The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-06-18 Town Council Minutes4 0 0 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 1991 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Peggy Osterfoss Mery Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. The second item on the agenda, Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations, was postponed and will be rescheduled, as the recipients were unavailable to attend this meeting to accept their awards. Third on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1991, second 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. B. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, second 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. C. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991, second 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 18.32.110, 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. D. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, second 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. Mery Lapin moved to approve items A,B, and C on the Consent Agenda, and requested item D, Ordinance No. 18, be removed from the Consent Agenda; with a second coming from Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Kent Rose asked Kristan Pritz to expand on Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991. Kristan Pritz noted the changes/corrections since first reading in Ordinance No. 18 which were as follows: requirement for permanently restricted employee housing units with semi-annual tenant reports; requirement that conditional uses are to be approved by the PEC, requirement for further information on the projected $50,000.00 figure for road improvements; requirement that the owner be required to expend not less than $90,000.00 by 9/30/96 to upgrade the exterior of the Shoppette. After further discussion about the $50,000.00 and $90,000.00, Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1991, on second reading; with second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1990, relating to fireplaces and air quality control measures, first reading of the changes/amendments to the ordinance. At issue: repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.28 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify code provisions relating to air pollution control. Presented by Susan Scanlan was the result of the joint Planning Commission and Town Council Work Session decision held on May 14, 1991, when discussion took place re: changes to the air quality ordinance to allow for the installation of certified units. Changes were as follows: definition of a certified solid fuel burning, device now reflects the need for the device to be an EPA Phase 2 certified unit and to produce 7.5 grams of particulates per hour or less; Section 8.28.030 changed to allow for the installation of one new certified solid fuel burning device in new construction, or two gas log fireplaces; Section 8.28.030, No. 3C to add sections which require the gas log/fireplace installation in an accommodation to have automatic shut-off timers; Section 8.28.040, No. 1 to again decreased the number of gas log fireplaces that could be installed in dwelling units to two, and those for restricted units to one; requirement for timing devices or thermostats for gas appliance shut-off in accommodation units; Section 8.28.050B to say that during the remodel of a unit, if the existing fireplace is altered or moved strictly for aesthetic reasons, that unit shall be forced to comply with the provisions of the ordinance and be required to install a certified solid fuel burning device or a gas unit. Jim Gibson pointed out that one of support elements of this ordinance was a measurement over a period of time in monitoring to determine whether or not the program is successful. Susan advised that they will be conducting an inventory to get an accurate count of what is currently existing within Town limits. The Council's decision, Susan recalled, was that at the end of a three (3) year period, we would look for voluntary conversion of 50% of existing units in Town. This will be monitored by building permits. She added that they will let lodges know through public education effort materials about economics of conversion to gas. She noted that these materials would hopefully be together by end of next month or first part of August. It was agreed that completed DRB applications will be needed by July 15, 1991. Ken Friedman's wife said that her friend is willing to give her the rights to his open hearth fireplace, and convert his fireplace to gas. Larry Eskwith said there is no transfer of rights in this matter. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance No. 42, with suggested changes/language clarification; with a second coming from Mery Lapin. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 on the agenda was Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, a resolution authorizing the appointment of a new indexing agent and Amendment No. 1 to the remarketing agreement for the Town of Vail $17,000,000.00 Sports Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series of 1984. Mery Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 14; with a second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 on the agenda, was the presentation of the 1990 Audited Financial Statement. Steve Thompson turned the presentation over to Chris Anderson, partner at McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson. She advised that the audit was completed in accordance with State statutes, the Federal Single Audit Act, and our home rule charter. In respect to the federal grants, the auditors must report every finding of noncompliance, even if it is a penny, because the Federal Government wants to be the one to decide whether or not there is a problem. It is now required that a drug free workplace policy with specific policies be adopted by the Town. Mery Lapin moved to accept the Town of Vail's 1990 Financial Report as prepared by McMahon, Armstrong, Novosad and Anderson; with a second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 on the agenda was an appeal of a denial of an exterior landscape lighting plan for property located at Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing. The Design Review Board reviewed the plan on May 1, 1991, and voted 4-0 to disapprove it. Appellant: Renato Ibarra, represented by Art Abplanalp. Andy Knudtsen distributed a letter from George Lamb, DRB member, providing more detailed considerations by DRB on this proposal. The lighting at the site created too much of an impact on adjacent properties. At this Town Council meeting, before Mr. Abplanalp began his presentation, Kent Rose made it clear this was an appeal of a DRB decision, so the Town Council was limited to what the DRB had looked at. It was established the Town Council did have the right to visit the site during this meeting. Larry Eskwith asked Kristan Pritz if the lighting complied with DRB guidelines. She said that the lighting did not comply. Prints reviewed by Lyndon Ellefson, the landscape architect, were not the same ones presented to DRB in 1989, although Mr. Ellefson was the one who made the original presentation of the plan to DRB at that time. The original 1989 prints can not be found. Before Council recessed to make a site visit to Mr. Ibarra's, Kristan pointed out that she had called Mr. Abplanalp the previous Friday to be sure that the lighting Council would see tonight would be what DRB saw during their site visit. Kent also asked Andy to review the lighting guidelines for Council. Andy referred him to 6/18/91 memorandum concerning minimizing lighting impact. Council then recessed at 9:22 p.m. to visit the site. The party returned from the site visit at 9:56 p.m. Speaking against the lighting were Nancy Byers and Jay Peterson. After reviewing photographs brought by Mr. Abplanalp of lighting at other residences in the area, Mery Lapin made a motion to uphold the 5/1/91 DRB decision to deny the application of the exterior landscape lighting plan finding that the exterior lighting as proposed does have an impact. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1; Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Item No. 8 on the agenda was a request for a 4th of July fireworks display in the Town of Vail due to complaints received by TOV residents about there not being a display here. Kent Rose expressed some confusion, noting that his understanding was that VRA was contracted to do special events. Steve Barwick advised that VRA originally had budgeted for it, but Forest Service denied use of land for the display citing liability issues, so VRA reappropriated funds. Ron Phillips was advised that Forest Service might not allow the display, and asked them not to make a final decision yet. VA had said we could use Gold Peak property with three to five days notice. Pending contract negotiations and insurance coverage can be finalization, Jim Gibson made a motion to approve expenditure of $15,000.00 out of VRA contingency fund for a TOV fireworks display on 7/5/91; with a second coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. As there was no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • Kent R. Rose, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela A. A,�..yerl.J-Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto 0 • I TRANSCRIPT OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF AN EXTERIOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL - MAY 1, 1991. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, COLORADO (303) 476-2100 DATE: TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem Lynn Fritzlen Robert Levine Peggy Osterfoss Jim Gibson Mery Lapin Ron Phillips, Town Manager Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Ned Gwathmey, Design Review Board Chairman TOWN STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kristan Pritz, Director of Community Development Andy Knudtsen, Planner Shelly Mello, Planner CITIZENS PRESENT: Renato Ibarra, Applicant Art Abplanalp, Attorney for Renato Ibarra Glen Ellefson, Landscape Designer for Mr. Ibarra'. Jay Peterson, Adjacent property owner Nancy Byers, Adjacent property owner TOWN OF PAIL 75 south fro"s road vall, colorado 81657 (303) 479-2138 office of the town clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The foregoing is a full, true, and correct transcription of the Appeal by Renato Ibarra, Applicant, which is included in the final minutes of the Vail Town Council Meeting held on Tuesday, June 18, 1991. This is an Appeal of a denial by the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail, Colorado, of an exterior landscape lighting plan for property located at Lot 1, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd filing, denial dated May 1, 1991. 40 Date;. P -7,ry-11 Time: d 100 -,.1 G Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk of the Town of Vail STATE OF COLORADO ) ) 88. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me appeared Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk of the Town of Vail, Colorado, this ' �` day of 1991. J My commission expires: /, 19 9 !� Notary, '95 s. �A _%7�GLC� �j�t p� •1 Address �!J :! L' S % myb;(i't J 1llilcl l)ttll �Qj 7F S. Frontage Hoad' Vail, CG 61f;;7 0 • TRANSCRIPT OF AN APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY DRB OF AN EXTERIOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1,BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DENIAL MAY 1, 1991. TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 18, 1991 ANDY KNUDTSEN: What I just passed out is a letter from George Lamb, one of the DRB members, and that provides some of the... more details on what the DRB considered on this proposal. What I will do is just go through the background and give you the history as far as what happened when. Starting with April 5th, that's when the Town received a proposal showing - it was . a site plan showing the landscape illumination and P' that was submitted for Design Review Board approval. The Town believes that improvements like this need DRB approval, as I noted in the memo according to Section 18.54.030A. We believe it is an improvement of open space that within the corporate limits of the Town that requires DRB approval. The standard 1 regarding exterior lighting is listed below that, and it comes from Section 18.54.050C11 in the Design • Review section of the Zoning Code and that says that exterior lighting shall be designed and located in a manner to minimize impact of the lighting upon living areas within a proposed project and upon adjacent structures and properties. The night before the DRB hearing, on April 30th, the Design Review Board went up to the site to evaluate the lighting and we scheduled it after it was dark so that they could get ;the .impact or that they could see the situation as it was during the nighttime, and we do have the minibus here tonight and we think it might be good if you could see it at night to evaluate its impact on the: neighborhood. At any 0 rate, they were out there at night, discussed it - 2 - 0 1 , with the landscape architect, who showed the lights and showed how they could be screened. They talked about the way it affected the different areas, both i along Beaver Dam Road as well as the Valley and how it was able to be seen from Potato Patch and that area. So it has small-scale impacts as well as large-scale impacts. The following day at the DRB hearing they voted 4-0 to deny the application, mentioning in their vote that they believed it provides, I mean, creates too much of an impact on the adjacent properties. We got an appeal ten days later and that is what brings us here tonight. KRISTAN PRITZ: We can do a couple of things here because of the time of year. It's still, it is almost twilight right now, so we could hear maybe the applicant's i presentation. The applicant is represented by Art - 3 - r ...,, i. Abplanalp and, Art, I don't know if that is acceptable to you, but you can say your piece and then we could all get in the minibus and go up there. RENT ROSE: Yeah, Art, before you start, I guess a point of clarification. This is an appeal of a DRB decision, so what the Council is looking at this evening is limited to what DRB looked at. PRITZ: That's correct. ROSE: And I would assume that relates to all aspects, so it appears that maybe this was built before it was approved so did the DRB actually go out in the field and look at the lights? So we do have the right, I guess, to do that under the process. ART ABPLANALP: Yes. • - 4 - 46 0 ROSE: So, I understand that. We will then try to limit our discussion this evening to the issues that the DRB considered. okay, Art? If you will? i ABPLANALP: Mr.Mayor, ladies and gentlemen, this is Renato Ibarra, who is president of the corporation which actually owns the property. The permitting which was done was done in Mr. Ibarra Is name and I believe you can arrange for the lights to be turned on shortly after the presentation? We also have Glen Ellefson, the landscape architect, who has worked either directly or indirectly on this project so we have a degree of formality or informality as far as the presentation that you would like. I think that we would like to start off with the general background, which goes back a good distance beyond i the April date, which was just mentioned, if that - 5 - is acceptable to you. Then we can go out there perhaps at the conclusion of our presentation. It will be dark. ROSE: Again, as long as the issue is what the DRB had to consider. LARRY ESXWITH: I think the issue tonight, Art, is whether or not it complies with the Design Review Board's standards and I think that is the issue. ABPLANALP: Well, Larry, you can limit it as you are aware, to • the extent that you want. Our position is the same that it has been throughout. That this project was permitted by the Town of Vail. It wasn't something that someone went out and<built. The reason it was permitted, like many projects identical to it or just built, was that it was the consensus of the 0 Town and the Town Staff, that, until last December . - 6 - .or November, the Design Review regulations did not apply to landscape lighting. ( JAY PETERSON: I am going to object to this. I think this is an appeal fora Design Review Board decision. if he wants to take that on, you go to Planning Committee first and then it comes to here. ROSE: I think that's right, Art, and that is what I tried to explain.earlier, so maybe we ought to get back on track here. AEPLANALP: Well, again, the testimony and presentation can be limited. sJay and Jay's client have basically been dictating.to the Town what is happening, which we find some difficulty with. RON PHILLIPS: Art, that is a misstatement and I would appreciate it if you would change the statement to a more correct,statement. - 7 - ABPLANALP: That is absolutely a correct statement. PHILLIPS: That is not. Jay, nor no one else dictates to the Town what the Town does. ROSE: Please correct your statement, Art. ABPLANALP: I will not because I think the ,evidence will indicate and establish that, Ron. PHILLIPS: I want the record to show that this statement that has been made is a misstatement and not correct. There is no one outside the Town of Vail to dictate to the Town Staff what to do. Period. ABPLANALP: Mr. Mayor, may I present the exhibits which we have and if you do not feel it appropriate to consider any of the evidence, that is obviously well within your discretion. ROSE: We will look at the Design Review Baord considerations, because that is what we are here for 8 - • 62 0 ABPLANALP: tonight. .It is ,a DRB appeal. We will look at the issues that were discussed at the DRB. The difficulty with that, Mr. Mayor, is that there is no record of what the DRB, ah, took place. There is no tape because the tape was not turned on. The account which you have been presented by Mr. Knudtsen is inaccurate in reference to what the Town's own files have as far as the reasons for denial and that is among the exhibits. They were helpful enough to take notes on what the actual reasons were and all of that we are prepared to present, and that goes to the reasons that the Design Review Board denied it and why we are here tonight. I don't mean to be argumentative, but it seems fair, and that is what Kristan asked for last Friday night, was an opportunity to be fair to the - 9 - 4 DRB. We are asking for an opportunity to have some fairness directed to Mr. Ibarra. ESKWITH: If I may comment. ROSE: Well, yeah, we just have to take some advice from our counsel on this issue. i ESKWITH: I think that what you have done, -Art, is you have appealed the decision of the Design Review Board relating to whether or not these particular lights comply with the provisionsof the Design Review i Board or whether they do not.• Obviously, the Design Review guidelines, excuse me. Obviously, the Design Review Board itself found that they did not. You have appealed that decision. I think that is what the Town Council needs to consider tonight. If you have a problem with; the staff determination, and you feel that the staff determination was incorrect, 0 then, again, as we discussed once before on one of these appeals, the appropriate way to have handled the staff interpretation was to appeal it to the Planning Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.66 of the Town Municipal Code. If you have a problem with the statute, again, I don't think this Board should consider the validity or lack thereof of any statute or ordinance of the Town of Vail this evening. What they can do this evening, on an appeal, is consider • whether or not the lights in question comply with the Design. Review guidelines. If you have any other type of action you need to take relating to decisions made by the staff, I think you need to do that in a different way than appealing the Design Review Board's decision to the Town Council. ABPLANALP: Larry, my client made the decision to try to work with the Town of Vail through the Design Review process and that is where he was led. I became involved in this actively after the denial by the Design Review Board, but that type of decision should not, in my mind, be penalized, where the standard has been, the argument has been made 40 throughout, that this standard is not applicable and it never has been argued to be applicable, but we •. are going to try to work with you on that. Following Larry's argument, you are then penalized for trying to work with the Town of Vail. I ask you, is that the type of process you want? We are prepared to make a presentation. To the extent that you wish to ignore it, you may. To the extent you wish to take it into consideration, you I hope will. - 12 - n But are you denying us the right, then, to make the presentation of the background, all of which relates to and was considered by. the Design Review Board, Larry?. ESKWITH: I think that all the Town Council can consider tonight is whether or not this particular project complies with the Design Review guidelines. That's what you're: appealing. You have many ways which allow you to attack other decisions made by the Town . Staff, but tonight. the ,decision which is being appealed is a Design Review Board decision. I don't think it's fair. In fact, I think our ordinances specifically state that what they can look at this evening is basically the same presentation that was given to the Design Reiew Board. It is an appeal of a lower administrative body's action. It is not i - 13 - a presentation of an issue on your part of what happened from day one to Mr. Ibarra's house. The question is, do the lights comply with the Design Review guidelines or do they not as found by the Design Review Board? ABPLANALP: Larry, the question is whether the lights fall within the regulations of the Design Review guidelines, which this Council is entitled to decide. ESKWITH: This is the same thing we argued the last time, and it is not this Town .Council; which makes that decision in the first instance. It is the Town Staff which decides whether or not an item goes to Design Review or not, and, if..indeed you object to the decision of the Town Staff in that regard, you have an appropriate avenue, or your client had an 14 _ , appropriate avenue set forth in the Municipal Code and that ''avenue is to appeal the administrative t decision to the Planning Commission. ABPLANALP: Mr. ''Mayor, you' and the Council make the final decisions as to what you hear and what you cannot hear, and I feel that everything that we are prepared to present meets the test that Larry has put forth. If you want to disallow it, item by item, then that's maybe appropriate. • PEG OSTERFOSS: I'think that the point that is being made is that if we have the same presentation and the same materials, I mean, I don't know if they received these little packets that you have now, and that we go on the same site visit, those are the parameters of this appeal'. ` ABPLANALP: I understand. And I understand you. - 15 - OSTERFOSS: And if there needs to be a different appeal, it starts through the Planning Commission. ABPLANALP: I understand his position and I understand you, but my question is, is the Council not interested in the fact that this project was permitted in 1989 and final approval was given in 1990? Is that irrelevant to this? And the .fact that Mr. Ibarra was pulled in five months after final approval was given? PETERSON: I object._ I prepared for an appeal of the Design Review Board. OSTERFOSS: It's just not the form. ESKWITH: I think I have made a decision,.at least I didn't make the decision, but I have given advice to the Town Council, to make a decision, and my advice is that this hearing is an .appeal,from the Design i - 16 - 0 Review Board and should be substantially what was presented to the Design Review Board at the time. �f It should not be a total history of everything that has 'occurred on,this item from. day one if those things don''t relate to the design review. MERV LAPIN: The question that I asked Larry when he came over I think bears some discussion also, or at least being on the record for the general public to understand, and that is, is the applicant precluded • at this point in time from bringing up these issue by going to the Planning commission and then appealing the staffs decision so that we might hear the additional information and, Larry, your answer is3 ESKWITH: I don't know. Is there still time left, pursuant to the ordinance, to make the appeal? - 17 - PRITZ: I guess that our point is that letters were, we started these letters back on November 16, 1990, identifying the issue to Mr. Ibarra, and the fact that the staff did not agree that the lighting was approved and they have it up there on the site now, and I think that the way these things work is if an owner or an applicant feels that this staff is not making the appropriate decision given our regulations, then they need to appeal that decision of the staff within a time limit which, I believe, is about ten days. ESRWITH: it is a ten day period. PRITZ: This has been going on for quite a while, this issue, and we do appreciate the fact that Mr. Ibarra has been trying to work.with.,the staff and j think • tonight the focus is,really on the DRB appeal. - 18 _ • �J ABPLANALP:. It is an interesting mechanism which penalizes the person in the,field who attempts to work with the f Town when they disagree with the staff decision. • It is something you might want to reflect on. We'll, we'll play by Larry's rules, but with one clarification. Now, the review process which is .listed on the letter which we were presented, and I am not sure what was circulated to you, whether i it was the ,same one or not, that says they, being • the Design Review Board, concluded that the lighting which had been installed did not meet the code guideline listed above and was not compatible with the neighborhood. Now, among our evidence is photographs of other similar lighting in the neighborhood, including.some of which Mr. Peterson was involved. And I don't know whether the Design - 19 - Review Board looked at those or not. There is no record. There is no tape. There is nothing except some notes where three members of the Design Review Board said they would never approve lighting in trees. ESKWITH: These relate to Design Review guidelines and I think that is a different situation than going back to items that occurred. ABPLANALP: Larry, may I have an answer as to whether we are i. precluded for getting into the question of what the neighborhood is like? ROSE: Again, we are saying that you can present testimony that deals with the DRB guidelines for the approval of that outdoor lighting and that we will take anything that you have to offer that was presented in that regard to the Design Review Board. -20- 0 ABPLANALP: What if we don't know if it was presented? Many of these.lights,go on and off. There are lights that were on. The Town building inspector's, no, pardon • me, the Town electrical innspector's lights have been turned off now. We can't get a light - those were not permitted. ROSE: Did you present anything to the DRB, Art? ABPLANALP:. I was not there. ROSE: Did anybody present anything to the DRB? I mean, . can I get down to that? I mean, and you are telling me that you don't know what you presented to the DRB? I want to hear what you presented to the DRB. Apparently, I think that is what I want to hear. If you don't know what that is, sit down, let Mr. Ibarra get up and explain what he presented to the DRB and we will limit what we hear to that 21 testimony. ABPLANALP: Mr. Ellefson was the person who made the presentation to the Design Review Board and he, I think, can do that. We should probably have a table in front of the Council so that you can look at what was presented. Is that possible? ROSE: I think so. ABPLANALP: Would you explain to the Council? Okay, well, this first document is an exhibit. First, would you like an area map to orient you as far as what properties we are talking about. Keeping an objective to the DRB? LAPIN: Yes, that would be helpful. Also, we didn't receive any of the complaint letters; did we? Has Council received any of the letters of complaint? ' - 22 - 0 i ABPLANALP: PRITZ: ELLEFSON: PRITZ: PETERSON' Now, this is a packet for each of you. You can draw out the exhibits, if you would, as I refer to them, if you think they. are appropriate. Well, to the extent. Are you going to give your presentation now like you did to the. Design Review Board? Is that what you are doing now? Is that what is going on? As I understand it, I am supposed to let you folks know what I. had presented in front of the Design Review Board. Okay. Was this the plan.you presented? In front of the DRB? ELLEFSON: It is one of three. ABPLANALP: Okay, the map that you have indicates the property which we are talking about, which is located in - 23 - . 4 yellow. The other properties in the area, which goes to the question of the neighborhood, which have i similar or identical lighting or which, in one case, applied for it. They wanted it but couldn't get it because of Mr. Ibarra's objection and the objection of others, is the one property which is forward. The pink properties are properties where objections came from. The one property which is cross -hatched is the Byers' and Miller property, and the reason it is cross --hatched is because they objected, but they had nine tree lights of their own. So we don't know whether to call that against or for. They are against this project, but they, have tree lights which indicates that they approve of tree lights. NANCY BYERS: Where are our tree lights? ABPLANALP: You have one tree light at that point. - 24 - r: fl 0 i BYERS:' It has been approved. ABPLANALP: There is one tree light to the north of you, t and we have photographs of those. BYERS: Have you ever seen them on? ABPLMALP: No. They've been off since this has become an issue. BYERS: That's because they are never on. Okay, go ahead. ABPLANALP: There are three floodlights going out into the forest off -the porch on the Miller side. There are four spotlights on the residence that come from • below the porch; also going toward the, ah the, to the south and to the east. So, that's the background we are operating against and that is the question of the neighborhood. We have photographs of most of these for you to compare this project to, which I think is important and it is within the design review criteria, as it's at least put in this i - 25 - document. Now, the design review criteria actually talks to whether or not the lights cast, um, interfere with the living areas of other properties, and even this property. I don't know why they would be concerned if someone wanted to disturb their own living area. But, in any event, this map, which each of you has, illustrates those who have indicated there that they favor them by the fact that they have them; those who have indicated to the • Design Review Board that,they oppose them. It's one mixed issue. Glen, would you go ahead and explain what these maps are, and I would like to go ahead and number them the way they are in my exhibit. In this particular, the first item is a landscape plan which was dated originally November of eighty-eight, and revised by eighty-nine.Can you explain what ..26- F,I L ELLEFSON: OSTERFOSS ELLEFSON: that 'isT. In the fall of 1988, I had started working with Mr. Ibarra on the Landscape plan, and the plan that you see in front of you is basically the final.landscape plan that we had prepared for Mr. Ibarra. Once the planting plan is finalized, then we can proceed in with conceptual lighting plans which I had drawn, which will be a second sheet to the landscape plan. This plan was finalized on May 3, of 1989, so basically six months had passed by since we had finished up the final landscaping plan. Did this go to the DRB at that time? What I had done is I had, on a very simple and pass - by approach, I had met Kristan Pritz on a staircase to the town meeting offices here and, I had for many reasons, I had just simply rolled these things out - 27 - and just showed Kristan what we had to work with here. I am never quite sure whether I am supposed 10 to bring a landscape plan that is an improvement in } comparison to what had been approved in the past or not. I am constantly up against that issue so, in some ways I am starting to believe that, no matter whether I know or not, I am starting to bring them in regardless of what the answer is. So, although it was just simply a very simple pass -by type of meeting with Kristan on the staircase, I went into Rick Pylman. And, as far as I can recall that there was a staff approval, I would only assume that if this was a two part, ah, two page proposal here, with design, that they were attached to each other. I think that where we have some problems is that those staff approvals on those sheets weren't really -28_ taken care of properly and so those documents cannot be found. .,We had pulled a permit to start getting tree lights put in the ...(unintelligible). LAPIN: You know,,before we leave that issue, because that may be somewhat of a key, I mean, is that true? PRITZ: I think you should probably talk to Rick Pylman, because I don't think that's his opinion and I believe Art tried to get an a€fidavit from Rick Pylman, which he did not agree to sign. I think you might want to let Rick speak for himself instead of indicating that Rick didn't do his job. ELLEFSON: Okay, I should clarify that. The only way that I know that, is that is what your town secretary has told me that he is notorious for. PETERSON: Okay, Okay, can we get back to the main issue of we are appealing the Design Review Board? - 29 - ABPLANALP: Is Mr. Peterson a party, I mean. ESKWITH: Yes, he represents a party. He has the right to make a comment. PETERSON: I am an adjacent property owner. BYERS: He's a property owner, I do not have an opinion. ESKWITH: Be has a right to make comments. ABPLANALP: Well, he has a night to make a presentation, Larry. I don't think he has a right to make an objection. PETERSON: I don't have the right to object to what you doing? PRITZ: I think my point is simply that, before you say all this is Rick Pylman's fault, I think he needs the opportunity to defend himself. because I do think there are two sides to the story.. And I just think that is only fair to Rick Pylman. ROSE: Let me just say one more•time, too, what you say tonight in'your'presentation did you say to ARB, if -30- • 0 you' attacked RickPylman at the DRB? I suppose you may do that again tonight. If you didn't, let's get off of that and get back on the subject. ABPLANALP: Glen, did you discuss the history of this before the Design Review Board in your attempt to get permits? ELLEFSON: Yes. ABPLANALP: Mr. Mayor? No. ROSE: I don't know what was presented and what wasn't. It sounds like we are getting off track and let's stop it. OSTERFOSS: But this was not presented to the DRB? ELLEFSON: That's correct. OSTERFOSS: Now see, that is what I was trying to get. Just kind of yes or no questions. ELLEFSON: In 1989 it was not. OSTERFOSS: Right. That was the extent of my question. - 31 - RENATO IBARRA: Has anybody from the Town of Vail presented these or had an approval from that kind of approving committe? Before? PRITZ: No, no, no. ...unclear.. if anybody put them on their landscape plans or if somebody brought them in, depending on how many lots there were, and location and things like that, if there were a large number of lights and there was some concern about what it might look like, it would probably go to • Design Review Board. If someone put a light in a tree or at the ground to maybe light up an entry or something like that, that is very, very subtle, the staff would probably staff approve it. We just look at it on a case by case basis. But there would be some kind of review by the ,staff or the. Design Review Board. -32- • i ,BARRA:.,. But when Mrs. Byers said they had an approval for their lighting, they did, went through your committee? PRITZ: I don't know whether they did or not because. IBARRA: But they didn't go to ARB? PRITZ: No, she is saying it was on their original house plans. OSTERFOSS: Like you have lighting on your original house plans and this was denied. • IBARRA: It was approved. I don't want to disturb, Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for the intent to being here, and Mr. Abplanalp is leading this, but the only thing I want to go to is, we started all this in good faith with the Town. Now we are going into very legal details which, okay, we go there. We go there. See, we thought we had a permit because we - 33 - 0 did have it. Now we go up to the Review Board chair and I only can tell you that from the point of view of my English translation, I think we do absolutely, ah, are in to the ordinance of trying to reduce the impact of the lights. We did not only do that. We don't have any impact in the neighbors. And I think and I feel, personally, very confident that we are within the law and within the ordinance and that is my point of view.and I would like you both �I to check with that. ABPLANALP: Glen, would you continue with what you presented to Design Review Board? ELLEFSON: Yes. PRITZ: Glen, can I just ask one question back to this plan? How many lights are on this plan and how many are on the site? I just would like to know that. What -34- 0 0 is -up there and: what was on this plan, that was submitted?,' - ( ELLEFSON: -It looks like there is 42 that's on this plan. • PRITZ: 42 tree lights? Up in the air? ELLEFSON: You asked me for lights. It is 42 lights that's on the plan and there's 23 that's on the site right now. PRITZ: How many were approved for the trees? ELLEFSON: If this gained staff approval, then this is how many . were approved for the trees and... ABPLANALP: I think what she is talking about is the permit. Is that what you are talking about? PRITZ: No, I am simply asking, on your plan, how many are up in the trees here, and is that the number that is up there now. So you didn't act or go beyond this plan? • - 35 - .ELLEFSON: Okay, down -lighting would be designated as this symbol here, so basically you have 21 that are down- lights on this plan. The other triangle without the shaded -in area would be an up -light. PRITZ: So it's all through that plan, basically. Nothing more than the plan. ELLEFSON: For the tree lights and the down -lights, that is correct. We actually have less in there, up in the tree, shining down today, though, then what this • i plan shows, because what I am about to get to is to tell you that this is a preliminary drawing that I had drawn first for Mr. Ibarra and during the fall of 1989 and the spring of 1990, John Watson Illumination came in to present his work. Wait, I'll get to that actually. This was the plan that • they had presented to Mr.7 Ibarra and this is -36- basically what was installed. How, going quickly to what we actually submitted to the Design Review ( Board on the last account was this drawing which is just a reprographic of Watson's lighting plan, which I did show you. The only thing different is that where I had shaded in and noting that the view from the Byers' home, what we were attempting to do is to readjust the shields and possibly screen and tone down the lights from their viewpoint. At the same • time there is some incandescent down -lights which i are about three feet off the ground and because they are incandescent, we can rheostat those down to lower the light intensity even though they are just three feet off the ground. So, basically, this is the plan.. to answer your question... this is the plan that was brought before the Design Review Board - 37 - at the last meeting. AHPLANALP: Could you describe the different types of lights? I think you have mentioned up -lights, down -lights, tree, incandescent, and there are also some in the parking area. Can you kind of characterize the lights in that part of the plan? ELLEFSON: An incandescent light has a little bit of a yellow light to it. It might be a little bit softer light, and that is usually used in landscape design. You • i try to bounce a little bit of the softer yellow light up against what is considered a moonlight, the whiter light. Mercury vapor lights put out that whiter light and much of the time and because it's high in the tree and trying to get that scheme across, that white light, the moon glow, those i mercury vapor lights are hung into the tree and up _' - 38 _ through the' tree. But ,again, just to get some incandescent lights to create that warmer glow up i against a cool light (tape change) ... to characterize and that is what's we have on this particular project. ABPLANALP: What are the lights that are indicated here in the area in which there are eight of them? ELLEFSON: Those are incandescent lights that shine straight up through the, ah, actually, the driveway is a . graded driveway. It is cantilevered over the top of the final grade and this incandescent light basically shines straight up through the grate to give kind of a moody effect, actually, on the driveway surface. IBARRA: I am sorry to disturb, but the reason we changed to ....system was one, because it was less lights, and - 39 second because definitely because the moonlight, as they call it, it was hidden into the trees, which would not give the source of light and the brightness into it, which appeals to me as the owner of the house, which, the only reason I wanted that lighting is to be able to see across and not be bothered by them. 5o the first one to be bothered by the bright light or something, the glare, and to me, myself and my family, so the only one who didn't want that was me and that is why we did that. So I felt very comfortable that it looks just very, very nice and I really thought that my neighbors would no longer object, but be grateful for that. Frankly, I'm (unclear). ELLEFSON: I think that what needs':to be understood here is that there is a difference between glare source and - 40 - . •fit: ?b 0 illumination, and I think lights that actually look you straight in the eye and blind you are, is in my way`of feeling, an infringement on other people's • privacy which is what we should really be concerned with. On these particular lights there is about five different adjustments that these lights can be counteracted and they also have shields on them. So, -our first objective is to allow Mr. Ibarra to not see the light source from his home or around his property and, secondly, would be the Town of Vail, people who might pass by and also neighboring properties and what we have tried to do to take care of some concerns that the Byers have had is to readjust those shields and in some instances, even move the light just a little bit so they would not see the glare source. But they would only see the - 41 - illumination into the tree. ABPLANALP: Can you identify any shields that have been moved • in order that they did project a shield from the Byers? ELLEFSON: Yes, a couple nights ago we did notice it when we were out in the field. A couple of tree lights had actually been, the shield had been rotated around. I think it was somewhat unjust for the Design Review Board to be looking at a project where, I think some • tampering might have been going on. ABPLANALP: Has that been corrected now, and can the Council review that tonight? ELLEFSON: Yes. ABPLANALP: Is it complete? It hasn't been changed? PRITZ: So, the Design Review Board, will be seeing the same 41 lights, exactly like, the,DRB, I mean the Planning -42- • Commission, ah, the Council. ELLEFSON: Well, with the shields turned around where they should be and where they were initially put in. You . see, when I had worked with Watson Illumination, that we had, I was concerned with the Byers because I had been on the project during the construction throughout and I knew that it was, had been Mr. and Mrs. Byers' concern all the way through with this landscape lighting. So, needless to say, when I was on the site, I would be at the Byers' home, making sure that they did not see the glare source. On the next time around with the Design Review Board, I came in and there was a tremendous glare source that was, that you could see the light fixture. So, what we did is while Watson Illumination was out on the site here the last few nights, they readjusted the -43- shields so you did not see that source as it had originally been placed. • ABPLANALP: There really is no question that tampering has occurred. A complaint was filed back in January or February because one entire fixture was ripped out. PRITZ: I want to make clear, Art, that the Council tonight will not be seeing the exact same lighting and the shields apparently have been turned around and in fairness to the Design Review Board, that needs to be pointed out. And I also wanted to put on the record that we called Art Abplanalp on Friday night and I said we want the same lights the DRB saw to be here for the Council. ABPLANALP: The same lights are there. ELLEFSON: The same fixtures are there. • l - 44 - i 0 i PRITZ: We are talking about the same shields, everything, Art,. and I am sorry you went ahead and changed that, but that's okay. We will look at it tonight anyway. OSTERFOSS: Just a question about the position of these shields. Plus I think you mentioned, I think at one point, the five levels of lighting. I mean, who controls these things? It seems to me that it has been out of control, that there are five levels of light that are possible and if shields can be moved. I mean, this is not tamperproof equipment, these are not tamperproof fixtures? ELLEFSON: Well, to move those shields, you'd have to get a good grip on them and move them, or take a screwdriver to them and move them. It is something that a little kid could not reach. OSTERFOSS: I didn't mean tamperproof by a small child. - 45 - 0 y GIBSON: We can look at it tonight. ABPLANALP: Why not do that tomorrow? Is that not true? ELLEFSON: That is correct. IBARRA: I want to explain that. (mumbling) Jeez, saying that we are going to see something different, and you will see that, it is very easy, that light meant to be shined at the tree, otherwise it would have any real use and the way it is today, it is the way it is planned. It should be, I mean. (unclear) a I light there when you want to looka here. So it is totally changed and we don't know who did it and you will see one on which wasn't, because the bulb was unscrewed and the other one was just ripped out and stolen. And those changes, I don't mean because I am not in business for this or anything, I just want to live nice and' quiet and don't bother -46- 0 0 OSTERFOSS: anybody. (unclear) and I think that when you see it, you'll see it, all the light.... It just seems to have potential for change. I guess we could agree to that. ABPLANALP: What? OSTERFOSS: Maybe .... different from one day to the next. STEINBERG: Well, what happens from season to season. There's a whole lot of difference when we have tree lights in the leaves. There is a lot of difference when you have bright snow in winter. IBARRA: Can I answer that? Ah, in the winter last year, in December and January, Mr. and Mrs. Byers asked my wife and myself to dinner to their home in order to discuss a Little bit this matter, which we did, because we are friends, and I said, well, I don't understand, really, your complaints. But why don't -b7- you tell me exactly what bothers you. So we can talk. And, what they said, ... (unclear) their house and everything, that they didn't mind anything because it looks like but two lights when they were in their bedroom, they could see the source of the light. That means it was shining on them. And I said, okay, don't worry, because we will have the Watson company to move that around just what can happen. And, just, you won't see it if that bothers • ) you. I don't want to bother you. It is no problem. And another light here, back here, which was low, and I told them those, in the winter, we can lower the voltage, you know. Because I don't need that. In fact, this year with the snow there were.. But I give that, and I intend to do it. That is no 0 problem. And that was the reason I said, if I do - 48 - C, J CI • BYERS: ESEWITH: • BYERS: • that, are you all right. And they say "Yes," and it's no problem. Ah, and Mr. Ibarra is correct in that we did discuss it and we, I mean, we are very good friends, and I hate being here. But, and so, when he is there, whenever I complain, he turns out all this side and I have a diagram of all the lights. I look at 17 lights. You don't see those here. Excuse me. Where is your house located? Right here. This is the pond. Okay. And my house is right over here. And I looked, okay, um, and we, my husband and I are the developers of this house, okay. We built it as a spec house to protect our view from what somebody else might have been able to build. We built about half of what we could have legally, square footagewise, because we didn't want - 49 - to look at alot of house. so it's very, the house is very unobtrusive. Uh, it blends in with the • environment and, um, we even put deed restrictions on the house. They couldn't change, couldn't add to it. They couldn't do these things, here again, to protect our view, because I have windows 20 feet by 20 feet that look right at that house. My living room and my bedroom, and, um, so, anyway, but we neglected the lighting because we thought that was already established. The lights in the plans that were drawn up for us, and, um, ,all of a sudden, it's very bright.. And, as I said, we had an agreement with Mr. Ibarra. But my concern is the rest of the neighborhood. We now have a house going, you know, being remodeled right here. Mr. Peterson's. And who's to say that he can't put in lights the same, - - 50 - E 0 0 ROSE: ELLEFSON: ROSE: GWATHMEY: • or the rest of the neighborhood, and it's this this glow that, you don't see the moon, you don't see the stars. Um, it detracts from the reason I'm in Vail. And so I am concerned about the Town. What if you have anything else? Dr. Steinberg, the trees are evergreen spruce trees, so.there's no Aspen, there's not much in the way of Aspen planting through there that's deciduous or, although ... in answer to your question. Before we go out, uh, Ned Gwathmey and some other people from DRB are here. Ned, do you have anything that you would like to.. I would like to, ah, add. If we focus on the aspect of what we presented to the DRB and what was the basis of our denial, and that's what is important. Because the amateur will rely on the mere sky, which MIS is the fact of going out and seeing the lights in place. The thing that, you can't do the thing today, that one of the times we went out, lights ' were um, inordinately bright. The other being the situation um, to magnify the intensity because Hunter lights which are straight on and shining down were big clumps of snow, and they were real, what we call, as i refer to, hot spots, because light is ten feet, or four feet or three feet from a big • rl clump of snow. So, that you can't see tonight. What we have then is and tabled and we were, have been there, to the Byers at night. We have been there twice at night, once with snow, and then, more recently, without snow. All of us went, both to the house, walked the neighborhood, and we went all the way over to the top of Potato Patch. And, __` -52- GIBSON: ELLEFSON: uh, so, one thing that I think you have to do is see it from a great distance. The other is, imagine the conditions under the tree source with good snow. They're right. (Unintelligible) don't have to deal with it because of the fact that it's all conifers. Is the tree lighting, Glen, on a rheostat? It's efferincandescent. Incandescent are the only lights that we can rheostat and, basically, what you have here, the incandescence lights are what's marked in yellow, and the ones that would be underneath the driveway bridge. The rest of them are mercury vapor and you cannot rheostat a mercury vapor. The only way that we can diminish the amount of light intensity from a mercury vapor is that we can basically layer screen material to delude a light so significantly that we can blacken - 53 - it completely. Or you can change out transformers. GIBSON: The reason I asked the question was, are we going to see the same intensity of illumination that Ned saw? ELLEFSON: Yes. GIBSON: There is no rheostat that will reduce it for our benefit. ELLEFSON: No. No. The only adjustments we've made is just, is, is, trying to appease the Byers viewpoint from not seeing the bulb itself, by adjusting the shields. GIBSON: I have one other question. Do you have anywhere, a Town Staff signature on lighting plans or permit for this land. ELLEFSON: Yes, sir. ABPLANALP: That's in'the file,'if you would like to see them. -54- 0 • GIBSON: ABPLANALP: PRITZ: ABPLANALP: PRITZ: ABPLANALP: PHILLIPS: That is not the question. ... 1990 ...specific lighting for the place. The electrical .inspector went out on the site, signed off on a...: For three lights No.: Since you keep bringing it up, and I'm going to keep correcting, because I understand this real well. Your secretary.. Art, do you have anything else you would like to add in this regard, because I think it is about time we went out. ABPLANALP: Yes. As far as the neighborhood, not all of them, not all the neighborhood lights are on at this point, and I think that that is important. Um. PETERSON: were these presented to the Design Review Board? - 55 - ABPLANALP: No, but they had the opportunity to look at them when they were out there and I'm not sure that they • do tonight. I know at least one residence has been disconnected because of construction. It happens to be Beiterman Byrne. PETERSON: That was the one you were referring to. BYERS: These were just taken this morning. ROSE: Let's, uh. If you don't have anything else to add about this, I think we are about ready to go out and take a look. PRITZ: May I have one question. I want to understand from Glen. Is this plan the exact same one that you are saying you showed to Rick Pylman, or is it a different plan. This is what's out there. Is that right? i ELLEFSON: This is what's out there. I.iIM P-� PRITZ: Okay. Is that the same one that you supposedly showed Rick Pylman? ELLEFSDN: No, it is not. PRITZ: Okay. ELLEFSDN: You're the one that yanked (?) the permit, though. PRITZ: There was no planning permit. ELLEFSDN: Again, I, that's not my problem. PRITZ: Okay. I just want everybody to understand there's two plans. So, it wasn't, that isn't the one they, you showed Rick Pylman. ELLEFSOM All I know is that they got a permit to do the tree lighting when they were expected to have it. Whether there was a plan attached or not, I can't find the plan in this ..... Town Council's or Town Office. ROSE: Okay, Merv? - 57 - LAPIN: Is this the, do we want to have further discussion with the neighbors right now, before we go out... ROSE: No, I think I'd like to go out. If we could all sit down for a minute, uh, we all will come back in here. LAPIN: So the neighbors will come back, after we go out and ask you some questions. BYERS: May I say... ROSE: Yes, I think we could do that. Everybody talking. ROSE: Andy, before we go out on the site visit, can you review for us, quickly, what the Design Review Board guidelines are in regard to exterior lighting so that we, uh, know what we are looking for when we get out to the site and what we need to compare? -58- • E KNUDTSEN: okay. Ah, it's the, ah, section here in the memo and it basically says that the applicant has to minimize the impact on the living areas of the • proposed project, as well as the adjacent structures and properties. So, we are trying, the way we would use it on the staff level is to try to work with the applicant to, ah, make the smallest impact possible on these, on the neighborhood. ROSE: okay. I think we will call a recess here, then, and, ah, go out and visit the site, and we do have a bus out there. I don't know if it will hold everybody or not, but we can give it a try. How many people can we accommodate in that, Kristan? PRITZ: Gosh, I don't know. People are welcome to go up to the site in their cars. We will fit as many as we can on the bus. - 59 - ABPLANALP: Don't pull in the driveway. Park along the street. Because parking in the driveway does a number of • things as far as the lights are concerned. You can't see them. ROSE: Okay. If we can all respect that then, and I do want to emphasize that when we return from the site visit, there will be more discussion, and if any of the neighbors want to comment at that point in time, we will allow that, and then try to sum up, so • anyone who wants to make a comment that has not, will have that opportunity when we get back. So, we will take a short recess, or maybe a lengthy recess, for a site visit. RETURN FROM SITE VISIT ROSE: well, I think we can continue. Jim Gibson's not • back in the room, but I think everybody else is. -60- • For the record, we have been out to the site and looked at the, at the lights as they exist this evening. `Are there any comments now from anyone in the audience' regarding this issue? Jay? PETERSON: Ah, just, my name is Jay Peterson. I am an adjacent property owner. Um, first of all, Mr. Ibarra has done a spectacular job of landscaping his property. It is a beautiful site. What he has done is spectacular. Where I differ from him, I think, is just the level of lighting that is used on the site. The ground level lighting, I do not feel has an adverse impact on my site, which is right across the pond, from north to south. The tree lighting, however, I feel it does have an impact on me. Um, Mr. Ibarra does not leave the lights on when he is t. not there. He has been, I think, very cooperative - 61 - on trying to solve the problem, but he may not own that house forever, either. The next person may live there all the time and may be out all the time, ? and so I guess the intensity would get higher. But, the moonlights, the ones that he's put in the trees, some people may find as spectacular. I think they are spectacular. I just think it's too much. Um, I don't think it's necessary. The ground level lighting, as I stated, casts a nice even glow, • provides, I think, enough light to get around the site if you are out there at night. Um, that is certainly acceptable. It does not have an adverse effect. But the other lights are bright. In the wintertime, they're much brighter because of the reflection of the snow. Even the Design Review Board was out there, and I was out there one night -62- L when there was snow, and thank God there is a tremendous amount of snow here in the wintertime, and it reflects everywhere. I think that does have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. He has turned the shields somewhat as he goes by the hot spots on the Byers' residence, but now, all of a sudden, on my part, I'm starting to get some of those hot spots from where you can see the bulb itself, and so, somebody is going to get it. Some • adjacent property owner is going get it no matter how you shield it. You can protect one side and you can't protect the other. Um, so, once again, it's the tree lights that I find objectionable. Um, I don't know how Nancy feels about it or other adjacent property owners, but that's how I feel about it. Once again, he's done a spectacular job - 63 - with landscaping. ROSE: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? BYERS: Uh, I feel much like Jay, and, um, it is the upper lights that are, have most impact into my house, and I guess my point is, as I said before, I'm really more concerned with the rest of the neighborhood and the rest of Vail and I would like to see the Council uphold the ordinances, too. ROSE: Okay, thank you. , ELLEFSON: ... (unintelligible) ... from a designer's standpoint, the reason those ordinances are just too vague. What is minimizing upon a property or a structure might be different ...(unintelligible). As a, being a landscape designer who has worked in the Town and will continue to work,in.the Town, I would like to see that there might be some course taken in the way -64- 0 0 of trying to identify what it is a minimum and what is a maximum. ROSE: All right, thank you. Art? ASPLANALP: Mr. Mayor, I, we had passed on this earlier. Is is my understanding that the Council will not permit the introduction of the evidence as far as what the neighboring properties and the lighting there looks like? That is one of the things that was mentioned, I believe, in the Planning Department's letter, that it did not, ah, essentially fit in with the neighborhood. Um, that's, in a court we would make an offer of proof. That's not the way we are working tonight, but, I'm not here, I feel as though I need to make a record, but I would like a response on that point, if I may. ESKWITH: (unintelligible). - 65 - ROSE: Okay. ESKWITH: May I approach? ROSE: Yes. ABPLANALP: We have, um, five sets of, let's see, ..four, five, so if you could share them. It would be helpful. Could you do a two -on -one. Um, okay, first, these are numbered in accordance with the exhibits that I attempted to offer but you decided you would not like to hear about those. Exhibit 29 is the first one, which is comprised of two pages, which is a photograph of the Ibarra residence. The top is the west elevation, which is from the Byers'; the bottom is from the Peterson, um, the Peterson... PRITZ: Residence? ABPLANALP: Ah, well, he has a partnership. Ah, Bossow, Peterson-Bossow residence. The second page, um, of -66- 0 page 29 is looking east, ah, pardon me, looking to the west from the east on Beaver Dam Road. Now, it. is not the same situation as though you were, as we were tonight. we were looking directly up into the trees. This would be a driver's view, approaching from the east. The bottom is the, ah, the view from across the street, which I believe is the Mitchell residence from Lot 9. The one that is, the house that is directly across the street, there is no • picture of that because you can't see it. The trees are so thick, unless you stand directly in front of the garage, which I thought was unlikely, as far as anyone having any impact on that. The next Exhibit 30, is the Kravis residence. Most of this lighting was installed in 1985 or 1986, it has been there, . no, pardon me, 186 or 187, it has been there about -67- five years. Ah, that, this is also a property which is, where the people had been required to either come in and, ah, either conform or remove their lighting. Ah, basically, they received a similar demand to the one that Mr. Ibarra received. The next residence is one that you drove by tonight and was illuminated at the time, which is the Pease residence. This is also, I should also say the Kravis residence, according to the people who have dealt with it, was basically boosted within the last year to year and a half. The Pease residence, similarly, this was just before you did the loop back up Forest Road, ah, the top is a daytime shot, the bottom, this is Exhibit 31, and the Kravis residence was 30. Exhibit 31 indicates lights built • on the west side of the house and on the east side -68- of the Pease residence, there's another residence, one of the, um, liberal party wall agreements, intervenes between the two, there's another residence to the right. In the top of the picture, you can also see a light on the other side of the house. I think there are about a dozen lights virtually, well, these are identical to Mr. Ibarra's. They were also installed by Watson Electrical, as was the Kravis project. They've done all three projects. Um, the next one is the Bieterman-Byrne residence, which was also in, I should say that, if I didn't already, the Pease residence lighting was installed in 186 and it was boosted in 1989 or '90. The Bieterman-Byrne residence, the next is a view from the northwest. This is Exhibit 32, page 1. The top is the - 69 - morning, the bottom is the evening. The difference in these is, these are also lights in the trees. Ah, these lights are a different type and therefore they cast a bronze glow instead of a moonlight glow. PETERSON: I would like to say one thing about that, is those lights have been taken out. They did not receive approval for them and they've agreed that they would disconnect them and come back through the proper channel for review. So, those lights are off... ABPLANALP: Ah, Mr. Bieterman disagrees with you, Jay. PETERSON: I think Kristan can... SHELLY MELLO: Actually, it was conditioned on the or 250... (unintelligible). ABPLANALP: That's right, on both sides. MELLO: Mr. Bieterman can, er, agreed with it when he had his addition approved and Mr. Byrne agreed with it. -70= ABPLANALP: Well, ah, I cannot speak with him and it is a fact that they've told me something since then. f MELLO: You have it on tape, huh? ABPLANALP: The next page is Exhibit 32, page 2, which demonstrates, again, this is the northeast, northwest view to the Bieterman-Byrne residence. The upper right hand is a view from Forest Road, which indicates, illustrates, that the lighting on the south side of that residence, the bottom three • pictures is the north side from the northwest. The next photograph is the residence which was recently constructed$ as I understand it, by Mr. Bieterman. I don't know, Mr. Peterson was his agent. I don't know whether he was involved as a principal or not. This is just on the west side of the Lionshead ski run. Ah, the upper picture is a night shot; the • - 71 - lower picture is a day shot. The, ah, next one, Exhibit 34, is the Glatzle residence. 0, Unfortunately, this light has been off and we haven't been able to, actually, it's a series of lights, that entire grove of trees is illuminated by lighting which is interspersed there. Ah, that is, this particular one is in West Vail. That is Exhibit 34. The next item, which is Exhibit 35, page 1, is the Byers' residence. The upper • righthand corner, you will see a circle in the lower right of that photograph and the direction of an arrow, which illustrates how this light was configured two weeks ago. since that time, the light has been tilted up and cast directly into the bottom of the tree. It doesn't cast over on the tall pine anymore. it's about a 30 or 40 foot pine. -72- t C, 'The next one is an illustration of the Byers' and the Miller lighting. I think that I, I don't know how the lot is divided. Ah, the upper left is i clearly on the"Miller porch, ah, the lower left is probably also on the Miller porch; the bottom right is a tree light, substantially the same as the Ibarra's, and is also directed up into the tree. BYERS: That's used as a security light. They only come on • ABPLANALP: IBARRA: • when there's movement. Well, this one according to Mr. Ibarra, was on when he had dinner over there, I believe, these large ones, is that right, Renato? That's where you got the first idea of tree lighting? Yeah. It was then they had their lighting architect to and introduced me to, and he did showed me that, which looked beautiful, and I said, gee. - 73 - BYERS: They do. They have some lights which do light the trees, but some of them are security lights. • ABPLANALP: Thank you. Now, just as an example of other things in the Town, the next is Exhibit 36, which is Timber Ridge. Now, you talk about hot spots and what's going on in the Town of Vail. That's simply an illustration. I'm not saying they are unattractive, but I am saying that hot spots have never been a deterrent before. The next is Bald Mountain Town . Homes, which is Exhibit 37. The lower right is a daytime view, which is roughly the same as the lower left. There are either a dozen or a few more than a dozen on this location. The upper two are typical of what you find there. The upper left shows a light on the ground going into the tree, as well as one in the tree on. the upper right, shows one in the - 74 - l tree. The next one, Exhibit 38, is on the golf course, which is it, day at the bottom daytime view - of 1448 Vail Valley Drive, the upper one is a • nighttime view of the Aspens behind that residence. The bottom one, although it's not the same type of 0 lighting, these are just two examples of the Pease Christmas tree, which is the, you saw the Pease residence earlier, and another Christmas tree, which is on East Beaver Dam Road. Ah, these obviously, are not illuminated now, but, none of these received any permits, that we have been able to find. The only permitted application and the only permitted tree lights are those of Mr. Zbarra. Exhibit 40, now, this is an interesting effect. The Town doesn't like tree lights, but, actually, this is near Dr. Steinberg's. This is the intersection of - 75 - Vail Valley Drive at Homestake Circle, and this is the result of a Town street light. Now, probably. �I LAPIN: Flo hasn't noticed yet what they've done. Laughter.. ABPLANALP: The final one, which is Exhibit 41, is just, again, I know, an illustration of what the Town apparently feels is tolerable in its own activities. This I believe, I've been told, is the Perot residence on the eastern part of Beaver Dam Road. And the upper • part is illumination strictly from street lights. Much stronger, as far as the effect on adjoining properties than the Ibarra lights or any other lights you've seen here. So, when the decision of the Design Review Board is based upon the fact that these lights are not like others in the neighborhood, that it is inconsistent with the -76- to neighborhood, um, it's not supported by the i evidence, and that's one of the things that you really are challenged to look at. The locations of • these lights, at least those .in the area, are located on the map that I gave you earlier, as far as the green, the lots identified in green, that one lot that does not have a light on it, this man's lighting, is the, ah, Lot 4, which is on the north side of Beaver Dam Road. The reason it doesn't have lighting is they requested it and when they saw the objection from the Byers group, they simply withdrew that application. LAPIN: Well, the good news of this presentation is that, besides all the Council members not having woodburning fireplaces, ...none of us had these,.. UNCLEAR: Illuminated. - 77 - ROSE: Some of us don't even have a tree. PHILLIPS: Rent, I would just like to mention that, ah, I think it is inappropriate to be trying to compare the effect of lights that are installed for public safety purposes with the effect of lights that are, put in for either aesthetic or non -aesthetic purposes. ROSE: Okay. UNCLEAR: ... purpose of responding to the engineer. What are the purposes of these lights. They probably wanted some privacy and there seem to be... ROSE: Um, I guess I'll start with a couple of comments. In going out and looking at that site, I, uh, of course, observed what was there this evening, but I tried to listen to what Ned was telling me and tried to imagine what, ah,~the difference might be -78- 0 s in the wintertime as they experienced it at one point. Um,.and as I was walking through the yard, I was really looking at what, ah, I was really aware of and what I was not really aware of, as I was doing that, up on the road, in the backyard, and on the neighbor's property, and that kind of thing, and, it seemed to me, that, generally, ah, my eyes were not really attracted to the lights that were down low and shining up, but even just looking in a level direction, catching views out of the corners of my eyes, that the lights that were up high and shining down were most objectionable and it was very difficult just to look up and try to get a view of the sky. It was very difficult to just look straight ahead without seeing those lights somewhere in my vision, and, uh, in standing at the porch - 79 - across the pond there, and even just putting your hands up and masking out the lights that you would see up on top and allowing the bottom lights to come through, um, to me, gave a totally different kind of appearance, so I guess if I were in the design business or we were able to change what we saw out there tonight, or what have you, I guess my general direction would be to say that I'm really not in favor of lights that are in the air shining down • because I think they do tend to impact the neighborhood more. I think they do tend to attract attention to themselves, and I think they do tend to be just in the way of natural vision, when you are trying to experience that kind of thing, so, my thought would be, no more of those high, down light kind of things anywhere, and, then, maybe, -80- s P discreetly placed some lower lights that could shine up, because I could see where some were, if a few of those were discreetly placed, that it might not affect the neighborhood. Certainly, it didn't get in my view as much as the up -lights, and, ah, were probably not really that objectionable from a neighborhood, or either from a very close yard kind of an aspect. So, generally, that's what I looked at. We're not here, though, this evening to make changes or suggestions, or whatever. I don't know what that process might be, but when there is a motion made, I think I will have to vote to uphold decision of the DRH and deny those lights, particularly because of the high lights that are casting down, and see where we go from there. So, that's, those are my thoughts. Anybody else? - 81 - Peggy? OSTERFOSS: well, I think, I would, just really echo what you've said. I think, first of all, there is no question that decorative lights are a part of the purview of the DRB because they are part of the impact of landscaping, and, you know, since we are limited to dealing with the wording that is here in front of US. It says they should be designed and located in a manner to minimize the impact. Um. And I agree with Kent 100%. I think that lights that draw your attention to the light source, which are, in fact, the lights that are located high in the trees. But I think the major impact is the light source itself, certainly, are in conflict with minimizing impact on anything, whether it is someone walking down the 0 street, living next door, etc.. And, ah, given the _ 82 _ L J Ll • a criteria that we have in front of us, the DRB made i the appropriate decision. Um, I would agree that I think this is area that needs some further specification and objectification, because leaving this matter, apparently, to individual taste, has resulted in quite a range of perception as to what is minimal impact. I think that what we are looking at at the moment, in terms of the upper lights, is definitely not minimal. I think that's a safe statement. ROSE: Any other discussion? FRITZLEN: Maybe I am not representing.. I'm not totally in agreement with that. I, um, do think that it's regrettable the level of antagonism that this has caused. Um, and, additionally, that this has, ah, s ti not been looked at or not been perceived as a --83- problem until after it was constructed. And I do think that the applicant acted in good faith. In my mind, I think George Lamb's comments here is that there is inadequate clarification is true, and, um, that the best solution, at least from my point of view, would be to adopt some restrictions on exterior lighting, much the same way we do have with signs. And, it was brought up earlier, well, you can't compare exterior lighting to internal light emanating from a picture window, but we do the same thing with signs. we limit where signs can be from inside a window. we do recognize that impact. And I do think it's possible to quantify it. I think there's some, we could set some easily identifiable regulations; lighting can't be above, 20 feet above grade, or whatever, and with a light meter, it can't • -84- a 4 ROSE: LAPIN: emanate "x" amount of light from a certain distance. I don't think 'it has to be a totally judgmental process, and, in my mind, the best thing to do would be to look into adopting those regulations and getting everyone in conformance within a three- year period. I certainly wish my neighbors had the same sensitivity to their exterior light situation, lighting solution, as what I saw tonight. Okay. Is there a motion? Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the Design Review Board concerning the Ibarra residence. GIBSON: Second. ROSE: Moved by Mery Lapin, seconded by Jim Gibson to uphold the decision of the DRB. is there any discussion of that motion? - 85 - OSTERFOSS: Should we include a finding or something in there? ESKWITH: Yeah, I think a finding would be good. OSTERFOSS: Would you want to put a finding in now? LAPIN: finding being that the exterior lighting as proposed, does .have an impact upon the adjacent structure and property. GIBSON: Second. ROSE: Okay, Jim, thank you.., LAPIN: Do you want me to put.the section in there? PRITZ: I think that would be good. LAPIN: 18.54.050C11. ROSE: Okay, we .have a. Mery by,_ motion by Mery Lapin, second by Jim Gibson. Is there any further discussion of that motion? ;LEVINE: Yeah, beyond what Mery said to the effect that it does have some impact, and in agreement with what -86- 0 Peggy was saying, is I think that impact could be minimized by dropping the lights to a lower level and still accomplish whatever safety purposes and other purposes that is the reason for the lights. LAPIN: I would agree with Kent, if you're looking for additional comment and the applicant is looking for additional direction in terms of where to go from here, I think if the lights were taken out of the tops of the trees where they really don't have a security effect or don't have, and I question, really, what may be aesthetic effect to one but they certainly take away the aesthetics effect to the neighbors, um, I would have less problem with it. I do think that, ah, it is important to, ah, have lighting around houses for security reasons, especially in the areas where there are alot of - 87 - trees and, nor do I have a problem with the lighting that, ah, I, ah, think truly is aesthetic, but the, t but the lights up in the trees is very top of the trees so, I, ah, ah, I don't think they really add, T, I, my personal opinion is I don't think they add to the, to either the aesthetics or the security of the area. STEINBERG: They give a very unnatural appearance to the property when they are up high. We have a moon in sky, but we don't have twenty moons per lot in the sky. LAPIN: We would approve if we were on Jupiter, though. Laughter. ROSE: Okay, all in favor of that motion signify by saying yes. YES -88- Rr1 L�] ROSE: Opposed? FRITZLEN: Opposed. i ROSE: Mayor votes "yes", so it passes six to one, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Thank you very much. ROSE: Next item on the agenda is a 4th of July fireworks display discussion. Ah. Steve? LAPIN: Excuse me, before you bring that up, uh, we received in a, letter from uh, uh, the Design Review Board member. I think it would be appropriate for the staff to use that perhaps as a basis for clarifying the current ordinance. By George Lamb. ABPLANALP: Do you have a copy? LEVINE: Yeah, I have an extra copy here. LAPIN: It's public information. I don't know what happened to mine. - 89 + Ya PHILLIPS: Design Review Guidelines are, plan to be addressed in our total look at our codes and so on, so that will be taken into consideration if something.... The Design Review Guidelines as presently constituted are (unclear) and enforceable and there is no question about the desire for more specificity, uh, if the desire can be recognized it has no affect on the legality of the Design Review Guidelines as they're presently constituted. ROSE: Okay, thank you. -90-