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