Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-09-16 Town Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND VAIL PLANNING COW'ITSSION The special meeting of the Board of Trustees and the Vail Planning Commission was held on September 16, 1970, at 1:30 P.M., at Vail Lionshead. The following Trustees were present: Mr. R. Bailey r4r. . J . Donovan Yr. T. Anderson Mr. G. [;Thite Dr. T. Steinberg The following, Commissioners were present: Mr. R. Slifer Air. R. Clark Others present were: ?'r. B Nott Mr. G. Beardsley • Mr. T. r"inger Mr. L. Robinson The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairman, Rodney Slifer. T%rr, Slifer requested that the Board of Trustees honor the FAR moritorium requested by Vail Associates with respect to LionsFead, in developing additional facilities and to evaluate LionsNead FAR's separately. There have been two public hearings on the subject of FAR's and there will be another, publin hearing. Tha ao�tvd of Trustees will make a decision shortly. The lowering of the PAR's to 1.25 com- mercial core, 1.0 public accommodations and hi -density r"F.-, multi- family and residential zones were not considered by the Planning Commission. It was noted that public opinion is "in favor" of :~ loiaerinp or simple "not caring'. Bob NoV and George Beardsley stated that Vail Associates would be agreeable to the above FAR reduction in general, and pointed out LionsHead's density control was already cor!+patible with proposed FAR's. However they felt lower 'PAR's also require a planned unit approach option. Density was discussed with the ability to use a planned unit approach. It was agreed that guidelines are definitely needed for a planned unit. A Plan Unit Ordinance would have provisions where FAR credit is given for Walk -ways, pedestrian space, etc. A defined set of FAR perimeters, depending on zoning, is a definite need. After achieving certain ends, provisions for credit for increased FAR under PUD will be established. Certain problems were cited: Too big a development for one developer (could cause a credit and control problem). A proposed solution was to sell part to one builder, not exceeding the FAR ratio. It was asked, what happened to the first PUD? There is no PUD in ordinance; there was a problem on submittal having, to do with the legal aspects, control and possion; and therefore, the PUD was left out of the ordinance. It was also asked if the PUD is usually under one de- veloper? Only planning and land control is under the control one developer. It was agreed that once a plan is submitted, it is irrevokable, can not be changed technically once started, and stays as defined. Parking areas should be committed to a specified location. The builder must abide by all plans from beginning; plans must be binding --unless builder resubmitts entire concept. Building per- mats should be issued only to those complying to all regulations. It is the intention of Vail Associates in setting up a PUD to keep all development sites cohabitable. Conditions of PUD must be strict enough to govern everyone, in view of future development problems. Mr. Mingor stated that such a PUD ordinance could be written easily by January 1, 1970. Mr. Beardsley stated that the approximate division of development will be. 1/3 of Lions;Tead, Commercial Core II-, 1/3 areas such as Dudley's site, condominiums and high -density family residences:, and 1/3 public sites to lodge sites. It was agreed that no PUD at present is needed in Lions - Head, but Vail Associates should work as though one is in existence. When the FAR is considered in the next six weeks, the Commercial Core II should be treated as 1.25. Mr. Slifer asked what alter- natives for PUD would be offered. Mr. Slifer suggested that in special cases, special considerations should be given. It was asked what the minimum size of a PUD to be developed is? Ten acres was mentioned, but five acres, plus or minus, was thought a more realistic figure. Each project should be zoned as it is now. There should be a definite zoning district on each piece of prop- erty. A. planned unit should be viewed as a blanket placed on already existing units which can not be changed in height or densi- ty. It was resolved by Vail Associates and the Planning.; Commission to make 1.25 FAR ratio for Commercial Core II and 1:1 FAR for Public Accommodations and HDMF in Lionsnead as well as the present core. Mr. Nott asked that he be notified immediately of any changes in FAR theory by the Town. It is still unsettled as to the cost and development responsibili ties to be divided between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates regarding landscaping of 5-B. It was mentioned that Mr. C. Simon had had negotiations with the Town on improvements of the land, but that nothing definite had been established. Mr. Minger restated his high concern over Town expenses in regard to this project due to budget allotments. Vail Associates replied that they will mail financial figures as soon as possible to Mr. Minger. Vail Assoc.' costs have been previously fixed by private agreements, and Vail Associates is responsible for a *70,000 worth of improvements. Mr. Nott assured everyone that Vail Associates is working for the good of the Town and for working harmony. Plans for the baseball field, ski jumpm, soccer field, etc. in- volves Vail Associates, the Recreation District, Vail Ski Club, and the Town of Vail'. The Program is presently in progress. �Tr. Gauge Davis is working out the plan on behalf of Mr. Beardsley and Vail Associates, and in a few days an official plan should be in - hand. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 P.M. 0 MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 1970 i The meeting was brought to order by the Town Manager, Terrell J. Minger, at 5:45 P.M, at Vail LionsHead Center. Purpose of Meeting: Request by community to meet with J. Ogilvie, Manager of the Denver Water Board, to learn more about Denver's efforts to obtain water from the Western Slope. Main Purpose: Denver Water Board's Program, in relation to the Vail Area. Mr. Ogilvie stated the project was taking into consideration the following: environment, ecology, and economy. He described the Eagle -Piney Diversion Project as follows: Construction of a series of tunnels from Frisco, above. Dillon Reservoor, across under Vail Pass, Vail to Gore Creek, open on the west side. Tunnels will be eight miles in length. Tunnels will extend to the Piney Lake Area, inter- cepting at various creeks and tributaries (at approximately 9,285 feet); extending north and getting higher --system will • feed by gravity. There will be 23 miles of tunnels to Piney Lake. Piney Lake will expand to 40,000 acres in due time --at this time, when full, elevation will be approximately 9,445 feet. Additionally, there will be a tunnel from the west side of Piney Creek. Tunnels will extend south to Pandou and Vail, including Homestead Creek and Homestead Lake. Recently, there have been filings and court action in Den- ver's securing additional water. These quests are permissible under City Law, and are on the basis of looking to the future for the entire metropolitan area of Denver. Any securing of water from this source, or any other source, is scheduled for use for the city of Denver and takes into account the date of appropria- tion priority. Denver's appropriation priority is recent (7/23/58_). Prior dates of others will be honored and Denver must get in line. The water yield to Denver will only be taken during peak spring and summer flow. Denver will be working closely with City and State Services relative to existing values in the area. i Flow and working conditions will be agreed upon and resolved prior to construction. Some conditions are as follows: 1. Wilderness boundary - there will be a hearing in Frisco on October 8, 1970. 2. Amount of water anticipated is 100,000 acre field of water on an annual basis. Diversion of flows will not affect residual flow because of down stream priorities and maintenance of residual flow for fish. Piney Reservoir will hopefully remain full during the vacation season. 3. Design of concrete structures and gates at each diversion will be independent, relating to its responsibilities. 0 The following were discussed between the public and Mr. Ogilvie: Cost: Cost ($100,000,000) of fee and transportation of water has been justified for Denver's needs. Other alternatives: Eagle River, North Platt Area, etc., or any further down stream will mean high pumping, opera- tion, and maintenance costs (below Minturn). Can't Denver recycle their water?: A pilot plant is now in operation and is studying the recycled water for in- dustrial use. Projected volume is 10,000,000 gallons a day, eventually 200,000,000 acre fields a year. Has the Denver Water Board the right to take motor vehicles into wilderness areas?: No, if designated as wilderness area, then no motor vehicles are allowed. Describe type of roads that must be built: The roads will be of minimal requirements established by the Forest Service (12 feet wide). They could be maintained open, but it is not necessary. Construction equipment will be conventional -- steel spikes, rails, drilling, air compressors, diesel equipment, tractors, crains, and cement mixers. What is the construction schedule?: Design date within the next two years. Construction beginning is 1974 or 1975. Construction time will be approximately as follows: 25/30 miles of tunnels will be done progressively, i.e., Vail Pass to Piney will take six or seven years at a minimum. There are no federal funds; project will be financed by the city and county of Denver. Money for this project must be financed through a bond issue. If voted down, all it means is a delay. Access roads will go from outside road to head -start of tunnel. Tunnels will be 10 to 12 feet in diameter. Preliminary studies have been made with respect to,the effect tunnelling, digging, etc. will have on the area. The minimum fish flow will be established by the State . Fish and Game Department. Denver Water Board will maintain the minimum fish flow or natural flow of streams. Pollution during construction will be ridgidly regulated. On alternative systems, what has been considered other than dollars?: Reservoir, relocation of railroad and I-70, and ecology (study not completed; but, upon completion, will be reported to the public.) The Denver Water Board would definitely have problems selling water rights back to the Western Slope if there needs ever demanded more water than they were left with. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. •