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.
•