HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-03 Town Council MinutesVAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 3, 1981
•
The Vail Town Council convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, March 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
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 Council District Review Committee. Air. Staufer gave his
report and stated that the Committee had voted 7 - 2 in favor of not
districting at this time. 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 - #Is 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 151 units
per acre. He felt that when you take these lots 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 lots 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 downzoning the land 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 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
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 Town 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 Town and had talked to the Town about it a
couple of years ago.
Marka 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. 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 from the
Planning Commission recommendation for a week for further discussion
at its meeting of Monday, March 2. Their recommendation was consistent
witb 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. /andopen 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 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.
40 Peter Patten stated that the reason they felt Primary/Secondary was
appropriate was the size of the buildable area of the lot. Very
condusive to duplex units.
Vail Intermountain, except Block 10 - primary/secondary recommended
by Staff and Planning Commission.
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 6/10 of an
acre zoned primary/secondary would give him 4800 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. lie 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
Mr 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 West 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
Is the
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 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
Design Review Board does not 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 followed 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 #13. 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 will 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 adopted 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
for 26 units. Phase 3 (only.phase that is vacant) approved for 10 units. Phase 4
(The Ridge at Vail) approved for 13 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 6.6 acre parcel. We are accepting
all of the approvals and agreements from Eagle County on that parcel. Recommendation
is for zoning Commercial Core 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.
0
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 3, 1981
Page 5
Briar 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 burm needing completion.
Residential Cluster zone district again recommended.
Lionsridge #4. This is a 40 acre parcel. There are 17 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
PUD guidelines, however the covenants that the County required as submittals were
reveewed 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
clear 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.
Voting then took place on each of the four Ordinances just reviewed.
Ordinance #11 is an ordinance imposing zone district CCIII for newly annexed
area. Bill 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.G1, 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 also 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 bolt natural open space.
Bill Wilto 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 I.I.I. Second by Bob 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 or 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 #12. 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 Gl, Eiger Chalet, Roost, Lots 40, 41, 7 and
8, Vail Heights, etc., Vail City Corporation, Service Stations, Matterhorn Village,
Vail Village Wist, 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 Pet 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 Palmateer 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.
Ron 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 Ordinance 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, 1981
Page 7
Tom Steinberg moved that they table Ordinance'#15. Second by Bud Benedict. Motion
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 this 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 #10 failed on second reading.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There was a great amount -of laughter at this point since mostcitizen
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 Luke 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 own feet and any Amprovement 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 &.Environmental Commission
who added that requirement or condition that he not oppose 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. Tom 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 allow this
transfer to take place. Paul Johnston moved that the Council approve this transfer.
Second by Wilto.
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 processof handling this complaint.
Bill Wilto moved that the meeting be adjourned.
MA R
Attested To: /'v!/CX•(
Town Clerk
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1981
7:30 P.M.
vowoof v tlf"Y box i oc pail colorado s � 6s7 0
r 3 3 4 7 6- 5 6 S 3
ORDINANCES --AND -RESOLUT-IONS
(1) PRESENTATION'OF REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL DISTRICT REVIEWCOMMITTEE.
(2) ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONE.DISTRICT.CCIII FOR -NEWLY ANNEXED AREA.
(3) ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST -READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONING ON NEWLY ANNEXED.LAND EXCEPTING CCIII, COUNTY APPROVED PROJECTS
AND HIGHLAND -MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
(4) ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONING ON PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY EAGLE COUNTY:..
(5) ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONING ON HIGHLAND MEADOWS -SUBDIVISION.
(6) ORDINANCE #2, SERIES OIL" 1981; FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 13 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE'BY ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 13.04
THE "W" WATERSHED DISTRICT.
(7) ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 5 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE.WITH.THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.28
RELATING TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; INCLUDING LICENSING THEREOF, DEFINI—
TIONS, FEES, OFFENSES, SANITARY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR
LICENSING, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF
LICENSES AND MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
(8) ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1981) SECOND READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE BUSINESS LICENSE.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
(9)" APPEAL OF PE DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3,
BIGHORN 3RD FILING.
(10) APPEAL OF EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST OF THE SITZMARK LODGE.
it, TOWN MANAGER REPORT ---.....
TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT `
ADJOURNMENT-
RICHARD CAPLAN, TO , ANAGER
n*r� 7,��
0
W
0
•
4
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
7:30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 3, 1981
The Vail Town Council.convened for its regular meeting at 7:30 p.m.
on Tuesday, March 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
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 Council District Review Committee. Mr. Staufer gave his
report and stated that the Committee had voted 7- 2 in favor.of not
districting at this time. 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 lots 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 lots 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 downzoning the land 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 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
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 Town 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 Town and had talked to the Town about it a
couple of years ago.
Marka 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. 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 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 #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 distract.
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 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.
Peter Patten stated that the reason they felt Primary/Secondary was
appropriate was the size of the buildable area of the lot. Very
conducive to duplex units.
Vail Intermountain, except Block 10 - primary/secondary recommended
by Staff and Planning Commission.
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 categor.y'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 4800 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. Ile 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 West 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 were 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
Design Review Board does not have the power to make the sides dissimilar
0
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 1981
7:30 P.M.
b o x 1 0 0 • V ail , C o l o r a d o 81 6 5 7 • 3 0 3 • 4 7 6. 5 G 13
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
(1) PRESENTATION OF REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEE.
(2) ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONE DISTRICT CCIII FOR NEWLY ANNEXED AREA.
(3) ORDINANCE #12, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONING ON NEWLY ANNEXED LAND EXCEPTING CCIII, COUNTY APPROVED PROJECTS
AND HIGHLAND MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
(4) ORDINANCE #13, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
ZONING ON PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY EAGLE COUNTY. .
46 (5) ORDINANCE #14, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST READING, AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING
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 CHAPTER 13.04
THE "W" WATERSHED DISTRICT.
(7) ORDINANCE i#15, SERIES OF 1981, FIRST -READING, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
TITLE 5 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE -WITH THE ADDITION OI? CHAPTER 5.28
RELATING: TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; INCLUDING LICENSING THEREOF, DEFINI—
TIONS, FEES, -OFFENSES, SANITARY REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR
LICENSING, ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF
LICENSES AND MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
(8) ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1981, SECOND READING, AN ORODINANCE AMENDING
THE BUSINESS LICENSE.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
(9) APPEAL OF PEC DECISION ON VARIANCE REQUEST OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3,
BIGHORN 3RD FILING.
(10) APPEAL OF EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST OF THE SITZMARR LODGE.
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
RICHARD CAPLAN, TOWN MANAGER
0
\/AIL.. RESERVATIONS, INC.
ACCOMMODATIONS, ACTIVITIES, TRANSPORTA`rioN
CP. O. BOX 369 O VAIL, COLORADO 81 637
1303) 476-1234
March 4, 1981.
Ms. Linda Kaiser
Sunrise, Ltd
675 Lionshead Place
Vail, Colorado 81651
Dear Ms. Kaiser:
I just received your letter and petition about the proposed increase
of the Town of Vail business license from $25.00 to $100.00. This
300% increase is simply too much and I support your petition,
If, as you suggest, the Town wishes to extract $100,000 from the
business community, why on earth did the Town give $100,000 to the
Vail Resort Association which supposedly is the Vail business
community? As you told me, Paula Palmateer made the statement at
the February 24 Town meeting that the majority of its members
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 VRA would fabricate member support as quid pro quo
for its $100,000 grant from the Town of Vail. Or, is the '.sown simply
trying; to cover this questionable grant in a low revenue year?
Certainly food for thought?
Finally, as you know, we book many thousands of guests into Vail
so '1 can tell you of increasing resistance to Vail's high (and ever -
rising) prices. Naturally an increased business license cost will.
ultimately contribute to higher prices and might well turn out to be
the proverbial "goose that breaks the golden egg".
Sincepely�,
�L,`0, Pene o IHodge
lnc/ Petition
cc: Richard Caplan
Vail Trail.
The News
• vl
1-1
eLo)
6
9
� Ml
:77
.. w:
I•'am opposed to an increase in the fee for a business license in Vail.
7
,.dmgl WA r
2—;
lyl --r Ps,`a � f
".•D7, ✓J� Name of business
xf°
'.Name If-
aw
• f
ofLL'� r-A
Name � Name 'bu in
Kl-
7q/ -
"Name
--
business
_._ ---- ----•- ---......_,Name �f b,n..„.
r1111A7 OL,�,C
Name. Name of business
Name of u mess
Hama C k� C Sl Z�
-----••-------.•— Name of usines
--•�•;��1p_.__._.�__.---�.a...__-.._.�,..�.....m...,,� Name of business ���
• Name � , �� C ../.
)�� Name of business
�
,�_ j
.
1� 4/1 0
4- Name Name of business
• 'r
)j
Name
T4 /L
nn n 4: 1 , - 4
Name of business
levy
--Name Name of business/
Name of business
Rz C
e15
'i / e I? L 01 ILI
Name of business
me
_�D r) Uf 1 (i n (I Vol r
Name of busi-ness
Name of business
1 d6olrig-,
U_%jJJ22�
IQ
rcp\ OCL Q!
I/,-\ FYMU " \1 Y" , w
OrMMM
INar...
.Name cirbiisiness t)
L.(4
lamb
` , VAIL, Co. y61657/
e Name of buiess
Name ___._...__._._._. Name of business
N to Name of business
_ r
------- - _ Name of business
1, •
•. .IYY11111:
—w. Name of business
r
A r
a :►. . ........ .1 .
�r
Dame of business —
•r-
., ..___.__.._.. Name of business
• ;Kane �.k-v - C�._ �._ rT' :;
]Vam 'of bus ness S
atr�e Name f busines J
/rill 110
'Name Na e tf bus less
Name
,N a e /of business 1
%�t�(if4�'\.i
me Name of business.
Name busine� —.— - - —
.Name:_. m usiness.
lie
Name of business
Name of business
,
fk�
. , s • �... s ��. Wig.
--
• busi.nes
Name _ Name o s
I
Name of business
Name !J
's � `'" ,�•! � 1. %�' / 1. (. (.. E••,f\ ,_,�
Nra e of business
- _ .._' •. ------ _ a._ --- N.ame..o b siness
amN-Al 11/1 A
Name of t�Fisines��
eA
iamu�iness
Name__ ............ _ ._...__.. ,_. .—.—. _
•• • • .:, a �_— Nat e o ss
00 LUV47 0 Ntv�-rvvA-t-
Nark of business
cc
N$Ae
(' Name of business-. w--
Nam, f busitt s -
Nye of/b`uussiv@s$. ` --
• •, NaName o business�����- '
g
I 'am opposed to an increase in the :fee for a business license in Vaal
•name �` _....._....._.�:. •__-�..:�..._.. _
F business �
Name o
L .: -