HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-03 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1993
lip 7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, in the
Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35
P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
0 Tom Steinberg was not present when this meeting was called to order.
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Janice Ciampa Bauer expressed
concern about increasing violent crime in the Denver area, which she felt would inevitably
impact Vail and surrounding mountain communities. She asked if Council could address
Governor Romer about this issue. There was discussion about what Vail and surrounding
communities could do to be more aware of potential violent crime in the area. She said
residents and visitors needed to be more alert, and felt support from the community level up
to Governor Romer was necessary. Larry Grafel advised he had received, through CML, a
copy of Governor Romer's 14-Point Proposal addressing juvenile violence. The proposal asked
for assistance in the form of input, comments, and suggestions regarding the
recommendations within it to help in the development of a statewide approach to the
violence. Larry said he would provide a copy of the proposal to anyone who was interested
in reviewing and/or commenting on it. Mayor Osterfoss noted there was clearly a perception
of security on the part of visitors who come to Vail, and it was a considerable concern that
that sense of security be something visitors and locals could rely on and have confidence in.
Ms. Bauer felt greater police presence would be a comfort and that local crime problems and
statistics should receive more publicity to help develop a more cautious local attitude.
Neighborhood Crime Watch programs were also suggested. Jim Gibson asked if there was
any reason public places such as the parking structures could not also come under Crime
Watch programs. Mayor Osterfoss suggested 911 phones be installed in the parking
structures. Bob Buckley noted parents were responsible for knowing where their children
were and what they were doing, He felt it was a societal problem, not just a police problem.
Ms. Bauer noted the State of Massachusetts was considering a bill whereby parents would
be responsible for juveniles' actions and suggested a similar proposal be made to Governor
Romer. Jim Shearer noted there was a rumor that gang members caught in crime in
California were given a choice of serving time or the option to leave the state. If that issue
situation was true, Jim Shearer felt Governor Romer and state and federal officials should
be appealed to to put pressure on other states to stop that practice. Mayor Osterfoss
indicated Council would discuss and respond to Governor Romer's proposal and examine
possible local actions for crime prevention during an upcoming Work Session.
Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town
Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Mery Lapin moved to approve the July 6,1993, and July
20, 1993 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending
. Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010,16.20.220, 16.22.010,16.22.160,16.26.010,
16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition
of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing
regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and
interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the
• title in full. Shelly Mello explained that since last discussion of this ordinance, a number of
sections had been added to clarify this ordinance. She said the additions were for
clarifications, but the intent of the ordinance had not changed. Mery Lapin suggested
passing Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, as presented, but without an amortization period.
He felt signs presently in existence should be grandfathered, and if any of those signs
presently in placed burned out, they would not be allowed to be replaced. Rob LeVine agreed.
Mery felt TOV was asking for problems with related Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993,
concerning five year amortization. Jim Gibson felt the result of Merv's suggestion would be
unfair competitive advantage. Mayor Osterfoss directed focusing the discussion back to
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993. Mery stated he would be against Ordinance No. 5 if there
was an amortization period established by the potential passage of Ordinance No. 13.
Kristan Pritz explained the amortization period was already in TOV's Code. Jim Gibson
stated he was opposed to Ordinance No. 5 based on his belief that government had no
business going that far inside private property to perform regulation. There was discussion
about options to amortization. Shelly mentioned several examples of presently grandfathered
signs including signs at the gas station and the Roost Lodge. She noted that other businesses
do not get those size signs, so there was already a situation currently existing. Jim Gibson
felt that did not mean TOV should promulgate it. Jim Gibson repeated his objection to
creating unfair competitive advantage. He felt the signs were purely and simply a
• competitive advantage. There was discussion about the regulation of signage three feet back
into stores and the difference of impacts of signs versus lighted signs. Mayor Osterfoss asked
what was magic about three feet. She felt if TOV had the right to go into a business for
three feet to regulate signage, the whole interior signage should be subject to regulation. She
felt interior signage should be totally regulated or not regulated at all. She felt the message
had to be consistent. Note was made of precedent set by Breckenridge having adopted an
ordinance based on their concern with what people saw as they walked by a business. If that
was TOV's concern, it should follow suit. Mayor Osterfoss thought TOV had chosen to take
a more conservative approach because substantial signage was not an addition to the
ambiance of the community. Her point was the need for consistent regulation, whether free
enterprise or ambiance were the choice. (Tom Steinberg arrived at this point in the
discussion (8:00 P.M.) Rob LeVine agreed with Mayor Osterfoss although he shared Jim
Gibson's concern about government interfering with private enterprise and insides of
businesses. He said he would be in favor of Ordinance No. 5, but opposed to Ordinance No.
13. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on second reading, stating
that if Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, concerning amortization was approved, he would
present another motion to bring up Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, for reconsideration. Rob
LeVine seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, there was a discussion about the
difficulty of enforcement of this regulation. Further discussion clarified that if a business was
sold and the name of the business was changed or the merchandise being sold changed so
that the previous owner's signage was no longer pertinent information, the new individual
owning that shop would not have the right to another sign of the same size. Bob Buckley
indicated he was uncomfortable with government going in to the back of stores and felt the
existing Sign Code was adequate and ample. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2,
Jim Gibson and Bob Buckley opposed.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending
Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to
provide for the termination of any non -conforming sign rive years after the effective date of
any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 13,
Series of 1993, on second reading, with the deletion of Paragraph 1 regarding amortization
of non -conforming signs and that all existing non -conforming signs as of August 3, 1993, at
8:09 P.M. be grandfathered, and that language under Paragraph 2 be changed to reflect that
there was no amortization. Rob LeVine asked what the purpose of that was as opposed to
defeating the ordinance. Kristan Pritz explained this Section of the Code was basically in
TOV's Sign Code now. She said Larry Eskwith, former TOV Attorney, had been concerned
that the non -conforming sections specifically addressed amendments to the Sign Code in the
future because the section relating to non -conforming signs and amortization was passed in
September,1977. Mery Lapin was concerned with the ordinance's second WHEREAS, stating
' "... the Town Council wishes to amend the Sign Code to require that non -conforming neon
and gas lit signs shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the amendment."
He said he read this ordinance as having to do only with neon and gas filled signs. Kristan
felt what Mr. Eskwith was trying indicate that the Code was amended and he wanted to
make certain that amendment fell under the existing section of the code so there would be
• no question about it. Rob Levine asked how much enforcement there was of amortization
of existing signs. Kristan advised when this section of the code was used when West Vail
was de -annexed and brought back in, the amortization was not followed through with. Rob
LeVine suggested we do away with amortization of all signs. Shelly Mello said that it was
Mr. Eskwith's feeling that the reason TOV should pass this ordinance was because TOV
always had amortization but it was not enforced, therefore it should be re -instituted at this
time so that there was a starting point for these types of signs. Jim Gibson asked about
other types of non -conforming signs. Kristan said they would fall under existing sections of
the code. She stated this ordinance was merely changing existing sections of the code and
the change was stating "any amendment thereto." Shelly added that any time the Sign Code
was changed in the future and signs were non -conforming as a result of that, the
amortization would be as of that date. Kristan noted there were no signs being amortized
at this time and explained there was a procedure to go through to amortize a sign. Jim
Gibson inquired about business who may ask for just compensation instead of amortization.
It was his understanding once someone was notified their sign was illegal and they had five
years in which to amortize it, they had the right to ask for just compensation instead of
amortization. Tom Moorhead did not believe that was correct. Jim Gibson said the
Beautification Act had set precedent for that, i.e. billboards along highways, ball fields,
parking lots. He recalled those who took their cases to court received just compensation
which caused the signs to come down immediately. Jim said the bill for just compensation
• was ridiculously high because compensation was computed based on earnings. Jim Lamont
said when the amortization schedule was first passed, around 1972-1973, TOV put that
schedule in place. He said it was principally motivated because of the Holiday Inn sign in
existence at that time. The Holiday Inn, because there was an amortization schedule, knew
the sign would be coming down in five years, elected to take that sign down in exchange for
a new sign program. Mr. Lamont pointed out that during the time Colorado was leading the
country in the debate about amortization. As Mr. Lamont recalled, from an administrative
standpoint, the amortization process was not effective while he had been in office because five
years had not passed to that date. To that end, he was not aware if any notices were ever
sent out as of the time the signs were to come down, but now felt the amortization could be
effective in terms of recent legislation. He was unable to offer any insight, but felt that was
something that should be looked into. Kristan said she was not aware of any TOV program
that had documentation on signage or any knowledge of notification having been sent out to
anyone regarding amortization of their signs. She noted it would be very difficult for staff
to trace this to see if that was ever done. Kristan said there really had not been that many
problems with the amortization section. Mayor Osterfoss felt most of this issue was self-
correcting over time. Mery asked if amortization would be abolished for all signs if
Ordinance No. 13 were defeated. He was advised it would, but that did not mean that the
non -conforming section would be deleted. Kristan suggested tabling the ordinance for further
• review. Mery Lapin then withdrew his previous un-seconded motion, and moved to table
Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading, until September 7, 1993. Tom Steinberg
seconded this motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was a
consensus on the direction. It was felt there was not. Rob Levine felt staff should be
directed to go back and eliminate amortization in the Code altogether. Kristan said before
they brought the ordinance back, they would do a Work Session to review the direction. Mery
asked Tom Moorhead if nothing was done with Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, how that
would affect Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993; whether the signs would be grandfathered or
amortized. Tom Moorhead said an argument could be made that the existing provisions as
applied to signs do in fact apply to Ordinance No. 5. Rob Levine said the overriding issue
in his mind was that there was not a big problem with signs, but Council was trying to be
pro -active and address the issue before it became a problem. He felt if the amortization was
eliminated altogether, some of the more distasteful signs would fall into the non -conforming
section of the code and eventually be removed. Jim Gibson felt Ordinance No. 13, Series of
1993, should be defeated and that there should be a recall on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993.
Jim Shearer called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Rob LeVine
and Jim Gibson opposed. Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to make some recommendations
about what Council's options would be, as well as to present to Council the materials under
the non -conforming sign section. Jim Gibson told Kristan he felt it was important she bring
an enforcement plan if this was to become an ordinance.
Item No. 5 Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Section
15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the
adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide
for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section
15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an
annual elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and an annual
commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a
will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard
thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No.
15, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was
taken, Jim Shearer asked if, by inspecting these, TOV was taking any liability if something
happened to an elevator. Gary Murrain said there was no more liability than TOV had on
any other inspection. Gary said TOV's liability was much higher without the ordinance.
After brief discussion including comment about NWCCOG's elevator inspection program's
success, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title
12 - Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of
Chapter 12.16 - Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Tim Devlin
pointed out and explained the addition of Sections 12.16.010 B(3), D(1), and D(3) to the
ordinance since first reading. Council had asked staff to review the existing Revocable Right
of Way process and asked that an ordinance be created that would serve both the private and
public needs by providing funding on TOV land for improvements recommended by the TOV
Streetscape Plan, the TOV Village Master Plan, and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide
Plan. Staff had addressed the Councils concerns about design/labor costs as well as the
question of who repaired improvements after unforeseen problems such as utility work, etc.
Tim Devlin indicated Jim Lamont was present and had requested the addition of language
to Section 12.16.010 (D)(1) to indicate that costs and maintenance agreement would be set
after a review of Town Council. Mr. Lamont discussed the maintenance issue. He said the
private sector became a donor to the public by completing an improvement on public property,
and he felt the maintenance agreement should be fairly specific as to who was responsible
for repairs. He felt the maintenance issue needed to be spelled out, including when that
responsibility may terminate. Staff agreed. After brief discussion concerning Section
12.16.020 regarding revocation of permits, Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6,
Series of 1993, on second reading, with the addition of language to Section D(1) to state "...
The costs and maintenance agreement shall be set after a review of the Town Council." Rob
LeVine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson expressed concern about
the timeframe for removal by permittees of encroachments, obstructions, or other structures
as stated in 12.16.020 A(1). He felt the timeframe should depend on individual cases and
should be determined by staff. Kristan did not feel it was a problem if Council wanted to
extend the timeframe. Tim Devlin suggested placing a sixty (60) day cap as the timeframe.
After discussion, Mery Lapin amended his motion to change the timeframe to sixty (60) days,
. and Rob LeVine amended his second. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the
amended motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and
providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses;
development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting
forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica noted
this ordinance had passed on first reading on July 6, 1993, then action taken on first reading
was rescinded on second reading on July 20, 1993, with direction to staff to refer the issue
back to the PEC for reconsideration, and so that staff could give formal notice of scheduled
hearings to the Simba Run Condominium Association formal notice. He stated that had now
been done. The project went back to the PEC, and at their last meeting they unanimously
recommended approval. Mike said the ordinance was essentially the same as first reading
with the exception of the addition of two (2) conditions concerning the granting to TOV of a
drainage easement and a bike path easement. These were conditions that were discussed
extensively at the PEC review on numerous occasions and failed to make the July 6, 1993,
first reading, but were now included. It was Mike's understanding that the applicant agreed
to those conditions. Mike said staff was now recommending approval with the two added
• conditions. He pointed out that the issue of employee housing had come up at the PEC
meeting. The PEC felt that since it was not part of their original motion to include the
4
permanent restriction on the existing six (6) Employee Housing Units (EHUs) during the first
review, they did not feel it was appropriate to include it now. However, the PEC had gone
on record stating they supported the Council's direction to proceed with the potential
permanent restriction on the existing six (6) EHUs. In summary, Mike said the PEC
recommended approval with the permanent deed restriction on the four (4) EHUs that would
be part of this final phase of the project. He recalled there was an issue raised at the last
Council meeting regarding the geologic hazard report and whether it was appropriate. He
said Nicholas Lampiris, project geologist, was asked to review the potential hazard again.
Included in staffs July 26, 1993, memo, was a summary report dated July 22, 1993, from Mr.
Lampiris and staff was now comfortable that the letter of the Code had been met. There was
discussion about restriction of the six (6) existing EHUs. Mike said that restriction was not
in this proposed ordinance on first reading. He indicated the ordinance was written in
accordance with the PEC recommendations which did not include restrictions on the existing
six (6) EHUs. Jim Gibson stated the original SDD ordinance included those six (6) EHUs
with a termination date of twenty (20) years. Mayor Osterfoss recalled when this ordinance
was reviewed before, the restriction of the existing six (6) EHUs was not in the ordinance
either, but the majority of Council had voted to have that added to the ordinance. Mike
advised again that the ordinance was written according to the recommendation of the PEC
and Council could modify the ordinance or direct staff to add such language between first and
second reading.
Jim Morter, representing the applicant, apologized for Morter Architects' error with the
notification procedure which had delayed this ordinance. He reviewed issues raised at the
previous hearing including the required drainage easement which he indicated was currently
being resolved with Greg Hall; the required bike path easement on their property, which Mr.
Morter said was now being taken off the property so no easement would be required; the
pedestrian access across their property, which Mr. Morter said was being discussed with their
attorney, adding the applicant was paying for the construction of that path; and the rockfall
hazard report which had now been completed and Mr. Lampiris was comfortable with. The
major issue raised previously was the EHU issue. Mr. Morter said his client agreed with
Council in terms of the importance and dire need for employee housing. Mr. Morter further
stated he was caught by surprise at the last Council meeting and had not made two
important points regarding the employee housing. Those points included ownership of the
different properties that were part of this SDD. Mr. Morter said there was a property line
that totally defined two (2) pieces of property; one piece being the new project being proposed,
the other was the other Simba Run Phase I property. He informed Council that the two (2)
pieces of property were under two different ownerships. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said was
involved with the ownership of both properties, and there were partners involved. He
emphasized these were two (2) different ownerships; two (2) different pieces of property. Mr.
Morter discussed the number of units being proposed for this project. He noted there were
conflicting documents regarding the original SDD, and, depending on which document was
reviewed, the number of required EHUs ranged from eight (8) to ten (10). Mr. Morter
pointed out that the number of units in the new project had been reduced from forty four (44)
to nineteen (19), and they were still providing four (4) EHUs, and he felt that was far
exceeding the ratio of EHUs to market units that most projects required. He said they
recognized that opening up a new discussion on a new SDD or a modified SDD was a
negotiation process. Mr. Morter advised Council that what his client was giving TOV,
without being asked, included a much better project in terms of scale, further development
of architecture that existed on Simba Run, improved landscaping; hidden vehicle access to
every unit behind the units; correction of TOV's mistake regarding the bike path, reduction
in number of units - a reduction of 8,774 square feet of GRFA; more EHUs per ratio than
expected, and the right of public access through the site at their cost. With respect to EHUs,
Mr. Morter said the applicant did accept providing four (4) EHUs for life duration, but the
existing six (6) EHUs were under different ownership, and the applicant's whole financial
plan was based on the assumption that a deal was a deal. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said did not
accept the idea of converting the existing six (6) EHUs to lifetime EHUs.
There was lengthy discussion about the size of the existing EHUs and consideration of
suggested option concerning conversion or sale of those EHUs or building new permanently
restricted EHUs on the project in lieu of those. Mr. Morter said that idea had been
suggested, but that did not work on the new project from the standpoint of fitting them on
the site. Mr. Morter reviewed site plans with Council to give a visual view of that, and stated
that one thing they had looked at was adding one more floor to one of the buildings.
However, that would require an elevator and would change the Building Code classification
5
of the structure.
Tom Moorhead noted there was a change in the position of the applicant between the PEC
• hearing and this meeting. Tom Moorhead said Jay Peterson had represented that Mr. SaUs
ownership was 100% of the existing six (6) EHUs, and that was the way the PEC reviewed
this issue. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said owned the existing six (6) EHUs, but he had partners
in development of the new property. It was then established there were no partners in the
existing six (6) EHUs. In that case, Rob LeVine asked why there were any problems in
changing the format of the existing six units.
Mayor Osterfoss noted also that Mr. Morter had mentioned the easement issue which she
assumed was between Mr. Said's property on one side and the property he and partners own
on the other area, that was currently not buildable, because of ongoing negotiation between
the properties. Mr. Morter confirmed that. Mr. Morter stated Mr. Said was only the owner
of the units, not the owner of the existing Simba Run property. Jim Gibson asked Mr. Morter
if Mr. Said would find it inviting to be able to sell the six units at market value versus
having to wait ten years on a present value basis of even 8%. Mr. Morter said he could not
represent Mr. Said on that issue. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was convinced the issue could
be worked out from what had been discussed. She said the issue here was that Council was
interested in securing the permanent restriction of ten (10) units. Mr. Morter guessed that
Mr. Said would be more open to restricting some of the existing EHUs instead of building
more EHUs or converting new sales units to EHUs. Tom Steinberg expressed concern about
passing this ordinance on second reading without coming to a final agreement on the
pedestrian access across the property. Tom Steinberg moved to table Ordinance No. 16,
Series of 1993, on second reading until staff could return with more specific figures, the
owners' feelings on the EHU issue, and whether an agreement could be reached. There was
no second to that motion. Mr. Morter said they were planning to get the project started this
year and preferred action other than tabling the ordinance. Mayor Osterfoss reminded Mr.
Morter that changes could be made between first and second reading. Bob Buckley felt
strongly that a deal was made in a previous project and that it was unfair to go back and
change that deal. He felt there were some basic rights property owners had, and he was
pleased with the fact that the project had gone from forty four (44) units down to nineteen
(19) units on the very visible site. He felt that was a very commendable, positive act by the
developer, and he was opposed to adding a penalty for such positive action. Jim Shearer
agreed. Jim Gibson suggested to Mr. Morter that Mr. Said might want to entertain the idea
of permanently restricting the smaller EHUs. However, Jim Gibson said he would only
entertain that as a Councilperson if the applicant brought that to Council and said that was
what he wanted to do. Rob LeVine noted this was not two separate projects. It was one
project, one entity from a zoning point of view, and these were the zoning issues. TOV was
not re -opening the SDD, the applicant was. Mayor Osterfoss felt TOV SDD criteria has a
provision whereby various mitigations/contributions were weighted so it could be determined
what was appropriate in any given scenario. She felt Rob's point was well taken, but felt
there was opportunity for creative compromise based on ideas expressed at this meeting.
After further discussion, Mr. Morter suggested that so this could be considered a first reading
(so the applicant could keep on schedule and hopefully conclude at the next meeting), the
applicant build four (4) EHUs, deed restrict them forever, and deed restrict three (3) of the
EHUs in the existing buildings, those units being of the applicant's choice, and drop the
restriction on the other three (3). Mery Lapin thought staff should look at the existing EHUs
prior to making that commitment to see what TOV was being given. Mery Lapin moved that
Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, be approved on first reading, with the condition that the
suggestion the owner's representative, Jim Morter, made to permanently deed restrict four
(4) new EHUs, release three (3) existing EHUs for immediate sale, and permanently deed
restrict the remaining three (3) existing EHUs, and that staff be directed, perhaps with a
member of Council, to go look at the units to see if they were appropriate, and that the
pedestrian access across the property be finalized and agreed to prior to second reading. Mr.
Morter asked that the motion indicate that the three (3) permanently restricted EHUs be at
the discretion of his client, however Mery Lapin wanted staff and Council to see the units
first. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. After brief further comment, a vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a
Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the
development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting
forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen
distributed letters received from the public. He pointed out that all the letters he distributed
had been written in the early part of 1993, and that the project had been changed since that
time. In Andy's opinion, there was a definite break and change in the plan between the
January 11, 1993, proposal and the one being reviewed at this meeting. He advised that all
neighbors in the area were advised of this Town Council meeting. He thoroughly reviewed
the SDD criteria as detailed in the April 12, 1993, memo to the PEC from the CDD and
reviewed the conditions of approval. Andy explained this was an SDD and a minor
subdivision request. The reason being there were four (4) deviations from the Code: the first
was that the applicant was proposing to develop in areas which exceeded forty percent (40%)
slope; there was a ten percent (10%) setback encroachment in one location; there was wall
height of four feet (4') in the front setback where three feet (3') was the maximum; and the
minimum lot size was not met on one of the lots. He reviewed site plans with Council. He
noted one of the complications of this review was created by the fact that development
standards had come from the County. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the County
approved six (6) phases of The Valley along Buffer. This was a portion of Phase II. The
other portions of Phase II were built as Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouses. The
applicant was proposing seven (7) single family homes in the lower development area and two
(2) single family homes in the upper development area instead of clusters. The information
and data of the County approval were referenced in the memo to the PEC from the CDD
dated April 26, 1993. Page 2 of that memo showed the breakdown of the County approval.
Eagle County approved twenty six (26) dwelling units with thirty two thousand nine hundred
nine (32,909) square feet, and a portion of that was broken out under the Grouse Glen and
. Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Steve Gensler, the applicant, had proposed a
different type of housing, and staff had been working with him for some time trying to get
the development to blend with the site and the existing neighborhood. He discussed the
different zoning analysis for this project: County approval, straight residential cluster
zoning, the January 11, 1993, proposal, and the current proposal. Andy added all the letters
received today were addressed to staff regarding the January 11, 1993, proposal. Since that
time, staff had communicated their concerns and the applicant had responded. The
modifications made since the January 11, 1993, PEC Work Session were detailed in the April
26, 1993, memo. Andy stated the main concern was that the mature vegetation would be
saved. After the January 11, 1993, meeting, the applicant had the site surveyed and all trees
above a five inch (5") caliber were identified on the survey and then the homes were shifted
accordingly to save those trees. There was a cluster at the lower end closest to the Grouse
Glen development where several trees up to twenty four inch (24") caliber would be saved
Staff felt that was significant. Other changes were that the road fill was reduced from twelve
feet (12') down to eight feet (8'); landscaping was added; the GRFA was reduced; the road was
reduced twenty feet (20') in length; and the amount of impervious surface was also reduced.
Concerning the upper development area, the envelopes were shifted down off the top of the
hillside and moved closer to the curb, cut and fill was minimized, and there was a condition
of approval there which concept was that all finished grade be brought back to within four
feet (4') of existing grade so the end product would have relatively natural contours. Due to
• the steep grade on the upper development area, the PEC requested several detailed studies
to understand exactly how the development would occur. Andy noted these were not
architectural designs that would be required of future developers, however, they showed that
development could occur without reauirine anv variances. The detailed drawings Andy
reviewed had been studied by a based on a soils study as well as a structural engineer to
verify that everything could be constructed as it was designed by Randy Hodges, the
architect. Noting this was in a rockfall hazard area, Andy stated Nick Lampiris had
evaluated the potential hazard and had recommended an internal mitigation. The northern
wall of the homes would be fortified to withstand the impact of any rocks that might fall, and
with that mitigation, Mr. Lampiris felt the building sites were acceptable. To avoid scarring
up above the site, that wall would be contained within the foundation. With all of the studies
provided, the PEC believed they understood what they could expect. The PEC believed the
proposal would be better than the plan the County had approved which included five (5)
houses that were located in the debris flow.
Jim Shearer asked if inclusion of EHUs in the project had been addressed. Any indicated
that issue had been discussed, and the applicant had dropped the idea when the applicant
reduced the GRFA. Because the project no longer exceeded density standards, the EHU
requirements were not discussed further. Tom Steinberg was concerned about any precedent
that might set. Tom Braun, the architect, gave a lengthy presentation detailing the research
. done to determine if the lot was buildable. Kristan Pritz indicated that it would be difficult
to pace any EHUs in the project, but Jim Shearer suggested the applicant consider off -site
frl
EHUs. Unit sizes were discussed.
Mayor Osterfoss requested a site visit to two (2) or three (3) other forty percent (40%) slope
• building sites. Jim Shearer agreed. Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of
1993, on first reading, until after said site visits were made at Council's next Work Session.
Tom Steinberg seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, EHU requirements were
again discussed and encouraged, even if the EHUs were off -site. It was suggested that Tom
Braun consider various EHU options and consider what the project could offer in terms of
EHUs. Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson expressed serious reservations about the project's
steep grade. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Mery Lapin absent during
the vote.
Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title
17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and
setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mike Mollica
advised that the Eagle County Treasurer, Sherry Brandon, had requested TOV adopt a
formal policy similar to Eagle County's procedure regarding their final plat approval process.
The description of the request and further details were provided in the CDD memo to the
PEC dated July 26, 1993, Jim Gibson moved to approved Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993,
on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed,
5-0. (Mery Lapin and Rob LeVine were absent during the vote.)
. Prompted by a number of letters from residents concerned about a request for a Conditional
Use Permit and landscaping variance to allow for the proposed expansion of VA's
maintenance shop, Tom Steinberg moved to call up additional review of the facility. Jim
Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Bob Buckley
opposed. (Rob LeVine was absent during the vote.)
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M.
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutchean, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
0 CAMINSAUG3.93
Respectfully submitted,
Margret A. Osterfoss, Mayo
93