motion. The motion is to reverse the, if you vote yes, you would vote to reverse the decision of the Design Review Board, if you vote no you uphold the decision that the Design Review Board as the motion states with its conditions. As a new twist tonight we will dv it alphabetically. Mr. Benedict. BENEDICT: I vote to uphold the decision of the Town Staff. SLIFFR: So you vote No.? BENEDICT: That's correct. SLIFFR: You vote No. The motion. Mr. Johnston? JOHNSTON: Yes. SLIFFR: Ruder? ~ER: Yes. SLIFFR: Steinberg: STENT$ERG: Yes. SLIFFR: Todd? TODD: No. ~.. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting September 15, 1981 Page 26 ~"iFER: Wi 1 to? WILTO: No. SLIFER: Slifer, No. So the motion is denied four votes to three. So the Design Review Board decision is upheld. is that right? Do we have to make a motion to uphold SLIFER; I think that to make the record clear, Mr. Rider, do we need a motion to uphold. . RIDER: Since it was to reverse and you did not reverse it, it`s upheld. SLTFER: We do not. So we don't. The next item an the agenda was a Public Hearing relating to the Department Transportation Grant. Rich Caplan stated that in accordance with the A Grant a public hearing be held to consider public comments regarding the proposed Section 3 Grant to expand the bus storage area by approximately 9000 square feet: to enclose 18 new buses. After some discussion the public hearing was closed. The next item on the agenda was the approval of an agreement between Red Sandstone School with the Eagle County School District. Rich Caplan stated that this agreement is to extend our use of the Red Sandstone gym in exchange for snowplowing of the. school lot for a peripd of 10 years.After some dis- cussion Ron Todd made. a motion to approve the agreement and Bob Ruder seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the approval of the Fire District Dissolution Agreement. Rich Caplan stated that the Fire District had agreed on this dissolution agreement for the betterment of the Vail community. Mr. Caplan stated that this appro.va1 is subject to the approval of the voters. Sob Ruder, speaking as a Fire board member,. stated that he felt the Fire District has come a long way in taking a look at what is best for the community, this will save them some money, combining two operations into one, and will give the Fire Department a chance to grow. Mr. Rider stated that there was no ed to make a motion to approve the agreement, but it should be agreed that Mayor would be authorized to sign for the Town of Vail and that it should be attested to by the Town Clerk. All members were in agreement to this statement. A motion was made by Ran Todd and seconded by Bob Ruder to approve the statement made by Larry Rider. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Paul Johnston asked as a miscellaneous be asked to repair the back door to the each time it was opened. item that the Public Works Director Council Chambers to stop the squeaking Under the Town Manager Report, Rich Caplan stated that the July sales tax figures had been received for the Town of Vail, which includes West Vail, which was $159,000.00 which was up 26% from last year. Rich Caplan also brought to the attention of the Town Council that the Gilman mine wi11 be closed and the Town should consider buying the property for employee housing. Rod Slifer stated that the County Housing Authority and VA had looked into this earlier and that the Town should check into it further. der Town Manager Report, Larry Rider stated that he had received a ruling om Judge Hart on the West Vail Annexation suit and that he had denied the Motion to Dismiss and ordered us to file an Answer to the issue. The next hearing will be in late October.. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 1981 7:30 p.m. Page 27 Diane Donovan complimented the Council on their handling of the Johnston duplex appeal. Mayor Slifer stated that he felt the Council as a whole had done an excellent job, regardless of how they voted, and it was a very difficult decision to make. As there was no further business, ATTEST: l~ ,~` • ~~~ Town Clerk. ~Gr, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Ramey E. ~Si fifer, ¢~aydr MINUTES Vail Tawn Council Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 1981 7;30 p.m, ~On Tuesday, October 6, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Bill Wi7to, Mayor Pro--Tem Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Tom Steinberg Ron Tadd Bab Ruder OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Tawn Manager Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Ordinance #32, Series of 3.981, an emergency ordinance to contract a special and limited obligation an behalf of the Town of Vail by issuing its construction loan refunding notes in the aggregate principal amount of $7,000,000.00 for the purpose of refunding, paying and discharging the Town`s construction loan notes, Series May 1, 1980, dated May 1, 1980. Steve McConahey from Boettcher and Company explained the reason for the emergency ordinance. After some discussion by the Council and questions from the audience, Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Ordinance #32 and Tam Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the Ordinance was ordered published in full. Next item on the agenda was Ordinance #31, Series of 1981, an ordinance providing for an increase in the maximum fine which may be assessed for an ordinance violation from $300.00 to $499.00. Richard Caplan explained the need for the ordinance revision. After some discussion Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the ordinance. Bill Wi1to seconded it and all voted in favor and ordered the ordinance published in full. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #33, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the zoning code in the parking zone district. Richard Caplan gave the background information on the amendment and pick Ryan gave the planning commissi:on's recommendations _ PEC had voted in favor 5 - 1. After several questions and comments from the Council and the audience a motion was made to approve the ordinance by Bob Ruder with the amendment "within or attached to the principal structure". The motion was seconded by Tom Steinberg. A11 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and the ordinance ordered published in full with amendments. Next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, an ordinance changing the zoning map placing certain town owned properties in public use districts, parking, agriculture and open space and natural greenbelt and open space. Richard Caplan explained the purpose of the ordinance. Peter Patten identified each parcel of land and described the zoning and use. Tom Steinberg requested that Lot 10 be removed or the zoning. changed. Lawrence Rider suggested that it be removed. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve Ordinance #34 with the deletion of Lot 10. Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full. The next item on the agenda was t'he first reading of Ordinance #35, Series of 1981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting the Municipal Code providing that whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations of the district in which it is located, is destroyed by fire or other calamity or by an act of God, the use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced in one year and diligently pursued until completion and the registration of nonconforming uses with the Community Development Department. A general discussion followed. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the ordinance with the addition of "a 2 year time period for registration for adoption of ordinance and 2 years after any annexation". Ron Todd added that reconstruction would have to be in conformance with appropriate Town of Vail codes. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published in full with amendments. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 1981 Page 2 The next item on the agenda was Resolution #28, series of 1981. Richard Caplan explained that the reason for the resolution is to adjust income eligibility to purchasers of Pitkin Creek Condominiums. Dick Ryan stated that the original figure was set by the First Bank of Denver. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the motion and Tom Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Under Citizen Participation, Jon Mueller presented a statement regarding South Frontage Road at Blue Cow Chute. He also submitted a petition of 163 signatures requesting something be done about the dangerous intersection there. Rod Slifer stated that Dick Ryan would be meeting with the Highway Department on Friday and the item would be brought up then. The next item on the agenda was the Ca11 Up by the Town Council of the Casino Building. Rod Slifer opened the discussion and then turned the meeting over to Dick Ryan who covered the background of the project. Gordon Pierce and Associates also presented their proposal. Hugh Weinshank, representing the applicant, made a few statements. Bi71 Post, representing Pam Telleen, stated that they would be appearing in November with the development plan for the alley. Jay Peterson, speaking on behalf of Dan Telleen, stated that the common elements ~4+rere not supposed to be part of this proposal. Tom Steinberg requested that no heavy equipment be allowed in this area. Bob Ruder stated that he felt that the neighbors in this area should be in 100% agreement with the development. A general discussion followed. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the motion and uphold the PEC approval with amendments of na heavy equipment in core area and 100% approval of condominium association and participation in future improvement district. Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision on the variance for Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, part of Lion`s Ridge Filing Na. 2. Rod Slifer explained that applicant has. asked for postponement to October 20th meeting. Tom Steinberg made a motion to postpone the item until October 20 and Bud Benedict seconded it. A11 voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item an the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision on Lot 5, Block 1, Intermountain variance. Peter Patten explained the proposal and that the Planning Commission had voted 2 - 3 against the variance. The ~pplicant appeared and general discussion followed. Paul Johnston made motion to grant the variance, reversing the Planning Commission's decision. Bi11 Wi1to seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously.- The next item on the agenda was the discussion of speed bumps. Richard Caplan explained that the Town was in the process of evaluating different methods of speed control and that several speed bumps had been installed in various areas of the Town for a 1-month test period. Rod Slifer stated that a petition had been submitted from residents in Main Gore Drive area asking that the bumps be removed. He then opened the meeting up for public discussion. Comments were made by residents of East Vail, Vail Village, Bald Mountain Road, Fall Line, West Vail, Buffer Creek, Matterhorn Village and West Gore Creek Drive. Jon Eberle, Public Works Director, explained some of the problems in putting in bumps or dips as far as road maintenance was concerned. Russ Matta, Chief of Police, made a few statements on the use of speed dips. Lawrence Rider, Town Attorney, stated that whatever was used must be properly signed in regards to precautions taken an serious accidents. The consensus of the Council was that the residents favored dips rather than bumps and that they should be properly signed with caution signs and warnings. Rod Slifer thanked a77 for their input and attendance. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, October 6, 1981 Page 3 .The next item on the agenda was the discussion of Bighorn Park. Richard Caplan stated that consideration was being given to where the parking area should be placed at the park. General discussion followed regarding placement of parking, type of surface, how many spaces, etc. The consensus of the Council was that parking should be for fewer cars and placed where as little impact as possible. Under Town Manager Report, Richard Caplan made a few comments in regards to pine beetle control efforts and the new restrooms that were being put in at Ford Park were almost finished. There was no Town Attorney Report. As there was no further business, Paul Johnston made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Tom Steinberg seconded it. All voted in favor and the meeting was ad,~ourned at ~i1:20 P.M. ATTEST: Colleen Kline, Town Clerk • Rodney ~.~lifer, N~yor' ~~ vAri_ To~~~N cc~~~NCIL Ever~~ng SeSS~on 1 -- ~, ~~:~,~ . Tuesday, Octot>e~r 6, 1982 ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ r `, 7.30 P.M. ~ ~~_: „l~~. w \ { - ~`~- ~tq box ioo vail, Colorado a~sc~ o zos•a~c-5ci3 ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS (1) ORDINANCE #32, SERIES OF 1981, AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO CONTRACT A SPECIAL AND LIMITED OQLIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, BY ISSUING ITS CONS"f RUCTION LOAN REFUNDING NOTE5 IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $7,000,000.00 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING, PAYING AND DISCHARGING THE TOWN'S CONSTRUCTION LOAN NOTE5, SERIES MAY 1, 1980, DATED MAY 1, 1980. (2} ORDINANCE #32, SERIES 4F 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM FINE WHICH MAY BE ASSESSED FOR AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION FROM $300.00 TO $499.00. (3} ORDINANCE #33, SERIES DF 1981, FIR5T READING, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 18.34.030 OF THE ZONING CODE INTHE PARKING ZONE DISTRICT TO ADD 8Y CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ASSOCIATION WITH A PARKING STRUCTURE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES THRT ARE TOWN AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED. IN ADDITION, ~'0 AMEND SECTION 18.35.030 OF THE ZONING CODE IN THE PUBLIC USE DISTRICT TO ADD BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OFFICE AND TDWN Rk:LATED COMMERCIAL USES AND DWELLINGS DORMITORY TYPE UNITS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE TO~JN OR SPECIAL DISTRICT. (4) ORDINANCE #34, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE CHANGING TH£ ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL, PLACING CERTAIN TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES IN~PUBLIC USE DISTRICTS, PARKING, AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL GREENBELT AND OPEN SPACE. {5} ORDINANCE #35, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 18.64.090 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE T01JN OF VAIL AND PRDVIDING THAT WHENEVER A NONCONFORMING USE WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE REGULATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, IS DESTROYED BY FIRE OR OTHER CALAMITY, 8Y ACT OF GOD, OR BY PUBLIC ENEMY, THE USE MAY BE RESUMED OR THE STRUCTURE MAY BE RESTORED, PROVIDED THAT THE RESTORATION I5 COMMENCED IN ONE YEAR_AND DILIGENTLY PURSUED UNTIL COMPLETION RND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF NONCONFORMING USES WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (6) RESOLUTION #28, SERIES OF 1981, R RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE MAXIMUM HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR PITKIN CREEK PARK CONDOMINIUMS. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION {7} ~LL UP OF THE CA5IN0 BUILDING. APPEAL OF THE PEC DECISION OF THE VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, CtIFFSIDE SUBDIVISION, PART OF LION' RIDGE FILING N0. 2. {g) APPEAL OF PEC DECISION ON LOT 5, BLOCK 1 INTERMOUNTAIN VARIANCE. (10) DISCUSSION OF SPEED BUMPS (11) DISCUSSION OF BIGHORN PARK. TOWN MANAGER REPORT TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT ,. ._~ __ RICHRR C1~PLAN, T~fN MANAGER i ~~ ~~-N ~J7~..~.w~. ~ ~u C~ 1 ~//~~~^`~`~ U ~Y.'F`'^'= ~ c~'~"`."`Pm' rt=e"'' - i'f ~~ ~, z ,r j ~" ~ ~ > ~ mow, 5,,. ~~ ~ ~~~~ l~~ y,,..~'l ~ _ 4_ T ~...,~~; ~„~ ~~.~ ~ _.~ Y ~ Hn7~~~ (~ ~,~-~- ~ /~,,,r ~~~ ~ ` ~` , ~ ~~k:, /~~~ 1e ~~"`~ del II ~ ~, ~~ ~~~r~~ ~-.' ~,~-~6,. i ~ ~ n~~ g ~~ ~ ~~~ ~L E IJl~`"~"~~~--y Yn ~ _~~~~-/"~ ~i f0~ ~~ ~~°`-~' ~~ ~j~ • i ~,~ li -~~'? . ~- ~-~~ ~~ 0 • II~~'~' ~~~~~-- ~~~~. ~---~ s~e„~ t ~ ~ ,mood ~~ ~~, <~ ale w~ ~'~ ~ %l93 ~;.tiis r D ~y~„~~ ~ ~ .~- r ~~~ `~ c e ~~~ __.. M~ "~y~ ~ _~~~ , ~, ~~~~ ~~ -T ~- "_s~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. f/r °"' <3 ~~~ w~ $e ~ ~ ~,~ ~~r Qu G~-~ ~~..~ ~- ~) ~~ ~ ~ ~- D s ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ° stir ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~~. ~ ~~ - ~-~- 5 s OJ,~~~ ~~`~ ~ s~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r~~ ~ ~o~~ ~ ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~- `~° " ~ ~ ~u~~ v ~.. ~n-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~-- ~ ~.s .. ti~G~ ice i ~~5 ~~e /uc-~-~ ~ w~ff{a - 0~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ - ~ ~~-,- ~.z-3k; ~*~~- ~ s.- ~j 3 ~ ~~ ~ ~ • i ~ e , ~- ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~', a ,~ -~ ~~.~ , W~ ~~ e~ .~~a ~~w ' ~~ a ,~~ ~ ~ ~3 I~,^.~~ ~ ~~, - i~~ ~~,~ ~,,._J ,~ ~, ~ c~~, ~, yam- ~ , E ~.~-~- ~/,~~ ~~,~ ~~~ ~~,4,~~ Doti ~ ~.e.~„~ .~e~ S ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ N ~_ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ //3D0: ~° ~ ~ ~~~ ~ s~-.~~ ~~Q MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, October 20, 1981 7:30 p.m. On Tuesday, October 20, 1981, the Vail Tawn Council convened for its regular meeting in the Council Chambers located in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Bill Wilta, Mayor Pro~Tem Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Tom Steinberg Ron Todd Bob Ruder OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was the presentation of certificates of appreciation to the contractors who had helped to build the restrooms at Ford Park. Mayor Slifer read off the names and presented certificates to those present, thanking them for making these facilities possible. The next item on the agenda was the presentation of an honorary resolution to Cheryl Dingwell, President of the Business and Professional Women's group ~in Vail in honor of National Business Women's Week. The next item, which was not on the agenda, was a presentation by Keith Troxel and Danny Williams, Eagle County Commissioners, on their efforts to work the the Vail Town Council to support the proposed 1% County sales tax. Mayor Slifer stated that Williams and Troxel had met with the Council that afternoon at work session and had brought back a letter signed by all three Commissioners agreeing to work closely with the Council on all matters of concern to them. There was some discussion regarding the need far the sales tax. Bill Wilto made a motion that the Vail Town Council support the Eagle Co. Commissioners in the election for the sales tax. Dr. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Bud Benedict and Paul Johnston elected to abstain from voting. A vote was taken and five members voted in favor of the motion. The-next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #31, Series of 1981, an ordinance providing for an increase in the maximum fine which may be assessed for an ordinance violation from $300.00 to $499.00. Mr. Caplan stated that no changes had been made to the ordinance from its first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance #31 on second reading and Ran Todd seconded it. A11 voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #33, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the zoning code in the parking zone district to add by conditional use permit in association with a parking structure office and commercial uses that are town and transportation related. In addition, to amend the zoning code in the public use district to add by conditional use permit office and town related commercial uses and dwellings dormitory type units for employee s of the town or special district.. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance since its first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance #33 on second reading and Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #34, Series of 1981, an ordinance changing the zoning map for the Town of Vail, placing certain town-owner properties in public use districts, parking, agriculture and open space and natural greenbelt and open space. Mr, Caplan stated that there had been no changes to the ordinance other than those made at the October 6th meeting. Bud Benedict made a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favor to approve the motion and the ordinance was ordered published by title only on second reading. -. MINUTES Va~til Town Council Meeting Tuesday, October 20, ].981 Page 2 The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #35, Series of 1981, an ordinance repealing and reenacting certain sections of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail and providing that whenever a nonconforming use which does not corform with the regulat-ions for the district in which it is located, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or by public enemy, the use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided that the restoration is commenced in one year and diligently pursued until completion and further providing for the registra- tion of nonconforming uses with.the Community Development Department. Mr. Caplan stated that no changes had been made since the first reading of this ordinance. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve ordinance #35 on second reading and Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #36, Series of 1981, an ordinance establishing and providing far the compensation for the Town Council and the Mayor of the Town of Vail. Mr. Caplan stated that the compensation for the council and the mayor had not been adjusted since 1973. This ordinance would apply only to the new council being voted in ~on November 17, 1981. It was suggested that the Mayor's compensation be raised from $350/month to $500/month and that each Council member's compensation be raised from $150/month to $200/month. After some discussion from the floor a motion was made by Bud Benedict and seconded by Johnston to approve Ordinance #36 on first reading. Tom Steinberg asked to abstain. A vote was taken the passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published in full on first reading. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #37, Series of 1981, an ordinance adopting a compensaiton program far appointed officials. Mr. Caplan stated that up to this time, no compensation of any kind was given to persons giving of their time to serve on the various Town boards and commissions. There was some discussion. Craig Snowden, a member of the DRB, stated that he would like to see it specifically spelled out in the ordinance that the compensation would be in a form of a pass or privilege in lieu of a dollar amount. The council agreed and Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance #37 on first reading with the additcion of the amendment. Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in full on first reading. The .next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #38, Series ~of 1981, an ordinance abandoning certain right-of-ways on Columbine Drive. There was same discussion by the Council. As there was not a map available to show the Council the exact area being abandoned it was suggested that the item be tabled until the November 3, 1981, meeting. Bill Wilto made a motion to table ordinance #38 until the November meeting. Paul Johnston seconded it. ~~All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. _ __ Mr. Caplan stated that he did have a request for an abandonment of easement on Lot 1, a resubdivision of Lot 1~, Bighorn Subdivision, Third Rddition, from John Nilsson, owner of the land. It was determined that a motion was all that was required to approve the Town Manager to sign this abandonment after it had been reviewed by the Design Review Board. After some discussion, a motion was made by Sill Wilto and seconded by Paul Johnston to approve the easement provided that the Town Manager not take action until after the Design Review .Board has reviewed the plans. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #39, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending Ordinance #30 of 1977, changing the maximum allowable dwelling units on Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch, from a maximum of 30 units to a maximum of 31 dwelling units, providing that one such dwelling unit be restricted to an employee housing unit; setting standards governing • such employee housing units; setting the permissible gross residential floor area for said 31 units. Peter Patten, Planning Dept., explained the ordinance After some discussion, a motion to approve Ordinance #39 on first reading was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Bob Ruder. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously and the ordinance ordered published in full on first reading. Under Citizen Participation, Rich Caplan announced that the Town has received a petition from The Valley Condo Association to remove the speed dip in that area and that the council would be taking this under advisement. MINUTES Vail Town Council Meeting Tuesday, October 20, 1981 Page 3 S The next item on the agenda was approval of tho lease agreement between the Town of Vail and the Clock Tower Znn Restaurant. There was same discussion between the Council and Bruce Hartman, owner of the restaurant. A motion was made Bill Wilto to approve the lease and seconded by Ron Todd. All voted in favor of the motion. The next item on the agenda was the appointment of the clerks and judges for the municipal election to be held on November 17, 1981. Rfter same discussion Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the listed officials and Bill Wilto seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision on the variance for Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision, Part of Lion's Ridge Piling #2. Mr. Gaplan stated that the Council had received written notice from Dave Cole, owner of Lot 2, to postpone the appeal until further notice. Paul Johnston made a motion to table the appeal and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was a departmental report by Dick Ryan, ~Dire~tor of Community Development. There was no Town Manager Report. The Town Attorney reported that the Town of Vail had been named in a lawsuit with the Johnston property in Potato Patch, and mare information would be forthcoming. Paul Johnston asked for a status report on the Red Lion lawsuit. Bill Wilto announced that Bob Lazier had placed fourth in his latest race. As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. r Rodney E. fifer, Ma~lor ATTEST: i Col 1 een K1 i ne, Town C1 erk n U w_ _. ,. Y 4 MINUTES Vail Tawn Council Meeting Tuesday, November 3, 1981 7:30 P.M. On Tuesday, November,3, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its ~gular meeting in the Council Chambers in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Bill Walto, Mayor Pro-Tem Bud Benedict Paul Johnston' Ron Tadd Bab Ruder ABSENT: Dr. Tom Steinberg OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence C. Rader, Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Tawn Clerk The first item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #31, Series of 1381, an ordinance providing for an increase in th maximum fine which may be assessed for an ordinance violation from $300.00 to $499.00. Richard Caplan explained that this ordinance had been presented far second at the last meeting, but due to a publishing error, it needed to be read on second ading another tame. Mr. Caplan stated there had been no changes to the ~dinance.since passed on first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve Ordinance #31 on second reading and Ron Todd seconded it. All voted in favox and the motion was passed unanimously and the ordinance ordered published by title only. The next item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #36, Series of 1981, an ordinance establishing and providing far the compensation for the Town Council and the Mayor of the Tawn of Vail. Mr. Caplan stated that there had been no changes to this ordinance from the first reading. After some discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Ordinance #36 on s:ec~nd reading and Bud Benedict seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. The next .item onthe agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #37, Series of 1981, an ordinance adopting a compensation program for appointed officials for the Town of Vaal. Mr. Caplan stated that no changes had been made to this ordinance from first reading. Bill Wilto made a motion to approve ordinance #37 on second reading and Ron Todd seconded at. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. ~e next item on the agenda was the second reading of ~rdanance #39, Series of 1981., an ordinance amending Ordinance #30 of ].977, changing the maximum allow- able dwelling units on Lot 6, Block 2, Potato Patch,, from a maximum of 30 units to a maximum of 31 dwelling units; providing that one such dwelling unit be restricted to an employee housing unit; setting standards governing such employee housing unit and setting the permissible gross resa.dential floor area (GR~'A} far said 31 units. After same discussion between the Council and Peter Patten of the Cu~~,~~~unity Development Dept.., a motion was made by Bud Benedict and seconded by Pau]. Johnston to approve Ordinance #39 on second reading. All voted in favor a~ the motion and it was passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only on second reading. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #38, Series of 1981. Mr. Caplan explained that this ordinance had been tabled from the last Council meeting because there was not enough material available to review the matter completely. After same discussion by the Council it was decided that the matter should be tabled again until more information could be determined as to who owned the properties involved, who had requested the abandonment of the easement and the square footage involved. Bill Wilto made a motion to table Ordinance #38 until the first December meeting. Bud ~nedict seconded the motion and all voted in favor. r - r MINUTES Vail Town Council Tuesday, November 3, 1981 Page 2 ~e next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance.#40, Series of 1981, an ordinance requiring that no multi-unit structure consisting of 3 or_more units receiving mail shall be constructed without the installation of mail boxes sufficient to service all anticipated occupants with mail delivery. There was some discussion by the Gouncil. It was felt that the ordinance should be written in more detail giving clearer direction for complaince. Bob Ruder made a motion to send the ordinance back to the staff for clarification and Bill Wilta secanded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #~~., Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the Town of Vail and placing the Town--owned properties in the public use district and agricultural. and open space district. After some discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion to pass ordinance #41 on first reading and Bob Ruder seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published in full on first reading. The next item an the agenda was the reading of Resolution #30, Series of 19$1, a resolution approving and ratifying the note purchase agreement for he Town of Vail construction loan refunding notes, Series November 1, 1981, ted November ~., 1981., in the aggregate principal.. amount of $7,000,000. r. Caplan explained the reason for the Resolution. Steve McConahey from Boettcher and Associates gave a short presentation. After some discussion, Ron Todd made a motion to approve Resolution #30 and Paul Johnston secanded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Slifer made an announcement that the County Sales Tax election results with all but Redcliff counted were 780 for the tax increase and X20 against it. During Citizen Participation, Al Amoral from The Wren, asked the Council what procedures he could take to get a rezoning on a unit within The Wren for .employee housing. After some discussion it was decided to refer the matter back to the planning staff for invesitgatian.and bring back to the next Town Council meeting. Dan Klinger asked what steps had been taken to bring more police protection into Vail. Mr. Caplan stated that it would be brought up in the budget hearings which would be presented to the Council at the November 17th meeting. e next item on the agenda was a presentation by Paula Palmateer on the Vail sort Association. Paula reviewed the past year's activities and gave a summary of projects being worked on by the VRA for this year. The next item on the agenda was a report on the Clean Air Coalition by Josuha Epel. After his presentation the Town Council agreed to ,join the Coalition and submit an application with a check in the amount of $100.00. During the Town Manager Report, Richard Caplan reported on the Homestake Diversion Project this is to begin work in the near future. Charlie Wick, Minturn Town Manager, stated that Minturn had agreed to work i.n cooperation with the Project. Rod Slifer stated that it was the Town of Vail°s position to oppose any da.version projects on the western slope. Also, Mr. Caplan stated that the Town had received a petition from 30 Bridge Street shop owners and residents opposing the solicitation of timesharing units by persons walking the streets. Mr. Caplan stated that a letter had beon previously sent to Appollo Park requesting information as to who was distributing these cards. Paul Johnston requested Mr. Caplan to write them a second letter asking them to cease this solicitation. Also under Town Manager Report, Mr. Caplan announced that the Maintenance Shop of the Town of Vail would be hosting an Open House on I'riday, Nav. 6 i 3:30 p.m. r ~ MINUTES Vail Town Council Tuesday, November 3, 1981 Page 3 der Town Attorney Report, Larry Rader announced that the Red Lion lawsuit d been resolved and all charges dropped. The Johnston Duplex first hearing was held today and the next hearing would be held Friday, November 13, 1981. The Fire District Dissolution hearing would be held tomorrow, November 4th, with an election anticipated an early December, 1.981. The Caroselli lawsuit would be heard the first week in December, 1981. As there was no fuxther business the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .~- ,,, Rb~ney E. Slifer, yor ATTEST: ~1leen Kline, Town Clerk ~~ • .~. Nl~INU'~ES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1981 7:30 p,m. On Tuesday, November 17, 1981, the Vail Town Caunezl convened for its regular and final meeting of this Council in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rod Slifer, Mayor Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem Bud Benedict Paul Johnston Bob Ruder Dr. Torn Steinberg Ron Todd OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence C. Rider, Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #41, Series of 1981, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the Town of Vail and placing two Town-owned properties in the public use district and agricultural and open space district. After a short discussion, Bill Wilto made a motion and Paul Johnston seconded it to approve Ordinance #41 on second reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. ~t item an the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #38, series of 1981, an ordinance abandoning certain right-of-ways on Columbine Drive. Mr. Caplan explained the reason for the ordinance. It was felt that the owners of the properties affected by this ordinance should make some payment to the Town for abandoning the easement and agree to not request additional GRFA on the land. Mr. and Mrs. Shatt~,ck, owners of one of the properties, presented the Council with one dollar to conform with the provisions of the ordinance. After some discussion, Bob Ruder made a motion and Dr. Steinberg seconded it to approve Ordinance #38 on first reading. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in full. The next item onthe agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #40, Series of 1981, an ordinance requiring that no multi-unit structure consisting o~ 3 or mare units receiving mail shall be constructed without the installation of mail boxes sufficiezat to service all anticipated occupants with mail delivery. After some discussion, Dr. Steinberg made a motion and Bill Wilto seconded it to approve Ordinance #40 on first reading. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and was ordered published in full. The next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolution #32, Series of 1, a resolution granting Holy Crass Electric Association an easement. er some discussion, Bill Wilto made a motion and Bud Benedict seconded it to approve Resolution #32. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Under Citi2en Participation, Dan Klinger brought up the letter Al Alpi, Mayor of Avon, had printed in the Vail Trail. The Council agreed that it was completely out of line and the Mayor would express the Council's and the citizens of Vail's objection to it. Next item on the agenda was the appointment of Barbara Felker as an Election Commiss9.oner to fill a vacancy left by Karen Morter, who has become an employee of the Town of Vail. Paul Johnston made a motion and Tom Steinberg seconded it to approve Ms. Felker. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolution #31, Series of 1981, a Resolution acknowledging the service of Bud Benedict on the Vail Town Council. A motion was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Paul Johnston to approve Resolution #31. All voted in favor and the motion carried unamiously. ~~. MINUTES Vaal Town Council Tuesday, November 17, 1981 Page 2 T ere was no Town Manager Report. ere was no Town Attorney Deport. Several members of the Council expressed their enjoyment of serving on the Council over the past dew gears. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~~ ._ ~ ~~ J Ro~.ney E . (Slif e~ , M~or ATTEST: Colleen Kline, Town Clerk a r~ LJ PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 WILTO: OK, let's call this meeting to ardor. The purpose of this evening's meeting, first of all,we'll be going through a rather formal public hearing process having to do with the Lionshead improvement District. We have some attorneys here and they have to do what they usually do, so if you'll bear with that part of it, they'll go through their process and then you`al1 will have a chance to say whatever yau'd like for or against the improvement district. Before we get into th;it Z should announce who is here and who isn't here. The entire Town Council is present with the exception of Rodney Slifer who is out of town. Also present is Loring Harkness who is bond counsel for the Town of Vail and Jeff Winston from Gage Davis and Associates who is also here to advise us. With that z might mention that after the public hearing the Council will open a discussion on the ordinance itself but there will be no vote on the ordinance this evening. The actual vote will take ~> place next Tuesday evening. So at this time .i would like to introduce Loring E. Harkness who is with the firm of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll to start the formal presentation. HARKNESS: Thank you, Bill. Bill's already made my apology for me and has indicated that the public hearing tonight will be rather a formal process but its basic purpose is to provide information to affected property owners and as you know, the Lionshead Improvement Project was initiated by a resolution. of the Town Council #21, Series 1.982, which. was adopted an October 5, 1982 and thereafter notice of this hearing was published in the Vail Trail on November 12, 1982 and th~~ notice and form, of protest were also mailed to all affected property owners by first class mail on November 12, 13 and 16. I'm told i:hat tine mailing was so large it required three days to accomplish. As Bill has indicated, the purpose of the hearing is for the Town Council to receive evidence concerning the proposed district of the construction and installation of ,improvements therein and the methods of proportioning the assessments which PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IM~PRI?VEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 198 Page 2 would be levied to pay the cost thereof. And a.t's also for the purpose of hearing and passing on the protests, objections or comments made by the general public and also to da~~cuss the form of the ordinance to be considered for adoption on December 5th. Many of the words that will be spoken tonight will be directed towards providing evidence to the Town Council upon which to make certain findings that are required by the Town's procedural ordinance an the case of all local improvement districts and in order to make sure that all of the necessary facts are brought forward I'll be calling a series of witnesses and they will include Town Manager Richard Caplan, who w~.ll talk about the background and description of the project and participation of ~i.;1e Town in the financing. Dick Ryan, the Director of Community Development, wall provide further detai-~ an connection with the project. Jeff Winston, the Town's land- scape architect, from Gage Davis Associates will talk about the plans for the project which are evidenced on the maps anti renderings on the bulletin board. Don Wallaee who's a real estate economist and consultant to the Town has a great deal of experience in assessment procedure.:,. Bill Pyka will talk a little bit abo.~t the financing of the improvements and then there will be an opportunity for public comme,~t. So with that sketch of who's going to talk about what, I`d like to call each witness in turn and then,,-;with the Council`s p~=.~~mas~ion, ask that any question s. be directed to thos,~ people be mare at the concl.us-ion of each session. Rich Caplan, I guess you're on first. Please state your name, address an~~ pos~.tion for the record please. CAPT~AN: Richard Caplan, Town Manager, 75 So. Fron-cage Road, Vail, Colorado. HARNESS: I`d like you to start your testimony, Rich, with some back-- ground on the project and I understand that in aid of this you have a bit of a slide presentation that Jeff Winston will assist you with. PUBLIC HEARING LIONBHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER ~~0 , 1.982 Page 3 CAPLAN: I'd be happy to answer any questions, but I'd like to call on Jeff Winston first to explain the background on the program of the Lionshead Improvement Program through some slides that we have prepared. Jeff. WINSTON: The purpose in meeting tonight is to address the problem that concerns all of the Town of Vail, both Lionshead and Vail Village. We have the opportunity at this point in time to bring to fruition a number of years of effort by a great many people to bring about some significant and important improve- . menu to Lionshead we think will be of benefit to not only Lionshead but the entire Vail community. Yt's a program that most people in Lionshead and througk~out the village feel is essential, not only for Lionshead and the Lionshead of the future and for all of the Town. It brings us the opporunity to bring the entire Town up to a level of finish and producti- vity in~~terms of commerci~E.l activity in support of the major industry here in town - skiing - all will benefit both residents and commercial property owners as well. First some background might be in order. When it was initially established, Lions- head was planned to be a cointemporary Euxopean resort prototype. . It was to be the second major doorway to the mountain and a number of studies were undertaken to identify the character of the village and how it should operate,' and large plazas were introduced and it was, very well thought out. Over the years in a very short period of time it was implemented and gained solid momentum from the beginning and it was turned over to the Town of Vail in 1978. However, since its earlier days time and deterioration have taken their toll. The brief overview now is now is the time when we have a chance to. go back and revisit the original plan and make some adjustments and changes th,~.t are essential to Lionshead's future and in fact, all. of the Town, frankly. Why ,does Lionshead need help? PUBLIC HEARING ~~IONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 4 Over the years time and weather have taken theix toll. Them: are many areas of the mall that have begun to detexioxate although the best technology at the time was implemented. The materials selected have begun to wear and fray aro{~:nd the edges. A lot of areas were not finished completely. Therf~ were areas where there are not only appearance problems but safety problems to people walking the .mall. Some a.xeas were never finished. Design changes that were introduced created new problems. ;~In areas where plazas were invisioned landscaping was introduced which give Lionshead a lot of t he quality that it has but it has become a serious impediment to stares and merchants ability to attract people from the major walkways. Some of the plazas just never reached their potential. Several years ago, back in the spring of %.979, the: Town initiated ' at the request of the Lionshead Merchants, a series of options to address the problem and thxf~e sessions were held and two of the sessions really dealt with Lionshead's immediate sur-- roundings. Merchants, property owners, Town offir~ials, interested parties, interested citizens rolled out in day and a half work- shop sessions at each one of these workshops to provide their best ideas about what changes needed to happen, new ideas, identifying thy: problems and coming up with various kinds of solutions. These various ideas were collected, but together in an overall master plan that was then presented to the work- shop participants and later to the Town Council for theix approval as the general master plan and we-then proceeded with a long pexiod of about sip months of subsequent smaller wor~c.- shops dealing area by area with all of the problems an~~? all of the improvements that ne,=.d to be made. Some-important accomplishments have been made since that time. The east and west entrances of Lionshead have been dramatically changc:~d. Those of you who can remember the old days. The east entxance has undergone a similar transformation. It's about one half to two thirds the completed at this point. Over $300,000 of PUBLIC HEARING LiONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRIc.:T NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 5 Tawn's funds have been spent in these two improvements alone. Additionally, temporary resurfacing of the Lionshead Parking Structure and kiosks and improvements in the lighting system have been made and of course a major effort in the terms of planting and landscaping throughout Lionshead. There sti~.l are many areas that need improvement. Many areas again that were unfinished. There are a number of ragged edges that just are not as attractive and do not contribute a bit to Lionshead as a viable place to live or shop or to attract tourists. Not • only in the mall areas but in the outlying areas significant areas are needed. Through the workshop process alot...of these improvements were identified. In many areas it means shifi:ing the location of planters so that pedestrians can get closer to the shops so as not to block access, a great desire was indicated to have a central focal point to attract people much as the fountain near the covered bridge in Vail Village. Something with a similar attraction and level of quality that really becomes the focal paint and center of gathering for Lionshea~~.. The result of all of that was the general urban design or master plan of improvements. Many of those improvements are illustrated in the perspective drawing on the right. They include a number of different kinds of improvements. The most dramatic change is replacing all th+= concrete with stamped concrete throughout the mall. Replacing that with concrete and interloc,~ing +_ancrete pavers, a material that has been used -successfully on the east and west entries. It implies moving ,orne of the planting areas into the walkways any'' opening up some of the walkways, reusing many of the plant materials, introducing more trees, benches, sitting areas, kiosks, directory signs. in the central plaza coming down fxom the north day lot is invisioned a large fountain and green space and sculpture areas have been identified throughout the mall. In addition, PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, x.982 P age 6 emergency access which is not lacking throughout the mall would be provided from one end to the other and in thr, out- lying areas the significant areas would include sidewalks and lighting in the mall as well as the outlying areas, Also included as a part of the plan but not at public expense is the provision for commercial expansion to allow shop owners to expand beyond the present limits of the right of way lines to encourage new commercial development, upgrading of store fronts and generally upgrading as you see presently in the Gondola Building. Those have been some of the initial improve-~ • meats that have been made as a result of the urban design plan recommend~~.tions. Obviously, the key question is how to finance the project. The Town of Vail has many different demands on its operating budget. Town revenues are generated from property taxes and sales tax. Many of the improvements you saw had finance out of the year's proceeds. But ~~ project of this scale and magnitude would take 15 years to finance at this rate. The answer that came out of the workshop was that we needed some form of a public and private partnership where the Lionshead property owners would take upon themselves a commitment to raise some of the money and the Town would take upon itself a commitment to raise the rest. The Lionshear' Merchants, the way to raise that kind of money through the private sector is through what is called a Special Improvement District, which sells a bond and then repays that bond out of tax assessments on the individual properties in the special improvement district. In this case would be Lionshead. The Town for its part would propose to raise its share of the money through a gene^a1 obligation bond which comes from the proceeds of sales tax and the sales tax rate in Vail would not be raised as a result of this effort, but .increasing business and having . paid off other bonds previously ,provides the=~ opportunity to raise the money 'for this obligation bond through sales tax proceeds. What are the costs? Generally the costs are PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1984 . Page 7 broken down by the type of use between commercial and residential properties and also by related to the distance from the mall. As you see here, commercial properties range from about .S~ a square foot the further distance from the mall to $3.53 a square foot far those commercial properties fronting on the mall. Residential properttes would contribute a significantly less per square foot cost in the sense that there properties on the mall would be paying as high as $1.42 actually, a $1..41 here, dawn to about .7~ a square foot furthest from the mall. As an example, one square foot of store front this is over the entire cost of the project, that would be then financed over 10 - 12 years. Financed in this way, a com- merci~,1 property fronting directly on the mall would pay .83~ a square foot per year and a residential property furthest from the mall would pay about a penny and a half a square foot per year financed aver that period .of time. ~ :~~ The benefits. Obviously Lionshead is going to benefit. We hope that the attractiveness that is brought about through the improvements will make Lionshead a more competitive and ~~~iable place to attract tourists from the front range as well • as the overnight tourist. Over 50% of the skier;; that visit Vail go through Lionshead to i:he gondola. And we think and the Council has expressed a desire th~xt their impression of Vail comes to a great degree from their experience in Lionshead, To the degree that Lionshead is improved and they have a pleasant experience there, they're enthused to come back many times and we think that that helps tie both neighborhoods together and again expands the competitiveness of jail as a ski resort to compete with other ski resorts. So it's not just ~.a program merely to assist Lionshead. We think it's going to have benefits for the entire community. Under the present • provisions, if both bond issues are approved, we would begin the second general obligation bond issue sometime in February. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 8 If that election is successful and this special improvement district is successful, we would begin immediately an intensive design process and begin construction sometime in mid•-April or the early part of May. Now we would be in a fast track process. We would begin some of the work before the design is completed in other areas. We would see construction going at a very excellerated rate flat out through November, obviou.~ly taking a break through the ski season and the finishing touches happening next year in April, May and June of next year, hopefully by the Fourth of July having an opening ceremony to finalize the whole construction. It's a fairly complex issue. The Town has made its commitment contingent upon Lionshead doing its share of the work, pulling its part of the load, so it really requires two issues. A special improvement district issue and Lionshead will raise approximately $1 million dollars, the general obligation bond by the Town will raise $1.6 million dollars for a maximum cost of $2.6 million dollars for Lionshead. It will require support not only for this issue currently being discussed but also the general obligation bond. To summarize however, many people have invested an awful lot of time over the last 2 or 3 • years. At the same time inflation continues to deal with cost of construction, The mall continues to deteriorate. Some improvements that have been made this year by the Town, temporary resurfacing have helped to stay that, but have really not reversed the trend and *he deterioration continues and the problems are still there. All of us who have been involved in the project feel that How's the time, the perfect time for Lionshead to pull itself up by the bootstraps and put on a new face and make some dramatic changes and regain as much of the momentum that has been lost over the last several years and held Lionshead • and Vail. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 9 HARKNESS. Thank you, Jeff. I think the slide show gives an excellent overview of some of the issues that will be discussed in greater detail this evening through the presentation of the .,ucceeding speakers. Rich, I'd like to return to your part of this program and :First observe that there is a great deal of evidence of a public/private undertaking in the slide presentatior~ and to me that indicates that the Town conceives that there will be general benefits to the community derived from this project. I wonder if your could give us your views on the gener~~,l benefits of the Town. CAPLAN: We feel that by improving Lionshead there Will be mare overnight guests staying in the Lionshead area, not only during the winter season but year round, we also believe that it would be therefore generating mare business activity for the restaurants and the retail, shops in the area. Also feel that with the improvement with the construction of the Lionshead Parking Structure that there is adequate parking in the area to accommodate increased activity and that the major attractions in the area in particular the gondola, is looking at as actively promoted the summer marketing of Vail as a summer attraction and other activities . including creation of a miniature golf activity and other diversification of activities there which would improve th~~ general. business activity in the area. HARKNESS: And in consideration of those general benefits to the Town, this slide presentation also indicated .t hat the Town was going to participate in the cost of making improvements. Can you describe how allocation would be made in some more detail? CAPLAN: The Town would, if the improvement district is approved by the Town. Council, the Town would go to the reside=nts of the c~,~~~~~unity at large to have them consider a general obligation bond of $1.6 million which would be a general obligation of the "'own capital improvements budget. That-revenue comes from sales tax PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER S0, 1982 Page 10 • generated by revenues from throughout the Town, not just from the Lionshead area. So it would be a general contribution of retail sales tax plus a particular contribution of the property owners in Lionshead proper. HARKNESS: And the $2.6 million total cost of the project as proposed to the Town through the general obligation bonds would bear $1.6 million and the improvement d:~.strict through the issuance of special assessment district bonds $1.0? CAPLAN: That's correct. HARKNESS: Rich, does the staff have a general recommendation to make to the Council in connection with the Lionshead Improvement Program? CAPLAN: Yes, it is the recommendation of the staff of the Town of Vail that the Town Council favorably consider the adoption of proposed Ordinance X40 at its regular meeting next Tuesday night after public hearing this evening and proceed with establishment of the special improvement district contingent upon the voter approval. by the voters of the Town of Vail.. HARKNESS: That concludes this segment of the program an~a consideration of the planned presentation of this evening. I think my preference might be to hold questions until. the opportunity at the end of . public comment. Would I'd like to do is go on next to Dick Ryan. Dick, would you state your name and address and occupation for the record? RYAN: Dick Ryan, 75 South Frontage Road, Community Development Director far the Town of Vail. HARKNESS: And would you also describe briefly your resp~~nsibilities in connection with the project? RYAN: Yes, my responsibilities are, about three years ago the property owners, merchants and people in Vail/Lionshead came to me an~~. said that Vail/Lionshead needed some major improvements and needed them fairly soon because of the deterioration that had taken place in the Vail/Lionshead Mall. I then went to the Town Council who allocated funds in order to do the study for the improvements to the Vail/Lionshead area. In June of 1.979 the Town had three major PIIBLIC HEAi'ING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 11 • workshops - one for VaillLionshead, one for Vaal Village and one lookin g at the connection between Vail Village and Vail Lionshead. The average attendance was approximately 50-60 people at those three workshops. After the initial workshop in Lionshead in June there were many many followup workshops in July, August, September, October and I believe up until November of 1979. Again, the pur- pose was to define the plan and get input from the people who were interested in the plan. Gage Davis and Associates of Boulder, Colorado, were the consultants who worked with the staff in~~coming up with tine plan. In June of 1980, Town Council approved the Vail/ • Lionshead as the Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail/Lionshead. This has been used for east and west Lionshead entries plus improvements to the Vail 21 building, to the Gondola Building and to the Lift- house Lodge. The anticipation is that there are other possibilities for commercial expansions to also use the plan. HARKNESS: OK, anc~ in connection with the undertaking that you „ust described, would you identify the area within the Lionshead vicinity gas appropriate for a special improvement district? RYAN: This was done with the assista,:ce of Larry Smith and Company, who have a great deal of experience throughout the country in setting up special improvement districts for mall areas. Which determin- ation in working with them is that boundaries for the special improvement district that they thought was viable was from the Vail Spa and the Mark on the west end over to the edge of the Vail/Lionshead parking center and the Lodge at Lionshead on ti?e r,ast end. The north boundary is the Frontage Road and basical~_y the south boundary is Gore Creek. HARKNESS: OK, and then once the boundaries of the district had been established did you then go about attempting to ident~~fy the owners of all the properties affected? RYAN: Yes, this was done a couple years ago by a search of the County Asse ssor's Office of the affected property owne~^~:=;. The list har_. been on file with the Community Development Department for several weeks and one was mailed out to all present property owners and was also published in the Vail Trail December 12th. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30 , 1.982 Page 1.2 ~ARKNESS: In addition to searching the records of the County Assessor in Eagle, did you also take steps to ascertain the current owners of property and their addresses for thE~ purpose of mailing notice of this hearing? RYAN: Yes, we made a special effort by looking for timeshare units in Lionshead, calling timeshare managers asking for their owners. Also I did spend at least three quarters of a day down at the County Assessor's Office just generally rechecking to n;ake sure I had a list of the current property owners. HARKNESS: And in the course of preparation for this hearing, did you ~~.lso • with the assistance of consultants, make available for public inspection certain maps and renderings and cost estimates and other information concerning the project? RYAN: Yes, this has been on file in the Community Development Department and also several maps have been on file of the Town Council Chambers. HARKNESS: I wonder if you could identify each of the maps or renderings and tell what the purpose of each of them is. RYAN: The first map is the map that shows the distance from major improvement which would be Vaii/Lionshead Mall to the affected properties and how many feet it is measured from those specific areas. The second map shows lots and blocks that we have of record for the assessment district area. There is also a list of all the lots tha-t~. are i.n the assessment area. The third map to the right shows the improvements that specifically are proposed to be made in the mall area itself. There's also on the wall a general description of improvements in the Lionshea~~~ area, the estimated cost, the notice th_~.t was sent out to all property owners. On the wall to the left is the proposed improvements that would be made in the outlying area, landscaping, sidewalks, lighting. To the f~~r left a.s a sketch of what we hope Lionshead . will. look like when the improvements are completed. There is a cascading waterrall, there is a sculpture, benches, street lights etc. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 198 Page 13 • HARKNESS: And, finally, alter the adoption of the resolution initiating this project, did you and members of your team hold any informal meetings with businesses or business groups in order to explain the project more fully? RYAN: Yes, we did talk to some managers of condominium projects about the proposal. The results of a meeting last week with the Merr:hants Association of Lionshead any' I dial go through the project again. There has also been in the past many many meetings where this has been discussed. HARKNESS: Thanks, Dick. ~ARKNESS: Jeff Winston, you're next and your presentation by the slide show was so complete that T risk duplicating same of your testimony, but I would Like to have you state your..name, address and occupation for the record. WINSTON; Jeff, Winston, working for Gage Davis an+-~.associates, Boulder, Colorado,. address is I.985{':Glenwood, Boulder, Colorado. HARKNESS: OK, with reference to the maps that have been identified by Dick Ryan, I wonder if you could y~rovide in greater detail a description of the improvements that are proposed to be made. WINSTON: There are really three key maps that id.-:~nt~.fy the improvements. • No. 1, the last of the three on this side, the shaded area re- presents the area where the improvements are to be made. The improvements in that area generally consist of replacing most of the or stamped concrete in the area that is deteriora- ting, that would be replaced by interlocking concrete brick pavers. As I mentioned, this is being used in the east and west end entries. This is brick paver that's layed much like brick on a bed of sand on top gravel. The primary advantage is that we've discovt~xed the use of this material at this altitude doesn't tend to swell and break apart as normal concrete does. And secondly, it can be re- moved for replacing utilities and then re.nstalled putting the same ir~aterial back in place and the maintenance cost is significantly reduced. The appearance is similar to brick an~'~ we find it very attractive material for all of those reasons. There would also be PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, Y982 :age l~ several of the planting islands, a mall area that would be re- located switched from their present location in front of the stores further into the middle of the walkway in front of each of the storefront isles. We intend to preserve as much as possible the existing landscaping, reuse that landscape material that is in the areas to be relocated. I ,guess a key point in the improvement is to try and create a series of plazas with focal points. Places where the pedestrians, the tourists and the overnight visitors and guests can gather, one plaza leading to another, each one is interesting, has its own character and is improved by the private improvement of the shops in each of those areas. Additional planting over and above what is therE~ now as well as lighting, lighting fixture;, throughout the mall would be done to complement that. In the central part of the mall which is the artist's con- ception on th+~ left, generally catches the spirit that we'd like to achieve throughout the mall area, particularly in this central plaza. That includes the water feature that is demonstrated in numerous places, water features just have that magic ability to become a photographic focal point as well as backdrops. It removes a large area of the descending staircase from th+~ north day lot, opens that whole plaza up into a pedestrian space and gives frontage to the buildings around the pedestrian plaza. There's some mare practical improvements-planned in th+_ mall area, including replacing the electrical system which has been problemmatic for a number of years and making maintenance a little easier to do and certainly a lot more reliable, In..a.ddition, emergency access will be provided, providing ramps and stairs, some areas are just, unaccessable to emergency vehicles. There are then a number of finishing touches we envision -- bicycle racks, kiosks, directory signs, planters and other sine touches we think than, will make it a more enjoyable place to visit as well as reside. In the outlying areas there are a number of sidewalks planned, landscape improvements on the sur-- rounding lands as well as peripheral fighting on those sidewalks PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 ~ge Z5 in the outlying areas. We think this wi11 benefit not only those fronting directly on the mall but all of the properties in the general vicinity. HARKNESS: Thank you. Is your office also responsible for furnishing the estimates for the cost of t he project? WINSTON: Yes, working with the Town staff, the building departm~rynt, I've done several cost estimates, refining the cost estimates several times over the period of time since the plan was initially developed. HARKNESS: Of the total $2.6 million, can you break that down into the costs associates with the different categories of improvements in a general . way? WINSTON: Very generally, the construction breaks down into about $1.8 million of hard construction. That is utilities, bricks, furniture, planting, things like that. Then there's about $500,004. in what we term "soft costs". Those are not necessarily overhead cots, they're integral to the construction but typically a cost estimated format ~,hey're broken out separately. They include the contractor's general conditions, mobilizatio~~. expenses, they include some money for the master electrical system that is not part of the cosmetic improvements. Surveying a lot of legal and design fees associated with the pro- duction of the work, drawings of construction documents and oti:er costs associated with the organization of the project. HARKNESS: OK, thank you. The next speaker will. be John Wallace. John, would you be good enough to state your name, address and occupation for the record? WALLACE: My name is John Wallace and my address is 61 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. I'm a real estate economist consultant. HARKNESS: OK, I wond~=~r if you can describe your educat-ion and experience as a real estate economist. WALLACE: Sure, as far as education I have an AA degree in liberal arts, a BA degree in business from the San F,r~ncisco State Univer:~ity and a • MBA from San Francisco State University with emphasis in finance and real estate. Currently I'm employed with Larry Smith and Company PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT i~ISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 ~e 1.6 I have worked for Larry Smith and Company for about 6 years of the past 11 yea:r.•s as a real estate professional. I have also worked and have been employed by Stanford Research Institute and there I was a real estate economist. Let me tell you a little bit about Larry Smith :end Company. Larry Smith an~:1 Company is an international real estate consulting firm. They spe~ialaze in retail as well as developing malls. They did some of the original work on the mall. in Sacramento California and Kalamazoo and another 300. I've worked on same of those and worked in Napa, California as well as Twin Falls, Idaho. Also, and I should bring this up as well, another individual has also worked on this project from Larry Smith and his name is Everett Syske, and due to health reasons could F;ot be here this evening. He has approximately 25 years in experience and has probably worked on 50 pedestrian malls. HARKNESS: Could you state very briefly the expertise that you and your firm have that prompted the town to engage in these consultants in con- nection with this project? WALLACE: Yes, this is on the assessment district. We have rather recently done a nearby one in another part of Colorado and I think that was part of the reason we were called to do this type of work. HARKNESS: In the course of your engagement with the Town, did you become familiar with the documents that have been on file in the Town offices and that have been described by Dick Ryan an~:~'_ Jeff Winston? WALLACE: Yes I have. HARKNESS: In addition to that , have your also personally inspected the Lionshead area? WALLACE: Yes I have. We've have several field traps to the site in Vail. HARKNESS: Are there other things that you did in preparation for your work on this project by way of background. WALLACE: As part of this study, we collected data from 80 other pedestrian malls around the United States and we evaluated these and, I'm nit sure how much-detail you want at this point, maybe I'll get into it a little bit later. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 3Q, 1982 Page 17 HL~NESS WALLACE: HAR~ESS WALLACE: HARKNESS: OK, I take it that the principal. purpose of your engagement was to develop a formula which fairly apportions among the affected properties within the Lionshead area a method for apportioning the assessments and to develop a schedule of assessments to be levied against the property. Can you tell us maw you went about that process? Certainly. What we are attempting to do is to equate benefit with assessment. What, therefore, we did was attempted to find the benefits that each of the properties in Vail/Lionshead would receive from the pedestrian mall and equate that to the properties. OK, in pursuing that objective, did you then develop a formula by which the total. cost be assessed against the property ow?~ers benefited, was to be made? Yes we did. Could you describe that for me and haw it works. WALLACE: OK, I'll describe it. As I told you earlier, I hope it isn't too difficult to do a mathematical formula verbally, but, what it is, for each property the formula a.s the Y factor which I'll explain in a minute divided by the sum of the Y factor times the assessment, the total assessment for the district which is this case is $1 million that wi11 be borne by the district on equal individual property assessments. The Y factor is calculated by calculating first of all the square footage of the unit times the dista~~ce factor and times the use factor. In other words the type of use that the property is put to. The square footage came from the assessor's office. The distance f~~ctor was the factor that we arrived at through a complicated formula. I won't get into that now but I'll explain that later and the use factor also came from the Assessor's Office with ;_ome modifications that we ourselves made depending upon thy- :~el.at=_onship of the commercial property to the nearness of the mall. • PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 18 H~NESS: OK, so, I have a little bit of difficulty in assimilating mathematical formulas, but is it correct to state that the formula proportions the cost considering the different factors? Among those factors are use of the property, proximity to the improvement, the square footage and WALLACE: And then for commercial properties the mall frontage is also important, not only distance. HARKNESS: Tn the course of your work have you formed an opinion as to whether the construction and installation of the improvements which have been described here tonight according to the plan • will confer special benefits as opposed to general benefits on the properties to be assessed? WALLACE: Yes. HARKNESS: OK, and in making that determination, what factors did you ~.onsider in determining whether special benefits would be confer? WALLACE: We11, there's a whole range of factors that we have and I think that the direction that the study sh~~uld go. We've limited our- selves to two basic benefits. The first one was the reservation of the value of the properties. That would be caused by actually renevating the ma11 area and so forth. The second .area was the affect on the market value of the property caused by the improve-- menu on all the property values of the properties within the district. There are a whole variety of secondary ones such as the health and safety factor and that also goes back and directly affects even the value of the property as well as factors such as increased sales for the retailers in the mall and so forth. You know, that translates back into ~~roperty value. HARKNESS: Based upon these considerations, what is your opinion about whether these improvements would confer special benefits on the properties. WALLACE: That they would. HAR~SS: 0K, have you also developed an opinion regarding whother the value of those special benefits conferred will in the case of each property the levy to be assessed agains~ that property? PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 34, 1982 P~e 19 WALLACE: Yes we have and we believe titer will. HARKNESS; Have you also formed an opinion as to whether `.he formula for appor`,ioning the assessments will fairly apportion the total cost among the properties affected in porportion to the special benefits conferred? WALLACE: Yes we did, and we took a substantial amount of time and modified it many many times. We feel very confident that this is th+~ fairest amount. HARKNESS: Thank you. The process that has just been described to you is a complicated one and in addition to the perplexity of the formula, • another factor is that a great number of individual properties in the Lionshead area who are affected, the undertaking by the Town with respect to identifying all those property owners and ascertaining from the records the square footage of each for the purpose of then calculating the assessments is a considerable one as you can well imagine. One of the purposes of a hearing of this sort and of the notice of receipt of it is to ellicit public input concerning the accuracy of that information and inevitably in a few cases, I under- stand, there were some errors in the Assessor's records concerning the square footage of particular properties. Rich, would you like to address yourself to that consideration and describe what the Town's approach to that matter would be? WILTO; May I interrupt for just a moment? In case we are experiencing difficulties do we have a backup recorder so that KLINE: It is recording, it's just doing very odd things. I apologize, it is recording though. CAPLAN: Yes, there are approximately 734 properties in the Lionshead area and notices as stated earlier were sent to those property owners with proposed assessments. During the last two weeks we have been contacted by the owners of 20 properties where there have been discrepancies indicated in what ti?e records initially showed in terms of square footage for the properties versus what in actual fact exists. In PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30 , x.982 Page 20 r1 U some cases many of the property owners have added, completed a loft in their unit or in some cases there was some error in the County Assessor's records or the like or some tTpographical error in the printing of the notice. So out of those 20 projects we have found that 2 of those and they are all residenti~.l, I would say 2 of those projects the assessments, I'm sorry, 10 of those 20 projects the square footage is too high and in fact should be reduced and therefore prior to final. Council action we would recommend a reduction of, it varies but it's generally in the vicinity of $100 - $200 per condominium unit. Thos} are located, two arr~ located in the Lodge at Lionshead Phase IZ and S in the Enzion, but there would be a minor reduction in the proposed assessments and we would recommend that to the Town Council. In the other 10 cases, we found th,~.t for various reasons the records indicate that there is more square footage than o~ the record and in those cases properly speaking those assessments should be increased by a nominal amount. Anywhere from approximately $100 to $300 or $400. The total. increase for those ten properties would be $3500. Should the Town Cou~~cil correct that error, we would bring back to the Town Council next • Tuesday and based upon the other possible conflicts in publication or Assessor's records that might be brought to our attention tonight, a revision in the proposed assessments and the Town Council would amend those 20 assessments or a portion, perhaps some of those assessments with the understanding that currently the assessments total $999,099 and that any adjustments that would be made would as legally published would still have to be below the $1 million figure as we've published not to exceed $1 million, so there-may be, it may be our recommendation without doing all the final calculations that there may be a slight less than fair increase in those 10 units rather tha~~~ totally republishing all 734 and re- ® calculating all 734 properties. We anticipate that were we to recalculate all 734 properties there would be a total change in the properties that are not affected of less than $1 in the total PUBLIC HEARING LZONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1.9$2 Page 2 7. • assessment, so we don't feel that that warrants a whole repub- licatian and recalculation considering the time and cost of recalculating and republishing those final assessessments. Those assessments, I'm sorry, those properties which there would be potentially some incrase in, assessment that have been brought to our attention include two units, one unit in the Mark, two units in Vantage Point Phase II and three units in the: Enzion and the remainder of the units in the Westwind. HARKNESS: So it is the intention of the Town Council and town administration in any event to utilize the public input that has been given pre- ceeding this hearing and at this hearing tonight for the purposes of applying the formula fairly based upon the facts as they are determined? CAPLAN: That is correct. HARKNESS: Final presentation tonight will be from Bill Pyka. Please state your name, address and occupation far the record. PYKA: My name is William. Pyka, 4879 Meadow Drive, Town of Vail Finance Director. HARKNESS: OK, Bill, there are just two matters I want to touch on with you. One is that the assessments that have much discussed tonight and to be levied against the property awners on substantial completion • of the project could be paid by the property owners pursuant to either of two options. Coula you describe the options each property owner would have? PYKA: Yes, after subsequent completion of the project the property owner would have the option to pay the entire assessment in a lump sum payment within thirty days after the assessment becomes finalized and if that does not happen the property owner is assumed to have elected the installment benefit payment whereby he would pay the assessment over a period of between ten and fifteen years, probably twelve years at an interest rate that cannot exceed 16 percent. ~ARKNESS: OK, and how would that interest rate ultimately be determined? PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 age 22 PYKA: OK, the interest rate will be determined by the rate on the special improvement district bonds that are issued, possibly adjusted to recover any interest incurred during canstxuotion period or the period during which, the period between substantial completion and the assessment period. HARKNESS: OK, we have also discussed tonight two methods of financing. One has been described as special improvement district financing through the issuance of special assessment bonds for the local share and other other general obligation bonds financing to ~av the Town's share. Can you describe gust briefly how each of those kinds of bond issues are structured and your opinion as to the feasibility of issuance of such bonds? PYKA: Yes, the special improvement district bonds are essentially bonds that are secured by properties listed on the notice for Lionshead. The bonds that would be issued would most likely be term bands callable at any date, or callable on interest payment dates and the assessments collected from the properties assessed would pay those bonds off. The G.O. portion, the general obligation bonds, would require an election of the entire Town of Vail, a successful election, and would be paid from sales tax revenues generated within the Town limits, specifically payable, the debt services would be specifically payable from the open space and capital improvements fund, of which half of the-sales tax is pledged. The term of that bond would probably be set far years and would be paid off in that period of time. HARKNESS: Thanks. Mr. Mayor, that concludes the formal part of the hearing. ti~TLTO: Thank you, Loring. I would like to call on Town Clerk Colleen Kline. Colleen, for the record, would you state your position with the Town of Vail and c~a~u«ent upon any protests that have been filed? KLTNE: Colleen Kline, T am the Tawn Clerk of the Town of Vail. My business address is 75 So. Frontage Road. The total number of affecteed properties, that would be a $17,000,042, the estimated PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 23 • WILTO: total number of individual property owners includes , we received in writing 84 protests prior to the 5:00 p.m, deadline on November 29th. A have a certified copy of that report if you'd like copies of it. Tn addition, T'd just add that we received three written protests after the deadline and one letter in favor of going ahead with it. For the audience, I'd like to comment that any of you who have not had an opportunity to file a protest will have an opportunity to do so tonight and that will be added to what has been xeceived. Thank you, Colleen. We'll be opening the public hearing part of the presentation this evening. Since there are so many people here and we'd like to give every one of you an opportunity to speak, we'd like to ask that you organize your thoughts and just speak one time. I will ask you to step forward to the microphone, identify yourself and place of business or interest in the improve- ment district or whomever you may be representing and as soon as we replace the microphone, we'11 start that. I'd also like to thank everyone for their patience through the formal part of this hearing. The hearing is now open. Who would like to be first to speak? Craig. HOESFALFER: Mr name is Craig Hoesfalfer and T own Vail Glo Lodge and I have just filed with Rich Caplan a record of objections and to the proposed creation of the district. And I'd just like those made a part of the record. CAPLAN: By your submittal tonight, they are part of the record. LTAT1O. My name is Dean Liatio, T am a business owner in Lionshead and I have some questions and some statements. First of all, it's everyone's opinion here that Lionshead is falling apart, people don't want to go there, and everybody's interested in taking care of this thing. My question is, 500 of the people come skiing in Lionshead right now, according to this gentlemen here, how many more are going to come when this is completed? PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 24 .: WINSTON'~': I doubt that many more skiers, but I think more people that stay in Vail. LIATIO: I'd like to know how this improvement compares to the Boulder Mall or the Aspen Mall. WINSTON: I don't know exactly. T don't know either of those costs. LIATIO: I like to know how many square feet are being improved in Lionshead? My main concern is, I mean there's no way in the world that this thing is not going to pass. This gentlemen here had a very reheased testimonial with witnesses, or whatever they were and the manner in which the voting was requested, things being mailed out to Mexico on the 16th of November and they expect to bo back in Vail by 5:00 yesterday, everybody is Lionshead is supposedly interested in this thing, but according to the Lionshead Business Association when they had a meeting to this whole matter a week ago, the first event of things is the attendance of the meeting on November 23rd was very disappointing. Now, my main concern on this whale matter is yes, I want the thing done but I would hope that we can get a good value for our dollar. We're talking $2.6 million here which $800,000 go for surveying, the design, the legal fees and $1.8 million for hard construction costs. I just hope the Council will take a hard look on where theses dollars are being spent. The asphalt is really nice and moving a few trees around is a good idea, but it might not be necessary. I think that the way the economy is in Vail right now, wha knows what sales tax is going to be, you're looking at a lot of money and I just hope that you're getting a good value for your. money and I think that $2.6 million of which $8o0,ooa are~s6~tucosts, I think it's really ridiculous. T'd like to know what the design cut is going to be out of the $800,000. ~0:.20~ of the $800,000 goes to the design. Then my next question would be, Mr. Ryan, why can't they design the mall (Town staff} and save • the Town $200,000? PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 2S ~INSTON: These are not called soft costs. This cost estimate is based on labor and materials. The actual physical improvements to the mall willcost $2.6 million. LTATIO: We11, all I can say is before this make sure what the costs are going WYLTO: Thank you. Any questions that are be answered this evening, if the C~ prior to our vote next week during thing is passed, we'd better to be, that's my main concern. brought up that perhaps can't ~uncil would like them answered the hearing, you can let those wishes be known. HARKNESS: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure whether the tape picked up Jeff Winston's responses to the questions that were asked. Did you get it? ESKWITH: It's doubtful. It's not a particularly sensitive ... WILTO: Mary, are you taking HARKNESS: Were all the members of the audience able to hear that too? WILT4: Jeff, why don't you go ahead and repeat your responses. WINSTON; The actual cost of the mall, that is the physical improvements to the mall, will turn out to be about $2.26 million. Just because of the way cost specifics in this state are broken dawn, the $800,000 are not, in fact, soft costs or overhead costs,it's just broken out so they're evident to anybody who wants to inspect them. We could have taken the utilities, mobilization stock- i t i s up n t cos piling costs, and added those back into the un the cost estimate and nobody would have known the difference. This is why it's important for people who do straight contracts to know what exactly those numbers are. But typically, those costs will be added to the cost of the materials and labor and that would put the cost at about $2.26 million just a quick estimate, we've not worked out the total square footage Qther than through the demolition and some removal of the plant materials, but my estimate is it's about 90 - 100,000 square feet in the mall, which would put the cost at about $50 a square foot overall. Of • the soft costs, the engineering and design fees are about $190,000 to $200,000 which is about 8.40 of the fee. Now the overall construction costs which is significantly lower than what's typically done with this kind of detail for construction engineering you can typically expect anywhere from 10 - 12~. PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 19$2 age 26 ILTO: Who would like to speak next? Mr. Parker, did you have any comments? Bob, would you like to say anything? Packy? Mr. Lazier. LAZIER: I would like to make mention of the fact that WTLTO: Why don't you step to the microphone and identify yourself. LAZIER: My name is Bob Lazier and T represent Lazier Properties in Lionshead. I'd like to make mention of the fact that now appears to be a pretty good time to make an investment on a capital basis because labor costs in the area are probably a little lower than has been for 5 or 6 years. I recently completed an addition to the Tivoli and T thought a lot of my costs actually came below • what I had anticipated they would be based on estimates T did a year ago. Tn that light it might be a very good time. WILTO: Thank you. Del or Dinah, would you care to say anything? OWENS: My name is Dinah Owens, 500 East Lionshead Circle; Vail. I've been working on this project since it began 3 years ago and T'm definitely for it and my landlord will assess me, I'm sure, and that's OK, Bob. BRYAN: My name is Nan Bryan, I'm a part time resident of Vail and live in Denver full time. We've been here ten years and T'm not negative against this project but T do feel also that being here ten years and bringing up three daughters there are some of the projects we have here that we haven't taken care of. When we came here ten years ago we would walk down the bikepath very easily by the A frame with no problem. Now, in the past five years it's been a large problem and there's been several letters to the Vail Trail and T sure to the Council as well as the Town of Vail. And nothing seems to be done about the lighting system. And so, consequently, I have very mixed emotions that starting this project, as the gentleman said earlier, it's a tremendous amount of money and yet, somehow, I find that a fountain in the middle of Lionshead Village is sort of a secondary project to • the safety of my children and T had a 20 year young girl get up today and say the first thing she heard on KVMT was that "this would never happen in Vail". We had a crime, I guess, that was not very pleasant. So before we start on alot of these amenities PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 27 • I think we ought to take a look at what we can approve upon and also one other thing I have to say is that being a condominium owner not a property owner, that sometimes the condominium owners are asked to be assessed for very viable things, but also when things such as the hospital got in trouble, they came to us immediately and said it was our duty to help them and I think we all, especially in Lionshead, did that and until we get our priorities squared away, I somehow think that maybe fountains and beautifucation should be given very very serious consideration. Thank you. ~TLTO: Thank you. Linda Hawkins? B.J. BRITTON: My name is B.J. Britton. I have A Place on Earth in Lionshead. Three years ago I sat with Diane and some of the other people that started looking into the Lionshead and redoing it and what we could do to it and what we can't do to it. It was a good workshop and because of it we've created this in a sense. T look at it now with the economy the way it is and, let's face it, it's not goad. We live in Vail, Colorado, and we have been in years-past, ammuned to .all of this. But we're not ammuned to it anymore. We've all seen it. T am for the project to be done sometime. T don't think this is truly the time. I think this a good time to look at it, but I don't think this is the time to start getting into it. My concern is that if we do have a good winter we probably also need a good summer and are we going to have a good summer with this construction going on? I really doubt it and I think a lot of people doing business have to look at it that way. That's all T have to say. CAPLAN: I'd like to make one comment for the public record. Tn terms of the construction timetable, we on the Town staff discussed two or three alternatives with the members of the Lionshead Association of Businesses. Basically they involved doing all of the con- struction over, a majority of the construction over a one-year PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 19$2 Page 28 • period or phasing it over two or three period, or phasing over a five year period. Each of those alternatives had different cost implications in terms of the total project and each had different implications in terms of business activity in the Lionshead area. The reason this didn't come up during the earlier testimony, the reason for a majority of the construction being recommended during the 1983 year was based on a recommendation from the Lionshead Association of Businesses as to trying to get it all over in one year and recognizing there would. be more .disruption during the summer of '83 but that it would better to have a lot during one summer than to have a continuing disruption over 2 or 3 years, or summers. I think one potential option that the Town Council could consider if they wanted to modify the plan in any way might be to phase the plan over a 2 year period or 3 year period, however, we'd have to recognize that that would have potentially some implications on the construction cost. BENEDICT: My name is Bud Benedict. I live a 680 West Lionshead Place here in Vail. My wife and I have lived in Vail for 16 years. We've lived in the Lionshead area for a little over 9 years. She has her retail shop in the Lionshead Mall and I manage the Antlers Condominiums in Lionshead. We also have a small little summer • miniature golf course business in Lionshead. I happen to agree with B.J. to a certain degree in that we are looking at harder times and yes, the economy, the recession has hit Vail where we possibly didn't expect that to happen. I think we will all agree that we are in better shape though than probably any other area in the country, we're feeling it but we're not being hurt or crippled by it. When I look at it and analyze it I try to say to myself,-what do we have to offer in Vail, what type of business are we in, what are we doing. We have the finest product in the United States right here in Vail. We have the most beautiful • community, most beautiful setting, the best ski mountain, the most activities of any small destination resort area in the United States. We are not in a position where we can sell our PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1.982 Page 29 i product on a cheaper basis. We cannot be the cheapest, we cannot sell our prices the lowest. We have to have the best and the most sought after product possibly available. We're seeing a deteriora- tion in .the Lionshead area and we have for years. It was not designed properly. It was not laid out properly. Tn order to have a viable community you have to have viable businesses in that community. This is what bring the people and it is the people that ultimately help pay the bills. It's a better experience for the people who own condominiums, it's a better experience for the guests. that come to that area and it's a batter experience for the business people. T happen to think that now is the best time to spend that money and make that project go and make it fly and make Lionshead become a very beautiful and great competitive area because the competition is getting keener and we can't set back and say "let's wait and see what happens". That's the way you get buried. WILTO: Thank you. Next? T'd like to emphasize the importance of this hearing. Although there won't be a vote taken this evening an the ordinance, comments make either pro or against this evening that will be considered by the Council when they are making their vote, even the first part of the meeting seemed very contrived, it was because of legal statutory requirements and I'd really like you to feel to make any comments you feel you would like to. There being no further comments, we will close, yes, sir. STLBER: My name is Ron Silber. T live at 9595 Bighorn Road and I have the La Fetite Cafe in Lionshead and also one in the Village. The comments that I have to make is that the charm of the town, and T think that having twa cafes in two locations and I'll just address that rather than being repetitious, would indicate that Lionshead needs some charm and that's the reason that we want to attract it and improve it. I think that it is the esthetics that • are very important to bring people here. T've been coming here for 11 years and I would hate to see or pass up the opportunity and watch further deterioration go on, and my comment would be PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Pane 30 mostly directed to the fact that we are a resort community and it takes people that want to have an experience and T think we need this desperately. WILTO: Thank you. SMITH: My name is Darrell Smith and I'm the owner of and I wonder if any consideration has been given to cost overruns and should they occur how will they affect the funding? STAUFER: According to the ordinance on page 8 it says the Town is going to pay for it and I don't agree with that. We're going to talk about it I'm sure. CAPLAN: The Town is obligated by its own constraints not to exceed $1 mil].ioz-k for the proposed assessment distract. The voter authorization would be anticipated to be for $1.6 million. That means in terms of financing opportunities the Town would have $2.6 million. Should there be, there is a small contingency in the proposed budget of, T think, 5 or 7 ~, some reasonable amount but relatively small. We feel that. the construction costs are reasonable based on 1982 experiences, but should there be any cost overruns the burden would ly upon the Town of Vail and most likely the Town Open Space and Capital Improvements Fund. ANDERSON: May I say one thing, because I brought that up and Council hasn`t ! done it, and before I vote in favor of this ordinance I find this ordinance puts a constraint on the Town to build this according to the plans which are a sketch plan and hardly construction drawings so we are dealing with estimated costs and the cost overruns are an obligation to the Town and before T vote in favor of this we`re going to have to have same resolution to this. WTLTO: Bob. My name is Robert I owns Currents Jewelers in the Lionshead Mall. Two factors that strike me, first of all that improved traffic patterns for people to circulate on the mall, • the increased tax revenues that would be brought in by the Town over a 10 or 12 year period would probably tremendously offset PUBLIC HEARING LION5HEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 31 • more than what people anticipate in the down cycle up to now, and secondly, if we were to get into a down cycle over next summer, that would be a time to interrupt business rather than a high period and wish that we would have done it already and I would not want to interrupt two or three years from now it business does pick up. That wouldn't be the summer I'd want to interrupt. The summer I'd rather interrupt is when the revenues perhaps might be down but in fact, I think that a long hard look would have to be made at the increased sales revenues over a 10 year period to offset a good year. I really think this is a positive move. Thank you. ~RKER: My name is Sob Parker. I represent Vail Associates, Inc., in Vail, Colorado. You're probably wondering about Vail Associates' position. I think that Vail Associates would be in a most affected position in terms of assessment of any business in the community. Vail Associates is supportive of the project and depending on the outcome of tonight's hearing, we'll probably go on record publicly in favor of the project. We do have a concern regarding the size of the projected budget for the project. Considering the economic times that we're all experiencing, we ask whether it would be a good idea to look at the project in phases in such a way that all of the fundamentals of the project, that is mall surface, basic landscaping, lighting, and so on, would be accomp?_ished in Phase T and the more esthetic elements of the project like the fountain, might be accomplished in another phase after the successful com- pletion of the first and some opportunity to observe the results of the first phase effort. Thank you. wILTO: Any other comments? If there are no other comments, we'll move on to a discussion of the ordinance but we'll continue the hearing on this portion of the hearing, to next week at our regular meeting on December 7 for the purpose of consideration of the ordinance only. So we'll open discussion of Ordinance #40, Series of 19$2, • and ordinance creating the Lionshead Improvement District, approving PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 32 . the plan for and authorizing the construction, installation of special and local improvements. As T mentioned, a lot of the discussion on this ordinance this evening will be considered in the vote of next Tuesday. Do each of you have a copy of the ordinance in front of you? Are there any comments from the staff regarding this ordinance? CAPLAN: We've made a few minor changes that I don't think we need to point out but there's nothing of substance but they are in the revised ordinance which was on your desk before you this evening. They were basically technical changes, nothing that changed the basic substance of the ordinance. ~ILTO: Are there any comments from Council? WAHRLICH: Bi11, I have a question regarding the installment way of paying. I don't know if Bill Pyka is still here or not. We talk about the interest shall be computed on the outstanding principal and interest and should be paid with each installment. Are we planning to collect interest on interest then? HARKNESS: That may be a typo, what page are you on. WAHRLICH: Page 9. CAPLAN: I don't think?we are, to answer your question. It's a good idea. WTLTO: Bill Pyka, would you like to comment? ~KA: I'm not sure I HARKNESS: Perhaps T can comment on it. That shall read, "Interest shall be computed on the outstanding principal and. shall be paid with each installment", so the answer to your question is no, we're not computing interest on interest. WAHRLICH: So we would strike out the words "with interest"? CAPLAN: Yes. ANDERSON: Bill, T would have, as I mentioned earlier, concerns on Section 2 (e) which says that the plans for the improvements are h ereby approved, page 7. It would appear to me that were essentially working with . unless there are some drawings that I'm not aware of that we're working with design development drawings and T think that it should be noted that these are design development drawings in the PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 .Page 33 ordinance and that the Town may have the right to make some modifications between now and working drawings. And I think if we were to do that my second concern which is in paragraph ~" says that we will pay for any cost of overruns, would be somewhat mitigated, but I think it's very important. when we're working with design development drawings, that Council has some flexibility on what the final outcome will be. CAPLAN: We did try to, the assessment district procedures require that plans be prepared and we tried to basically do as much as we could to satisfy the requirements of the law, but yet not lock the . Town Council and merchants out in the field who see things happening to a particular plan, so ANDERSON: well I think the language right here though puts us in extreme financial liability in the position of the Town and is also somewhat deceptive to those people voting in favor of the district because we really don't see the specifics of what those plans are and I think it should be noted that they are design development plans. WILTO: Loring, is there any reason this can't be changed before first reading? HARKNESS: No there isn't. Typically in special assessment financing, as Rich pointed out, preliminary plans and specifications are drafted for the purpose of deriving cost estimates and those cast estimates are generally specified as maximums and once the governing body concludes that it should go forward with the project, the next step would be to authorize the preparation of drawings of sufficient detail to go out to bid on the project and thereby fix the actual costs which would then govern the size of the bond issue, bearing in mind that the maximum cost has been locked in by the initial procedure and the hearing before the public. The concern about cost overrun is a very real one but there is some self control in the way the process works, because the Town's maximum liability i is the amount of the financing that is provided to pay the cast of the improvements and in this case the Town has concluded that PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 34 ANDERSON: it wi11 issue no more than $1 million in special assessment bonds and then it will submit to the voters at a general obligation bond election a question that would authorize $1.6 million of general obligation bonds. So in order for the project to go forward, the Town would have to obtain fixed price contracts within the ability of the Tawn to issue bonds of these two types in order to fund the project. Are you telling me that if we raise the $2.6 million and we did not have sufficient funds to complete the last lOpercent of the paving, that that was the extent of the Town's liability? I would think we would have tremendous financial liability for not completing the plan. .j~7INSTON ~ Typically, the ANDERSON: The question is, would we have the liability? WIN-STON: Let me answer the question in this way. When contracts are let out for special assessment projects, they are conditioned on the availability of bond proceeds and the reason for that is the Town is prohibited from incurring contractual liability in excess of budgeted appropriated funds. The only exception to that is that bond proceeds are not subject to budget and appropriation and so the construction contracts are expressly conditioned upon the availability of bond money to pay them, and so it does limit the Town's exposure in that regard. JOHNSTON: I would assume that in the $2.6 million of committed contract there would be a 10o plus ar minus contingency factor. 4dT1QSTON:. Typically the way this works, and we've dare several other mall projects of this nature, the contracts, at the conclusion of the construction documents phase, we then go to bid. If the bids exceed $2.6 million total cost of the project, the project is redesigned to match the $2.6 million. JOHNSTON: Including contingencies? ~INSTON:.. Including contingencies. We would typically, as you suggested, that would be our typical request to have the 8-10~ contingency upon submittal and at that point, once the bids are received and the contracts are awarded, then the contingency can be reduced slightly,y~.~~i always need some contingency as there are things PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 19$2 Page 35 . that neither we nor the contractor could anticipate, but if those prices exceed the $2.6 million then the project has to be redesigned and changed in some way to bring the price within 2% . ANDERSON: I think, Jack, that's my point, that we should state at this point in time that we are dealing with design development drawings, because let's take an extreme case if we have to eliminate the fountain. We, I think, would be in a position of liability if we did not state at the onset that we're dealing with design development plans. JOHNSTON: Chuck, would it make you more confortable if the term "preliminary" was added - preliminary plans for the improvements are hereby approved? WZNSTON: Technically, these plans are called "schematic" designs. Preliminary plans. STAUFER: The things you stated right now about a cushion, is that an automatic or should we list it in our ordinate, because I'm very concerned about an open-ended contract, what this is basically here. The Town will pay for any part of the project :cost which exceeds the estimated cost of the construction. Now all of us know whether you have a contract or not, usually the construction overruns at least 100. Now is the Town would get stuck with $260,000, it would be a hell of a burden on the Town to pay the $260,000, so are you going out and bid on the, let them bid 10% less rather than $2.6 million, you let them bid the $3.2 - $3.5 or something like this? WZNSTON: Two things have happened. We built in about a 5~ contingency, we've also taken a fairly conservative look at the costs that are here, we think are somewhat conservative. As we complete the construction documents phase, we will then do.a much more detailed cost estimate and have in that cost estimate the contingency fund. We did not do that with these plans. STAUFER: Well, T don't think that any of us would like to see the project • started and then have a~thing happen like in the Casino, when half of the building was .finished .and down there, Z don't know if it's going to be the east mall or the west mall, which is going to get the short end of the stick. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 age 36 INSTON: Well, what I`m telling you is that you'll know those numbers before the bid is awarded, STAUFER: What T'm talking about is the ordinance itself, because if we vote on that ordinance we're going to be committed to it. WINSTON: Yes, but you also have the responsibility and the opporunity to supervise the preparation of the construction documents to insure that they do not exceed the $2.6 million. 3OHNSTON: But also, Hermann, we`re not committed until the G.O. Bond election is passed. ANDERSON: Well, I'd just like to ask the Council if we could modify this • to state that we are based on schematic design which may be modified to keep the project within budget. HARKNESS: I think that's an appropriate addition and also perhaps in addition to the end of paragraph F, which would indicate that liability of the Town is subject to the availability of the receipt of bond proceeds. TODD:. T found on page 5 the sentence that says, "said plans are satis- factory in all respects", part of it extends to the concerns raised by Chuck that we are working with very preliminary schematic drawings and I would like to have that sentence dropped but under no cir- cumstances would I want to have any wording in there that would be construed to relieve the design firm of their customary responsibility for errors and omissions. And the second thing and Z may just be misunderstanding the wording, but on page 8 where it talks about, after the consideration of the circumstances, etc., it comes down here and makes a statement that including but without limitation increased market value, in an amount which shall equal or exceed the maximum amount of of particular assessment to be assessed, each such property, while I concur that our consultant has made that, has come up with the opinion, T don't feel the Town should be in a position of insuring appreciation o.f property values and T think • we should be very clear about that. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 37 ~RKNESS: That's a very important part of the ordinance and T'd like to comment on that. The Town Council is charged with the responsi- bility of making a determination concerning this special benefit to be conferred. In assistance of that duty, an expert witness has to be called to testify as to, facts from which the Council might conclude that. if the Council cannot conclude that the special benefits at least exceeded the assessments in every case, then the underpinnings of the special assessment financing would be undermined. So that's a very important legal concern in the consumation of a special. assessment district financing. The Town . is not warranting that property values will increase. It is simp]_y making a finding based on evidence that special benefits have been conferred, among which may be an increase in market va~.ue and among which may also be any number of the conditions that are specified in the Town's procedural ordinance about whichMr. Wallace testified previously. TODD: It is not a warrant then of property value increase? HARKNESS: That is correct. WALLACE: That's not an increase only in property values either. It could also limit a decline in property values. WILTO: Loring, how about Ron's first comment about, referring to the sentence on page 5, I believe it was. HARKNESS: I think that what we need to do is to confine the finding there to approval of preliminary plans or schematic drawings as the language has been subjected. What we are attempting to do is to give preliminary approval to the preliminary plans at this stage and conclude they they conform to. the requirements of the Town's procedural ordinance. Perhaps satisfactory in all respects in not very artful. WTLTO: Any other comments or questions from Council? Are there any comments from the audience? ~ERSON: I have some questions on our timing. In the presentation given earlier on the financing, it was suggested that if' we were to carry forward with this project a bond issue would be held on the late first quarter of 1983. There are certain economists in the national market that would;~tell us that that's probably the worst possible PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 38 time in the next 12 months we could be in the market. We've already had a little bad timing this year once. What would happen if we elected to delay that bond issue? What is being set in process at this point in time? HARKNESS: There really are 2 timing considerations with respect to general obligation bonds. One is the timing of the election and in terms of attempting to gain electorate approval, that is really a political question as to when the electorate is most receptive to approval of that question. Once the bonds are authorized at that election the timing can be far issuance of the bonds . can be delayed or advanced depending upon what advice the Town may have from its investment bankers as to market conditions then present. So, once the authorization is obtained there is some flexibility to either wait to speed up depending upon what the market it. ANDERSON: One more question on financing. It is my understanding that presuming that we proceed again, the funds for the special development district as they come from the development district, are not collected until the project's complete. HARKNESS: The bonds are issued based upon the results of the construction bids and then the bond monies are used to pay for that portion of • the project. When the project is substantially complete then the Town will hold hearings on the assessment, those costs, and then as Bill Pyka indicated in his testimony, the property owners may elect either to pay in lump sum ar to finance that over the same term as the bonds. ANDERSON: T have one more question. Is Dick Ryan here still? Dick, in this construction, perhaps you can answer the question. Have we analyzed alI of the various, first of all, °. if we started April 1st, how long do you think it would take to complete the project? • PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DTSTRTCT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 39 ~YAN: In talking with Jeff and Steve Patterson, the contractors will need basically the entire season. From April to November to get the mall operational for the winter ski season. And then in '84 it would be final '.landscaping, putting the sprinkler system in, benches, some of the finishing work. ANDERSON: Would there be access, would shops be open during this period of time? RYAN: There would be the option of having shops open, yes. ANDERSON: How hazardous would it be to get in and out of the shops? RYAN: I can tell you of one experience. T was working for the City of Boulder during the construction of their mall. I think there was a very short period of time when some shops were not apen. They actually had to rip out from the surface right next to the building. What they did was put in a series of boardwalks and there was the ability to get through the mall and z don't know if that will happen here in Vail, but the sales tax revenues in Boulder increased during the construction period. ANDERSON: Have we done any analysis to date on schedules of construction, to have the least possible impact on residents and merchants? RYAN: We ,have not done that. STAUFER: Z have one more question. During the construction of the mall, • i i l d i how many private properties are going c pate to part arge o ng enlargements to their store fronts to increase their commercial space during the same time. RYAN: OK, at this tame we have not received any requests. There's been a couple of properties that have been working on it f or a few years but have been having trouble getting a majority of ow ners approval to use their land. STAUFER: So you don't see-any right now or during that time? RYAN: No, we have not received any requests. CAPLAN: We have spoken with at least one major property owner that would anticipate doing it at that time if this proceeds. PUBLIC HEARING LTONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 4a ~OHNSTON: According to the scenerio that Dick just gave us, and the timing on the assessment, would that mean that it would befall before the property owners would assessed? CAPLAN: That's correct. It would most likely be in fall of '83, which would mean that they would have that pay off time at that period, if they chose not to pay it off they would see it on their property tax statement beginning in 1984. JOHNSTON: OK, do all of you understand that? You would be paying in all probability in 1984. The first dollars would be paid by the general obligation bonds. When the project was some percentage along, then hearings would be heard and at a subsequent time you would be assessed. So you would not be paying dollars in all probability until the calendar year 1983, unless you elected upon assessment in say October of 1983, to pay all of yours at that time. Tf your elected to pay it out, finance it, then you would begin payments in January of 1984. So you're not really looking at the questionable economy of 1983 as far as the payout is concerned. WILTO: George, you had a questions? GEORGE: How would the decision be made as to which properties would be allowed to expand and to what extent? CAPLAN: Tn terms of which properties could be expanded, the Lionshead U~b~n Design Guide Plan designates which properties currently may be allowed to expand or modify. And soma of those have chosen voluntarily to do so. There are always the opportunities which come before the Council from time to time for other variances that are not perhaps part of the plan, plus the Town Council does review the plan on an annual basis, so there are those changes that could occur. GEORGE: Tt seems to me the time frame is such that those businesses or land owners that plan to expand are going to have to get with the program pretty quickly in order to receive the Town's or the designer's blessing for their proposal in order not to interfere with the proposed process. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, 1982 Page 41 ~APLAN: Yes, that's correct, WILTO: Somebody else have their hand up? Bob? LAZIER: Well, I would indicate that I would do some addition to the building in Lionshead. I consider that a good time to do any of the expanding and coordinate it at the beginning of the project. WILTO: Are there any other comments or questions about the ordinance? If you haven't had an opportunity to review it, there should be copies at the rear of the table, if there aren't, you can certainly pick up a copy in the morning here at the Town of Vail. CAPLAN: I would remind the Council that formally the procedure is if you receive 50~ protests or greater of the affected property owners, then you are obligated to kill the proposal. If you receive less than 50~ protests, which you have received, then the decision lies in your hands whether or not to proceed or not to proceed, and that would be considered formally next Tuesday night at a regular meeting. WILTO: Are there any other questions or comments from the Council on the discussion? Loring, anything else that we should cover at this meeting? HARKNESS: No sir. WILTO: Before we adjourn, Mr. Caplan has a couple of items of information. PLAN: Yes, I'd Like to request a member or members of the Town Council to attend the Design Review Beard meeting tomorrow at 2:00 p.m, I understand there may be same affected property owners in conjunction with our radio station that will be discussing the matter and I think that since the Council has, let me update you first of all that after your work session last Tuesday, Mr. Eberle contacted members of the Design Review Boardand 4 of them gave their approval to proceed on a interim basis with the Ford Park telephone post. Since that time the residents of the Book Creek area have expressed, same of the residents have expressed a concern about the matter and the matter formally will be in front of the DRB tomorrow for further consideration basically based on your direction of last Tuesday. PUBLIC HEARING LIONSHEAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOVEMBER 30, J.982 age 42. The other two items I have can wait. WILTO: May we have a motion to continue the meeting until our next regular meeting? JOHNSTON: So move. STAUFER: Second. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, _ -~ ~ .~- t . .~ ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, T n Clerk ~ 1 C~ MTNUTES Vail Town Council Tuesday, December 1, 1981 7:30 P. M. Tuesday, December 1, 1981, the Vail Council convened for its regular ling in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem Chuck Anderson Paul Johnston Hermann Staufer Ron Todd Gail Wahrlich ABSENT: Rod Slifer, Mayor OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider, Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the swearing--in of newly elected Council-~ members. Colleen Kline, Town Clerk, administered the swearing in oath to Gail Wahrlich, Hermann Staufer, Paul Johnston and Chuck Anderson. tend item on the .agenda was the presentation of a silver belt buckle to ~in Martinez for ten years of service as an employee of the Town of Vail. Rubin thanked the Council and stated he enjoyed his term of employment at the Town. Next item on the agenda was an honorary resolution, #33, acknowledging the service of Dr. Tom Steinberg for his service on the Vaal Town Council for several years. Dr. Steinberg was unable to attend the meeting to accept his award. Next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolution #39., an honorary resolution acknowledging Bab Ruder for his service on the Vaal Town Council. Bob Ruder accepted his award. The next item on the agenda was the 2nd_ reading of Ordinance #38, Series of J.981, an ordinance abandoning tertian right-of-ways on Columbine Drive. Mr. Caplan explained that there had been no changes to this ordinance since first reading. After some discussion, Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve Ordinance #38 on second reading. Paul Johnston seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published by title only. ~t item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #40, Series of 1981, an ordinance requiring that no multi-unit structure consisting of 3 or more units receiving mail shall be constructed without the installation of mail boxes sufficient to service all anticipated occupants of mail delivery. Mr. Caplan stated that no changes had been made to this ordinance since first reading, Ron Todd made a motion to approve Ordinance #40 on second reading. Chuck Anderson seconded it. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously and the ardinance was ordered published by title only. Next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolution #35, a resolution accepting the dedication from Fred Hibberd, Jr. of a part of Village Center. Dick Ryan explained to the Council the reason for the resolution. After Borne discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion to approve Resolution #35 and Ron Todd seconded at. All voted in favor .and the motion passed unanimously. Under Citizen Participation, approximately 80 tenants from the Valley Hi Apartment complex voiced their complaint of an approximate 39% rent increase. The owner of the complex, Doyle Hopkins, had notified each. tenant that their rent would go from $475 to $660 effective January 1, 1982. The group asked the Council what, if anything, they could do to stop the increase. Larry ~~der, Town Attorney, stated that realistically there was nothing legally Town could do, as there was no rent control clause written into the lease. MINUTES December 1., 1981 Page 2 l Wilto read a letter the Town Council had drafted to send to Mr. kins, voicing their Strang opposition to this action. There was much discussion regarding the legality of this action and what could be done. Larry Rider suggested the group .form a committee with a spokesman and seek private legal aid. The Council donated $500 to be put into a fund for legal counsel. The group was also informed of the free legal aid service from the State that is available in Vail on Fridays. Larry Rider also volunteered to look at anyone's lease the next morning if they would like to bring it into the office. Another concern of the renters was the sanitary conditions at the complex. The Council ordered the Environmental Health Officer to visit the complex and report back to the Council with her findings. Ed Drager, who represents the owner, was asked to comment on why the rent was being raised so drastically. Mr, Drager commented that he did not have that information from his client, The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Qrdinance #42, Series of 1981, an ordinance adopting the 1982 budget. Bill Wilto stated that appraxa.mately 9 hours of council work sessions had already been held going over the budget. There were several comments made on the budget from citizens in the audience. Paula Palmateer, President c the VRA, made a presentation and request of the Council for $120,000. t be budgeted for VRA. After lengthy discussion on the budget, Bill Wilto suggested that the public hearing be continued to next week to further discuss the 1982 budget. This was a unanimous steeling of the Council. The next item on the agenda was the appointment of Election Commission members as ruled in the Town Charter. The list at appointees was approved and Paul Johnston made a motion to approve the nominations and Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. All voted in favor and the motion was passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the appointment of members to the County Commissioners' Committee on Home Rule and Double Taxation Committees. The council appointed Gail Wahrlich and would ask Iv2e~ev Lapzn if he would be willing to serve on the Double Taxation Committee. The names of Tom Steinberg, Jahn Dobson and Susan Milhoan will be given to the Commissioners for the Home Rule Committee. Under Town Manager report Mr. Caplan reported an a reapportionment meeting held in Steamboat Springs that he and Bill Wilto had attended. Mr. Caplan ~o announced a NWCCOG meeting this Thursday at the Kiandra Talisman. There was no Town Attorney Report. As there was na further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. to be continued next Tuesday, December 8, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Colleen Kline, Town Clerk • ~J ELECTION COMMISSIONERS': Donald G. Berger Barbara J. Felker ALTERNATES: Lynn Langmai.d Rayma Rose To serve through next Regular Municipal Election in 1983. LJ ~'~~ Iowa of vaif'~ 75 south frontage road • vail, Colorado $1657 • (303) 476-7000 office of the mayor PUBLIC NOTICE :-~~~~ ~-'%`r l ice, :,{ {'. t'`~ i ~.. l ~ t ~. w .~ - ~ ; ;,~ . ;: ~ . , PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1982 TOWN OF VAIL BUDGET ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER T, 1981, HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, DECEMBER, 1981 AT 7:30 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING. THIS SP£CTAL MEETING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE INVITED AND URGED TO ATTEND. COPIES OF THE 1982 PROPOSED TORN OF VAIL BUDGET ARE AVAILABLE AT THE OFFICE. OF THE TOWN CLERK IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING. POSTED AND DATED THIS 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1981 /,J~ t BY :~~ ff ~l , OWN CLERK i - t'w! MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1981 7:30 P.M. On Tuesday, December 15, 1981, the Vail Town Council convened for its ~egular meeting in the Council Chambers in the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT; Rod Slifer, Mayor Bill Wilto, Mayor Pra-Tem Chuck Anderson Paul Johnston Hermann Staufer Ron Tadd Gail Wahrlich OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Lawrence A. Eskwith, Asst. Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the reading of a Resolution approving the Municipal Leasing Agreement. Mr. Caplan announced that there had been some problems with this resolution and would have to be moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #43, Series 1981, an ordinance amending the Municipal Cade to prohibit use of false ntification for the purpose of entering restricted places; prohibiting persons under 2] years of age from possessing alcoholic beverages; and prohibiting persons from buying, selling ar giving away malt beverages to anyone under 18. Mr. Caplan explained that this ordinance had been written# at the request of the Police Department in its efforts to enforce the law. After some discussion, a motion was made by Bill Wilto and seconded by Ron Todd to approve Ordinance #43 on first reading. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6 - 1. Chuck Anderson opposing, and the ordinance was ordered published in full on first reading. The next item an the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #44, Series of ].981, an ordinance adopting a revenue measure for town street improvement program. There was some discussion. Gouncilmember Wahrlich stated her feelings relating to the ordinance, feeling that a one fourth of one percent tax and unlimited time period would be more favorable. A motion was made by Wahrlich to that affect, but there was no second. After lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Ron Todd and seconded by Hermann Staufer to approve Ordinance #44 on first reading. A vote was taken and the motion was passed 6 to 1 - Wahrlich opposing, and the ordinance was ordered published in full an first reading. ~er Citizen Participation, Mayor Slifer asked Dr: Tom Steinberg to stand a d be recognized and read his Honorary Resolution to him for his long term of service on the Vail Town Council. Jae Staufer, owenr of the Vail Village Inn, charged the Council with researching ways in which it could step in and aid the Valley Hi residents in their rent problem. Mayor Slifer stated that they would discuss it in Executive Session. Bill Sheppard, resident on Forest Drive, addressed the Council on the inter- pretation of an ordinance regarding limitation of number of persons allowed living in one dwelling. Larry Eskwith, Assistant Town Attorney, stated that since there was litigation in District Court relating to this issue, he advised the Council not to make a statement at this time and Mayor Slifer stated that it would also be discussed in Executive Session. Paula Palmateer, VRA, thanked the Council for approving the $120,000 appro- priation that the Council had approved for VRA and asked that she be given a chance to speak at the first two Council meetings in January in relation to what they could do with additional funding from the County sales tax revenues. She also gave a report on two tourism conferences she had recently attended. MINUTES December 15, 1981 Page 2 ry Warner stated that she was concerned about the pedestrians walking the frontage roads and the number of incidents of people getting hit y cars recently. Mayor Slifer stated that the Council would look into it and that more street lights had been approved for installation this spring. Gail Wahrlich stated that she had received an inquiry as to the Christmas trees that had been purchased for Commercial Core T and II. Commerical Core III would like to be included in the gift of the tree. Mr. Caplan stated that the Lionshead Merchants Association had worked with the VRA and Gerald Ford to acquire their tree. Paula Palmateer stated that she was unaware of any such request from Commercial Care ITT. The next item on the agenda was a presentation by Joe Hartman and Ernie Nunn from the U.S. Forest Service regarding the Homestake II Project. They both urged citizen input regarding the project that will divert water to Colorado Springs and Aurora. The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the Design Review Board decision on the Printery Building. Peter Jamar gave a summary of the circumstances that had transpired. Paul Tjaden, owner of the Printery, r presented the owners of the building who .live out of town. He stated `t the intent was to paint the building to blend with the surrounding a eas, namely the Potato Patch Condominiums, and felt that they were doing something to enhance the building. The Council stated that they had each driven by the Printery and taken a look at the building and the surrounding area. After some discussion Ron Todd made a motion and Paul Johnston seconded it to overturn the DRB decision and support the appeal. A vote was taken and it passed unanimously. Under Town Manager report, Mr. Caplan stated that several Councilmembers and himself had attended a meeting this week with the County Commissioners regarding the double taxation issue. The Commissioners have agreed to cooperate with the Town and to deannex them from the County tax. A joint resolution will be adopted based upon the 1982 mill levy. He stated that this would be approximately $].00,000 back to the Town of Vail. Mr. Caplan also stated that a public hearing on the Bell Tower noise permit application would be held on Friday, December 18, 1981, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Also, Mr. Caplan stated that the Town had .been approached to support a clothing and toy drive for the needy. Anyone interested may call Gege ~oy at 476-4915. There was no Town Attorney Report. The meeting was closed at 9:30 p.m. and the Council reconvened in Executive Session. The Executive Session was .adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .s-:f/~...~~ ~ ~ Rgdney E. S~f`ifer, May r ATTEST: C~1een Kline, Town Clerk MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, December 22, 1983. 2:00 P.M. Tuesday, December 22, 1981, a special meeting of the Vail Town Council held in the Vail Council Chambers. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rodney E. Slifer Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem Chuck Anderson Paul Johnston Hermann Staufer Ron Todd Gail Wahrlich OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager Larry Rider ,. Town Attorney Colleen Kline, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance #42, Series of 1981, an ordinance adopting the 1982 Budget. As Mayor Slifer had been absent for some of the budget hearings, he turned the meeting over to Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem to lead the discussion. Councilman Wilto stated that the budget had been gone through by department and by fund and would open up the discussion to any questions by the Council on a item. Rich Caplan stated that John Dobson had expressed his concern ~rding the Town's commitment to assist with the amphitheatre. Caplan stated that there was $25,000. in the capital improvements fund and that a portion of this would be earmarked for the amphitheatre. He also passed out same brochures John had left for the council. Bill Wi1to stated he had received numerous requests for the addition of a bike path in West Vaal, along with several letters that had been received by the Council. Ron Todd stated that this issue should be presented at an evening session to receive public input as to the tradeoffs for the bike path, as the budget would not allow for all street improvements and a bike path as well. Rod Slifer stated that he would like to work at increasing the fund balance over the next few years. Rich Caplan stated that he had just received sales tax figures for October. That figure was $112,500 - $25,000 over projected figures. Last year's figure for October was $68,600, but did not include West Vail. Hermann Staufer made a motion to approve Ordinance #42 on second reading. Gail Wahrlich asked if her opposition to the one half of one percent figure in the street use tax would disqualify her from voting on this motion. Rich C fan stated that it was the total figure from the tax that she would be ~g on, not the percentage rate to attain that figure. Chuck Anderson expressed concern for a timely manner in which to measure management objectives on items in the budget. Would like to hold a meeting in January to review such measures. Rich Caplan stated that he planned to hold a Town Council Retreat in March and these items would be discussed at that meeting also. Paul Johnson seconded the motion made by Staufer. Bill Wi1to asked if there were any question from the floor. Paula Palmateer from VRA stated she just wanted to thank the Council again for supporting their program and that she looked forward to a presentation to the Council in January. Bill Wilto stated that 50% of the County sales tax was still unallocated and that this matter should be resolved as soon as possible. All voted in favor of the motion and it passed unanimously and the Ordinance was ordered published by title only. next item on the agenda was a presentation of development statistics on the Town of Vail. Mr. Caplan explained that the document was in draft form only and just wanted the Council to review it before it was presented by the Community Development Department at a later meeting. ~` r MINUTES December 22, 1981 Page ~ Mr. Caplan stated that there have been several problems with the bus service ring the past few days, mainly with the East and West Vail busses. He felt the weather may have had a bearing on the problem, but that it was being r solved. The busses have been too full to take all wishing to ride them and has created same real problems. The Transportation Department is considering either piggybacking the busses or changing the schedules to run more often. It was the consensus of the Council that the extra busses riding piggyback would be more effective than trying to change the schedule. Another item of concern was the sanding of the Crossroads parking area and the entrances to the Transportation Center. ,A suggestion was made that perhaps the entrance to the Crossroads Shopping Center at the Shute be closed to in-~ coming traffic.. Rich Caplan also announced that a X426,000. grant from the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration. This grant is issued to the Town to expand the bus barn facilities. The monies will be appropriated in 1982. Larry Rider, Town Attorney, stated that a resolution was being prepared between the Town and the County of Eagle regarding the Library. However, since the County Attorney will be on vacation until the first of the year, the resolution had not been written. The County Attorney did state that the resolution should be written as tight as possible, as the Library Board `-~1 be seeking legal aid. Ron Todd stated that he had attended a NWCCOG meeting and the Council. would be pleased with the realignment of Senate District 13, as it was a better balance of all water users. He stated another meeting would be held in ~Fanuary. Rod Slifer reported that he was becoming increasingly frustrated with the outcome of the Governor's Roundtable meetings and was planning to send a letter to the Governor expressing his feelings. He stated that the meetings have become very one sided and sympathetic with the eastern slope. He stated that three committees were being formed on water development, conservation and brown water. He asked for names to be submitted from the Council for people that would be willing to serve on~these committees. Names should be submitted by the end of the week. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3.:05 and the Council went into Executive Session. The Executive Session was adjourned at~4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .~'`~ ~, ,~ Rodney E , ~$`1 if ~r ; bob ATTEST: Colleen Kline, Town Clerk h