HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-06-11 Town Council Minutes' MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
JUNE II and 12, 1973
A special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail was con-
vened at 10:00 a.m., on June II and June 12, 1973.1n the.Council
• Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
Mayor John A. Dobson and the following 'Council:men were present:
June 11:
Richard Bailey
Josef Staufer
Tom Steinberg
June 12:
Richard Bailey
John Donovan
Josef Staufer
Gerry White
Also present for the meetings were:
Larry Livingston - Livingston and Blayney
Bob Glover - Livingston and Blayney
Larry Robinson - Town Attorney
Kent Rose.- Town Engineer
Diana Toughill - Zoning Administrator
Hans Weibel - Member, Planning Commission
Jan Wright - Member, Planning Commission
Jim Slevin - Member, Planning Commission
Dave Sage - Member, Planning Commission
The purpose of the meetings was to discuss an.d recommend changes for
the proposed zonong ordinance. Larry Livingston first gave a general
summary pertaining to the evolution of the ordinance. The proposed
ordinance is very different from the one the Town is now using and
it greatly reduces the intensity of development. He also pointed.
out that four new sections have been added to the ordinance --Single
Family Residential, Low Density Multi-famll.y, Design Review, and
Environmental Impact Study.
The Council then proceeded to review the proposed ordinance and.the
following changes were suggested:
Article I - In discussing the definition of an accommodation unit,
Livingston suggested that up to one --third of the floor area of a
dwelling unit could be an accommodation unit and parking calculated
on the basis of a dwelling unit. Mr. Staufer disagreed with the
definition and felt that parking should be provided.for both the .
dwelling unit and the attached accommodation unit as calculation for
just a dwelling unit is discriminatory against the lodge owner.
Mr. Slevin then raised the question of a two room accommodation.
unit that can be rented as one unit or as two separate rooms.
Mr. Staufer felt there should be some credit in the p.arking calcula-
tion for this arrangement as the two room suite is normally rented.
as one unit to a family. Mayor Dobson then pointed out that the
Town of Vail may have over -reacted to the parking problem and that we
may be requiring too much parking in each case. Several alternative
solutions were proposed by the. Council and by Mr. Glover. It was
decided to work out a solution and present it on June 12 for the
Councilts vote.
Mr. Glover then presented an example defining average grade. Mr.
Hibberd, a developer, then raised the question. of the calculation if
an area well is provided for I.ight to a basement area. Mr. Gloves
stated that the measurement should be to average grade rather than
to the bottom of the area well.
Gross residential floor area was then discussed and it appears that
there must be some small changes made for. -the definition to apply
for single family and duplex residences.
Special Meeting
June II and 12, 1973
Page 2
Article 2 - 2.503 - Larry Livingston then explained to the Council
why he feels that the "distances between buildings" section is correct
as written. He feels that this provision.will serve to correct some
of the existing problems of buildings being too close together.
2.505 - The definition of gross residential floor area will be revised
for single family dwellings.
2.510 - Mr. Livingston explained why he feels that all parking should
be enclosed either in a carport or garage. Both Mr..Donovan and Mr.
Weibel objected to carports and Mr. Donovan suggested.that we make a
rule allowing no carports, Mr. Livingston pointed out that this would
be of questionable legality, Dr. Steinberg then stated that we are.
trying to encourage the cluster housing approach and that attached or
covered parking destroys what we are striving to gain. It was then
decided by the Council not to require covered parking In single-family
or two-family districts,
Article 3 - 3.501 - Mr. Weibel suggested that the site size of 10,000
square feet Is too small. The Council then voted to change the site,
size .to 15,000 square feet. They felt that the coverage of the site
might also be reduced to prevent very large duplexes.
3.510 - Covered parking will not be required.
Article 4 - 4.510 - Mr. Wright suggested that parking not be attached
or In the main building in the Low Density Multi -Family district because
of the cluster arrangement and the heavily.wooded sites. The Council
then voted to delete the word "attached".
Article 5 - 5.506 - It was decided that a wall length of 1751 was
too long and would permit very large buildings, which we are trying
to prevent. Council voted to reduce the permitted wall length to
125' with a proportionally smaller dlagonal .measurement.
Article 6 _ 6.506 - Permitted wall.le.ngth .was reduced to 175' with
a 2251 diagonal measurement allowed.
Article 7 - 7.506 - Perm-itted wall length was reduced .to 1751. with a
225' diagonal measurement allowed.
Article 8 - 8.200 (3) - Mayor Dobson wondered i•f.8;000 square feet
of allowable space for retail shop is the correct number. Larry
Livingston then pointed out that the square footage figure was used
because there are two shops that are this large which are still in
scale with the Village. After much discussion of the appropriate
size for a retail shop, Mayor Dobson suggested that we allow the.public
�to decide this matter at the public hearing.. Coin -operated laundry ' and cleaning and launfdry.pickup were deleted as permitted uses.
8.502 - The subject of setbacks In commercial core was again discussed.
Dr. Steinberg feels. that there should be some'se'tback required to
prevent total development of a site. Mr. Glover then explained that
the Design Review Board can require a setback if it is deemed to be
necessary.
8.506 - Permitted wall length was reduced to 125' with an appropriate
diagonal measurement.
8.511 - Mayor Dobson inquired if this section would proci.ode street
sales such as during Va€I-Fest. Mr, Livingston stated that a section
could be added to have permits issued for such things. It was also
suggested that this section be administered by the.Design Review Board.
Article 9 - 9.100 Kent Rose suggested that the sentence "The District
is intended to apply only to the Lionshead.prot€on of the Town" be
stricken as there are two other areas zoned CC2.
9.300 - Coln -operated laudnry and cleaning and laundry pickup were
deleted as permitted uses. It was suggested that these mt.-ght be
retained as conditional uses.
9.606 - Permitted waJ.l length was reduced to 1751 with a 2251 diagonal...
• Special Meeting
June 11 and 12, 1973
Page 3
9.607 - Site coverage was reduced to 7.0%.
9.609 - Landscaping was increased to 20,% of the site,'
Article 10 - 10.606 - After .much discussion of the size of buii.dings
to be permitted, it was decided to leave this section as it is,.
Article II - 11.300 - Every use listed as a conditional use was
considered and the following categories were stricken or mod! fled:
(1) Animal hospitals.and kennels would require'soundproofing,(2)= Would
remain as written, (3) Building contractors' yards will be reworded to
allow Vail Associates and the Town to store c.onst.ruction materials.but.
to prohibit general construction storage. (4) Reaains as written.
(5) Commercial storage must be deleted or limited so that ;junk yards
and related uses would not be allowed. (6). Build'ing mate vials and
lumber yards must be located entirely within a structure. (7) Machine .
shops would require soundproofing if necessary. (8) Motor vehicle
saies and service must be located completely within a structure.
(9) Stored vehicles In conjunction with repair shops must be completely
within a structure of screened from view. (10) Remains as written.
(11) Retreading and recapping deleted as conditional use. (42) Truck
service stations deleted as conditional use. (13) Remains as written
with provision for screening storage areas from view. (14) The term
warehouse must be defined.
11.406 - The size of bulldings in the Heavy Service district was
discussed and several suggestions.were made to.reduce the size.
Mr. Bailey then pointed out that if we require such uses as lumber yards
to be totally enclosed in a structure that we must allow bu.i.ldings to
be this large.
Article 12 - 12,510 - The same parking requirement as Single Family
Residential and Two-family Residential should apply to the Agricultural
Zone,
Article 13 - 13.302 — Contour Intervals are incorrect. Should be in
conformance with new topographic maps,
13.200 - Mr. Rose inquired If.the. A.gricu.Itural.district would remain.
Mr. Livingston stated that the newS6-1 zoning w.o:uld apply to the
entire site for reason of control. Mayor Dobson inquired what would
happen if only area A were developed - and ar.ea,B sold to someone else,
Bob Glover replyed that the SD -I district would require that the
new owner would have to comply with the development plan as submitted
by Clancy and Bradey and if they wished to do a different type of
development, a new development plan would have to be submltted.and
approved under another special development district. It was then
pointed out to the consultants that part of the original agreement
was that Clancy and Bradey would develop the entire site and maintain
it under unified management and would not sell a portion of the site.
Larry Robinson is concerned that a portion of the development will be
built and that the entire project will.not be completed. He suggested
that a clause be added which would require that any portion built must
pass design review. It was also suggested that there be a requirement
for a performance bond for each portion of the structures.
Article 14 - Parking - Mr. Glover suggested a solution for parking
for dwelling units vs, accommodation!°units which had been discussed
previously. It was decided to requi.re .5 plus .1. per 100 square feet
with a maximum of two spaces for a dwelling unit. An accommodation
unit would require .75 for 300 square feet plus .1 for'each additional
100 square feet.with a maximum of l space per accommodation unit.
Mr. White still feels that each accommodation unit should requ€re one
space, but Mr. Staufer feels this is too many since he has times when
the Vail Village Inn is completely full and the parking lot .has only
about five cars. He also raised the question of whether we want to
s
furnish parking for peak periodor only for.normal busy times.
a
Special. Meeting
June 11 and I2, 1973
Page 4
Article 15 15,200 There was.a lenghty discussion about,who should
be appointed to the Design Review Board and whom they should be%ap-
pointed by, Mayor Dobson felt that all membe,rs.of the Board should be
appointed by the Town Council and that at least three of the members
should be from the Planning Commission so that the Town staff would
not control the Board. Mr. Staufer felt that salried employees should.
not have to vote on such a political board as.it would make their
jobs much harder. Mr. Bailey then questioned the legality of the
Design Review Board and Mr. Livingston stated that he is 99% positive
that it will stand up in court if It is challenged. Mr: Livingston
then explained to the Council that section 15.600 is merely a guide-
line and not a hard and fast regulation. The Council then decided to
change the section to Include three Manning Commission members and
two members from the community, all to be appointed by.the Council.
Staff members should be non -voting members or advisory status.
Larry Robinson then questioned the appeal. process. He felt that the
period alloted for appeal was not sufficient time to prepare,an appeal:
The time period was increased to 14 days from the decision of the
Design Review Board and to be heard at Town Council's next regularly
scheduled meeting after the appeal is filed.
Mr. White stated that he felt the Planning Commission and the.`De.sign.
Review Board should be the same people. Mr. Livingston felt that
the Planning Commission is already burdened with enough meetings and
•that they would not be able to.devote enough time for doing a thorough
study for each project.
The time period of two weeks from submission of,plan.s was determined
to be too short of time in case of several sets of plans being sub-
mitted at the same time. This section was changed to read that.design
review shall occur no later than 30 days from submission of plans.
Article 16 - Mr. Donovan wanted .to know if the Town could control
utility lines under the environmental impact provision. Mr. Robinson
explained that the PUC has fairly tight control over theutlllties and
they are normally not subject to local control.
16.300 - Item 4 of this section is deleted.
16.503 - A clause should be added to provide for preparation by'
experts hired by the town at the expense of thedeveloper if it is
deemed necessary by the Town staff. Staff will have the option:of
preparing the environmental impact study themselves if they feel
they can do so. Add the words "'toprepare or" review an environmental
impact study.
16.502 - Council can accept or reject environmental impact report.
-This section will be changed so that either staff or consultants hired
by the Town will perform the study. Council felt that developer's
consultants would be biased in their reporting. A 30 day time limit
was set for the preparation of the report If the staff performs the
study and up to six months If consultants must be hired.Time period
would be extended by the Council.
Article 17 - Mayor Dobson questioned the regulations pertaining to
fences in setback areas. He feels that sometimes the fence would be
more attractive than the object it might hide (particularly utility
boxes, etc.)
17.200 Add the word "significant".vehi-cular.traffic.
Article IS and 19- - No changes..
Article 20 - 20.900 - The last section will be changed to read:" "or
shall be reviewed by the Town Manager or hfs staff and approved by
the Town Council".
Article 21 - 21.102 - Add Town Attorney to blank.
General - Ski lifts and tows should be added as a conditional use
in all zones. Mayor Dobson felt that size of patlos should be
limited. He suggested that they be no greater than 20% of the total
floor area of a restaurant.
Page 5 .
ADDENDUM TO MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 1973.
Prior to discussion of the proposed new zoning ordinance, the various
problems currently developing in regard to the pedestrian areas were
discussed. The history of the problem from the time of the Vail Associates
granting of private easements was discussed by Mr. Robinson. He noted
that there is a law in Colorado which addresses itself to the creation .of
pedestrian malls; for the Town to takeaction under, its provisions; a
strictly defined set of rules for access would need to be developed. Action
under the provisions of this law would take 60 to 90 days. It was generally
agreed that proceedings under the Colorado mall law should be started,
incorporating a simple' set of rules to be developed by Mr. Livingston.
Gary Wall, Police Chief, requested that he be given some direction for
the present day-to-day operation of the gate. It was generally agreed that:
1. there should be no through traffic for. sight-seeing, 2. delivery trucks
should ,be allowed except from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., 3.. all traffic should
be stopped from 11 a.m, to 2 p.m.; 4. construction vehicles should.prove
the necessity for entry before being admitted. Mr. Wall acknowledged
that any person desirous of going to the liquor store is at present admitted.
Mayor Dobson suggested that the 15 minute limit .with time slips be Pe -
activated. A final suggestion was to change some "'no parking" signs to
"loading zone" and to strictly enforce the remaining "no parking'.' areas.
The meeting continued in discussion of the proposed new zohing ordinance
for the remainder of June 11 and throughout the meeting of.June 12.
Town Clerk
7