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