Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-17 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1989 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem Michael Cacioppo Mery Lapin Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal Tom Steinberg MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Affeldt TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first order of business was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, first reading, adopting a 1990 budget and financial plan. Mayor Rose read the full title. Steve Barwick noted the changes Council had made at the work session that day, then •briefly explained what the new budget would include, gave background information on fund balances, and what the figures would cover. Mayor Rose stated the budget was the result of a series of budget work sessions over the last couple of months. There were no comments from the public. Mike Cacioppo remarked he would vote against the ordinance because he did not believe the Community Development Department needed an increase in staff (it should be getting smaller, not larger), he was disappointed there was no West Vail fire station or television translators included in the budget, did not agree with a five percent increase for the Town Manager's position, did not agree with the large increase for the Marketing Board budget, or the $35,000 funding to Bravo! Colorado. Mery Lapin had some questions regard the actual projected and the proposed budgets, to which Steve Barwick responded. Mery Lapin stated he was not happy regarding the insurance coverage premium, but that everything was a compromise situation with a $20 million budget. Tom Steinberg commented the number of employees had remained relatively static the last four years while services had been expanded and upgraded. He believed the Town should hire more employees and take care of them, or the Town would pay. Ron Phillips gave additional information on insurance costs. Mery Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance as amended, with Tom Steinberg seconding. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Mike Cacioppo opposing. John Slevin thanked the staff for their time and effort on this major project. •The second item was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, first reading, amending Special Development District No. 6. The full title of the ordinance was read by Mayor Rose. Peter Patten reviewed the staff memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 26, 1989, and explained the request. He gave background information and reviewed the SDD design criteria. Peter then stated the staff recommended approval with two conditions: 1. That SDD No. 6 be amended by adding a total of 3,927 square feet to the existing allowance of 120,600 square feet. The 3,927 square foot figure is the existing square footage of condominium unit #30. The staff feels that the existing square footage is sufficient for a successful conversion from retail to residential and that the request for an additional 1,787 square feet which may be added to unit #30 in the future, is extraneous and above and beyond what is required for this conversion. 2. That this unit be use restricted, according to Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. Peter stated the PEC denied the request by a 4-3 vote, so the ordinance was coming to the Council without a PEC recommendation. He also had additional language he requested be added. Mery Lapin questioned the logic behind the recommendation, to •which Peter responded. Peggy Osterfoss, of the PEC, gave further information regarding the request and the PEC's evolvement to the denial decision. After some discussion by Council, Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, BSC of Vail, i 0 Colorado, Inc., explained why the applicant was making the request and why they were asking the Council for approval of the ordinance. There was then some discussion by Council regarding parking spaces for the condominium, and total build -out for the Vail Village Plaza. It was decided that if the space was converted, it would not change any requirements for the Vail Village Plaza. Mery Lapin stated he was against increased GRFA over the limit; there was much discussion by Council regarding GRFA. Peter Jamar requested the item be tabled for a few weeks so he and Peter Patten could do some more research, the Council could go on a site visit to the area, and they could discuss at a work session. Councilmembers then explained questions and problems they had with the request. Mike Cacioppo made a motion to table the ordinance for three weeks to the next evening meeting, and John Slevin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The next item was Resolution No. 61, Series of 1989, endorsing and supporting My Choice ... Drug Free Colorado red ribbon campaign. Marka Moser thanked the Council for the support they had provided already. She then briefly reviewed the planned events for the next week, October 22-29, 1989. A motion to approve the resolution was made by Mery Lapin and seconded by John Slevin. Mery Lapin and Mayor Rose then thanked Marka for taking this project as far as she had. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. The fourth order of business was the appeal of a Design Review Board decision denying a sign for Nick's, 228 Bridge Street. Kristan Pritz stated that on September 16, 1989, the ORB had a tie vote on this item, which results in recommending denial. She passed around a photograph of the proposed location, then reviewed a summary of the ORB's comments. There was discussion by Council regarding no prohibition of neon signs, and others located in town. Peggy Osterfoss commented •if Council did not want neon in the Village, they need to instruct staff to head that way; she was empathetic, but the decision was up to the Council. Michael Staughton, the applicant, gave additional information regarding the proposed sign. After more discussion by Council, Michael gave further reasons why he felt they should approve the sign, why it was appropriate, and should be granted. Jo Brown questioned how the Town had kept most neon out of the Village up to now, to which Councilmembers responded, "design guidelines." Michael Staughton requested the item be tabled until the next evening meeting, so he could bring more pictures and information to Council. The Council asked that Michael present information on neon at a work session before the sign was reviewed for approval. John Slevin then made a motion to table the item until the next evening meeting, and Gail Wahrlich- Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0-1, with Tom Steinberg abstaining. The next item was the appointment of five regular municipal election judges for the November 21, 1989 election. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Mery Lapin made a motion to approve the five proposed judges, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. There was no Citizen Participation. •Mike Cacioppo announced the results of an October 11, 1989 Health Department memorandum air monitor results at the Minturn Middle School. He remarked the report scared him. Larry Eskwith gave a brief attorney's report to Council. He stated he had received notice the Tenth Court of Appeals supported the Town of Vail in the Defalco vs. Town of Vail case. He noted this case had been handled by the Town's insurance attorneys. He then gave background information on the Williams vs. the Town and Chester and Chester vs. the Town lawsuits, and chronologically reviewed what had happened to date. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: 10 Pame a A. Bran meyer,' own Clerk Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman Respectfully submitted, p Kent R. ose, ayor -2- a„ TOWN OF VAIL South Frontage Road i4 Colorado 81657 303-479 2136 FAX 303-479-2157 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Office of the Town Clerk The foregoing is a full, true, and correct transcription of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, first reading, amending Special Development District No. 6, which is included in the final minutes of the Vail Town Council Meeting held on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, Date: 13e,OC41tFoei, $1 fgga Time: td: to P.M. /I/L t&' - 6. ti Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk of the Town of Vail STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } Subscribed and sworn to before me appeared Martha S. Raecker, Town Clerk of the flown of Vail, Colorado, this 94h day of .. f flct h c�- 19 y2 . My commission expires: NI"ly. `16, llgq Notary' tJ Addresi' TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDED PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGULAR EVENING MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO AGENDA ITEM #2: ORDINANCE NO. 24, SERIES OF 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO (303) 479-2100 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1989 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: CITIZENS PARTICIPATING: KENT ROSE, MAYOR JOHN SLEVIN, MAYOR PRO TEM MICHAEL CACIOPPO MERV LAPIN GAIL WAHRLICH-LOWENTHAL TOM STEINBERG RON PHILLIPS, TOWN MANAGER LARRY ESKWITH, TOWN ATTORNEY PAM BRANDMEYER, TOWN CLERK PEGGY OSTERFOSS, PEC PETER JAMAR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT 11 �J 1 Transcription of tape recordina of Town Council meetina, aaenda item #2: October 17, 1989 •Aoolicant's Representative PJ - Peter Jamar Cppunpil Members ML - Mery Lapin Town Staff RP - Rick Pylman TS - Tom Steinberg PP - Peter Patten PEC Member KR - Kent Rose KP - Kristan Pritz PO - Peggy Osterfoss GW - Gall Wandich JS - John Slevin Town Attorney MC - Michael Cacloppo LE - Larry Eskwlth KR - Next item on the agenda Is Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, an ordinance amending Sectlon 8 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, to provide for the amendment of density of the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. This is also first reading. Peter Patten ... PP - It Is. Mr. Mayor and members of the council, what I'm going to do Is go through • the memorandum that the planning staff wrote to the Planning Commission as the presentation of the item. Then I'm going to talk about what happened at Planning Commission and then I'll talk about the ordinance at the end. The request to amend Special Development District 6, which is the Vail Village Inn Special Development District, to amend the total GRFA, the total residential floor area for the SDD to increase 4,900 sq. ft. That's the way the ordinance reads. The original request was for more than that amount and the planning staff recommended for less than that amount. The proposal basically is to convert the goods retail space to a condominium, to residential use. Basically, what we're looking at is a conversion of use from commercial to residential, where the current *Goods' clothing store is located. So the applicant originally requested an additional 5,714 sq. ft. Now that • takes that space that's up there and It adds some loft space and it infilis other area. There is currently approximately 3,900 sq. ft. of floor area in that space. The applicant has Identified the reason for the application as the location being an enviable, not a viable, retail space. He has received approval from the other condominium owners to proceed with the application for • the conversion to residential. Currently, the total allowed square footage in the Special Development District for the remaining phases Is 120,600 sq. ft. and that's of course attached to the major hotel redevelopment that we all hope someday we see In that site. So, this would Increase that in the ordinance form to 125,500 sq. ft. In looking at the criteria then for a special development district, the first one has to do with design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, the neighborhood and the adjacent properties relative to the design scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, and so on. Really, there aren't very many design issues related to this. It's taking an existing space and converting It from commercial to residential. We would anticipate If the project Is approved and it goes forward, that the owner probably would want to make some minor design changes to the space Itself, but at this time that is not being proposed and those changes would be dealt with by the Design Review Board. The existing display window down on the street level would remain and be used by Village Inn Sports. The second criteria than has to deal with the uses, activity and densities which provide compatible, efficient and workable relationships with the surrounding uses and activities. I think we're all aware that the Vail Village Inn Special Development District Is a mixed -use project and has a variety of land uses in It now, as well as when it's redeveloped to Its fullest extent. And, of course, those uses include commercial and residential in various locations, as well as restaurants and short-term accommodation units, lodge rooms. One of our goals In the master land use plan, as well as the Vail Village Master Plan, Is to maintain the mix of . uses. We feel that's important to Commercial Core 1 and Its surrounding area, which, of course, this Is immediately adjacent to the core area. This is not affecting that mix of use. It's 2 1 changing from one to the other, but all of the uses are found in the immediate area, as well as the surrounding area. We do feel that we need to protect the short-term bed base. We feel that we have established a policy, as the Planning Commission and the Town Council have in • about the last three or four years, where additional residential units have been required to be available to the tourist market, and we do that through the restrictions contained in the subdivision regulations which requires an owner only to occupy a unit during the high season for a restricted number of weeks and it also requires the owner to list the unit on the short- term rental market when it's not in use. And we feel that those are appropriate In. this instance, and we'll talk about those In the recommendations section. Next we deal with the parking and loading Issues. Phases I and II of the VVI contain basically little to no parking. I wasn't around when those happened originally. I would imagine that there probably was some surface parking that may have been eaten up by future phases, but this Is In the original phases of the VVI and what has been occurring is each phase Is developed. Phase III and then the latest phase, well the latest phase really didn't add any parking, but especially in Phase ill, we caught up a little bit on the deficit. I think there was over a 100 space deficit when Phase III was built. They built the underground parking garage at that time. They caught up and they are somewhere around 50 spaces short. When the most recent building was built, there was no additional parking provided for on site. The parking was to be provided in the underground parking structure. With this particular proposal then, there are no parking spaces that kind of are designated that go along with this space. Joe Staufer has arrangements with some of his tenants In his spaces that he will lease them spaces In the parking structure itself. Currently, we do not have a solid • parking proposal for this particular conversion to residential. We feel that that's important and will require that to be documented and done before we issue a building permit. The space requirement would be 2-1/2 spaces rounded up to 3. So there would be a parking requirement of 3 spaces. Conforming with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, I thing there Is probably one in particular, that is policy 42 in the Master Land Use Plan, which talks about Increased density in the core areas as acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through the Implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. And I think that that policy Is not In conflict with the proposal. There are some other criteria here that are really not too important or not applicable, 1 should say, In that our recommendation for this, and I'll speak to the.3,027 sq. ft. which Is existing out there, the way this went through the Planning Commission as we were recommending approval for the conversion of the existing square footage, 3,927, to residential use, with the provision that the unit be use -restricted, in other words that ft be available according to our restrictions In the Subdivision Regulations available to the tourist market in general. We feel that the existing square footage is sufficient for the successful conversion from retail to residential and that the extra originally 1,787 sq. ft. is really extraneous and not required, and not really a necessary, if you will, part of the proposal. The Planning Commission, so that's what went to Planning Commission, our recommendation. There was a long discussion at Planning Commission about this Item and I was not present, so bear with me. Peter was present and he can correct me if I'm wrong. The bottom line Is the Planning Commission denied the proposal 4 to 3, so the ordinance that comes to you tonight is not one that the Planning Commission has voted for. The Council sees all amendments to special development districts, so this would have come to you no matter whether they had approved It or denied it. There originally was a motion to approve the proposal with the condition that only 50% of the unit be restricted. The Planning Commission's concern on this item is that they felt that this was too large a unit to be a viable rental unit and they were trying to P compro 3 with the applicant to come to a comfort level that this was going to be a unit that would akay to create, but only if it was going to be a viable rental unit, and they talked about restricting only part of the unit or actually dividing the unit into two units. Those were not acceptable to the applicant, is my understanding, and in the end the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to deny the request. However, before they did that, they agreed on a compromise square footage of 5,000 sq. ft. Is that correct? Pi - Yes. PP - Okay. So the Planning Commission and DRB ... excuse me, the Planning Commission and the applicant have come to an agreement that the size of the unit would be 5,000 sq. ft. maximum, which allows them to add about 1,100 sq. ft. of loft area and in -fill space. But the Planning Commission obviously still was not comfortable with the overall proposal, although it was a close vote. The ordinance then is in the format for you to approve. It adds, this ordinance would add 4,900 sq. ft. Is that your understanding of It, Rick, • was there a 100 sq. ft. difference in here? RP - 4,900 PP - Okay. So the total amount allowed In SDD on the second page of your ordinance at the very top. What you'd be voting to do if you pass this ordinance would be to allow a total of 125,500 sq. ft. of GRFA in the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. Thal :: an increase of 4,900 sq. ft and again this is what the Planning Commission compromised down to from a larger figure that the applicant had requested. Now, I would like -- and this does not change the other provisions of that SDD, which require a certain amount of accommodation units to be built and a certain amount of square feet devoted to lodge • rooms. As some of you may recall, when we passed that ordinance, we required actually a minimum number amount of square footage devoted to lodge rooms only so that they couldn't 5 build all condos. At the and of that paragraph I would like to add a sentence that would say 14,900 sq. fL of GRFA shall be allocated to Unit 30 of the Vail Village Plaza Condominiums only." And the reason for that Is that we don't want to just add 4,900 sq. ft. and then have the applicant go ahead and put a retail store back in there anyway and all of the sudden we have just Increased the size of the SDD. So, the 4,900 sq. ft. increase, if you approve it, would be just for that space only and not just a carte blanche Increase for whoever ends up developing, you know, the ultimate hotel on site. JS - So the number of units for Phase IV and V — is this in Phase III? PP - This Is in Phase I. JS - So the number of units still stays the same. Joe can still do 128 units. PP - That's right. That approval is completely unaffected, really, by this whole thing. So that is the one thing I would like to add to the ordinance and we can, Larry and I can work on specific language toward that end between first and second reading. And with that, we will • turn it over to Peter who is representing the applicant or questions, Merv. ML - I don't understand the logic of why you would allow greater density on a project over and above what's been approved that doesn't have parking, that is a conflict, I think it's going to Increase the conflict that you have between residential and commercial, I mean, I don't understand, what's the logic of having zoning with the maximum If someone can come In and get 4900 more square feet? PP - The logic is that the space Is there - ML - Well, why not 50,000 square feet? PP - I can't argue the staff are not experts in retail feasibility one way or the other, • the uses are all on the site, there is residential uses on the site and the surrounding area, we have adopted policies In the land use plan which encourage the mix of uses, In one sense It Is 6 an increase in density but in another, It's an increase in density that has absolutely no effect of mass and bulk on the village. We have had ML - So, in other words, the house PP - Let me say one more thing. We have had a history In Commercial Core I area especially. These types of changes and uses. The Village started out to have employee units on street level at the Lodge. They were converted to retail. There were slot of second floor apartments, residential units, in the core that got converted to commercial space In the late 70's and early 80's. Some of those spaces have been even converted back. In an area where you have the type of mixed use zoning that we have in not only the Commercial Core but in the surrounding areas and especially this is a mixed use project, you are constantly going to have changes of use between residential and commercial and even other uses on varying levels of all mixed use projects. And I guess, I'm not here to tell you this is the greatest thing in the world, not at all, I don't think that we're strongly recommending approval, but what I'm here to tell you is that I think that the application itself'is something that I don't feel Is going to create any negative impacts, I don't see anything that's going to be harmed, I don't see the Vail Village Inn project will be harmed by this, on the worst end scenario, the project would be harmed by empty retail space if It is indeed not a viable space for retail or commercial of some sort. I don't buy that argument. I think there probably could be somebody that goes in there that makes a viable operation, but I'm reacting to an application that's come in to our department and we have to get on one side of the fence or the other and I think that this proposal is not going to create negative Impacts and we will require the parking to be located in that underground parking structure and I think with that we're looking . at something that just Isn't going to be a negative Impact. ML - Okay, you've answered the use question, but what you're doing Is giving 7 someone the incentive to build a big volume building then come back later and fill it in by allowing this. Everyone that's got a building that can go with Infill, whether it's a house or a commercial building can come back now under your logic and get greater density. . KR - I don't think It's an Infill though, is it? ML - Well, yea, he's adding 4900 square feet. You're not adding to the shell. You're saying that there's no addition to the outside of the building. They're infilling the floors on the inside. is - Yes. Up In the loft So what's the big problem with that? ML - Well, what's going to stop everyone that has something that is more than 2 stories high, whether It's the glass house or whether it's the house on, the Chester house that's got a volume to it, coming back and saying, well let's Infill the volume now? JS - Well, I don't think we do GRFA the same way. He's comparing it to a residential zone district. . ML - But, look, it's a residential use. JS - No, It's a SDD. PP - Yea, It's a special development district, it's not the same zoning as you know, what you're talking about and ML - But the SDD has a limit put on it of 120,000 square feet, now you're saying add 4000 square feet. PP - Merv, all properties in Vail have, a limit on it,through zoning. One way or another, you come to a number - that's the maximum. The fact Is that for the last 10 years we haven't been afraid of that maximum number to Increase it and we have in probably 15 to 20 different Instances over the last 10 years In this specific area and throughout the whole commercial core and the whole Vail Village area. We've done it, I don't need to go through 8 the names of the projects, but we have done It In many Instances, changed that residential density allowed. ML - Yea, but when we originally set in a special development district the applicant was always for as much square footage as he could get and that was a quid pro quo, "You give us this - we give you that". Now they're coming in and they've got a certain volume. In this case I guess 2 stories, that they're Infilling In order to get greater density. And greater density does have an effect, I mean, someone's going to be in the 4900 square feet, it's not going to be left empty. You're going to have more people using it. PP - I don't disagree with those statements. JS - Could we go through the thought process with one unit as opposed to two units? PP - I can't. Maybe Peggy can. • KR - Peggy has a comment. (...inaudible) PO - I think first of all, the Planning Commission felt that it was unfortunate that In this SDD there was not a first -come, first -serve for additional square footage. In other words, this Individual wishes to add space to his condominium would not be taking. any of the square footage away from the rest of the development. We felt a more desirable situation would have been if the rest of the development... the amount of square footage of this unit. But on the other hand, felt that Is was unfair to this particular applicant that the SDD had not in fact been set up that way in the first place. (...) I think subsequently we endeavored to focus on the outcome and we were reluctant to give up retail space but felt the second story space as retail .... Then the question became given our direction in the master plan, which would be that we would try to encourage retail space or short term rental space, but not space that is residential N 0 r. and not rented In the core area. We felt that we needed assurance that it in fact this unit was ,- converted from a retell to residential it would be rented. And I think many of us, myself Included, were concerned with the fact that 5000 square foot rental unit was not viable. In other words, It's fine to say that it's on the rental market, but no one rented it and then the fact Is that we have lost retail and we have not replaced it with short term rental. And that was why we spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to reach some sort of compromises we felt would make this a (.... ) unit I think Merv's concerned with square footage Infill ML - Then how do you, granted, when different SDD's, SDD 6 Is different than let's say, we went up and looked at the glass house which is a three story thing. KR - Well, residential. ML - Which Is residential. How do you say you can do this residential, but you can't do that residential because there's less effect up on that hill adding square footage because i they've got the parking or, you know, in otherwords, they're not creating any more traffic, all they're doing Is adding another couple of bedrooms. Wow do you add It at the Vail Village Inn and not allow someone to allow someone to add it in their other property? PO - One thing, Merv, I think we felt there would be less parking needed for the residential unit than for the commercial use that has been in place. ML - Unless It's short term units. JS - Merv, there Is one school of thought that disagrees with our GRFA ordinance for our residential that says if In tact you do have a two-story house and you want to stick a basement underneath It, and you exceed GRFA rules, you're really not adding anything to it, you might just be adding a family room but technically you can't do It, so there is a school of thought out there that would love to change GRFA provisions for residential also, because 10 .1 that's a bulk and mass thing that is going to be talked about probably over the next year or SO. . PJ - We should probably hear from Peter here, he's representing the applicant. JS - I've got a question along this one unit vs. a bunch of units and maybe Peter, well, I'll ask It now while its on my mind. If you do a one 5000 square foot unit, do you mind if they do one eight bedroom unit? Have you thought about eight lockoffs and you have a bed and breakfast small motel, or, I mean you could do that with 5000 square feet. PP - Well, actually you can only have one lockoff. JS - You can only do one? PP _ Right. JS - Okay. So if you can only do one, then again it goes back to her comment that you end up with a huge living room and some bedrooms and only one, so you can rent it two idifferent ways then, that's what you're saying. PP - If they want to go, you could just do one Iockoff maximum in a multi -family dwelling unit. JS - So who wanted to do more than one unit, was that the Planing Commission or you? Who is recommending that they do more than one? PP - Planning Commission. PO - (...) JS - Planning Commission? Okay, go ahead Peter. Pi - Perhaps I can help shed a little light on this and some of the rationale for hey, why are we in asking for this and I am representing BSC of Vail which owns the unit. • ML - Who is BSC of Vail? Pi - It's a partnership. ML - Composed of? Pi - One of the gentlemen is Prank Cicero, I don't know the other partners. ML - And they're the owners of the space? The reason I'm asking this is because it just went through foreclosure. The building did, is this part that is through foreclosure or Is this separate? Pi - No, this is a separate condominium. ML - This Is a separate condominium that wasn't involved, okay. Pi - Let me hit a couple of the high points. I think that the reason we got a little bit off track at the Planning Commission was because of the diversity of opinion as to how is this unit going to be short term rented and I and the applicant created some of that confusion because of the fact that that was sort of a last minute staff recommendation that they had been supporting this but then a day or two before the Planning Commission had said, but you'll have to go with these restrictions. So I needed to run that by my client, the owner of the unit, In a very short time period and not being knowledgeable of what that meant or how and also being an attorney, his initial reaction was no, we don't want to live with that kind of restriction, so I then proceeded to the Planning Commission, not agreeing with that condition. We have sInce had the time to sit down and discuss It with the staff and explain it to the owner and that's how we've now arrived at the issue as to, well, he's willing to go along with the restrictions, is this 5000 square foot unit a viable short term rental unit or not? I have contacted the Vail Resort Association. Their recommendation to me was that, heck, yes, a 5000 square foot unit in the Village core is probably one of the most desirable short term rental units in Vail. We have very few of those - those are the first units to rent and I would be • happy to, if it comes down to that question and I'd be happy to table this item unfit we can all go ask the VRA ourselves whether that in fact is true. I'm convinced that it's true, the owner 12 t Is convinced that it's true, given the numbers of families and groups of people that like to come to Vail and all stay together and be in close proximity and walking distance to the core where you do not need a vehicle. Even though we feel that the rental of that unit will not generate the need for the parking spaces, we are willing to go along with the condition that says that given the conversion of this unit over residential, we're willing to provide the 3 parking spaces that are necessary and there are spaces available through Joe Staufer at the Vail Village Inn for that purpose. Again, I think everyone, the Planning Commission, staff and myself agree that the parking requirement actually reduces from 16 spaces to 3 so that that's a net improvement. The owner's Initial intent here is that they would love to keep the space commercial. They would be very happy and I think those involved with economics of real estate would agree that it's in their best interest that that's viable commercial space to keep it commercial and over the long term that Is a much better business decision. I think it's Important to stress that it is second and third floor space, and I think the Planning Commission • on their site visit sort of understood that the poor utilization of that space as commercial, we were willing to come to a compromise of adding half of the square footage that we had Initially intended to add so that the PEC got fairly confused but we had the opportunity since there was some time between meetings to go back and get a clarification of some of those issues. So I guess, the bottom line is we're now willing to restrict the use, we feel that a 5000 square foot unit which would probably be 5 bedrooms Is a very highly desirable unit on the short term rental market. They still prefer to be able to try to use that space as commercial but they would like to have the fall back to be able to utilize this space as residential It it continues to look like it's not a viable commercial space. The use is not In question. The zoning allows • the use as residential. What's in question is that the SDD is defined so tightly that it does not allow the flexibility to add any square footage in any unit anywhere. 13 MIL - What is the reason why it was defined that tightly? Pi - I can't explain that, Merv. ML - It was part of negotiations that had to do with what the VVI was giving to the • Town. Doesn't that have to do with part of the park, doesn't that have to do with part of the condominium that, the space below which Is now the skI museum? Pi - I don't agree with that concept of SDDs, that I don't think they were ever set up KR - There was a big Issue, I mean, It had to do with the underlying zoning that was on that entire parcel and what Increases there were from that underlying zoning, if any, through the SDD process and park, that Mery talked about and the whole works. And It was tight because It was a long, Involved, tough process. Gail and I remember that and some other people probably. Pi - I guess what I'm saying Is that they would Just like to see some flexibility In • being able to use that use as the uses are defined within the SDD and again, I guess I would have to say I don't think there's any positive impact, I can't come up here and really sell to you that, hey, this is the greatest thing In the world that ever happened. I can't foresee any negative impacts given that they're willing to actually Improve the parking situation. They do have approval of 100% of the condominium owners which own all the adjacent units. They have gone ahead and received that approval and revised the condominium declaration in order to use the unit as residential. They agree with all the conditions including keeping the exterior appearance on the first floor as retail use. So I think it makes some sense to grant that flexibility. I do believe that the Planning Commission was pretty much split 50 - 50 as to whether this was appropriate or not and the confusion really came in terms of the size of the unit. I think Jim Viele, the Chairman of the Planning Commission, put it best, that it's one of 14 R those continual fine tuning of an SDD that I guess whether we like it or not, it's a fact of life that these types of amendments and the flexibility has to be there In order to end up with land • use situations that work. I think that Vail Is not in terms of the density, a finely tuned machine. I think we see give and take, additions, deletions of different types of uses and it really is a constant process. I don't think there is one set top number that we have a system that we transfer development rights. I mean, we have gas stations that evolved into mixed use retail and commercial and residential uses and individual members may agree or not agree with that, but that's a fact of the way land use decisions evolve and I think, you know, the Intent here is not necessarily to do anything positive or negative as far as alot of these issues that could conceivably set a precedent are, they're to try to continue to make that a viable, livable space and I think we're meeting some of the goals of the Town in terms of we are adding a unit that will be on the short term rental market during high seasons that according to the VISA • is very desirable and we need more of, so I think there are some positive things here. I'd be happy to answer any questions. TS - What happens to the 13 parking spaces that are assigned to this unit which allegedly they don't need any more? PP - They don't exist. ML - Yea, they're 50 short now. PP - They didn't build parking for the first couple of phases. There is not 13 spaces you can go point to in any where on the site for this particular space. TS - Would they be required in the future for that whole Vail Village complex then? PP - Yes. You mean the next phase that's unbuilt? • TS - Next phase, or whatever phase there PP - Yes, the next phase will really make up the whole parking deficit. is TS - So the non -condominium owner Is going to benefit to the tune of 13 long term built out spaces by the fact that he doesn't have to supply this 13 for this condo unit In the total buildout now. The long tern buildout he Is required to meet the parking requirements. Now, If we allow this conversion, he needs 13 less spaces. Now the condo owner, Is he selling those spaces back to Joe Staufer so he doesn't have to build them, or Is he giving them back to him and Joe Is going to make $130,000. because he doesn't have to put them In. What's happening here? JS - How does this affect the rest of the purchase. PP _ You have to understand this Is not the developer, the entire SDD or the holder of that pool of GRFA or parking so that this owner is not required to at any point put In those 13 spaces. TS - No, I understand that, but Vail Village Inn, Inc. or whoever is doing it Is ultimately required to build those 13 spaces if we leave it the way it is. . PP - That's not really not at all the way the whole thing worked out at all. We did not... My recollection, Tom, is that the ultimate buildout of the site will not contain 1000/0 of what the parking requirement would be for everything on the site. I can't go back and tell you what percentage of the overall parking requirement will be built, you know, under the approved SDD, but it just wasn't that dean a connection. I think that there was a certain amount of kind of what's there now is there now and let's plan the hotel, the eventual hotel that's not built, and get the parking that's going to be adequate for the commercial and residential that's going to be built and live with the existing situation. JS - Peter, where does 13 parking spaces come from? PP - The 13 parking spaces comes from if they propose to build this big a retail • space you divide the total square footage by 300 and you'd get 13. 16 k JS - Peter, the point is, if they're allowed to, that does not affect the number of parking spaces that Joe has to deal with his hotel does it? PP - No. • JS - It shouldn't affect the SDD requirement for Joe's parking. PP - No, I don't think it would. Pi - I think you could make a statement in the ordinance that it doesn't. JS - Yea, we want to make sure it doesn't because we know he's going to be short anyway. I remember from those days that there really isn't an overabundance of spaces and we were valet parking and all sorts of things to get TS - Well, either that or he doesn't get to build as much. Which Is where we should be coming from. JS - Right, but I think the point needs to be brought out that If they get to convert, • that does not change any requirements for Joe's parking. KR - Peggy, another comment? PO - 1 just wanted to make a couple of other comments, one concern expressed {....) was that 10 parking spaces are In fact non-existent when people renting the unit need to be taking things like groceries to it and they will probably expect a parking spot and presumedly they were allowed to drive to that restricted area ( ... ). Another item that I think we included as a condition on this approval ( ... ) that if in fact this conversion occurs we thought that the double doors that are facing to the south should be closed and turned Into a display and then the access should be from the west, there's also a doorway coming from the west so that if you were walking along Meadow Drive you would see a display window rather than a door. • JS - A display window for another retail space or something like that, is that what you're saying? I mean for the one next door maybe? 17 PO - Yes. (... ) Pi - And we're In agreement with that. is - But you're not sure you're going to change the space, Is that what you're saying? Pi - No, I think they'd like to have the flexibility to keep It, their desire Is to keep it as commercial if that's viable. The sense is that it's not viable. They have no tenants running forward to get into that space, It's historically been a problem. I think at least half the Planning Commission agreed that the changeover in that space has been significant over time and that they would rather see some viable use of that space rather than boarded up. And whether that space Is ever going to be boarded up or not is purely speculation. ML - Are they the original owners of the space? Pi - I don't know, Merv, how long they've owned the space. ML - Okay, I think the answer to that is no, so they bought the space knowing what • they were getting. I mean, they got a price on it based on the knowledge that they now have that It doesn't work as commercial. Pi - Well, but the use of this space Is allowed as commercial or residential. ML - I don't have a problem because there's already residential there. I think in general because of my experience at Crossroads, doing one building mixed and one building not, that the mixed building doesn't work and It creates problems. The least of which Is not the fact of what happens when you want, when the building gets too old and you got to rlp it down. There's a real problem between commercial and residential. The problem I've got Is adding the square footage. If they want to change from commercial to residential I don't have a problem with it. Adding 1 square foot more of space to that building I don't agree with and will vote against because the negotiations that went on when we did this for 120,000 we got 18 several things out of the developer and now to go back and come in and want to add 5000 square feet to me is not a reasonable request. Besides the problems of parking. • KR - Peter, I need to ask a question or two. The original request was for 5700 square feet and now the final request Is for 3900 square feet? PP - The original was for 5700, the staff recommended the conversion of 3900 which was the existing square footage and then the Planning Commission compromised with the 5000 square foot figure which actually comes down to 4900. KR - Okay, so tonight then we are at an addition of 4900 square feet of GRFA. PP - Correct. KR - Out of the 4900 square feet, how much of that Is new space? How much of it was retail space, how much of It is new space? PP - All of it. All of It. No, I'm sorry, no, that's 3900 hundred and some. • PJ - The 3927 is existing. KR - 3927 square feet is existing. 4900 square feet of additional GRFA then really means an additional 1000 square feet to the building. 1000 square feet is the Infill. Pi - And they really only want to add 900, l think it was just rounded off to a 1000 so that we didn't get Into a KR - All right, I'm square on that. Now, when SDD 6 was originally approved and revised and everything else, I seem to remember that there were limits on GRFA, there were limits on commercial space and there limits on the total square footage of the entire project. Why then, if we want to allow this to happen, why then are we not reducing what's allowed through the 5 phases in the entire project by the same amount that we're increasing this. In • other words, if we're Increasing GRFA by a certain number of feet, why aren't we taking a certain number of square footage out of their total GRFA that they're allowed or the total retail 19 that they're allowed? PP - Good question, and the basic answer to that Is that the owners of that unbuilt square footage wouldn't agree to reduce their number for this application. • Pi - That's never been a point of discussion and there is no where in the SDD that commercial space is set as a top limit. PP - No, then I didn't understand your question. I thought your question was was why aren't we leaving it at 120,600 and reducing it by 5000. KR - I thought we had a max on what could be built through the 5 phases, period. PP - GRFA. KR - No commercial? PP - Okay, then I did misunderstand the question. KR - Well, I know we had a limit on GRFA. Did we have a limit on commercial space? . PP - Yes, there was a limit on the commercial space for the unbuilt portions of whatever they proposed. We accepted the development plan, counted up the square footage and said that's the commercial that will be allowed and the number is about $16,000 additional. As far as the total that's out there existing, I don't believe there Is a total commercial maximum that's out there In the SDD 6. JS - I've got one additional quick question. If they were to come in for additional commercial square footage because they wanted to add some lofts to this space, what would we tell them? Are they allowed to come In and add commercial? PP - I think they would have to come through the same process. I believe they would have to come through the same process. • JS - But you're not sure what that SDD says regarding M PP _ You guys are asking some tough questionsl SDD 6 is not the cleanest, simplest ordinance that we have In our zoning code. In fact, it took on a creative approach in about 1973 and we've been trying to deaf with it ever since. Its just not that clean. it's not written so that you know because you've done SDDs how you get a proposal, you get comfortable with it at one point or another and you adopt the development plan. And that's got x amount of square footage for residential and commercial and locations and uses and this and that. This SDD Is not that clean. There Is not an overall one maximum number of commercial that can be built on the entire site. JS - Do we have any SDDs that we've increased GRFA or commercial square footage space? PP - ON all sorts of them. JS - We have? • PP - Sure. JS - Like the Westin we did, we increased it on that, didn't we? MC - How did Garton's Saloon get transferred into condominiums - under what process? PP - They redeveloped the building and condominiumized it - each space. MC - There's nothing similar here to that? Pi - Could I make a suggestion here Kent. I think there's a fair amount of confusion that I'd like to request that we table this for a few weeks and try to understand all the -- I'd like to before we do that just get some kind of a reading of what maybe the questions or additional information are but I'm in total disagreement that there's a cap of commercial on the SDD and • so I'm not meaning to save that argument, I think Peter and I need to sit down and go through the ordinance 21 is - I think my question regarding Kent have we added on QRFA in commercial r space to other SDDs I think is, I'm sitting here wondering ten years from now, fifteen years from now whoever owns that whole building is going to come to you and say we need to do a redo - a new SDD - totally redo the building and in order to do it and we've seen this recently with a number of buildings in the Village where it may have to pop out some dormers and come out with the commercial out to the street and make it a better fill in and on and on. And that will probably be proved at some point in time. ML - And we'll probably pay you as much as $3000 for that $10,000 parking space. JS - I'm not talking about parking. I'm talking about redevelopment in town and people taking a bad space and making it good and I think that's what this fellow's trying to do. I don't know. I mean, it's up to him If he thinks residential is better commercial. Sounds like he hasn't even decided yet. ML - Well, he's got something to sell. He's got an infiill and all of a sudden he got a • 5000 square foot unit that you can sell as a residential unit versus something you probably can't sell too easily as a commercial unit. JS - So do you penalize him or do you squeeze him for what ML - No, what's best for the Town Pi - But Merv, how does that relate back to ... ML - Its a give and take situation. He's asking for something. It's a negotiation. Pi - Yea, but how does that relate back to the health, safety and welfare of the community? Whether a guy can sell his unit or not? ML - It will be a healthier town and a safer town If we got the money to pay for those fees. Pi - Well, I would like to table this. 22 .x GW - One thing that I would be Interested is, Is the viability of the leasing of the 5000 square feet so when you come back JS My only Comment Is going to be and somebody recently held a open house for brokers above the River House Condominiums, there's a penthouse up there that the fellow owns and he was short term renting it and I can tell you there are only a handful of penthouses in all of Vail Village and that's the only one that I know, maybe there might be one other, that will short term rent. GW - How large was that? JS - It was 4000 square feet. Vail Athletic Club might have one, but you have a few others. If you can think of all of the buildings In town and which might have a penthouse on it, most are owner -occupied. Well, it's a penthouse in the sense that Its a top floor 5000 square foot .. • ML - With a good view of the Sonnenalp redevelopment. Pi - I do think that's a valid question and we can do some more research on that and the staff can do some more research on that. is - I think you're right. I think the VRA reservationists were at that unit for that open house and that was the reason for the open house and they were excited about having a big unit available. ML - You answered his question different that I read this document. In SDD 6 what Is the total number of square feet in that building now? Both residential and commercial. What's the total number of square feet? PP - No Idea. • ML - But, I mean, Is like 120,000 plus the commercial? Let's say 100,000. PP - You're talking about this one building? 23 or ML - This SDD 6. The next question Is, under his proposal, how many square feet will it, square feet - I don't care GRFA, I don't care commercial, how many square feet, will the square feet not Increase by how much? PP - Say that again? ML - What will be the difference In the number of square feet before and after this proposal? PP - 1000. ML - 1787? PP - No, 1000 and It could be 900. ML - But the original request was for 5714. PP - Yes, it has been knocked down. ML - And now it's been knocked down to 1000. Additional square feet. PP - 3900 exists today. They want another 1000 to Infill lofts and add 1000 square feet. Pi - I guess our reasoning there is that we don't want to take a bad commercial unit and make it a bad residential unit and we need to do a site visit and get into the space and look at it so that everybody understands what we're talking about, but the whole Idea In adding the space is I think when you walk in there you'll see that If you are to go along with the idea that it could be utilized as a residential unit, there be no, I don't think, logical reason to restrict not at least adding enough square footage to make it a good unit of some kind and make It a good residential unit. JS - Peter, what happens when the owners of the rest of the top floor, commercial in the building's common site, we have the same problem. We want to build residential. PP - I hope they don't! 24 ML - Why do you hope they don't? TS - What does your study of commercial uses show. We did a study what 3 or 4 years ago. What do we say in that study that should be done? Are we going counter to that • study? PP - To which one? TS - The one we did on needs of new commercial spaces In the villages? We did a study several years ago. PP - I don't think it's necessarily so, that that study did show that we could handle more commercial space but it didn't get Into the specifics of what's viable commercial space and what Isn't In terms of specifically where it's located. I don't think that this is really going against the retail market analysis, the one we're referring to. Pi - Well, and to answer the land use plan shows that we have a deficit of 70,000 square feet of retail which I know some people tend to disagree with. I agree with. I'll be the last one to be in favor of reducing the amount of commercial square feet In town where it's viable space, where it's ground level space or it's in a good location, but I think there's a real concern here for second and third floor space, that is difficult to get people Into that are into ski boots or whatever. TS - Now Is there presently third floor In this space or is there only a third floor if we allow the extra 1000 square feet? Pi - There's presently a third floor. ML - It's a loft retail space. This is where the old Polo Shop used to be. PJ - So again, I guess, is there any consensus, is there any direction if we table this • to TS - My consensus Is I will vote no. 25 Pi - Okay, Gall? C GW - The biggest problem I think is the increase in the GRFA and I guess the question is, If you switch it from 3900 commercial to 3900 residential, would you be getting all this static. And then the second question for that, and that's why Its viability Is, is this 5000 square foot residential unit hugely better as it relates to the rental market which creates life and vitality within the core, because we want to, we need better hotel rooms. So that's. I guess, what I'm struggling with. Pi - I know where you're coming from. ML - To get one more square inch in that building which was negotiated, you'd have to give me something to make it worthwhile and I would suggest the $7500 a year of the ski museum's condominium fees. KR - I don't know how viable It Is In the first place, Merv, I mean after you buy It and remodel it for that kind of a use, you know, a lot of dollars In it, that's not our concern however. I guess what confuses me about this Issue is we have granted some additions to SDDs before but I don't know if we've done It on a piecemeal basis. I guess the last one we looked at was the Westin, or whatever name that SDD is, and we looked at parking, we looked at commercial retail, we looked at the spaces that haven't been built, both In the area of the ruins down there it's called and the infill space where the tent is on the lawn and where the rockpile is and we understood that whole thing. What I don't have tonight is a full understanding of this SDD. We're plecemealing It and I don't know what's to keep the next guy from coming In next week and biting off another piece and that's the part of the process that I don't Ilke, so for that reason i would be reluctant to vote for it tonight. It I understood more about the ramifications of the entire SDD I'd be more willing to look at it favorably. JS - One of the problems Is that you have this condominiumized SDD now. Your 26 owner has to get everybody else's approval before he can change his part of the SDD and r how do you change an SDD when you're just one of many condominium owners. I guess we're saying tonight we could. I don't see, quite frankly, why he needs more than 3900 square feet to make one unit. I mean, that would be probably one of the five largest units in Vail Village. There are very few that are over 3000 square feet so to go above 3900 to do one unit - it will be a 5 bedroom unit with the biggest living room in Vail Village and still have room leftover. ML - He's going to sell it to an Iran prince. JS - If we were saying he's going to do 5 units and you want them to be 900 square feet each or something like that, but when you do that then you add more parking. Then obviously you have a lot more parking requirements everytime you add another unit, there's supposedly another family to be there. I think 3900 square feet is plenty big. • ML - You can probably get Kent's approval by saying that they'd take it with a dog. MC - I just stepped out for a minute, are you asking how I would vote tonight, is that what your question is? Pi - I have requested that we table it and I was just going to try to get a general.. MC - I don't think I could support it tonight. Pi - a consensus as to where we're headed, and I think I have a pretty good Idea. Now it does bring up a good question as to who owns the square footage within a zone district and the rights to use it, because, and a for instance. For instance, I live at Coldstream. That project has a total of 65,000 square feet of GRFA. That is a pool of GRFA out there which the project was maybe built to 60,000, so there are 5000 additional. So as • people want to add on they can come in. And they don't go to the developer of Cascade Village or Coldstream to purchase that square footage. 27 ML - It's probably called common area. Pi - No, there's excess GRFA. And all I'm saying Is that I think he didn't have any problem with us going to Joe Staufer and saying, sell us some of the GRFA, so it's kind of 40 interesting In the different SDDs , that square footage Is actually owned by Individuals and not available to the entire property. And in some Instances It's not, It's an interesting point that ought to be considered, I think, In future SDDs because I think you do need to build in at least enough flexibility. 1 mean, I pity the guy who has to come In here that does own a residential unit in Vail Village Inn Phase I and wants to add a 2500 foot loft and to have to go through this, that he would have to go through this process. So I think we have to be careful about pinning SDDs down to the exact square footage without leaving some sort of a bit of a flexible amount for fine tuning. You know, I see this as a fine tuning and I guess I'm In the minority and that's okay. But, I think it's been a good discussion. TS - It emphasizes the point that we likely shouldn't have SDDs In the first place. • We're getting Into a bag of worms here that's going to get worse as these buildings get older and you have to redo them, they're almost Impossible. JS - Peter , It you have a duplex lot and there's a duplex on It, and there's 1000 square feet of extra GRFA available to that lot and one of the sides comes to you and says I want to take the 1000, do you say you have to get the permission of the other side or what do you do? PP - Go for it. JS - You just let them take the 1000? KP - We don't require the approval of the other side. KR - First come, first serve. • JS - Really?? 28 MC _ It's a race for the footage. ML - We should talk about that. • JS - That's a problem that somebody can do that and take all of the lot's GRFA. ML - Maybe we should have GRFA die after a certain number of years. PJ - Kent, I'd like to request anyway that we table this I guess indefinitely. PP - Yea, I'd like to table it to a specific date though. Pi - Yea, let's table It to November 13. MC - So moved. PP - Whatever you're comfortable with. KR - Is there a second? JS - Second. KR - Moved by Mike Cacioppo and second by John Slevin to table Ordinance #24 on • first reading for two weeks. Is there any discusslon? It's actually 3 weeks, next regular meeting. KR - All in favor of the motion signify by saying yes". ALL - "Yes" KR - Opposed? (pause) KR - Mayor votes yes. Passes unanimously. 29