Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-04 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Mery Lapin Robert LeVine MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda was a Consent Agenda: A. Approval of Minutes of May 7 and 21, 1991, meetings. B. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance rezoning a tract of land generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space, Section 18.32, to Public Use District, Section 18.36. Applicants: Town of Vail and Vail Associates. Mayor,Rose read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve both items on the Consent Agenda, with the second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 18.04.130, the definition of floor area, gross residential (GRFA), and setting forth the details in' "regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz stated the next three ordinances, 15, 16 and 17, were all interrelated issues, with the biggest issue being how the Town deals with common area when dealing with a variety of different Multi -Family developments. Kristan stated on May 13, 1991, the PEC had reviewed the amendment to GRFA to Multi -Family developments. The motion passed Planning Commission 4-0. Kristan referred the Council to page 3 of the May 13, 1991, memo from the Community Development Department to the PEC stating a definition of common area, indicating as common area is calculated by taking 20% of allowable GRFA and allocating that square footage to common areas. The common areas or spaces included in the existing definition of common area were common hallways, common closets, lobby areas, stairways, and common recreational facilities. The intent of the amendment was to raise this allotment to 35%, now considering areas previously not counted. Kristan reiterated they were not adding square footage; simply, they were now counting areas previously not considered. She then discussed common stairways and elevator shafts, common meeting facilities, common mechanical areas, and management and support space areas. She stated the objective of modifying the common area credit was to insure that the common area percentage would provide ample flexibility for the development of common spaces. A question in regard to the 35% was whether the need for common area doubles if density doubles. In most cases, Kristan stated, the need for common area would increase but it probably would not double. An argument could be made for doubling square footage for hallways, storage, meeting rooms and office support; however, lobby areas, recreational facilities, and mechanical spaces would probably not require twice the space to serve twice the number of people. There would also be an increase in square footage for stairways. Therefore, a common area credit of between 30 and 35% seemed reasonable for the typical development. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.14.090, Density Control -Residential Cluster District; Section 18.16.090, Density Control -Low Density Multi -Family District; Section 18.18.090, Density Control -Medium Density Multi -Family District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz explained the goal of these amendments to the definition of GRFA had been to treat all properties equitably. As an example, GRFA was added to the Density Control Section of certain zone districts to compensate for the elimination of credits, and allowable common area for Multi -Family buildings would be increased to make up for the changes to how common area would be defined. The one remaining issue relative to GRFA that warrants consideration by the PEC is that over the past five years a development of single-family and duplex homes on lots zoned for Multi -Family development has become very common. Single family and duplex homes are permitted in the residential cluster, low -density residential, and medium -density residential districts. However, such development "falls through the cracks" with regard to GRFA credits. Kristan indicated this would not increase or decrease GRFA, but the attempt was being made to come up with a more workable definition on how GRFA is calculated. It was recommended that 225 square feet of GRFA be added to the Density Control Section of the RC, LDMF, and MDMF zone districts. The square footage would then compensate for the change in how stairways were calculated and would be available to single-family or duplex development only. It would also compensate for the 25 square foot air lock and 50 square foot mechanical. Lynn Fritzlen moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 17, series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance repealing section 18.04.363, Site Coverage - Hillside Residential, Single -Family, Two -Family and Primary/Secondary Zone Districts; an ordinance repealing and reenacting section 18.04.360, Definition of Site Coverage; Section • 18.14.110, Site Coverage -Residential Cluster; Section 18.16.110, Site Coverage -Low Density Multi -Family District; Section 18.18.110, Site Coverage -Medium Density Multi -Family District Section 18.20.110, Site Coverage -High Density Multi -Family District; Section 18.22.110, Site Coverage -Public Accommodation District; Section 18.24.150, Site Coverage -Commercial Core I District; Section 18.26.120, Site Coverage -Commercial Core II District; Section 18.27.090, Site Coverage -Commercial Core III District; Section 18.28.120, Site Coverage -Commercial Service Center District; Section 18.29.090, Site Coverage -Arterial Business District; Section 18.30.110, Site Coverage -Heavy Service District Section 18.21.110, Site Coverage -Agricultural and Open Space District; District and setting forth the details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan Pritz indicated this ordinance would allow for a consistent definition of site coverage in all zone districts. The request was recommended for approval by the PEC unanimously on May 13, 1991. Kristan further stated that amendments to GRFA and site coverage approved last December addressed Single -Family and Duplex Residential development only. The last step to amending GRFA and site coverage regulations would be to address Multi -Family and Commercial Development. The fundamental question in regard to this 10 new site coverage definition is whether the new definition of site coverage is appropriate for Multi -Family and Commercial Development. The staff and task force agreed the new definition is not only appropriate but also necessary. Three major changes are as follows: 1. Cantilevered portions of buildings are now calculated as site coverage; 2. Any portion of a roof overhang that extends more than 4 feet from the face of the building is now included in site coverage calculations; 3. Any portion of a covered deck or similar feature that extends more than 4 feet from the face of the building is now included in site coverage calculations. The justification for these changes is that these design features affect the appearance of the building. Cantilevered buildings, overhangs, and covered decks all add to building bulk and as such it is appropriate for site coverage regulations to establish some limit on the extent of these design features. Adopting the new definition would not prohibit cantilevers, overhangs, or decks, but would merely establish parameters that in some cases may result in these features being calculated as site coverage. Mery Lapin requested comparisons be provided before second reading of this ordinance, with common area allowances for Garden of the Gods, Manor Vail, Christiania, or some similar range showing examples of how this will affect future common area. Tom Steinberg moved to approve this ordinance, with a second coming from Rob Levine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda was ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, first reading, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 25 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Peter Jacobs, Days Inn. Mayor Rose read the title in full. At this point, Mayor Rose indicated the applicant was not yet present and indicated to Council they should move forward with Item No. 7. Item No. 7 on the agenda was Resolution No. 12, Series of 1991, a Resolution approving an amendment to the personnel rules by the Town Manager. Larry Eskwith explained this Resolution would correct a typographical error that occurred when these rules were amended. The current section of the personnel rules dealing with how appeals of employee discipline are handled was unclear. Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution No. 12, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5- 0. At this time Peter Jacobs had appeared at the meeting so Council moved back to Item No. 6, consideration of Ordinance No. 18, Series • of 1991, which title had already been read into the record. Jill Kammerer, Town Planner, indicated approval of this SDD would allow the construction of a new three-story, 18,897 square foot, 37-unit, free-standing employee housing building along Chamonix Road at the northwest corner of the Days Inn property. On Tuesday, May 28, 1991, the PEC, by a vote of 6-0, had recommended approval of the Chamonix Special Development District, subject to numerous conditions. These conditions are outlined in a memorandum dated May 31, 1991, from the Community Development Department to the PEC. Jill presented a brief overview of the project. Approval of the SDD was required in order to allow the development to occur because the proposed development did not meet underlying Commercial Core III zone district development standards: there was a slight shortage of parking, i.e. twelve (12) spaces, the development site exceeded its allowable GRFA, and some landscaping requirements had not been met. Jill indicated the employee housing units which were a mix of studios, one -bedroom, and two -bedroom units, would house approximately 49 people and would be permanently restricted to rental units for full-time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley. These units could not be rented for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. Jill indicated the Community Development • Department staff felt the project was ideally located and well - suited to the proposed development plan because of the site's proximity to services, bus stops, and commercial areas. Jill stated the proposed development was a good transition between the adjacent higher density and lower density developments and with the primary access off the North Frontage Road, the development will generate few automobile trips into the lower density residential areas to the north. Because of the slope of the site and the proposed structure, the development would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. Enclosure of trash receptacles would also enhance the project. Jill specified the four goals of the land use plan were met through this project. A geologic hazard study and mitigation study had to be done and would need to be done prior to the Town issuance of a building permit. The developer will also contribute funds toward this project. Jill indicated all conditions of approval could be incorporated into the body of this Ordinance. Peter Jacobs responded to questions from Council by indicating improvements to the facades of the Days Inn and the Shoppette, which housed the 7--Eleven, were not to be included because of the economics of the situation. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 18 with the following conditions: 1. Section 5, No. 3 - Trash Enclosure should be modified to delete the dumpster reorientation requirement;2. Section 5.1 (d) describing the $50,000.00 contribution to the road changes be modified to reflect council's desire to have cash contribution available for Frontage Road improvements and not just for construction of a left turn lane adjacent to the project; 3. New Item E, requiring a $10.00 a square foot upgrade of the exterior of the Shoppette, or $90,000.00, to be accomplished by October 1, 1996, in conformation with DRB standards at that time; 4. New Item F, requiring a biannual report be submitted to the Town regarding unit occupancy and rental rates requirement; 5. Numbers needed to be checked on page 2, Section 4, in regard to density control; 6. All conditions of approval be put into the main body of the development plan Ordinance; 7. The phasing verbiage changed; 8. A new traffic study, as may be required by the Town Engineer, required. At this point Rob LeVine seconded this motion with conditions. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item 8 on the agenda was an appeal of a Design Review Board approval allowing the Vail Recreation District to remove one tree in Ford Park and transplant a second one. Andy Xnudtsen indicated on May 15, 1991, the DRB voted 5-0 approving the proposal to cut down a tree that was dying and to transplant another tree. The DRB conditioned the approval, requiring the VRD to plant additional trees if that transplanted tree died. The VRD would then submit a proposal for DRB approval if additional trees were needed. The tree that was dying had been cut down on May 22, 1991. Andy indicated that according to the VRD, the current softball field did • not meet regulations for a standard men's playing field and the request to transplant the second tree would accomplish this. The Council indicated the request was appropriate and that Pete Burnett should oversee the transplanting project. Further, they requested an opinion from Todd Oppenheimer, Landscape Architect for the Town of Vail. The VRD was requested to bring back the issue at the following Tuesday work session to be held on June 11, 1991. There being no further business, Rob LeVine moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. Bra"Me er,Town Clerk Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer