Loading...
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